Attachment_A,_WFIRST-SOW-11752-.pdf

Effective Date: March 8, 2019

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, Maryland

WFIRST-SOW-11752, Revision -

Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST), Code 448

Reaction Wheel Assemblies

Statement of Work (SOW)

GSFC WFIRST CMO

March 12, 2019

Released

Reaction Wheel Assemblies SOW WFIRST-SOW-11752, Revision Number i

Reaction Wheel Assemblies

Statement of Work (SOW)

Review/Signature/Approval Page

Prepared by:

Edward P. Davis

Approved by:

Betsy Forsbacka ii

Preface

This document is a Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST)

Configuration Management (CM)-controlled document. Changes to this document require prior approval of the applicable Configuration Control Board (CCB) Chairperson or designee.

Proposed changes shall be submitted to the WFIRST CM Office (CMO), along with supportive material justifying the proposed change.

In this document, a requirement is identified by “shall,” a good practice by “should,” permission by “may” or “can,” expectation by “will,” and descriptive material by “is.”

Questions or comments concerning this document should be addressed to:

WFIRST Configuration Management Office

Mail Stop 448

Goddard Space Flight Center

Greenbelt, Maryland 20771 iii

Change History Log

Revision Effective Date Description of Changes

(Reference the CCR & CCB/ERB Approval Date)

Rev- March 8, 2019 Initial Release per WFIRST CIR-09311 iv

Table of TBDs/TBRs/TBSs

Item No. Location Summary Individual/

Organization

Actionee

Due Date v

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

1.2 Scope

1.3 Related Documentation

1.3.1 Applicable Documents [and Forms]

1.3.2 Reference Documents

2 MANAGEMENT, REPORTING, REVIEWS, AND DOCUMENTATION

2.1 Program management

2.2 Reporting

2.3 Advanced Notifications

2.4 Reviews And Meetings

2.4.1 Kick-off Meeting

2.4.2 Design Conformance Review (DCR)

2.4.3 Pre-Environmental Review (PER)

2.4.4 Pre-Ship Review (PSR)

2.4.5 Technical Interchange Meetings (TIM)

2.5 Documentation

2.6 (RESERVED)

