Enclosure 1 - DRAFT LISA Main Oscillator SOW.pdf

LISA MO SOW LISA-SOW-XXXX, Revision - Draft Effective Date: February 14, 2024

Check FPD BCI Document Management Guidance to verify that this is the correct version prior to use

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

LISA

Main Oscillator (MO) Statement of Work (SOW)

Review/Signature/Approval Page

Prepared by:

Anthony W. Yu LISA MO Product Design Lead (PDL)

Approved by:

Terence Doiron NASA LISA Study Manager

Electronic Approval available on-line at:

i

Preface This document is a Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) 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 LISA CM Office (CMO), along with supportive material justifying the proposed change.

Questions or comments concerning this document should be addressed to:

LISA Configuration Management Office Mail Stop 440 Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, Maryland 20771 ii

Change History Log

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

Draft April 26, 2024 Initial draft Draft August 13, 2024 Updated draft iii

Table of TBDs/TBRs/TBSs

Item No. Location Summary Individual/ Organization

Actionee

Due Date iv

1 Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

1.2 Scope

1.3 Related Documentation

1.3.1 Applicable Documents

1.3.2 Reference Documents

2 REQUIREMENTS

2.1 Management

2.1.1 Project Management

2.1.2 Government Insight

2.1.3 Reviews and Meetings

2.1.3.1 Major Reviews

2.1.3.1.1 MO Reviews

2.1.3.1.2 Mission Level Reviews ................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.1.3.2 Engineering Peer Reviews

2.1.3.3 Other Reviews and Meetings

2.1.3.3.1 Scheduled Weekly Teleconferences

2.1.3.3.2 Monthly Project Status Reports and Reviews

2.1.3.3.3 Technical Exchange Meetings and Working Groups

2.1.3.3.4 Status and Planning Meetings

2.1.4 Access to Controlled Facilities

2.1.5 Risk Management

2.1.6 Resource Management

2.1.7 Configuration Management

2.1.8 Pedigree and Inheritance

2.1.9 Lessons Learned Reporting

2.2.1 Requirement Analyses, Derivations, and Allocations

2.2.2 Interface Definition, Verification and Control

2.2.3 Design and Performance Verification

2.2.4 Trending

2.2.5 Models

2.2.5.1 Mechanical Models

2.2.5.2 Finite Element Models

2.2.5.3 Thermal Models

2.2.5.4 Models – General ................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.2.6 Units

2.3 Mission Assurance

3 MO DEVELOPMENT

3.1 Design Engineering

3.2 Trade Assessments

3.3 MO Design Updates

3.3.1 MO Electronics and Electrical Systems Design

3.3.2 MO Structure Design

v

3.3.3 MO Mechanisms Design............................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.3.4 MO Thermal System Design

3.3.5 This item intentionally left blank

3.3.6 MO Integration and Test Planning

3.4.1 Fabrication, Modification, Assembly, and Test

3.4.2 Integration and Test

3.4.2.1 Integration

3.4.2.2 Environmental and Performance Testing

3.4.2.3 Integration of the MO and LMP

3.5 MO Operations Support

3.5.1 Operational Procedures and Documentation

3.5.2 Command and Telemetry Database Support

3.5.3 Training Support

3.6 Packaging, Handling, Storage, and Transportation

3.7 Delivery, Checkout, and Acceptance

3.8 Ground Support Equipment

3.8.1 Mechanical Ground Support Equipment

3.8.2 Electrical Ground Support Equipment

3.9 Shipping, Storage, and Purge Equipment

3.10 Spares

3.11 Engineering Development Units ....................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

4 POST-DELIVERY SUPPORT

5 CONTRACT DELIVERABLES REQUIREMENTS LIST AND GOVERNMENT

FURNISHED EQUIPMENT

APPENDIX A ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

List of Figures

Figure 1. Lasers in the LISA constellation. There will be 12 LHs and 3 FRSs in the constellation.

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The measurement of gravitational waves will yield a revolutionary new perspective on our universe, which has been intensely studied using electromagnetic waves in many wavelength bands. Recently, gravitational waves generated by the merger of a pair of roughly 30 solar mass black holes were detected by the ground-based LIGO network, nearly 100 years after Albert Einstein unveiled the General Theory of Relativity. Ground-based observatories have since released a catalog of almost 100 events from the first three observing runs, and more are expected. Gravitational waves are created during events such as supermassive black hole mergers, collisions between two black holes that are millions, or even billions, of times bigger than our Sun. These collisions are so powerful that they create distortions in spacetime, known as gravitational waves. Gravitational waves could also come from other distant systems including smaller, stellar mass black holes orbiting supermassive black holes, known as Extreme Mass Ratio Inspirals (EMRIs). A space based gravitational wave observatory will enable access to a rich array of astrophysical sources in the measurement band from 0.1 mHz to 1.0 Hz, and nicely complement observations from ground-based detectors which target higher frequencies. The mission to accomplish this is the European Space Agency’s Laser Interferometry Space Antenna (LISA). [Danzmann and LISA Consortium, “The Gravitational Universe”, https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.5720 (2013), https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/lisa]

There are many astrophysical phenomena that are either very dim or completely invisible in any form of light that astronomy has relied on for 400 years. Gravitational waves are a powerful new probe of the Universe that uses gravity instead of light to take measure of dynamical astrophysical phenomena. Studying gravitational waves gives enormous potential for discovering the parts of the universe that are invisible by other means, such as black holes, the Big Bang, and other, yet unknown, objects. LISA will complement our knowledge about the beginning, evolution, and structure of our universe.

