Attachment_A_Statement_of_Work.pdf

Effective Date: July 25, 2018

Expiration Date: July 25, 2023

Check https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov to verify that this is the correct version prior to use

400-FORM-0002 (4/16/2014)

PACE- PROP-SOW-0048, Revision A

Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, ocean Ecosystem (PACE) mission, Code 427.0

PACE Thruster Statement of Work

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Goddard Space Flight Center

Greenbelt, Maryland

GSFC PACE CMO

07/25/2018

Released https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/

PACE Thruster SOW PACE-PROP-SOW-0048, Revision A ii

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

400-FORM-0002 (4/16/2014)

Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, ocean Ecosystem (PACE) Mission

Thruster Statement of Work

Signature/Approval Page

Prepared By:

Jacob Stahl

Reviewed By:

Beth Weinstein

Approved By:

Andre’ Dress

Electronic Signatures available online at: https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/ iii

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

400-FORM-0002 (4/16/2014)

Preface

This document is under Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, ocean Ecosystem (PACE) Mission configuration control. Changes to this document require prior approval of the PACE

Configuration Control Board (CCB) Chairperson or designee. Proposed changes shall be submitted to the PACE Configuration Management Office (CMO), along with supportive material justifying the proposed change. Changes to this document will be made by complete revision.

iv

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

Revision Effective

Date

Description of Changes

(Reference the CCR & CCB/ERB Approval Date)

Revision - 05/07/2018 Baseline Release following the approval of PACE-CCR-0258

Revision A 07/25/2018 Updated following the approval of PACE-CCR-0395 v

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

400-FORM-0002 (4/16/2014)

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction

1.1 General Information

1.2 Scope

2.0 Applicable Documents

3.0 Management, Reporting, Reviews, and documentation

3.1 Program management

3.2 Reporting

3.3 Advanced Notifications

3.4 Reviews And Meetings

3.4.1 Kick-off Meeting

3.4.2 Design Conformance Review (DCR)

3.4.3 Pre-Environmental Review (PER) (Option)

3.4.4 Pre-Ship Review (PSR)

3.4.5 Technical Interchange Meetings (TIM)

3.5 Documentation

3.6 NASA/GSFC Furnished Data, Equipment, And Facilities

3.7 Existing Components

3.7.1 Existing Documentation and Analysis

3.7.2 Use of Inherited Products

4.0 Design And Analysis

4.1 Interface Control Documentation

4.2 Drawing Package

4.3 Computer Models

4.4 Structural Analysis Report

4.5 Structural Finite Element Model

4.6 Thermal Analysis Report

4.7 Thermal Model and Documentation

4.8 Worst Case Circuit Analysis Report

4.9 Parts Stress Analysis Report

4.10 NA

4.11 Reliability Analysis Report

4.12 Failure Modes And Effects Criticality Analysis Report

4.13 NA

4.14 NA

4.15 User/Instruction Manuals

5.0 Hardware Procurement/Manufacturing

5.1 General Requirements

5.2 Thruster

5.3 NA

5.4 NA

5.5 Ground Support Equipment

6.0 Performance Verification And Test

6.1 Acceptance Verification Plan

vi

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

400-FORM-0002 (4/16/2014)

6.2 Verification Test Procedures

6.3 Verification Test Reports

6.4 Qualification

7.0 Quality Assurance

7.1 General Requirements

7.1.1 Quality Assurance Plan/Manual

7.1.2 Surveillance of the Contractor

7.1.2.1 Government Source Inspection

7.1.2.2 Contractor Source Inspection

7.1.2.3 Government Mandatory Inspection Points (MIPs)

7.1.3 Anomaly Reporting

7.1.4 Configuration Management

7.1.5 Ground Support Equipment Interfaces

7.2 System Safety Requirements

7.3 Reliability Requirements

7.3.1 Stability Trending

7.3.2 Limited-Life Items

7.4 NA

7.5 Design Verification Requirements

7.5.1 Verification Requirements

7.5.2 Analysis, Trending, and Reporting of Test Data

7.6 Workmanship Standards and processes

7.6.1 General

7.6.2 NA

7.6.3 Workmanship: Use of Alternate Workmanship Standards

7.6.4 NA

7.6.5 Training and Certification of Contractor Personnel

7.6.6 Hardware Handling, Cleaning and Packaging

7.6.7 NA

7.6.8 NA

7.6.9 Use of Water Soluble Flux

7.6.10 Lead-Free and Tin Whisker Control Measures

7.7 EEE Parts Requirements

7.7.1 General

7.7.2 NA

7.7.3 NA

7.7.4 Parts Age Control

7.7.5 GIDEP Alerts and Problem Advisories

7.7.6 Reuse of Parts and Materials

7.7.7 Part Notification of Failure

7.8 Materials, Processes Requirements

7.8.1 Materials and Processes Control

7.8.2 Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS), Vendor-Designed and Fabricated, and

Bilateral Agreement Furnished Hardware vii

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

400-FORM-0002 (4/16/2014)

