Sounding Rocket Working Group 21 January 2014 The attached documents contain technical data within the definition of the International Traffic in Arms Regulation, and are subject to the export control laws of the U.S. Government. Transfer of this data by any means to a foreign person, whether in the U.S. or abroad, without an export license or other approval from the U.S. Department of State, is prohibited. Similarly, publication or other release into the public domain constitutes an export and is not authorized, except as approved by the cognizant U.S. government department or agency. NSRP Briefing Outline • Programmatics - Eberspeaker/Schafer SRPO NSROC • Schedule Adherence - Eberspeaker • Success Criteria Guidelines - Ransone • Anomaly Status - Rosanova • Motors & Vehicle Systems - Brodell/Hesh/Hunter Surplus Peprgrine Brants Orioles FTS Caster • Annual Report & PI Questionnaire - Eberspeaker • Educational Activities - Eberspeaker/Koehler • Range Status - Ransone Wallops Pker WSMR Kwajalein Norway Australia • Technology Development - Rosanova / NSROC 2 SRPO Programmatic Eberspeaker The attached documents contain technical data within the definition of the International Traffic in Arms Regulation, and are subject to the export control laws of the U.S. Government. Transfer of this data by any means to a foreign person, whether in the U.S. or abroad, without an export license or other approval from the U.S. Department of State, is prohibited. Similarly, publication or other release into the public domain constitutes an export and is not authorized, except as approved by the cognizant U.S. government department or agency. June SRWG Findings 1. Strong Concern Regarding Program Vitality (Letter sent to NASA HQ) • The SRPO appreciates the support… 2. Establishing Kwajalein and Woomera as “Routine” Rocket Ranges • “Routine” may not be exactly the right term. – The SRPO plans to return to Kwajalein periodically and intends to minimize cost by regulating the campaign complexity and number of flights so that intrinsic assets can be used. – A Woomera campaign is under early stages of development and the SRPO plans to minimize costs by minimizing the need for mobile support assets. – Status on these elements are provided in the Launch Ranges Section. 3. Success Criteria Guidelines and Examples • The development of these guidelines is ongoing. The concepts are explored in the Success Criteria Guidelines section. 4. Continued Development of Recovery Systems • Concepts to enable high energy recovery are being assessed. It is a complex issue that involves hardware development, software tool development, and operational considerations. Status of the efforts is provided in the Technology Development section. 4 Missions Flown Since Last SRWG • Core Science • Technology & Risk Mitigation – 21.140 / Pfaff / Daytime Dynamo –None • Success – 41.090 / Pfaff / Daytime Dynamo • Education • Success – 41.106 / Koehler / RockOn – 36.239 / Korendyke / • Success – 46.005 / Koehler / RockSat – 36.290 / Woods / EVE • Success • Reimbursable – 36.294 / McCammon / –None • Success Note: in some cases – 36.296 / McCandliss / Ison success noted is based • Success on preliminary PI report – 36.261 / Clark / VESPR • Success FY12/13 40 consecutive FY13 –19 flights successful flights 5 FY13 Completed Missions Mission Launch Site PI Project Comments Date 1 36.255 S Nov 2 WSMR Krucker FOXSI Success - 2 36.260 G Nov 21 WSMR Cook M101 Imager Success - S-19 joint broke on landing (fall over). Mirror mount damage. 3 36.283 H Dec 13 WSMR Galeazzi DXL Success - Dual side looking doors. Brant MK1 had combustion instability 4 41.107 T Jan 29 WFF West Lithium Test Flight Success Launched within 5 minute window as required. Both releases observed. 5 49.001 E Feb 2 PFRR Rowland VISIONS Success First flight of Talos-Terrier-Oriole-Nihka. Vehicle flew within ~1 sigma. 6 41.104 TFeb 15 WSMR Rosanova Uplink Exercise Success Uplink command test + 20 Mb/s test 7 36.269 S April 9 WSMR Rabin Success First flight of Gate approach. Benign winds & no issue with gate 8 36.271 GApril 21 WSMR France Success No issue with winds or gate 9 41.100 R April Kwaj Caton Success – flew 5 sigma low 10 41.102 R April Kwaj Caton Success – Flew TBD sigma low 11 46.001 E April Kwaj Kudeki EVEX Success – Flew low 12 45.005 E April Kwaj Kudeki EVEX Success – Flew low 13 36.268 G May 10 WSMR McCandliss FORTISS #1 Success – No Gate issue. Scattered light impacted science 6 FY13 Completed Missions Mission Launc Site PI Project Comments h Date 14 40.030 G June 4 WFF Bock Success - First telescope flown on BBXII. 