2.7 Existing Components

2.7.1 Existing Documentation and Analysis

2.7.2 Use of Inherited Products

3 DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

3.1 Interface Control Documentation

3.2 Drawing Package

3.3 Computer Models

3.4 Structural Analysis Report

3.5 Structural Finite Element Model

3.6 Thermal Analysis Report

3.7 Thermal Model and Documentation

3.8 Worst Case Circuit Analysis Report

3.9 Parts Stress Analysis Report

3.10 Radiation Hardness Analysis Report

3.11 Reliability Analysis Report

3.12 Failure Modes And Effects Criticality Analysis Report

3.13 Error Analysis Report

3.14 Reserved

3.15 User/Instruction Manuals

4 HARDWARE PROCUREMENT/MANUFACTURING

4.1 General Requirements

4.2 Item Name

4.3 Connector Savers

4.4 Supporting Hardware

4.5 Ground Support Equipment

vi

5 PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION AND TEST

5.1 Verification Plan

5.2 Verification Test Procedures

5.3 Verification Test Reports

6 QUALITY ASSURANCE

6.1 General Requirements

6.1.1 Quality Assurance Plan/Manual

6.1.2 Surveillance of the Contractor

6.1.2.1 Government Source Inspection

6.1.2.2 Contractor Source Inspection

6.1.2.3 Government Mandatory Inspection Points (MIPs)

6.1.3 Anomaly Reporting

6.1.4 Configuration Management

6.1.5 Ground Support Equipment Interfaces

6.2 System Safety Requirements

6.3 Reliability Requirements

6.3.1 Stability Trending

6.3.2 Limited-Life Items

6.3.3 Control of Sub-Contractors and Suppliers

6.4 Software Quality Requirements

6.4.1 General Requirements

6.4.2 Software Safety

6.4.3 Software Reliability

6.4.4 Software Management Reviews

6.4.5 Surveillance of Software Development, Maintenance, and Assurance Activities

6.4.6 Software Assurance Status Report Verification and Validation

6.5 Design Verification Requirements

6.5.1 Verification Requirements

6.5.2 Analysis, Trending, and Reporting of Test Data

6.5.3 Total and Failure-Free Operation hours

6.6 Workmanship Standards And Processes

6.6.1 General

6.6.2 New or Advanced Packaging Technologies

6.6.3 Workmanship: Use of Alternate Workmanship Standards

6.6.4 Electrostatic Discharge Control Requirements

6.6.5 Training and Certification of Contractor Personnel

6.6.6 Hardware Handling, Cleaning and Packaging

6.6.7 Splices, Circuit Board Trace Cuts, and Jumper Wires

6.6.8 Printed Circuit Board (PCB) Test Coupons

6.6.9 Use of Water Soluble Flux

6.6.10 Repairs and Re-work

6.6.11 Lead-Free and Tin Whisker Control Measures

6.7 EEE Parts Requirements

6.7.1 General

6.7.2 Plastic Encapsulated Microcircuits (PEMs)

6.7.3 Radiation Hardness

vii

6.7.4 Parts Age Control

6.7.5 GIDEP Alerts and Problem Advisories

6.7.6 Reuse of Parts and Materials

6.7.7 Part Notification of Failure

6.7.8 FPGA Programming Stations

6.8 Materials, Processes Requirements

6.8.1 Materials and Processes Control

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

Agreement Furnished Hardware

6.8.3 M&P Usage Documentation

6.8.4 Materials Usage Agreements (MUAs)

6.8.5 Detailed Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

6.8.5.6 Titanium (NASA-STD-6016 Section 4.2.2.3)

6.8.5.6.1 Tin (NASA-STD-6016 Section 4.2.2.11)

6.8.5.7 Polyvinylchloride (NASA-STD-6016 Section 4.2.3.2)

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

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

6.8.5.10 Thermal Vacuum Stability(NASA-STD-6016 Section 4.2.3.6)

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

6.8.5.12 Glycols (NASA-STD-6016 Section 4.2.3.9)

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

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

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

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

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

6.8.5.18 Packaging (NASA-STD-6016 Section 4.2.6.7)

6.8.5.19 Shelf-Life Items

6.8.5.20 Printed Wiring Boards (PWBs)

6.8.5.21 Solder Flux

6.8.5.22 Fasteners with LL Longitudinal Locking Elements

6.8.5.23 Gold-Indium Intermetallic

6.8.6 Materials Procurement Requirements

6.9 Contamination Control Requirements

6.9.1 Contamination Control Plan

6.9.2 Surface Cleanliness

6.9.3 Material Outgassing

6.9.4 Thermal Vacuum Bakeouts

6.10 METROLOGY

7 HANDLING, STORAGE, PACKAGING, PRESERVATION, AND DELIVERY

APPENDIX A GSFC PCB SUBMITTAL AND MATERIAL SELECTION FORMS

viii

APPENDIX B ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

List of Tables

Table 1. Inherited Product Data Requirements Table 2. Inherited Product Supplementary Information Table 3. FMEA Severity Categories

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

This document defines the work to be performed by the Contractor in the design, development, fabrication, and delivery of the Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST) Reaction

Wheel Assemblies, from here on referred to as the RWAs.

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. In this document, specific deliverables are referenced with “(DIL

#row_number).” More details for the Deliverable Items List and Schedule (DILS) are contained in WFIRST-LIST-11753.

The contractor shall generate a matrix listing each section in this statement of work reflecting either compliance or non-compliance. (DIL #1) Areas of non-compliance need to be addressed by the contractor showing how they plan to meet the requirement(s) or why it will remain non-compliant.

1.3 Related Documentation

All applicable 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.

The latest versions at the time of the contract award of all documents below should be used, unless otherwise specified within this document. WFIRST documents can be obtained from

URL: https://gddms.gsfc.nasa.gov/Windchill/app/.

1.3.1 Applicable Documents [and Forms]

The following documents are referenced within this document and are directly applicable or contain policies or other directive matters that are binding for the contents of this document. In the event of conflict between an Applicable Document and the content of this document, the

WFIRST Project Configuration Change Board has the final authority for conflict resolution.