7.8.3 M&P Usage Documentation

7.8.4 Materials Usage Agreements (MUAs)

7.8.5 Detailed Requirements

7.8.5.1 Flammability Control (NASA-STD-6016 Section 4.2.1.1)

7.8.5.2 Toxic Offgassing (NASA-STD-6016 Section 4.2.1.2)

7.8.5.3 Fluid Compatibility (NASA-STD-6016 Section 4.2.1.3)

7.8.5.4 Oxygen Compatibility (NASA-STD-6016 Section 4.2.1.4)

7.8.5.5 Electrical Wire Insulation Materials (NASA-STD-6016 Section 4.2.1.5)

7.8.5.6 Titanium (NASA-STD-6016 Section 4.2.2.3)

7.8.5.7 Tin (NASA-STD-6016 Section 4.2.2.11)

7.8.5.8 Polyvinylchloride (NASA-STD-6016 Section 4.2.3.2)

7.8.5.9 Composite Materials (NASA-STD-6016 Section 4.2.3.3)

7.8.5.10 Limited-Life Items (NASA-STD-6016 Section 4.2.3.5)

7.8.5.11 NA

7.8.5.12 External Environment Survivability (NASA-STD-6016 Section 4.2.3.7)

7.8.5.13 Glycols (NASA-STD-6016 Section 4.2.3.9)

7.8.5.14 Adhesive Bonding (NASA-STD-6016 Section 4.2.4.3)

7.8.5.15 Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) Plan (NASA-STD-6016 Section 4.2.5.1)

7.8.5.16 Sandwich Assemblies (NASA-STD-6016 Section 4.2.6.2)

7.8.5.17 Fastener Installation (NASA-STD-6016 Section 4.2.6.5)

7.8.5.18 Contamination Control (NASA-STD-6016 Section 4.2.6.6)

7.8.5.19 Packaging (NASA-STD-6016 Section 4.2.6.7)

7.8.5.20 Shelf-Life Items

7.8.5.21 Printed Wiring Boards (PWBs)

7.8.5.22 Solder Flux

7.8.5.23 Fasteners with LL Longitudinal Locking Elements

7.8.5.24 Gold-Indium Intermetallic

7.8.6 Materials Procurement Requirements

7.8.7 Dissimilar Metals

7.8.8 Welding

7.9 Contamination Control Requirements

7.9.1 Contamination Control Plan

7.9.2 Surface Cleanliness

7.9.3 Material Outgassing

7.9.4 NA

7.10 Metrology

7.10.1 General

7.10.2 Use of Calibrated and Non-calibrated Instruments

8.0 Handling, Storage, Packaging, Preservation, and Delivery

Appendix A. Abbreviations and Acronyms

APPENDIX B. LIST OF APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS

viii

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

List of Tables

Table Page

Table 3-1 Inherited Product Data Requirements

Table 3-2 Inherited Product Supplementary Information

Table 4-1 FMEA Severity Categories

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

400-FORM-0002 (4/16/2014)

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL INFORMATION

The Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, ocean Ecosystem (PACE) mission is a strategic climate continuity mission that was defined in the 2010 document Responding to the Challenge of Climate and

Environmental Change: NASA’s Plan for Climate-Centric Architecture for Earth Observations and Applications from Space (referred to as the “Climate Initiative”). The Climate Initiative complements NASA’s implementation of the National Research Council’s Decadal Survey of

Earth Science at NASA, NOAA, and USGS, entitled Earth Science and Applications from

Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond.

PACE will extend the high quality ocean ecological, ocean biogeochemical, cloud, and aerosol particle data records begun by NASA in the 1990s, building on the heritage of the Sea-Viewing

Wide Field-of-View Sensor (SeaWiFS), the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer

(MODIS), the Multi-angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer (MISR), and the Visible Infrared

Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS). The mission will be capable of collecting radiometric and polarimetric measurements of the ocean and atmosphere, from which these biological, biogeochemical, and physical properties will be determined. PACE data products will not only add to existing critical climate and Earth system records, but also answer new and emerging advanced science questions related to Earth’s changing climate.

PACE is classified as a Category 2 mission, per the criteria in NASA Procedural Requirement

(NPR) 7120.5E, NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements. The mission classification is C according to NPR 8705.4B, Risk Classification for NASA Payloads.

The PACE observatory is comprised of three instruments, an Ocean Color Instrument (OCI) and two Polarimeters (HARP2 and SPEXOne). The OCI is the primary instrument on the observatory and is being developed at GSFC. The OCI is a hyper-spectral scanning (HSS) radiometer designed to measure spectral radiances from the ultraviolet to shortwave infrared

(SWIR) to enable advanced ocean color and heritage cloud and aerosol particle science. The

Polarimeters are second instruments on the PACE observatory, developed outside of GSFC.

Both Polarimeters are multi-band, multi-angle polarimeters planned to measure spectral polarized and unpolarized radiances to enable advanced cloud and aerosol particle science, as well as improved atmospheric correction for ocean color activities. This three-instrument PACE mission has the following multiple scientific goals:

Extending key systematic ocean biological, ecological, and biogeochemical climate data records and cloud and aerosol climate data records;

Making global measurements of ocean color data products that are essential for understanding the global carbon cycle and ocean ecosystem responses to a changing climate;

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

400-FORM-0002 (4/16/2014)

Collecting global observations of aerosol and cloud properties, focusing on reducing the largest uncertainties in climate and radiative forcing models of the Earth system; and, Improving our understanding of how aerosols influence ocean ecosystems and biogeochemical cycles and how ocean biological and photochemical processes affect the atmosphere.

