TPF-C Technology Plan - Exoplanet Exploration Program - NASA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 1 expected architecture downselect from either a TPF-C or TPF-I in 2006, before the decision was made to proceed with both observatories. With the recent decision to move forward first with TPF-C on a schedule consistent with launch readiness in 2016, the nature of the technology efforts must be reconsidered. The ultimate goal of the technology development program is an operational TPF-C flight observatory. The project must accelerate and complete pre-Phase A technology development activity in approximately two years to a level sufficient for NASA to approve entry into the formulation phase (Phase A/B) in 2007 and into the implementation phase (Phase C/D) in the 2011 timeframe, with the eventual goal of NASA approval for a 2016 launch. Briefly, to complete pre-Phase A successfully, three major activities must be implemented in an integrated manner: testbed demonstrations, mission models, and error budget allocations. A development flow is established to retire each identified technical risk by end of formulation through laboratory demonstrations, validated models, and iteration of the error budget allocations based on technology achievements. The critical technologies and the feasibility of the mission based on the current design combined with mission models and error budgets must be demonstrated. As laid out in the NASA Code S Management Handbook, in order to complete Phase A, all technologies must be demonstrated to TRL 5, defined as “component and/or breadboard validation in a relevant environment (ground or space),” and the engineering must be within reach. The TRL levels attempt to standardize the description of technology maturity and are discussed in more detail in Appendix E. To complete Phase B and enter implementation, all technologies must be at TRL 6, defined as “system/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment,” and a preliminary design must be shown analytically with validated models to achieve the flight performance necessary to realize the mission science objectives. The testbeds and models, with the error budget assumptions, developed during the formulation phase of the Project must achieve the stated maturity, but must also be conceived with an eye for their eventual programmatic purpose in the flight system test and verification activities and investigation of potential anomalies during operation. Ideally, one tests a flight system end-to-end at flight levels in a flight environment. In the case of TPF-C, it will not be feasible to test the full system in this way due to the physical scale of the observatory and the difficulty of creating an environment that sufficiently approximates flight for the complete system. Confidence that the system will perform as expected on orbit will be developed through validated models of the system. Verification of TPF-C flight hardware will be accomplished via subsystem and component testing at the highest level to which these entities can be confidently tested. The TPF-C technology development program will validate the physics and scalability of these models at flight levels in flight environments. These models will then be linked together to estimate the performance of TPF-C. The fidelity of the models in the highprecision (picometer and milli-Kelvin) regimes and the model interfaces must have bounded and verified performance as well. Recognizing that our models will never be fully complete, the project will continuously review the mission models for omissions or errors based on testbed performance results. In some cases, the most stringent requirements on testbed performance will be levied by their role in model validation as opposed to technology demonstration. While it will not be necessary to improve on flight performance levels in order to validate the models, it will be necessary to design the testbed in such a way that it can be modeled accurately and the components can be characterized and exercised to determine sensitivities. The remaining 14
Introduction uncertainties in the system will be addressed with the capacity for on-orbit diagnostics and adjustments. To support this progression, the TPF-C team has identified the technical risks, based primarily on the system error budget, to successfully implementing TPF-C. It is recognized that the observing mode that imposes the most stringent performance requirements must form the basis of the technology development program; for example, stability of the system is likely to be driven by the planet detection objective, while the planet characterization objective is likely to drive the bandwidth requirements. However, these relationships are not clear-cut; realizing this, the Project will continuously evaluate the relationship between the requirements and the observing mode. These risks are summarized in Table 1-3 and detailed later in chapters 3, 4, and 5. Risks are categorized as technology risks, representing requirements that are beyond the state-of-theart, and engineering risks, which represent challenging engineering or design requirements. Additional risks are expected to be identified or given increased priority as the design and the corresponding error budget continues to evolve. The mission error budget is continuously updated to reflect the actual hardware performance. This allows the system architect to relax performance requirements in one area if performance can be improved more easily in another, or if the benefit of the performance increase is not significant for the overall system performance. Milestone definition is also updated to reflect this evolving understanding to ensure that the project resources are applied in the most effective way. Clear paths to mitigate each risk area are being developed. A roadmap showing the testbed or technology activity mitigating each identified risk is given in Section 7.1. The error budget and predicted and laboratory performance must be consistent in order to consider a risk retired. The technical risk mitigation approach will be reviewed by the TPF-Technology Advisory Committee (TPF-TAC), the TPF-Science and Technology Definition Team (TPF-STDT), and HQ. A work plan that outlines this risk mitigation approach and includes measurable quantitative technical targets for functionality and performance will be developed and documented in this Technology Plan. The strategy will be informed by technology heritage from JWST, SIM, HST, Large Binocular Telescope Interferometer, Starlight and Keck-I for individual technologies as well as for integration and test (I&T) approaches which include validation through analytical modeling. It is recognized that the transfer of technology to the system implementers is a critical component of a successful development program. The project plan for technology transfer will be addressed in the implementation plan as part of the acquisition strategy and in future updates to this plan. As the project moves into formulation, the technology development must be balanced within the funding and programmatic constraints. As the technical risks are better understood, and the details of the formulation phase technology plan evolve, some risks may have to be accepted without complete mitigation. Technology risks will need to be retired on the schedule described above, while certain engineering (or design) risks may be accepted. The project will engage the JPL Quality Assurance organization, the TPF-TAC, the TPF-STDT, HQ, and other stakeholders to gain agreement on the risk assessment and the details of the mitigation approach. In parallel, the TPF-C integration and test plan will be evolving along with the baseline system technical design. By the end of pre-Phase A, a preliminary description of essential tasks and tests will be developed based on the project technical risk mitigation strategy, consistent with the project acquisition strategy. By the end of formulation, the integration and test plan will be fully defined describing a risk-mitigation-driven technical approach supported by doing organization resource 15
Page 1 and 2: JPL Publication 05-8 Technology Pla
Page 3: TECHNOLOGY PLAN TERRESTRIAL PLANET
Page 6 and 7: Recent Highlights Technical progres
Page 8 and 9: Figure i-4. Deformable mirror deliv
Page 10 and 11: Table of Contents Approvals........
