470-MWS-00434 SMBA Phase A SOW_RFI Release_V0.pdf

470-MWS-00434 Effective Date: October 07, 2022

Check the JPSS/LEOS MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

470-MWS-00434

Revision RFI DRAFT

Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Earth Observation

System (LEOS)

Sounder for Microwave Brightness and

Analysis (SMBA)

Phase A Study

Statement of Work (SOW)

Goddard Space Flight Center

Greenbelt, Maryland

JPSS Reviewed – Not Subject to Export Control

SMBA Phase A SOW 470-MWS-00434, RFI Release Draft Effective Date: October 14, 2022 i

Check the JPSS/LEOS MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

Sounder for Microwave Brightness and Analysis (SMBA)

Phase A Study Statement of Work (SOW)

Review/Signature/Approval Page

Prepared By:

Jessica Knizhnik

SMBA Instrument Manager

NASA GSFC LEO Programs Division Code 470

Reviewed By:

Roger Clason

LEOS Deputy Program Manager

NASA GSFC LEO Programs Division Code 470

Approved By:

Timothy Walsh

LEOS Program Manager

NOAA NESDIS LEO Programs Office

*** Signatures are available on-line at: https://......... ***

Goddard Space Flight Center

Greenbelt, Maryland ii

Check the JPSS/LEOS MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

Preface

This document is under LEOS Sounder Project configuration control. Once this document is approved, LEOS Sounder Project approved changes are handled in accordance with Class I and

Class II change control requirements as described in the LEOS Program Configuration

Management Procedures, and changes to this document shall be made by complete revision.

Any questions should be addressed to:

LEOS Program Configuration Management Office

NASA/GSFC

Code 470

Greenbelt, MD 20771 iii

Check the JPSS/LEOS MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

Change History Log iv

Check the JPSS/LEOS MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

Deviations/Waivers Record

Section # /

Requireme nt

Deviation /

Waiver #

CCR # Date

Approved

Title Mission v

Check the JPSS/LEOS MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

Table of TBDs/TBRs

Item No. Location Summary Individual/

Organization Due

Date vi

Check the JPSS/LEOS MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. vi

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 OVERVIEW

1.1.1 Top-Level Summary of Work Required

1.1.2 Guiding Assumptions About the Eventual Flight Program

2. TASKS

2.1 TRADE STUDIES

2.2 SMBA DESIGN CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED ANALYSES

2.3 TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AND DEMONSTRATION

2.4 MANAGEMENT PLANNING

3. REVIEWS, REPORTING, AND DELIVERABLE PRODUCTS

3.1 STATUS MEETINGS AND REVIEWS

3.1.6 Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL)

List of Tables

Table 1: Initial Delivery Schedule Table 2: Follow On Delivery Schedule Table 3: CDRLs

Check the JPSS/LEOS MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

1. INTRODUCTION

The Sounder for Microwave Brightness and Analysis (SMBA) will be a microwave sounding instrument that is planned to fly on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Earth Observation System (LEOS) program series of satellites.

The LEOS Program provides a framework to provide global measurements of earth systems through satellites managed by NOAA, and federal, commercial and international partners. These environmental measurements will be able to support a wide variety of atmospheric, terrestrial, marine and polar observations. The data uses include the numerical weather prediction models, fire and flood models, atmospheric chemistry observations, and multiple land imagery products that have been a crucial piece of the NOAA strategic goal to create a “Weather Ready Nation” and which provide essential information to NOAA’s broader environmental stewardship mission.

Following the recommendations from the 2017 NOAA Satellite Observation System

Architecture Study, the LEO Program intends to use a combination of small and medium satellite platforms in a disaggregated architecture. This approach will provide an efficient means of filling gaps quickly and taking advantage of emerging remote sensing technologies. The Instrument will meet, as a minimum, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) requirements as defined in this Statement of Work (SOW), SMBA Performance Specification

Document (PSD) (470-MWS-00435), and Instrument Mission Assurance Requirements (IMAR)

(470-MWS-00436). For this procurement, in the case of any conflicting requirements, the PSD requirement takes precedence.

