From phil@phil.stanford.edu Fri Oct 6 15:22:45 1995 Return-Path: Received: from solar by quake.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA04080; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 15:22:43 -0700 Received: by solar.Stanford.EDU (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA00532; Fri, 6 Oct 95 22:25:38 GMT Date: Fri, 6 Oct 95 22:25:38 GMT From: phil@phil.stanford.edu Message-Id: <9510062225.AA00532@solar.Stanford.EDU> Apparently-To: MStehle Status: R SOI News message # 38 on Fri Oct 6 21:34:06 GMT 1995 Mail from: phil@phil.Stanford.EDU Subject: SOI update Original Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 14:31:22 -0700 --------------- CONGRATULATIONS to GONG!!!!!!! ######################################################### I felt the Team meeting last week was quite useful. There will be follow-up on a number of items in coming days/weeks. The latest news from ESA/NASA is that the SOHO reaction wheels and thruster repairs/modifications are back on schedule for a Thanksgiving (23 Nov) launch. This date should be considered very likely. However, there may be a problem with the Centaur upper stage of the launch vehicle. With a November launch there will be a long delay (about 70 minutes) between the first and second burn of the Centaur. Three tests were just run with the Centaur failing to perform properly on one of the three. That is the extent of my knowledge, but one must assume that a 1/3 chance of a mission total failure would be cause for concern. We will learn more in coming days. Phil S. --------------- This message was sent to: JAloise BAndersen TAppourchaux KBachmann LBacon TBai TBerger RBogart RBracewell MBrodsky JBrown TBrown RBush ACacciani DCauffman GChapman JChristensen JCovington WDappen ADarwich CDeforest VDomingo TDuvall EFossat CFrohlich AGabriel DGaloppo BGelly JGervin DGough GGrec DHaber JHarvey DHathaway FHill THoeksema SHorner RHubbard NHurlburt KJulien JKennedy SKorzennik AKosovichev VKotov JKuhn JLawrence JLeibacher KLeibrand MLevay KLibbrecht JLinker DMathur WMerryfield PMilford GMorales MMorrison LNovember RNoyes XPZhao JPap JPintar APoland GPrice ERhodes WRosenberg DRust RRutten ARuzmaikin LSa JSaba PScherrer JSchou KSchrijver KScott TSekii HShibahashi RShine HSnodgrass LSpringer CStCyr RStebbins MStehle JStenflo PSturrock JSuryanarayanan TTarbell MThompson ATitle JToomre RUlrich GWSimon AWalker SWilliams JWolfson MWoodard HYoshimura IZayer EZweibel --------------- -> Replies via SolarMail to "SOInews" will be broadcast to the persons listed. --------------- From rock Mon Oct 16 11:10:02 1995 Return-Path: Received: by quake.Stanford.EDU (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA08363; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 11:10:01 -0700 Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 11:10:01 -0700 From: Rock Bush Message-Id: <9510161810.AA08363@quake.Stanford.EDU> To: margie, rick, scott, soiadmin@solar, todd Subject: Discussion with Manfred Setzke Status: RO I called the ESA number at KSC in hopes of contacting Dieter Bock to confirm the schedule of activities for next week. I did not get Dieter, but was able to talk with Manfred Setzke. Manfred confirmed that the spacecraft AFT is scheduled for next Monday October 23rd. The test is scheduled for two shifts (6 am to 10 pm), and will cover both the prime side and redundant side AFT's. The MDI front door gearbox cover replacement and window cleaning are still scheduled for Sunday evening. The AFT will include the MDI front door commissioning tests. Manfred also confirmed that the first two reaction wheels were installed over the weekend, and that the other two were scheduled to arrive today (16 October). He also indicated that the board approved proceeding with a 23 November launch, recognizing that the limited life testing of the reaction wheels increased the risk to the mission. Regards, Rock From rock Mon Oct 16 12:04:12 1995 Return-Path: Received: by quake.Stanford.EDU (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA10446; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 12:04:11 -0700 Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 12:04:11 -0700 From: Rock Bush Message-Id: <9510161904.AA10446@quake.Stanford.EDU> To: margie, rick, soiadmin@solar, todd Subject: Update on Launch Date rumors Status: R Phil called while I was on the phone, but I did manage to contact him at the bar in the Admiraal. We agreed that he would call back at 3:00 pm this afternoon, and that he would call Jake's office. Phil indicated that the board was recessed without coming to a firm conclusion on the launch date, and that they would hold a telecon in 10 days to reach a final conclusion. The board agreed that the reaction wheels and thrusters were ready for launch, but were concerned about the Centaur performance. In the mean time, SOI-MDI was to work out a detailed plan for addressing the MDI toggle bit error PAR, and to develop a draft script for a GSCT4 if additional time becomes available for such a test. I also talked with Dario Galoppo who talked with Dino Machi who talked with Ken Sizemore. The main comment from Dario was that a firm launch commitment had been postponed until next week, and that in addition to the review board's telecon, there is a meeting with NASA Lewis and probably the Atlas group of Lockheed-Martin. Will keep you posted as I learn more. Regards, Rock From todd@phoebus.stanford.edu Tue Oct 17 12:04:34 1995 Return-Path: Received: from solar by quake.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA03011; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 12:04:33 -0700 Received: by solar.Stanford.EDU (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA23365; Tue, 17 Oct 95 19:07:07 GMT Date: Tue, 17 Oct 95 19:07:07 GMT From: todd@phoebus.stanford.edu Message-Id: <9510171907.AA23365@solar.Stanford.EDU> Apparently-To: MStehle Status: R SOI-MDI technical mail message # 1167 on Tue Oct 17 18:53:33 GMT 1995 Mail from: todd@phoebus.Stanford.EDU Subject: Breaking news on the SOHO launch (from yesterday) Original Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 11:51:23 -0700 --------------- Roger Ulrich sent along the following summary of the meeting yesterday at ESTEC written by the GOLF PI Alan Gabriel. Roger suggested that we not distribute it too broadly, since it consists of Alan's personal notes intended for the GOLF team, but he thought it would be worth sharing with interested members of the MDI team. Todd --- Forwarded mail from ulrich%bonnie.dnet@solar Date: Tue, 17 Oct 95 18:41:30 GMT From: ulrich%bonnie.dnet@solar To: todd%solar.dnet, henney, bertello, evans, pap, norton Subject: Breaking news on the SOHO launch. From: SMTP%"GABRIEL@iaslab.ias.fr" 17-OCT-1995 01:38:10.99 To: ulrich CC: Subj: SOHO launch SOHO Launch Date Review A review was held at ESTEC on the afternoon of the 16th Octobre, with the aim of confirming or otherwise the proposed launch date of 23rd November 1995. This was an ESA review, with the participation of NASA and the SOHO PI's. The following are my personal notes of the meetings. LAUNCH POSSIBILITIES For reasons of orbital mechanics, there is a slot open from 23 rd November until 15 December. This opens again in January and continues throughout 1996. The time interval between the two burns required by the Centaur stage varies according to time of year. For January to March it is in the range 25 to 40 minutes. For the November/December slot it is between 75 and 78 minutes. The slot in November/December is reserved for SOHO. A later slot requires re-negotiation in a heavily booked programme. PROBLEMS The principal launch problems discussed were as follows : 1. The standard Centaur launcher is qualified for up to 30 minutes delay between the two burns. A special extended version has been developed for SOHO. (We learned this for the first time!). Tests of re-ignition of this extended version showed : 4 out of 4 successes at 78 minutes, but more than half failed at 90 minutes. Concerns were expressed at the low statistics and the low margins. 2. The control wheels for the satellite have been dismantled, following a failure. They have been modified, reassembled and beleived to be good. Concerns expressed regarding the brief level of life-testing of the modified design. 3. The thrusters required for orbital manoevres have caused problems. These are believed to be resolved. 4. The ground system gives many causes of concern. The recent Ground System Compatibility Test (GSCT3) was largely unsuccessful : return of T/M only 98%, Command Verification often absent, the Satellite Emergency Sun Acquisition Test failed and was abandoned, the test ran with so many failures that some of the instruments (LASCO, UVCS) failed to carry out their required instrument tests. The flight data base version 9 was not installed and has never been tested. No further GSCT is possible before a November 23 launch. REVIEW The PI's met in executive session during the morning, and nominated one member to present their concerns to the Board. During the Review, experts presented arguments on each of the technical problem areas. The Board met in closed session for their recommendations. BOARD CONSIDERATIONS The Board did not complete their activities, but decided to do so on the 26th October, after further consultations. They recommend a further end-to-end GSCT before launch. They are concerned about the reliability of the launcher, and will seek further re-assurance from Lockheed before deciding. IMPLICATIONS It would appear that a November 23 launch is unlikely, but a launch before December 15 remains a possibility. If the launcher concerns are not resolved, then we are looking at 1996. In this case the precise date depends on difficult negotiations with the launcher authorities. In the immediate, all attention is on the preparation for a GSCT4, which would likely be around November 7. Instrument team scripts are required by 20th October. I have suggested that GOLF look at the possibility of including the uploading of on-board software as part of this test. Alan Gabriel 17th October 1995 ================== RFC 822 Headers ================== Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 9:38:02 +0100 (WET) From: GABRIEL@iaslab.ias.fr To: gabriel@iaslab.ias.fr, bocchia@observ.u-bordeaux.fr, boumier@iaslab.ias.fr, jcd@obs.aau.dk, ldame@solar.stanford.edu, fdeubner@solar.stanford.edu, bfoing@estcs1.estec.esa.nl, fossat@ayalga.unice.fr, grec@ayalga.unice.fr X-Vmsmail-To: @GST.LST Message-Id: <951017093802.20204128@iaslab.ias.fr> Subject: SOHO launch ---End of forwarded mail from ulrich%bonnie.dnet@solar -- Todd Hoeksema 415 723-1506 todd@solar.stanford.edu --------------- This message was sent to: akin@sag.space.lockheed.com JAloise LBacon RBogart RBush chevalier@sag.space.lockheed.com JCovington CDeforest TDuvall edwards@sag.space.lockheed.com feinstein@sag.space.lockheed.com THoeksema AKosovichev KLeibrand MLevay DMathur MMorrison rehse@sag.space.lockheed.com WRosenberg MRubin LSa JSaba PScherrer JSchou KScott LSpringer MStehle JSuryanarayanan TTarbell ATitle SWilliams JWolfson IZayer soilog@quake --------------- -> Replies via SolarMail to "SOItech" will be broadcast to the persons listed. --------------- From phil@phil.stanford.edu Fri Oct 20 11:29:57 1995 Return-Path: Received: from solar by quake.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA06232; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 11:29:55 -0700 Received: by solar.Stanford.EDU (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA00318; Fri, 20 Oct 95 18:32:29 GMT Date: Fri, 20 Oct 95 18:32:29 GMT From: phil@phil.stanford.edu Message-Id: <9510201832.AA00318@solar.Stanford.EDU> Apparently-To: MStehle Status: R SOI News message # 39 on Fri Oct 20 17:49:27 GMT 1995 Mail from: phil@phil.Stanford.EDU Subject: Status update Original Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 10:47:57 -0700 --------------- Status report on SOHO launch plans 19 October 1995. P. Scherrer There was a SOHO launch readiness review on Monday 16 October at ESTEC. The review was for the ESA/NASA "board" which consisted of Roger Bonnet, other ESA and ESTEC director types, NASA project management, the Project Scientists (Art Poland and Vicente Domingo) and others. The SWT/PIs were all present. Prior to the review itself, there was an executive meeting of the SWT to review instrument status and discuss the SOHO problems. The topics included: SOHO reaction wheels. The vibration that was discovered in reaction wheel #3 before November 1993 was finally investigated in June/July of 1995. It was found that in addition to the bearing spacer shape error that caused the vibration, the bearings were dry - i.e. no oil. The other reaction wheels were inspected and found to be dry. If the #3 wheel had not failed from a combination of problems, all the wheels would have failed before reaching L1. A panic repair program was instituted (defined by schedule limited testing and 24hour work with at least one restart due to contamination...) leading to rebuilt wheels ready to install in the spacecraft on about 20 October. It was clear from the descriptions from the engineers involved that the testing plans were limited to those tests that would fit in the tight schedule. Actually, one of the tests planned, a mini-life test, has not been done yet since one of the flight wheels did not function as well as the others and it was decided to fly the test wheel instead. There is still a plan to disassemble the remaining wheel after about 200 hours of operation and inspect it. That will happen only after ESA and NASA are firmly committed to launch on 23 November. When the wheel problem was understood the planned 31 October launch was shifted to 6 December (ESA Press release 33-95), but then back to 23 November due to Atlas contract requirements and possible launch conflicts. Thrusters. There was a problem discovered in testing caused by vapor lock in the thrusters depending on the thermal state of the thrusters from prior burns. A change was made to the hardware to prevent the dangerous condition in the automatic sun finding mode and changes will be made in the flight software to avoid the situation in normal operations. Fine pointing sun sensor thermal environment - problem has apparently been corrected to the satisfaction of all. Centaur second stage relight problem. The launch vehicle, an Atlas Centaur combination with an Atlas first stage and a Centaur second stage will be used. Actually the Centaur has two parallel engines. Due to orbit requirements for injection into the transfer orbit to L1, the Centaur stage will be fired twice, once to get into low Earth orbit and again, some 78 minutes later to boost into the transfer trajectory. The duration of the coast depends on time of year with a minimum of c. 10 minutes in Feb. growing to nearly 100 minutes in January. It is apparently favorable or not lunar gravity purtabations that make the difference. The type of Centaur used has worked "hundreds" of times with a less than 30 minute delay between two firings. To enable a window including most of the year a modification package was developed for the Centaur. The spec was for a 90 minute coast capability. A simulation test was recently run where Centaur engines were heated as if just fired, then relit after a delay. The heat from the first burn diffuses to the valves and pumps and can cause a vapor lock if the engine is not cooled enough before firing. About 4 of 6 tests failed at the 90 minute delay spec. 4 or 5 tests worked OK at 78 minutes. Since the repeatable failures occur with a 15% longer delay than is required there is concern that there is too little margin. Software system problems. The complete SOHO software system which includes observers, observer ground equipment, the flight operations team, their computers, DSN, SOHO software, and instrument software does not function well. In fact at the ground system test recently tried (over about 10 days) the system rarely if ever ran for more than an hour without a problem. Many of the problems were identified and fixed but