The PACE satellite is planned for a launch in 2022-2023. The PACE project office at the NASA

Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) is responsible for the satellite development, launch and operations. The mission is planned for launch into a Sun synchronous polar orbit at 676.5 km with an inclination of 98° and a 1 pm local ascending node crossing time. The spacecraft bus will host the OCI, HARP2, and SPEXOne instruments. The GSFC PACE Project office will oversee the mission and the development of the satellite, launch vehicle, mission operations control center, and operations. The Headquarters Program Science will separately fund the science data processing system and competed science teams, which will include field-based vicarious calibration and data product validation efforts to support the Project science team.

NASA Headquarters has directed the mission development to be guided by a Design-to-Cost

(DTC) process. All elements of the mission, other than the cost, are in the DTC trade space. At the heart of the DTC process are the mission studies, performed across all the mission elements.

The mission studies will be used to define appropriate approaches within and across elements while maximizing science capabilities at a high cost confidence. Mission baseline requirements development is also embedded within the DTC process, as these requirements were not established at the onset of the mission concept development. Baseline mission requirements will be a product of the mission studies and will be defined by the project office as part of the DTC process.

The PACE mission consists of four major segments: space segment (SS), ground segment (GS), science data segment (SDS), and the launch segment (LS).

The space segment consists of the spacecraft bus, the OCI, and the two Polarimeters .

The spacecraft and OCI are being developed and integrated at GSFC. The Polarimeters are planned to be procured outside of GSFC. The spacecraft and instruments will be integrated as the PACE observatory at GSFC.

The GS and associated Mission Operations Center (MOC) will be developed, integrated, and operated at GSFC. The GS provides for the command and control and health and safety monitoring of the PACE observatory on-orbit, as well as ensuring the science data are accounted for and delivered to the SDS. The MOC will contain the flight operations team (FOT) and is being managed by the PACE project through observatory commissioning. After commissioning, the FOT will be managed by the GSFC Earth

Science Mission Operations (ESMO) office. The MOC performs all real time operations and off-line operations functions, including planning and scheduling, orbit and attitude analysis, housekeeping telemetry data processing, monitoring/managing the spacecraft

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

400-FORM-0002 (4/16/2014)

and instruments, first line health/safety for the instruments, and housekeeping archiving and analysis.

The SDS will be located at GSFC, but managed (separately from the project) by the

NASA Headquarters Earth Sciences Division. The SDS will ingest, apply calibration and science algorithms, and process the science data, provide science software development and algorithm integration, act as the science data interface to the science team, and deliver of all science data products to the NASA-assigned Distributed Active Archive

Center (DAAC).

The LS is planned for a launch vehicle to be selected and procured by the NASA Launch

Services Program at Kennedy Space Center (KSC).

In addition to utilizing GSFC institutional capabilities, the project will utilize the NASA/GSFC institutional capabilities such as the Flight Dynamics Facility (FDF), Near Earth Network

(NEN), Ocean Biology Processing Group (OBPG), Space Network (SN), and NASA Integrated

Services Network (NISN). PACE plans to generate 3.5 Terabits of science data daily. The data are downlinked from the observatory during 12-14 daily contacts via Ka-band communications to the NEN's ground stations. The observatory will also receive ground commands and transmit real-time housekeeping telemetry via a S-band 2-way link through the NEN during nominal operations. The observatory also has the capability of receiving ground commands and transmitting real-time housekeeping telemetry, via S-Band, through the SN during critical or contingency operations.

1.2 SCOPE

The contractor shall provide the facilities, personnel, services, tools, equipment, and materials necessary to design, analyze, manufacture, test, and deliver the hardware and data in accordance with the requirements of this SOW and the documents referenced herein.

This SOW defines the contractor tasks, deliverables, responsibilities, and schedule, either within this document or by reference. More details for the deliverables and the schedule can be found in the RFP Section B.2 Table. In this document, specific deliverables from that table are referenced with “(DIL #row_number).”

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

400-FORM-0002 (4/16/2014)

2.0 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS

All applicable and reference documentation identified in this document shall apply in the situations where they are specifically referenced. In the event of a conflict between the SOW and the specification, the SOW shall take precedence. See Appendix C for applicable documents.

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

400-FORM-0002 (4/16/2014)

3.0 MANAGEMENT, REPORTING, REVIEWS, AND DOCUMENTATION

3.1 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

The contractor shall designate a single individual who will be given full responsibility and authority to manage and administer all phases of the work specified by the contract and ensure that all objectives are accomplished within schedule and cost constraints.

The contractor shall designate and identify by name a single individual who shall serve as a point of contact with the NASA/GSFC Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) for all technical aspects of the Thruster contract.

The contractor shall establish and apply a program control system for managing all resources, controlling schedules, managing all engineering, manufacturing and procurement activities, configuration management, Quality Assurance, documentation control, and distribution.

3.2 REPORTING

The contractor shall prepare and present to the NASA/GSFC COR weekly technical status reports via telecon and a written report monthly. (DIL #2)

The report shall be a summary presentation of the period's progress to include topics such as schedule overview, accomplishments, technical performance measures (e.g. mass and power), status of key milestones, risks, problem areas, challenges/issues and activities on-going and planned as well as cost status (if not a fixed price contract).