This SOW specifies the vendor requirements for performing definition-phase studies and design development as part of SMBA formulation activities.

1.1 Overview

1.1.1 Top-Level Summary of Work Required

The details of the deliverables are described in later sections. At the top level, the Government requires:

a) An Instrument Design that satisfies the baseline requirements defined in the PSD, and

IMAR.

Enhancements to the design beyond the baseline requirements are encouraged if they can be implemented on the specified delivery timeline. Aspirational requirements that the

Government will consider, and the associated details, are documented in the PSD, Section 4. The Contractor shall determine which, if any, of these aspirational requirements to include in their design and meet the specified delivery timeline.

b) An Assessment of Instrument performance against requirements specified in the PSD and

IMAR including any applicable aspirational requirements

Check the JPSS/LEOS MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

c) Trade studies as specified in section 2.1

d) Technical analysis as described in section 2.2

e) Technology Readiness Level (TRL) Assessment and a Technology Development Plan as described in section 2.3.1

f) Identification of hardware and software heritage assumptions as defined in section 2.3.2

g) Identification of Development Risks as defined in section 2.4.1

h) Notional development schedule as described in section 2.4.2

i) Cost analysis as described in section 2.4.3

j) As applicable, performance of any work awarded as part of this study for Technology

Development and/or Risk Mitigation effort(s)

1.1.2 Guiding Assumptions About the Eventual Flight Program

The Flight hardware development cost and schedule estimates shall be based on the following assumptions:

a) 1 Engineering Test Unit (ETU), to be completed and tested No Later Than (NLT)

Critical Design Review (CDR), that can make calibrated radiometric measurements.

This ETU will be fabricated using the same manufacturing processes as the flight instruments.

b) 4 Flight Units plus parts for 5 more flight models to be procured concurrently, with contractual options to build units 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Deliveries will be as shown in the following schedule (all dates are for the Government Fiscal Year):

Table 1: Initial Delivery Schedule

MILESTONE DATE (assume 1st day of quarter)

Flight Contract Award Q1 FY25

Flight Model 1 Pre-Ship Review (PSR1) Q1 FY30

Launch 1 Readiness Date Q1 FY31

Flight Models 2, 3, and 4 PSR (PSR234) Q1 FY32

Launch 2 Readiness Date Q1 FY34

Launch 3 Readiness Date Q1 FY37

Launch 4 Readiness Date Q1 FY40

c) 1 year is needed for post-delivery spacecraft integration and testing support between the Pre-Ship Review (PSR) for each flight model and the Launch Readiness Date for that flight model.

Check the JPSS/LEOS MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

d) No Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) will be provided. If there is specific

Government owned equipment which the contractor is proposing to utilize, then this equipment shall be specifically identified, along with the benefit and verification of availability.

e) Instrument Class: C (as defined in NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 8705.4)

f) Mission durations: 5 year on-orbit mission life after 10 year on-ground storage after instrument delivery

g) The following instrument-level reviews will be held for the first flight build: System

Requirements Review (SRR), Integrated Baseline Review (IBR), Preliminary Design

Review (PDR), Critical Design Review (CDR), Pre-Environmental Review (PER), Pre-Shipment Review (PSR). Subsequent flight builds will hold a PER and PSR.

Review pre-requisites, content, and success criteria are documented in NPR 7123.1.

Check the JPSS/LEOS MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

2. TASKS

The Contractor shall analyze the Instrument requirements, perform trade studies to justify design decisions, develop a conceptual design for the SMBA, and perform all other tasks as specified below.

