H orizontal E -region e X periment…

1. HorizontalE-regioneXperiment… “HEX” PI: M. Conde. Co-Is: J. Craven, E. Wescott, H. Nielsen, J. Hawkins, D. Lummerzheim, R. Smith, M. Larsen. E/PO PI: J. Hawkins I also considered: Horizontal E-Region Experiment To Investigate Coupling … “HERETIC” 08-Jan-2001

2. Objectives for today • Remind everyone of what we have proposed to do. • Identify the major sub-components of the GI’s effort. • Agree upon assignment of leaders for each component. • Discuss the budget available to support each component. • Discuss attendees for meetings at Wallops this year. • Discuss preparations needed for the Mission Initiation Conference. • Discuss other issues not identified here. • Assign action items as needed. • Schedule our next team meeting.

3. Project Summary • The proposed sounding rocket experiment will measure: • Vertical and horizontal zonal winds near a stable pre-midnight auroral arc lying ~300-km north of Poker Flat, using ground-based images of the drift of an approximately 200-km long, near-horizontal TMA trail deployed at ~160-km altitude. • Height-resolved horizontal wind vectors between 100-200 km altitude using a second rocket, deploying a near-vertical TMA trail. • A 2-dimensional (latitude, altitude) cross section of the auroral arc’s 557.7-nm or 391.4-nm luminosity distribution using tomographic inversion of a payload photometer’s spin-scans. • Relative electron density variations along the horizontal trajectory using a payload plasma probe provided by the student rocket program. • Numerous other geophysical observations provided by ground-based instrumentation.

4. Proposed trajectory • This figure shows an example of one possible trajectory for the horizontal rocket payload. The heavy blue line indicates the proposed extent of the TMA trail:

5. Down-range camera sites • This map fragment shows the rocket trajectory’s ground footprint, and the location of the three proposed down-range camera sites. The heavy dark section of the rocket path indicates the proposed extent of the horizontal TMA trail.

6. Intended outcome… • The Figure opposite is a hypothetical depiction of data assimilated from most (but not all) of the rocket-derived observations.

7. Responsibilities

8. GI sub-projects The table below identifies the major sub-components of the GI’s role in this mission. I propose that the GI business office should setup corresponding internal sub-grants to fund each of these activities. I have suggested names for each. This structure has worked well in the past. (recently, for example, in the Big Crow project.)

9. Down-range personnel • Establishment and operation of the down-range sites is to be supervised jointly by Wescott and Nielsen. • It is important for overall project management that personnel be identified who are willing and able to attend these sites during the launch window. At least the lead person for each site should be identified as early as possible. • One suggestion is: • Arctic Village – Wescott • Old Crow – Nielsen • Toolik Lake – Lummerzheim or Desrochers

10. The Budget! This is a copy of the 3-year budget that we submitted, rendered in the GI’s in-house format. I have color-coded many items according to their GI sub-component. Legend: Red=HEX-Sci, Green=HEX-DRO, Blue=HEX-Phot, Purple=HEX-Plas

11. Funding by major component Notes: 1. These amounts do not include overhead. 2. E/PO is actually funded separately from the main proposal. 3. These are the total amounts paid to Clemson University each year via subcontract. Presumably, Co-I Larsen will actually be able to use ~2/3 of these amounts after Clemson’s overhead is charged. Warning: This table is for illustration only. The separation by component was done crudely; it does not include all amounts. Exact accounting will be done by the business office at a later date.

12. Milestones Important to NASA Requirements Definition Meeting Mission Initiation Conference Mission Readiness Review

13. Meetings at Wallops • Meetings held for each mission occur in this order: • Mission Initiation Conference (MIC) • Requirements Definition Meeting (RDM) • Design Review (DR) • Mission Readiness Review (MRR) • Additional meetings may also be held as follows: • Status Reviews • Pre-Integration Review (PIR) • These meetings represent milestones in the overall project schedule. Each is treated as an important event.

14. GI attendees for Wallops meetings • During 2001, we will likely need to attend two meetings at Wallops. Our budget only includes travel support for four person-trips to Wallops this year. This is less than I would like, but it’s what we have. • My suggestion for meeting attendees is: • Mission Initiation Conference: Conde, Wescott. • Requirements Definition Meeting: Conde, Craven. • However, as I have no experience with NASA planning meetings, I would like this issue to be discussed by all project participants. It is very important that the GI performs well at these meetings.

15. Mission initiation conference • The purpose of this meeting is for the customer to present his/her requirements and specify the support necessary for the mission. The customer is contacted by the SRPO to establish a mutually acceptable date for the MIC. Attendees include customer representatives and appropriate WFF and NSROC personnel. The meeting is chaired and documented by the SRPO. • Topics include: • Project Schedule • Mechanical Devices and Structural Elements • Flight Performance • Instrumentation • Attitude Control • Data Reduction • Testing

16. Data package for MIC 8. Vehicle a) Performance b) Minimum Altitude Required c) Coning Angle Acceptable d) Despin e) Special Systems f) Type Nose Cone g) Pointing Requirements 9. Flight qualification/operational status of experiment's subsystems, new flight items or deviation from previously qualified systems. 10. Restrictions, precautions, special requirements, limitations for environmental testing of integrated payload. 11. Range Support a) Telemetry Ground Station b) Tracking Requirements c) Special Ground Support Equipment 12. Launch Conditions a) Launch Range b) Time of Day c) Azimuth d) Launch Angle e) Window f) Special Conditions - Restraints 13. Unique or special range requirements including special checkout or support equipment. (Long lead time items) 14. Radioactive Sources - Payload/Calibration 15. List the minimum and comprehensive vehicle and payload systems and experiment performance and operational requirements which will be used to determine mission success or failure. 16. List of Contacts, Titles, Address, Telephone Numbers. • 1. Description of scientific objectives and instrumentation. • 2. History of the experiment including number of times the experiment or a similar one has flown, giving flight history and any modifications of previously flown payloads. • 3. Outline diagram with station numbers including weights, center of gravity, moment of inertia data, deployable elements, doors, booms, nose cones, etc., if available. • 4. Structures and Mechanisms • a) Payload Structure b) Payload Housing • c) Openings d) Doors • e) Booms - Antennas f) Special Mechanisms • 5. Outgassing requirements, magnetic material sensitivity, radio frequency interference susceptibility. • 6. Time/Altitudes of all experiment related events. • 7. Instrumentation – Telemetry • a) Power Required b) Channels • c) Transmitter(s) d) Antenna • e) Commutator(s) f) Squib Circuits • g) Monitors h) Aspect Sensors • i) Magnetometers j) Accelerometer • k) Radar Beacon l) Power

17. Additional issues, etc: • Final points for today’s meeting: • Feel free to raise any additional issues that feel need to be discussed at this meeting… • Remember to note any action items requiring input from you. • Please think about suitable times for our next team meeting.