Transcript PLATO - Hello there!

PLATO
Development Plan
and elements of costs
Rome, May 5th, 2009
PLATO – Payload Consortium Plenary Meeting
Consortium organisation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Instrument Project Management and Instrument System Management :
CNES responsibility (TBC)
TOU: Italian responsibility and Swiss for mechanics
FEE and FPA: English responsibility and Spanish for FPA
DPU: French responsibility (Spanish for HW ?)
Algorithms for on-board SW: French responsibility
Fast DPU: German responsibility (HW and SW)
ICU: Italian
Harnesses: TBD
AIV of the TEL assemblies: French responsibility
Supporting structure: ESA (TBC) responsibility
AIV of the instrument: under ESA (TBC) responsibility
EGSE, MGSE, OGSE... TBD
– Shall be finalised
Rome, May 5th, 2009
PLATO – Payload Consortium Plenary Meeting
Model policy (1)
Mathematical models
•
End to end instrument model (Belgian responsibility)
– Used for performance validation, for requirements evaluations, not delivered
•
CAD optical model (Italian responsibility)
– Used for optical performances validation, not delivered to satellite
•
CAD model (ESA (TBC) responsibility)
– Used for inner and external mechanical I/F management, delivered to satellite
•
FEM model (ESA (TBC) responsibility)
– Used for results predictions before tests, and use in a satellite global model,
delivered to satellite
•
Thermal model (ESA (TBC) responsibility)
– Used for results predictions before tests, and use in a satellite global model,
delivered to satellite
•
Thermo-elastic model (ESA (TBC) responsibility)
–
used for instabilities predictions during in-flight observations
Rome, May 5th, 2009
PLATO – Payload Consortium Plenary Meeting
Model policy (2)
Engineering models functionally tested on
specific benches: need of EM and EGSE
• Verifications of the functionalities,
• Verifications of the electrical I/F
– Analog electronics (FEE+AEU) tested with CCDs,
– Several electronics chains (FEE+AEU+DPU) tested with CCDs
simulators,
– DPU tested with a camera simulator (HW and SW),
– ICU+DPU tested with a camera simulator (HW and SW), also
used for Software development and tests
N.B.: Software is supplied in successive packages, down-loaded in the
targets after lab tests, and functionally tested on the benches
Rome, May 5th, 2009
PLATO – Payload Consortium Plenary Meeting
Model policy (3)
Structural Thermal Model:
– vibrations levels at sub-assemblies I/F consolidation,
– temperatures measurements, validation of thermal
concepts
• Supporting structure STM, with its thermal equipments
• Telescopes dummies (except a few samples STM at
strategic positions on the structure)
• Analog electronics STM,
N.B.: the digital electronics is in the SVM and has to follow
the SVM model policy
Rome, May 5th, 2009
PLATO – Payload Consortium Plenary Meeting
Model policy (4)
• Qualification logic:
– Sub-assemblies qualified at the manufacturer:
• TOU: 2 QM manufactured, one for qualification tests, (one for
intensive optical tests)
• FPA: 2 QM manufactured, same destination as TOU
• TEL (TOU+FPA+baffle+FAS) qualification tests on one QM
(baffle and shim are qualified at this level)
• Electronics boxes: 1 QM qualified at the manufacturer
– Supporting structure QFM, with its thermal
equipments, qualified with STM sub-assemblies,
– Harnesses QFM qualified on the structure
Rome, May 5th, 2009
PLATO – Payload Consortium Plenary Meeting
Model policy (5)
Flight Model:
– Sub-assemblies are tested at the manufacturer or in consortium
labs:
• TOU: FM delivered after an optical test (measure of the best focal
plane position) in in-flight conditions (thermal-vacuum)
• FPA: FM delivered after measure of the CCD surface position, and
detector evaluation in in-flight conditions,
• TEL assembly (TOU+FPA+baffle+FAS): vibrations at acceptance
level, thermal-vacuum on 1 sample / 3 (TBC)
• Electronics boxes: FM tested at acceptance levels at the
manufacturers
– Supporting structure QFM, with its thermal equipments,
refurbished after qualification tests, and then tested with FM subassemblies,
– Harnesses QFM on the QFM structure
Rome, May 5th, 2009
PLATO – Payload Consortium Plenary Meeting
Model policy (6)
Flight Model:
• Functional tests are performed on the FM:
– electrical tests
– optical tests, not systematic, in case by case, or in
case of doubt
• Environmental tests are performed at satellite
