Transcript Diapositive 1

An update on PLATO Payload activities
Consortium tasks answering
to the ESA recommendations
ESA Recommendations:
■ Complete with priority the industrialisation plan, finalise the
definition of the planned interactions between the PLATO Mission
Consortium and industry and define as early as possible the industrial
resources needed for the “chain productions” of i.e., lenses,
telescopes AIV, parts and material procurements.
Consider cooperation with industrial partners as early as possible
during the Definition phase to ensure a solid industrial basis for the
Implementation phase proposal.
■ Reassess the Consortium schedule based on realistic deliveries for
CCDs, Telescope Optical Units and Front End Electronics.
2011-02-28
PLATO TOU Meeting
CNES – DCT/SI/IN – David LAUBIER
2/9
Consortium tasks answering
to the ESA recommendations
■ Schedule version « Schedule_PLATO_PAYLOAD_14-01-2011.mpp »
takes into account CCD delivery dates send by ESA.
■ To consolidate our development Plan and our schedule some actions
defined by February 10th e-mail
■ Expected Partner answers:
 For updating the proposed schedule: mid-February
 For answering about industrial approach and organization for
Implementation Phase : end of February
2011-02-28
PLATO TOU Meeting
CNES – DCT/SI/IN – David LAUBIER
3/9
Is the equipment production during implementation phase
under industrial responsibility?
If the responsibility is NOT under “industrial responsibility” (i.e., it is
under laboratory responsibility), we have to:
■ describe how the design has been validated and secured during the
definition phase,
■ precise what will be the organization permitting to insure the
equipment production (with or without industrial support) during the
implementation phase,
■ precise what will be the organization permitting to realize the
integration and tests tasks (with or without industrial support),
■ detail on which elements we can rely to consolidate the planning.
2011-02-28
PLATO TOU Meeting
CNES – DCT/SI/IN – David LAUBIER
4/9
If the responsibility is under “industry”
■
If the laboratory was in charge of the design during the definition phase:

Had some industry been associated to the definition in view of taking over the
responsibility during the implementation phase?
–

■
If YES we have to exhibit a list of the industrial contractors involved and we shall describe what were the tasks it have
taken over during the definition.
How is organized, at which date, the responsibility transfer to industry? What is
the list of potential contractors, the contractual approach (ITT, AO …)?
If the design during the definition phase was under the industry
responsibility (or to an industrial consortium), we shall precise:


The names of these industry contractors and the tasks which have been
entrusted to them (design, prototyping or bread boarding, modelling, …)
Is this industrial organization still applicable to the implementation phase?
– If YES, can this industry comment our development plan and our planning before end of
February?
– If NOT then we shall precise :
How will this organization be put in place: timing, list of potential contractors, ITT, AO …?
How can we give credibility to our planning while we wait for the industry organization to take
over the responsibility?
2011-02-28
PLATO TOU Meeting
CNES – DCT/SI/IN – David LAUBIER
5/9
Preliminary Instrument Requirement Review
For the PLATO PIRR (Preliminary Instruments Requirements Review) to be held in
May /June time frame, the objectives would be the following:
■
Verify that the payload system architecture is compliant with the ESA
requirements
■
Verify that the payload internal and external interfaces are complaint
■
Verify that the payload design is consistent with the allocated resources
■
Verify that development and AIV/AIT plans are consistent and complete
■
Verify that the planning is consistent, complete and coherent with the ESA
established deliveries and delivery dates
■
Verify that all critical technologies e.g. detectors (or coatings) have been
clearly identified and the selected development is adequate. Preliminary results
shall be presented (Mainly ESA and e2v docs)
2011-02-28
PLATO TOU Meeting
CNES – DCT/SI/IN – David LAUBIER
6/9
Preliminary Instrument Requirement Review
The following documents are expected from the Consortium:
Payload Requirements Specification (Including functional and performances
requirements)
■ Payload Design Report
■ Instruments Performance Report
■ Instruments Interface Document part-B (IID-B)
■ Payload Design and Development plan
■ Industrial Approach Consolidation
■ Payload AIV/AIT Plan
■ Instrument Calibration plan (ground and in-flight)
■ Payload Product Assurance plan
■ Full schedule (Microsoft Project or compatible)
■
2011-02-28
PLATO TOU Meeting
CNES – DCT/SI/IN – David LAUBIER
7/9
Preliminary Instrument Requirement Review
In addition, we proposed to ESA to provide for the review:
 TOU preliminary Technical Specification
 FPA preliminary Technical Specification
 FEE preliminary Technical Specification
 AEU preliminary Technical Specification
 ICU preliminary Requirement Document
 MEU preliminary Requirement Document
 F-DPU preliminary Requirement Document
2011-02-28
PLATO TOU Meeting
CNES – DCT/SI/IN – David LAUBIER
8/9
Telecon with ESA
February 18th
■ CCD Delivery dates:
 First delivery April 1st 2014 (no change)
 Delivery of 6 CCD/month (instead of 8)
 Last delivery (F-CCDs) February 1st 2016 (instead of November 1s 2015)
3 months delay)
■ Instrument delivery date requirements:
 The deliveries by batch of 8 N-cameras and a batch of 2 F-cameras are
confirmed
 F-Camera delivery must be the last batch.
 Last delivery date (the 2 F-Cameras): October 2016;
instead of April 2016 (+ 6 months) for our last batch (N-Cameras)
■ The result between CCD new dates and Instrument new dates is 3
months more for our schedule.
This will be analysed and compared with your various schedule
answers.
2011-02-28
PLATO TOU Meeting
CNES – DCT/SI/IN – David LAUBIER
9/9