3.3 ADVANCED NOTIFICATIONS

The contractor shall notify the NASA/GSFC COR at least seven (7) calendar days in advance of all mandatory hardware inspections, test activities, TIM’s, and deliveries at either the contractor’s or a sub-contractor’s facility to allow timely participation by the NASA/GSFC

Quality Assurance representative. (DIL #4) Event specific notification requirements (such as failures, anomalies, etc.) are included in the appropriate sections.

3.4 REVIEWS AND MEETINGS

3.4.1 Kick-off Meeting

The Contractor shall organize and hold a Kick-off Meeting at the Contractor’s facility prior to any activity identified in this SOW. (DIL #5)

The Contractor shall provide to the NASA/GSFC COR a Kick-off Presentation Package and all other required deliverables. (DIL #6) The Kick-off Meeting shall address program management and quality assurance activities outlined in this SOW, as well as the performance and environmental requirements outlined in the Thruster specification in sufficient detail to

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

400-FORM-0002 (4/16/2014)

demonstrate understanding of contract requirements. At a minimum, the presentation package should cover the following areas:

Program Management

Quality Assurance

Thruster Design Description

Preliminary Interface Control Documents

Flight Heritage

Fabrication, Assembly, and Inspection Flow plan

Facilities

Qualification Verification Plan and Procedure

Mechanical Analysis with Boundary Conditions

Representative Thermal Environments (PACE-PROP-SPEC-0083 Section 6.11.3)

Maximum Allowable Conduction and Radiation from the Thrusters (PACE-PROP-

SPEC-0083 Section 6.11.3.1 and 6.11.3.2)

3.4.2 Design Conformance Review (DCR)

The contractor shall organize and present a Design Conformance Review to a GSFC Review

Team at the contractor’s facility prior to the manufacturing program. (DIL #7) The contractor shall provide to the NASA/GSFC COR a Design Conformance Review Presentation Package and all other required deliverable data prior to the review. (DIL #8) The Design Conformance

Review shall address all program management, design, drawings, analysis, manufacturing, test, and quality assurance activities outlined in this SOW and the PACE Project Thruster

Specification, PACE-PROP-SPEC-0083, in sufficient detail to ensure that the proposed design conforms to all requirements and is ready for fabrication to begin. At a minimum, the design package should cover the following areas:

Program Management

Quality Assurance

Electrical, Mechanical, and Environmental specifications

Manufacturing flow with Government Mandatory Inspection Points

Acceptance Verification Test Plan (Including Performance Test Descriptions)

Acceptance Verification Matrix (per Section Error! Reference source not found.)

Materials and Processes

Interface Control Documents

Mechanical STEP Model

Mechanical/Structural Analyses

Thermal Analyses

Performance Analyses

Parts, including stress analysis and radiation hardness assessment

Facilities

Contamination Control

Electrical Worst-Case analyses

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

400-FORM-0002 (4/16/2014)

Failure Modes Effects Criticality Analysis

Qualification Test Results and Report

List and status of all identified Life-Limited Items

Flight Heritage

Review minutes shall be prepared and, as a minimum, shall include attendance, action items, action item accomplishment responsibility and agreements. All items shall be in sufficient detail to be self-explanatory. A Design Conformance Review Report shall be prepared following the review and, as a minimum, contain meeting notice, agenda, review meeting minutes described above and responses to all recommendations and action items. (DIL #9)

3.4.3 Pre-Environmental Review (PER) (Option)

The contractor shall include in the proposal an option to conduct a Pre-Environmental Review

(PER) at the contractor’s facility before the environment test program begins. (DIL #10) This presentation shall demonstrate overall conformance of the requirements specified in the PACE

Project Thruster Specification, PACE-PROP-SPEC-0083, and this Statement of Work for this phase of the procurement. This presentation shall cover programmatic, technical, test and verification, and quality assurance topics, and address any changes made to the Verification

Matrix since DCR. (DIL #11) This review shall also provide an opportunity to review test plans and procedures and all analyses required to approve the testing of the hardware. This option will be awarded no later than six months after DCR.

3.4.4 Pre-Ship Review (PSR)

The contractor shall hold a Pre-Ship Review at the contractor's facility at the completion of verification tests and prior to the shipment of each hardware item to NASA/GSFC. (DIL #12)

This presentation shall demonstrate completion of all activities required for delivery of any hardware deliverable item to NASA/GSFC, and note any activities that are incomplete. In particular, the contractor shall present the completed verification matrix that shows verification of all requirements and presents actual data (results of tests or analyses) where applicable. (DIL

#13) Any requirements that are not met shall be identified in the Deviations/Waivers etc. list and discussed with NASA/GSFC during the review.

An End Item Data Package (EIDP) shall be made available for review during pre-ship reviews for each of the different hardware deliverables. (DIL #14) This package shall also be delivered with each end item with the level of detail required of that item. The package should be comprised of, but not limited to, the following data:

The deliverable item name, serial number, part number, and classification status (e.g., flight, non-flight, ground support).

