Attachment A Statement of Work.pdf

Effective Date: September 9, 2020

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, Maryland

RST-PROP-SOW-0017, Revision-

Roman Space Telescope (RST), Code 448

Pressure Transducer

Statement of Work (SOW)

GSFC RST CMO

September 9, 2020

Released

Pressure Transducer SOW RST-PROP-SOW-0017, Revision -ii

Pressure Transducer Statement of Work (SOW)

Review/Signature/Approval Page

Prepared by:

Wanyi Ng

Approved by:

Betsy Forsbacka

Electronic Approval available on-line at the RST CM Tool

Pressure Transducer SOW RST-PROP -SOW-0017, Revision-iii

Preface This document is a Roman Space Telescope (RST) Configuration Management (CM)-controlled document.

Note: Prior to May 20, 2020, the project name was Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope

(WFIRST).

For the purposes of configuration management, the prefixes “WFIRST” and “RST” are completely interchangeable. For example, RST-MGMT-PROC-0024 is the same as WFIRST-

MGMT-PROC-0024.

Changes to this document require prior approval of the applicable Configuration Control Board (CCB) Chairperson or designee. Proposed changes shall be submitted to the RST 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:

RST Configuration Management Office Mail Stop 448 Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, Maryland 20771 iv

Change History Log

Revision Effective Date Description of Changes (Reference the CCR & CCB/ERB Approval Date)

Revision - September 4, 2020 Initial Release per CCR-0008 v

Table of TBDs/TBRs/TBSs [optional]

Item No. Location Summary Individual/ Organization

Actionee

Due Date vi

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

2.2.1 Program Plan and Schedule

2.2.2 Weekly Program Status Update

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 Qualification Test Readiness Review (QTRR)

