Enclosure 7 - LNext SMASP Rev-.pdf

LNext SMASP DRAFT LNEXT-SMA-PLAN-0019 Revision -ii

Safety and Mission Assurance

Surveillance Plan (SMASP)

Signature/Approval Page iii

CM Foreword This document is a Landsat Next Project 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 Landsat Next CM Office (CMO), along with supportive material justifying the proposed change. Changes to this document will be made by complete revision.

Questions or comments concerning this document should be addressed to:

NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Landsat Next Project Office, Code 426 Attention: Configuration Management Office Greenbelt, Maryland 20771 iv

Change History Log Change History will be provided by CM prior to release v

List of TBDs/TBRs Hyperlink to TBx Location Summary Ind.

Name/Org.

Due Date vi

Table of Contents SIGNATURE/APPROVAL PAGE ................................................................................................ II

CM FOREWORD ..........................................................................................................................III

CHANGE HISTORY LOG .......................................................................................................... IV

LIST OF TBDS/TBRS .................................................................................................................... V

TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. VI

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... VII

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... VII

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

1.2 Scope

1.3 Applicable Documents

1.4 Project Applicable Documents

1.5 Project Reference Documents

2.0 MISSION OVERVIEW

2.1 Mission Statement

2.2 Mission Background

2.3 Mission Objectives

2.4 Mission Implementation

2.4.1 Space Segment

2.4.2 Ground Segment

2.4.3 Launch Segment

3.0 SURVEILLANCE APPROACH

3.1 Definitions of Surveillance Types

3.2 Application of Surveillance by Type

3.3 Modification of Surveillance by Type

4.0 FORMS OF SURVEILLANCE

5.0 RESOURCES

5.1 General

5.2 Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Delegations

5.3 NASA Safety and Mission Assurance, Audits, and Assessments Services (SMA3)

Tasking

6.0 TYPICAL SURVEILLANCE METHODS

6.1 Meta Database

6.2 Audits

6.3 Sampling

6.4 Direct Observation

6.5 Inspection

vii

7.0 MANAGEMENT REVIEW AND CONTROL PROCESSES

8.0 METRICS

8.1 Problem Reports, Concerns, and Issues

8.2 Program Costs

8.3 Forecasts related to Acquisitions, Deliverables, Milestones, and Schedules

8.4 Software and Hardware Development Schedules

8.5 Contract Deliverables

8.6 Resources

8.7 Facilities and Test Equipment

8.8 Subcontractors, Suppliers, and Vendors

8.9 Audit Results

8.10 System Review Results

8.11 Failure Reports and Anomaly Reports

8.12 Non-Conformance (NCR) Processing

8.13 Requires for Deviations and Waivers

8.14 Configuration Control

8.15 GIDEP Alert and NASA Advisory/Problem Reports

APPENDIX A ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

APPENDIX B DEFINITIONS

List of Figures

Figure 2.4-1 Landsat Next Operations Concept

List of Tables No table of contents entries found.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE

This Safety and Mission Assurance Surveillance Plan (SMASP) documents the Goddard Space Flight Center activities, resources, processes, and metrics that will be used to monitor and evaluate the performance of suppliers to Landsat Next. As used in this document, the term supplier will include contractors, subcontractors, vendors, grantees, partners, and other organizations as appropriate.

The below outlined surveillance approach will balance the impact of surveillance against the risks of mission failure, cost overruns, schedule delays, and potential breaches of safety, security, or export control.

This plan will be revised over the project life cycle based on the evaluation of performance and risks as necessary.

1.2 SCOPE

This plan describes the surveillance that will be performed by the Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA) team on the project elements, which may include:

• Program and project offices

• Systems management and engineering

• Contract management

• Flight hardware and software

• Data systems

• External interfaces

• Systems verification

• Safety and mission assurance activities

• In-house work efforts

• Subcontractors, suppliers, and vendors

• Systems integration and test

• Shipment

• Launch support

• On-orbit checkout and operations

1.3 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS

Document Number Title Revision GPR 5100.3 Quality Assurance Letter of Delegation H GPR 5330.1 Work Order Authorization (WOA) Process J NF 1430 Letter of Contract Administration Designation, General 1.6

NF 1430A Contract Administration 1.5

Document Number Title Revision NPD 7120.4 NASA Engineering and Program/Project

Management Policy E

NPR 7120.5 NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements

F

NPR 8735.2 Hardware Quality Assurance Program Requirements for Programs and Projects

C w/ CHANGE 1

48 CFR § 46.4 Code of Federal Regulations, Contract Management, Quality Management, Government Contract Quality Assurance

N/A

In this document, citations are assumed to be the latest version unless otherwise noted.