many of the planned tests were not accomplished because the planned test time was up and additional time could not be allocated and still keep the 23 November launch date. There has been no SOHO system test that was completed without some planned tests being eliminated because of insufficient time allocation. Command loss. Several of the instruments have had problems sending long sequences of commands without apparently random loss of commands somewhere between the instrumenters workstation and their instrument. LASCO, UVCS, and MDI have all had possibly similar problems. Command database. The master command database that is used by the operations team to translate and check commands prior to uplink has gone through several versions. The last tests were run with version 7. The flight will start with version 10. There were no plans to test version 10 on the spacecraft prior to launch. The totality of the problems led the SOHO instrument PIs to a joint conclusion that without further verification of the wheels, the centaur problem, and the software related problems we do not believe SOHO is ready for launch. At the review additional information was provided (some included in the discussion above). There was not time for each PI to state their individual readiness (because not enough time was allocated for the review) but Guenther Bruekner presented the SWTs conclusions. The review board met at the end of the review and made several findings: First, there will be a Ground System Compatibility Test #4 to complete the unfinished testing. Prior to this test there would be a review of the planned test, then the test would be done, then there will be a review. It was emphasized that all tests must be completed satisfactorily. Second, the board asked for further information/clarification on the safety margins in the Centaur relight problem. Third, the board said it would tell Lockheed-Martin (providing the launch services - formerly Martin, formerly General Dynamics...) that it could not confirm the SOHO launch date until 26 October rather than the 22 October requested/required by Lockheed-Martin. Fourth, the board said there will be a telecon between Bonnet and Huntress on 26 October when the final determination will be made. The SWT was satisfied that our concerns were to be addressed. Since that time, there has been no yielding on the commitment to a SOHO launch of 23 November contingent on the review of the Centaur problem scheduled for 24 October. Since the Centaur seemingly does not meet specs Lockheed would seem to have no ability to complain but that may be something for lawyers someday... The Ground System test has been split into two parts, the Spacecraft systems will be tested this Friday (20 Oct.) night. the experiments section will be done on 30 October in a 24 hour test. This was decided prior to receiving the requirements from the experimenters so once again it will be a schedule driven test exercise rather than a verification that the systems are ready to operate the spacecraft. This test will be run from GSFC. At this time there has been no announcement if the database will be up to date or not. The command loss problem will be investigated between 8 and 10 PM on Saturday night if we have somebody at KSC to discuss it with the Matra engineer who will return to Europe on Sunday. This was learned only at 6 PM on Thursday. Rock Bush will likely rush to KSC on Saturday. The rebuilt reaction wheels are somewhat unbalanced and will exceed the vibration specifications by a bit more than 50%. We have requested further information to evaluate the possible impact on MDI. #################################################################### I am greatly concerned that the last minute rush to launch has led to a situation where normally very carefully people may have managed to convince themselves that everything is actually OK whereas there is not real evidence to support this conclusion. It may very well be the case that SOHO will launch on Thanksgiving and will work flawlessly for the designed six years. I believe that if it does, the decision will have been OK more because of luck than considered engineering judgment. I have joined with the other SOHO PIs in a recommendation to delay the launch until March unless a satisfactory answer is found for these problems. ################################################################### There will be a pre-launch press conference at GSFC on 31 October with presentations from Domingo, Poland, Harrison, and Scherrer to briefly (total c. 20 minutes) review the science goals for SOHO. This will be after the 24 Oct. Centaur review and the 30 October GSCT so I hope we will by then be confident that SOHO will be able to do its job. If the Centaur review reveals insufficient margin or if the GSCT shows the software system is not ready to safely operate the mission, the launch and press conference will be postponed. A brief Web browse shows the following: There have been 88 Atlas/Centaur launches with 75 successes to date. Most have been to Geosynchronous orbit where the combination can place an 8000 pound payload. There are 25 launches in backlog. The Atlas/Centaur schedule is nearly full for the coming year. There may be a slot in March, the optimum SOHO time in terms of coast duration, if another particular mission rumored to be behind schedule, is delayed. Otherwise the next slot is next October. If SOHO does not use the Atlas already waiting for it at the launch pad, that Atlas will be used for the Palapa mission which is presently scheduled for Jan 24. There are Atlas launches scheduled for 22 October and 14 December on the other pad. --------------- This message was sent to: JAloise BAndersen TAppourchaux KBachmann LBacon TBai TBerger RBogart RBracewell MBrodsky JBrown TBrown RBush ACacciani DCauffman GChapman JChristensen JCovington WDappen ADarwich CDeforest VDomingo TDuvall EFossat CFrohlich AGabriel DGaloppo BGelly JGervin DGough GGrec DHaber JHarvey DHathaway FHill THoeksema SHorner RHubbard NHurlburt KJulien JKennedy SKorzennik AKosovichev VKotov JKuhn JLawrence JLeibacher KLeibrand MLevay KLibbrecht JLinker DMathur WMerryfield PMilford GMorales MMorrison LNovember RNoyes XPZhao JPap JPintar APoland GPrice ERhodes WRosenberg DRust RRutten ARuzmaikin LSa JSaba PScherrer JSchou KSchrijver KScott TSekii HShibahashi RShine HSnodgrass LSpringer CStCyr RStebbins MStehle JStenflo PSturrock JSuryanarayanan TTarbell MThompson ATitle JToomre RUlrich GWSimon AWalker SWilliams JWolfson MWoodard HYoshimura IZayer EZweibel --------------- -> Replies via SolarMail to "SOInews" will be broadcast to the persons listed. --------------- From phil@phil.stanford.edu Fri Oct 20 12:25:05 1995 Return-Path: Received: from solar by quake.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA07264; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 12:25:04 -0700 Received: by solar.Stanford.EDU (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA00989; Fri, 20 Oct 95 19:27:39 GMT Date: Fri, 20 Oct 95 19:27:39 GMT From: phil@phil.stanford.edu Message-Id: <9510201927.AA00989@solar.Stanford.EDU> Apparently-To: MStehle Status: R SOI News message # 40 on Fri Oct 20 17:54:07 GMT 1995 Mail from: phil@phil.Stanford.EDU Subject: Copy of letter from Brueckner to Huntress Original Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 10:52:37 -0700 --------------- The following is a letter from Guenter Brueckner to Wes Huntress following the recent discussions at ESTEC concerning the readiness of SOHO for launch. It was sent to a rather large CC list so I assume he will not mind if I forward it to you. Phil Scherrer --- Forwarded mail from TEUFEL@ssd0.nrl.navy.mil Date: Fri, 20 Oct 95 16:44:20 GMT From: TEUFEL@ssd0.nrl.navy.mil SOHO Science Working Team message # 232 on Fri Oct 20 16:37:40 GMT 1995 Mail from: TEUFEL@SSD0.NRL.NAVY.MIL Subject: Original Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 12:27:17 GMT --------------- 3910 7660/404 19 Oct 95 Dr. Wesley T. Huntress, Jr. Associate Administrator for Space Science NASA Headquarters Washington, DC 20546-0001 Dear Dr. Huntress, I was the spokesman for all Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) Principal Investigators (PI's) at the SOHO Launch Commitment Review at The European Space Research and Technology Center (ESTEC) on October 16, of this year. With this letter I would like to inform you directly about the joint opinions of this group. At the outset I must apologize, that I am sending this letter directly. But time is running out and crucial decisions will have to be made in a matter of days. I addressed the review committee with six subjects, which the group had debated earlier during the day: Instruments, Launcher, Reaction Wheels, Thrusters, Command Upload and Ground Segment. I will dedicate a separate paragraph for each one of those subjects. (1) Instruments: A polling during a closed PI session showed, that all instruments are in launch condition, provided that usual last minute tasks are carried out and a command uplink problem which exists can be solved before launch. I will address this problem furthur in another paragraph. (2) Launcher: The number one concern of the PI group is the Centaur upper stage of the ATLAS- 2AS launcher. Only recently it became known to the SOHO PI's, that this model of the Centaur has never been flown with a time interval between two firings larger than 30 minutes. The trajectory to L1 during a November launch requires a period of 78 minutes. Modifications of the Centaur to accomodate this period have been made in the area of insulation, batteries and liquid helium supply. I am particularly concerned about the qualification of the plumbing changes. Test firings have been carried out simulating coasting periods of 90 and 78 minutes respectively. There were no failures at three 78 minutes tests, but one out of three 90-minute tests failed. This indicates that the margin at 78 minutes is very small and not acceptable. Furthermore, the test motor, which failed at the 90-minute period showed several components out of specifications after disassembly. After corrections were made, the motor failed the 90- minute test again. The small number statistics are not acceptable as qualification criteria for the the long-coasting version of the Centaur. However, these tests have shown, that the Centaur has significant variations in its performance from motor to motor, which is nothing new in itself. But it shows, that the two engines which are now in the launch tower cannot be qualified by tests on test articles because the required interval between the two firings is too close to the failure mode. The out of specification alignment findings on one of the test motors may have nothing to do with the 90-minute failure, but it raises the question whether the flight engines must be disassembled and inspected. Because I am not a rocket expert, I can only convey the concerns of the group, but we obviously cannot contribute to the solution. However, I would like to see a group of independent experts to go over all the data and test results, before a commitment is being made to fly this modified Centaur stage carrying SOHO. My own opinion is, that the November launch should be cancelled. During March and April a launch window opens, which requires a period of only 29 minutes between the two firings, which is on the safe and proven side of the Centaur upper stage's performance. (3) Reaction Wheels: We acknowledge, that progress has been made in the failure analysis, redesign and re-assembly and testing of the wheels. However, because of sixteen modifications which have been made to the wheels they must be called a new design, which requires proper qualification. We feel, that the run time of the qualification wheel is much too short, it should be several thousand hours instead of two hundred. The old wheels failed after a run time of 800 hours. (4) Thrusters: Progress in understanding the problems and finding of a solution has been made. We are concerned, that the new parameters have not been tested sufficiently. This point is utterly important not only for the function of the spacecraft but also concerning fuel consumption and mission duration. An extended mission duration of six years (half a solar cycle) is a design goal of SOHO. (5) Command uploads: Ever since the Wide Field White Light and Spectrometric Coronograph (LASCO) instrument was connected to the onboard spacecraft computer, we have not been able to send up large code command loads. These are required for a proper funtioning of the LASCO experiment. We have verified the code, and find nothing wrong with it. The Spacecraft (SC) so-called "COBS" software seems to reject legitimate commands at random. This problem must be corrected before launch. A test is planned for Saturday, October 21. But afterwards, proper correction must be made. A similar problem may exist with the Michelson Doppler Interferometer (MDI) experiment. (6) Ground segment: Numerous problems still exist with the ground segment. The immediate failure recovery procedure was not tested in the Assembly, Integration and Verification (AIV). The first test was during the Ground Segment Compatibility Test #3. It needs much more rehersal. It is one of the most critical ground segment functions. The Emergency Sun Re-aquisition (ESR) procedure has never been tested from beginning to end, but in pieces. A mistake could result in the loss of the satellite. Launch and early orbit phase rehersals had to be aborted due to problems with the simulator. This is the most important part of the ground segment. In general, the ground controllers need more practice. The SOHO spacecraft represents the work of hundreds of scientists and engineers over an eight year period and a combined investment of $ 1B on both sides of the Atlantic. A failure would not only ruin the careers of hundreds of people, but would also wreck the future of all large space science missions. After a string of failures of large space science missions NASA desperately needs a success. And the European Space Agency (ESA) needs a success, because the whole Horizon-2000 program would be in shambles, if the first major cornerstone fails. Nothing is more important at this stage than to do everything necessary to correct existing problems, there are too many unknown problems around. I have conducted 30 launches together with NASA over a period of 28 years. Looking back, all launches which had no known problems at launch resulted in successes, while all failures or half successes could be traced to problems which were not corrected properly before launch. SOHO represents my second largest after Skylab. It requires an extreme conservative approach. Sincerely yours, Guenter E. Brueckner Copy to: W. Wagner, NASA Headquarters G. Withbroe, NASA Headquarters M. Calabrese, NASA Headquarters R. Bonnet, ESA Headquarters M. Trella, ESA Headquarters E. Dale, ESTEC F. Felici, ESTEC C. Berner, ESTEC SOHO PI's: K. Sizemore, GSFC A. Poland, GSFC V. Domingo, ESTEC --------------- This message was sent to: JLBertaux JPDelaboudiniere VDomingo CFrohlich BFleck AGabriel RHarrison DHovestadt JKohl HKunow GBrueckner APoland PScherrer JTorsti KWilhelm --------------- -> Replies via SolarMail to "SOHOswt" will be broadcast to the persons listed. --------------- ---End of forwarded mail from TEUFEL@ssd0.nrl.navy.mil --------------- This message was sent to: JAloise BAndersen TAppourchaux KBachmann LBacon TBai TBerger RBogart RBracewell MBrodsky JBrown TBrown RBush ACacciani DCauffman GChapman JChristensen JCovington WDappen ADarwich CDeforest VDomingo TDuvall EFossat CFrohlich AGabriel DGaloppo BGelly JGervin DGough GGrec DHaber JHarvey DHathaway FHill THoeksema SHorner RHubbard NHurlburt KJulien JKennedy SKorzennik AKosovichev VKotov JKuhn JLawrence JLeibacher KLeibrand MLevay KLibbrecht JLinker DMathur WMerryfield PMilford GMorales MMorrison LNovember RNoyes XPZhao JPap JPintar APoland GPrice ERhodes WRosenberg DRust RRutten ARuzmaikin LSa JSaba PScherrer JSchou KSchrijver KScott TSekii HShibahashi RShine HSnodgrass LSpringer CStCyr RStebbins MStehle JStenflo PSturrock JSuryanarayanan TTarbell MThompson ATitle JToomre RUlrich GWSimon AWalker SWilliams JWolfson MWoodard HYoshimura IZayer EZweibel --------------- -> Replies via SolarMail to "SOInews" will be broadcast to the persons listed. --------------- From rock@quake.stanford.edu Tue Oct 24 09:08:15 1995 Return-Path: Received: from solar by quake.