Thomas Glavich                             Mary White              Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Tech...
The Moon Mineralogy Mapper is a DiscoveryProgram Instrument of Opportunity, selected to flyon Chandrayaan-1, India’s first...
 We are going to discuss some of the experiences of  the Moon Mineralogy Mapper Team in working  with the Indian Space Re...
 M3 is a Discovery Program Instrument of  Opportunity   Visible to near infrared grating spectrometer (~430 to 3000    n...
Global Mode image cube and selected radiance and apparent reflectancespectra from an M3 data set acquired on the 5 Februar...
• M3 Key Deliveries and Activities   Engineering Model (Command and Data Interface    Electronics only) delivered and tes...
• India is a developing nation• The technical sophistication of the Indian Space  Research Organization is every bit the e...
M3 on the Chandrayaan-1 SpacecraftSinglespherical                                   24 degree FOV        Chandrayaan -1   ...
Chandrayaan Launch System• Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV)   • 4 stage core, 6 strap-ons   • First Launch: 1993   • ...
CHANDRAYAAN-1                                Mission Profile                                                              ...
ISRO Satellite Centre (ISAC)   BangaloreSatish Dhawan Space Centre  Sriharikota
 ISRO issued an Announcement of Opportunity for  foreign instruments for the Chandrayaan-1 Mission Principal Investigato...
• India is on the Designated Country list• The Indian Space Program is closely tied to ISRO’s military  • Little to no sep...
 The term “Technical Assistance” in the ITAR agreement  was a major choking point for the Indian Government They repeate...
 Schedule and budget constraints required that we make progress, even though the TAA was not yet in place   M3 had been ...
 The signing of the TAA and our participation in the  Chandrayaan mission was directly tied to US-India  government relat...
 ISRO ISAC did not usually develop an ICD between the  spacecraft and each instrument   Mechanical and electrical interf...
 Although both the Ch-1 and M3 teams spoke English,  communication during telecons was challenging    Acronyms and abbre...
 Program management in general appears more diffuse in  India than it is in the United States   It’s certainly harder fo...
 Chandrayaan-1 project did not use Earned Value Scheduling was done with Excel and PowerPoint    The real schedule and ...
CHANDRAYAAN-1 SCHEDULE (1-AUG-2004 to 31-AUG-2005)SL           ACTIVITY               A    S   O   N   D    J    F   M   A...
CHANDRAYAAN-1 SCHEDULE ( contd.)                      1-SEP-2005 to 30-SEPT-2006SL                                 S    O ...
AIT SCHEDULE - INTEGRATION TO LAUNCH (11 MONTHS)                        1-OCT-2006 to 1-SEPT-2007SL          ACTIV ITY    ...
 Spacecraft Development Team   Most (nearly all) team members have worked together    for many missions   Know their ro...
 Sometimes not clear who was responsible for what   Job titles might be the same as for JPL, but    responsibilities cou...
 Resources that are commonly available at NASA are sometimes of limited availability at ISRO – due to cost and security  ...
 M3 team was ultra cautious about everything   Two people in Bangalore from the start of spacecraft    I&T until 10 week...
M3 with              ProtectionM3 Pre-Ship      and Portrait     Handling               Device
M3
ISRO                                                        M3-related raw Telemetry       M3 Archive (L0 + L1B Products) ...
 M3 team generated a draft Operations ICD   No response from Chandrayaan-1 team M3 generated an Operations Understandin...
 Instrument operations were very simple    Few commands    Reasonably failsafe as far as operator error    Stationed p...
 ISRO wanted NASA DSN support   Increased the opportunities for M3 to downlink JPL Navigation support   raised the JPL...
 More thermal margin    Field of view of the passive cooler    Though the instrument was sensitive to thermal     input...
• From the perspectives of ISRO and the M3 Science team, this mission was a great success    • Major discoveries    • M3 h...
From Science, 23 October 2009, cover. Reprinted with permission from AAAS.
• We received an enormous amount of help from too  many people to mention. In particular we would  like to acknowledge,• S...
