XMM-OM/MSSL/NT/0009.01
 
From:     Mark Cropper, MSSL
Date:     11 Feb 90

          IN CONFIDENCE
          =============

          Report on ESTEC XSWT and EIT meetings 5/6 feb 90
          ------------------------------------------------

The first XMM Science Working Team and Experimenter's Interface Team
meetings took place at ESTEC on the 5/6 February. Keith Mason and I
attended these meetings. The purpose of the EIT meeting was to provide a
forum in which the instrument and spacecraft interfaces could be
discussed by the instrument teams and the ESA project team. It was
attended by the RGS PI and his project manager, by us, and by the EPIC
PI, project manager and several of his team. The RGS-ESA interaction had
taken place a few days beforehand so most of the meeting was taken up by
EPIC and ourselves. The XSWT meeting the next day was attended by the
PIs (and myself), mission scientists (Bergeron, Bleeker, Griffiths,
Mushotzky, Pallavicini), the telescope scientist (Aschenbach) and the
ESA project team and chaired by Tony Peacock. XMM is now an approved
mission. The progress within ESA was reviewed by Tony and this was
followed by progress reports from the PIs and then the telescope
scientist reported on the mirrors. Johan Bleeker was appointed
Vice-Chairman. The agendas for both meetings are attached. 

The ESA project team is: 
        Kai (?) Clausen  -  systems design 
        Kees van Katwijk -  payload design 
        Pieter Jensen    -  mirrors 
    and Tony Peacock     -  project scientist 
and so far that's all. XMM will remain part of the Future Projects
Department at ESA for the present (headed by Gordon Whitcombe) and will
not have its own project structure (although a project office will be
set up). One thing which was immediately apparent from the meetings was
how little effort was available from ESA at present. In particular, the
proposal author, John Ellwood, has moved across to CLUSTER, so the
present team has less knowledge and familiarity with the original
proposal and EIDs than we all do. The ESA team were as frustrated as
everyone else about this situation and one of the actions adopted at the
XSWT meeting was to make clear the Project's strongest concern at the
lack of resources available between now and 1992 (end of EOB phase) to
ESA management. The real reason for ESA's recalcitrance is not clear,
because the mirror program appears to be making adequate progress,
but it is probably tied up with budgetary constraints/reorganisation.
Nevertheless, the situation is unsatisfactory.

Some points that arose from the two meetings:-

1) Launch has slipped by 6 months to END-1998. No revised shedule was
   supplied however, except that EOB phase now ends at end-1992 instead
   of mid-1992, and therefore the problem of the inadequate interval
   between QM delivery and return for FS refurbishment remains. This
   will have to be discussed. The first ESA milestone, ISVR (Instrument
   Science Verification Review), has been slipped, though, from this
   October to sometime late next (Northern) spring. This provides some
   breathing space. I will update the schedule as soon as possible.

2) The current thinking is that the OM will now be placed on the central 
   axis of the satellite, between the 3 X-ray mirrors.

3) ESA require that our redundant electronics must be separated into
   two boxes for extra safety. We must look into this.

4) There was a proposal that a common software operating system be
   adopted for the XMM EGSEs in order to avoid the problems which
   occurred for HST. This in turn will drive software and hardware
   requirements in the various consortium institutes. Except for an
   action to look into this, no further resolutions were available at
   this stage. Decisions will obviously only be made after substantial
   consultations. I will be getting back to you all to find out your
   preferences.

5) XSWT and EIT meeting dates were set, so I have a proposed set of
   dates for OM meetings which is attached. I would be grateful for your
   comments by the end of February, after which we will fix the dates.

6) Keith and Bignami (EPIC PI) requested the XSWT meeting (and
   particularly the mission scientists) provide input
   for the observing modes which may be required/requested by the
   community for the OM and EPIC. These will be considered and their
   effects on the telemetry budgets and the hardware examined.

Mark

                                       attached: XSWT agenda
                                                 EIT  agenda
                                                 proposed meeting dates