2.4.4 Acceptance Test Readiness Review (ATRR)

2.4.5 Pre-Ship Review (PSR)

2.4.6 Technical Interchange Meetings (TIM)

2.5 Documentation

2.6 Existing Documentation and Analysis

2.7 Qualification By Similarity Report

3 DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

3.1 Interface Control Documentation

3.2 Drawing Package

3.3 Computer-Aided Design (CAD) 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 Radiation Hardness Analysis Report

3.9 Reliability Analysis Report

3.10 Failure Modes and Effects Criticality Analysis (FMECA) Report

3.11 Worst Case Analysis (WCA)

3.12 Stress and Derating Analysis

3.13 Trend Analysis

3.14 Error Analysis Report

3.15 User/Instruction Manual

4 HARDWARE PROCUREMENT/MANUFACTURING

4.1 General Requirements

4.2 Pressure Transducers

4.3 Connector Savers

4.4 Supporting Hardware

vii

5 PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION AND TEST

5.1 Verification Plan

5.2 Verification Test Procedures

5.3 Verification Test Reports

5.4 Verification Methods

5.4.1 Inspection

5.4.2 Analysis

5.4.3 Test

5.5 Inspection Requirements

5.5.1 Visual Inspection

5.5.2 Physical Measurement

5.5.3 Documentation Search

5.6 Analysis Requirements

5.7 Test Requirements

5.7.1 Definitions

5.7.2 Test Factors

5.7.3 Thermal Cycle Prior to Structural Testing

5.7.4 Powered-on Conditions for Test

5.7.5 Proof Testing Factors

5.7.6 Test Tolerances

5.7.7 Test Restrictions

5.7.7.1 Failure During Tests

5.7.7.2 Modification of Hardware

5.7.7.3 External Adjustment

5.7.7.4 Re-Test Requirements

5.8 Required Tests

5.8.1.1 Comprehensive Performance Test

5.8.1.2 Limited Performance Test

5.8.1.3 Abbreviated Functional Test

5.8.2 Mass Properties Measurement

5.8.3 Static Loads/Strength Test

5.8.3.1 Sine Burst

5.8.3.2 Static Pull

5.8.4 Frequency Signature Survey

5.8.5 Modal Survey

5.8.6 Sine Vibration

5.8.7 Random Vibration

5.8.8 Proof Pressure Test

5.8.9 Shock

5.8.10 Thermal Vacuum Bake-out

5.8.11 Thermal Vacuum Test

5.8.11.1 Thermal Vacuum Test Parameters

5.8.12 Thermal Cycle Test Profile

5.8.13 Harness Tests

5.8.13.1 Continuity/Hi-Pot Tests

5.8.13.2 Harness Bake-Out

viii

5.8.14 EMI/EMC Tests

5.8.14.1 Conducted Emissions Tests

5.8.14.2 Conducted Susceptibility Tests

5.8.15 Cycle Qualification

5.8.16 External Leakage Test

5.8.17 Electrical Functional Test

5.8.18 Calibration

5.8.19 Cleanliness Test

6 SAFETY AND MISSION ASSURANCE

6.1 General Requirements

6.2 Configuration Management

6.3 Training and Certification of Contractor Personnel

6.4 Surveillance of the Contractor

6.4.1 Government Source Inspection

6.4.2 Contractor Source Inspection

6.4.3 Government Mandatory Inspection Points (MIPs)

6.5 Anomaly Reporting

6.6 Ground Support Equipment Interfaces

6.7 Design Verification Requirements

6.7.1 Verification Requirements

6.7.2 Analysis, Trending, and Reporting of Test Data

6.7.3 Total and Failure-Free Operation hours

6.8 EEE Parts Requirements

6.8.1 General

6.8.2 Printed Circuit Boards (PCBs)

6.8.3 Printed Circuit Board (PCB) Test Coupons

6.8.4 Use of Water Soluble Flux

6.8.5 Lead-Free Control Measures

6.8.6 Radiation

6.8.7 Parts Age Control

6.8.8 Reuse of Parts and Materials

6.8.9 Part Notification of Failure

6.9 Materials, Processes Requirements

6.9.1 Materials and Processes Control

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

Agreement Furnished Hardware

6.9.3 M&P Usage Documentation

6.9.4 Materials Usage Agreements (MUAs)

6.9.5 Detailed Requirements

6.9.5.1 Flammability, Offgassing, and Compatibility Requirements

6.9.5.1.1 Toxic Offgassing (NASA-STD-6016A Section 4.2.1.2)

6.9.5.1.2 Fluid Compatibility (NASA-STD-6016A Section 4.2.1.3)

6.9.5.1.3 Oxygen Compatibility (NASA-STD-6016A Section 4.2.1.4)

6.9.5.1.4 Electrical Wire Insulation Materials (NASA-STD-6016A Section 4.2.1.5) 40

6.9.5.1.5 Thermal Vacuum Stability (NASA-STD-6016A Section 4.2.3.6)

6.9.5.1.6 Glycols (NASA-STD-6016A Section 4.2.3.9)

ix

6.9.5.2 Processes

6.9.5.2.1 Adhesive Bonding (NASA-STD-6016A Section 4.2.4.5)

6.9.5.2.2 Additive Manufacturing (NASA-STD-6016A Section 4.2.4.11)

6.9.5.3 Material Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE)

6.9.5.3.1 Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) Plan (NASA-STD-6016A Section 4.2.5.1) 40

6.9.5.4 Special Materials Requirements

6.9.5.4.1 Fastener Installation (NASA-STD-6016A Section 4.2.6.6)

6.9.5.4.1.1 Liquid Locking Compounds (NASA-STD-6016A Section 4.2.6.6.1) . 41

6.9.5.4.2 Silver-Plated Fasteners (NASA-STD-6016A Section 4.2.6.6.2)

6.9.5.4.3 Contamination Control (NASA-STD-6016A Section 4.2.6.7)

6.9.5.4.4 Packaging (NASA-STD-6016A Section 4.2.6.8)

6.9.5.4.5 Shelf-Life Items

6.9.5.5 Verification

6.9.5.5.1 Printed Wiring Boards (PWBs)

6.9.5.5.2 Solder Flux

6.9.5.5.3 Fasteners with Longitudinal Locking Elements

6.9.6 Materials Procurement Requirements

6.9.7 Welding

6.10 Contamination Control Requirements

6.10.1 Contamination Control Plan

6.10.2 Surface Cleanliness

6.10.3 Thermal Vacuum Bakeouts

6.10.4 Foreign Object Debris Program

6.11 System Safety Requirements

6.11.1 System Safety Program Plan (SSPP)

6.11.2 Operations Hazard Analysis (OHA)

6.12 Reliability Requirements

6.12.1 Limited Life Items

7 HANDLING, STORAGE, PACKAGING, PRESERVATION, AND DELIVERY

APPENDIX A GSFC PCB SUBMITTAL AND MATERIAL SELECTION FORMS

APPENDIX B ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

APPENDIX C DELIVERABLE ITEMS LIST AND SCHEDULE

List of Figures Figure 5-1 Thermal Vacuum Profile

List of Tables Table 5-1 Test Factors and Durations Table 5-2 Proof Test Factors Table 5-3 Test Tolerances Table 5-4 Thermal Vacuum Test Parameters