Glavich
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Glavich

15,307 views
15,324 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
15,307
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Glavich

  1. 1. Thomas Glavich Mary White Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology.Copyright 2010 California Institute of Technology. Government sponsorship acknowledged. Used with permission
  2. 2. The Moon Mineralogy Mapper is a DiscoveryProgram Instrument of Opportunity, selected to flyon Chandrayaan-1, India’s first lunar spacecraft. TheProject presented a variety of challenges rangingfrom ITAR issues to interface negotiation, to culturaldifferences in the working environment. Thepresentation will detail some of the more unusualchallenges encountered in working with the IndianSpace Research Organization, and in achieving asuccessful outcome for both NASA and India. Thebenefits of a flexible approach to requirements,interfaces and testing worked well for both parties.
  3. 3.  We are going to discuss some of the experiences of the Moon Mineralogy Mapper Team in working with the Indian Space Research Organization’s First Mission to the Moon on Chandrayaan-1 The entire experience was one of the best and most enjoyable in our careers, and we would do it again tomorrow
  4. 4.  M3 is a Discovery Program Instrument of Opportunity  Visible to near infrared grating spectrometer (~430 to 3000 nm)  Two imaging modes  Global (140 m / 10 nm) and Targeted (70 m / 20 to 40 nm) M3 flew on Chandrayaan-1  India’s first Lunar and Deep Space Mission M3 Implementation Timeline  Initial Funding was received in April 2005  Preliminary Design Review was held August 2005  Confirmation Review was held in February 2006  Critical Design Review was held in May 2006  Pre-Ship Review held in May 2007  Launch October 2008  Mission terminated August 2009
  5. 5. Global Mode image cube and selected radiance and apparent reflectancespectra from an M3 data set acquired on the 5 February 2009 that includes the Apollo 15 landing site near Hadley Rille (26° 26 N, 3° 39 E).
  6. 6. • M3 Key Deliveries and Activities  Engineering Model (Command and Data Interface Electronics only) delivered and tested against a spacecraft simulator, November 2006  M3 delivery and preliminary integration to spacecraft, August 2007  Payload Operations Center Replica, July 2008  Final integration and check-out, August 2008 Mission Plan  Nominal mission duration: Four optical periods over the two year mission  Actual observations were in two optical periods with more time per observation than planned  Instrument was held in Survival mode and transitioned to Decontamination mode before each optical period
  7. 7. • India is a developing nation• The technical sophistication of the Indian Space Research Organization is every bit the equal of NASA’s• The capabilities of the ISRO Staff Engineers and technicians are equivalent to NASA Engineers• Chandrayaan-1 • India’s first mission beyond earth orbit • First mission involving multiple foreign contributions • Used India’s new Deep Space Network facility
  8. 8. M3 on the Chandrayaan-1 SpacecraftSinglespherical 24 degree FOV Chandrayaan -1 unobscured F/3.5mirror Slit TMA Telescope Spacecraft Grating 640 cross-track MCT Detector 430 to 3000 nm OS Filter Passive Cooler Optical Bench Instrument PSLV Assembly Launch Electronics Assembly System Instrument Aperture Thermal Shield M3 Instrument
  9. 9. Chandrayaan Launch System• Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) • 4 stage core, 6 strap-ons • First Launch: 1993 • Launch Success: 8/9• PSLV-XL (6 PSOM-XL improved stretched strap-ons) • 3 Qual Tests (1st 12/29/05 successful, 3rd Q of 2006) • First use for RISAT • 3rd use for Chandrayaan• 1304 kg in 240 km by 24,000 km GTO –like orbit • 503 kg Chandrayaan dry mass • 801 kg of propellants
  10. 10. CHANDRAYAAN-1 Mission Profile Lunar Insertion Manoeuvre To achieve 100 x 100 km Lunar Polar Orbit.PSLV to inject 1300 kg in GTO of 240 x 24000 km.Lunar Orbital mass of 523 kg with 2 year life time. Lunar Transfer Scientific payload 55 kg. Final Orbit Trajectory 100 km Polar Initial Orbit ~ 1000 km ETO GTO Mid Course Correction Moon at Launch Trans Lunar Injection ASTROSAT Expanding the scientific knowledge about the moon, upgrading India’s technological capability and providing challenging opportunities for planetary research for the younger generation
  11. 11. ISRO Satellite Centre (ISAC) BangaloreSatish Dhawan Space Centre Sriharikota
  12. 12.  ISRO issued an Announcement of Opportunity for foreign instruments for the Chandrayaan-1 Mission Principal Investigator Carle Pieters of Brown University teamed with JPL to propose the Moon Mineralogy Mapper The instrument was funded as a Discovery Instrument of Opportunity