LISA consists of three spacecraft (S/C) that are separated by 2.5 million kilometers in an Earth-trailing orbit. These three spacecraft relay laser beams back and forth between the different spacecraft and the signals are combined to search for gravitational wave signatures that come from distortions of spacetime.

A bit like the objects moving on the surface of a pond produce ripples and waves, merging massive compact binaries in space distort the fabric of spacetime and produce gravitational waves. Some of these gravitational wave events will cause the three LISA S/C to shift slightly with respect to each other, as they "ride the gravitational waves", to produce a characteristic pattern in the combined laser beam signal that depends on the location and physical properties of the source. These signals are extremely small and require a very sensitive instrument to detect.

LISA measures gravitational radiation by precisely monitoring the tiny change in the proper distance between pairs of freely falling proof masses. These masses are separated by millions of kilometers and, using a laser heterodyne interferometric technique, the change in their proper separation is detected to ~ 10 pm over timescales of 1000 seconds, a fractional precision of better than one part in 1020. Lasers are essential for the implementation of this precision displacement measurement.

The gravitational wave spectrum covers a broad span of frequencies. LISA operates in the low frequency range, between 0.1 mHz and 1.0 Hz (compared to LIGO's frequency of 10 Hz to 1000 Hz). The difference means that the waves LISA is looking for have a much longer wavelength, corresponding to objects in much wider orbits and potentially much heavier than those that LIGO is searching for, opening the detection realm to a wider range of gravitational wave sources.

One of NASA’s contributions to the LISA partnership with ESA is to supply the laser head (LH) that transmits the 1.064-micron coherent laser light. To measure picometer-level length change over 2.5-million km with the low received power, the LH must be extremely quiet in terms of noise (intensity, frequency, and phase noise). Also, the LH must be able to operate over a long period to cover the full LISA mission lifetime: over 12 years from ground operations to launching and to potential extended missions.

The LH is based on a main oscillator power amplifier (MOPA) architecture that has a nominal output power of ~2 Watts continuous wave operation meeting intensity, frequency, and radio frequency (rf) differential phase noise and lifetime requirements as summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Laser requirements for LISA.

Power (W) λ (nm) Intensity Noise

(/√Hz) Frequency

Noise (Hz/√Hz)

Differential Phase Noise

(rad/√Hz) Lifetime (Years in space)

2.0 1064.5 10-4 (at 10-3 Hz) 10-8 (at 107 Hz)

300 (at 10-2 Hz) 5 (at 100 kHz)

6x10-4 (at 10-2 Hz)

Cruise - 1.75 yrs.

Nominal Science Op – 4.5 yrs.

Each S/C contains two reference test masses, to which the S/C is controlled by the drag-free control system. Each S/C also contains one (1) laser system (LS), which is composed of two (2) laser assemblies (LAs) and one (1) frequency reference system (FRS), which is a highly stable optical cavity that serves as a laser frequency (thereby length) reference (Figure 1). Each LA contains two (2) LHs, one is in use while the other is a cold spare for redundancy. Each arm is illuminated by one of the 2 LHs within the LA. As a result, there will be twelve (12) LHs in the whole constellation, while six (6) of them will be active at any given time and the other six (6) are for redundancy. There are three (3) FRSs in the constellation. Only one of them is used as a frequency reference and is frequency-locked to one of the six (6) active LHs at a given time. The other five LHs are offset phase-locked to the reference laser as transponder lasers, acting as an amplifying mirror at the far spacecraft. Each LH consists of a Laser Optical Module (LOM) and a Laser Electronics Module (LEM).

Figure 1. Lasers in the LISA constellation. There will be twelve (12) LHs and three (3) FRSs in the constellation.

The MO is a critical subsystem within the LOM and it must meet the low frequency noise and housed in a matured photonic package to meet the LISA LH mission performance and lifetime requirements. Other MO critical design parameters such as thermal management, hermetic sealing, mechanical structure, and electrical feedthroughs all contributed to the form factor required to be integrated into the current NASA LH design without modification. of the current design. The small form factor, as shown in the MO requirement document, is critical to allow for two identical MO’s to be installed within the LH enclosure for redundancy to meet the mission lifetime requirement.

1.2 Scope

The scope of this MO Statement of Work (SOW) includes all efforts and responsibilities for the personnel, services, materials, equipment, and facilities necessary to build and test various models at different phases of the program. The models shall include the Engineering Model (EM), Qualification Model (QM), the Flight Model (FM), and the Flight Spare (FS). The QM shall be environmentally tested to the qualification level while the FM and FS shall be tested to the acceptance (A) levels. All models shall have the performance verified and validated meeting the MO requirements. The contractor shall repair, refurbish, modify or replace any MOs, after delivery, in the event the MO models failed to meet performance. The Contractor shall also provide on-site technical support at NASA GSFC on an as needed basis.

The Contractor shall fabricate, assemble, test, verify, and deliver twelve (12) Engineering Model (EM), twelve (12) QM, fifty (50) FM, twenty (20) FS, and have enough components kitted to potentially build up to twenty (20) FSs.

Items Models Quantities

1 EM 12

2 QM 12

3 FM 50

4 FS 20

5 Kitted Parts 20

Notional schedules for the PDR and CDR shall be twelve (12) and twenty-four (24) months after the start of the contract. A Production Readiness Review (PRR) shall be scheduled six (6) months after the CDR.

