1

HIPO Trimester Review Status Report

Ted Dunham

Lowell Observatory

11 December, 2008

2

Major Progress Items

• SI airworthiness team recommended to AFSRB that HIPO be considered airworthy (pursuant to airworthiness TIM in May 2008)

• Sample HIPO data sent to the DCS for ingestion. Results not yet known to us.• Status of upgrades (“Let’s use Mac Minis, and get better screens while we’re at it!”)

– Mac Mini control computers, larger format flat panel displays documented and in service

– Machining of parts for optional small, fast CCDs complete; documentation done.

– A few minor changes responding to airworthiness findings and an ICD ECO

– Much supporting documentation required: 14 new dwgs, 24 dwg revs, 9 doc. revs

• HIPO driven to Site 9 on November 3, on schedule• HIPO Delta Airworthiness & Operations review successfully held November 5

– My apologies for the short fuse on this! Updated memo to AFSRB not yet received.

• Plans for HIPO ground tests of SOFIA completed• HIPO Pre-Install Review successfully held November 14• HIPO installed on November 17, on schedule.• Completed TC-HIPO-01 on 11/18, but work stalled thereafter by CDDS

– Flexure internal to HIPO is now known to be ±0.1”, sufficient for SOFIA test purposes

• TRR for HIPO ground tests of SOFIA held 11/21; primary problem area the CDDS• Rohacell insulation coated and painted, tools marked, processes clarified, …

3

Installation

• Changes to procedure compared to Waco– QA approval lines added throughout– Minor technical modifications

• HIPO cart change due to annoying problem in Waco• Ballast weights on the floor needed to be moved

– Complicated hand-off of roles and responsibilities• Complicated in concept, straightforward in execution

• Problems encountered– GPS antenna line had been moved for another purpose. Fixed.– Quite a few bad fibers, mostly incorrectly seated or dirty. Fixed.– Intentional “problem”; trimmed Rohacell insulation to fit INF ID.– Tool control paradigm wasn’t quite settled yet. Settled now.

• Things still in the works– Scale not yet set up, so will weigh HIPO on removal– Rack mounting platform, UPS, MADS, CW rack crane not done

4

Installation, Cont’d

5

Current Summary Status

Category Technical Cost Schedule Comment

a. Cryostat CCD67 parts

b. Detectors CCD67 installation

c. Optics DONE

d. Electronics DONE

e. Software See Remaining Work

f. Airworthiness/Documents See Remaining Work

g. ICP Status DONE

Outstanding items: > MADS unit for SI racks> Platform for rack mounting

6

Budget Status

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Planned Running Total

Actual/Projected Running Total

High spending rate in first quarter due to ground test work.Total exceeds FY09 grant amount due to ground test work and funding being carried over from FY08.

7

HIPO Milestone Schedule

8

Remaining Work Summary

• Ground Performance Testing (for SOFIA, not HIPO)– Carry out GPS and SMA functional tests (Short HIPO commissioning tests)– Carry out as many of the HIPO tests of SOFIA as possible in the short remaining time– Carry out formal analysis and documentation of ground test results

• Documentation– Write HIPO-MCS interface document and test plan– Integrate with MCS to Tier 4 by whatever approach we decide on– Continue working on the HIPO operations procedures document– Provide input for EMI/EMC test plan, now part of an overall Combined System Test– Incorporate MADS units into the HIPO drawings and documentation system– Write the USRA Proposal Manual (for use by GI proposers)– Write the HIPO data analysis manual

• Upgrades– Ongoing control and data analysis software upgrades

• CCD67 support, stop/abort, GPS/NTP daemon, 2-channel coordination, MCS communication, …

– Complete CCD67 implementation

• Science preparation effort at MIT and Lowell– Ongoing KBO orbit maintenance for future predictions– Annual observing runs at the Perkins to prepare for SOFIA science flights

• Understand problems related to precise differential photometry

9

QA - Issues and Mitigations

These issues are two facets of the same general problem, not HIPO-specific

• Clarify and formalize QA processes - Major– Description:

• Need to feel our way through folding SI activities into DFRC’s operational culture in a workable, effective manner. There is no accepted precedent.

– Impact on Science, Schedule, Budget:• Frustration and confusion, additional time required

– Mitigation:• Define documentation content better - overlap and confusion in HIPO documents• Just keep at it in good faith all around

• Educate QA personnel regarding SI procedures - Major– Description:

• Science instruments are foreign to the QA staff at DFRC. Lack of understanding slows progress and reduces value of QA activity.

– Impact on Science, Schedule, and Budget:• Frustration and confusion, inappropriate emphasis can result

– Mitigation• Just keep at it in good faith all around

10

DAOF Ground Ops Lessons• Schedule

– Allow 2 days for training, extra time for press, VIP tours, and lots of meetings• Cryo, compressed gas, “Hazard Communication”

• SOFIA orientation, SOFIA evacuation training

• Logistical– No cafeteria or nearby place to eat. Best to bring lunch.– Refrigerators, microwaves available. No food in the lab; water only on the A/C– Day shift 7AM-4PM. Second shift ends 11PM.– No working alone, even in the lab.– Permanently mark any tool that might find its way on the aircraft. Tool control.

• Processes & procedures– DFRC has well-developed processes/procedures/docs we don’t know about– We do lots of things that are second nature to us that they don’t know about– Nothing “significant” gets done without a written & approved procedure with QA

sign-off at various steps along the way. First approximation: things in your SSA.

• Notable Issues– LN handling, leak check, grounding, tool control all worked out.– LHe handling, hoist operation, software interaction w/ platform systems not settled

11