This document table was generated from the Landsat Next Referenced Documents List Draft Rev B

1.4 PROJECT APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS

Document Number Title LNEXT-LANDIS-PLAN-0052 Landsat Next Landsat Instrument Suite (LandIS) Contract Data

Requirements List (CDRL) and Data Item Descriptions (DID) LNEXT-LANDIS-PLAN-0011 Landsat Next Landsat Instrument Suite (LandIS) Performance

Evaluation Plan (PEP) LNEXT-LANDIS-SOW-0003 Landsat Next Landsat Instrument Suite (LandIS) Statement of

Work (SOW) LNEXT-SC-CDRL-0053 Landsat Next Spacecraft Contract Requirements Document

List (CDRL) LNEXT-SC-SOW-0004 Landsat Next Spacecraft Statement of Work LNEXT-SMA-PLAN-0026 Landsat Next Software Assurance Plan (SAP) LNEXT-SMA-PLAN-0037 Landsat Next Safety and Mission Assurance Plan (SMAP) LNEXT-SMA-REQ-0013 Landsat Next (LNext) Instrument Mission Assurance

Requirements (IMAR) In this document, citations are assumed to be the latest version unless otherwise noted.

This document table was generated from the Landsat Next Referenced Documents List Draft Rev B

1.5 PROJECT REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

Document Number Title LNEXT-MGMT-PLAN-0002 Landsat Next System Review Plan (SRP) LNEXT-MGMT-PLAN-0006 Landsat Next Project Plan LNEXT-MGMT-WBS-0001 Landsat Next Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and

Dictionary In this document, citations are assumed to be the latest version unless otherwise noted.

This document table was generated from the Landsat Next Referenced Documents List Draft Rev B

2.0 MISSION OVERVIEW

2.1 MISSION STATEMENT

Landsat Next, consistent with United States (U.S.) law and government policy, will continue the Landsat program's acquisition, archival, and distribution of multi-spectral imagery affording global, synoptic, and repetitive coverage of the Earth's land surfaces at a scale where natural and human-induced changes can be detected, differentiated, characterized, and monitored over time.

2.2 MISSION BACKGROUND

Following the successful launch of Landsat 8 (formally named Landsat Data Continuity Mission, LDCM) in February 2013, and during the development of Landsat 9, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) recognized the need to assemble a team of experts from within both agencies to evaluate how to inform an acquisition strategy for the Landsat mission to follow Landsat 9. The NASA-USGS Joint Agency Sustainable Land Imaging (SLI) Architecture Study Team (AST) was formed in September 2018 and was tasked with investigating how to best satisfy the diverse set of user needs collected in the USGS “User Needs for the Sustainable Land Imaging Program – Release 2.0.” These investigations resulted in a set of recommendations to the headquarters of both agencies, delivered in December 2019. The highest-recommended “Roadmap 1” architecture described a small constellation of “superspectral” space-based sensors that would substantially improve the spectral, spatial, and temporal capabilities of previous Landsat missions, while continuing to satisfy the primary goal of ensuring a highly calibrated data set that maintains compatibility with the legacy data of the Earth’s land mass held in the National Satellite Land Remote Sensing Data Archive (NSLRSDA) at USGS’s Earth Resources and Observation Science (EROS) Center. In April 2020 NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) received authorization to initiate the Landsat Next project consistent with the AST’s Roadmap 1 recommendation.

The goal of Landsat Next is to continue the acquisition, archival, and distribution of multi-spectral imagery affording global, synoptic, and repetitive coverage of the Earth's land surfaces at a scale where natural and human-induced changes can be detected, differentiated, characterized, and monitored over time. This goal is in keeping with the Landsat programmatic goals stated in both the Commercial Space Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-303) and the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-555). This policy requires that the Landsat Program provide data into the future that is sufficiently consistent with previous Landsat data to allow the detection and quantitative characterization of changes in or on the land surface of the globe.