2.1 Trade Studies

The Contractor shall perform the following trade studies:

a) Schedule Trade Study: The Contractor shall conduct a trade study examining delivery schedules for a total of 9 flight instruments. The study shall consider concurrent development, fabrication, delivery, storage of multiple instruments, and any other factors that the contractor deems relevant. The Contractor shall suggest a number of delivery batches, a number of units to be delivered per batch, and a design change cadence

(including a discussion of which new technology to infuse and when to infuse it). The contractor shall clearly document the cost, schedule, and technical risk associated with each option, document the affects to on ground storage requirements associated with each option, and make a recommendation on the best balance of cost and technical risk as a function of Delivery Date. The Contractor shall show an earliest possible delivery date for each of the flight instruments as one of the options. The results of the trade shall be captured in a Recommended Delivery Schedule and Philosophy document.

b) Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) Detection Study: The Contractor shall conduct a trade study of incorporating RFI detection (defined as identifying contaminated observations) capability into the design. The Contractor shall predict performance against the following areas:

1. Frequencies that would incorporate RFI detection capability, including non-science channels.

2. Allocation of data processing between onboard the instrument versus on the ground.

3. RFI detection performance: The contractor shall determine how RFI detection performance is specified and describe the reasoning for this specification method. Example methods include, but are not limited to, magnitude in kelvins and/or probability of detection.

4. Technology implementation options (such as, but not limited to, Field

Programmable Gate Arrays, Application-Specific Integrated Circuits), and capabilities such as on-orbit re-programmability.

5. Which RFI detection algorithms should be utilized. Examples include, but are not limited to, time domain techniques, frequency spectrum techniques, and statistical techniques.

Check the JPSS/LEOS MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

6. RFI mitigation, defined as correcting contaminated observations.

A description of any necessary technology and additional related studies shall be given along with a technology readiness assessment and any relevant heritage. Associated cost, schedule, and technical risks shall be defined.

c) Hyperspectral Study: The Contractor shall conduct a trade study of incorporating hyperspectral capability into the design. The Contractor shall predict performance against the following areas:

1. Frequencies to incorporate hyperspectral capability (or increased number of channels, even if not considered hyperspectral). Where incorporated, trade the number of channels vs. retrieval performance improvement.

2. Allocation of data processing between onboard the instrument versus on the ground.

3. Technology implementation options (such as, but not limited to, Field

Programmable Gate Arrays, Application-Specific Integrated Circuits), and capabilities such as on-orbit re-programmability.

4. Simultaneous incorporation of RFI detection and hyperspectral capabilities.

A description of any necessary technology and additional related studies shall be given along with a technology readiness assessment and any relevant heritage. Associated cost, schedule, and technical risks shall be defined.

d) PSD Aspirational Requirements Study: The Contractor may choose to augment the baseline Instrument with any of the aspirational requirements listed in the PSD. If the

Contractor chooses to implement any of the aspirational requirements, the Contractor shall document the associated cost, schedule, and risk weighed against predicted performance associated with each aspirational requirement beyond the baseline requirements.

2.2 SMBA Design Concept Development and Related Analyses

2.2.1 The Contractor shall develop a SMBA design concept and perform associated engineering analyses to justify design parameters, tolerances, and design/performance margins. The design concept and associated engineering analyses shall include (but are not limited to) a description of:

a) Which scan method (such as conical or cross track) the Contractor has chosen. The Contractor shall suggest requirements associated with this method to be incorporated into the PSD.

b) A defined calibration methodology for the SMBA instrument (both pre-launch and on-orbit) and provide the associated radiometric budget for each (pre-launch and on-orbit). This calibration methodology shall include

Check the JPSS/LEOS MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

strategies for inter-calibration of the SMBA with Joint Polar Satellite

System Advanced Technology Microwave Sounder units and other operational sounders in the same timeframe.

c) A Command and Data Handling methodology for the SMBA and provide the associated data rate calculations. The Contractor shall identify which information to downlink. If the amount of critical information exceeds downlink capacity, the Contractor shall identify alternative methods for obtaining this information.

d) The algorithm to be used for the SMBA to meet beam pointing knowledge, accuracy, and geolocation requirements in the PSD, section 5.

e) Any methods used for improving the horizontal spatial resolution (beyond the baseline requirement).

f) The spatial sampling and resampling methods (such as, but not limited to, nearest neighbor, inverse distance (squared), and/or Backus-Gilbert) used.

