LMX_PhA_SOW_v6.1.pdf

GeoXO Lightning Mapper Phase A Study (LMX) Rev -6.1 Statement of Work (SOW) 5/10/2021

1 Introduction The LMX is a single spectral channel instrument used to measure the location and intensity of optical transients produced by lightning as part of a 3-axis stabilized, geostationary satellite system. The LMX remotely collects data over the Earth disk visible from geostationary orbit for severe weather forecasting, hazard warning, and public safety alerts.

The LMX objective is to provide NOAA Lightning Mapper operational data that will be used by NOAA and other public and private agencies to produce forecasts of severe weather and to issue warnings for public safety.

The LMX will meet, as a minimum, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) requirements as defined in this Statement of Work (SOW), the LMX Performance and Operation

Requirements Document (PORD), the LMX Unique Instrument Interface Document (UIID), the General

Interface Requirements Document (GIRD), and the Instrument Mission Assurance Requirements (IMAR).

For this procurement, in the case of any conflicting requirements, the PORD requirement takes precedence.

This SOW specifies the vendor requirements for performing definition-phase studies and design development as part of LMX formulation activities.

1.1 Top-Level Summary of Work Required

The details of the deliverables are described in later sections. At the top level, the Government requires:

a) An LMX Design that satisfies the baseline requirements defined in the PORD, UIID, GIRD, and

IMAR

Enhancements to the design beyond the baseline requirements are encouraged if they can be implemented on the specified delivery timeline.

b) An Assessment of LMX performance against requirements specified in the PORD.

c) Trade Studies as specified in section 2.1

d) Technical Analysis as described in section 2.2

e) Notional Development Schedule as described in section 2.4

f) Cost Analysis as described in section 2.4

g) Technology Readiness Level (TRL) Assessment and a Technology Development Plan as described in section 2.3

h) Identification of Development Risks as defined in section 2.4

i) As applicable, performance of any work awarded for Technology Development and/or Risk Mitigation effort(s)

j) Identification of hardware and software heritage assumptions as defined in section 2.3

1.2 Guiding Assumptions About the Eventual Flight Program

The Flight hardware development cost and schedule estimates shall be based on the following assumptions:

a) 1 Engineering Development Unit (EDU).

b) 2 Flight Units plus parts for 2 more flight units to be procured concurrently, plus any parts for sparing philosophy, with contractual options to build units 3, and 4. Deliveries will be as shown in the following schedule (all dates are for the Government Fiscal Year)

MILESTONE DATE (assume 1st day of quarter)

Flight Contract Award Q2 FY24

Flight Model 1 Pre-Ship Review (PSR1) Q3 FY29

Launch 1 Readiness Date Q3 FY32

Flight Model 2 PSR (PSR2) Q2 FY31

Launch 2 Readiness Date Q3 FY35

c) No Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) will be provided. If there is specific Government owned equipment which the contractor is proposing to utilize, then this equipment will be specifically identified, along with the benefit and verification of availability.

d) Mission durations: See the PORD. All requirements must be met at the End of Life.

The following instrument-level reviews will be held for the first flight build: SRR, IBR, PDR, CDR, PER, PSR. Subsequent flight builds will hold a PER and PSR. Review pre-requisites, content, and success criteria are documented in NPR 7123.1.

1.3 Study Milestone Schedule

The Contractor shall execute the study in accordance with the following milestone schedule.

Requirements and deliverables for these milestones are described in Section 3.

Milestone Schedule

Kickoff Meeting Within two weeks of award

Monthly Progress Reviews Kickoff + 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 months

Mid-Term Review Kickoff + 6 months

Final Study Review Kickoff + 11.5 months

Final Report Package Kickoff + 12 months

Risk Mitigation Report (as applicable) Kickoff + 20 months

Technology Development Report (as applicable)

