Hubble Mirror Project Charter
5 May, 2010
Developed bHubble Mirror Project Charter
Developed by:
<>
1. Project Overview:
1.1. Goal
The goal of this project is to create a perfect mirror that will be used by NASA in attempt to extend human’s knowledge of the universe. With the creation of a mirror that is more precise than ever before, the earth’s surface will no longer prevent images from being blurred. The photos that will be attained will provide for new insights into earth’s distant galaxy and cosmic beauty. The project is expected to be completed on time, on budget, and with fully functionality. We will gain experience in the creation, implementation, and usage of the Hubble Space Telescope.
1.2. Statement of Objectives:
- Meet specific budget constraints
- Set up milestones to monitor progress
- Gather accurate specifications
- Allow for an environment that provides for a favorable project completion
1.2.1. Business
This project is a cooperative effort between NASA, The European Space Agency, private contractors, and astronomers that will provide for major advances. By completing this project successfully, we will be a worldwide leader in innovation allowing us to have a competitive edge as the premier precision manufacturer. Expected demand for our services will increase as well as validation, respect, and publicity. We will be working alongside Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, INC., Marshall Flight Space Center in Alabama, and Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland.
1.2.2. Technical
- 134 titanium nails to simulate the gravity free environment of space.
- 8 foot mirror with a 2 foot center cut
- Computers that control the speed, pressure, and direction of the Optical Telescope
- Reflective Null Corrector
- Support Systems Module
- Systems Engineering and Project Scientist are also take charge in this project.
1.3. Assumptions, including:
It is assumed that all newly designed equipment will function as intended.
Production of the Hubble Telescope will move through phases on time and extensive tests will be performed to ensure that all requirements are being met. Any relevant changes towards the project will require approval before acting upon that change. Team members should work collaboratively together and actively engage and promote successful completion of this project.
1.3.1. Key Stakeholders
NASA
Perkin Elmer Corporation of Connecticut - designed and developed the Optical Telescope Assembly and responsible for testing and delivering.
Marshall Space Fight Center - Responsible for meeting the technical performance and make sure that the project is on track.
Goddard Space flight Center - responsible for verifying the performance of the science instruments.
John D. Regnberg (head of the division that held the space telescope contract)
Richard C Babish (Perkin -Elmer technical director, meetings at which U.S. officials would coach corporate officers on winning contracts)
Micralign (business that created microlithography equipment needed for electronic miniaturization)
1.3.2. Constraints
-Getting additional funding approval if need be will also be a critical to a successful outcome.
-Making sure all team members and project stakeholders are aligned with the projects objectives will be a challenging and thus will require continuous oversight.
-Many tasks involved in this project are unprecedented and will require that project managers take personal responsibility for the safety and completion of all tasks.
-The time that the project managers established for this project only allows for perfection and does not provide room for errors. Pressure to meet NASA’s specifications for the perfect mirror will be challenging given these time constraints.
1.3.3. Out of Scope
Beside the Hubble's mirror project, there are two more projects as parts in the Perkin - Elmer's contract;
The graphite epoxy structure that will hold the telescope's two mirrors and
the fine guidance sensors that would keep the telescope steady.
No other project has been done with such strict and demanding requirements.
.
2. Proposed Solution Approach or Solution:
2.1. Proposed acquisition approach and optional solution statement
Our company will create two mirrors; one 8 feet in diameter with a 2 feet center (which would be the main mirror) and one 12.5 inches in diameter. The team will consists of engineers, opticians, scientists, quality control inspectors,optical designer,etc. The project is estimated to be completed in two years at a cost seventy million dollars. Due to size, the mirrors are to be constructed and polished by machine rather than hand. The polishing will be done for six to seven hours at a time to which the progress will be checked by a optician to see how close they are to the desired smoothness. The optician will use a polishing machine called the null corrector along with a special camera designed by scientist.The mirror will lay on a bed of 134 titanium nails to simulate a gravity-free setting such as space. Most of the testing will be done at night to eliminate the possibility of vibrations from out interfering with the polishing process. Once the mirrors are polished as desired, testing will be performed by bouncing light off the null corrector and then off the glass of to the mirror creating a pattern on the mirror of black and white lines. The pattern would be photographed and analyzed to see if farther polishing is needed. This step-by-step approach will require continuous testing using the most advance technology to ensure that the established goals have been met. A quality assurance specialist should be on hand at the completion of each phase of the process to maintain the projects integrity. The mirror will then be coated with aluminum on the face of the glass. A final review of the mirror will be done and if all is good the mirror will be sent to be assembled with the telescope.
3. Project Authorizing Statement:
3.1. Sponsorship for the project
NASA, US Government
3.2. Resources to perform project activities that are provided by the sponsors
Financial Funding, Scientist, Engineers, Polishing Room, Truck, Opticans, Technicans, Null Corrector, Project Managers, Astronauts
4. Anticipated Resources (for developing the detail project plan)
4.1. Key Stakeholders:
- NASA
- Congress- Approved or disapproved funding provided to NASA for the project
-Parker Elmer (Held contract with NASA)
- Astronomer’s (Convinced NASA of the space telescopes value)
- Charles W. Elmer & Richard S. Perkin (Invested $5,000 each after attending a world conference of astronomers)
- Marshall Flight Space Center in Alabama (responsible for optics) and Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland (responsible for science instruments)
- Richard C Babish (Perkin -Elmer technical director, meetings at which U.S. officials would coach corporate officers on winning contracts)
-John D. Regnberg (head of the division that held the space telescope contract)
4.2. Key Project Team Members:
-Bud Rigby (Managed the team in charge of making the mirror that would go into the telescope)
-David Burch (Responsible for quality control)
-Donald Fordyce (Become project manager in 1982)
-Daniel J. McCarthy (Ridgby’s boss that was constantly pressing for tight time constraints)
-Wilhelm R. Geissler (Master Optician who pressed “1.0” instead of “.1” which caused computers to dig a grove into the mirror that never completely went away)
-Lucian A. Montagnino (Engineer who was responsible for making sure the retooling was right but made critical mistakes)
-Chester W. Nimitz (CEO that replaced Elmer after he died in 1954)
-James C. Welch (Hubble program manager in 1983)
-Roderic M. Scott (an optical designer, back at Perkin - Elmer's Danbury plant, who worked as a part time consultant)
-Carl Fuller (NASA employee who is in charge of observing the project)
-Albert F. Slomba (senior optical engineer who was the first to notice something was not right with the big mirror.
4.3. Other Significant Resources
-Additional resources will be necessary to complete this project. This includes scientist, specialist, consultants, business analyst, etc..
No comments:
Post a Comment