A description of any necessary technology shall be given along with a technology readiness assessment and any relevant heritage. Associated cost, schedule, and risks shall be defined.

g) The striping reduction approach.

h) The inter-channel noise correlation approach.

2.2.2 The Contractor shall provide a quantitative comparison of the SMBA performance against the performance requirements in sections 4 and 5 of the PSD. The contractor shall describe how the design, development, integration, and/or testing will meet each requirement.

2.2.3 The Contractor shall provide a summary of compliance to the IMAR requirements, including initial engineering analyses showing compliance to environmental requirements. The contractor shall describe how the design, development, integration, and/or testing will meet each requirement.

2.2.4 The Contractor shall review all requirements listed as "TBR,” “TBS,” or “TBD” and either concur or suggest new requirement values. The Contractor may also make suggestions (including addition and deletion) on any requirement not listed as TBR,”

“TBS,” or “TBD.” The Contractor shall quantify potential cost, schedule, and risk impacts of any suggested requirements changes.

2.2.5 The Contractor shall describe a reliability approach (planned redundancy, parts selection, etc.) to meet the required lifetime (5 year on-orbit life after 10 year on-ground storage after instrument delivery). The contractor shall perform a reliability assessment done on the proposed architecture and develop a targeted Ps for the mission.

Check the JPSS/LEOS MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

2.2.6 The Contractor shall identify all single-point failures and fault-critical elements in a

Failure Modes Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA). As part of this analysis the

Contractor shall describe the fault tolerant/graceful degradation features of the design.

2.2.7 The Contractor shall develop a Master Equipment List (MEL). The MEL shall document the mass, power, TRL of each major sub-component, and any other information specified in the MEL template provided by the government.

2.2.8 The Contractor shall provide descriptions of any simulation and analytical tools used in the assessment of the design and/or performance, including the heritage and validation of the tools.

2.3 Technology Assessment and Demonstration

2.3.1 The Contractor shall assess the technology readiness of all components of the instrument design. The Contractor shall provide a detailed Technology Development Plan (TDP), including a schedule, explaining how all technologies will achieve TRL 6 demonstration by the instrument PDR. If the study effort includes Technology Development effort, the

TDP and associated schedule shall clearly identify all of the work covered by the

Technology Development. Demonstration should be done via hardware demonstration such as with an Engineering Development Unit (EDU).

2.3.1.1 If the study effort includes a Technology Development effort, the Contractor shall implement the Technology Development effort under contract, brief the status of this effort at the reviews described in section 3 and provide a final report detailing the work done, any associated results, and the level to which the technology has been developed.

2.3.2 The Contractor shall document the flight hardware and software heritage and document any relevant differences between the claimed heritage and the proposed design (for example, on-orbit environment, mission duration, requirements, etc.).

2.4 Management Planning

2.4.1 The Contractor shall identify and rank risks to the development of the SMBA and describe associated mitigations. The likelihood and criticality of risks shall be ranked on a 5x5 matrix per Goddard Procedural Requirements (GPR) 7120.4D. The Contractor shall identify alternate implementation paths for all high-risk items.

2.4.1.1 If the study effort includes Risk Mitigation effort, the Contractor shall implement the

Risk Mitigation effort under contract, brief the status of this effort at the reviews described in section 3 and provide a final report detailing the work completed, associated results, and the level to which the risk has been mitigated.

Check the JPSS/LEOS MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

2.4.2 The Contractor shall develop an implementation phase schedule. The Contractor shall assume that the parts for all 5 flight instruments will be procured at the same time. The schedule shall show the following major instrument reviews: SRR, IBR, PDR, CDR, MRRs, TRRs, PER, PSR, peer reviews, achievement of TRL6, development of the instrument physical model(s) (ETU for example), long-lead (> 1 year) procurements, and primary and secondary critical paths. The schedule shall identify any flight hardware procurements that are started ahead of the completion of the ETU (or equivalent). The schedule is required to meet the program level milestones shown in 1.1.1.b.