Kickoff + 20 months

1.4 Applicable and Reference Documents

Reference Number Title

Applicable Documents

418-XO-LMXPORD-00xx LMX Performance and Operational Requirements Document

418-XO-LMXUIID-00xx LMX Unique Instrument Interface Document

418-XO-GXIGIRD-0025 GXI General Interface Requirements Document

418-XO-GXIMAR-0026 GeoXO Instrument Mission Assurance Requirements

GPR 7120.4D GSFC Guideline for Performing Risk Assessments

Reference Documents

CCSDS 120.0-G-2 CCSDS Informational Report Concerning Lossless Data Compression, Green Book, April 2013

CCSDS 120.1-G-2 CCSDS Informational Report Concerning Image Data Compression, Green Book, February 2015

CCSDS 121.0-B-3 CCSDS Recommended Standard for Lossless Data Compression, Blue Book, August 2020

CCSDS 122.0-B-2 CCSDS Recommended Standard for Image Data Compression, Blue Book, September 2017.

NPR 7123.1 NASA Systems Engineering Process and Requirements

Kokou et al. “Algorithmic Chain for Lightning Detection and FalseEvent Filtering Based on the MTG Lightning Imager”, Pierre Kokou et al., IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 50, no. 9, 5115 – 5124, 2018

SP-2016-6105 NASA Systems Engineering Handbook

2 Tasks

The Contractor shall analyze the LMX requirements, perform trade studies to justify design decisions, develop a conceptual design for the LMX, and perform all other tasks as specified below.

2.1 Trade Studies

The Contractor shall perform the following trade studies and report on the results at the Midterm

Review:

2.1.1 Frame Rate, ADC ENOB and Detector Noise Trade Study

The Contractor shall study trades between detector frame rate, ADC ENOB, and detector read noise to maximize SNR. The frame rates to be studied will be 500 and 1000 Hz, ADC ENOB will be between 12 and 15 bits, and read noise to be studied will be between 100 and 900 electrons. (CDRL 1)

2.1.2 Reserved

2.1.3 On-board Event Filtering Trade Study

The Contractor shall propose a methodology for onboard filtering of false events induced by the instrument line of sight angular motion bounded by the pointing error rates and gyro latency in the

Instrument Limit for Angular Rate Error vs Latency Figure defined in the GIRD (418-XO-GXIGIRD-0025).

The methodology will include dynamic filter adjustments to prevent saturation of the instrument data rate to the spacecraft. The methodology will include digital image stabilization methods utilizing the spacecraft provided gyro rate data. (See Reference Document by Kokou et al in )(CDRL 3)

2.1.4 Reserved

2.1.5 Detector Management Trade Study

The Contractor shall study the best method for handling of anomalous pixels and other detector defects and damage, including potential impacts of false transient detections especially on downlink data rate beyond those false events addressed by dynamic filter adjustment in the On-Board Event Filtering trade study. Additionally, the contractor will propose operational or data processing methods to address detector degradation over life of mission. (CDRL 5)

2.2 LMX Design Concept Development and Related Analyses

The Contractor shall develop an LMX design concept and perform associated engineering analyses to justify design parameters, tolerances, design/performance margins, and associated budgets. (CDRL 7)

The Contractor shall provide a quantitative comparison of the LMX performance against the performance requirements in Section 3 of the PORD. (CDRL 8)

The Contractor shall provide a summary of compliance to the Level 3 requirements (PORD, UIID, GIRD, and IMAR), including initial engineering analyses showing compliance to environmental requirements.

(CDRL 9)

The Contractor shall review all requirements listed as "TBR" and either concur or suggest new requirement values. (CDRL 11).

The Contractor shall quantify potential cost, schedule, and risk impacts of any suggested requirements changes. (CDRL 11)

The Contractor shall analyze the radiometric performance of the instrument concept including the development of a preliminary radiometric model and uncertainty budgets to achieve the required

SNR. (CDRL 16)

The Contractor shall describe the systems approach to meeting all navigation requirements in the PORD.

