PACE-GNC-SOW-0037.pdf

Effective Date: November 16, 2018

Expiration Date: November 16, 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- GNC-SOW-0037, Revision -

Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, ocean Ecosystem (PACE), Code 427

PACE Spacecraft Coarse Sun Sensor

Statement of Work

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Goddard Space Flight Center

Greenbelt, Maryland https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/

PACE CSS SOW PACE-GNC-SOW-0037, Revision -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

Spacecraft Coarse Sun Sensor Statement of Work

Signature/Approval Page

Prepared By:

Eric Rogstad

Reviewed By:

John Blackwood

Willaim Sluder

Beth Weinstein

Jack Sanders

Gary Won

Nikesha Davis

Timothy Johnson

Anthony Martinez

Shavesha Rutledge

Raymond Ladbury

James Eitnier

Craig Stevens

Daniel Powers

Eric Rogstad

David Sohl

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 - 11/16/2018 Baseline Release following the approval of PACE-CCR-0406 v

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

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)

3.4.4 Pre-Ship Review (PSR)

3.4.5 Technical Interchange Meetings (TIM)

3.5 Documentation

3.6 NA

3.7 Existing Components

3.7.1 Existing Documentation and Analysis

4.0 Design And Analysis

4.1 Interface Control Documentation

4.2 Drawing Package

4.3 Computer Models

4.3.1 CAD Model and Documentation

4.4 Structural Analysis Report

4.5 Structural Finite Element Model

4.6 NA

4.7 NA

4.8 Worst Case Circuit Analysis Report

4.9 Parts Stress Analysis Report

4.10 Radiation Hardness Analysis Report

4.11 Reliability Analysis Report

4.12 Failure Modes And Effects Criticality Analysis Report

Table 4-1 FMEA Severity Categories

4.13 Error Analysis Report

4.14 Stray Light Analysis Report

4.15 User/Instruction Manuals

4.16 CALIBRATION TEST REPORT

5.0 Hardware Procurement/Manufacturing

5.1 General Requirements

5.2 Coarse Sun Sensor HARDWARE

5.3 Connector Savers

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)

5.4 Supporting Hardware

5.5 Ground Support Equipment

6.0 Performance Verification And Test

6.1 Verification Plan

6.2 Verification Test Procedures

6.3 Verification Test Reports

7.0 Quality Assurance

7.1 General Requirements

7.1.1 Quality Assurance Plan/Manual

7.1.2 Surveillance of the Contractor

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

7.3.3 Control of Sub-Contractors and Suppliers

7.4 NA

7.5 Design Verification Requirements

7.5.1 Verification Requirements

7.5.2 Analysis, Trending, and Reporting of Test Data

7.5.3 Total and Failure-Free Operation hours

7.6 Workmanship Standards And Processes

7.6.1 General

7.6.2 New or Advanced Packaging Technologies

7.6.3 Workmanship: Use of Alternate Workmanship Standards

7.6.4 Electrostatic Discharge Control Requirements

7.6.5 Training and Certification of Contractor Personnel

7.6.6 Hardware Handling, Cleaning and Packaging

7.6.7 Splices, Circuit Board Trace Cuts, and Jumper Wires

7.6.8 Printed Circuit Board (PCB) Test Coupons

7.6.9 NA

7.6.10 Lead-Free and Tin Whisker Control Measures

7.7 EEE Parts Requirements

7.7.1 General

7.7.2 Plastic Encapsulated Microcircuits (PEMs)

7.7.3 Radiation Hardness

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 AND Processes Requirements

7.8.1 NA

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)

7.8.2 NA

7.8.3 M&P Usage Documentation

7.9 Contamination Control Requirements

7.9.1 Contamination Control Plan

7.9.2 Surface Cleanliness

7.9.3 Material Outgassing

7.9.4 Thermal Vacuum Bakeouts

7.10 METROLOGY

7.10.1 Use of Calibrated and Non-calibrated Instruments

8.0 Handling, Storage, Packaging, Preservation, and Delivery

Appendix A. Abbreviations and Acronyms

Appendix B. GSFC PCB submittal and Material Selection Forms

APPENDIX C. 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 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;

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, 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)

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 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

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)

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.

This document defines the work to be performed by the Contractor in the design, development, fabrication, and delivery of the PACE Coarse Sun Sensors, from here on referred to as the CSS.

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 RFQ Attachment “Deliverable Items List and Schedule (DILS).” 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.