The Contractor shall provide a plan for the qualification program of the flight design, this plan shall include a test program for the engineering development unit to address any issues carried over from the technology development program.

The Contractor shall support Integration and Testing (I&T) of the MOs to the LH at a TBD integration facilities. This support shall include, but not limited to, integration of the MO in the MO configuration for full performance evaluation of the MO.

Additionally, the contractor shall develop a plan for flight MO production and provide a Life Cycle Cost (LCC) estimate. This plan should include all required facilities, personnel, materials, services, tests, and equipment to complete the EM, QM, FM, and FS within the required delivery schedule. This plan shall also include a spares philosophy at the MO component level, as required.

The Contractor shall review/or deliver drawings, specifications, reports and plans, optical, electrical, and mechanical models, manuals, and other specified data in accordance with the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) as outlined in Attachment (TBD).

The Contractor shall provide documentation and perform other tasks in accordance with the requirements of this SOW and the applicable documentation referenced herein.

The work described in this SOW is not all of equal importance or weight. The term "shall" designates the most important weighting level; that is, mandatory. Any deviations from these contractually imposed mandatory items require the approval of the Contracting Officer. A lesser term, "should", designates attributes that the Government values, but which are subject to tradeoff decisions. Such attributes may render the deliverable item more valuable to the Government, but the absence of such attributes does not render the item unacceptable.

“shall” statement Must complete, meet, or exceed the task, requirement, or specification.

“will” statements Actions the Government must complete or deliver.

“should” statements Non-mandatory provision or goal subject to tradeoff decisions. No deliverable items and not subject to verification.

This document, the MO SOW, is specifically for Phase B/C/D, including on-orbit commissioning.

The “shall” and “should” statements in this document only, MO-SOW, are compliance requirements, and not verifiable requirements.

1.3 Related Documentation

The latest versions of all documents below should be used. LISA documents can be obtained from the LISA TDMS System.

1.3.1 Applicable Documents

The following documents are referenced within this document and are directly applicable or contain policies or other directive matters that are binding for the performance of the contract.

These documents establish detailed specifications, requirements, and interface information necessary for the performance of the contract. In the event of conflicting requirements between this SOW and the Applicable Documents, the Contractor shall immediately notify the GSFC Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) that there is such a conflict and request direction from the Government as to how to proceed.

For traceability, the Contractor shall trace down only one level for each Applicable Document:

any applicable documents within the documents listed are considered as applying directly to the performance of the MO contract. For example, the LISA MAR (LISA-RQMT-XXXX) lists NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 7150.2 as an applicable document. Therefore, NPR

7150.2 is an applicable document with respect to this SOW. However, the documents listed in Section P.4 of NPR 7150.2 are not considered Applicable Documents for the purposes of this

SOW.

Document Number Title LISA-LIST-XXXX MO Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) LISA-SMA-REQ-0010 LISA Mission Assurance Requirements (MAR) LISA-SOW-XXXX MO Statement of Work (SOW) LISA-RQMT-XXXX MO Requirement (MOR)

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 MIL-HDBK-217 Reliability Prediction of Electronic Equipment NASA-STD-5001B Structural Design and Test Factors of Safety for Spaceflight

Hardware NASA-STD-5020 Requirements for Threaded Fastening Systems in Spaceflight

Hardware NPD 7120.4 NASA Engineering and Program/Project Management Policy NPR 7120.5 NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements GPR 7120.3 Management of Principal Investigator Mode Missions GPR 7120.4 Risk Management GPR 7123.1 Systems Engineering GSFC-STD-1000G Rules for the Design, Development, Verification and Operation of

Flight Systems

GSFC-STD-1001A Criteria for Flight and Flight Support System Lifecycle Review GSFC-STD-7000A General Environmental Verification Standard (GEVS) for GSFC

Flight Project Programs and Projects 540-PG-8700.2.1.C Design of Dollies, Stands, and Spacecraft Shipping Containers

LISA-LASER-PLAN-

LISA Laser Technology Readiness Assessment and Development Plan

LISA-CCR-0043 LISA Laser Contamination Control Plan (CCP) LISA Laser Materials and Processes Implementation Plan (MPIP) LISA Laser System Interface Requirements Document (IRD)

2 REQUIREMENTS

2.0-A The Contractor shall design, develop, fabricate, modify, assemble, integrate, and test the hardware described in this SOW in compliance with the applicable documents listed in Section 1.4.1.

2.0-B For non-hardware support aspects of this SOW, the Contractor shall provide the following necessary to accomplish the described support:

• systems and discipline engineering

• expert personnel

• travel

• reports and documentation

• software or software changes

• ground support equipment

• operations

2.0-C The Contractor shall deliver to the Government twelve (12) EM, twelve (12) QM, fifty (50) FM, twenty (20) FS, and have enough components kitted to potentially build up to twenty (20) FSs that are fully verified and characterized to be compliant with the requirements of this contract.

2.0-D The Contractor shall seek advanced written authorization from GSFC in accordance with CDRL No.: PM-10 Title: Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs), Deviations, and Waivers from this SOW (including requirements contained in Applicable Documents of Section 1.4.1).

2.0-E The Contractor should utilize industry-standard practices and methodologies for design, fabrication, assembly, integration, and testing when appropriate and applicable with the intent of cost or schedule savings to the Government. In areas where the Contractor proposes to implement an industry-standard practice or methodology that deviates from this SOW, or the supporting applicable documents, the Contractor shall document the pragmatic savings and seek concurrence at the time of the contract award and only act upon when approved by the Government.