  13. 13. • India is on the Designated Country list• The Indian Space Program is closely tied to ISRO’s military • Little to no separation between the Nuclear Weapons Development activity and the Space Program• This was changing during the time that M3 was going through its ITAR process• Initially ISRO refused to sign the ITAR agreements
  14. 14.  The term “Technical Assistance” in the ITAR agreement was a major choking point for the Indian Government They repeatedly pointed out that it was their spacecraft, and they were helping us, not the other way around We had several lengthy discussion sessions with all levels of ISRO Management on ITAR and its implementation M3 had a requirement to have a signed TAA prior to our confirmation review, and a confirmation date that was not changing
  15. 15.  Schedule and budget constraints required that we make progress, even though the TAA was not yet in place  M3 had been selected last – development schedule was very constrained  M3 team had been staffed and the taxi meter was running  Chandrayaan-1 schedule was firm  Developed an “Assumed Requirements” document  Internal use only  Contained key requirements  Based on information obtained from ISRO, but not verified to be current
  16. 16.  The signing of the TAA and our participation in the Chandrayaan mission was directly tied to US-India government relations, and in particular the agreement on Nuclear Energy The TAA was signed the day before a final deadline after repeated intercessions from the State Department and the US Embassy in New Delhi
  17. 17.  ISRO ISAC did not usually develop an ICD between the spacecraft and each instrument  Mechanical and electrical interface drawings were used but not a written document as is common for NASA M3 team spent 1 week at ISRO ISAC (Bangalore)  Four days in conference room creating the document  Ch-1 Project Director (PD), System Engineers, Subsystem Leads  M3 Project Manager, System Engineers, Subsystem Leads, Export Compliance Officer, D&NF Program Management, two engineers from MSFC (could communicate more freely having an MOU in place, while M3 team did not yet have a TAA)  Fifth day, signed the ICD, with just a few TBD’s
  18. 18.  Although both the Ch-1 and M3 teams spoke English, communication during telecons was challenging  Acronyms and abbreviations, grammatical and vocabulary differences  Telecons started ~9pm for M3 team  Some of M3 team called in from home, others at JPL Pre-telecon email exchange of Agenda in Q& A format  Typically two cycles by email prior to each telecon  WebEx during telecon to assist with communication  Discussions were based on the existing Q&A, then clarifying information was typed in as it was discussed
  19. 19.  Program management in general appears more diffuse in India than it is in the United States  It’s certainly harder for us to understand who is in charge of what, and who holds authority for decisions The ground data system was developed independently of the spacecraft and instrument complement  Coordination of the two appeared to us to be mostly informal The Review process is very different from NASA  Major project reviews consist of reports by subsystem review chairs Test verification and validation processes are much less formal and rigorous than NASA
  20. 20.  Chandrayaan-1 project did not use Earned Value Scheduling was done with Excel and PowerPoint  The real schedule and all schedule control resided with the Project Director  Chandrayaan-1 project did not use schedule tracking software to manage critical path and near critical path items,  Their understanding of the critical path came from prior experience developing similar spacecraft  The day to day I&T schedule relied on key staff that held corporate knowledge gained from many previous projects Late in development, schedule problems were solved by eliminating previously planned tests
  21. 21. CHANDRAYAAN-1 SCHEDULE (1-AUG-2004 to 31-AUG-2005)SL ACTIVITY A S O N D J F M A M J J AN0 04 04 05 051 Configuration Finalisation2 Configuration Review3 P/L Review4 Layout, FOV exercise5 S/S & S/C level PDR6 S/C Configuration Doc 21
  22. 22. CHANDRAYAAN-1 SCHEDULE ( contd.) 1-SEP-2005 to 30-SEPT-2006SL S O N D J F M A M J J A SN0 ACTIVITY 05 05 06 061 EID and matching2 Harness fabrication3 P/Ls Eng/Ele Model Delivery4 Data handling Pkg5 BMU Availability6 P/L I/F checks7 Structure & Thermal work8 Propulsion Integration9 Thermal work on RCS10 Electrical wiring11 Sensors availability12 Inertial Systems availability13 HILS14 Panels & Thermal work 22