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

The Roman Space Telescope (RST) is a mission responding to the 2010 National Research Council New Worlds, New Horizons (NWNH) Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey top priority recommendation in the large space mission category. The science program includes two dedicated investigations to tackle outstanding questions in dark energy research and exoplanet exploration, and includes a substantial General Observer program to enable targeted investigations of astrophysical phenomena to advance other goals from the Decadal Survey. A coronagraph instrument is included in the payload for purposes of advancing the present state of the art of coronagraph technology. This document defines the work to be performed by the Contractor in the design, development, fabrication, and delivery of the Roman Space Telescope (RST) pressure transducers.

1.2 Scope

This Statement of Work (SOW) defines requirements that govern the management, development, testing, and delivery of the RST pressure transducers. It defines the contractor tasks, deliverables, responsibilities, and schedule, either within this document or by reference. More details for the Deliverable Items List and Schedule (DILS) are contained in Appendix C of this document.

1.3 Related Documentation

In the event of a conflict between the SOW and the specification, the SOW shall take precedence.

The latest versions of all documents below shall be used unless otherwise specified in this SOW.

RST documents can be obtained from the RST CM Tool.

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

Document Number Title RST-PROP-SPEC-0053 RST Pressure Transducer Specification RST-SMA-REQ-0032 RST Mission Assurance Requirements

541-PG-8072.1.2C Goddard Space Flight Center Fastener Integrity Requirements

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

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

GSFC-STD-1000G Rules for the Design, Development, Verification, and Operation of Flight Systems

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

NASA-STD-6008 NASA Fastener Procurement, Receiving Inspection, and Storage Practices for Spaceflight Hardware

NAS 412 Foreign Object Damage (FOD) Prevention Guidance Document Standard Practice

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.

Document Number Title

RST-SMA-LIST-0027 RST MAR Applicability Matrix

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

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

NASA-STD-5005 NASA Technical Standards System

2 MANAGEMENT, REPORTING, REVIEWS, AND DOCUMENTATION

2.1 Program management

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.

The contractor shall generate a matrix listing each section in this statement of work reflecting either compliance or non-compliance. (DILS #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.

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 constraints.

The contractor shall designate and identify by name a single individual to serve as a point of contact with the NASA/GSFC Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) for all technical aspects of the pressure transducer 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, and documentation control.

2.2 Reporting

This section details the requirements for reporting to the NASA/GSFC COR.

2.2.1 Program Plan and Schedule

The contractor shall develop a detailed program plan and schedule to describe how the work will be conducted. The contractor shall develop the plans for these activities and the COR shall review and approve these plans. (DILS #2)

The contractor shall develop a Program Plan that includes the elements given below at a minimum.

• How the program is to be managed

• The key management, technical and quality people on the program

• Any and all subcontractors and their role in the program

• How the contractor plans to manage their subcontractors

• The programmatic and technical risks

The contractor shall use the Program Plan described above to develop a detailed schedule for the program.

The contractor shall deliver the program plan to the COR for review. The contractor shall incorporate comments made at the Kick-off Meeting from the customer into the Program Plan document and submit a final document to the COR for review and approval.

2.2.2 Weekly Program Status Update

The contractor shall prepare and present to the NASA/GSFC COR weekly technical status updates via teleconference or equivalent. The status update shall be a summary presentation of the weekly progress to include topics such as schedule overview, accomplishments, technical performance measures, status of key milestones, risks, problem areas, challenges/issues, quality assurance issues/status, and on-going and planned activities. Meeting minutes and action items shall be submitted to the NASA COR (DILS #3).