2.1 Management

2.1-A The Contractor shall manage all aspects of this contract effort to ensure that the contract requirements, including technical and programmatic, are met or exceeded. In further detail, this includes management of the administrative and technical direction, schedule control and reporting, financial control and reporting, Government property reporting and control, subcontract performance, configuration management and documentation, and other required reporting efforts.

2.1-B The Contractor shall coordinate, schedule, and document the activities of the pertinent engineering groups contributing to the SOW tasks.

2.1-C The Contractor shall be responsible for traceability and reporting of all its subcontractors’ cost, schedule, and technical performance.

2.1-D The Contractor shall analyze the MO functional, performance, interface, mission assurance, and verification requirements as specified in the MO Specification (LISA- MO-REQ-00010) and referenced documents, in the context of the above assumptions, and define subsystem requirements and design concepts to the degree required to proceed with design, build, test, and delivery of the EM, QM, FM and FS MOs.

2.1-E The verification of requirements shall not invalidate previously verified requirements.

2.1.1 Project Management

2.1.1-A The Contractor shall maintain a project office to manage the technical activities and resources of the project.

2.1.1-B The Contractor shall appoint a Project Manager (PM) to direct and manage the MO project. The Contractor’s Project Manager is responsible for the overall technical performance, resource management, and schedule management of the contractual effort and all subcontracts. The Contractor’s designated Project Manager will report to a level of company management appropriate to ensure prompt resolution of all problems. For costing purposes, the duration of Project Management should be until on-orbit checkout and commissioning.

2.1.1-C The Contractor shall prepare a Project Management Plan, and a Final Report in accordance with items CDRL No.: PM-12 Title: Project Management Plan, and CDRL No.: PM-5 Title: Final Report, respectively.

2.1.1-D The Contractor shall prepare a Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) and

Dictionary in accordance with CDRL No.: PM-14 Title: Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) and Dictionary in which the Contractor shall define how the Contractor plans to organize, plan, and report on the work being conducted.

2.1.1-E The PM shall be the principal point of contact for GSFC in matters pertaining to the contract effort.

2.1.2 Government Insight

2.1.2-A The Contractor shall open to Government attendance all Contractor and subcontractor internal data, reviews, audits, meetings, fabrication, integration, tests, and other activities within the scope of the contract. For access and insight activity, “Government” includes Government personnel and Government Contractor personnel. The intended duration is nominally short and would tie to single events yet could span multiple events or an entire phase. The Government intends to provide an on-site representative from Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) or other Government quality representatives. The contractor shall provide office space and the necessary support for the Government on-site representatives, as required.

2.1.2-B The Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer when applicable and the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) of the activities in 2.1.2-A in sufficient time (nominally five working days) to permit meaningful Government participation. The size and attendance of those activities should be proportional to the notification time.

2.1.2-C The Contractor shall allow and enable the use of Non-Disclosure Agreements

(NDA) with Government contractors where appropriate.

2.1.2-D It is the understanding of the Government that a few essential internal documents and procedures are highly proprietary. In some cases, the Contractor can withhold the methodology in an individual step of the design, fabrication, assembly, or test in benign and low risk situations. The withholding of information of a methodology will be handled on a case-by-case basis, which defines the size of an individual step, and access may involve a subset of the individuals listed above as “Government”. The Contractor cannot withhold information related to the output or result of a methodology or procedure. The Contractor cannot withhold methodology or procedural information from a Failure Review Board (FRB).

2.1.2-E The Contractor shall report technical information in compliance with CDRL No.:

SE-2 Title: Contractor-Generated Internal Technical Information.

2.1.3 Reviews and Meetings

The reviews listed in this section should not be considered a comprehensive set of reviews for the Contractor’s program. Additional reviews that the Contractor deems necessary to successfully execute the program may be conducted at the Contractor’s discretion.

2.1.3-A The Contractor shall notify the Government at least ten working days in advance of lower-level Contractor subsystem reviews and Contractor-initiated TEMs to allow the Government time to attend the review as part of its insight activities.

2.1.3.1 Major Reviews

All major Mission-level reviews will be convened and review boards appointed and chaired by the Government.

2.1.3.1-A At all reviews, including MO, Payload, and Mission-level, the Contractor shall support and demonstrate compliance with the review as stated in the MO-CDRL.

The MO-CDRL references the GSFC success criteria for reviews, Criteria for Project Flight Critical Milestone Reviews (GSFC-STD-1001), as applicable to spaceflight systems, with some tailoring as appropriate.

2.1.3.1-B The Contractor shall respond as required to action items assigned by the

Government.

2.1.3.1-C The Contractor shall prepare and present their portion of these reviews, as appropriate, ensuring that content is complete and accurate.

2.1.3.1-D When the Contractor is hosting, the Contractor shall provide space, high-speed data connections to the Internet, and facility services for personnel with-in the scope of the review or meeting.