Page 12 and 13: 7.5.2 Precision Hexapod............
Page 14 and 15: Chapter 1 Figure 1-1. Artist's impr
Page 16 and 17: Chapter 1 interferometry, continues
Page 18 and 19: Chapter 1 Back end coronagraph opti
Page 20 and 21: Chapter 1 Surrounding the whole tel
Page 22 and 23: Chapter 1 Pol. BS fold/steering Mic
Page 24 and 25: Chapter 1 1.6.5 Sunshield The teles
Page 28 and 29: Chapter 1 Table 1-3. TPF-C Technolo
Page 30 and 31: Chapter 1 3B: Demonstrate, using th
Page 32 and 33: Chapter 2 2 Error Budgets 2.1 Contr
Page 34 and 35: Chapter 2 Error Budget Validation G
Page 36 and 37: Chapter 2 Further, it is shown that
Page 38 and 39: Chapter 2 Table 2-1. Requirement on
Page 40 and 41: Chapter 3 3 Optics and Starlight Su
Page 42 and 43: Chapter 3 are in progress with cont
Page 44 and 45: Chapter 3 Figure 3-5. Coronagraph s
Page 46 and 47: Chapter 3 (though not light-weight
Page 48 and 49: Chapter 3 Table 3-3. ITT Metrology
Page 50 and 51: Chapter 3 observations. The time it
Page 52 and 53: Chapter 3 vacuum-compatible, low-po
Page 54 and 55: Chapter 3 blank size. Westerhoff et
Page 56 and 57: Chapter 3 configurations, performan
Page 58 and 59: Chapter 3 Figure 3-10: Plots showin
Page 60 and 61: Chapter 3 The wavefront quality of
Page 62 and 63: Chapter 3 Figure 3-13. Optical layo
Page 64 and 65: Chapter 3 algorithms have limitatio
Page 66 and 67: Chapter 3 simulated star source is
Page 68 and 69: Chapter 4 Figure 4-1. Overview of t
Page 70 and 71: Chapter 4 enclosures, and stable la
Page 72 and 73: Chapter 4 facilities from which dat
Page 74 and 75: Chapter 4 Figure 4-5. Microslip Tri
Page 76 and 77:
Chapter 4 Figure 4-7. Calibration o
Page 78 and 79:
Chapter 4 Figure 4-8. Comparison of
Page 80 and 81:
Chapter 4 4.2 Subsystem and System
Page 82 and 83:
Chapter 4 Figure 4-11. Schematic of
Page 84 and 85:
Chapter 4 Figure 4-12. Fine guiding
Page 86 and 87:
Chapter 4 (5) The Fine Steering Mir
Page 88 and 89:
Chapter 4 Third, precise thermal co
Page 90 and 91:
Chapter 4 giving confidence that fl
Page 92 and 93:
Chapter 4 surface polish is nonethe
Page 94 and 95:
Chapter 5 TPF-C is planning a suite
Page 96 and 97:
Chapter 5 engineering judgment (i.e
Page 98 and 99:
Chapter 5 categories, in reality ea
Page 100 and 101:
Chapter 5 Table 5-3. Validation of
Page 102 and 103:
Chapter 5 5.6.1 Modeling Methodolog
Page 104 and 105:
Chapter 5 strength of computer simu
Page 106 and 107:
Chapter 6 6 Instrument Technology a
Page 108 and 109:
Chapter 6 Figure 6-1. Detailed conc
Page 110 and 111:
Chapter 6 The first method is self-
Page 112 and 113:
Chapter 6 super computers and is us
Page 114 and 115:
Chapter 7 7 Plan for Technology Dev
Page 116 and 117:
Chapter 7 Figure 7-1. TPF-C Technol
Page 118 and 119:
Chapter 7 Improvements to the DM ov
Page 120 and 121:
Chapter 7 7.3 Error Budgets 7.3.1 D
Page 122 and 123:
Chapter 7 7.4 Optics and Starlight
Page 124 and 125:
Chapter 7 7.4.2 Apodizing Masks and
Page 126 and 127:
Chapter 7 7.4.4 Wavefront Sensing a
Page 128 and 129:
Chapter 7 7.4.6 Transmissive Optics
Page 130 and 131:
Chapter 7 7.4.8 Scatterometer Scope
Page 132 and 133:
Chapter 7 7.5 Structural, Thermal,
Page 134 and 135:
Chapter 7 7.5.3 Precision Structura
Page 136 and 137:
Chapter 7 model of TPF-C and should
Page 138 and 139:
Chapter 7 7.5.6 Secondary Mirror To
Page 140 and 141:
Chapter 7 7.5.8 Sub-scale EM Sunshi
Page 142 and 143:
Chapter 7 7.6 Integrated Modeling a
Page 144 and 145:
Chapter 7 7.7.3 Advanced Concepts:
Page 146 and 147:
Chapter 8 134
Page 148 and 149:
Appendices Appendix B: TPF-C Detail
Page 150 and 151:
Appendices Appendix D: TPF-C Techno
Page 152 and 153:
Appendices Appendix F: Acronym List
Page 154:
Appendices RWA SAO SBIR SIM SM SMFA
show all

TPF-C Technology Plan - Exoplanet Exploration Program - NASA

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?