Such descriptions, including an preliminary error budget, will span relevant flight hardware characteristics, operational aspects, and ground processing. (CDRL 13)

The Contractor shall describe the algorithms to be used on the GeoXO ground system for decompression (if needed) and processing to data Level 1b, as described in the PORD. (CDRL 14)

The contractor shall review zones of reduced data quality (ZRDQ), and provide stray light mitigation concept. (CDRL 15)

The Contractor shall describe a reliability approach (planned redundancy, parts selection, etc.) to meet the PORD required reliability for the specified lifetime. (CDRL 20)

The Contractor shall identify single-point failures and fault critical elements. As part of this analysis the

Contractor will describe the fault tolerant/graceful degradation features of the design. (CDRL 21)

The Contractor shall develop a Master Equipment List (MEL). The MEL will document the mass, power, and TRL of each major sub-component. A template for the MEL will be provided by the Government.

(CDRL 22)

The Contractor shall provide descriptions of any simulation and analytical tools used in the assessment of the design and/or performance, including the heritage and validation of the tools. (CDRL 23)

2.3 Technology Assessment and Demonstration

The Contractor shall assess the technology readiness of all components of the instrument design. (CDRL

24)

If applicable, the Contractor shall provide a detailed Technology Development Plan (TDP), including a schedule, explaining how all technologies will achieve TRL 6 by the instrument PDR. If the study effort includes Technology Development effort, the TDP and associated schedule will clearly identify all of the work covered by the Technology Development. (CDRL 25)

The Contractor shall develop an EDU Model Philosophy and Plan that describes test plans, schedule, and cost of development for an end-to-end Engineering Development Unit and a test regime proposed by the Contractor. (CDRL 27)

The Contractor shall document the flight hardware and software heritage as well as any relevant differences between the claimed heritage and the proposed design (for example, on-orbit environment, mission duration, requirements, etc.). (CDRL 28)

2.4 Management Planning

The Contractor shall identify and rank risks to the development of the LMX and describe associated mitigations. The likelihood and criticality of risks will be ranked on a 5x5 matrix per GPR 7120.4D. The

Contractor will identify alternate implementation paths for all high-risk items. (CDRL 29)

If the study effort includes Risk Mitigation effort, the Contractor shall implement the Risk Mitigation effort under contract, brief the status of this effort at the reviews described in section 3, and provide a final report detailing the work completed, associated results, and the level to which the risk has been mitigated. (CDRL 30)

The Contractor shall define a Sparing Philosophy approach for procuring and maintaining an adequate supply of spare parts and subassemblies to minimize cost, schedule, and performance risks caused by part damage or shortages. (CDRL 26)

The Contractor shall develop an implementation phase schedule. The Contractor will assume that the parts for the 4 Flight models and any spare hardware needed for sparing philosophy will be procured at the same time. The schedule will show the following major instrument reviews: SRR, IBR, PDR, CDR, MRRs, TRRs, PER, and PSR, achievement of TRL6, development of the instrument physical model(s), long-lead (> 1 year) procurements, I&T and V&V activities, and the top three critical paths. The schedule will identify any flight hardware procurements that are started ahead of the completion of the EDU (or equivalent). (CDRL 31Error! Reference source not found.)

The Contractor shall suggest dates for the contract starts and other milestones that will minimize the overall cost and minimize the developmental risks. The schedule required to meet the program level milestones is shown in section 1.2 under item b. (CDRL 31)

The Contractor shall suggest dates for the FM3 and FM4 contract starts, deliveries, and other milestones that will minimize the overall cost and minimize the developmental risks to FM1 and FM2. The nominal

PSR dates and Launch Readiness Dates (LRDs) for these units are as follows: (CDRL 32)

Mission PSR (Gov. FY) LRD (Gov. FY)

FM3 Q2 FY33 Q3 FY37

FM4 Q2 FY34 Q1 FY42

The Contractor shall provide a parametric cost estimate for the development and production of four flight model instruments, any spare hardware needed for sparing philosophy, and the engineering model recommended in the EDU Model Philosophy & Plan (see section 2.3). The costs will be separately identified for each model, flight unit, required GSE (ground support equipment), and technology development(s) and organized by WBS element. The costs will be shown phased by Government fiscal year. The Contractor will state what parametric model was used in the analysis and provide any inputs to the model beyond the MEL (section 2.2) , describing the heritage of the model. (CDRL 33)

3 Reviews, Reporting, and Deliverable Products

The Contractor shall perform the reviews and reporting tasks and provide deliverable products as specified below. The Contracting Officer's written determination that Government requests for action

(RFA's) or requests for information (RFI's) regarding the deliverable reviews and products have been closed out will constitute acceptance of the deliverable.