2.1.3.1.1 MO Reviews

2.1.3.1.1-A The Contractor shall host, prepare, and present the following reviews and provide review packages in accordance with the CDRL and GSFC-STD- 1001A:

MO - System Requirements Review (MO-SRR) – CDRL No.: RE-1 Title:

MO-System Requirements Review (MO-SRR) Data Package MO - Preliminary Design Review (MO-PDR) - CDRL No.: RE-2 Title: MO-

Preliminary Design Review (MO-PDR) Data Package MO - Critical Design Review (MO-CDR) - CDRL No.: RE-3 Title: MO-

Critical Design Review (MO-CDR) Data Package MO – Production Readiness Review (MO-PRR) - (CDRL No.: RE-4 Title:

MO-Production Readiness Review (MO-PRR) Data Package) MO – Test Readiness Review (MO-TRR) - CDRL No.: RE-5 Title: MO-Pre-

Environmental Review (MO-TRR) Data Package MO - Pre-Environmental Review (MO-PER) - CDRL No.: RE-6 Title: MO-

Pre-Environmental Review (MO-PER) Data Package MO - Pre-Shipment Review (MO-PSR) - CDRL No.: RE-7 Title: MO-Pre-

Shipment Review (MO-PSR) Data Package

2.1.3.1.1-B The Government will convene and appoint the review board for all major

MO-level reviews.

2.1.3.1.1-C The Contractor shall invite the Government to all MO reviews that are chaired by the Contractor.

2.1.3.1.1-D The Contractor shall assume that each MO review requires two days to complete with roughly 10 people from the Government.

2.1.3.1.1-E The Contractor shall conduct one dry-run of all MO Reviews with the

Government approximately two weeks in advance of the review to allow for sufficient feedback to the review.

2.1.3.1.1-F The Contractor shall be prepared to host and work with the Government project and review team an additional day following all reviews to discuss and address issues raised and actions assigned at the reviews.

2.1.3.2 Engineering Peer Reviews

2.1.3.2-A The Contractor shall define and implement a set of robust and comprehensive Engineering Peer Reviews (EPRs) for the hardware and software subsystems of the MO commensurate with the scope, complexity and acceptable risk of the product, the maturity of the MO design, and the extent of and risk associated with any differences from the original assembly.

2.1.3.2-B The Contractor shall submit the Engineering Peer Review Plan in accordance with

CDRL No.: PM-6 Title: Engineering Peer Review Plan.

2.1.3.2-C The Contractor shall conduct the peer reviews in accordance of the plan and the

CDRL No.: RE-8 Title: Engineering Peer Reviews and Data Packages. The Contractor should assume this to be on order with the number of engineering disciplines supporting the MO for each phase.

2.1.3.3 Other Reviews and Meetings

2.1.3.3-A In addition to the established meetings required in this section, the Contractor shall support routine informal meetings and telecons with the Government as necessary and outlined below.

2.1.3.3.1 Scheduled Weekly Teleconferences

2.1.3.3.1-A The Contractor shall participate in a weekly management telecon with the

LISA Project Office to communicate programmatic and technical progress and plans of the overall contract effort. The Contractor and Government should share meeting minutes, including the action item log, and other documentation as required. The minimum Contractor attendance will consist of the Contractor Project Manager and Systems Manager, or the appropriate technical lead managers as required based on the agenda.

2.1.3.3.1-B The Contractor shall provide detailed status, description of issues, and schedule updates for each major element of the contract.

2.1.3.3.2 Monthly Project Status Reports and Reviews

2.1.3.3.2-A This item intentionally left blank.

2.1.3.3.2-B The Contractor shall support the Monthly Project Status Reviews (MPSRs), including a presentation package, in accordance with CDRL-PM-1: MO Monthly Project Status Reviews (MPSR) - Monthly Technical Exchange Meetings (MTEM) and CDRL-PM-2: LISA Monthly Project Status Review

(MPSR).

2.1.3.3.2-C The Government will conduct the MPSR at the Government Project Office, and it can be supported remotely by the Contractor.

2.1.3.3.3 Technical Exchange Meetings and Working Groups

2.1.3.3.3-A The Contractor shall host and participate in an MO Monthly Technical Exchange Meetings (MTEM) to discuss technical, programmatic, or other MO work. The MTEM is nominally a two-day face-to-face meeting with the Government MO Management Team and other project personnel as needed at the Contractor’s facility and/or the Government facility.

2.1.3.3.3-B The Contractor shall coordinate with the MO Management Team to set the agenda.

2.1.3.3.3-C The Contractor shall support the MTEM, including a presentation package, in accordance with CDRL-PM-1: MO Monthly Project Status Reviews (MPSR)

- Monthly Technical Exchange Meetings (MTEM).

2.1.3.3.3-D The Contractor shall participate in Government-led working groups. Planned

Government-led working groups requiring MO Contractor participation include, but are not limited to, a (1) Calibration and Characterization group,

(2) a systems engineering group, (3) an MO-to-LH interface group, (4) a safety working group, (5) a reliability working group, and various mission assurance working groups as specified in the MAR. The level of activities of each group would follow the project life cycle with-in their area of the project.

2.1.3.3.4 Status and Planning Meetings

2.1.3.3.4-A The Contractor shall notify and allow the Government access to Contractor status and planning meetings, including daily stand-ups and tag-ups.

2.1.4 Access to Controlled Facilities

2.1.4-A The Contractor shall obtain all required access authorizations and submit any paperwork required for the Contractor to access Government controlled facilities, such as the Mission Operation Center (MOC), and other facilities, which may require the Contractor to obtain necessary NDAs.

2.1.4-B The Contractor shall allow access by the Government, or its representatives, to all

Contractor facilities used by MO, subject to and in accordance with appropriate security controls. All NASA personnel will be U.S. persons with the understanding that certain facilities are limited to U.S. citizens only.

2.1.5 Risk Management

2.1.5-A The Contractor shall implement a risk management program in support of the MO.

As per NASA applicable documents.

2.1.5-B As part of the risk management program, the Contractor shall prepare and submit a plan in accordance with CDRL No.: PM-13 Title: Risk Management Plan, for comparison and inclusion in the LISA Risk Management Plan.