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, Technical Interchange Meetings (TIM’s), and deliveries at either the contractor’s or a subcontractor’s facility to allow timely participation by the NASA/GSFC Quality Assurance representative. (DILS #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. (DILS #8)

The Contractor shall provide to the NASA/GSFC COR a Kick-off Presentation Package and all other required deliverables. (DILS #9) 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 Pressure Transducer Specification (RST-PROP- SPEC-0053) in sufficient detail to demonstrate understanding of contract requirements. At a minimum, the presentation package should cover the following areas:

• Program Management, program plan, and schedule

• Quality Assurance

• Pressure Transducer Design Description

• Preliminary Interface Control Documents

• Flight Heritage

• Facilities

• Qualification Verification Plan and Procedure

• Qualification Report and Qualification by Similarity (QBS) Report, if applicable

• Mechanical Analysis with Boundary Conditions

• Any long-lead items that need to be ordered prior to the Design Conformance Review

(DCR)

• Manufacturing Flow

Review minutes shall be prepared and delivered to the COR for review. The minutes shall include at a minimum, attendance, action items, action item accomplishment responsibility and agreements. (DILS #10)

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. (DILS #17)

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. (DILS #18) The Design Conformance Review shall address all program management, design, drawings, analysis, manufacturing, test, and quality assurance activities outlined in this SOW and the RST Pressure Transducer Specification (RST-PROP-SPEC-0053) 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

• Program plan, risks, and schedule

• Fabrication, Assembly, and Inspection Flow plan with Government Mandatory

Inspection Points (MIPs) identified

• Facilities

• Final Qualification Report and Qualification by Similarity (QBS) Report, if applicable

(Section 2.7)

• Verification Test Plan (Including Performance Test Description) (Section 5.1)

• Qualification Test Plan, if applicable

• Acceptance Test Plan

• Contamination Control Plan (for items sensitive to contamination or with explicit surface cleanliness or outgassing requirements) (Section 6.10.1)

• Interface Control Documentation and drawing status (Section 3.1)

• As-designed Materials & Processes List (Section 6.9.3)

• Limited Life Items List (Section 6.12.1)

• Materials Usage Agreements (Section 6.9.4)

• Drawing Package (3.2)

• Thermal modeling results (Section 3.7)

• Summary of Pressure Transducer Operational Constraints (preliminary) (Section 3.15)

• Mechanical/Structural analyses (Section 3.4)

• Electrical Worst-Case analyses (Section 3.11)

• Parts Stress analysis (Section 3.12)

• Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis (Section 3.10)

• Radiation Hardness analysis (Section 3.8)

• Reliability analysis (Section 3.9)

• Error analysis (Section 3.14)

• Flight Heritage

• ESD and Internal Charging Susceptibility Analysis

• EEE Part EEE-INST-002 Conformance Test Data Package

• Specification Verification matrices (Section 6.7.1)

• Final Qualification Report (if applicable)

Review minutes shall be prepared and delivered to the COR for review. The minutes shall include agreements. (DILS #19)

2.4.3 Qualification Test Readiness Review (QTRR)

The contractor shall hold a Qualification Test Readiness Review (QTRR) at the contractor's facility prior to starting qualification testing, if applicable (DILS #56). The contractor shall demonstrate that all qualification hardware manufacturing steps are complete, show that all analysis verifications are complete, show readiness of all activities required for testing, and describe in detail any activities that are not yet ready with a completion schedule for each. All measurement and test equipment used shall comply with Section 13, Metrology and Calibration, of the MAR (RST-SMA-REQ-0032). In particular, the contractor shall present the updated specification verification matrix and all test procedures. The NASA/GSFC COR and customer technical team will attend the QTRR.

The QTRR package shall be delivered to the COR for review (DILS #57). All Qualification Test Procedures shall be submitted to the COR for review (DILS #58).

At a minimum, the QTRR package shall address:

• Summary of qualification hardware manufacturing results

• Any non-conformances and problem reports

• Risk Reduction Report

• Manufacturing lessons learned (for incorporation into flight build)

• As-built materials and processes, including as-built material certifications

• Specification verification matrix

• All procedures required for the qualification tests

• The list of tests to be conducted as part of the overall procedure

• Availability of facilities and personnel

• Special test equipment, e.g., for hot and cold tests

• Accuracy of instruments used to record test data

• How the tests are monitored and signed off

• Accept / reject criteria for each test

• How the data results are recorded and transmitted to the COR

• Any risks associated with each test including safety risks, risks in not obtaining accurate data, or any other risk which it is appropriate to discuss

Review minutes shall be prepared and delivered to the COR for review. The minutes shall include agreements. (DILS #59).