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA16195; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 09:08:14 -0700 Received: by solar.Stanford.EDU (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA08241; Tue, 24 Oct 95 16:10:50 GMT Date: Tue, 24 Oct 95 16:10:50 GMT From: rock@quake.stanford.edu Message-Id: <9510241610.AA08241@solar.Stanford.EDU> Apparently-To: MStehle Status: R SOI-MDI technical mail message # 1172 on Tue Oct 24 15:57:17 GMT 1995 Mail from: rock@quake.Stanford.EDU Subject: Final AFT Test Review Board writeup Original Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 08:54:32 -0700 --------------- To: M. Setzke From: R. Bush Subject: Final KSC AFT for the MDI Instrument Date: 23 October 1995 The MDI activities performed during the final certification AFT verified the correct operation of the MDI instrument after reintegration of the spacecraft reaction wheels and CAE electronics. In addition, two additional tests were performed to demonstrate that the correct procedure had been established to recover from the MDI high rate ISS mode (jitter mode), and that the front door mechanism was functioning correctly after replacement of the MDI front door gearbox cover. The MDI procedures run during the Payload Module AFT on Monday 23 October 1995 are listed below: MDI egse connected about 7:30 am EDT Nominal side procedures MDI_ON, 1 prime side power on MDI_LFD, "lfdopen" open front door MDI_OBS with MDI stimulus telescope MDI_OFF performed keep alive memory load MDI_RCS verified keep alive memory & power converter cross-strapping Redundant side procedures MDI_ON, 2 redundant side power on MDI_CHK short system check MDI_LFD, "lfdon" MDI_LFD, "lfdcom" front door commissioning test MDI_LLT, "llton" MDI_JT, "jtinit" jitter mode recovery test MDI_JT, "jtdata" " MDI_JT, "jtnormal" " MDI_LIP, "liplbic4" " MDI_LFD, "lfdopen" open front door MDI_OBS with MDI stimulus telescope MDI_OFF MDI_DSOS backup processor check MDI egse disconnected about 5:00 pm EDT The test procedures all ran nominally, the only difficulties were that the CCS crashed once during the day, and that the MDI high rate telemetry was not configured for the redundant side when starting the redundant side AFT. The MDI observation periods were both run with the MDI stimulus telescope and the front door open. The focus and light transfer tests results were nominal. All remaining open work has been closed except for MLI work which includes retaping the MLI over the MDI alignment cube and final inspection. The open work items closed just prior and during the AFT include: MDI front window cleaning mdipict observation run to verify image quality replacement of MDI front door gearbox cover front door commissioning test after cover replacement high rate ISS mode recovery test The AIT/PAR-489 (MDI DEP Crash) is closed by the correct performance of the high rate sampling ISS mode recovery procedure. The DEP crash that happened during the August 1995 SPT was caused by running a "jtinit" procedure after running a "jtdata" procedure. The AIT/PAR-377 (MDI Toggle Bit Errors) is closed pending receipt of a list of toggle bit errors that were observed during last day of the GSCT3 test (22 September 1995). There are several cases during the ground testing in which toggle bit errors indicate that MDI has not received a command sent to it from the spacecraft system. These include: MDI powered off MDI command processor (DEP) "crashed" telecommand channel configured incorrectly (i.e. S/C redundant & MDI prime telecommand channel) All of these conditions prevent receipt of any commands by the MDI instrument and require reconfiguation to continue operations. The other concern with toggle bit errors was the possibility of a command received by the spacecraft not being received by MDI. The one instance of a command that was lost during an MDI SPT test was verified to have been corrupted before receipt by the spacecraft. There is also evidence that the MDI instrument will occasionally not provide the toggle bit response within the required time. In these cases, however, the MDI commands were received correctly. As such, there is not evidence of commands being lost after receipt by the spacecraft. The MDI instrument is considered ready for launch pending review of the MLI and final inspection prior to spacecraft encapsulation. --------------- This message was sent to: akin@sag.space.lockheed.com JAloise LBacon RBogart RBush chevalier@sag.space.lockheed.com JCovington CDeforest TDuvall edwards@sag.space.lockheed.com feinstein@sag.space.lockheed.com THoeksema AKosovichev KLeibrand MLevay DMathur MMorrison rehse@sag.space.lockheed.com WRosenberg MRubin LSa JSaba PScherrer JSchou KScott LSpringer MStehle JSuryanarayanan TTarbell ATitle SWilliams JWolfson IZayer soilog@quake --------------- -> Replies via SolarMail to "SOItech" will be broadcast to the persons listed. --------------- From margie Thu Oct 26 15:55:40 1995 Return-Path: Received: by quake.Stanford.EDU (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA28292; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 15:55:39 -0700 Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 15:55:39 -0700 From: Margaret Stehle Message-Id: <9510262255.AA28292@quake.Stanford.EDU> To: margie Status: R >From phil@phil.stanford.edu Thu Oct 26 14:24:23 1995 Return-Path: Received: from solar by quake.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA26004; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 14:24:22 -0700 Received: by solar.Stanford.EDU (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA15458; Thu, 26 Oct 95 21:26:59 GMT Date: Thu, 26 Oct 95 21:26:59 GMT From: phil@phil.stanford.edu Message-Id: <9510262126.AA15458@solar.Stanford.EDU> Apparently-To: MStehle Status: R SOI News message # 41 on Thu Oct 26 20:44:41 GMT 1995 Mail from: phil@phil.Stanford.EDU Subject: SOHO launch status Original Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 13:44:33 -0700 --------------- Well, it now looks like the SOHO launch will be at about 2 AM EST on 23 November 1995 (Thanksgiving), ready or not. There are still outstanding problems but they are being systemmatically solved or glossed over. Lets hope for good luck and get on with preparations. The command drop-out problems have been shown to be in the test setup and not in the spacecraft. There was a review of the Centaur problem 2 days ago and they seem to have convinced all in attendance that the risks are small enough. Sometime next week they will open up reaction wheel #5 which has been running for the past dozen days to see if it looks like new. There will be a pre-launch press conference on Tuesday 31 October (Halloween) at 9:30 AM EST. It will be broadcast on the NASA select channel for one hour live. The remaining items include: End-to-end operations test #4, 30 Oct. (26 hours) Insert "green plugs" 31 Oct. Final MLI adjustments 1-2 Nov. Fueling SOHO, 3-6 Nov. Experiments covers off (no MDI action) 6-7 Nov Mating SOHO with launcher adaptor 8 Nov. SOHO to Pad, 11 Nov. With this schedule MDI will open its door just before the winter solstice and SOHO will reach L1 by April Fool's Day. Phil S. --------------- This message was sent to: JAloise BAndersen TAppourchaux KBachmann LBacon TBai TBerger RBogart RBracewell MBrodsky JBrown TBrown RBush ACacciani DCauffman GChapman JChristensen JCovington WDappen ADarwich CDeforest VDomingo TDuvall EFossat CFrohlich AGabriel DGaloppo BGelly JGervin DGough GGrec DHaber JHarvey DHathaway FHill THoeksema SHorner RHubbard NHurlburt KJulien JKennedy SKorzennik AKosovichev VKotov JKuhn JLawrence JLeibacher KLeibrand MLevay KLibbrecht JLinker DMathur WMerryfield PMilford GMorales MMorrison LNovember RNoyes XPZhao JPap JPintar APoland GPrice ERhodes WRosenberg DRust RRutten ARuzmaikin LSa JSaba PScherrer JSchou KSchrijver KScott TSekii HShibahashi RShine HSnodgrass LSpringer CStCyr RStebbins MStehle JStenflo PSturrock JSuryanarayanan TTarbell MThompson ATitle JToomre RUlrich GWSimon AWalker SWilliams JWolfson MWoodard HYoshimura IZayer EZweibel --------------- -> Replies via SolarMail to "SOInews" will be broadcast to the persons listed. --------------- >From rick@rick.Stanford.EDU Thu Oct 26 15:47:11 1995 Return-Path: Received: from rick.Stanford.EDU by quake.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA27862; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 15:47:05 -0700 Received: by rick.Stanford.EDU (940816.SGI.8.6.9/rsb-1.1) id PAA10235; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 15:49:37 -0700 From: "Rick Bogart" Message-Id: <9510261549.ZM10233@rick.Stanford.EDU> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 15:49:37 -0700 X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.0 26oct94 MediaMail) To: local@rick.Stanford.EDU, TTarbell@rick.Stanford.EDU, IZayer@rick.Stanford.EDU Subject: heads up! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Status: R We are planning a sort of all-hands readiness review of the SOI SSC prior to launch in the next few days, maybe as early as tomorrow. Formal presentations are not expected or even in order, but the presence of virtually everyone involved in some parts of the SSSC operations will be required at some point. That means all scientists and programmers (including Amara), Mark, Karen, and probably Margie and Gladys. Others are welcome to participate, and it would be extremely helpful if Ted and Igor could be involved. We have not even worked out the schedule yet, we will try to do so later today, but I wanted to give you an early (!) warning so you can arrange to be here, unless you happen to be in Vietnam or in a plane flying over the Arabian Sea. This is not an April Fool's joke, or if it is the joke is on me... From gladys Fri Oct 27 08:00:07 1995 Return-Path: Received: by quake.Stanford.EDU (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA12002; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 08:00:03 -0700 Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 08:00:03 -0700 From: Gladys Morales Message-Id: <9510271500.AA12002@quake.Stanford.EDU> To: local Subject: SOHO press release Status: R Subject: SoHO Prelaunch Science and Spacecraft Briefing Set for Oct. 31 Sender: NASANews@hq.nasa.gov Precedence: bulk Status: RO Don Savage Headquarters, Washington, DC October 26, 1995 (Phone: 202/358-1547) Fred Brown Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD (Phone: 301/286-7277) NOTE TO EDITORS: N95-70 SOHO PRELAUNCH SCIENCE AND SPACECRAFT BRIEFING SET FOR OCT. 31 The upcoming Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) mission will be the subject of a prelaunch science and spacecraft briefing scheduled at 9:30 a.m. EST, Oct. 31, 1995 from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD. SOHO is a project between the European Space Agency (ESA) and NASA, and is scheduled for launch aboard an Atlas IIAS launch vehicle from Cape Canaveral Air Station, FL, on Nov. 23, 1995. Participants for the briefing will be: - Dr. Roger Bonnet, Director of the Scientific Programme, ESA Headquarters, Paris - Dr. Wesley Huntress, Jr., Associate Administrator, Office of Space Science, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC - Dr. Vincente Domingo, ESA SOHO Project Scientist - Dr. Art Poland, NASA SOHO Project Scientist - Dr. Richard Harrison, Principal Investigator, SOHO CDS Instrument - Dr. Phillip Scherrer, Principal Investigator, SOHO MDI/SOI Instrument Reporters covering the briefing from NASA Headquarters, participating NASA Centers and ESA Headquarters will be able to participate in the 2-way question-and-answer session. - end - NASA press releases and other information are available automatically by sending an Internet electronic mail message to domo@hq.nasa.gov. In the body of the message (not the subject line) users should type the words "subscribe press- release" (no quotes). The system will reply with a confirmation via E-mail of each subscription. A second automatic message will include additional information on the service. Questions should be directed to (202) 358-4043. From phil@phil.stanford.edu Mon Oct 30 16:47:09 1995 Return-Path: Received: from solar by quake.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA08078; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 16:47:08 -0800 Received: by solar.Stanford.EDU (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA24085; Tue, 31 Oct 95 00:48:58 GMT Date: Tue, 31 Oct 95 00:48:58 GMT From: phil@phil.stanford.edu Message-Id: <9510310048.AA24085@solar.Stanford.EDU> Apparently-To: MStehle Status: R SOI-MDI technical mail message # 1177 on Tue Oct 31 00:35:27 GMT 1995 Mail from: phil@phil.Stanford.EDU Subject: Status update Original Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 00:36:14 GMT --------------- I am sending this to the SWT and to the SOI local team just in case some have missed todays continuing story of the reaction wheels. Reaction wheel #5 was opened last week. It was not perfect. In fact both the upper and lower bearings were damaged. There are pits in the ball races, one per ball. It is described as consistent with having been dropped about 4cm. There were some particles in the oil that are consistent with the pits. That is about as far as there is consistent information that I have. There are a number of arguments that since this wheel was damaged it is not representative of the 4 that are in SOHO so, no problem, we can go ahead with the launch. There is no confirmation that it was actually dropped and the others were not. Some of us are quite concerned. My impression is that people are looking for a reason to be able to disregard this test result. No final decision has been made. The PIs at the EOF will meet with Bonnet tomorrow, probably with others as well. Huntress and Dale will both be here also. There will be a board review prior to the beginning of fueling at the end of the week. The PIs who are far away may want to contact Art Poland and or Vicente for updates. Phil Scherrer --------------- This message was sent to: akin@sag.space.lockheed.com JAloise LBacon RBogart RBush chevalier@sag.space.lockheed.com JCovington CDeforest TDuvall edwards@sag.space.lockheed.com feinstein@sag.space.lockheed.com THoeksema AKosovichev KLeibrand MLevay DMathur MMorrison rehse@sag.space.lockheed.com WRosenberg MRubin LSa JSaba PScherrer JSchou KScott LSpringer MStehle JSuryanarayanan TTarbell ATitle SWilliams JWolfson IZayer soilog@quake --------------- -> Replies via SolarMail to "SOItech" will be broadcast to the persons listed. --------------- From phil@phil.Stanford.EDU Wed Nov 1 11:53:33 1995 Return-Path: Received: from phil.Stanford.EDU by quake.