2.1.5-C The Contractor shall summarize and present the top MO risks in accordance with

CDRL No.: PM-1 Title: MO Monthly Project Status Reviews (MPSR) - Monthly Technical Exchange Meetings (MTEM) and Presentation Materials, that can be included as part of the Monthly Status Review Presentation.

2.1.6 Resource Management

2.1.6-A The Contractor shall identify critical procurements of long lead materials and items that must be procured in order to support the MO schedule.

2.1.7 Configuration Management

2.1.7-A The Contractor shall perform configuration management (CM) in support of the MO project.

2.1.7-B The Contractor shall develop and deliver the Hardware and Software Configuration Management Plan in accordance with CDRL No.: PM-11 Title: Hardware and Software Configuration Management Plan.

2.1.7-C The Contractor shall notify the Government of Configuration Control Board (CCB) meetings and allow Government participation at all CCB meetings.

2.1.7-D The Contractor shall maintain configuration of flight hardware and software throughout all phases of the Contract.

2.1.7-E The Contractor shall perform and document configuration verification as parts and assemblies are incorporated into higher-level assemblies and at major Project milestones.

2.1.7-F The CM system shall have a change classification and impact assessment process that results in Class I and Class II Configuration Change Requests (CCRs) being forwarded to the LISA Project in accordance with CDRL No.: SE-1 Title:

Configuration Change Requests, Deviations, and Waivers and CDRL No.: SE-8 Title: Configuration Item (CI) Identification List and Computer Software Configuration Items (CSCI).

2.1.7-G For any flight item that is found to be non-compliant with the requirements of the contract, and is not reworked to be compliant, or is not replaced with a compliant item, the Contractor shall disposition as described in the MAR.

2.1.7-H The Contractor shall prepare and provide, as a minimum, the following documents under configuration control:

1. CCB status, reported at the MPSR in accordance with CDRL No.: PM-11 Title:

Hardware and Software Configuration Management Plan.

2. Engineering Drawings in accordance with CDRL No.: SE-5 Title: Engineering

Drawings.

3. The Configuration Item Identification List (CIIL) and the Computer Software

Configuration Items (CSCIs) in accordance with CDRL No.: PM-11 Title:

Hardware and Software Configuration Management Plan. For configuration control, computer software includes: files that define firmware (i.e. VHDL), Ground Support Equipment (GSE) software, analysis software or scripts used in hardware verification, and similarly related software.

2.1.7-I The Contractor shall quantify substantive potential cost impacts of requirements changes at the MO level, and as appropriate, qualify substantive potential cost impacts at the Payload level. The Contractor is encouraged to propose alternative approaches to defining the performance requirements or other requirements modifications at the MO-IBR or other MTEM meetings preceding MO-SRR/SDR, CCRs, or sooner to allow the Government time to analyze the proposed requirement modifications and provide feedback at the review.

2.1.8 Pedigree and Inheritance

The Government recognizes that the MO in large part includes existing design, documentation, material, and hardware from an earlier development. The pedigree process provides the project with detailed understanding of the history and state of the existing material and hardware. The inheritance is the process of incorporating the existing hardware into the LISA Mission, and is encapsulated in the standard development and project life-cycle review process. The Government recognizes the state of the hardware and GSE being supplied to the Contractor and deems it applicable for use on LISA, based on agreed upon conditions with the Contractor. These agreements are made during the MO Pedigree and Inheritance Review process for the inherited hardware.

2.1.8-A The Contractor shall work with the Government’s Project MO-Pedigree Review Board (PMO-PRB), and their recommendations and liens for the development of MO. Remediation by the Contractor of the Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) supplied inherited hardware to the requirements of this contract is considered in-scope to this contract.

2.1.8-B The Contractor shall report on items, including inherited hardware, that are expected to experience degraded performance within 120 months of on-orbit operation.

2.1.8-C The Contractor shall qualify, and calibrate, if necessary, all inherited GSE and/or

System Test Equipment (STE) to support the MO.

2.1.8-D If re-qualification of inherited GSE is not possible, the Contractor shall inform the

Government to jointly determine an alternative solution.

2.1.8-E The Contractor shall inform the Government when the inherited hardware requires remediation for the LISA project as a method to mitigate cost and schedule impacts.

2.1.9 Lessons Learned Reporting

2.1.9-A The Contractor shall report lessons learned throughout the project life-cycle.

2.1.9-B The Contractor shall report lessons learned at each of the reviews defined in

Section 2.1.3 and consistent with GSFC-STD-1001A or an equivalent system approved by the Government.

2.1.9-C The Contractor shall participate in a 1-hour lessons learned meeting with the

Government within 1 month after each of the following milestone reviews: MO- CDR, MO-PER, and MO-PSR. The purpose of the meetings is to discuss and capture lessons learned since the last meeting, lesson context and driving events/decisions, and recommendations. The Government will facilitate these lessons learned meetings and the Government will compile an interim lessons learned report following each meeting.

2.1.9-D The Contractor shall review and provide comments/edits to the Government-generated lessons learned interim reports.

2.2 SYSTEMS ENGINEERING

2.2-A The Contractor shall perform systems engineering to support all MO-related activities during all stages of development.

2.2-A.1For costing purposes, the Contractor shall consider the duration of Systems

Engineering to be until on-orbit checkout and commissioning, with reduced support after the delivery and acceptance to GSFC.