level:
– Vibrations tests,
– Thermal-vacuum tests,
– EMI-EMC tests
Rome, May 5th, 2009
PLATO – Payload Consortium Plenary Meeting
Logic of performance
validation
• Optical performances are validated by
– use of the optical mathematical model,
– optical measures on the QM#1 before and after tests
– complementary optical measures on QM#2 including thermal sensitivity
tests
– optical measures at room temperature on all FMs
– optical measures at in-flight conditions on 1/3 of FMs (TBC)
• Functional performances are validated by
–
–
–
–
–
tests on individual EM electronics boxes
tests on EM analog functional chains: CCD+FEE
tests on EM digital functional chains: DPU+ICU
tests on the complete chain + estimation of the EMI-EMC on EM
functional tests on FM with SVM + EMI-EMC tests
Rome, May 5th, 2009
PLATO – Payload Consortium Plenary Meeting
CCD procurement
activities
• E2V information
• Development phase
– Duration: 18 months
• Evaluation and flight manufacture preparation
– Duration: 18 months
• Flight models manufacture
– Delay for the first parts: 6 months,
– After: yield of 16 parts / months
– Duration of 12 months for the ~190 needed parts
• Critical path for the schedule
Rome, May 5th, 2009
PLATO – Payload Consortium Plenary Meeting
Constraint for AIV
• For time saving, operations on CCDs, FPAs, FEEs, TOUs and TELs
shall have the same delivery rate and shall be synchronised
Operation
Rate
Delivery delay
Duration
CCD manufacturing
4 / week
T0 = 1st flight CCD delivery
~1 year
FPA assembling
1 / week
4 months after T0
~1 year
TOU assembling
1 / week
4 months after T0
~1 year
FEE assembling
1 / week
4 months after T0
~1 year
TEL assembling
1 / week
7 months after T0
~1 year
• Number of teams working in parallel shall be consecutively
dimensioned
Rome, May 5th, 2009
PLATO – Payload Consortium Plenary Meeting
Summary schedule
Rome, May 5th, 2009
PLATO – Payload Consortium Plenary Meeting
Summary schedule
2011
Rome, May 5th, 2009
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
PLATO – Payload Consortium Plenary Meeting
2017
Elements of costs
Instrument assembling
• MGSE needed at instrument level
• A rotating support allowing the work on the instrument on several
positions:
– Axis vertical, for handling and integration
– Axis horizontal, for assembling, integration, access...
• Remark for thermal-vacuum tests
– If the instrument is tested alone in thermal-vacuum, need of a support
allowing a rotation to have Z axis / vertical close to 30° for heat-pipes in
horizontal position
– If the instrument is tested at satellite level, satellite shall be inclined by
30°  support
• OGSE = TBD
Rome, May 5th, 2009
PLATO – Payload Consortium Plenary Meeting
Elements of costs
Telescope assembling
• Aim
– To assemble the TEL, (TOU+FPA+FAS+baffle)
– Needed rate: 1 tel / week
• 4 teams working in the same time
– 4 persons in each team,
– duration : ~1 year
• GSE needed at telescope level
– Two supports, motor controlled rotations around the transverse
axes, used in optical tests, for telescope orientation in front of the
collimator, one in thermal-vacuum, the other in air
– Support for vibrations tests
– Two collimators
Rome, May 5th, 2009
PLATO – Payload Consortium Plenary Meeting
Cost evaluation (TBC)
Equipment / operation
Cost
CCD procurement
FPA
E2V ROM price waited
4.0
TOU (incl. Baffle)
TEL AIV (incl. OGSE+MGSE)
Comments
Preliminary evaluation by Spanish team
TBD by Italian team
4.0
Structure (incl. Thermal)
Evaluation by CNES,
Too low maturity level for cost evaluation
FEE
8.0
TBC, including CCD-FEE coupling costs
Fast FEE
3.0
TBC by English colleagues
MEU (incl. SW)
20.0
extrapolated from previous realisations
Fast DPU (incl. SW)
5.0
DLR evaluation
ICU
5.0
Evaluated as fast DPU, TBC by Italian colleagues
Harness
2.0
extrapolated from Corot
Instrument AIV
8.0
extrapolated from telescope AIV
AIV of the digital electronics
2.0
EGSE
1.0
Data Centre
30.0
AEU (synchro+DC-DC
converters)
Total
Rome, May 5th, 2009
PLATO – Payload Consortium Plenary Meeting
Conclusion
• Schedule
– 5.5 years between the beginning of detector
activity and delivery to satellite
– detector contract well in advance (at least 1
year before PDR !) for saving the launch date
in 2017
• Costs
– First evaluation on the assumptions given
above, shall be finalized
Rome, May 5th, 2009
PLATO – Payload Consortium Plenary Meeting