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA26952; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 11:53:29 -0800 Received: by phil.Stanford.EDU (940816.SGI.8.6.9/rsb-1.1) id TAA19022; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 19:52:05 GMT From: "Philip Scherrer" Message-Id: <9511011152.ZM19020@phil.Stanford.EDU> Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 11:52:04 -0800 X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.0 26oct94 MediaMail) To: local@phil.Stanford.EDU, soitech@solar Subject: SOHO status Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Status: R --- Forwarded mail from vdomingo@esa.nascom.nasa.gov Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 02:13:04 GMT From: vdomingo@esa.nascom.nasa.gov SOHO Science Working Team message # 254 on Wed Nov 1 02:06:44 GMT 1995 Mail from: vdomingo@esa.nascom.nasa.gov Subject: SOHO, report of the day Original Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 21:03:22 -0500 --------------- To: SOHO Principal Investigators Report of today activities: 1. Meeting with R. Bonnet This morning, after the Pre-launch Press Briefing, we made use of the occasion that four PIs were at GSFC and Roger Bonnet was here, to hold an informal meeting, that gave the opportunity to the PIs to voice their concerns on the readiness of SOHO for launch. Present in the meeting were: J. Kohl. G. Brueckner, R. Harrison, P. Scherrer, D. Michels, P. Lemaire, R. Bonnet, D. Dale, F. Felici, W. Wagner, G. Withbroe, K. Sizemore, W. Worrall, A. Poland and myself. At the meeting the PIs exposed their concerns about the various late troubles in the spacecraft and the operation, and two main topics dominated the discussion: - the reaction wheels were presented as the single major concern at this stage, particularly after knowing that anomalies have been observed in wheel#5 when it has been open. After the meeting John Kohl has put together a number of questions that the PIs present considered relevant. The text is attached below. It was agreed that the project would ask the chairman of the "tiger team on the wheels" to prepare replies to these questions. The replies will form part of the meeting of the "SOHO Launch Commitment Review Board" that will take place next Friday. - at the meeting Bill Worrall said that the FOT would not be able to be ready for launch on 23 November, because it would not be able to incorporate and all the procedures and changes that were arriving from Matra, some of them due still due for next week. It appears that this problem could prompt a few days delay of the launch, but will need further evaluation. 2. "SOHO Launch Commitment Review Board" meeting The board that met on 16 October at ESTEC, will resume its meeting in a tele- conference to be held on Friday, 3 November, at 9:15 US eastern time (15:15 CET). All the SOHO principal Investigators are invited to attend the meeting at one of the three locations: KSC (SAEF 2), GSFC (Building 6, room C100), or ESTEC (D. Dale Office, room Ag205). 3. Ground System Compatibility Test, payload part (GSCT#4B) The test has ended today at about 18 hours. With exception of minor anomalies the test has been completed to the entire satisfaction of the participating PI representatives at the closing meeting. The flow of commanding and data distribution has been remarkably smooth. This is the kind of behaviour of the ground system and spacecraft that I wanted to see before launch. Vicente Domingo 31 Oct 1995 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ANNEX: To: David Dale From: John Kohl in consultation with the Project Scientists and some PI's Subject: Questions concerning launch readiness of Soho 1. With 15 recent modifications, the current wheel design must be considered a new design. Does this not require a full qualification cycle? 2. What is the experience base of the team that built the wheels? Having found problems with all 6 wheels that were opened and inspected, how can the possibility of a hidden workmanship problem on the flight wheels be discounted? Are there wheels assigned to other programs that went through the same process as the SOHO wheels? Could they be made available, open and inspected as a check of workmanship by this team? 3. Please explain the cause of the observed condition of wheel #5. Could it be: 1) the result of errors in assembly, 2) vibration with insufficient preload, 3) mishandling (e.g., dropped). Do the above have implications for the flight wheels? What is the level of quality control documentation on wheel #5? 4. If you were given more time (1 month, 4 months, 8 months), what could you do to improve our confidence that the four flight wheels will perform satisfactorily for a 2 (or 6) year mission? 5. What are the risks associated with a launch delay that balance the reduction in risk to be gained by a reasonable duration life test and post-test inspection of at least one wheel of the flight wheel family? 6. In light of your responses to the above, how can you justify the current level of testing--should we adjust the schedule? --------------- This message was sent to: JLBertaux JPDelaboudiniere VDomingo CFrohlich BFleck AGabriel RHarrison DHovestadt JKohl HKunow GBrueckner APoland PScherrer JTorsti KWilhelm --------------- -> Replies via SolarMail to "SOHOswt" will be broadcast to the persons listed. --------------- ---End of forwarded mail from vdomingo@esa.nascom.nasa.gov From phil@phil.stanford.edu Wed Nov 1 12:29:14 1995 Return-Path: Received: from solar by quake.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA28332; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 12:29:13 -0800 Received: by solar.Stanford.EDU (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA29110; Wed, 1 Nov 95 20:31:03 GMT Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 20:31:03 GMT From: phil@phil.stanford.edu Message-Id: <9511012031.AA29110@solar.Stanford.EDU> Apparently-To: MStehle Status: R SOI-MDI technical mail message # 1180 on Wed Nov 1 19:57:17 GMT 1995 Mail from: phil@phil.Stanford.EDU Subject: (Fwd) Original Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 11:54:00 -0800 --------------- --- Forwarded mail from GABRIEL@iaslab.ias.fr Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 10:23:42 GMT From: GABRIEL@iaslab.ias.fr SOHO Science Working Team message # 255 on Wed Nov 1 10:17:24 GMT 1995 Mail from: GABRIEL@iaslab.ias.fr Subject: SOHO launch Original Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 11:19:40 +0100 (WET) --------------- I must add my voice to those who complain about the level of information transfer between ESA and the PIs. I spent one hour on the phone yesterday speaking to my deputy at the EOF, so that were sure to have the same point of view when he represented me at the meeting PIs/Bonnet. Now I learn that the meeting took place with those PIs who were available, and that he was not present. It is not acceptable that PIs who happen not to be at Goddard loose all rights to a voice in SOHO. There are many solutions possible : the sohoswt box works well if it is used, and deputies can be appointed in good time for urgent meetings. Those who attended the Florence meeting of UVCS will remember a protest on the part of the PIs present regarding the role of the SOT at the EOF. This is part of the same problem. The PIs have a collective role as part of the SWT for SOHO, which goes beyond their interest in their individual instrument. We insist on the right to make our input to important meetings, either in person, or by messages or by deputies. The present concept of the SOT is not acceptable and needs urgent clarification before launch. I designate Jacques Charra as my deputy in the event of a PI meeting on Friday. Having foregone my chance to contribute to the debate yesterday, I would just add my thoughts to the present reflexion : A decision to launch is always a compromise between competing risks. A system designed for space, which is operated on the ground, is subjected to dangers of deterioration or misuse. In addition to known risk areas, there are surely others existing now that we have not yet discovered. If we wait a month, we will solve some problems, create some others, and discover some others. A decision to wait a month is valid only if we believe that the position will be better then than now. This is not clear. This is not to say that we should launch at all costs, ignoring clear evidence of dangers. On the other hand, if we wait until all anxieties are satisfied, we will never launch. At last, the two Agencies are listening to and examining our technical concerns. Let us see if we can converge on an agreed solution and share together the responsibility for the inevitable small risk which remains. Alan Gabriel q --------------- This message was sent to: JLBertaux JPDelaboudiniere VDomingo CFrohlich BFleck AGabriel RHarrison DHovestadt JKohl HKunow GBrueckner APoland PScherrer JTorsti KWilhelm --------------- -> Replies via SolarMail to "SOHOswt" will be broadcast to the persons listed. --------------- ---End of forwarded mail from GABRIEL@iaslab.ias.fr --------------- This message was sent to: akin@sag.space.lockheed.com JAloise LBacon RBogart RBush chevalier@sag.space.lockheed.com JCovington CDeforest TDuvall edwards@sag.space.lockheed.com feinstein@sag.space.lockheed.com THoeksema AKosovichev KLeibrand MLevay DMathur MMorrison rehse@sag.space.lockheed.com WRosenberg MRubin LSa JSaba PScherrer JSchou KScott LSpringer MStehle JSuryanarayanan TTarbell ATitle SWilliams JWolfson IZayer soilog@quake --------------- -> Replies via SolarMail to "SOItech" will be broadcast to the persons listed. --------------- From phil@phil.stanford.edu Thu Nov 2 10:30:43 1995 Return-Path: Received: from solar by quake.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA20176; Thu, 2 Nov 1995 10:30:42 -0800 Received: by solar.Stanford.EDU (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA03795; Thu, 2 Nov 95 18:32:33 GMT Date: Thu, 2 Nov 95 18:32:33 GMT From: phil@phil.stanford.edu Message-Id: <9511021832.AA03795@solar.Stanford.EDU> Apparently-To: MStehle Status: R SOI-MDI technical mail message # 1182 on Thu Nov 2 18:19:01 GMT 1995 Mail from: phil@phil.Stanford.EDU Subject: (Fwd) Original Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 10:15:38 -0800 --------------- --- Forwarded mail from poland%pal.dnet@solar Date: Thu, 2 Nov 95 17:00:32 GMT From: poland%pal.dnet@solar SOHO Science Working Team message # 257 on Thu Nov 2 16:54:13 GMT 1995 Mail from: pal::poland Subject: Comments from the Project Scientists Original Date: Thu, 2 Nov 95 16:50:37 GMT --------------- Gentlemen, We have obviously had a lot of problems and concerns over the past few months on the SOHO program. We are still discussing the readiness of the spacecraft and ground system for launch with only 3 weeks to go. Unfortunately the flow of information to you has been less than desirable. The only excuse I have for that is that we can only do so much. I am pretty sure that the information has flowed to Vicente and me. We just have not been able to forward everything to you. I'm sorry for that. Vicente and I have been involved in all of the critical discussions. I would like to point out to you that there was a very critical discussion last Tuesday with Bonnet and George Withbroe. Several PIs participated. At that meeting I can assure you that both Bonnet and Withbroe were made fully aware of our concerns. A decision will not be made on the basis of partial information or untruths. All of the technical facts will be considered in their decision. As I see it there are two open concerns. One is the wheels. You will be getting at least two reports on that, one from the project and the other from Sizemore/NASA. There is risk associated with flying the current wheels. There is also mission risk in waiting. The other concern is ground contingency commands for the first 3 days of operations. The FOT does not have them all yet from ESA and there is concern about their being ready for launch. This will be discussed at the board meeting on Friday. So far we have done our jobs well in preparing our instruments and in keeping a close eye on the project. The decision of Bonnet and Huntress will be made based on the technical inputs from the project and the project scientists. I think that it is in our best interest to abide by that decision, whatever it is, and get on with what we have to do - preparing for the mission. Yours, Art Written in consult with Vicente --------------- This message was sent to: JLBertaux JPDelaboudiniere VDomingo CFrohlich BFleck AGabriel RHarrison DHovestadt JKohl HKunow GBrueckner APoland PScherrer JTorsti KWilhelm --------------- -> Replies via SolarMail to "SOHOswt" will be broadcast to the persons listed. --------------- ---End of forwarded mail from poland%pal.dnet@solar --------------- This message was sent to: akin@sag.space.lockheed.com JAloise LBacon RBogart RBush chevalier@sag.space.lockheed.com JCovington CDeforest TDuvall edwards@sag.space.lockheed.com feinstein@sag.space.lockheed.com THoeksema AKosovichev KLeibrand MLevay DMathur MMorrison rehse@sag.space.lockheed.com WRosenberg MRubin LSa JSaba PScherrer JSchou KScott LSpringer MStehle JSuryanarayanan TTarbell ATitle SWilliams JWolfson IZayer soilog@quake --------------- -> Replies via SolarMail to "SOItech" will be broadcast to the persons listed. --------------- From phil@phil.stanford.edu Thu Nov 2 15:21:08 1995 Return-Path: Received: from solar by quake.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA29698; Thu, 2 Nov 1995 15:21:07 -0800 Received: by solar.Stanford.EDU (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA04721; Thu, 2 Nov 95 23:22:57 GMT Date: Thu, 2 Nov 95 23:22:57 GMT From: phil@phil.stanford.edu Message-Id: <9511022322.AA04721@solar.Stanford.EDU> Apparently-To: MStehle Status: R SOI-MDI technical mail message # 1183 on Thu Nov 2 23:09:25 GMT 1995 Mail from: phil@phil.Stanford.EDU Subject: (Fwd) Original Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 15:06:02 -0800 --------------- --- Forwarded mail from vdomingo@esa.nascom.nasa.gov Date: Thu, 2 Nov 95 22:56:31 GMT From: vdomingo@esa.nascom.nasa.gov SOHO Science Working Team message # 258 on Thu Nov 2 22:50:13 GMT 1995 Mail from: vdomingo@esa.nascom.nasa.gov Subject: Launch commitment review board Original Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 17:47:02 -0500 --------------- To SOHO PIs Dear colleague, Please find below, for redundancy, a copy of the fax that has been sent to you this afternoon by the Project (annex 1) , and a copy of my input to the Launch Commitment Review Board on GSCT#4 (annex 2). Best regards, Vicente Domingo -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Annex 1 Subject: Experiment "Ready for Flight" Dear Principal Investigator, At the meeting on 16 October 1995 at ESTEC you confirmed to ESA's Director of Science that your experiment was ready for flight, with the exception of two issues, i.e. the command interface and the ground segment capabilities. - In the meantime, investigations have taken place at KSC, and the "AFT" run confirmed that the command interface issue was understood and could be closed satisfactorily. - GSCT-4 has also confirmed that the ground segment performances and compliant and can support the mission. I therefore ask you to reiterate your readiness statement and confirm in writing by not later than 3 November 1995, 14:00 hrs European time (input to D/Sci at KSC) that your experiment is "ready for flight". C. Berner & V. Domingo -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Annex 2 SOHO Launch Commitment Review Board Report on the Ground System Compatibility Test, payload part (GSCT#4B) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The test started at 14 hours, October 30th,and ended at 18 hours, October 31st. With exception of minor anomalies the test has been completed to the entire satisfaction of the participating PI representatives at the closing meeting. The anomalies have been registered as discrepancies and are being dealt together will some discrepancies still pending from GSCT#3. None of them is launch critical. The ground system and spacecraft demonstrated full ability to operate the SOHO payload. The flow of commanding and data distribution has been remarkably smooth, and the experimenters were able to send large amounts of commands and to upload software without problem. Vicente Domingo SOHO Proyect Scientist November 2, 1995 --------------- This message was sent to: JLBertaux JPDelaboudiniere VDomingo CFrohlich BFleck AGabriel RHarrison DHovestadt JKohl HKunow GBrueckner APoland PScherrer JTorsti KWilhelm --------------- -> Replies via SolarMail to "SOHOswt" will be broadcast to the persons listed. --------------- ---End of forwarded mail from vdomingo@esa.nascom.nasa.gov --------------- This message was sent to: akin@sag.space.lockheed.com JAloise LBacon RBogart RBush chevalier@sag.space.lockheed.com JCovington CDeforest TDuvall edwards@sag.space.lockheed.com feinstein@sag.space.lockheed.com THoeksema AKosovichev KLeibrand MLevay DMathur MMorrison rehse@sag.space.lockheed.com WRosenberg MRubin LSa JSaba PScherrer JSchou KScott LSpringer MStehle JSuryanarayanan TTarbell ATitle SWilliams JWolfson IZayer soilog@quake --------------- -> Replies via SolarMail to "SOItech" will be broadcast to the persons listed. --------------- From phil@phil.stanford.edu Thu Nov 2 20:15:04 1995 Return-Path: Received: from solar by quake.