2.2-B The Systems Engineering effort shall include, but is not limited to, analysis of technical requirements, functional and performance allocation of derived requirements, traceability, definition and maintenance of all interfaces, verification of all defined, allocated, and derived requirements, systems analyses, risk management support, tradeoff analyses and trade studies, hold peer reviews, and management of systems budgets.

2.2-C This effort shall include but not be limited to the following specific activities:

1. Providing technical direction and oversight throughout all phases of the program.

2. Leading and supporting all peer reviews, project milestones, gateway and launch reviews, and program status reviews as defined in Section 2.1.3.

3. Performing all necessary MO-level trades and risk assessments necessary to ensure the success of any design or manufacturing changes as a result of parts obsolescence, parts or materials aging, Government Industry Data Exchange Program (GIDEP) or other known parts reliability issues, or any other changes made to the original MO design.

4. Preparing documentation and providing necessary support for reviews defined in Section 2.1.3.

5. Supporting system level technical exchange meetings as defined in Section 2.1.3.3.3, including technical issue resolution, performance verification plan buy-offs, pending CCRs, CDRL data submission review/approval status, test data review, anomaly resolution activities, and test support planning.

6. Support closing of all Government- and Contractor-assigned actions, nonconformance reports, and problem failure reports.

2.2-D The Contractor shall develop an MO System Engineering Management Plan, in accordance with CDRL No.: SE-21 Title: System Engineering Management Plan, which describes the Contractor’s systems engineering approach and processes to be used on the LISA MO project.

2.1.10 Requirement Analyses, Derivations, and Allocations

2.2.1-A The Contractor shall update the MO definition, allocation, derivation, and traceability of system and subsystem requirements and the MO verification approach, as necessary to accommodate any changes to the LISA MO design.

2.2.1-B The Contractor shall update as necessary for the LISA MO the analyses and simulations performed in support of technical requirements compliance demonstrations to fully establish, define, maintain, and control allocations for all required performance and design parameters.

2.2.1-C The Contractor shall report Current Best Estimates (CBE) to allocations, which include, but are not limited to, mass properties, alignment, wavefront error, line-of-sight pointing, optical throughput, and contamination. Allocations are reported as part of the Key Technical Parameters (KTP) in the CDRL-PM-1: MO Monthly Project Status Reviews (MPSR) - Monthly Technical Exchange Meetings (MTEM), or upon request.

2.2.1-D The Contractor shall measure MO wavefront error and pupil alignment in both ambient and flight-like conditions. The Wavefront Error (WFE) and changes to WFE need to be well understood and characterized.

2.2.1-E The Contractor shall measure MO wavefront error across the field of acquisition as defined in LISA-XXXX-YYYYY in a variety of pupil positions in both ambient and flight-like conditions. WFE and changes to WFE need to be well understood and characterized for optical performance.

2.2.1-F The Contractor shall perform and document requirements analyses and allocation tasks associated with the MO.

2.2.1-G The Contractor shall report the mass properties per CDRL No.: SE-20 Title: Mass

Properties Report.

2.2.1-H The Contractor shall report potential changes and potential increases beyond the allocations stated in the MOS (LISA-XXXX-YYYYY) at the same cadence as the

CBE.

2.1.11 Interface Definition, Verification and Control

2.2.2-A This item intentionally left blank.

2.2.2-B The Contractor shall define the MO side of the following interfaces:

• Laser Head

• Frequency Reference System (FRS) and deliver the MO inputs to the applicable LISA LH Interface Control Documents in accordance with CDRL No.: SE-11 Title: Inputs to the Interface Control Document(s).

2.2.2-C The Contractor shall deliver an ICD Compliance Matrix for the ICDs and submit them under the CDRL No.: SE-11 Title: Inputs to the Interface Control

Document(s). Each unique ICD shall have a unique ICD Compliance Matrix document.

2.2.2-D Contractor participation for interface definitions shall include, but is not limited to, providing comments on analyses and reports external to the MO, and providing independent analyses.

2.1.12 Design and Performance Verification

2.2.3-A This item intentionally left blank.

2.2.3-B The Contractor shall plan and execute a verification program to demonstrate that the MO meets all requirements in accordance with CDRL No.: SE-6 Title: System Performance Verification Plan and Matrix and CDRL No.: SE-10 Title:

Specification Tree.

2.2.3-C This item intentionally left blank.

2.2.3-D The Contractor shall develop and maintain a requirements traceability tool or utilize an existing tool and use that tool to demonstrate that the MO design meets all requirements.

2.2.3-E The Contractor shall assess the technology readiness for MO implementation. The technology readiness requirement is that all technologies shall attain Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 6 (i.e., system or sub-system prototype demonstrated in a relevant environment) or higher at the MO-PDR.

2.2.3-F The Contractor shall address the risks associated with late verification of the design in the risk management plan.

2.1.13 Trending

2.2.4-A The Contractor shall establish a method for trending data during MO I&T, and Observatory level I&T.

2.2.4-B The Contractor shall coordinate with the Government the selected list of parameters to be trended in accordance with CDRL No.: CC-1 Title: Calibration and Characterization Plan, and CDRL No.: SE-3 Title: Trend Analysis and Operations Log.

2.2.4-C The Contractor shall provide Trending Reports and operating hours in accordance with CDRL No.: CC-2 Title: Calibration and Characterization Procedures.

2.1.14 Models

The terminology used in this section for the description of the models subject to this SOW is defined as follows, consistent with NASA-STD-7009A w/CHANGE 1, "STANDARD FOR

MODELS AND SIMULATIONS", 2016-07-13:

Model Verification: The process of determining the extent to which a model is compliant with its requirements and specifications as detailed in its conceptual models, mathematical models, or other constructs.