Appropriate approval signatures (e.g., contractor’s quality representative, product design lead, government Representative)

Work orders for the final assembly and associated tests

As-Built Parts List

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

400-FORM-0002 (4/16/2014)

As-Built Final Drawing Package (including rework instructions, if any)

Problem/anomaly reporting (complete copies of report)

Deviations/Waivers/shortages/open items/non-conformances and their dispositions, with supporting rationale

Status of all action items from previous reviews

Class I MRBs (complete copies of reports)

List of As-Built Materials and Processes used

Achieved surface cleanliness and outgassing rate data (when applicable)

Log of total operating time and valve cycles

List and status of all identified Life-Limited Items

Trended Critical Parameters Data (when applicable)

Verification matrix (including environmental), test data and reports

Photograph Documentation (Pre and Post conformal coating, Pre-Closure and Closed)

Certificate of Conformance, with management signature

End Item Inspection Report

As Built Configuration List

Storage and Transportation Plans and Requirements

Trended Parameters List

3.4.5 Technical Interchange Meetings (TIM)

The contractor shall plan for and facilitate up to three (3) informal, face-to-face technical interchange meetings to be held at the contractor facilities. (DIL #15) These TIMs shall support review and coordination of technical issues including, but not limited to, parts, test plans, test procedures, software changes, design modifications, and design analyses.

3.5 DOCUMENTATION

The contractor shall ensure the generation and delivery of all documentation as called for in the contract and listed in RFP Section B.2 table.

In addition to that documentation specifically called for in the contract, upon request by the

NASA/GSFC COR, the contractor shall make available a copy of any document or data generated during this contract performance for review by GSFC at either the contractor's facility or via the internet. This includes, but is not limited to, technical reports and memorandums, drawings, schematics, studies, analyses, parts and materials data, test data, alerts, etc.

3.6 NASA/GSFC FURNISHED DATA, EQUIPMENT, AND FACILITIES

NASA/GSFC can furnish thermostats (per GSFC specification S-311-641) to the vendor for incorporation into the valve sub-assembly.

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

If there are additional items that the contractor believes are necessary in order to fulfill this contract, they shall be stated in the response to this procurement.

3.7 EXISTING COMPONENTS

3.7.1 Existing Documentation and Analysis

If analysis or documentation exists already for the flight unit that satisfies the requirements within the PACE Thruster Specification (PACE-PROP-SPEC-0083) then the analysis or documentation may not need to be redone, and the requirement can be satisfied by similarity and with the delivery of the previous analysis/documentation to the NASA/GSFC COR.

3.7.2 Use of Inherited Products

For inherited products that will not be re-qualified, defined as those that were previously developed and exist (e.g., spares), will be build-to-print (BTP), or are available as commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS), the developer may follow an inherited items review process (DIL #66).

With this process the Government establishes a risk for using the product that is based on established prior history, changes in design, environment or operations, and information regarding the processes used to develop the product. The government will determine if the risks are acceptable or if mitigations are required. The developer shall assume ownership and responsibility for risks mitigation.

To follow this process, the developer shall provide the data specified in Table 3-1 to substantiate the product’s baseline and risk of use. The developer may provide additional available information from Table 3-2 to reduce the risk.

The developer shall participate in Technical Interchange Meetings (TIMs) to substantiate the baseline risk and potential risk mitigation strategies for inherited products.

Use of this process does not relieve the developer from meeting contractual performance and functional requirements.

All heritage flight hardware shall be fully qualified and verified for use in its new application.

This qualification shall take into consideration necessary design modifications, changes to expected environments, and differences in operational use.

Table 3-1 Inherited Product Data Requirements

No. Data Needed for Inherited Products

List of inherited products and statement of approach to use – rebuild, modification of previous build, or use of existing product

Summary results of qualification, acceptance, and/or prototype/proto-flight testing completed, or comparison of current qualification/proto-qualification requirements

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

400-FORM-0002 (4/16/2014)

No. Data Needed for Inherited Products and what was performed/realized on the inherited design, including environments, required design margins, and life

Flight history of the products and specific attributes for each flight, including environments (compare previous environment to current, including duty cycle and general concept of operations)

Ground and on-orbit anomaly and failure history including the determination of root causes or information that root cause was not determined. Ground anomalies may be restricted to major anomalies, where component performance requirements were violated

5 Reliability analyses performed for the most recent version of the product

Identification of significant changes in manufacturing from qualified product to current product (facility, process, sub-tier supplier, testing changes, company change of ownership, etc.), and any changes in design or materials, including electronic parts, printed circuit boards, and standards used (changing from an older revision of a standard to the latest revision need not be discussed).

Table 3-2 Inherited Product Supplementary Information

No. Supplement Information for Inherited Product

Deviations of each product from original design (white wires, cut traces, splices, etc., if not objectively clear to be part of the design) and reasons for each deviation. If the design has been qualified on a previous GSFC project in the same environment and same risk posture, then the deviations may be declared relative to the previously qualified design.