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA02334; Thu, 2 Nov 1995 20:15:03 -0800 Received: by solar.Stanford.EDU (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA05453; Fri, 3 Nov 95 04:16:53 GMT Date: Fri, 3 Nov 95 04:16:53 GMT From: phil@phil.stanford.edu Message-Id: <9511030416.AA05453@solar.Stanford.EDU> Apparently-To: MStehle Status: R SOI-MDI technical mail message # 1184 on Fri Nov 3 04:03:21 GMT 1995 Mail from: phil@phil.Stanford.EDU Subject: Readiness for launch Original Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 03:59:59 GMT --------------- TO: Ken Sizemore ISTP/SOHO Project Manager, GSFC. FROM: Philip Scherrer SOI/MDI Principal Investigator, SU. DATE: 2 November 1995 RE: MDI readiness for launch CC: ESA D/Sci., W. Wagner. This memo is to inform you of the current status of the Solar Oscillations Investigation which includes the Michelson Doppler Imager experiment which is part of the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory mission. To the best of my present knowledge, as of this date, the MDI flight instrument is ready for launch. However, from the reports I have seen and presentations I have witnessed I do not believe the SOHO mission as a whole has been demonstrated to be able to provide an environment sufficient for MDI to obtain the prime science data required for SOI. Ken Sizemore 2 November, 1995 ISTP/SOHO Project Manager Dear Ken This letter is to inform you of the current status of the Solar Oscillations Investigation which includes the Michelson Doppler Imager experiment which is part of the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory mission. This letter is written from the perspective of the SOI science investigation. It is to be viewed as an appendix to the simple readiness statement attached. First, in summary, so far as mission critical functions, MDI is ready for launch but in my opinion SOHO as a whole is not. I can not evaluate the overall risks of delay versus the risks of proceeding so will not offer a recommendation about a 23 November launch. The SOI program consists of several interacting components. These components and their status are as follows: 1. The MDI instrument which includes the MDI Optics Package hardware, Electronics Package hardware, and instrument control and communications software. To the best of my knowledge, as of this date, the MDI instrument is fully ready for flight subject to the following outstanding item: We have been notified by NASA that there are some electronic components used in MDI which have some uncertainty about their suitability for use. We do not know the nature of the concern but we have logged many hours of proper operation and consider the parts qualified. 2. The MDI ground support software. This is the software that takes science observation lists and converts them into command uploads, executes the command loads, and verifies instrument proper function. This software is sufficiently ready to support early operations and at the current pace of development and testing will be ready to support science operations before SOHO reaches Halo orbit. 3. The MDI observing software which includes the on-board image processor programs, the observing frame lists and processing lists, and master sequence. This is the software that is loaded into MDI after launch but before it is useful for any purpose. This software can be divided into two parts: one that is required for initial checkout and verification that the flight hardware is functional; and one part that enables MDI instrument calibration and operation to obtain science data. The first part is ready for flight. The second part, which will be required after day 20 is not ready. I believe that enough of it has been developed and tested on the MDI simulation system, and that progress on the rest is proceeding at such a pace that it will be ready for initial calibrations after day 20 and that the science observing sequences will be ready before SOHO reaches Halo orbit. This will require continued intense work by the MDI team. 4. The SOI science planning procedures, telemetry processing software, calibration software, science analysis software, and supporting hardware. This is the software that processes the science data into products suitable for science analysis and the software that accomplishes the primary SOI science analysis and the supporting computer hardware. The hardware is nearly all purchased and installed. The functionality required to support operations through Halo orbit injection is in place but requires final tuning and testing. I believe we will be able to support early operations as required. The software is not yet ready to support science observtions. I believe the essential parts will be ready by the beginning of normal science operations. The SOI program also requires the SOHO spacecraft and the SOHO ground support system. My present understanding of the status of the SOHO spacecraft and ground support systems would lead me to believe that SOHO itself is not ready by several months. This is based on my understanding of 1.) the maturity of the ground system and flight software operating as a complete system, and 2) the lack of knowledge of the suitability of the reaction wheels. I have many years experience with the design, testing, and use of software systems. I have learned that complex software systems only become reliable through extensive use and testing. The SOHO mission software, including SOHO itself, the ground systems, and operators, and instruments and instrument teams, has had very little full system testing by any standard of software testing. I have talked with my team, Bill Worrall, Art Poland, and Vicente Domingo about the readiness of the SOHO mission software and am firmly convinced that it is not at a level of maturity that we can be assured of a successful science mission. It may well work just fine, but there has been so little operation of the system as a whole, so little detailed planning for the first months of operations, and there are still changes being implemented and requested to various procedures that there can be little confidence of flawless operation during the critical first days and there is low confidence of efficient operations during the important first months of operations. All reports I have seen and heard of concerning the recovery from the reaction wheel failures that occured during SOHO system testing indicate that the present wheel bearing system design has not had sufficient qualification testing to have confidence that at least 3 of the wheels will last for the minimum mission of 29 months. While well outside the scope of the question asked of me, the decision to launch SOHO on 23 November must be made by balancing estimates of risks of delay versus the risks of proceeding. The risks from software immaturity are more of loss in efficient use of the SOHO resource rather than that of total mission failure. The risk of wheel failure must be balanced against technical, programmatic, and political risks of the delay that would be required for further testing. Philip Scherrer, SOI/MDI P.I. --------------- This message was sent to: akin@sag.space.lockheed.com JAloise LBacon RBogart RBush chevalier@sag.space.lockheed.com JCovington CDeforest TDuvall edwards@sag.space.lockheed.com feinstein@sag.space.lockheed.com THoeksema AKosovichev KLeibrand MLevay DMathur MMorrison rehse@sag.space.lockheed.com WRosenberg MRubin LSa JSaba PScherrer JSchou KScott LSpringer MStehle JSuryanarayanan TTarbell ATitle SWilliams JWolfson IZayer soilog@quake --------------- -> Replies via SolarMail to "SOItech" will be broadcast to the persons listed. --------------- From phil@phil.stanford.edu Thu Nov 2 20:55:02 1995 Return-Path: Received: from solar by quake.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA02486; Thu, 2 Nov 1995 20:55:01 -0800 Received: by solar.Stanford.EDU (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA05638; Fri, 3 Nov 95 04:56:52 GMT Date: Fri, 3 Nov 95 04:56:52 GMT From: phil@phil.stanford.edu Message-Id: <9511030456.AA05638@solar.Stanford.EDU> Apparently-To: MStehle Status: R SOI-MDI technical mail message # 1185 on Fri Nov 3 04:43:18 GMT 1995 Mail from: phil@phil.Stanford.EDU Subject: revised Original Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 04:39:55 GMT --------------- TO: Ken Sizemore ISTP/SOHO Project Manager, GSFC. FROM: Philip Scherrer SOI/MDI Principal Investigator, SU. DATE: 2 November 1995 RE: MDI readiness for launch CC: ESA D/Sci., W. Wagner. This memo is to inform you of the current status of the Solar Oscillations Investigation which includes the Michelson Doppler Imager experiment which is part of the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory mission. To the best of my present knowledge, as of this date, the MDI flight instrument is ready for launch. However, at this time prior to the review to be held on 3 November, from the reports I have read and presentations I have witnessed I do not believe SOHO as a whole has been demonstrated to be able to provide an environment sufficient for MDI to obtain the prime science data required for SOI. I sincerely hope I am wrong. Ken Sizemore 2 November, 1995 ISTP/SOHO Project Manager Dear Ken This letter is to inform you of the current status of the Solar Oscillations Investigation which includes the Michelson Doppler Imager experiment which is part of the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory mission. This letter is written from the perspective of the SOI science investigation. It is to be viewed as an appendix to the simple readiness statement attached. First, in summary, so far as mission critical functions, MDI is ready for launch but in my opinion SOHO as a whole is not. I can not evaluate the overall risks of delay versus the risks of proceeding so will not offer a recommendation about a 23 November launch. The SOI program consists of several interacting components. These components and their status are as follows: 1. The MDI instrument which includes the MDI Optics Package hardware, Electronics Package hardware, and instrument control and communications software. To the best of my knowledge, as of this date, the MDI instrument is fully ready for flight subject to the following outstanding item: We have been notified by NASA that there are some electronic components used in MDI which have some uncertainty about their suitability for use. 2. The MDI ground support software. This is the software that takes science observation lists and converts them into command uploads, executes the command loads, and verifies instrument proper function. This software is sufficiently ready to support early operations and at the current pace of development and testing will be ready to support science operations before SOHO reaches Halo orbit. 3. The MDI observing software which includes the on-board image processor programs, the observing frame lists and processing lists, and master sequence. This is the software that is loaded into MDI after launch but before it is useful for any purpose. This software can be divided into two parts: one that is required for initial checkout and verification that the flight hardware is functional; and one part that enables MDI instrument calibration and operation to obtain science data. The first part is ready for flight. The second part, which will be required after day 20 is not ready. I believe that enough of it has been developed and tested on the MDI simulation system, and that progress on the rest is proceeding at such a pace that it will be ready for initial calibrations after day 20 and that the science observing sequences will be ready before SOHO reaches Halo orbit. This will require continued intense work by the MDI team. 4. The SOI science planning procedures, telemetry processing software, calibration software, science analysis software, and supporting hardware. This is the software that processes the science data into products suitable for science analysis and the software that accomplishes the primary SOI science analysis and the supporting computer hardware. The hardware is nearly all purchased and installed. The functionality required to support operations through Halo orbit injection is in place but requires final tuning and testing. I believe we will be able to support early operations as required. The software is not yet ready to support science observtions. I believe the essential parts will be ready by the beginning of normal science operations. The SOI program also requires the SOHO spacecraft and the SOHO ground support system. My present understanding of the status of the SOHO spacecraft and ground support systems would lead me to believe that SOHO itself is not ready by several months. This is based on my understanding of 1.) the maturity of the ground system and flight software operating as a complete system, and 2) the lack of knowledge of the suitability of the reaction wheels. I have many years experience with the design, testing, and use of software systems. I have learned that complex software systems only become reliable through extensive use and testing. The SOHO mission software, including SOHO itself, the ground systems, and operators, and instruments and instrument teams, has had very little full system testing by any standard of software testing. I have talked with my staff, Bill Worrall, Art Poland, and Vicente Domingo about the readiness of the SOHO mission software and am firmly convinced that it is not at a level of maturity that we can be assured of a successful science mission. It may well work just fine, but there has been so little operation of the system as a whole, so little detailed planning for the first months of operations, and there are still changes being implemented and requested to various procedures that there can be little confidence of flawless operation during the critical first days and there is low confidence of efficient operations during the important first months of operations. All reports I have seen and heard of concerning the recovery from the reaction wheel failures that occured during SOHO system testing indicate that the present wheel bearing system design has not had sufficient qualification testing to have confidence that at least 3 of the wheels will last for the minimum mission of 29 months. The probabilities quoted in the report from Roamer Predmore are particularly disconcerting. While well outside the scope of the question asked of me, the decision to launch SOHO on 23 November must be made by balancing estimates of risks of delay versus the risks of proceeding. The risks from software immaturity are more of loss in efficient use of the SOHO resource rather than that of total mission failure. The risk of wheel failure must be balanced against technical, programmatic, and political risks of the delay that would be required for further testing. Philip Scherrer, SOI/MDI P.I. --------------- This message was sent to: akin@sag.space.lockheed.com JAloise LBacon RBogart RBush chevalier@sag.space.lockheed.com JCovington CDeforest TDuvall edwards@sag.space.lockheed.com feinstein@sag.space.lockheed.com THoeksema AKosovichev KLeibrand MLevay DMathur MMorrison rehse@sag.space.lockheed.com WRosenberg MRubin LSa JSaba PScherrer JSchou KScott LSpringer MStehle JSuryanarayanan TTarbell ATitle SWilliams JWolfson IZayer soilog@quake --------------- -> Replies via SolarMail to "SOItech" will be broadcast to the persons listed. --------------- From phil@phil.Stanford.EDU Fri Nov 3 09:54:28 1995 Return-Path: Received: from phil.Stanford.EDU by quake.