2.4.4 Acceptance Test Readiness Review (ATRR)

The contractor shall hold an Acceptance Test Readiness Review (ATRR) at the contractor's facility prior to the beginning of the acceptance test campaign. (DILS #60) This presentation shall demonstrate overall conformance of the requirements specified in the RST Pressure

Transducer Specification (RST-PROP-SPEC-0053) and this Statement of Work for this phase of the procurement. The contractor shall demonstrate that all hardware manufacturing steps are complete, show that all analysis verifications are complete, show readiness of all activities required for testing, and describe in detail any activities that are not yet ready with a completion schedule for each. In particular, the contractor shall present the updated Specification Verification Matrix and all test procedures. The COR and customer technical team will attend the ATRR.

The ATRR package shall be delivered to the COR as part of the ATRR (DILS #61). All Acceptance Test Procedures shall be submitted to the COR for review (DILS #62)

The specific pre-acceptance testing data shall be delivered to the customer for review or, at a minimum, made available to review at the contractor’s facility.

The ATRR package shall address:

• Summary of hardware manufacturing results

• Any non-conformances and problem reports

• Manufacturing lessons learned

• As-built materials and processes, including as-built material certifications (Section 6.9.3)

• Specification verification matrices (Section 6.7.1)

• All procedures required for the tests

• Availability of facilities and personnel

• The list of tests to be conducted as part of the overall procedure

• Special test equipment, e.g., for hot and cold tests

• Accuracy of instruments used to record test data

• How the tests are monitored and signed off

• Accept / reject criteria for each test

• How the data is recorded and transmitted to the COR

• Current hardware status, including build paperwork

• Any risks associated with each test, including safety risks, risks in not obtaining accurate data, or any other risk which it is appropriate to discuss

Review minutes shall be and delivered to the COR for review. The minutes shall include at a minimum, attendance, action items, action item accomplishment responsibility and agreements.

(DILS #63).

2.4.5 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. (DILS #70) 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. (DILS #71) 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) for each of the different hardware deliverables shall be delivered to the customer for review and approval electronically. (DILS #73, MAR DID 15-1) The electronic copies shall be text searchable. Hard copies of the EDIP shall be made available at the contractor’s facility for the PSR at request of the customer. The package shall be comprised of, but not limited to, the following data:

• The deliverable pressure transducer, 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 Material Review Boards (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

• Accuracy analysis (final)

• Pressure transducer operational constraints document (final)

• List and status of all identified Life-Limited Items

• Trended Critical Parameters Data (when applicable)

• Specification verification matrix (including environmental), test data and reports

• Acceptance test results

• 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

Review minutes shall be prepared and delivered to the customer. The minutes shall include at a minimum, attendance, action items, action item accomplishment responsibility and agreements.

(DILS #72).

2.4.6 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. (DILS #5) 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, Appendix C of this document.

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 Existing Documentation and Analysis

If analysis or documentation exists already for the flight unit that satisfies the requirements within the Pressure Transducer Specification (RST-PROP-SPEC-0053) and the descriptions in Section 3, 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 Qualification By Similarity Report

Any requirements that are verified through Qualification By Similarity (QBS) shall be approved by the NASA/GSFC COR, and the qualification reports for any similarity items shall be made available to the NASA/GSFC COR. Any design differences to referenced QBS items shall be documented in this report. Any QBS items that are not accepted by the NASA/GSFC COR shall be re-verified through qualification testing. The QBS report shall contain detailed rationale for acceptance of each verification proposed for QBS, including test methods, data as supporting evidence of compliance, and any risks identified in the QBS approach. Any differences to referenced QBS items shall be documented in this report. The QBS report shall be provided to the COR for review and approval. (DILS #25)

3 DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

The contractor shall perform analyses of the technical and environmental requirements specified in the RST Pressure Transducer Specification (RST-PROP-SPEC-0053) to ensure compliance of the hardware fabrication and to assemble the documentation necessary to ensure its usability by NASA/GSFC users. Previous analyses may be submitted for the items below per Section 2.6.

3.1 Interface Control Documentation

The Contractor shall provide the following documents (DILS #11):

• 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: (DILS #26)

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

3.3 Computer-Aided Design (CAD) Models

The contractor shall deliver the following computer models (DILS #27)

a) A native Computer-Aided Design (CAD) file for the pressure transducers

b) A Mechanical Model in STEP file format

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. (DILS #28) The analysis shall also address loads on any lift points as well. 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 the maximum pressure differential during launch. Electronics boxes which meet the design requirements of Electronic Box Minimum Vent Area need not perform additional venting analysis. 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 a finite element model that supports the conclusions in their structural analysis report. (DILS #29)

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 (DILS #30) de-rated operational temperature limits when subjected to the boundary conditions specified in the Pressure Transducer Specification (RST-PROP-SPEC-0053). 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 3.7 (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 pressure transducers with less than 50 nodes per box, in Thermal Desktop/SINDA format or another format pre-approved by the RST Thermal group (DILS #31).