Specifications and/or standards used to develop the products (e.g., IPC, J-STD, NASA, or GSFC requirements, including fastener integrity approach, or company standards). For products with minimal prior flight history, company standards or detailed synopses of such should be provided, if such are used to develop the product

Previous as-built parts list, including lot date codes, and the differences for new inherited item. This should include evidence that Government Industry Data

Exchange Program (GIDEP) alerts and advisories have been properly dispositioned, if the parts have already been procured. Note that GIDEP should always be used as an aid in procuring new parts or pulling parts from inventory. Reference to prior project deliveries to GSFC is acceptable, in which case, an amendment may be delivered to indicate any changes

Known obsolete parts that will be supplied from existing inventory, including the quantity required and the quantity available. If available, include the sparing plan (quantity required, quantity available, and sparing philosophy)

Materials list and approved Material Usage Agreements (MUAs). Materials list includes lot date codes and evidence that GIDEP alerts and advisories have been properly dispositioned, if the materials have already been procured. Such evidence should be encompassed in GIDEP closure records for each of the items

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

400-FORM-0002 (4/16/2014)

No. Supplement Information for Inherited Product that have impacts. Reference to prior project deliveries to GSFC is acceptable, in which case, an amendment may be delivered to indicate any changes

List of major electrical and mechanical analyses completed and summary of results

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

400-FORM-0002 (4/16/2014)

4.0 DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

The contractor shall perform analyses of the technical and environmental requirements specified in the PACE Project Thruster Specification (PACE-PROP-SPEC-0083) to ensure compliance of the hardware fabrication and to assemble the documentation necessary to ensure its usability by

NASA/GSFC users.

4.1 INTERFACE CONTROL DOCUMENTATION

The Contractor shall provide the following documents (DIL #16):

Mechanical Interface Control Document (MICD), including physical characteristics, mounting interface, outline drawing, thermal coatings on surfaces

Electrical Interface Control Document (EICD), including connector identification, connector pinouts, detailed description of each signal, interface circuits, command description, command sequencing/timing

This can be either a single document or multiple documents.

The Contractor shall include, at least, the following items in the ICD:

Mounting clearances

Voltage

Resistances

Wire colors

Center of Mass

Temperatures

Piece part IDs for heaters, thermistors, and PRTs

Wiring Diagram

4.2 DRAWING PACKAGE

The contractor shall provide a drawing package that includes, but is not limited to: (DIL #17)

ELECTRICAL: assembly and interface drawings

MECHANICAL: assembly and interface drawings

The complete drawing package shall be available for review at the Contractor’s facility (for DCR).

4.3 COMPUTER MODELS

The contractor shall deliver a Computer-Aided Design (CAD) file for the Thruster: (DIL #18)

Thermal Model: Thermal Desktop Ver. 5.8 with SINDA/FLUINT ver. 5.2

Mechanical Model: STEP Files

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

400-FORM-0002 (4/16/2014)

4.4 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT

The purpose of the structural analyses is to demonstrate compliance with the mechanical/structural design and test requirements. Structural analyses verify the structural integrity of the flight hardware by assessing the size and location of applied loads, load paths, and critical failure modes.

A Structural Analysis shall be provided for the Flight Unit structure to ensure the capability to withstand and survive launch and ascent loads. (DIL #19) The analysis shall also address loads on any lift points as well. For metallic elements whose strengths are to be qualified by analysis

(rather than by test, subject to NASA/GSFC approval), margins of safety will be 2.0 on yield and

2.6 on ultimate. Beryllium and composite materials shall not be qualified by analysis alone. The effects of any thermal inputs shall be reflected in the analyses as appropriate.

The results of these analyses shall be summarized in a contractor format Structural Analyses

Report that will be provided to the NASA/GSFC COR for review.

4.5 STRUCTURAL FINITE ELEMENT MODEL

Contractors required to submit finite element models (per PACE-PROP-SPEC-0083, Section 6.3, 11.5) to the spacecraft shall submit model documentation that describes the following: (DIL #20)

1. The version of the model, including date of creation

2. A list of element, node, property, and material identification (ID) numbers

3. A description of the nonstructural mass represented on each property card

4. A description of units

5. A description of the local reference coordinate system

6. The results of satisfying the following model validity checks

Equilibrium/grounding: Rigid body equilibrium/grounding checks using the

NASTRAN GROUNDCHECK case control statement to assess the presence of mechanisms, overconstraints, etc. for all six model degrees-of-freedom for the various constraint sets.

Free-free dynamics (showing rigid body modes): In the unconstrained condition, the deployed on-orbit model should have six rigid body modes with frequencies below 0.005 Hz, with a goal of 0.0005 Hz, and the ratio of the lowest elastic mode frequency and the highest rigid body mode frequency should be greater than 100, with a goal of 1000. In their unconstrained condition, the stowed dynamics and thermal distortion models should have six rigid body modes with frequencies below 0.001 Hz, with a goal of 0.0001 Hz.

Unit gravity loading (each axis): With the model constrained at appropriate interfaces, and 1G inertial loadings applied separately in three orthogonal directions, the sum of constrained forces in the loading direction should be within

0.01% of the model weight. The magnitude of the sums orthogonal to the loading direction should be less than 1.0 N.

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

Enforced displacement/rotation (all 6 degrees-of-freedom): Grounding forces will be determined by applying unit rigid body displacements and rotations to a stiffness matrix of the unsupported model, and determining the resultant grid point forces. Full capability of NASTRAN GROUNDCHECK case control can be used to determine grounding forces and moments. Grounding forces should be less than 1.0 N, and moments less than 0.5 N-m.

Matrix Conditioning Checks: The maximum ratio of any diagonal term to its corresponding term of the triangular factor matrix should be less than 5.0E7. The evaluation should be performed in a static decomposition with restraints applied to remove rigid body modes. A negative value of NASTRAN Param, Bailout, and forcing program execution with near singularities will not be used.