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA05941; Fri, 3 Nov 1995 09:54:25 -0800 Received: by phil.Stanford.EDU (940816.SGI.8.6.9/rsb-1.1) id RAA22271; Fri, 3 Nov 1995 17:52:54 GMT Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 17:52:54 GMT From: phil@phil.Stanford.EDU (Philip Scherrer) Message-Id: <199511031752.RAA22271@phil.Stanford.EDU> To: debbie@phil.Stanford.EDU, local@phil.Stanford.EDU, soitech@phil.Stanford.EDU, soinews@phil.Stanford.EDU Subject: SOHO launch readiness review Status: R Summary of 3 November conference call. P. Scherrer. I just finished a 2-hour 7 or 8 site conference call which was the ESA/NASA SOHO flight readiness review meeting. The sites included KSC with the ESA project, R. Bonnet, Brueckner, Kohl, I think another PI, GSFC with Withbroe, Wagner (I think), Sizemore, Calabrese, Machi, Poland, Domingo, Worrall, Predmore (Wheel expert), and others, ESTEC with Huber, Soons(the bearing expert), and several others ESA HQ in Paris I think, 2 other individuals me, at home in the early hours of the day. I may not remember who was at which location correctly. The full list of participants will be available later. The agenda included: A review of the flight worthiness of the 4 reaction wheels presently installed in SOHO; The review of the Centaur post-coast phase relight concerns; The review of GSCT-4 A&B; The review of the status of the new procedures for solar panel and over/under thrust contingencies; The final review of all payload items; A review of all other outstanding S/C and launcher issues, etc. All of these issues except as noted below were resolved. >>>>>>>> !!!! <<<<<<<< The conclusion was to proceed with all actions that are necessary to enable a launch on 23 November. >>>>>>>> !!!! <<<<<<<< There are several outstanding issues including: 1. The new ops procedures will be received at GSFC today and will be reviewed to see how long it will take to prepare them and test them. The sense was that this may add 1 to a few days of effort at most. GSFC will report by end of next week. 2. There is some anomolous heating in about 1/3 Atlas launches due to exhaust gas leakage from a turbine. It occured most recently on the AC119 launch a week or so ago. (Rock saw that launch). They had enough instrumentation that time to locate the leak to probably a particular flange on an elbow in a pipe. They are preparing a blanket to vent any leak at that point to the outside. That work is expected to be done by the 17th. It is not viewed as a danger to a successful launch. 3. The MLI on EIT does not have the proper conductivity. Several options are being discussed along with Celias - the instrument that cares. 4. Some additional data on the wheels will be provided to John Kohl's engineer (I did not get his name). 5. There were a few other very minor issues that will dealt with before the next review. After the initial discussion about the wheels, which was moderated by Bonnet, with I felt a very careful procedure and ample opportunity for all to aks questions and get responses, there was general agreement that the present 4 wheels are OK for flight. ############################################ I had some particular concerns about the reaction wheels. This discussion will get a bit detailed and may not make sense to those who will get this message but do not have access to the reports we have received in the past week. If you are interested and really want them, we will send copies... 1. The statistical arguments in the report from Predmore were I thought based on not proper assumptions. If taken at face value they predicted a < 0.8 probability of a nominal mission. The European expert (Soons) agreed that the 2-year and the 20% numbers were not correct. Also he confirmed that such estimates were not used in a forming the main conclusion. He agreed that since the FM-5 was not in the same family as the FM 1-4 that we no nothing about the prbability of Brinelling or contamination from the examination of FM-5. This reassured me that the panel leader did not make at least the statistical errors made in the GSFC report. 2. I asked if the Brinelling and/or contamination could have taken place during assembly. The answer was, yes the contamination could have, but no the Brinelling could not have. The max preload is 510 N and that is not enough so even if the screw had been fully tightened no dents would have been made. The dents required a 100g shock to the wheel. The dents could not have been made during vibration - that was their first guess. they had good sounding arguments. 3. I asked, then, what was the source of the contamination. The response was interesting and made sense to me. Most of the experts do not think there was a particle. They think the iron and cromium detected was residuals from very fine particles from the Brinelling (dents) and not from a 3-micron particle. They think the dents in the balls (triangular marks 0.3 microns deep and 3-4 microns tall) were from rolling over the dents in the races made by the inferred shock. 4. I asked what would happen to particles that might be in the oil in the other wheels. Would it migrate into the working part of the bearing. They said that usually particle contamination migrates away from the balls. That bearings can have quite a bit of particulate contamination in the oil and have clean races. There was no indication of contamination in the upper part of FM-5. They said that in the combination of tests, runin, etc each of the flight wheels has had at least 300 hours of use. FM-1 had an additional 320 hours or so. Many of those hours were logged prior to the screening that isolated FM-5. They offered that Predmore was wrong - there must always be 3 working wheels. They have interviewed everybody who handled the wheels and found nobody to admit knowledge of a physical shock to FM-5. They still do not discount the shock theory and find it not unlikely that a person might not want to readily admit a mistake. (I would not want to have such a person on a team, but that is another matter). My conclusion, after listening to the discussion, other questions and answers, etc., is that very likely there was a physical shock to FM-5, very likely there was not a shock to FM 1-4, It is quite possible there was no contamination at all. Except for the oil issues, the QM was probably a OK QM - i.e. for the loads, cages, etc. There has been no change in "actrive" material. The change Alan has mentioned is in the washer/spacer in the preload assembly, not on a rolling surface. All the changes and additional screening tests would seem to go in the direction of makeing the bearings better. The rebuild was had an additional 320 hours or so. Many of those hours were logged before the screening that isolated FM-5. My conclusion is that there is a very good chance that the wheels now in SOHO are OK but that we have very little substantiating evidence of a long lifetime. However, they have no known problems either. The rebuild was supervised, closely, by people who seem to be very qualified. I was impressed with Soons. He was in direct oversight of the process. I now believe that the risk to the SOI science program from the wheels is less than the risks would be if we waited a half year or more. I do not think we would gain a lot more confidence even with a 3-4 month test. There is not time for a real Qual test. We should not however think there is no risk. If one of the wheels fails we should promptly decide the best observing and ops sequences for the best science from a likely short mission since the wheels on SOHO now do seem to be all of the same statistical family. As one of the Paris (I think) people said, (off the record), it is clear which balls will have dents if the wheels fail. :) From phil@phil.stanford.edu Fri Nov 3 10:36:43 1995 Return-Path: Received: from solar by quake.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA06285; Fri, 3 Nov 1995 10:36:42 -0800 Received: by solar.Stanford.EDU (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA07187; Fri, 3 Nov 95 18:38:33 GMT Date: Fri, 3 Nov 95 18:38:33 GMT From: phil@phil.stanford.edu Message-Id: <9511031838.AA07187@solar.Stanford.EDU> Apparently-To: MStehle Status: R SOI News message # 42 on Fri Nov 3 17:56:23 GMT 1995 Mail from: phil@phil.Stanford.EDU Subject: SOHO launch readiness review Original Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 17:52:54 GMT --------------- Summary of 3 November conference call. P. Scherrer. I just finished a 2-hour 7 or 8 site conference call which was the ESA/NASA SOHO flight readiness review meeting. The sites included KSC with the ESA project, R. Bonnet, Brueckner, Kohl, I think another PI, GSFC with Withbroe, Wagner (I think), Sizemore, Calabrese, Machi, Poland, Domingo, Worrall, Predmore (Wheel expert), and others, ESTEC with Huber, Soons(the bearing expert), and several others ESA HQ in Paris I think, 2 other individuals me, at home in the early hours of the day. I may not remember who was at which location correctly. The full list of participants will be available later. The agenda included: A review of the flight worthiness of the 4 reaction wheels presently installed in SOHO; The review of the Centaur post-coast phase relight concerns; The review of GSCT-4 A&B; The review of the status of the new procedures for solar panel and over/under thrust contingencies; The final review of all payload items; A review of all other outstanding S/C and launcher issues, etc. All of these issues except as noted below were resolved. >>>>>>>> !!!! <<<<<<<< The conclusion was to proceed with all actions that are necessary to enable a launch on 23 November. >>>>>>>> !!!! <<<<<<<< There are several outstanding issues including: 1. The new ops procedures will be received at GSFC today and will be reviewed to see how long it will take to prepare them and test them. The sense was that this may add 1 to a few days of effort at most. GSFC will report by end of next week. 2. There is some anomolous heating in about 1/3 Atlas launches due to exhaust gas leakage from a turbine. It occured most recently on the AC119 launch a week or so ago. (Rock saw that launch). They had enough instrumentation that time to locate the leak to probably a particular flange on an elbow in a pipe. They are preparing a blanket to vent any leak at that point to the outside. That work is expected to be done by the 17th. It is not viewed as a danger to a successful launch. 3. The MLI on EIT does not have the proper conductivity. Several options are being discussed along with Celias - the instrument that cares. 4. Some additional data on the wheels will be provided to John Kohl's engineer (I did not get his name). 5. There were a few other very minor issues that will dealt with before the next review. After the initial discussion about the wheels, which was moderated by Bonnet, with I felt a very careful procedure and ample opportunity for all to aks questions and get responses, there was general agreement that the present 4 wheels are OK for flight. ############################################ I had some particular concerns about the reaction wheels. This discussion will get a bit detailed and may not make sense to those who will get this message but do not have access to the reports we have received in the past week. If you are interested and really want them, we will send copies... 1. The statistical arguments in the report from Predmore were I thought based on not proper assumptions. If taken at face value they predicted a < 0.8 probability of a nominal mission. The European expert (Soons) agreed that the 2-year and the 20% numbers were not correct. Also he confirmed that such estimates were not used in a forming the main conclusion. He agreed that since the FM-5 was not in the same family as the FM 1-4 that we no nothing about the prbability of Brinelling or contamination from the examination of FM-5. This reassured me that the panel leader did not make at least the statistical errors made in the GSFC report. 2. I asked if the Brinelling and/or contamination could have taken place during assembly. The answer was, yes the contamination could have, but no the Brinelling could not have. The max preload is 510 N and that is not enough so even if the screw had been fully tightened no dents would have been made. The dents required a 100g shock to the wheel. The dents could not have been made during vibration - that was their first guess. they had good sounding arguments. 3. I asked, then, what was the source of the contamination. The response was interesting and made sense to me. Most of the experts do not think there was a particle. They think the iron and cromium detected was residuals from very fine particles from the Brinelling (dents) and not from a 3-micron particle. They think the dents in the balls (triangular marks 0.3 microns deep and 3-4 microns tall) were from rolling over the dents in the races made by the inferred shock. 4. I asked what would happen to particles that might be in the oil in the other wheels. Would it migrate into the working part of the bearing. They said that usually particle contamination migrates away from the balls. That bearings can have quite a bit of particulate contamination in the oil and have clean races. There was no indication of contamination in the upper part of FM-5. They said that in the combination of tests, runin, etc each of the flight wheels has had at least 300 hours of use. FM-1 had an additional 320 hours or so. Many of those hours were logged prior to the screening that isolated FM-5. They offered that Predmore was wrong - there must always be 3 working wheels. They have interviewed everybody who handled the wheels and found nobody to admit knowledge of a physical shock to FM-5. They still do not discount the shock theory and find it not unlikely that a person might not want to readily admit a mistake. (I would not want to have such a person on a team, but that is another matter). My conclusion, after listening to the discussion, other questions and answers, etc., is that very likely there was a physical shock to FM-5, very likely there was not a shock to FM 1-4, It is quite possible there was no contamination at all. Except for the oil issues, the QM was probably a OK QM - i.e. for the loads, cages, etc. There has been no change in "actrive" material. The change Alan has mentioned is in the washer/spacer in the preload assembly, not on a rolling surface. All the changes and additional screening tests would seem to go in the direction of makeing the bearings better. The rebuild was had an additional 320 hours or so. Many of those hours were logged before the screening that isolated FM-5. My conclusion is that there is a very good chance that the wheels now in SOHO are OK but that we have very little substantiating evidence of a long lifetime. However, they have no known problems either. The rebuild was supervised, closely, by people who seem to be very qualified. I was impressed with Soons. He was in direct oversight of the process. I now believe that the risk to the SOI science program from the wheels is less than the risks would be if we waited a half year or more. I do not think we would gain a lot more confidence even with a 3-4 month test. There is not time for a real Qual test. We should not however think there is no risk. If one of the wheels fails we should promptly decide the best observing and ops sequences for the best science from a likely short mission since the wheels on SOHO now do seem to be all of the same statistical family. As one of the Paris (I think) people said, (off the record), it is clear which balls will have dents if the wheels fail. :) --------------- This message was sent to: JAloise BAndersen TAppourchaux LBacon TBai TBerger RBogart RBracewell MBrodsky JBrown TBrown RBush ACacciani DCauffman GChapman JChristensen JCovington WDappen CDeforest VDomingo TDuvall EFossat CFrohlich AGabriel DGaloppo BGelly JGervin DGough GGrec DHaber JHarvey DHathaway FHill THoeksema SHorner RHubbard NHurlburt KJulien JKennedy SKorzennik AKosovichev VKotov JKuhn JLawrence JLeibacher KLeibrand MLevay KLibbrecht JLinker DMathur WMerryfield PMilford GMorales MMorrison LNovember RNoyes XPZhao JPap JPintar APoland GPrice JReiter ERhodes WRosenberg DRust RRutten ARuzmaikin LSa JSaba PScherrer JSchou KSchrijver KScott TSekii HShibahashi RShine HSnodgrass LSpringer CStCyr RStebbins MStehle JStenflo PSturrock JSuryanarayanan TTarbell MThompson ATitle JToomre RUlrich GWSimon AWalker SWilliams JWolfson MWoodard HYoshimura IZayer EZweibel bboard@soi --------------- -> Replies via SolarMail to "SOInews" will be broadcast to the persons listed. --------------- From phil@phil.Stanford.EDU Fri Nov 3 16:36:35 1995 Return-Path: Received: from phil.Stanford.EDU by quake.