The Thermal model documentation shall include:

• Labeled figures (drawings, cross-sections, etc) in sufficient detail to show all critical components and their relative locations within the pressure transducers

• List of all critical components, their material composition and relevant properties (density, specific heat, conductivity, etc).

• Listing of other relevant modeling assumptions (boundary conditions, interface conductances, thermo-optical properties, etc)

• Listing of component thermal dissipations for all operational and survival modes over which the hardware is intended to operate

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 Radiation Hardness Analysis Report

The contractor shall perform a Radiation Hardness Analysis on the pressure transducer design to determine the effects of Total Ionizing Dose (TID), Displacement Damage Dose (DDD) and Single Event Effects (SEE) on performance. (DILS #32) The analysis shall address all the requirements contained in the Pressure Transducer Specification, RST-PROP-SPEC-0053. 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.

3.9 Reliability Analysis Report

The developer shall perform comparative numerical reliability assessment and reliability predictions (DILS #33 / MAR DID 6-6) to:

a. Evaluate alternative design concepts, redundancy, cross-strapping approaches, and part substitutions

b. Identify the elements of the design that are the greatest detractors of system reliability

c. Identify those potential mission limiting elements and components that will require special attention in part selection, testing, environmental isolation, and/or special operations

d. Assist in evaluating the ability of the design to achieve the mission life requirement and other reliability goals and requirements as applicable

e. Evaluate the impact of proposed engineering change and waiver requests on reliability

f. Assure that the specified reliability (probability of success) is achieved in accordance with the Mission Requirements Document (RST-SYS-REQ-0011, MRD-389).

The numerical reliability assessment and reliability predictions shall use reliability data from historical on-orbit performance, life-testing, or data books, such as MIL-HDBK-217F. 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.

3.10 Failure Modes and Effects Criticality Analysis (FMECA) Report The contractor shall identify pressure transducer failure modes for a Failure Modes and Effects Criticality Analysis (FMECA) in accordance with MIL-STD-1629, Task 101. (DILS #34 / MAR DID 6-2) In addition to Task 101, the contractor shall rate the failure mode probability from 1 to 5, with 1 being the most probable and 5 being the least probable (see MIL-STD-1629 for details).

The FMECA shall only identify failure modes and identify how these failures can be detected, but not address system-level consequences. The failure modes shall be summarized in a contractor -format FMECA Report that will be provided to the COR for review.

3.11 Worst Case Analysis (WCA)

The developer shall perform Worst-Case Analyses (WCAs) (DILS #35, MAR DID 6-5) on performance critical or functional critical components for which excessive operating variations could compromise mission performance to assure the design meets critical performance and life requirements.

Elements that may warrant worst case analysis may include: resets, clocks, interfaces, power phase and gain margins, control loops that require adequate phase and gain margin to operate properly, sensitive analog circuitry, power supply or switching circuitry, motor and actuator systems, electro-mechanical elements that require torque margin to operate over life and environmental variations.

Adequate margins in electronic circuits and electro-mechanical devices can be verified by analysis, testing or both.

When verification by analysis is used, the analyses shall consider all parameters at worst-case limits and worst-case environmental conditions for the parameter or operation being evaluated.

Similarly, when verification by testing is used, the testing shall be conducted to provide as direct a measure as possible of the critical performance or function while the element is subjected to worst-case parameter variations.

This analysis shall be made available at the NASA facility for the RST Project review.

The results of any analyses shall be presented at all design reviews starting with CDR.

3.12 Stress and Derating Analysis

The developer shall perform parts stress and derating analyses for electrical, electronic, and electromechanical (EEE) parts in accordance with GSFC EEE-INST-002 Instructions for EEE Parts Selection, Screening, Qualification, and Derating (DILS #36 / MAR DID 6-4).

The analyses shall be performed at the most stressful values that result from specified performance and environmental requirements (e.g., temperature and voltage) on the assembly or component. IF, alternate derating guidelines are requested to be used, they must be submitted to the RST Parts Control Board for approval.

