1 / 8

Preparing for a Wind Lidar Venture Class Mission

Preparing for a Wind Lidar Venture Class Mission. Discussion at Lidar Working Group Meeting Bar Harbor, ME August 24 – 26, 2010. Dr. Wayman Baker. Summary of Draft Statement of Work (SOW) for IDL/MDL Study of Feasibility of Deploying a DWL on the ISS. Objectives.

shina
Download Presentation

Preparing for a Wind Lidar Venture Class Mission

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Preparing for a Wind Lidar Venture Class Mission Discussion at Lidar Working Group Meeting Bar Harbor, ME August 24 – 26, 2010 Dr. Wayman Baker

  2. Summary of Draft Statement of Work (SOW) for IDL/MDL Study of Feasibility of Deploying a DWL on the ISS Objectives • Beginning with the NWOS design, the IDL will scale lidar • energy, prf, and aperture to match the ISS orbit; • The NASA/GSFC Mission Design Laboratory (MDL) will • design an updated GWOS FRAM/ELC-type payload for the ISS based on the new instrument concept, using the earlier GWOS data requirements and the ISS capabilities; The IDL/MDL will assess technology readiness, risk, and cost for an updated GWOS instrument and ISS mission; • The IDL/MDL will provide a preliminary determination for a • suitable launch vehicle. Note: The ISS Program will make the final determination.

  3. Summary of Draft Statement of Work (SOW) for IDL/MDL Study of Feasibility of Deploying a DWL on the ISS Assumptions • A demonstration mission that will not be held to operational • lifetime, duty cycle and data download requirements; • DWL instrument based on existing GWOS and NWOS • concepts, both using the hybrid approach; and, • Pointing issues would be handled with “knowledge” rather than “control” (i.e., no gimbaling)

  4. Summary of Draft Statement of Work (SOW) for IDL/MDL Study of Feasibility of Deploying a DWL on the ISS IDL SOW • The instrument design will meet GWOS data requirements using a hybrid DWL and the ISS 51 degree inclined orbit. It will continue taking data through the earth shadow portion of the orbit. TheIDL will: • Incorporate any improvements from NWOS, airborne experience, and technology advances to define an updated GWOS instrument conceptual design for the ISS; • Use the GWOS data requirements and ISS capabilities; • Use shared optics (coherent detection and direct detection lidars) with 4 azimuth angles, crossed-beam optical design, and 45 degree zenith angle as in NWOS; • Review NWOS trades in power, mass, volume for 100% duty cycle vs. 50%; • Use two-year technology projections, and provide estimates for time and cost to achieve projected technologies; • Notes: Would 2 telescopes save significant $ vs. 4 telescopes? With 2 telescopes, maybe the 355 could do the fore perspective and the 2053 do the aft? (MK) Use liquid laser cooling rather than further R&D on conductive cooling. (MK) How about resupplying lasers instead of laser redundancy? (DE) Could an astronaut/mission specialist make a repair? (WB)

  5. Summary of Draft Statement of Work (SOW) for IDL/MDL Study of Feasibility of Deploying a DWL on the ISS IDL SOW (Cont.) • For the ISS environment: • Update GWOS instrument development and implementation cost; • Mass, volume, and dimensions of major components of the instrument (e.g., transceiver, optics); • Thermal requirements; • On-board computational requirements; • Downlink bandwidth; and, instrument vibration modes. • Assume a GWOS 3 year mission life, assess the redundancy of critical components with respect to mass, volume, power, and cost. Would a mission life of 3 years be a significant cost driver versus, 1 year, in terms of component redundancy, etc.? • Assume the NWOS concept with a reduced instrument volume using a crossed-inward optical design. Could the reduced instrument volume result in the use of a smaller launch vehicle? • Update and document the efficiency estimates for the laser, optics, and detectors; • Identify any technology or engineering “tall poles” and risks; • Identify any special spacecraft/instrument/ISS interface requirements from the instrument perspective; and, • Identify any potential instrument advantages/disadvantages from operating in one of the ISS attached modules, e.g., the pressurized Japanese Experiment Module.

  6. Summary of Draft Statement of Work (SOW) for IDL/MDL Study of Feasibility of Deploying a DWL on the ISS MDL SOW • For the ISS environment, the MDL will design an updated GWOS mission for the • ISS using the earlier GWOS data requirements. The mission design will address • the following: • The operation of the instrument in the ISS environment; • Instrument accommodation on the ISS, including any issues related to: • - High frequency vibrations; • - Slow attitude changes, i.e., from drifts, reboosts, etc.; • - Available power (average and peak); • - Thermal management; • - EMI/EMC; • - Contamination effects such as water dumps, approaching vehicle rocket plumes, etc.; • - Service and component replacement on orbit; • - Data rates (uplink and downlink); and, • - Unobscurred nadir view at design nadir angle (e.g., 45 degrees).

  7. Summary of Draft Statement of Work (SOW) for IDL/MDL Study of Feasibility of Deploying a DWL on the ISS MDL SOW (Cont.) • Ensure the following areas are in compliance with the FRAM/ELC requirements: • Mechanical; • Power; • Thermal; • Flight dynamics; • ISS mission operations; • Command and data handling; • Data systems; • Smallest launch vehicle possible, including trades against the requirements; • Launch; • Reliability; and, • Disposal. • Estimate mission cost for lifetime recommended by the IDL study; • Identify any unique costs related to operating in a manned environment; • Identify any technology or engineering “tall poles;” and, • Identify special spacecraft/instrument/ISS interface reqts. from a mission perspective. • Notes: Would data latency of 30 min be a major cost driver vs. 90 min, 150 min (WB)? • Don’t require quick data downlink—accept slowness of whatever link is free (M.K.&L.P.R.). • Don’t require vibration isolation—accept when the astronauts ruin the data (M.K.).

More Related