-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Ryan [mailto:james.m.ryan@nasa.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 5:00 PM
To: mmelton@swales.com
Subject: Fwd: RE: GLAST Project RFA Responses for Originator Review

Mark,

The updated response is acceptable.  I did add one line to the Tracker Sine Sweep testing section (in red in attachment) for clarification.  Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,
Jim

From: "Mark E. Melton" <mmelton@swales.com>
To: "Jim Ryan" <james.m.ryan@nasa.gov>
Cc: <Mark.D.Goans@nasa.gov>, <mphan@mscmail.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: RE: GLAST Project RFA Responses for Originator Review
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:15:29 -0400
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Importance: Normal

Jim,
 
Per your comments below, SLAC and the Project Office have updated the response to LAT PDR RFA 47.  Please review and let me know if you have any additional comments.
 
Thanks for your help,
Mark
____________________________________________
Mark E. Melton
Systems Engineer
Swales Aerospace
Bldg 12, Rm N210A
GSFC
(301) 286-7936 (V)
(301) 286-5717 (F)

-----Original Message-----

From: Jim Ryan [mailto:james.m.ryan@nasa.gov]

Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 4:02 PM

To: Mark E. Melton

Cc: Mark.D.Goans@nasa.gov; mphan@mscmail.gsfc.nasa.gov

Subject: Re: GLAST Project RFA Responses for Originator Review

Mark,

CDR #16  OK as is.  However, it will be more difficult to get a good "tap test" on such a large structure.  Preferred method is low level sine sweep.  In either case, you need an appropriate level of instrumentation (accelerometers).

PDR #44  OK as is.  This AI was written several years ago in an attempt to learn more about composite joint designs early so that subsystem tests went more smoothly.  With the maturity of the design and the tests that have been done already, additional joint tests to determine joint allowables is probably not necessary. 

PDR #47  Needs more clarification for Tower and Calorimeters. 

Tower

It is my understanding after talking with Minh Phan, that all flight tracker towers will see qual (1.25 times flight predicts) strength levels during their sine sweep testing to flight levels, rather than do a separate sine burst test for each.  The Protoflight Tracker Tower will see a protoflight level sine burst test and a protoflight level sine sweep test.

Cal

It is my understanding that all of the composite housings for the crystals will be subjected to strength qualification testing (sine burst).  They then will be assembled with all of their electronics.  A protoflight unit will see protoflight Sine burst testing and sine sweep testing.  The other flight units will see acceptance level sine sweep testing, but do not require sine burst testing.  This is because all composite housings will have been previously strength qualified and that the protoflight unit will be sine burst tested at qual levels.  Response should state this. 

The rest of the response is OK.

Jim Ryan

At 01:50 PM 8/6/04 -0400, you wrote:

Jim,

Attached are 3 responses to RFAs you wrote at the GLAST LAT PDR and LAT CDR.  Mark Goans, the Code 300 Review chair, has asked that all Project approved RFA responses be reviewed and approved by the originators prior to official submittal to him.

Please review the attached responses and let me know if they satisfactorily close the RFAs you generated.  You can provide your approval or comments back to me and I will distribute them to the appropriate GLAST Project personnel.

Responses are attached for the following RFAs:

GLAST LAT PDR # 44, 47

GLAST LAT CDR # 16

Thank you for your review and response,

Mark<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

____________________________________________

Mark E. Melton

Systems Engineer

Swales Aerospace

Bldg 12, Rm N210A

GSFC

(301) 286-7936 (V)

(301) 286-5717 (F)