Document Number Title

WFIRST-SPEC-11751 WFIRST Reaction Wheel Assemblies Specification

WFIRST-LIST-11753 WFIRST Reaction Wheel Assemblies Deliverable Items List and

Schedule (DILS)

WFIRST-RQMT-05819 WFIRST Mission Assurance Requirements https://gddms.gsfc.nasa.gov/Windchill/app/

1.3.2 Reference Documents

The following documents are referenced herein and amplify or clarify the information presented in this document. These documents are not binding on the content of this document.

ANSI/ESD S20.20-2014 Protection of Electrical and Electronic Parts, Assemblies and

Equipment (Excluding Electrically Initiated Explosive Devices)

ANSI/NCSL Z540.1-1994 Calibration Laboratories & Measuring & Test Equipment

General Requirements

ANSI/NCSL Z540.3-2006 Requirements for the Calibration of Measuring and Test

Equipment

ASTM E-595-15 Standard test method for total mass loss and collected volatile condensable materials from outgassing in a vacuum environment

ECSS-Q-ST-70-10C Qualification of Printed Circuit Boards

EEE-INST-002 Instructions for EEE Parts Selection, Screening, Qualification, and Derating

GSFC-STD-1000 Rules for the Design, Development, Verification, and

Operation of Flight Systems

GSFC-STD-6001G Ceramic Column Grid Array Design and Manufacturing Rules for Flight Hardware

GSFC-STD-8002 GSFC Standard Quality Assurance Requirements for the Use of

Water Soluble Flux

IEEE Standard 730-2014 Software Quality Assurance Plans

IPC-2221 Generic Standard on Printed Board Design

IPC-2222 Sectional Design Standard for Rigid Organic Printed Boards

IPC-2223 Sectional Design Standard for Flexible Printed Boards

IPC-2225 Sectional Design Standard for Organic Multichip Modules

(MCM-L and MCM-L Assemblies)

IPC-6011 Generic Performance Specification for Printed Boards

IPC-6012D Qualification and Performance Specification for Rigid Printed

Boards

IPC-6012DS Space and Military Avionics Applications Addendum to IPC-

6012D Qualification and Performance Specification for Rigid

Printed Boards

IPC-6013C Qualification and Performance Specification for Flexible

Printed Boards

IPC-6015 Qualification and Performance Specification for Organic

Multichip Module (MCM-L) Mounting and Interconnecting

Structures

IPC-6018A Microwave End Product Board Inspection and Test

IPC-J-STD-001XS Joint Industry Standard, Space Applications Electronic

Hardware Addendum

IPC/WHMA-A-620-BS Requirements and Acceptance for Cable and Wire Harness

Assemblies, Space Addendum

ISO 17025-2005 General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and

Calibration Laboratories

MIL-HDBK-6870 Inspection Program Requirements, Nondestructive for Aircraft and Missile Materials and Parts

MIL-PRF-50884F Performance Specification: Printed Wiring Board, Flexible or

Rigid-Flex, General Specification For

MIL-PRF-55110H Performance Specification: Printed Wiring Board, Rigid, General Specification For

MSFC-SPEC-445 Adhesive Bonding, Process and Inspection, Requirements for

NA GSFC 2013 01A GSFC NASA Advisory, Subject: Test Results for NAS1351 and NAS1352 fasteners using the LL longitudinal strip locking feature

NA GSFC 2004 01 GSFC NASA Advisory, Subject: Indium Solder Encapsulating

Gold Bonding Wire Leads to Fragile Gold-Indium Compounds and an Unreliable Condition that Results in Wire

Interconnection Rupture

NASA-STD-5005 NASA Technical Standards System

NASA-STD-5009 Standard NDE Guidelines and Requirements for Fracture

Control Programs

NASA-STD-6008 NASA Fastener Procurement, Receiving Inspection, and

Storage Practices for Spaceflight Hardware

NASA-STD-6016 Standard Materials and Processes Requirements for Spacecraft

NASA-STD-8719.13C Software Safety Standard

NASA-STD-8719.24 NASA Expendable Launch Vehicle Payload Safety

Requirements

NASA-STD-8739.1B Workmanship Standard for Staking and Conformal Coating of

Printed Wiring Boards and Electronic Assemblies

NASA-STD-8739.4A Requirements for Crimping Inter-connecting Cables, Harnesses, and Wiring