3.13 Trend Analysis

The developer shall prepare and maintain a list of subsystem and components to be assessed, parameters to be monitored, and trend analysis reports as defined in the Reliability Program Plan.

The developer shall begin the monitoring, collection, and analysis at component acceptance testing and continue through the system integration and test phases.

Trend data shall be recorded and maintained (DILS #37, MAR DID 15-1). The developer shall prepare a report that includes the trending data.

3.14 Error Analysis Report

An Error Analysis shall be performed on the Flight Unit Pressure Transducer Design that identifies all the factors that introduce error into the accuracy of the pressure transducers, 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. (DILS #38)

3.15 User/Instruction Manual

The contractor shall provide an operational constraints document for the transducer design, which describes constraints on handling and operation to prevent unintentional damage to the flight hardware. (DILS #39) At a minimum, the operational constraints document shall cover the following items:

• Maximum voltage application duration to avoid damaging electronics (results of worst-case thermal analysis)

• Maximum and minimum storage temperature and humidity

• Maximum exposure temperature and pressure limits without affecting transducer performance

• Compatible fluids

4 HARDWARE PROCUREMENT/MANUFACTURING

4.1 General Requirements

The contractor shall either procure or manufacture all components required to assemble, integrate, and test the pressure transducers to support the delivery dates as called for in the contract (Section B Table) and listed in the DILS, Appendix C of this document.

The contractor shall assemble the quantities of pressure transducer hardware described below.

The contractor shall provide a Fabrication, Assembly, and Inspection Flow plan at the DCR that includes a step-by-step procedure that describes the method of fabrication, assembly, and inspection from piece parts to the completely assembled pressure transducers.

The developer shall direct the suspension of any work activity that presents a hazard, or imminent danger, or future hazard to personnel, property, or mission operations resulting from unsafe acts or conditions that are identified by inspection, test, or analysis.

4.2 Pressure Transducers

The contractor shall provide the following hardware to meet the requirements of the RST Pressure Transducer Specification (RST-PROP-SPEC-0053).

a) Two (2) Pressure Transducer Flight Unit(s) with operating range 0-400 psia, plus one (1) spare unit (DILS #76)

b) Option for two (2) additional spare units. ( DILS #76)

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. Flight-like connector savers shall be delivered with each Flight Unit. (DILS #77)

4.4 Supporting Hardware

The Contractor shall provide the following supporting hardware:

• Four (4) mating connectors (DILS #78)

• Two (2) additional mating connectors (DILS #78)

• Four (4) Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) protective caps (DILS #78)

5 PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION AND TEST

The contractor shall conduct a verification program that demonstrates the component design is qualified. The contractor will provide a verification matrix defining the method of verification for each specific requirement of this document.

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 RST Pressure Transducer Specification RST-PROP-SPEC-0053 will be performed. (DILS #40) 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 pressure transducers.

This plan shall be a contractor controlled document and 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. (DILS #41)

5.2 Verification Test Procedures

The contractor shall generate Verification Test Procedures and provide them to the NASA/GSFC COR. (DILS #65) 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. All measurement and test equipment used shall comply with Section 13, Metrology and Calibration, of the MAR (RST-SMA-REQ-0032).

Verification Test Procedures shall be contractor controlled documents and indicate all changes made after the initial release for review to NASA. The Thermal Vacuum Test Procedure shall include the contents listed in Section 6.10.3 for the Chamber Configuration.

5.3 Verification Test Reports

The contractor shall generate Verification Test Reports. (DILS #74) 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 6.10.3) if it can be delivered by the delivery date for Bakeout Test Results.

5.4 Verification Methods

Verification methods include inspection, analysis, as well as environmental, functional, and performance testing, or a combination of these techniques.

5.4.1 Inspection

Verification by inspection includes (but is not limited to) visual inspection, simple physical manipulation, gauging, measurement, and documentation examination.

5.4.2 Analysis

Verification by analysis will be used to show design margins. Also, when the particular tests required for verification are impractical, risky, unacceptably long, or prohibitively expensive, analysis may be used instead of testing, as noted in the verification matrices.

Analysis, including simulations where applicable, will also be used to guarantee that the pressure transducers and their components will perform as expected under worst-case conditions.