2.4.2.1 The Contractor shall suggest dates for the F5 – F9 instrument contract option starts, instrument delivery, and material procurement milestones that will minimize the overall cost, while also minimizing the development risk to F1, F2, F3, and F4. The nominal launch readiness dates (LRD) and instrument no-later-than need dates are as follows:

Table 2: Follow-On Delivery Schedule

Mission Instrument Need Date

(NLT, Gov. FY)

LRD (Gov. FY)

F5 Q1 FY33 Q3 FY38

F6 Q1 FY33 Q1 FY40

F7 Q1 FY33 Q3 FY41

F8 Q1 FY33 Q1 FY43

F9 Q1 FY33 Q3 FY44

The recommended contract start and delivery dates shall be used in the cost modeling.

2.4.3 The Contractor shall provide a parametric cost estimate for the development and production of four flight model instruments and any engineering model(s) recommended in the Model Philosophy & Plan (see section 2.1.a). . The costs shall be separately identified for each model, flight unit, required GSE (ground support equipment), and technology development(s). . The costs shall be shown phased by Government fiscal year. The Contractor shall state what parametric model was used in the analysis and provide any inputs to the model beyond the MEL (reference 2.2.10). The Contractor shall describe the heritage of the model.

Check the JPSS/LEOS MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

3. REVIEWS, REPORTING, AND DELIVERABLE PRODUCTS

The Contractor shall perform the reviews and reporting tasks and provide deliverable products as specified below. . The Contracting Officer's written determination that Government requests for action (RFA's) or requests for information regarding the deliverable reviews and products have been closed out will constitute acceptance of the deliverable. .

3.1 Status Meetings and Reviews

3.1.1 Kickoff Meeting – The Contractor shall support a kickoff meeting within 2 weeks of the

Authorization to Proceed to provide a team introduction, summary of the proposed work for the study, and a high-level introduction to the initial SMBA design concept. The

Contractor shall plan for a 2-hour virtual meeting. The Contractor shall deliver a soft copy of the Kickoff chart set 24 hours prior to the meeting.

3.1.2 Monthly Progress Review (MPR) – The Contractor shall present the results of the work performed since the previous MPR and discuss relevant technical and programmatic issues and findings. The topics expected to be covered are listed in the Contract Data

Requirements List (CDRL) table in section 3.1.6. The MPRs shall be planned as 4-hour virtual meetings. The Contractor shall deliver a soft copy of the MPR chart set 24 hours prior to the meeting.

3.1.3 Midterm Review (MTR) –This review will be held at the NASA Goddard Space Flight

Center, pending travel restrictions. The Contractor shall plan on a one-and-a-half-day review to occur six months after Authorization to Proceed. The topics expected to be covered are listed in the CDRLs table in section 3.1.6. The Contractor shall deliver a soft copy of the MTR chart set 72 hours prior to the meeting.

3.1.4 Final Study Review (FSR) - The Contractor shall plan on a one-and-a-half-day review to occur 11 months and two weeks after Authorization to Proceed at the Contractor’s facility. If possible, the Government will travel to attend the review in-person, pending travel restrictions. The topics expected to be covered are listed in the CDRLs table in section 3.1.6. The Contractor shall deliver a soft copy of the FSR chart set 72 hours prior to the meeting.

3.1.5 Final Report Package (FRP) - Any CDRLs that were not delivered and approved by the

Government Contracting Officer (CO) prior to the FSR or any CDRLs requiring updates shall be submitted in the Final Report Package. Also, any open action items remaining after the FSR shall be addressed in the Final Report Package. The FRP is due 2 weeks after the FSR. This may include annotated final (i.e.: as presented with actions incorporated) FSR charts.

Check the JPSS/LEOS MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

3.1.6 Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL)

The Contractor shall deliver the data products specified in the following table. Documents in this table are subject to evaluation by the Government or its designated representatives to determine Contractor effectiveness in meeting contract objectives. The contractor shall incorporate updates requested by the Government as specified by the Contracting Officer.