Landsat Next continues the long-running partnership of NASA and USGS, with NASA providing the space and launch segments and USGS providing the ground system, providing the longest continuous global record of the Earth’s surface. The Landsat series of satellites have continuously acquired multispectral images of the global land surface since the launch of the Earth Resources Technology Satellite (ERTS, later renamed Landsat 1) in 1972. The Landsat data archive constitutes the longest continuous moderate-resolution record of the global land surface as viewed from space.

2.3 MISSION OBJECTIVES

Landsat Next has these major mission objectives:

• Collect and archive moderate resolution multispectral image data and thermal image data, affording seasonal coverage of the global landmass for a continuous period of not less than five (5) years.

• Ensure that Landsat Next data are sufficiently consistent with data from the earlier Landsat missions in terms of relative acquisition geometry, calibration, coverage characteristics, spectral characteristics, output product quality, and data availability to permit studies of land cover and land use change over multi-decadal periods.

• Ensure Landsat Next is responsive to critical emerging user needs and applications as characterized by periodic assessment, currently the User Needs for the Sustainable Land Imaging Program July 2018, Release 2.0, and identified by the operational requirements for collection, processing, archiving, and distribution of land surface data to the United States Government and other users.

• Distribute Landsat Next data products to the general public on a nondiscriminatory basis.

2.4 MISSION IMPLEMENTATION

NASA and USGS each have specific responsibilities for Landsat Next and will deliver the major elements to the overall mission. NASA will provide the Space and Launch Segments of Landsat Next, and USGS will provide the Ground System and mission operations. NASA/GSFC will provide overall Landsat Next project management, mission system engineering, and mission assurance during development and will transition the mission to USGS following on-orbit commissioning.

The Landsat Next post-launch nominal mission operations concept is shown graphically in the Figure below.

Figure 2.4-1 Landsat Next Operations Concept

2.4.1 Space Segment

NASA/GSFC will provide the Space Segment via competitive procurements for the science instruments and the spacecraft bus. The Space Segment will consist of a constellation of three observatories flying in coordinated sun-synchronous orbits at 653km altitude, each with nominally identical spacecraft and instrument suites. The observatories will be equally spaced in the orbit, providing in aggregate a six-day ground repeat period at the equator.

The instrument suites will each provide 26 spectral bands with a maximum ground sampling distance of 10m-60m dependent on the spectral band, covering a swath on the ground of approximately 164km on a ground track defined by a world-wide reference system known as

WRS-3.

2.4.2 Ground Segment

The Landsat Ground Segment currently supports mission operations for Landsats 8 and 9.

Landsat Next takes advantage of developments on these missions and will upgrade and expand the current systems to accommodate Landsat Next. The Landsat Ground Segment consists of the Ground System (GS) and its external interfaces, including NASA institutional services. The GS includes the Mission Operations Center (MOC), the Ground Network (GN), and the Data Processing and Archive System (DPAS). External interfaces include NASA's Near Space Network (NSN) and NASA ACCESS Space relay (i.e. TDRSS) and government/commercial ground station, NASA/GSFC Conjunction Assessment and Risk Analysis (CARA) and its NASA/GSFC Flight Dynamics Facility, along with other external interfaces.

The MOC provides the primary means to control and monitor the Landsat Next constellation.

The Landsat Next Flight Operations Team (FOT) at the MOC performs mission planning and scheduling, command and control, health and status monitoring, orbit and attitude maintenance, performance analysis, onboard memory management, and flight and ground software maintenance. The FOT utilizes MOC functionality to detect, investigate and resolve spacecraft anomalies and monitor the instrument image collections from the onboard constellation and generate special image collections. The MOC ingests, processes and archives data via the GN.

The GN includes geographically dispersed ground station resources for mission execution, and includes both the Landsat Ground Network (LGN) and a wideband or cloud-based data routing capability to transfer both mission data to DPAS, and TT&C data to the MOC. The LGN consists of US Government-owned, international, and commercial ground stations, and provides communication capability for each observatory of the constellation for commanding and housekeeping data via S-Band two-way links. The LGN will also receive mission data from each observatory via high rate Ka-band downlinks.