11 targets observed 15 41.106 Edu June 20 WFF Koehler RockOn VI Success 16 41.090 E June 24 WFF Pfaff Daytime Dynamo 17 21.140 E June 24 WFF Pfaff Daytime Dynamo Investigating ACS gas leak on upleg and impact on science data 18 36.239 S Aug 8 WSMR Korendyke Success 19 46.005 Edu Aug 13 WFF Koehler RockSat‐X III Success FY14 Completed Missions Mission Launc Site PI Project Comments h Date 1 36.290 SOct 21 WSMR Woods EVE Success 2 36.294 H Nov 1 WSMR McCammon Success. No filter icing. Combustion Instability at T+30 sec. Gate approach worked well 3 36.296 G Nov 20 WSMR McCandliss FORTIS Success. Launched 1 day late due to sealing issue with experiment butterfly valve 4 36.261 G Nov 26 WSMR Clarke VESPR Success. Launched 1 day late due to sealing issue with experiment butterfly valve 7 CY14 Planning Manifest 8 CY15 Planning Manifest 9 Flight Rates Year Core Reimbursable Total 2005 11 8 Target 19 2006 8 14 Target 22 Restoration 0 2007 18 18 2008 12 4Target + 1 Sci/Tech 17 Budget 2009 13 5Target + 3 Sci/Tech 21 2010 13 5Target + 1 Tech 19 2011 12 1 Target 13 2012 20 1 Tech 21 Upgrades 2013 17 2 Sci 19 WSMR ‐ Target missions are low complexity ‐ Sci/Tech reimbursable missions are generally medium to high complexity 10 Flight Rate 11 Mission Initiation Conferences FY 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 MICS 20 18 31 13 14 24 18 15 21 12 18 Flights Initiated 35 30 25 20 Held 15 MICs 10 5 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 FIscal Year Includes core and reimbursable missions 12 Schedule Adherence Eberspeaker 21 January 2014 The attached documents contain technical data within the definition of the International Traffic in Arms Regulation, and are subject to the export control laws of the U.S. Government. Transfer of this data by any means to a foreign person, whether in the U.S. or abroad, without an export license or other approval from the U.S. Department of State, is prohibited. Similarly, publication or other release into the public domain constitutes an export and is not authorized, except as approved by the cognizant U.S. government department or agency. Schedule Adherence • SRWG Concerns / Comments Experiment teams and NSROC should demonstrate that they are on schedule before certain milestones occur • Response: – The SRPO concurs, but this does not help prevent milestones from slipping – which then cascade to impact other milestones. Slips should be implemented “without blame” • Concern: Do not implement automatic “go to the end of the line” approach • Response: – The SRPO understands that “go to the end of the line” can be a problematic solution. As usual, the SRPO will attempt to find a logical launch slot for delayed missions, but teams must understand that optimum dates may not be available. – Slips must be identified as early as possible to allow efficient integration of the project schedule into the overall program workflow Financial penalties will be counterproductive • Concern: Delays are often due to technical issues and lean budgets and withholding funding would tend to aggravate the situation. • Response: – The SRPO capitulates on this aspect. However, science teams should not hold any expectation that funding augmentations will be available to cover mission slips and impact on funding can not be ruled out in extreme cases. 20 Schedule Adherence • SRWG Concerns / Comments Schedule Credibility Review will be counterproductive • Concern: Sounds “formal” and could be time consuming and costly. Suggest implementing less formal “Benchmark Reviews” prior to CDR, Integration, and Launch Operations • Response: – More “reviews” won’t solve the problem. – The program needs to anticipate schedule issues as early as possible so resources can be applied to them before the impact snowballs (i.e. gets us into a situation where overtime is needed during integration when maximum resources are involved, or when field operations are underway). – The SCR was intended to be a “oops, we blew it - where do we go from here” assessment (i.e. is there any real hope of meeting launch date, is science so critical that we need to invest resources to meet schedule, will a delay require more funding, etc.). HQ would be involved since science criticality, R&A budget, and impact on other missions may be involved. 21 Schedule Adherence • SRWG Concerns / Comments Missions are proposed as “success oriented” projects and no funding is available for “slack”. Exhaustive schedule planning (similar to a satellite program) does not appear feasible. • Response: – Exhaustive schedule planning is not envisioned. – The SRPO feels that achievable delivery schedules (both on science and NSROC side) can be developed which provide some definable schedule contingency. Consumption of this contingency will serve as a gauge of the status of the project. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec MIC DR T&E MRR Field Ops Instument A (New design) ‐ Design ‐ Fabrication (schedule uncertainty item) ‐ Pre Integration Vacuum Test Instument B (semi‐Clone of existing ) ‐ Design Modifications ‐ Fabrication ‐ Pre integration Deployment Test Attitude Control ‐ Analysis ‐ Integration Prep ‐ Prelim Airbearing ‐ Final Airbearing TM ‐ Design (schedule uncertainty item) ‐ Mechanical Fabrication ‐ Electrical Wiring ‐ Bench Tests ‐ Experiment A Handshake Tests (@ WFF) 22 Schedule Adherence Implementation • Mission Managers are now collecting more detailed PI milestones and coordinating milestones/activities The effort has resulted in planned delays of premature activities such as Design Reviews, allowing for more efficient work effort.