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA12338; Fri, 3 Nov 1995 16:36:31 -0800 Received: by phil.Stanford.EDU (940816.SGI.8.6.9/rsb-1.1) id AAA22717; Sat, 4 Nov 1995 00:34:56 GMT From: "Philip Scherrer" Message-Id: <9511031634.ZM22715@phil.Stanford.EDU> Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 16:34:55 -0800 X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.0 26oct94 MediaMail) To: soitech@solar, local@phil.Stanford.EDU Subject: (Fwd) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Status: R --- Forwarded mail from vdomingo@esa.nascom.nasa.gov Date: Sat, 4 Nov 95 00:09:08 GMT From: vdomingo@esa.nascom.nasa.gov SOHO Science Working Team message # 260 on Sat Nov 4 00:02:46 GMT 1995 Mail from: vdomingo@esa.nascom.nasa.gov Subject: Communication from the project scientist Original Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 18:59:34 -0500 --------------- To SOHO PIs Communication from the project scientist November 3, 1995 1. For a report on the Launch Commitment Review board meeting, held this morning, I refer to the previous message kindly produced and distributed by Phil Scherrer. 2. After the meeting, Roger Bonnet and West Huntress have met, by phone, and have formally committed SOHO for launch on November 23rd 1995. 3.1 The following is an advance notice about the visiting activities around the launch (I have not seen it in writing yet): 22 November: 8:15 - 15:30 Tour of KSC. 19 - 21 Reception by MATRA 24 Transport to launch observation point 23 November 18:30 Drinks and dinner by ESA Busses form Howard Johnson Hotel will by provided by ESA and from the Hilton by NASA, I guess. 3.2 We will find a place for anybody SOHO related. But it is essential that we receive the name of the persons that want to come, otherwise there will he or she will have no place in the buses. Please check if you or anybody in your teams or related that is coming have given their names. If not please send them to me early next week. By e-mail of by fax (301-286-1617) by 11 November at the latest, please. 4. A suggestion has been made that we hold a SWT meeting around the launch. By this note I propose that we hold the 16th SWT meeting on 23 November, from 13:30 to 17:30 at the Howard Johnson Hotel. Let me know your reaction by 11 November. If we have a consensus we will make the final announcement by then. In the agenda: early operations. Vicente Domingo --------------- This message was sent to: JLBertaux JPDelaboudiniere VDomingo CFrohlich BFleck AGabriel RHarrison DHovestadt JKohl HKunow GBrueckner APoland PScherrer JTorsti KWilhelm --------------- -> Replies via SolarMail to "SOHOswt" will be broadcast to the persons listed. --------------- ---End of forwarded mail from vdomingo@esa.nascom.nasa.gov From phil@phil.Stanford.EDU Tue Nov 7 13:23:23 1995 Return-Path: Received: from phil.Stanford.EDU by quake.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA18147; Tue, 7 Nov 1995 13:23:23 -0800 Received: by phil.Stanford.EDU (940816.SGI.8.6.9/rsb-1.1) id VAA28214; Tue, 7 Nov 1995 21:24:07 GMT Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 21:24:07 GMT From: phil@phil.Stanford.EDU (Philip Scherrer) Message-Id: <199511072124.VAA28214@phil.Stanford.EDU> To: jwolfson@phil.Stanford.EDU, atitle@phil.Stanford.EDU Subject: launch invitations Cc: margie@phil.Stanford.EDU Status: R We need to get names to Bill Wagner asap. I will do the Stanford ones, Alan, please do the LPARL ones. Just fax a note to Bill Wagner with the names and addresses of the people going to see the launch and NASA will send an official invitation. If kids then the ages should be listed. Thanks From phil@phil.Stanford.EDU Tue Nov 7 13:57:57 1995 Return-Path: Received: from phil.Stanford.EDU by quake.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA18725; Tue, 7 Nov 1995 13:57:56 -0800 Received: by phil.Stanford.EDU (940816.SGI.8.6.9/rsb-1.1) id VAA28252; Tue, 7 Nov 1995 21:58:42 GMT Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 21:58:42 GMT From: phil@phil.Stanford.EDU (Philip Scherrer) Message-Id: <199511072158.VAA28252@phil.Stanford.EDU> To: margie@phil.Stanford.EDU Subject: launch list Status: R The Scherrer contingent follows: Philip and Deborah Scherrer with Amanda and Benjamin Scherrer 30261 Palomares Road Castro Valley, CA 94552 (Amanda age 13, Benjamin age 11) Robert and Barbara Scherrer 30259 Palomares Road Castro Valley, CA 94552 Kathrine Scherrer 14731 Newland Midway City, CA 92655 John and Winifred Abrahall with Megan and Alex Abrahall 360 Dautrich Road Reading, PA 19606 (kids college and high school) Douglas King 740 W. 2nd Street Tustin, CA 92680 Mr. and Mrs Joe Scherrer 41 Sterling Place Brooklyn, NY 11217 Philip and Dolores Scherrer 10879 Bill Point Circle NE Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Jean McClintic 5011 Eagle Trail Huston, TX 77084 Ginny McMaster Box 93 Westport, CA 95488 From phil@phil.Stanford.EDU Tue Nov 7 13:58:50 1995 Return-Path: Received: from phil.Stanford.EDU by quake.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA18741; Tue, 7 Nov 1995 13:58:45 -0800 Received: by phil.Stanford.EDU (940816.SGI.8.6.9/rsb-1.1) id VAA28255; Tue, 7 Nov 1995 21:59:32 GMT Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 21:59:32 GMT From: phil@phil.Stanford.EDU (Philip Scherrer) Message-Id: <199511072159.VAA28255@phil.Stanford.EDU> To: local@phil.Stanford.EDU Subject: launch Status: R EVERYBODY who is planning on going to the launch should give Margie your name and names and addresses of any who will go with you. TODAY!!!! Thanks, Phil From tarbell@tarbell.space.lockheed.com Tue Nov 7 14:05:25 1995 Return-Path: Received: from umbra.space.lockheed.com by quake.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA18887; Tue, 7 Nov 1995 14:05:23 -0800 Received: from tarbell.space.lockheed.com by umbra.space.lockheed.com via ESMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/940406.SGI) id OAA21978; Tue, 7 Nov 1995 14:04:20 -0800 Received: by tarbell.space.lockheed.com (940816.SGI.8.6.9/940406.SGI) id OAA09694; Tue, 7 Nov 1995 14:04:19 -0800 From: tarbell@tarbell.space.lockheed.com (Ted Tarbell) Message-Id: <9511071404.ZM9692@tarbell.space.lockheed.com> Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 14:04:19 -0800 X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 6apr95 MediaMail) To: phil@quake.stanford.edu Subject: SOHO Launch visit list Cc: margie@quake.stanford.edu, tarbell@tarbell.space.lockheed.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Status: R Me Sylvia Tarbell, wife Alison Tarbell, daughter, age 10 All US citizens All of us may come so want to be on the visit list. I will probably attend the SWT meeting. We are all interested in the tour & party, but if kids are excluded from something so be it. I have sent this to Jean Deselle earlier (month ago?) but put it on your latest list anyway to be safe. Thanks, Ted -- Dr. Ted Tarbell Phone: (415) 424-4033 Lockheed Solar & Astrophysics Laboratory Fax: (415) 424-3994 From gladys Tue Nov 7 14:19:39 1995 Return-Path: Received: by quake.Stanford.EDU (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA19248; Tue, 7 Nov 1995 14:19:38 -0800 Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 14:19:38 -0800 From: Gladys Morales Message-Id: <9511072219.AA19248@quake.Stanford.EDU> To: margie Subject: launch Status: R I'm planning in going Address: 11 Avalon Drive Daly City, CA 94015 Thank you, Gladys From todd@phoebus.Stanford.EDU Tue Nov 7 16:45:35 1995 Return-Path: Received: from phoebus.Stanford.EDU by quake.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA22623; Tue, 7 Nov 1995 16:45:35 -0800 Received: (from todd@localhost) by phoebus.Stanford.EDU (8.7.1/8.6.6) id QAA29344 for margie; Tue, 7 Nov 1995 16:46:28 -0800 (PST) From: "Todd Hoeksema" Message-Id: <9511071646.ZM29342@phoebus.Stanford.EDU> Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 16:46:27 -0800 X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.0 26oct94 MediaMail) To: margie@phoebus.Stanford.EDU Subject: (Fwd) launch Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Status: R I'd like to keep my options open. Please keep my name on the list, though I probably won't go. --- Forwarded mail from phil@phil.Stanford.EDU (Philip Scherrer) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 21:59:32 GMT From: phil@phil.Stanford.EDU (Philip Scherrer) To: local@phil.Stanford.EDU Subject: launch EVERYBODY who is planning on going to the launch should give Margie your name and names and addresses of any who will go with you. TODAY!!!! Thanks, Phil ---End of forwarded mail from phil@phil.Stanford.EDU (Philip Scherrer) -- Todd Hoeksema 415 723-1506 todd@solar.stanford.edu From rock Tue Nov 7 16:49:29 1995 Return-Path: Received: by quake.Stanford.EDU (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA22662; Tue, 7 Nov 1995 16:49:28 -0800 Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 16:49:28 -0800 From: Rock Bush Message-Id: <9511080049.AA22662@quake.Stanford.EDU> To: margie, rock Subject: Launch Planning Status: R Margie, Here are the names and addresses for the SOHO launch. Rock I. Bush Aaron C. Bush (12) David C. Bush (8) 4175 Manila Avenue Oakland, CA 94609 Elizabeth Wertz 1 Embarcadero West #361 Oakland, CA 94607 From rock@quake.stanford.edu Tue Nov 7 18:43:54 1995 Return-Path: Received: from solar by quake.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA23601; Tue, 7 Nov 1995 18:43:53 -0800 Received: by solar.Stanford.EDU (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA16536; Wed, 8 Nov 95 02:45:45 GMT Date: Wed, 8 Nov 95 02:45:45 GMT From: rock@quake.stanford.edu Message-Id: <9511080245.AA16536@solar.Stanford.EDU> Apparently-To: MStehle Status: R SOI-MDI technical mail message # 1190 on Wed Nov 8 02:32:09 GMT 1995 Mail from: rock@quake.Stanford.EDU Subject: First Monthly Planning Meeting Original Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 18:30:15 -0800 --------------- I have discussed with several people having the first SOI-MDI monthly planning meeting this Thursday. The suggested time and location is at 1:30 pm in the HEPL Annex B conference room at Stanford. The intent of this meeting is to review the MDI activities from launch through the end of the year. This review will be based on the SOI-MDI timeline that was previously circulated plus the first cut at the MDI portion of the SOHO timeline which is attached below. The principle objective for the planning meeting is to review and update the activity list, provide recommendations for modification of the SOI-MDI portion of the SOHO timeline, and solidify the staffing plan between launch and the end of the year. Discussions last week arrived at a baseline plan of monitoring the MDI and Spacecraft housekeeping telemetry at the EOF during all real-time contacts. Continuous contact with the spacecraft is scheduled for the first 72 hours after launch, followed by a nominal contact schedule consisting of one long (~10 hour) and two short (~1.5 to 2 hour) passes. It was also agreed that any procedures or sequences that will be run on the flight instrument must be first verified on the MDI simulator system. The TSTOL procedures and egse procedures required through MDI step 2.5 have been verified during the Ground System Compatibility Tests, but a fair amount of work is still required to support the initial test plan. I also suggest that we hold the first weekly planning meeting next week to review in detail the procedures baselined for the first two weeks. Unfortunately the TRACE CDR will complicate any meeting schedule. Regards, Rock *************************************************************** Description Duration Start Time End Time (hrs) (GMT) (GMT) LIFT-OFF 0.00 11/23/95 08:00 11/23/95 08:00 Ascent and Parking Orbit Phase 1.83 11/23/95 08:00 11/23/95 09:50 MDI #1: CCD Bake-out 27.50 11/23/95 18:01 11/24/95 21:31 1.1 Start CCD Bake-out 2.00 11/23/95 18:01 11/23/95 20:01 1.2 Switch-on Filter Oven Htr 1.50 11/24/95 20:01 11/24/95 21:31 FIRST MIDCOURSE CORRECTION 15.73 11/24/95 00:50 11/24/95 16:34 MDI Block 1 273.60 11/26/95 08:00 12/07/95 17:36 Bake-out continued from LEOP 0.00 11/26/95 08:00 11/26/95 08:00 1.3 Thermal Adjustments 0.33 12/03/95 14:35 12/03/95 14:55 1.4 CCD Thermal Adjustment 0.33 12/07/95 17:16 12/07/95 17:36 MDI Block 2 119.92 11/26/95 15:30 12/01/95 15:25 2.1 Initial Commissioning 4.00 11/26/95 15:30 11/26/95 19:30 2.2 Image Processor Funct. Test 2.00 11/27/95 16:10 11/27/95 18:10 2.3 Table Loads 2.50 11/30/95 16:30 11/30/95 19:00 2.4 Shutter Tests 1.00 12/01/95 14:25 12/01/95 15:25 MCC2 Maneuver 31.77 12/13/95 13:00 12/14/95 20:46 2.5 First Sunlight Images 1.00 12/14/95 20:46 12/14/95 21:46 2.6 Internal Alignment 1.00 12/14/95 21:46 12/14/95 22:46 2.7 ISS & Michelson Tests 2.00 12/16/95 13:00 12/16/95 15:00 2.8 Funct. Tests in Sunlight 4.00 12/17/95 13:00 12/17/95 17:00 2.9 Time Series 6.00 12/19/95 13:00 12/19/95 19:00 2.9.1 Time Series NRT-d 1.50 12/19/95 13:00 12/19/95 14:30 2.9.2 Time Series NRT-s 4.50 12/19/95 14:30 12/19/95 19:00 MDI Block 3 201.00 1/02/96 13:00 1/10/96 22:00 3.1 ISS Calibration 1.00 1/02/96 13:00 1/02/96 15:00 3.2 Sensitivity Calibrations 2.00 1/03/96 13:00 1/03/96 16:00 3.3 Imaging Calibrations 2.00 1/04/96 13:00 1/04/96 16:00 3.4 Flat Field 2.00 1/06/96 13:00 1/06/96 16:00 3.5 Michelson Tuning Calib. 9.00 1/07/96 13:00 1/07/96 22:00 3.5.1 Michelson Cal. NRT-d 0.50 1/07/96 13:00 1/07/96 14:30 3.5.2 Michelson Cal. NRT-s 7.50 1/07/96 14:30 1/07/96 22:00 3.6 Optical System Thermal Cal. 57.00 1/08/96 13:00 1/10/96 22:00 3.6.1 OSTC Day 1 8.00 1/08/96 13:00 1/08/96 22:00 3.6.2 OSTC Day 2 8.00 1/09/96 13:00 1/09/96 22:00 3.6.3 OSTC Day 3 8.00 1/10/96 13:00 1/10/96 22:00 S8 Pointing Stability 17.00 1/30/96 13:00 1/31/96 06:00 without Experiment Motion S6/J5 Absolute Pointing Cal. 10.00 1/31/96 13:00 1/31/96 23:00 S7 Medium Term Pointing Calib. 13.00 2/01/96 13:00 2/02/96 02:00 S9/J4 Pointing Stability 13.00 2/02/96 13:00 2/03/96 02:00 during Experiment Motion SSA7 FPSS A & B Comparison 1.00 2/03/96 13:00 2/03/96 15:00 SSA8 SSU A & B Alignment Comp. 4.00 2/03/96 15:00 2/03/96 19:00 J1 Calibration Rolls 8.00 2/04/96 13:00 2/04/96 22:00 J3.2 Off-pointing for MDI 6.00 2/06/96 14:00 2/06/96 20:00 Flat-Fielding --------------- This message was sent to: akin@sag.space.lockheed.com JAloise LBacon RBogart RBush chevalier@sag.space.lockheed.com JCovington CDeforest TDuvall edwards@sag.space.lockheed.com feinstein@sag.space.lockheed.com THoeksema AKosovichev KLeibrand MLevay DMathur MMorrison rehse@sag.space.lockheed.com WRosenberg MRubin LSa JSaba PScherrer JSchou KScott LSpringer MStehle JSuryanarayanan TTarbell ATitle SWilliams JWolfson IZayer soilog@quake --------------- -> Replies via SolarMail to "SOItech" will be broadcast to the persons listed. --------------- From wolfson%sag.dnet@solar Thu Nov 9 07:49:13 1995 Return-Path: Received: from solar by quake.