The DPAS ingests, processes, and archives LNext mission data from the GN. The DPAS also provides a long-term archive capability for raw data and allows the user community to query, download, and directly interact in the cloud with Landsat Next science products, via a public-facing web portal for receiving data products. The DPAS is located at USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) near Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

The USGS will lead overall Landsat Next GS development. The USGS will also lead integration of the GS and ensure timely completion of ground readiness testing in preparation for NASA-led mission readiness activities. The MOC will perform planning, scheduling, and observatory operations activities during Landsat Next mission readiness testing.

2.4.3 Launch Segment

The Launch Segment will provide the assets and services associated with the Launch Vehicle (LV) and the constellation-to-LV integration. This will include the LV; all Launch Vehicle- Ground Support Equipment (LV-GSE), property, and facilities to integrate the constellation to the LV and verify their integration; and prelaunch testing with ground-based functions. The launch vehicle and launch site are TBD. The three observatories comprising the Landsat Next constellation will be launched together on the same launch vehicle.

Sections 2.0-2.4.3 were generated using Landsat Next Common Boilerplate (LNEXT-MGMT- DESC-0005) Rev B

3.0 SURVEILLANCE APPROACH

The goal of surveillance is to obtain objective evidence that a processes will result in the delivery of a product that meets performance requirements been derived from the project or mission Level 1 requirements. The focus is on prevention rather than detection, i.e., emphasizing qualified and controlled processes and methods of operation as opposed to relying upon inspection and test to identify problems. At the discretion of the government, Landsat Next will institute the surveillance approaches below for the prime contractor and its subcontractors and suppliers.

Landsat Next will comply with NPR 8735.2 Hardware Quality Assurance Program Requirements for Project and Programs.

The below outlined approaches will ensure a high level of confidence regarding the contractor’s ability to identify, manage, and control programmatic risks, including when new technology or unproven processes are used by the contractor, its subcontractors, and suppliers.

3.1 DEFINITIONS OF SURVEILLANCE TYPES

• Oversight – A process that uses product specifications and process controls, such as standards or mandatory inspections, to direct the development and production of the product. Oversight involves in-line involvement through necessary inspections, reviews, and approvals to ensure a process is stable and under control.

• Insight – A process that uses performance requirements and metrics to ensure process capability and control and end-item product quality. Insight relies on gathering product or process data that provides adequate visibility into the integrity of the product or process.

Insight will be used in areas where risk is low, and the supplier clearly demonstrates compliance with mandated requirements.

• Hybrid Surveillance – A combination of insight and oversight surveillance methods that are employed to mitigate risks with regard to identifying, managing, and controlling risks, particularly those associated with new technology and unproven processes. In general, hybrid surveillance will be initiated with oversight that transitions to insight if performance evaluation demonstrates that it is warranted.

3.2 APPLICATION OF SURVEILLANCE BY TYPE

The type of surveillance to be applied to an element of the work effort depends on the perceived level of risk and the potential impact. The below are the three types of surveillance Landsat Next will use:

• Oversight will be used if the perceived risk or the potential impact is high or if it is required by the contract.

• Insight will be used if the perceived risk or potential impact is low.

• A hybrid approach will be used for an element of the work effort for which the perceived risk and potential impact may be mitigated by supplier performance.

3.3 MODIFICATION OF SURVEILLANCE BY TYPE

The type of surveillance used for specific elements of the work effort may be modified over the project life cycle based on an evaluation of supplier performance and risks. The government may transition from oversight to insight surveillance methods gradually when the contractor’s demonstrated performance, along with government access to contractor data and identified risks and mitigation plans, warrant such a transition.

