Programmatic Issues Discussion

1. Programmatic IssuesDiscussion (Between NASA and CNES)

2. Surface Water Ocean Topography - recommended by NRC decadal survey for launch in 2013-16 • Measurement of ocean mesoscale eddies and their interaction with currents with centimeter level topographic radar interferometry • High resolution ocean topographic measurements are important to understanding the ocean heat/energy budget, which is a key variable for climate modeling Surface Water • Determine surface water storage change and discharge to predict the land surface branch of the global hydrologic cycle • Asses the role of fresh water storage as a regulator of the biogeochemical cycle Sea Surface Topography • Measure ocean mesoscale activity, including fronts, eddies and boundary currents and Asses physical-biological interactions • Measure Basin-scale ocean circulation, heat transport, El Nino/La Nina, and sea level rise • Bathymetry • Improve understanding of maritime gravity field and global bathymetry 4-2

3. Water-HM MeetingCNES HQ, Paris, FranceFeb 1, 2008 Summary of ongoing activities • IIP proposal for Water-HM risk reduction submitted • AITT proposal to fly Ka-band altimeter over ice funded (will fly over some surface water targets en route) • NASA/JPL investments in radar testbed, including Ka-band capability • NASA/JPL mission formulation studies • NASA ‘08 funding for first 7 Decadal Survey missions (including SWOT) • Continuation in ‘09

4. Water-HM MeetingCNES HQ, Paris, FranceFeb 1, 2008 Summary of Issues • Division of Responsibilities Amongst Partners (1 hour) Ernesto Rodriguez, Tony Freeman, Jim Graf, CNES • Summary of ongoing US activities • Launch vehicle costs in the U.S. are on the order of ~$100M whereas costs are much lower for non-U.S. rockets. Thus, one goal of the technology sharing is to lower overall mission costs. • ITAR controls will restrict some aspects of the technology and potential sharing arrangements. During the development of the WatER proposal to ESA, some of these details were discussed • NASA HQ has made it clear that sharing missions is a priority (e.g., Alan Stern presentation at Fall 2007 AGU). • Work Breakdown (to be completed)

5. Water-HM MeetingCNES HQ, Paris, FranceFeb 1, 2008 ITAR • Currently all documents presented at joint international meetings have to be cleared individually for ITAR restrictions • A TAA is in preparation which will allow easier communication between CNES and JPL (ETC end of April, 2008) • Letter Agreement?

6. Water-HM MeetingCNES HQ, Paris, FranceFeb 1, 2008 Launch Vehicles • After the last of the Delta-II series, there is expected to be a gap in US launch capability in the intermediate range • This will occur in the timeframe of the launch of the Water-HM mission, which is expected to be a medium-class mission • Alternatives are: • Atlas V or Delta IV (shared launch?) • Minotaur IV • Russian Soyuz • Shared launch is not straightforward - few missions are compatible with the 78 deg inclination, 1000 km altitude of Water-HM • Some decadal survey missions could (possibly) fit the bill • ASCENDS (CO2 laser) • GACM (Atmos. Composition) • GRACE II

7. RSDO Option* Wet Mass: 1033 kg Payload Mass: ~285 kg Bus Mass: 579 kg Propellant Mass: ~43 kg *Mass includes contingency SystemsDesign From Team X study, April 2006

8. PRIMA Option* Wet Mass: 1091kg Payload Mass: ~285 kg Bus Mass: ~631 kg Propellant Mass: ~43 kg NOTE: Difference in mass is due to different Power design, which increases Structures mass *Mass includes contingency SystemsDesign From Team X study, April 2006

9. 8- Instrument Concept:Instrument Suite Mass Summary I

10. Launch Vehicle Assessment and Considerations • Current US Launch Vehicle availability for NASA procurement is limited and expensive with a lot of excess capability • NASA future Alternative Launch Program current under study may add additional options at lower cost but future is uncertain * Yellow-shaded items indicate marginal feasibility or unavailable * Estimates based upon public information

11. Launch Vehicle Assessment and Considerations • Foreign Launch Vehicle possibilities are numerous but may be more restricted due to programmatic procurement constraints * Estimates based upon public information

12. Launch Vehicle Assessment and Considerations • Cost reduction options to reduce overall mission cost: • Additional mission partnering • Foreign (non-US) LV • Piggyback or host other payloads on S/C • Shared launch • Orbit selection and requirements driving mass can be considered to lower required launch capability and open up lower cost LV options • Mass savings to payload (e.g., AltiKa with integrated radiometer vs Jason nadir altimeter + AMR) may also ease launch vehicle constraints.

13. Schedule Assumptions • Project Start: FY ‘10. • Launch: FY ‘15. • ATLO Duration: 24 months. • Schedule independent of the Project partner providing the specific Project element/function. - Instruments - S/C bus - ATLO - Launch vehicle - Mission operations • Starting Point for Schedule Development: JPL Team-X SWOT Mission Study, April 2006. SWOT Project Key Strawman Milestones & Schedule

14. Strawman SWOT Project Key Milestones & Schedule Key Milestone Strawman Dates Activity/Milestone Date • Study Start October 2007 • Mission Concept Review October 2008 • Project Mission System Review October 2009 • Preliminary Design Review (PDR) / Technology January 2011 Cutoff • Critical Design Review (CDR) August 2011 • Subsystem Fab/Test August 2011 - August 2012 • ATLO Start August 2012 • ATLO System I&T August 2012 - April 2014 • ATLO Launch Operations April 2014 - September 2014 • Launch September 2014 • Launch + 30 days Operations September 2014 - October 2014 • Operations October 2014 - September 2017

15. Water-HM MeetingCNES HQ, Paris, FranceFeb 1, 2008 Work Breakdown (to be completed)