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA27988; Thu, 9 Nov 1995 07:49:12 -0800 Received: from SAG.DECnet MAIL11D_V3 by solar.Stanford.EDU (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA19966; Thu, 9 Nov 95 15:50:39 GMT Date: Thu, 9 Nov 95 15:50:38 GMT Message-Id: <9511091550.AA19966@solar.Stanford.EDU> From: wolfson%sag.dnet@solar To: wwagner%solar.dnet@solar, tarbell@solar, strong@solar, jurcevich@solar, title@solar, phil%solar.dnet@solar, margie%solar.dnet@solar Cc: WOLFSON@solar Subject: Launch Watching Persons Status: R Bill, The following is a list of LPARL-related persons planning to attend the SOHO launch and festivities associated with it. You may already have some of these names since various list have been previously submitted. Also, different ones of us have received different forms of invitations and we hope that this note is adequate response. Please let me know that you got this; I'll both E-mail and fax it to you. We're looking forward to seeing you ...... and SOHO off the ground. Jake Jake Wolfson (Dr) Dawna Wolfson Wife 21405 Rumford Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 Ted Tarbell (Dr) Sylvia Tarbell Wife Alison Tarbell Daughter, age 10 1040 Los Altos Ave Los Altos, CA 94022 Bruce Jurcevich (Mr) 255 S. Rengstorff #92 Mountain View, CA 94040 Keith Strong (Dr) 312 Monroe Drive Mountain View, CA 94040 David Cauffman (Dr) Mavis Cauffman Wife 2351 N. Boulevard Idaho Falls, ID 83415 From debbie Thu Nov 9 08:10:41 1995 Return-Path: Received: by quake.Stanford.EDU (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA28222; Thu, 9 Nov 1995 08:10:40 -0800 Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 08:10:40 -0800 From: Deborah Scherrer Message-Id: <9511091610.AA28222@quake.Stanford.EDU> To: margie, pscherrer@solar.stanford.edu, rick@rick.stanford.edu, todd Subject: SOHO press release Status: R From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) Newsgroups: sci.space.news Subject: NASA Lewis to Oversee SOHO Launch Date: 8 Nov 1995 13:45:12 -0800 Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory 95-57 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Lori J. Rachul (Bus: 216/433-8806) NASA LEWIS TO OVERSEE LAUNCH OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOLAR AND HELIOSPHERIC OBSERVATORY CLEVELAND, OH -- NASA Lewis Research Center will oversee the launch of the internationally designed and fabricated Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) scheduled to launch from NASA's Kennedy Space Center on November 23. SOHO is a project of international cooperation between the European Space Agency (ESA) and NASA. SOHO, which carries a complement of 12 experiments, will study the structure of the Sun's interior and the generation of solar wind to provide a better understanding of the Sun and its importance to life on Earth. "Lewis' long tradition of expertise managing launch services and expendable launch vehicles traces back to the early 1960s," said SOHO Launch Manager Gary Sagerman. "Back then, Lewis had a large team of people responsible for the design and integration of the total launch vehicle, as well as overall responsibility for the success of the launch." Sagerman said that although launch service is now purchased "commercially" and the Lewis role in design and fabrication has evolved into one of oversight, Lewis' Launch Vehicle Project Office still feels responsible for ensuring a successful launch. SOHO will be launched on an Atlas IIAS rocket. Lockheed-Martin, Denver, under contract with Lewis, is providing the launch vehicle and launch services for SOHO. Developed by a consortium of international partners, including NASA, the project's key objective--to provide a clearer understanding of the interactions between the Sun and the Earth's environment--will yield data enabling scientists to solve some of the most perplexing riddles about the Sun. During its two-year mission, SOHO will have a superlative and uninterrupted view of the Sun from a circular orbit around a point known as the "L-1 Lagrangian point" approximately 930,000 miles from Earth, where the gravitational forces of the Earth and Sun balance one another. >From this position, the spacecraft will investigate the interior dynamics that produce energy flow and magnetic field structures at the base of the solar corona. Studies will link the internal structure of the Sun with its extensive outer atmosphere, and the origin of the solar wind--the stream of highly ionized gas that blows continuously through the Solar System. Measurements of variation in the Sun's total brightness will also be conducted. Research will be performed using 12 experiments that were developed by an international team of scientists and engineers from the United States and Europe. The Global Oscillations at Low Frequencies (GOLF) and the Variability of Irradiance and Gravity Oscillations (VIRGO) experiments will probe the internal core structure of the Sun and its irradiance and radiance by measuring the spectrum of free global isolations. The Michelson Doppler Imager/Solar Oscillations Imager (MDI/SOI) will measure oscillations on the Sun's surface to gather information about the outer layer of the Sun's interior. The Solar Ultraviolet Measurements of Emitted Radiation (SUMER), the Coronal Diagnostic Spectrometer (CDS), the Extreme Ultraviolet Imaging Telescope (EIT), the Ultraviolet Coronagraph Spectrometer (UVCS), and the White Light and Spectrometric Coronagraph (LASCO) experiments constitute a combination of telescopes, spectrometers, and coronagraphs that will observe the hot atmosphere of the Sun known as the corona. SUMER, CDS, and EIT will observe the inner corona, while UVCS and LASCO will observe the outer corona. They will obtain measurements of the temperature, density, composition, and velocity of the corona. The Charge, Element, and Isotope Analysis System (CELIAS) the Comprehensive Suprathermal and Energetic Particle Analyzer (COSTEP) and the Energetic and Relativistic Nuclei and Electron Experiment (ERNE) will analyze the charge state and isotopic composition of ions in the solar wind, and the charge and isotopic composition of energetic particles generated by the Sun. The Study of Solar Wind Anisotrophies experiment uses telescopes to measure the large scale structure of the solar wind streams. In addition to contributing three experiments--MDI/SOI, UVCS, and LASCO--NASA is responsible for the collection and dissemination of SOHO science data through NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center and the Deep Space Network at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. ESA is responsible for managing the overall program. SOHO is part of a larger effort known as the International Solar- Terrestrial Physics (ISTP) science initiative. ISTP aims, through coordinated exploration of the space regions neighboring Earth, to understand the behavior of the solar-terrestrial system and, therefore, the way in which the Earth's atmosphere responds to changes in the solar wind. "Scientists around the world are confident that SOHO will provide new insight about the Sun and its direct bearing on our lives. Lewis' role in this important program underscores the Center's support and commitment to cutting edge space missions," Sagerman said. SOHO will receive final testing and preparation for launch in the Spacecraft Assembly and Encapsulation Facility at KSC. There, several processing activities will be performed on the payload module to prepare the science instruments for launch. Fifteen Lewis launch management experts, including Sagerman, will be on hand at the Florida launch site to oversee launch activities. # # # 95-57 [Note: A html versions of this and other releases are avialable at: http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/Other_Groups/PAO/html/press95.htm] From phil@phil.stanford.edu Thu Nov 9 10:00:02 1995 Return-Path: Received: from solar by quake.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA29174; Thu, 9 Nov 1995 10:00:00 -0800 Received: by solar.Stanford.EDU (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA20502; Thu, 9 Nov 95 18:01:53 GMT Date: Thu, 9 Nov 95 18:01:53 GMT From: phil@phil.stanford.edu Message-Id: <9511091801.AA20502@solar.Stanford.EDU> Apparently-To: MStehle Status: R SOI-MDI technical mail message # 1191 on Thu Nov 9 17:48:07 GMT 1995 Mail from: phil@phil.Stanford.EDU Subject: launch date Original Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 17:48:45 GMT --------------- I talked with Ken Sizemore this morning. He said they will not know if a few days are needed for the implementation and testing of the emergency procedures until mid week next week. The problem is that NASA thinks the procedures developed for recovery from solar panel deployment problems are wrong. There is analysis going on to decide what they should be before they can agree on how long it will take to implement and test them. ESA wants a procedure that spins the s/c while maintaining pointing. NASA thinks it not required to maintain solar pointing during such an operation and that it adds a significant unnecessary amount of complexity at a time when security is important. --------------- This message was sent to: akin@sag.space.lockheed.com JAloise LBacon RBogart RBush chevalier@sag.space.lockheed.com JCovington CDeforest TDuvall edwards@sag.space.lockheed.com feinstein@sag.space.lockheed.com THoeksema AKosovichev KLeibrand MLevay DMathur MMorrison rehse@sag.space.lockheed.com WRosenberg MRubin LSa JSaba PScherrer JSchou KScott LSpringer MStehle JSuryanarayanan TTarbell ATitle SWilliams JWolfson IZayer soilog@quake --------------- -> Replies via SolarMail to "SOItech" will be broadcast to the persons listed. --------------- From wolfson%sag.dnet@solar Fri Nov 10 10:35:27 1995 Return-Path: Received: from solar by quake.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA20706; Fri, 10 Nov 1995 10:35:25 -0800 Received: from SAG.DECnet MAIL11D_V3 by solar.Stanford.EDU (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA23493; Fri, 10 Nov 95 18:34:32 GMT Date: Fri, 10 Nov 95 18:34:32 GMT Message-Id: <9511101834.AA23493@solar.Stanford.EDU> From: wolfson%sag.dnet@solar To: rock%solar.dnet@solar, jesper%solar.dnet@solar, todd%solar.dnet@solar, margie%solar.dnet@solar, jurcevich@solar, tarbell@solar, taylor@solar Cc: WOLFSON@solar Subject: Raddison Status: R I called the Raddison this morning and got a room .... for the KSC trip. Bruce had gotten one there the other day. They quoted $60 to me on the phone; the other day Bruce said $64 which is basically the same. I haven't been to KSC for 20 years - OSO-8 launch in 1975 but the troops all say this is a new and nice place. Just figured I'd let a few of you Stanfordites know what we've done over here. What have you "single" travelers over there done? I know Rock and Phil are going for Condo's. Would be interested in phone numbers and things both to keep in touch and to consider if there is a slip and Dawna wants to switch in order to cook a Turkey. Jake From mark Fri Nov 10 14:38:43 1995 Return-Path: Received: by quake.Stanford.EDU (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA24942; Fri, 10 Nov 1995 14:38:43 -0800 Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 14:38:43 -0800 From: Mark Rubin Message-Id: <9511102238.AA24942@quake.Stanford.EDU> To: margie Subject: KSC lodging Status: R Hi Margie, Does NASA have any recommendations on where to stay near KSC? I see some mention of the Cocoa Beach Holi-Inn. Thanks, Mark From jkuhn@sunspot.noao.edu Fri Nov 10 23:24:58 1995 Return-Path: Received: from sunspot.noao.edu by quake.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA29190; Fri, 10 Nov 1995 23:24:57 -0800 Received: from rise.sunspot.noao.edu by blazing (5.x/RPM.S1) id AA21526; Sat, 11 Nov 1995 00:23:40 -0700 Received: by rise.sunspot.noao.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA06447; Sat, 11 Nov 1995 00:23:39 -0700 Date: Sat, 11 Nov 1995 00:23:39 -0700 From: jkuhn@sunspot.noao.edu (Jeff Kuhn) Message-Id: <9511110723.AA06447@rise.sunspot.noao.edu> To: margie@quake.stanford.edu Subject: Re: Launch Status: R Great. Its just me (I just got back from MI). I'll look into transportation etc... -- Jeff From phil@phil.stanford.edu Mon Nov 13 11:51:14 1995 Return-Path: Received: from solar by quake.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA10433; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 11:51:13 -0800 Received: by solar.Stanford.EDU (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA28990; Mon, 13 Nov 95 19:53:06 GMT Date: Mon, 13 Nov 95 19:53:06 GMT From: phil@phil.stanford.edu Message-Id: <9511131953.AA28990@solar.Stanford.EDU> Apparently-To: MStehle Status: R SOI News message # 43 on Mon Nov 13 19:08:52 GMT 1995 Mail from: phil@phil.Stanford.EDU Subject: SOHO status Original Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 19:13:23 GMT --------------- SOI/MDI weekly update. All is still on track for a 23 November launch. The SOHO web page (http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov) shows the current countdown as: Countdown: 09 days 11:57:43 to LAUNCH The plan is to turn on the MDI CCD heater at about hour 10. The MDI DEP and IP checkout will begin on day 4 with first light set for just after the mid course correction on about day 20. So, for the Thanksgiving launch look for a first light announcement on about 15 December, +-. We will than do some initial calibrations and operational checkout over the next week. Then a break while other instruments have priority, then we begin calibration on about 2 January. The first science data is expected in Feb. Several of us will be in Florida to watch the launch. Watch the web for up to date info. Phil S. --------------- This message was sent to over 100 recipients. --------------- -> Replies via SolarMail to "SOInews" will be broadcast to them. --------------- From rock Mon Nov 13 14:40:47 1995 Return-Path: Received: by quake.Stanford.EDU (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA12418; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 14:40:45 -0800 Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 14:40:45 -0800 From: Rock Bush Message-Id: <9511132240.AA12418@quake.Stanford.EDU> To: phil, rock Subject: ESA contact for KSC activities Cc: margie Status: R Ann Van Deneijkle from the ESA office in Washington D.C. called this afternoon to confirm the arrangements for the SOHO launch activities. If we need to get in touch with her, her phone number is (202) 488-4158. She is heading down to Cocoa Beach on Monday the 20th. Both Phil and I are listed as ESA guests - it appears that she only received the RSVP sheets and not the fax coversheet indicating that our names had also been sent to NASA. She indicated that the KSC tour will run from 8 am to 4 pm, although the fax from NASA indicates that the tour buses will leave the Holiday Inn at 1 pm and return by 5 pm. She has Phil listed with four people and me with five people for the ESA tour list. I also agreed that we would both drive out to the launch site in our own cars, and therefore only needed car passes for the launch. The passes can be picked up at the ESA reception center at the Howard Johnson hotel in Cocoa Beach on Tuesday evening. It appears that there is also an ESA reception from 5 to 10 pm on Tuesday evening. Both Phil and I and spouses are on the list for an ESA dinner on Thursday the 23rd. The kids are not presently on the list, but I had the impression that they could probably come if there was a strong desire to do so. Ann realizes that it is Thanksgiving day, but it is not clear how much that has been taken into account for the overall planning. From phil@phil.stanford.edu Tue Nov 14 17:51:18 1995 Return-Path: Received: from solar by quake.Stanford.EDU with SMTP (5.65/25-QUAKE-eef) id AA08726; Tue, 14 Nov 1995 17:51:16 -0800 Received: by solar.Stanford.EDU (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA03786; Wed, 15 Nov 95 01:53:02 GMT Date: Wed, 15 Nov 95 01:53:02 GMT From: phil@phil.stanford.edu Message-Id: <9511150153.AA03786@solar.Stanford.EDU> Apparently-To: MStehle Status: R SOI-MDI technical mail message # 1192 on Wed Nov 15 01:38:33 GMT 1995 Mail from: phil@phil.Stanford.EDU Subject: (Fwd) from Vicente Original Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 17:44:17 -0800 --------------- --- Forwarded mail from vdomingo@esa.nascom.nasa.gov Date: Wed, 15 Nov 95 00:09:17 GMT From: vdomingo@esa.nascom.nasa.gov SOHO Science Working Team message # 263 on Wed Nov 15 00:02:41 GMT 1995 Mail from: vdomingo@esa.nascom.nasa.gov Subject: Operations during launch and SWT meetings Original Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 18:58:43 -0500 --------------- To SOHO PIs Copy SOWG 1 Please notice that the spacecraft will be switched on for final check about 7 hours before launch, i.e., around 18 hours local time (at KSC and GSFC) on 22 November. I like to request that all major instruments have a representative at the EOF dur