4.0 FORMS OF SURVEILLANCE

Refer to NPR 8735.2 for specific surveillance form details. Surveillance will occur in various forms, including the following informal and formal examples:

• Formal, regularly scheduled teleconferences, meetings, discussions, and progress reviews

• Informal teleconferences, meetings, discussions, and progress reviews that are scheduled and held as needed

• Formal correspondence, including e-mail, letters, forms, and memoranda

• Informal correspondence, including email, letters, forms, and memoranda Surveillance will occur within the below forums:

• Scheduled Meetings:

o Technical Interchange Meetings (TIM) o Safety and Mission Assurance meetings

• Technical Meetings:

o Material Review Board meetings (MRB) o Anomaly Review Board meetings (ARB) o EEE Parts Control Board (PCB) meetings o Engineering Peer Reviews (EPR) o Manufacturing Readiness Reviews (MRR) o Test Readiness Reviews (TRR) o Monthly Status Reviews (MSR)

• Systems Reviews:

o System Requirements Review (SRR) o Preliminary Design Review (PDR) o Critical Design Review (CDR) o Test Readiness Review (TRR) o Pre-Ship Review (PSR) o Flight Readiness Review (FRR) o Operational Readiness Review (ORR) o Subsystem Reviews

• Product and Process Verification:

o Government Mandatory Inspection Points (GMIP) using the following methods:

Witness – observation of activity when being executed

Verification – inspection before further processing Monitor – periodic checks of activities when being executed or as completed o Product and Process Reviews o Product and Process Audits o Quality Management System Assessment o Product and Process Surveys o Product and Process Random Inspections o Special Process Qualification

• Business and Finance Reviews:

o Weekly project management teleconference

• Contract Evaluations and Assessments:

o Contract Data Requirements List deliverables o Subcontract Data Requirements List and Deliverables o Contract reporting o Contract metrics o Problems, issues, and concerns

5.0 RESOURCES

5.1 GENERAL

GSFC/NASA civil servants and contractors , along with the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), will implement SMA surveillance activities. Both resident and visiting personnel at supplier facilities may be included in surveillance activities.

The surveillance team may include the following personnel:

• Contracting Officer

• Contracting Officer Representative

• Contract Specialist

• Project personnel, including Resident Office personnel

• Program Management personnel, including GSFC or Agency personnel

• Chief Safety and Mission Assurance Officer (CSO)

• Project Systems Manager (PSM)

• Project Reliability Engineer

• Quality Engineer

• EEE Parts Engineer

• Materials & Processes Engineer

• Parts & Radiation Assurance Engineer (PRAE)

• System Safety Engineer

• Materials & Processes Assurance Engineer (MPAE)

• Commodity Risk Assessment Engineer (CRAE)

• Risk Management Engineer

• Contamination Control Engineer

• Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) personnel

• NASA Safety and Mission Assurance, Audits, Assessments, Services (SMA3) personnel

• Other personnel with expertise in relevant disciplines

5.2 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY (DCMA) DELEGATIONS

The use of DCMA personnel will be in accordance with approved Letters of Delegation and this surveillance plan. Letters of Delegation will be prepared per GPR 5100.3 Quality Assurance Letter of Delegation.

5.3 NASA SAFETY AND MISSION ASSURANCE, AUDITS, AND ASSESSMENTS

SERVICES (SMA3) TASKING

The use of SMA3 personnel for surveillance activities will be in accordance with approved task orders and this surveillance plan.

6.0 TYPICAL SURVEILLANCE METHODS

6.1 META DATABASE

Meta database, an internal GSFC system, will be used to provide insight into supplier performance. In most cases, the supplier is generating the data to manage its processes, and use of the data is an efficient means to gain insight. To accept and rely on Meta database, it must be correct and up to date. A well-functioning Meta Database will ensure that data accurately reflects the supplier performance.

6.2 AUDITS

The requirement for process audits by GSFC and/or its representatives at subcontractors or suppliers must be flowed down to the subcontractor/supplier via purchasing or other contractual documents. GSFC will work with the contractor to coordinate audit/survey activities at the subcontractors’/suppliers’ facilities. The contractor has the option of providing a representative to accompany GSFC personnel (or a GSCF representative) on these occasions to assist with the subcontractor/supplier audit when feasible.

Checklists can be used to conduct surveys and audits. Survey checklists are used to gather information regarding whether a product or service was provided. Audit checklists are used to gather objective inputs to prove whether the said product or service was provided.