There are many applicable documents (standards, procedures, etc.) throughout this SOW. The expectation is suppliers will be compliant with the requirements within those documents.

However, we recognize often comparable documents may be used in lieu of those listed herein.

The alternative documents will be evaluated for compliance and approval is required prior to usage.

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 CSS 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 monthly technical status reports via telecon and a written report. (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.

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 CSS specification in sufficient detail to demonstrate understanding of contract requirements. At a minimum, the presentation package should cover the following areas:

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)

Program Management

Quality Assurance

CSS Design Description

Preliminary Interface Control Documents

Flight Heritage

Facilities

Qualification Verification Plan and Procedure

Mechanical Analysis with Boundary Conditions

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 Spacecraft CSS

Specification PACE-GNC-SPEC-0067 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

Parts, including stress analysis and radiation hardness assessment

Detailed architectural block diagrams for the different deliverable units

Manufacturing flow with inspection points

Facilities

Verification Test Plan (Including Performance Test Description)

Materials and Processes List

Contamination Control (for items sensitive to contamination or with explicit surface cleanliness or outgassing requirements)

Mechanical/Structural analyses

Electrical Worst-Case analyses

Failure Modes Effects Criticality Analysis

Flight Heritage

Verification Matrix (per Section 7.5.1)

Representative Current vs Voltage (IV) curves

A Design Conformance Review Report shall be prepared following the review and, as a minimum, contain meeting notice, attendance, agenda, review meeting minutes and responses to all recommendations and action items. (DIL #9)

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)

3.4.3 Pre-Environmental Review (PER)

The contractor shall organize and 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 Spacecraft CSS

Specification, PACE-GNC-SPEC-0067 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.

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 vs. As Designed Parts List, (EEE parts, includes serialization/revisions)

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)

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)

Log of total operating time and failure-free operation

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)

End Item Inspection Report

As-Built Configuration List

Mate/Demate log

Printed circuit board coupon results

Storage and Transportation Plans and Requirements

Measured Current vs Voltage (IV) curve for each CSS

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/Contract Section B.

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 NA

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 CSS Specification, PACE-GNC-SPEC-0067, 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.

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 Spacecraft CSS Specification (PACE-GNC-SPEC-0067) 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, and data (telemetry) description (Data

Interface Control Document could be a part of this EICD or a standalone document)

4.2 DRAWING PACKAGE

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

ELECTRICAL: interface drawings and schematics

MECHANICAL: top-level assembly and interface drawings

The contractor shall provide preliminary drawing packages at each review.

4.3 COMPUTER MODELS

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

4.3.1 CAD Model and Documentation

A computer aided design (CAD) model shall be delivered for the CSS components in Pro/E

(*.asm, *.prt) or STEP (*.stp,*.step) and ACIS (*.sat) formats to the following specifications:

- Models should include the component outer frame, connectors and backshells, and payload mounting holes at a minimum.

The preferred format is Pro/E utilizing a version of wildfire equal to or later than version 3. Full assembly models are desired.

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. This analysis shall include a Venting analyses for applicable flight components (such as thermal blankets and contamination enclosures) susceptible to pressure loadings to verify that positive strength margins exist at loads equal to twice those induced by the maximum pressure differential during launch. 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-GNC-SPEC-0067, 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

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)

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.

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-GNC-SPEC-0067, 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

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

4.6 NA

4.7 NA

4.8 WORST CASE CIRCUIT ANALYSIS REPORT

The contractor shall provide 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, 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.

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 provide 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 RADIATION HARDNESS ANALYSIS REPORT

The contractor shall perform a Radiation Hardness Analysis on the CSS design to determine the effects of Total Ionizing Dose (TID), Displacement Damage Dose (DDD) and Single Event

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)

Effects (SEE) on performance. (DIL #26) The analysis shall address all the requirements contained in PACE-GNC-SPEC-0067. The results of these analyses shall be summarized in a

Contractor format Radiation Hardness Analyses Report that will be provided to the NASA/GSFC

COR for review.

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 2, 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. FMECA shall be performed at the interface and functional level of the component.

Table 4-1 FMEA Severity Categories

Category Severity Severity Description

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

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

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.