Model Validation: The process of determining the degree to which a model or a simulation is an accurate representation of the real world from the perspective of the intended uses of the model.

Model Calibration: The process of adjusting numerical or modeling parameters in the model to improve agreement with a referent. Note: model correlation is understood to be equivalent terminology.

2.2.5-A The Contractor shall perform the following analyses and modeling and report on the results when completed, and in accordance with:

1) CDRL No.: SE-4 Title: Engineering Math Models

2) CDRL No.: SE-6 Title: System Performance Verification Plan and Matrix

3) CDRL No.: SE-12 Title: Model Validation Plan and Validated Models

4) CDRL No.: CC-1 Title: Calibration and Characterization Plan

5) CDRL No.: CC-2 Title: Calibration and Characterization Procedures

6) CDRL No.: CC-3 Title: Calibration and Characterization Reports and

Summaries

7) CDRL No.: CC-4 Title: Optical Analytical Model

8) CDRL No.: CC-5 Title: Calibration and Characterization Parameters

9) CDRL No.: CC-6 Title: MO Data Sets

2.2.5-B The Contractor models shall meet the requirements of the Math Model Guidelines

(LISA-XXXX_YYYYY).

2.1.14.1 Mechanical Models

2.2.5.1-A The Contractor shall develop and deliver a mechanical Computer Aided Design (CAD) model(s).

2.2.5.1-B This model shall comply with the LISA Math Models Guideline Document and be useable throughout the MO Implementation Phase.

2.2.5.1-C It is the intention of the Government to have this model supported and updated by the MO vendor throughout the implementation phase, and the Contractor shall update the model at the data review of major tests in support of Model Validation and/or Model Calibration.

2.2.5.1-D The Contractor shall incorporate all applicable test results in an as-built model.

2.2.5.1-E The Contractor shall develop and execute a CAD Model Validation Plan with concurrence from the Government.

2.2.5.1-F The Contractor shall develop and deliver the as-built model that is validated and calibrated from test(s), upon delivery of the MO.

2.1.14.2 Finite Element Models

2.2.5.2-A The Contractor shall develop and deliver a mechanical Finite Element Model

(FEM).

2.2.5.2-B This model shall comply with the LISA Math Models Guideline Document and be useable throughout the MO Implementation Phase.

2.2.5.2-C It is the intention of the Government to have these models supported and updated by the MO vendor throughout the implementation phase, and the Contractor shall update the models at the data review of major tests in support of Model Validation

2.2.5.2-D The Contractor shall incorporate all applicable test results in an as-built model for each individual MO unit.

2.2.5.2-E The Contractor shall develop and execute a FEM Model Validation Plan with concurrence from the Government.

2.2.5.2-F The Contractor shall develop and deliver the as-built models that are validated and calibrated from test(s), upon delivery of the MO.

2.1.14.3 Thermal Models

2.2.5.3-A The Contractor shall develop a thermal model(s).

2.2.5.3-B This model shall comply with the LISA Math Models Guideline Document and be useable throughout the MO Implementation Phase.

2.2.5.3-C It is the intention of the Government to have this model supported and updated by the MO vendor throughout the implementation phase, and the Contractor shall update the model at the data review of major tests in support of Model Validation

2.2.5.3-D The Contractor shall incorporate all applicable test results in an as-built model.

2.2.5.3-E The Contractor shall develop and execute a Thermal Model Validation Plan, with concurrence from the Government.

2.2.5.3-F The Contractor shall develop and deliver the as-built model that is validated and calibrated from test(s), upon delivery of the MO.

2.1.15 Units

2.2.6-A The Contractor shall use the International System of Units (SI) in accordance with NPD 7120.4, with the following exceptions:

1. SI units with parenthetical United States Customary units are permitted for engineering and manufacturing drawings.

2. Angular measurement may be expressed in degree of arc or in an appropriate subdivision of degree of arc such as minute or second of arc (arc-min or arc-sec).

3. Internal non-interface drawings of hardware that have been previously built, or new hardware of similar design heritage, may be specified in United States Customary units where use of metric equivalents would lead to additional risk and cost to the program.

4. All external interface drawings shall be provided in SI units or SI units with parenthetical United States Customary units– no exceptions.

5. All external interface drawings shall include English parenthetical units as a cross check if United States Customary units are used on lower-level or non-interface drawings.

6. Flight & Ground Operational Software, firmware, and telemetry shall exclusively use Metric units (includes Flight operational products & deliverables, such as algorithms and analysis).

2.2.6-B Drawings with only United States Customary units shall be clearly labeled as such.

2.2 Mission Assurance

2.3-A The Contractor shall implement and maintain a Mission Assurance program that is compliant with the Mission Assurance Requirement for the LISA Constellation, LISA-SMA-REQ-0010, as specified in the Contractor Mission Assurance Plan for LISA; in the areas of Mission Assurance, System Safety, Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Reliability, Software Assurance, Workmanship, EEE Parts, Materials and Process, Contamination control, Metrology and Calibration, GIDEP Alerts and Problem Advisories and End Item Acceptance Data Package.

3 MO DEVELOPMENT

3.1 Design Engineering

3.1-A The Contractor shall document, make available to the Government, and present as part of the review process specified in Section 2.1, the entire design, including any design changes or modifications.

3.1-B This item intentionally left blank.

3.1-C The Contractor shall make available…