Документ взят из кэша поисковой машины. Адрес оригинального документа : http://xmm.vilspa.esa.es/external/xmm_sw_cal/icwg/presentations/WS_CM.txt Дата изменения: Tue Jun 20 16:46:30 2006 Дата индексирования: Sat Dec 22 14:42:52 2007 Кодировка: Поисковые слова: annular solar eclipse

ICWG June 2006

MINUTES

of

WORKING SESSION

on

CALIBRATION MANAGEMENT


Date : 15 June 2006

Participants : Steve Sembay (Chair)
Andy Pollock
Ulrich Briel
Leo Metcalfe
Paul Pluchinski
Eckehart Kendziorra
Manabu Ishida
Elisabeth Joourdain
Jean Pierre Roques
Richard Mushotsky
Tadiasu Dotani


Sembay opened the meeting, suggesting a few broad themes to pursue and
inviting the group to add topics for discussion. Main topics identified
initially were :==>

1. Calibration information standardisation
2. Pre-launch calibration gold-standard
3. Software standardisation
4. Role of ICWG


STANDARDISATION IN GROUND CALIBRATION: tracking (configuration and quality) -------------------------------------

There was some discussion of the mechanisms for imposing or enforcing
requirements on instrument development in the different (inter)national
contexts relevant to the development of our missions. How much control
should or can the space agencies exert over instrument ground calibration.

NASA establishes contracts with its instrument development teams, and any
subsequent evolution of requirements triggers immediate cost issues for
the Agency. ESA establishes Memoranda of Understanding with member-state-
funded PI consortia. Periodic reviews may generate Review Item
Discrepancies (RIDs) leading to new or modified requirements on instrument
development. Resulting cost impacts may increase instrument development
costs for the PI-team contributing-states. In Japan, there is strong
overlap of the groups that develop and later fly a mission, and so the
eventual calibration needs of the in-flight mission are well coupled to
the Development Phase activites.

There was agreement that ground calibration should meet certain minimum
standards of record keeping (Configuration and Quality Control). This
includes standardisation of ground calibration data formats.
Roques stressed that thorough planning for instrument development by PI
teams should, and in stated examples did, anticipate careful attention to
proper ground calibration, but manpower and resource limitations for the
teams may make standards of record keeping hard to maintain.

Mushotsky stated that one rationale for the establishment of the Chandra
Science Center had been to ensure tracability of all activities from well
before launch (several years) through the operational phases. And in this
it had been a good success.

Metcalfe maintained that the Agency Project management structure, and
specifically the Quality Assurance (QA) function, has to impose minimum
standards of tracking and record keeping on the PI-team ground calibration
and on continuity of that control across the launch event into operations.

Pollock felt that the development of the Virtual Observatory (VO) created
a context conducive to the application of data format standardisation
encompassing ground calibration data and records. The culture of the VO
also invited us to think in terms of a coherent Data Model for calibration
data which could be a guide to ground calibration across diverse missions.

Roques was concerned that an emphasis on formal control aspects in the
development work missed the real issue of limited resources and time
pressure constraining the capabilities of development teams. It was not
clear to him that standardised ground calibration data served any user
community. Other participants responded that the purpose of such
standardisation was not to make ground calibration data generally available,
but rather to ensure that, should specific ground calibration datasets or
information be needed post-launch, they would be readily tracable and
usable.


ESTABLISHMENT AND CONTINUITY OF SCIENCE CENTRE INSTRUMENT EXPERTISE
-------------------------------------------------------------------

There was general consensus that eventual Science Centre personnel have to
be directly involved, hands-on, in the development activities of the
instrument teams from well before launch, AND that particular attention is
needed to continuity of that expertise through launch and well into the
Operational Phases.

Pluchinsky remarked that the success of the Chandra Science Centre was
traceable in part to the fact that key personnel involved in the calibration
post-launch had been intimately involved in the instrument teams' work
before launch. Metcalfe reflected that major ESA missions (ISO, XMM-Newton
...) had employed very different pre-flight management strategies, but a
clear policy had emerged in the development of ESA science missions (e.g.
the ongoing Herschel development) to place future members (Calibration
Scientists) of the mission SOC (Science Operations Centre) into the
instrument development teams well before launch as "hands-on" participants,
as had been done during the final years of the ISO development.

There was general consensus that this was a good idea, and that strong
attention has to be paid to maintaining continuity of acquired expertise
deep into the Operational Phase.


ROLE OF THE ICWG
----------------

Through the above, and subsequent, discussions, the following set of
bullets were judged to encompas the scope of the ICWG aims (its "Mission
Statement"):

A. Calibration Definitiion :

- consider the goals of calibration. E.g. in the high energy
regime:
"To ensure the ability to utilise the Poisson statistics of the
data."
- in general: "To prevent the publication of erroneous science
results."

B. How to do good calibration

- documentation/information archiving according to a Calibration
T Data Model (cf. VO)
H - pre-flight mission QA to include instruments' Ground Calibration
E - co-location:
AGENCY
M |
O |
D "in-plant" future-SOC Cal. Scis.
E |
L |
PI Team


The question was asked whether there might be a role for the IAU in
relation to the activities and goals of the ICWG.