4.13 ERROR ANALYSIS REPORT

An Error Analysis shall be provided on the Flight Unit CSS Design that shall identify all the factors that introduce error into the accuracy of the CSS, and shows that the system can meet its performance requirements in spite of the errors. Errors may include, but not be limited to:

Alignment error, radiation effects, electronic noise, degradation of parts, optical distortions, thermal distortions, etc. An Error Tree shall be generated documenting ALL the sources of error, along with an Error Analyses Report and provided to NASA/GSFC COR for review. (DIL

#29)

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)

4.14 STRAY LIGHT ANALYSIS REPORT

A Stray Light Analysis shall be provided on the Flight Unit Baffle designs to ensure the capability to meet the glint free field of view requirements. The effects of any stray light entering the CSS aperture shall be reflected in the analyses as appropriate. The results of these analyses shall be summarized in a Contractor format Stray Light Analysis Report that shall be provided to the NASA/GSFC COR for review. (DIL #30)

4.15 USER/INSTRUCTION MANUALS

The contractor shall deliver a user’s guide/instruction manual for the CSS. (DIL #31).

This manual shall include setup instructions for the stimulator driver box, installation of the stimulator to the CSS, and operation of the stimulators from the stimulator driver box.

4.16 CALIBRATION TEST REPORT

The contractor shall provide a Calibration Test Report that documents the response of each CSS over two orthogonal ±90° axes of rotation across the sensor boresight.

The contractor shall perform the calibration test at least once prior to the start of component level environmental tests and once after the conclusion of component level environmental tests.

(DIL #74)

For each of the calibration tests, the contractor shall provide the empirical calibration test data in a table of CSS current with respect to angle from the boresight.

For each of the calibration tests, the contractor shall provide a polynomial approximation for each CSS unit describing normalized CSS output as a function of incident light angle relative to sensor boresight.

The contractor shall provide a calibration coefficient for each CSS unit providing the unit conversion from irradiance incident on the CSS (in W/m2) to output current (in µA).

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 CSS to support the delivery dates as called for in the contract.

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

CSS.

5.2 COARSE SUN SENSOR HARDWARE

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

Spacecraft CSS Specification (PACE-GNC-SPEC-0067).

Twelve (12) CSS Flight Units, including associated Flight Baffles (DIL #67)

Optional loaner CSS Engineering Test Unit (ETU) for 3 months (DIL #73)

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

5.3 CONNECTOR SAVERS

Flight Units shall be tested with connector savers to minimize mates and de-mates. Connector savers shall be delivered with each Flight Unit and should meet the same requirements as a flight connector. (DIL #68)

5.4 SUPPORTING HARDWARE

The Contractor shall provide the following supporting hardware (DIL #69):

One set of the mating half of the external connectors for each delivered flight unit, plus two additional sets per contract delivery schedule

Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) flight protective caps, as applicable

Closeout caps for test connectors

Non-flight CSS protective covers

5.5 GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT

The Contractor shall provide Ground Support Equipment to support Integration and Test activities at the Observatory level. Ground Support Equipment includes:

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)

Twelve (12) CSS Stimulators (DIL #70)

One (1) CSS Stimulator Controller capable of controlling 12 Stimulators (DIL #70)

Shipping Container (DIL #71)

Optional Drill Template (DIL #72)

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 VERIFICATION PLAN

A Verification Plan shall be generated by the contractor to describe the details of how the analyses, inspections, and verification tests identified in the PACE Spacecraft CSS Specification

PACE-GNC-SPEC-0067 will be performed. (DIL #33) 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. The plan shall include a verification matrix summarizing how all requirements are verified (analysis, inspection, test, per the definitions in the Spec.), and listing all tests that will be performed on the CSS.

This plan shall be a contractor controlled document and shall indicate all changes made after the initial approval by the NASA/GSFC COR. After Verification Plan approval, no changes shall be made without written NASA/GSFC COR approval.

If any individual test plans are created in addition to the master Verification Plan, such as for

Thermal Vacuum testing, those plans shall also be provided. (DIL #34)

6.2 VERIFICATION TEST PROCEDURES

The contractor shall generate Verification Test Procedures and provide them to the NASA/GSFC

COR. (DIL #35) The verification procedures shall be step-by-step instructions for performing tests outlined by the Verification Test Plan. The procedures shall define the environmental conditions for the tests, required equipment and facilities, test constraints, use of diagnostic or performance test software, operating conditions, tolerance on all input stimuli, data to be recorded and pass/fail limits.

Verification Test Procedures shall be contractor controlled documents and shall indicate all changes made after the initial release for review to NASA. The Thermal Vacuum Test

Procedure shall include the contents listed in Section 7.9.4 for the Chamber Configuration.