  23. 23. AIT SCHEDULE - INTEGRATION TO LAUNCH (11 MONTHS) 1-OCT-2006 to 1-SEPT-2007SL ACTIV ITY DAY O N D J F M A M J J A S O NN0 S1 Bus system Integration 302 Bus system open mode 30 IST3 P/L Integration 274 P/L IST5 Harness anchoring, X-ray, 20 15 5 connector potting, preparation for closure of panels, quick IST6 Assembly of all panels 057 ASSEMBLED IST, TH-VAC 15 Preparation, Antennae to AIT8 TH. VAC TEST, SA to 21 AIT9 Post TH VAC 2510 DYNAMIC TESTS 1411 Pre-shipment IST 1012 ** CUSHION ** 3013 SHIPMENT 0214 SP-1 phase 3015 Fuel filling phase 0816 Launch Opportunity / pre- 18 23 laun
  24. 24.  Spacecraft Development Team  Most (nearly all) team members have worked together for many missions  Know their routines  Don’t require as much formal planning Incremental hardware changes from one mission to the next  Spacecraft  Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV)  Deep Space Network
  25. 25.  Sometimes not clear who was responsible for what  Job titles might be the same as for JPL, but responsibilities could be different  This was most confusing in the realm of systems engineering, quality assurance, contamination control Ch-1 procedures did not carry all detail  Multiple activities would be carried in one block  Blocks were not numbered  A repeated procedure would be done without reprinting; with new data recorded to the side
  26. 26.  Resources that are commonly available at NASA are sometimes of limited availability at ISRO – due to cost and security  Paper, printers, copiers  Internet access  Cell phones  Laptops  Email – large file size and access from anywhere
  27. 27.  M3 team was ultra cautious about everything  Two people in Bangalore from the start of spacecraft I&T until 10 weeks post launch  QA person attended nearly all mechanical and electrical integration activity  24/7 coverage from launch through 10 weeks  M3 thermal engineer was the first to notice anomalous condition while in transit to the moon
  28. 28. M3 with ProtectionM3 Pre-Ship and Portrait Handling Device
  29. 29. M3
  30. 30. ISRO M3-related raw Telemetry M3 Archive (L0 + L1B Products) JPL M3 Data Products M3 Science Team PDS @ JPL L1B Products Chandrayaan-1 M3 Archive (L2 Products) L2 H/K TM Science TM Products Science Telemetry S/C Navigation data IGDS @ JPL interactive validation L1B, L2 SCC, Bangalore Successful Products Orbit Acquisition ReportsIDSN Ground Station M3-relevant S/C TMAPL Ground Station S/C Navigation (PVAT) dataJPL Ground Station Science Team (various sites) H/K TM L1B, L2 Science TM Products L1B,L2 H/K TM MOS @ JPL Products ISSDC, Bangalore L1B, L2 Products
  31. 31.  M3 team generated a draft Operations ICD  No response from Chandrayaan-1 team M3 generated an Operations Understanding document, unilaterally Pre-launch rehearsals were minimal  Not sure if this is typical Relied on person-to-person interface for all M3 operations  First in person, later by phone, eventually per a script Priority for instrument operations was uncertain and unstable
  32. 32.  Instrument operations were very simple  Few commands  Reasonably failsafe as far as operator error  Stationed people in Bangalore for the duration of spacecraft I&T  M3 Instrument Operator sat next to the spacecraft operator for commissioning, and was on phone for early operations period  Protection and Handling Device  Involvement by Principal Investigator with the spacecraft Project Director  Insisted on a high quality nitrogen purge
  33. 33.  ISRO wanted NASA DSN support  Increased the opportunities for M3 to downlink JPL Navigation support  raised the JPL presence at ISRO
  34. 34.  More thermal margin  Field of view of the passive cooler  Though the instrument was sensitive to thermal input on the Passive Cooler; it became a “solar collector” and had potential to overheat the focal plane Paid more attention to the planned spacecraft level test flow, as it is different than ours Additional visit to ISRO for mechanical and thermal interface clarification  same time the electrical EM was delivered
  35. 35. • From the perspectives of ISRO and the M3 Science team, this mission was a great success • Major discoveries • M3 has generated lots of data• Chandrayaan-1 and M3 Discoveries have been reported in scientific journals as well as popular media
  36. 36. From Science, 23 October 2009, cover. Reprinted with permission from AAAS.
  37. 37. • We received an enormous amount of help from too many people to mention. In particular we would like to acknowledge,• Science Mission Directorate • Tony Carro and the entire SMD staff• NASA Office of External Affairs• Discovery and New Frontiers Program Office • Steve McClard• JPL Office of Export Compliance• JPL Management• M3 Team

×