In NASTRAN static analysis (for instance unit gravity and thermal load checks), epsilon is a measure of the error in the load predicted from the product of stiffness matrix and solution set displacement compared to the actual input load vector

. Epsilon should be less than 1.0E-8.

Unit increase temperature (if required): When thermal stress assessment are performed, model checks are needed to ensure proper results. Remove all rigid elements (if not assigning thermal expansion values), equate all material coefficients of thermal expansion and reference temperatures, assign a uniform temperature field and allow for expansion/contraction of the model in all 6 degree-of-freedom. Results should show minimal element force generation and uniform expansion/contraction.

7. Mass Properties (CG location, Inertias, and total model mass)

Contractors required to submit finite element models (per PACE-PROP-SPEC-0043, Section 6.3, 11.5) to the spacecraft shall adhere to the following:

1. Model submitted as a MacNeal Schwendler Corporation (MSC)/ NASA Structural

Analysis (NASTRAN) data deck

2. All model property and material cards have descriptive names

3. Models submission is "full" model with no symmetry assumptions made to reduce model size

4. Model includes no "Super Elements"

5. Model submission includes an explicit Single Point Constraint set

6. Until actual hardware mass properties are verified and final, the finite element model is adjusted to the maximum allocated mass for each subsystem and component

4.6 THERMAL ANALYSIS REPORT

The contractor shall provide a thermal analyses to demonstrate compliance with the thermal

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

requirements. (DIL #21) Specific requirements to be analyzed or to be known include:

Normal Performance at Survival Temperatures

Temperature Measurements for both PRT and Catalyst Bed

Time to Warm Up Catalyst Bed

Time to Cool Down Catalyst Bed

Soakback Analysis

Describe all Boundary Conditions and Material Properties

Steady-State Firing Temperature

Valve Over-heating

Temperature vs. Duty Cycle at multiple locations including Catalyst Bed and Valve

All analysis results shall be summarized in a Contractor format for the Thermal Analyses

Report, to be provided for review as per the contract schedule. This report should contain a description of any computer models and the Beginning-of-Life and End-of-Life surface finish thermal properties (i.e., solar absorptance, IR emittance) that were used to perform the analysis.

4.7 THERMAL MODEL AND DOCUMENTATION

The contractor shall provide reduced Thermal Math Models (TMMs) for the Thruster with less than 50 nodes per box. (DIL #22) The TMMs shall be delivered in an agreed upon format. If the contractor does not have the project-compatible software to create TMMs, then the contractor shall provide sufficient detailed information such that GSFC can create the TMMs.

Documentation shall be provided including detailed descriptions of all aspects of the model necessary for GSFC to run and/or recreate the TMMs.

4.8 WORST CASE CIRCUIT ANALYSIS REPORT

The contractor shall perform worst-case analyses (WCA) for newly designed or modified circuits. (DIL #23) This element has been identified as warranting a Worst Case Analysis, since it has performance critical or function critical components for which excessive operating variations could compromise mission performance. They include control loops that require adequate phase and gain margin to operate properly, sensitive analog circuitry, power supply or switching circuitry, Field Programmable Gate Arrays, motor and actuator systems, and electro-mechanical elements that require torque margin to operate over life and environmental variations. The result is “reliability is designed into the hardware” for long term trouble-free field operation (i.e., removal of adverse operational circuit behavior due to unanticipated component stress drift).

WCA shall be performed during the design phase by the design engineer. The Worst Case

Analysis Report shall include the following:

- Address worst case conditions performed on each component.

- Discuss how each analysis includes the mission life.

- Discuss consideration of critical parameters at maximum and minimum limits.

- The effect of environmental stresses on the operational parameters being evaluated.

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

The results of these analyses shall be summarized in a Contractor format Worst Case Circuit

Analysis Report that will be provided to the NASA/GSFC COR for review.

4.9 PARTS STRESS ANALYSIS REPORT

The contractor shall perform parts stress analyses on Electrical, Electronic, and

Electromechanical (EEE) parts and devices as employed in the circuit designs of the Flight Item to certify conformance with the derating requirements of EEE parts. (DIL #24) The analyses shall be documented, and justification shall be included for all applications that do not meet the derating criteria. The Contractor shall use NASA document EEE-INST-002, Instructions for

EEE Parts Selection, Screening, Qualification, and Derating to establish criteria. Contractor derating guidelines may be considered in place of EEE-INST-002 guidelines but shall be submitted for approval. (DIL #25) The results of these analyses shall be summarized in a

Contractor format Parts Stress Analysis Report that shall be provided to the NASA/GSFC COR for review.

4.10 NA

4.11 RELIABILITY ANALYSIS REPORT

The contractor shall provide a numerical reliability assessment of the component, using reliability data from historical on-orbit performance, life-testing, or data books, such as MIL-

HDBK-217F. (DIL #27) The results of this analysis shall be summarized in a Contractor format

Reliability Analysis Report that will be provided to the NASA/GSFC COR for review.

4.12 FAILURE MODES AND EFFECTS CRITICALITY ANALYSIS REPORT

The contractor shall perform an FMECA (Failure Modes and Effects Criticality Analysis) to identify potential failures with severity categories 1, 1R, 1S, 2, 2R, 3, and 4 per Table 4-1. (DIL

#28)

The FMECA shall be updated throughout the development life cycle to address design changes that result in changes to failure modes, causes, effects, system impact, or to mitigation status and corresponding retention rationale. FMECA shall be performed at the interface and functional level of the component.

