1 / 9

Developing Mission Trade Space

Developing Mission Trade Space. Mark Schoeberl Richard Wesenberg Lisa Callahan GSFC. Purpose.

yves
Download Presentation

Developing Mission Trade Space

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. Developing Mission Trade Space Mark Schoeberl Richard Wesenberg Lisa Callahan GSFC

  2. Purpose • Given the large number of potential instruments and costing assumptions, we need to do a 0th order analysis on mission configurations – what is optimal, how do costs vary? With this information, we can zero in on the most probable mission configurations to do detailed mission concept studies.

  3. Boundary Conditions • Accuracy of input data • Costing information for many proposed instruments is incomplete • HQ constraints on ACE costing is unknown • Instrument sizes and masses are uncertain as are TRL levels in some cases • Number of configurations • There are a large number of configurations given up to four vehicles. However most of these scenarios can be immediately dismissed and this analysis will focus only on the high probability scenarios – 12 of them • Launch vehicles • We are considering Pegasus (small faring), Tarus II (roughly a Delta II) and Minotaur. Faring size is acceptable provided we do not have to fit the MBL - so the MBL has not been considered. • Orbit • Lower orbit (450 km) means more fuel and thus a heavier payload. Assume station keeping with Earth Care • Added ATMS to provide temperature profiling (nearly free) • Mission Science Value (adjustable) • TRL level 6 instruments A-Train are given a score of 1 with enhancements a score of 1.5 e.g Cloudsat radar =1 dual frequency Doppler radar = 1.5 • µ-wave radiometers given a score of 0.5 • IR cloud instrument and ATMS given a score of 0.2

  4. Instruments and Science Scores

  5. Some Scenarios • Single Bus Mission • Everything can fit but the budget envelope will be steep, mission integration and management will be complicated and expensive • Range $1.2-1.8 B, low end has base instruments only. JPL study showed lower numbers but bus, contingency and run out costs were not completed by JPL from what we can tell. • Two Bus Mission • Similar budget range to single platform with added LV cost. Unless the launch is simultaneous, budget might get spread over a few years which is good. Management is less complex, GSFC does one bus, JPL the other – spreads the work around. • Three Bus Mission • ORCA first then launch the rest… details later

  6. Costing so Far Triple bus options CPR+, MSPI, IR, ATMS, SIRICE, GMI Caliop, CPR, MSPI, ORCA, IR, ATMS HSRL, CPR+, MSPI, ORCA Caliop, CPR+, MSPI, ORCA No Payload (bus +rocket +ground system) MSPI +CPR+

  7. A Strategy for ACE • Consider ACE to be a program • Fly ORCA & Polder-A (and APS?) behind EC in 2015 then assemble the rest of the E-Train later (Cost ~300-350M) • EC is a good mission but lacks the polarimeter and multi-channel broad swath imager • EC + Polarimeter provides enough information for ORCA retrievals • Fly the rest of ACE in 2020-5 replacing parts of EC – bonus: if ORCA fails you have time to fly a second copy • Advantages • Gets our foot in the door – early ACE data to community • Continues the A-Train time series – allows for some overlap with AT • Ocean color data sooner • Shows strong international partnership • Disadvantages • Would increase total mission cost somewhat • Not strictly Decadal survey

  8. Summary • The only way to get under $1.2B (without International Partners) is to drastically descope the mission payload. Even at 1.2B the mission payload is not significantly improved over AT. • $1.6 B mission is a really, really good science mission • Multiple platform solutions stretch out the budget envelope, simplify the systems engineering but will increase cost due to extra buses and LVs. • A scenario where ORCA+Polarimeter launches first and flies behind EC* might have the advantages of getting our foot in the door. • Next steps: • Need better cost number for HSRL, CPR+ • Need guidance from HQ on budget profiles • Need to pick a couple candidates to do a more comprehensive study • Should we explore the EC+ORCA early scenario? *Similar to the OCEaNS mission concept

  9. Polder-A summary Type: Passive multi-angle imaging photopolarimeter Instrument concept:Wide field of view telecentric optics (separate for VIS and SWIR), rotating wheel with spectral and polarization filters, and 2-D detector arrays in the focal plane of the optics Directionality: 15 views of a scene, ±55° from nadir Cross-track swath: ±55° Approx. dimensions: 40 x 52 x 36 cm Mass/power/data rate:30 kg / 30 W / 3 Mbps Measurement range: 443–2130 nm Measurement specifics: 2 visible (443, 490 nm), 2 near-IR (670, 865 nm), and 3 short-wave IR (1370, 1650, 2130 nm) bands; three Stokes parameters (I, Q, and U) in all channels except intensity-only channels 1 and 5. A UV band can be added. Ground resolution at nadir: 3 km SNR requirement:200

More Related