6.3 SAMPLING

Sampling involves statistically based checks of the supplier data or work performance. The purpose ensures that requirements are being met. Sampling also provides an indication of the capability and stability of a supplier process. Process capability is the ability to produce results that fall within defined project specifications or contractual requirements. A stable process is one in which variations in outcome is caused by inherent limitations and not a lack of parameter control.

6.4 DIRECT OBSERVATION

Direct observation of an activity is a real-time function used to evaluate supplier performance for work that presents a significant risk. The observer does not sign supplier documentation regarding the observation.

6.5 INSPECTION

Inspection is an in-line function in which performance of a specific activity is observed or reviewed by an inspector, with the inspector signing supplier documentation that the work was performed as required. The signature requirement constrains the supplier’s authority to proceed.

Inspection is generally used when there is significant risk involved in the activity.

GMIPs, as required in the IMAR, will be applied to the contractor and its subcontractors and suppliers. The IMAR requirements are flowed down via the prime contractor’s requirements documents when items or services are procured.

7.0 MANAGEMENT REVIEW AND CONTROL PROCESSES

Access to or participation in the following management review processes will guide and direct surveillance activities for a supplier:

• Weekly and monthly project status meetings

• Program meetings relevant to the project and contractor

• Weekly program management telecons

• Contracts and business meetings

• Monthly technical and management reviews

• Preliminary and critical design reviews and other system and integrated independent reviews

• Manufacturing readiness reviews

• Test readiness reviews (TRR)

• Flight readiness reviews (FRR)

• Audits, surveys, and assessments

• Peer reviews

• Technical interchange meetings (TIM)

• Technical working group meetings

• Parts control board (PCB)

• Anomaly review board (ARB)

• Failure review board (FRB)

• Materials review board (MRB)

• Materials and processes control board (MPCB)

• Risk management board

• Payload safety working group (PSWG)

• Reliability working group

8.0 METRICS

The surveillance team will collect, review, and validate contractor performance metrics related to management, design, development, production, integration, and testing. The data will be used to determine the forms, types, and timing of continued surveillance and to generate performance evaluations. The following sections provide examples of performance metrics.

8.1 PROBLEM REPORTS, CONCERNS, AND ISSUES

• Description of problem, concern, or issue

• Programmatic impact (cost, schedule, and performance)

• Root cause

• Action taken

• Date established

• Current status

• Date resolved and closed

8.2 PROGRAM COSTS

• Actual versus planned

• Percent completed under budget

• Cost to complete

• Earned value management metrics

8.3 FORECASTS RELATED TO ACQUISITIONS, DELIVERABLES, MILESTONES,

AND SCHEDULES

• Milestone elements

• Actual versus planned completion dates

• Percent completed – early, on-time, or late

• Acquisitions – planned vs. actual

• Risks assessments

8.4 SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULES

• Developmental element

• Date start/finish and actual versus planned

• Percentage completed early, on-time, or late

• Delays, problems, concerns, or risks

8.5 CONTRACT DELIVERABLES

• Percentage completed early, on-time, or late

• Assessment of acceptability to government

8.6 RESOURCES

• Manpower – actual versus planned

• Skill mix – assessment of disciplines covered versus disciplines required

• Workforce health indicator – assessment of leave used by type and month

8.7 FACILITIES AND TEST EQUIPMENT

• Facilities trend (working order vs. down time that affects schedule)

• Calibration of test equipment, inspection tools, and ground support equipment

8.8 SUBCONTRACTORS, SUPPLIERS, AND VENDORS

• Survey results

• Source inspection results

• Audit and assessment results

• Delivery schedule (late/early)

• Delays, problems, concerns, or risks

8.9 AUDIT RESULTS

• Number of findings by category

• Trending data - time from finding to closure

• Trending data - open versus closed audit reports

• Trending data - corrective action closeouts

• Trending data on open action items - 30, 60, 90, 180, etc. days

8.10 SYSTEM REVIEW RESULTS

• Number of Requests for Action (RFA) or Requests for Information (RFI) by category

• Trending data - time from issuing RFAs or /RFIs to closure

• Trending data - open versus closed RFAs and RFIs

• Trending data – RFA and RFI closeouts

• Trending data on open RFAs and RFIs - 30, 60, 90, 180, etc. days

8.11 FAILURE REPORTS AND ANOMALY REPORTS

• Number of Failure Reports (FR) or Anomaly Reports (AR) by category

• Trending data - open versus closed for Failure Reports and Anomaly Reports

• Trending data – Failure Reports and Anomaly Reports closeouts by category

• Trending data on Failure Reports and Anomaly Reports – time to close

8.12 NON-CONFORMANCE (NCR) PROCESSING

• Number of NCRs by category

• Trending data – time from issuance to closure

• Trending data – open versus closed

• Trending data – closeouts by category (e.g., “use as is,” etc.)