NASA-STD-8739.5A Requirements for Fiber Optic Terminations, Cable Assemblies, and Installation

NASA-STD-8739.6A Implementation Requirements for NASA Workmanship

Standards

NPR 7150.2B NASA Software Engineering Requirements

SAE AS9100D Quality Systems Aerospace - Model for Quality Assurance in

Design, Development, Production, Installation, and Servicing

2 MANAGEMENT, REPORTING, REVIEWS, AND DOCUMENTATION

2.1 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 will serve as a point of contact with the NASA/GSFC Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) for all technical aspects of the Reaction Wheel Assemblies 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.

2.2 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, quality assurance issues/statuses, and activities on-going and planned.

2.3 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.

2.4 Reviews and Meetings

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

Program Management

Quality Assurance

RWA Design Description

Preliminary Interface Control Documents

Flight Heritage

Facilities

Qualification Verification Plan and Procedure

Mechanical Analysis with Boundary Conditions

2.4.2 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 WFIRST RWA Specification

WFIRST-SPEC-11751 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

Fabrication, Assembly, and Inspection Flow plan

Facilities

Verification Test Plan (Including Performance Test Description)

Materials and Processes

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

Mechanical/Structural analyses

Reliability Analysis

Electrical Worst-Case analyses

Failure Modes Effects Criticality Analysis

Flight Heritage

Verification Matrix (per Section 6.5.1)

Review minutes shall be prepared and, as a minimum, 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)

2.4.3 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 WFIRST RWA

Specification WFIRST-SPEC-11751 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.

2.4.4 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)

Log of total operating time and failure-free operation, separated by primary/redundant sides, if any.

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

Mate/Demate log

Printed circuit board coupon results

Storage and Transportation Plans and Requirements

2.4.5 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.

2.5 Documentation

The contractor shall ensure the generation and delivery of all documentation as called for in the contract (Section B table) and listed in the DILS document, WFIRST-LIST-11753.

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.

2.6 (RESERVED)

2.7 Existing Components

2.7.1 Existing Documentation and Analysis

If analysis or documentation exists already for the flight unit that satisfies the requirements within the Reaction Wheel Specification, WFIRST-SPEC-11751, 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.

2.7.2 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 #69).

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 1 to substantiate the product’s baseline and risk of use. The developer may provide additional available information from Table 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 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 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 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

No. Supplement Information for Inherited Product

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 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

3 DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

The contractor shall perform analyses of the technical and environmental requirements specified in the WFIRST RWA Specification (WFIRST-SPEC-11751) to ensure compliance of the hardware fabrication and to assemble the documentation necessary to ensure its usability by

NASA/GSFC users.

3.1 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, data (telemetry) description (Data Interface Control Document could be a part of this EICD or a standalone document).

3.2 Drawing Package

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

ELECTRICAL: assembly and interface drawings (board level schematics available on request)

MECHANICAL: assembly and interface drawings

3.3 Computer Models

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

3.4 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.

3.5 Structural Finite Element Model

Contractors shall submit finite element models and 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.

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 𝜀 = 𝑢𝑇{𝑃−𝐾𝑢} 𝑢𝑇{𝑃} . 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 shall submit finite element models that adhere to the following:

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

Analysis (NASTRAN) data deck, version 2016 compatible

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

3.6 Thermal Analysis Report

The contractor shall provide a worst case thermal analysis that illustrates that the device and/or the electronic parts junction temperatures are within the Electrical, Electronic, and

Electromechanical (EEE) EEE-INST-002 (DIL #21) de-rated operational temperature limits when subjected to the boundary conditions specified in the Reaction Wheel Specification

(WFIRST-SPEC-11751). This analysis shall be performed with the components operating at their maximum expected power dissipations. All analysis results shall be summarized in a thermal analyses report, to be provided for review as per the contract schedule. This report shall contain a comprehensive list of each component’s maximum expected power dissipation, maximum case temperature, theta JC, maximum junction temperature, and de-rated operational temperature limit. Additionally, this report shall contain a thorough description of the computer models (or reference to the documentation required from section 4.7 (Thermal Model and

Documentation) of this document) and the assumptions that were used to perform the analysis including boundary conditions, surface finish thermo-optical properties, interface conductances.

