SATPC0031105 Tab 04 4 SOW.pdf

STATEMENT OF WORK

1. Objective/Requirements Preparation of presentation materials and inputs to support Inheritance Review (IR) for Power High Cards S/N 5 & 6 to be held in May 2023.

2. Characteristics, Scope, and Specs

The contractor shall perform the following duties:

1) Prepare the following presentation materials for a PH5 & 6 Inheritance Review, the agenda will include the following:

A. Development differences between 5 cards built to date.

i. Goal here would be a chronological story of builds, testing, PFR’s /

Anomalies / … that led to each subsequent build. Is there a tight coupling between PFR’s and each build iteration (e.g. did PFR’s drive PH-4 and PH-5 designs)?

ii. Eventually leads to: What corrective actions / mitigations are incorporated in PH-5 design.

B. General Background and Design of PH-5

a. Block/Functional Diagram- Card layout description including relevant

HV cables and connectors.

b. 3D CAD views of card (if available)

c. Material Selection

d. MOMA-MS Design Team’s risk list (what does the design team worry about re: PH-5?).

i. Opto-couplers

1. Status of PH5 optos

2. Issues that arose during build

3. Recommendations for future builds – If current opto is obsolete provide suggestions for replacement units and how this will impact design

ii. HV cable design

1. Status of PH5 cables

2. Issues that arose during build (PFR’s, NCR’s Risks)

3. Recommendations for future builds

iii. CEM resistor trimming at -4500V instead of -5000V (this was done for both PH3 and PH5 and is recommended for PH6)

C. Thermal Environments and Control of SEB – TASI inputs required

a. Expected environments vs margined requirements for relevant hardware under discussion (PH card, cables, …).

b. Differences in Cold Survival & Op Limits between PH3, PH5 & PH6

c. How much heater power is needed to keep SEB at -20C (are T-straps needed, where should heater be placed)

d. Impacts to other components – with higher cold op limit

e. Plans for future thermal testing or requirements waivers. Not a design review, but for the recommended scenario, share with review board the high-level thoughts / plans on thermal testing for 2028 launch readiness. Would a plan include PQV-type testing for thermal cycling (package, or parts, qualification verification; e.g. 3X number of thermal cycles expected in flight of high risk parts in the unit; other?

D. Proposed PH-6 Changes and Design Tweaks (and other changes for flight including cables, etc; above and beyond any improved QA and workmanship plans).

E. Vendor availability / capability / schedule for a possible PH-6 build (if recommended).

F. GSFC Recommendation Path Forward (e.g. new PH-6 build and …).

G. GSFC assessment of technical and schedule risk list associated with recommended path forward.

H. Recommended MEP actions in FY23 to enable GSFC recommendation (e.g.

long lead items purchases?).

I. Budget lifecycle (FY23 through FY29; exclude Phase E) to enable recommendation.

J. Backup

a. Contamination control PH5 – compliance to general contamination requirements (bioburdens)

i. Contamination constraints

ii. Silicon contamination of opto-couplers

b. Configuration management of PH5 – Drawings in TDMS (EIDP items)

2) Clarification of any NCR's generated during the build of the card, travel to

GSFC for in-person participation in review

a. Provide explanation for increasing of power high card S/N 5 cold survival and operational limit from -45C to -20C

3) Recommendations for PH6 card build, which should include but are not limited to:

a. opto-coupler selection for a future Power high card build, considering that previously used opto-couper is now obsolete, and suggestions for a suitable replacement and impacts of this change.

b. Recommendations for high voltage cable and interface(s) designs.

4) Deposition of all Requests for Action and Action items as a result of the review.

5) Weekly meetings to track progress

6) Dry Run of Inheritance review led by GSFC MOMA team at least 10 business days prior to review.

3. Place of Performance UMICH/SPRL – electronic delivery of review materials and inputs NASA/GSFC – in person support for the review

4. Period of Performance

3 month period of performance