The contractor shall prepare and maintain a critical items list (CIL) for severity categories 1, 1R, 1S, and 2 per Table 4-1.

The contractor shall:

Analyze failure modes resulting in severity categories 1, 1R, 1S, or 2 to determine the potential cause, corresponding mitigation actions, and retention rationale.

For each item on the CIL that is not addressed by having a Corrective Action taken which reduces the severity category to a 2R, 3 or 4, there shall be a retention rationale

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

400-FORM-0002 (4/16/2014)

prepared/recorded which contains data that supports the premise that the risk presented by inclusion of the item in the design has been minimized by one or more of the following: detailed evaluation of probability of occurrence; proper design controls, inspections, and tests; and that no adverse failure history exists. The rationale also will contain data that describes operational constraints caused by occurrence of the failure and any measures that can be taken to restore the function on orbit.

Identify and assess common cause failure modes and causes for category 1R and 2R items

Address flight hardware and software that is designed, built, or provided by their organization or subcontractors, from project initiation through launch and mission operations.

Address the ground system that interfaces with flight equipment to the extent necessary to assure the integrity and safety of flight items.

Identify and address safety critical software.

Table 4-1 FMEA Severity Categories

Category Severity Severity Description

1 Catastrophic Failure modes that could result in serious injury, loss of life

(flight or ground personnel), or loss of launch vehicle.

1R Failure modes of identical or equivalent redundant hardware items that could result in Category 1 effects if all failed.

1S Failure in a safety or hazard monitoring system that could cause the system to fail to detect a hazardous condition or fail to operate during such condition and lead to Category 1 consequences.

2 Critical Failure modes that could result in loss of one or more mission objectives as defined by the NASA/GSFC COR.

2R Failure modes of identical or equivalent redundant hardware items that could result in Category 2 effects if all failed.

3 Significant Failure modes that could cause degradation to mission objectives.

4 Minor Failure modes that could result in insignificant or no loss to mission objectives

We are considering the loss of a single string component to be a category 2 and the loss of a redundant component to be a 2R.

The results of these analyses shall be summarized in a Contractor format Failure Modes and

Effects Criticality Analysis Report that shall be provided to the NASA/GSFC COR for review.

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

400-FORM-0002 (4/16/2014)

4.13 NA

4.14 NA

4.15 USER/INSTRUCTION MANUALS

The contractor shall deliver a document to NASA/GSFC, which provides information in order to prevent unintentional damage to the flight hardware (DIL #31). This information should include safe handling procedures, procedures for installing and using the optical alignment fixture, and procedures for installing and using the leak test fixture.

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

400-FORM-0002 (4/16/2014)

5.0 HARDWARE PROCUREMENT/MANUFACTURING

5.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

The contractor shall either procure or manufacture all components required to assemble, integrate, and test the Thruster to support the delivery dates as called for in the contract and listed in RFP Section B.2 Table.

The contractor shall assemble the quantities of Thruster hardware described below. The contractor shall provide a Fabrication, Assembly, and Inspection Flow plan at the DCR that shall include a step-by-step procedure that describes the method of fabrication, assembly, and inspection from piece parts to the completely assembled Thruster.

5.2 THRUSTER

The contractor shall provide the following hardware to meet the requirements of the PACE

Project Thruster Specification (PACE-PROP-SPEC-0083).

a) Eight/ (8) Primary Thruster Flight Unit(s) (DIL #67)

b) One/ (1) Spare Thruster Flight Unit (DIL #68)

The contractor shall include in the proposal the cost to purchase all hardware including all supporting hardware.

5.3 NA

5.4 NA

5.5 GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT

The Contractor shall provide the following Ground Support Equipment to support Integration and

Test activities at the Subsystem and Observatory level.

Red protective covers to prevent incidental damage to the nozzle during I&T. (DIL #69)

Eight alignment fixtures for measuring the alignment of the thruster’s nozzle on the spacecraft. The fixtures shall make use of mirrors for optical measurement of the nozzle orientation to within ±0.1o. The design shall be coordinated with NASA. The vendor shall also deliver eight (8) sets of the nozzle plugs used for alignment. (DIL #70)

The vendor shall deliver two (2) nozzle plugs (with AN interface) for valve testing purposes that seals against the nozzle such that valve leakage and flow testing may be performed. (DIL #71)

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

400-FORM-0002 (4/16/2014)

6.0 PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION AND TEST

6.1 ACCEPTANCE VERIFICATION PLAN

An Acceptance Verification Plan shall be generated by the contractor to describe the details of how the analyses, inspections, and verification tests identified in the PACE Project Thruster

Specification PACE-PROP-SPEC-0083 will be performed. (DIL #33)

Acceptance Verification tests shall demonstrate the item meets all of the specified performance requirements over the specified range of environments, measure performance parameters and reveal inadequacies in manufacturing and assembly such as workmanship or material problems.

Any requirement that exceeds previous qualification test data shall be presented to the

NASA/GSFC COR as part of the planning process for evaluation and a possible delta qualification test.

The plan shall state the purpose of each test, state acceptance criteria, describe in detail the test method, set up, instrumentation, data analysis methods (if applicable), and give the sequence of the tests.