3.7 Thermal Model and Documentation

The contractor shall provide reduced Thermal Math Models (TMMs) for the RWA 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.

3.8 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.

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.

3.9 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.

3.10 Radiation Hardness Analysis Report

The contractor shall perform a Radiation Hardness Analysis on the Reaction Wheel Assembly design to determine the effects of Total Ionizing Dose (TID), Displacement Damage Dose

(DDD) and Single Event Effects (SEE) on performance. (DIL #26) The analysis shall address all the requirements contained in WFIRST-SPEC-11751. 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.

3.11 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.

3.12 Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) Report

The contractor shall perform a FMECA to identify potential failures with severity categories 1, 1R, 1S, 2, 2R, 3, and 4 per Table 3. (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 3.

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 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.

Identify and address safety critical software.

Table 3. FMECA 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

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

Effects Criticality Analysis Report and provided to the NASA/GSFC COR for review.

3.13 Error Analysis Report

An Error Analysis shall be performed on the Flight Unit RWA Design that shall identify all the factors that introduce error into the accuracy of the RWA, 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, quaternion algorithm calculations, 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)

3.14 Reserved

3.15 User/Instruction Manuals

The contractor shall deliver procedures that describe the operation of the unit and any operational constraints to the unit. Examples of items to include in the user/instruction manuals are long term storage activities, torque vs power curves or equations, drag model descriptions, overspeed operations, and power on sequence. (DIL #31)

4 HARDWARE PROCUREMENT/MANUFACTURING

4.1 General Requirements

The contractor shall either procure or manufacture all components required to assemble, integrate, and test the RWAs to support the delivery dates as called for in the contract (Section B

Table) and the DILS document, WFIRST-LIST-11753.

The contractor shall assemble the quantities of Reaction Wheel Assembly 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 RWAs.

4.2 Item Name

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

RWA Specification (WFIRST-SPEC-11751).

a) Six (6) RWA Flight Unit(s) (DIL #70)

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

4.3 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 shall meet the same requirements as a flight connector. (DIL #72)

4.4 Supporting Hardware

The Contractor shall provide the following supporting hardware (DIL #73):

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

4.5 Ground Support Equipment

The Contractor shall provide Ground Support Equipment (DIL #74) to support Integration and

Test activities at the Observatory level. Ground Support Equipment includes:

Shipping Container

Transport caps for each unit

Loaned/Borrowed Engineering Test Unit or Engineering Model to support electrical interface testing for up to two 2-week periods at negotiated times with WFIRST.

5 PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION AND TEST

5.1 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 WFIRST RWA Specification

WFIRST-SPEC-11751 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 RWAs.

This plan shall be a contractor controlled document that indicates 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)

5.2 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 6.9.4 for the Chamber Configuration.

5.3 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

Thermal Vacuum Test Report may include the Bakeout results (see Section 6.9.4) if it can be delivered by the delivery date for Bakeout Test Results.

6 QUALITY ASSURANCE

6.1 General Requirements

6.1.1 Quality Assurance Plan/Manual

The contractor shall 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, or an ISO 9001 Quality

Management System, or equivalent, as documented in a Quality Assurance Plan. The

Contractor’s management structure will ensure that managers of the assurance activities have direct access and independent reporting paths to upper management, separate from the project management structure. The Quality Assurance Plan shall be delivered to the NASA/GSFC COR for approval. GSFC shall be notified of any changes to the QA program. (DIL #37)

6.1.2 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 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.

The contractor shall provide a list of key sub-tier suppliers, per WFIRST MAR Section 3.6

(WFIRST-RQMT-05819).

6.1.2.1 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.”

The Government quality representative who has been delegated NASA quality assurance functions on this procurement shall be notified immediately upon contractor receipt of any supplier/subcontractor orders. The Government representative shall also be notified a minimum of 48 hours in advance of the time that articles or materials are ready for inspection or test.

6.1.2.2 Contractor Source Inspection

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

The contractor shall 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,…