Upon submission, the Contractor may proceed with associated work while the Government reviews the submission.

Table 3: CDRLs

ID Deliverable/Task Update Schedule SOW Ref

1 Schedule Trade Study Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MPR 4, Final Delivery at MTR

2.1.a

2 Radio Frequency Interference

Detection Study

Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MTR, Final Delivery at MPR 9

2.1.b

3 Hyperspectral Study Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MTR, Final Delivery at MPR 9

2.1.c

4 PSD Aspirational Requirements

Study

Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MTR, Final Delivery at MPR 9

2.1.d

5 SMBA Design Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MTR, Final Delivery at MPR 11

2.2.1

6 Predicted performance vs. PSD Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MTR, Final Delivery at MPR 11

2.2.2

7 IMAR Compliance Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MTR, Final Delivery at FSR

2.2.3

8 Suggested values for TBRs, TBSs, and TBDs

Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MTR, Final Delivery at MPR 11

2.2.4

9 Reliability Approach Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MPR 4, Final Delivery at MTR

2.2.5

10 Single-Point Failures & Fault

Critical Elements

Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MTR, Final Delivery at MPR 11

2.2.6

11 MEL Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MPR 4, Final Delivery at MPR 11

2.2.7

12 Modeling and Simulation Tool

Description

Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MTR, Final Delivery in FSR

2.2.8

13 Technology Development Plan Status update at MPRs, 2.3.1

Check the JPSS/LEOS MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

Initial Delivery at MPR 4, Final Delivery at MTR

14 Technology Development Effort (if applicable)

Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MTR, Final Delivery in FSR

2.3.1.1

15 Heritage Assessment Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MTR, Final Delivery in FSR

2.3.2

16 Risk Assessment Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MPR 4, Final Delivery at MTR

2.4.1

17 Risk Mitigation Effort (if applicable)

Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MTR, Final Delivery in FSR

2.4.1.1

18 Flight Implementation Schedule Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MPR 4, Final Delivery at MPR 11

2.4.2

19 Suggested F5 – F9 dates Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MPR 4, Final Delivery at MTR

2.4.2.1

20 Flight Cost Estimate Status update at MPRs, Initial Delivery at MPR 4, Final Delivery at MPR 11

2.4.3

21 Kickoff Meeting Charts due 24 hours before 3.1.1

22 MPR Charts Charts due 24 hours before, MPR will not be held in the same month that Kickoff, MTR, or FSR are held

3.1.2

23 MTR Charts Charts due 72 hours before 3.1.3

24 FSR Charts Charts due 72 hours before 3.1.4

25 FRP Charts Charts due two weeks after FSR 3.1.5

Check the JPSS/LEOS MIS Server at https://jpssmis.gsfc.nasa.gov/frontmenu_dsp.cfm to verify that this is the correct version prior to

Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction(s) on the title page of this document.

Appendix A: Acronyms

CDR Critical Design Review

CDRL Contract Data Requirement List

EDU Engineering Development Unit

FRP Final Report Package

FSR Final Study Review

FY Fiscal Year

GFE Government Furnished Equipment

GPR Goddard Procedural Requirement

GSE Ground Support Equipment

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPR NASA Procedural Requirements

IBR Integrated Baseline Review

IMAR Instrument Mission Assurance Requirements

LEO Low Earth Orbit

LEOS LEO Earth Observation System

LRD Launch Readiness Date

MEL Master Equipment List

MPR Monthly Progress Review

MRR Manufacturing Readiness Review

MTR Mid-Term Review

NEdT Noise Equivalent Delta Temperature

NLT No Later Than

PDR Preliminary Design Review

PER Pre-Environmental Review

PSD Performance Specification Document

PSR Pre-Shipment Review

RFA Request for Action

RFI Request for Information

SMBA Sounder for Microwave Brightness and Analysis

SOW Statement of Work

SRR System Requirements Review

TBD To Be Determined

TBR To Be Resolved

TBS To Be Supplied

TDP Technology Development Plan

TRL Technology Readiness Level

TRR Test Readiness Review