5.4.3 Test

Verification by test includes, but is not limited to, the evaluation of performance by use of special equipment or instrumentation, simulation techniques, and the application of established principles and procedures to determine compliance with requirements.

5.5 Inspection Requirements

Verification by inspection shall be by one of these three methods: 1) visual inspection of the physical component; 2) a physical measurement of a property of the component, or; 3) a documentation search demonstrating components of an identical design has demonstrated fulfillment of a requirement.

5.5.1 Visual Inspection

Visual inspection of the physical component shall be performed by a qualified inspector to certify that the component has the properties/configuration specified in the requirement.

5.5.2 Physical Measurement

Physical measurement of component property (i.e. mass, dimensions, etc.) shall be performed by a qualified inspector to demonstrate the component meets specific requirement.

5.5.3 Documentation Search

Verification of requirements based on similarity shall include supporting rationale and documentation and be approved by the NASA/GSFC COR.

5.6 Analysis Requirements

Verification of performance or function through detailed analysis, using all applicable tools and techniques, is acceptable with NASA/GSFC COR approval. Detailed descriptions of the minimum required analyses, as well as analysis requirements, are provided in the SOW.

5.7 Test Requirements

This section provides general test requirements on how testing is to be performed in the process of verifying that the deliverable item meets its requirements.

a. Performance parameter measurements shall be taken to establish a baseline that can be used to assure that there are no data trends established in successive tests that indicate a degradation of performance trend within specification limits that could result in unacceptable performance in flight.

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

NASA/GSFC COR as part of the verification planning process described in the SOW, for evaluation and a possible delta qualification test.

5.7.1 Definitions

The hardware definitions are reproduced here from Section 1.8 of GEVS (GSFC-STD-7000A).

Prototype Hardware: “Hardware of a new design; it is subject to a design qualification test program; it is not intended for flight.” The purpose of the tests on this hardware is to prove that a new design meets one or more of its design requirements. Qualification testing is performed at maximum expected flight levels plus a margin. Test durations are typically longer than for acceptance tests.

Protoflight Hardware: “Flight hardware of a new design; it is subject to a qualification test program that combines elements of prototype and flight acceptance verification; that is, the application of design qualification test levels and flight acceptance test durations.” The purpose of the test on this hardware is to prove that a new design meets one or more of its design requirements. Protoflight testing is performed at maximum expected flight levels plus a margin.

Test durations are typically the same as for acceptance tests.

Follow-On (Acceptance) Hardware: “Flight hardware built in accordance with a design that has been qualified either as prototype or as protoflight hardware; follow-on hardware is subject to a flight acceptance test program.” The purpose of the test on this hardware is to prove that a particular flight unit has been manufactured properly. The design has already been proven during a qualification or protoflight test program. Acceptance testing is performed at maximum expected flight levels.

5.7.2 Test Factors

The following test factors and durations, shown in

Table 5-1, shall be used for prototype, protoflight, and follow-on flight hardware.

Table 5-1 Test Factors and Durations

Test Prototype Protoflight Acceptance Structural Loads

Level Duration

Centrifuge Sine Burst(1)

1.25 X Limit Load

1 Minute

5 Cycles Full Level

1.25 X Limit Load

30 Seconds

Limit Load(2)

30 Seconds

Acoustic Level Duration

Limit Level +3dB

2 Minutes

Limit Level

Random Vibration

Duration

2 Minutes/Axis

1 Minute/Axis

1 Minute/Axis Sine Vibration

Sweep Rate(3)

1.25 X Limit Level

Octaves/Minute/Axis

1.25 X Limit Level

Octaves/Minute/Axis

Octaves/Minute/Axis

Shock Actual Device Simulated

2 Actuations

1.4 X Limit Level

2 Actuations/Axis

2 Actuations

1.4 X Limit Level

1 Actuations/Axis

1 Actuation

1 Actuation/Axis

(1) Test levels for Beryllium structure are 1.4x limit level for both qualification and acceptance testing. Composite structure, including metal matrix, requires acceptance testing to 1.25 x limit level.

(2) As a minimum, the test level shall be equal to or greater than the workmanship level.

(3) The sweep direction should be evaluated and chosen to minimize the risk of damage to the hardware. If a sine sweep is used to satisfy the loads or other requirements, rather than to simulate an oscillatory mission environment, a faster sweep rate may be considered, e.g., 6-8 oct/min to reduce the potential for over stress.

(4) Shorter durations may be used in static testing if…