Date(s) - 21/10/2015
3:00 PM - 4:00 PM
Schedule Driver: ready for meeting with French again in February
Programmatic Goal: build knowledge at Langley on how to put LIDAR in space (consistent team members for future EDS studies and ongoing low-level engagement, and understudy team members to expand their knowledge – customer will advocate this and EDS will remind branch heads when requesting study team members)
Technical Goal:Figure out how to instantiate design from aircraft into space -> Instrument design concept to get Mass/volume/power/cost. There are 3 capability options for the instrument (see bottom of notes). Work in iterations of detail level on most complex option, then reserve last day (last 1.5 days?) to look at less complex options and record cost inputs. Cost lead to attend pre-work meeting, last day or two of session, then work cost estimate the week following.
Work with key engineers to do pre-work November to January: Optical, Mechanical, Mechanisms; add rest of team 4-6 weeks before session
Start with optics: change to 1.5m telescope, add channels. It drives the structure, electronics, thermal, mechanisms. Evaluate and make changes as needed for space implementation
Mechanical and opto-mechanisms iterate with optical and set up CAD.
Cost to define inputs needed from other team members by close of session.
Have detector design, circuitry for detectors.
functional block diagram from prototypes and proposal to start evaluation and design
IDC in 2007, have documentation. Somewhat incomplete; have much more detail on instrument. Have 2 prototypes now that have been flying on airplanes.
Starting point: 2011 EV proposal for ISS, jointly developed with Ball to write instrument technical section. Have images, MEL, no CAD.
Need detail where space requires differences: instrument control, electronics layout
1 week full days for design in January 25-29th
Cost iteration the next week individually
Follow-on EDS study for September to understand mission cost – deliverable of Jan. EDS to suggest path forward strategically for concept/partnership/center development (e.g. focus on detail of instrument dev or move into mission concept?)
SIE: Kerry (requested for previous ) or Dave G or ?
SEDoc: Kerry if not SIE, else Matt? or Tammy/Kevin L./Hilary?
Cost: Nani to assign (last day plus week after session)
Anyone below that branch heads don’t agree at the Integration Forum to staff as part of project effort (weekly meetings)
Mechanical: Jeff Brady
Opto-mechanisms: Charlie Boyer
Systems Engineer – Tory Scola
Deputy Systems Engineer and Costs – Marie Ivanco
Interfaces, Ground Systems – Ron Verhappen
Orbits and Ops Concept – Jamie Wilson
Structures – 1 needed
Optical Design – Tony Notari, new person opportunity to iterate on Tony’s design
Electronics (Controller, Data Storage, harnesses, Power) – 2 needed
Detectors – Chuck Antill (already designed), new person opportunity
Lasers – Fibertek SBIR
Thermal – (not Tory) – 1 needed
Flight Software – 1 needed
Science Directorate Leads – Hostetler, Trepte, Winker, Hair, Nehrir
3 Conceptual Designs
There will be three conceptual designs after the EDS session (threshold, Breakthrough, and Enhanced) with associated documentation.
–Going below this level provides little advance in state of science
–Significantly advances state of science
–Transformative mission raising state of understanding to a new level. Little benefit is achieved by going beyond this level.
The design process is outlined in the image below. We have a major push for the meeting with France in February.