6.3 VERIFICATION TEST REPORTS

The contractor shall generate Verification Test Reports. (DIL #36) These reports shall document the results of each test that was performed, what test levels were achieved, what performance requirements were verified, what anomalies were seen, and how they were resolved. The

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)

Thermal Vacuum Test Report may include the Bakeout results (see Section 7.9.4) if it can be delivered by the delivery date for Bakeout Test 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)

7.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE

7.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

7.1.1 Quality Assurance Plan/Manual

The contractor should have a Quality Management System that is compliant with the requirements of SAE AS9100 Quality Systems - Aerospace - Model for Quality Assurance in

Design, Development, Production, Installation and Servicing or equivalent, as documented in a

Quality Assurance Plan. The Plan shall be delivered to the NASA/GSFC COR for approval, and

GSFC shall be notified of any changes to the QA program. (DIL #37)

7.1.2 Surveillance of the Contractor

The work activities and operations of the contractor, subcontractors, and suppliers are subject to evaluation, review, survey, audit, and inspection by a NASA/GSFC representative.

The contractor shall provide the NASA/GSFC representative with documents, records, equipment, and a suitable work area within their facilities that are required by the representative to perform their overview activities.

Government Source Inspection

The Government may elect to perform inspections at a supplier's facilities. The following statement shall be included on all procurement documents: “All work on this order is subject to inspection and test by the Government in accordance with the inspection clauses in the contract.”

Contractor Source Inspection

The contractor should ensure that its procurement documents impose the applicable requirements on subcontractors and other suppliers. The subcontractor and other suppliers should in turn impose the requirements on their procurement sources.

The contractor should perform source inspection at the subcontractor's or supplier's facilities in accordance with the procurement documentation or when one or more of the following conditions exist:

In process, end item controls, or tests that are destructive in nature prevent the contractor from verifying quality after delivery to the contractor's facility.

It is not feasible or economical for the contractor to determine the quality of procured articles solely by inspections or tests performed at the contractor’s facility.

Qualification tests are to be performed by the subcontractor or supplier.

Products are shipped directly from the source to NASA, by-passing the contractor's inspection facilities.

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)

Government Mandatory Inspection Points (MIPs)

The contractor shall plan for GMIPS. The contractor shall provide work instructions, procedures, drawings, etc. that are appropriate for the activities. The following are examples of activities that may be subject to GMIPS, to be agreed upon at Kick-off meeting:

- Circuit card assemblies

- Final solder inspection before conformal coating and staking

- Post conformal coating

- Pre-closure of boxes

- Harness – pre integration (pre staking or potting)

- Unit and component level assembly – witness final assembly

- Mechanical – final assembly and acceptance test

- Software acceptance test

- Rework and repairs to flight hardware

- Pre-Ship Inspection/Data Review

7.1.3 Anomaly Reporting

The contractor shall have a documented process for anomaly reporting and disposition. The process will establish an anomaly review board (ARB) whose membership will include a government representative as a voting member with approval authority for proposed actions on all major nonconformances. (DIL #38)

The process shall require major anomalies to be submitted to the ARB and the government. The contractor shall report major hardware anomalies beginning with the first application of power at the component level, major software anomalies beginning with flight software acceptance testing and when interfacing with flight hardware, and major mechanical system anomalies beginning with the first operation. Major anomalies are those that have resulted in hardware or software test failures and damage or potential damage to hardware. Examples of major anomalies are overvoltage or over current conditions, exceedance of test limits resulting in overstress, blown fuses, and unexpected system responses. The contractor shall assess the failure risk ratings and failure effect risk ratings for major anomalies and shall identify those that have a failure effect risk rating of 2 or 3 and a failure corrective action risk rating of 3 or 4 as a significant residual risk in the risk list.

The process shall allow the contractor to disposition minor anomalies with an appropriate subset of the ARB. Minor anomalies are those that have not resulted in hardware failure or have caused no damage or stress to hardware or required no change in flight software. Examples of minor anomalies are those that can be resolved immediately, procedural errors, database problems, operator errors, and exceedance of test limits that do not affect the end item.

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)

7.1.4 Configuration Management

The contractor’s Configuration Management (CM) system (available for review on request) shall control the design and hardware/software by means of drawings, specifications, and other documents and shall ensure all applicable changes are reviewed in a systematic manner to determine the validity and impact on performance, schedule and cost. The contractor’s

Configuration Management system shall have a change classification and impact assessment process that ensures Class I changes are forwarded to the CO for approval prior to release/incorporation.