3.1 Status Meetings and Reviews

3.1.1 Kickoff Meeting

The Contractor shall support a kickoff meeting within 2 weeks of the Authorization to proceed to provide a team introduction, summary of the proposed work for the study, proposed study schedule, and a high-level introduction to the initial LMX design concept. The Contractor will plan for a 2-hour virtual meeting. The Contractor will deliver a soft copy of the Kickoff chart set 24 hours prior to the meeting. (CDRL 34)

3.1.2 Monthly Progress Review (MPR)

The Contractor shall present the results of the work performed since the previous MPR and discuss relevant technical and programmatic issues and findings. The topics expected to be covered are listed in the CDRLs table in section 3.2. The MPRs will be planned as 4-hour virtual meetings. The Contractor will deliver a soft copy of the MPR chart set 24 hours prior to the meeting. (CDRL 35)

3.1.3 Midterm Review (MTR)

The Contractor shall present a summary of the results of the work performed for the Midterm Review.

This review will be held at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, pending travel restrictions. The

Contractor will plan on a one and a half day review. The topics expected to be covered are listed in the

CDRLs table in section 3.2. The Contractor will deliver a soft copy of the MTR chart set 72 hours prior to the meeting. (CDRL 36)

3.1.4 Final Study Review (FSR)

The Contractor shall present a summary of the results of the work performed for the Final Study Review.

The Contractor will plan on a one and a half day review at the Contractor’s facility. If possible, the

Government will travel to attend the review in-person, pending travel restrictions. The topics expected to be covered are listed in the CDRLs table in section 3.2. The Contractor will deliver a soft copy of the

FSR chart set 72 hours prior to the meeting. (CDRL 37)

3.1.5 Final Report Package (FRP)

The Contractor shall deliver any CDRLs that were not delivered and approved by the Government

Contracting Officer (CO) prior to the FSR or any CDRLs requiring updates in the Final Report Package. The

Contractor will address any open action items remaining after the FSR in the Final Report Package. The

FRP will be delivered within 2 weeks after the FSR. (CDRL 38)

3.2 Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL)

The Contractor shall deliver the data products specified in the following table.

Table 2: CDRLs

UAN = Updates As Necessary

ID Deliverable/Task Deliverable

Format

Kickoff MPR MTR FSR FRP SOW

Ref

1 Frame Rate, Bit Depth, and Detector Noise Trade

Study

Briefing Charts Status Prelim Final UAN Error!

Refer ence sourc e not found

2 Reserved

3 On-Board Event Filtering

Trade Study

Briefing Charts Status Prelim Final UAN Error!