• Trending data on open NCR’s – 30, 60, 90, 180, etc. days

8.13 REQUIRES FOR DEVIATIONS AND WAIVERS

• Trending data

• Quantity submitted vs. quantity approved

8.14 CONFIGURATION CONTROL

• Dates baseline established (planned vs. actual)

• Drawing releases per plan

• Aging of outstanding drawing changes

• Number of unincorporated drawing changes/drawings

8.15 GIDEP ALERT AND NASA ADVISORY/PROBLEM REPORTS

• Number of requests for GIDEP/NASA Alert/Advisories/Problem status

• Trending data - time from issuing request to closure

• Trending data - open versus closed request

• Trending data –closeout requests by category

• Trending data on open requests

Appendix A Abbreviations and Acronyms Acronym/Abbreviation Definition AR Anomaly Reports ARB Anomaly Review Board AST Architecture Study Team CARA Conjunction Assessment Risk Assessment CDR Critical Design Review CRAE Commodity Risk Assessment Engineer CSO Chief Safety Mission Assurance Officer DCMA Defense Contract Management Agency DPAS Data Processing and Archive System EEE Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical EPR Engineering Peer Review EROS Earth Resources Observation and Science ERTS Earth Resources Technology Satellite FOT Flight Operations Team FR Failure Reports FRB Failure Review Board FRR Flight Readiness Review GIDEP Government-Industry Data Exchange Program GMIP Government Mandatory Inspection Points GN Ground Network GPR GSFC Procedural Requirements GS Ground System GSE Ground Support Equipment GSFC Goddard Space Flight Center IMAR Instrument Mission Assurance Requirements in Inches LDCM Landsat Data Continuity Mission LGN Landsat Ground Network LV Launch Vehicle LV-GSE Launch Vehicle-Ground Support Equipment MPAE Materials & Processes Assurance Engineer MPCB Materials and Processes Control Board MRB Material Review Board MRR Mission Readiness Review MSR Monthly Status Review NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NCR Non-Conformance NEN Near Earth Network NPR NASA Procedural Requirement NSLRSDA National Satellite Land Remote Sensing Data Archive ORR Operational Readiness Review PCB Parts Control Board PCB Printed Circuit Board PDR Preliminary Design Review PRAE Parts & Radiation Assurance Engineer PSM Project Systems Manager PSR Pre-Shipment Review PSWG Payload Safety Working Group

Acronym/Abbreviation Definition Rev Revision RFA Request for Action RFI Request for Information SD South Dakota SLI Sustainable Land Imaging SMA Safety and Mission Assurance SN Space Network SRR System Requirements Review TBD To Be Determined TIM Technical Interchange Meeting TRR Test Readiness Review U.S. United States USGS United States Geological Survey WRS Worldwide Reference System WRS-3 Worldwide Reference System-3 This Acronyms List was Generated from the Landsat Next Acronym List (LNEXT-MGMT-DESC-0006) Draft Rev A

Appendix B Definitions Term Definition Audit A review of a developer’s, contractor's, or subcontractor's documentation or hardware to verify that it complies with project requirements.

Collect To acquire, downlink, and subsequently transfer data from the observatory to the ground system.

Instrument Suite The instrument or set of instruments that will reside on one LNext observatory to provide all the required spectral bands for LNext. The constellation will be comprised of 3 observatories, each flying an identical instrument suite.

Verification The process of ensuring mission/segment requirements are satisfied.

Verification occurs using one or more of these methods: analysis, test, demonstration, or inspection.

These Definitions were generated from the Landsat Next Lexicon (LNEXT-SYS-DESC-0004) Draft Rev A