Refer ence sourc e not found

4 Reserved

5 Detector Management

Trade Report

Briefing Charts Status Prelim Final UAN 2.2

6 Reserved

7 LMX Design Briefing Charts +

Models

Status Prelim Final UAN 2.2

8 Predicted performance

vs. PORD

Briefing Charts Status Prelim Final UAN 2.2

9 Level-3 Requirement

Compliance

Spreadsheet Status Prelim Final UAN 2.2

10 Reserved

11 Suggested values for TBRs Briefing Charts Status, final answer

UAN UAN UAN 2.2

by 3rd

MPR

12 Reserved

13 Navigation Approach Briefing Charts Status Prelim Final UAN 2.2

14 Level 1b Algorithm

Description

Briefing Charts Status Prelim Final UAN 2.2

15 ZRDQ Review and

Straylight Mitigation

Concept

Briefing Charts Status Prelim Final UAN 2.2

16 Radiometric Performance and Uncertainty Budgets

Briefing Charts +

Model + Budget

Spreadsheets

Status Prelim Final UAN 2.2

17 Reserved

18 Reserved

19 Reserved

20 Reliability Approach Briefing Charts Status Prelim Final UAN 2.2

21 Single-Point Failures &

Fault Critical Elements

Briefing Charts Status Prelim Final UAN 2.2

22 MEL Spreadsheet Status Prelim Final UAN 2.2

23 Analytical Tools, Simulartions, and Models

Briefing Charts Status Final UAN UAN 2.2

24 TRL Assessment Briefing Charts Status Final UAN UAN 2.3

25 Technology Development

Plan

Briefing Charts Status Prelim Final UAN 2.3

26 Sparing Philosophy and

Plan

Briefing Charts Status Prelim Final UAN 2.4

27 EDU Model Philosophy &

Plan

Briefing Charts Status Prelim Final UAN 2.3

28 Heritage Assessment Briefing Charts Status Final UAN UAN 2.3

29 Risk Assessment Briefing Charts Status Prelim Final UAN 2.4

30 Risk Mitigation Effort (if applicable)

Briefing Charts Status SU SU UAN 2.4

31 Flight Implementation

Schedule

MS Project +

Briefing Charts

Status Prelim Final UAN 2.4

32 Options Schedule MS Project +

Briefing Charts

Status Prelim Final UAN 2.4

33 Flight Cost Estimate Spreadsheet Status Prelim Final UAN 2.4

34 Kickoff Meeting Briefing Charts Charts due 24 hours before

3.1.1

35 MPR Charts Briefing Charts 24 hrs before

MPR

3.1.2

36 MTR Charts Briefing Charts 72 hrs before

MTR

3.1.3

37 FSR Charts Briefing Charts 72 hrs befor e FSR

3.1.4

38 FRP NA 2 wks post

FSR

3.1.5

Appendix A: Acronyms

A/D Analog-to-Digital ACS Attitude Control System ADC Analog to Digital Converter AR Acceptance Review CDR Critical Design Review CDRL Contract Data Requirement List CO Contracting Officer CSCI Computer Software Configuration Item DNB Day-Night Band EDU Engineering Development Unit EOL End of Life ESD Electro-Static Discharge ENOB Effective Number of Bits (ADC) ESTE Electrical System Test Equipment FM Flight Model FOR Field of Regard FRP Final Report Package FSDE Flight Software Development Environment FSR Final Study Review GeoXO Geostationary Extended Observations GFE Government Furnished Equipment GIRD General Interface Requirements Document GPR Goddard Procedural Requirements GSE Ground Support Equipment GSFC Goddard Space Flight Center IBR Integrated Baseline Review NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPR NASA Procedural Requirements IBR Integrated Baseline Review IMAR Instrument Mission Assurance Requirements INR Image Navigation and Registration IR Infrared K Kelvin kHz Kilohertz km Kilometers LMX GEO-XO Lightning Mapper LRD Launch Readiness Date m meters MAT Mission Allowable Temperature Mbps Mega-bits-per-second MEL Master Equipment List MLI Multi-Layer Insulation MMD Mean Mission Duration

MPR Monthly Progress Review MRR Manufacturing Readiness Review MTF Modulation Transfer Function MTR Mid-Term Review mW Milliwatt NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NEDN Noise Equivalent Delta Radiance NEDT Noise Equivalent Delta Temperature NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOL Non-Operating Limits NOT Non-Operating Temperature NPR NASA Procedural Requirements OAT Outgassing Allowable Temperature OT Operating Temperature PDR Preliminary Design Review PER Pre-Environmental Review PORD Performance and Operation Requirements Document Qx FYz Quarter x of Fiscal Year z PSR Pre-Shipment Review rad Radian RFA Request for Action RFI Request for Information RMS Root Mean Square SNR Signal-to-Noise Ratio SOW Statement of Work sr Steradian SRR System Requirements Review SU Status Update S/W Software TBD To Be Determined TBR To Be Reviewed TBS To Be Supplied TDI Time Delay and Integration TDP Technology Development Plan TM Thermal Margin Tmin Minimum Scene Temperature Tmax Maximum Scene Temperature TRL Technology Readiness Level TRR Test Readiness Review UAN Update as Necessary UIID Unique Instrument Interface Document um Micrometers (Microns) urad Microradian WBS Work Breakdown Structure ZRDQ Zones of Reduced Data Quality