Horizontal

E-region eXperiment…

PI: M. Conde.Co-Is: J. Craven,

E. Wescott, H. Nielsen, J. Hawkins, D.

Lummerzheim, R. Smith, M. Larsen.

E/PO PI: J. Hawkins

“HEX”

I also considered:Horizontal E-Region Experiment To Investigate Coupling … “HERETIC”

08-Jan-2001

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.

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.

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:

Down-range camera sitesThis 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.

Intended outcome…

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

Responsibilities

ComponentResponsible officers

Scientific leadership Conde

Vehicle and flight operations

NASA mission manager

TMA payloads Larsen

Ground-based cameras Wescott/Nielsen

Payload photometer Craven/Lummerzheim

Plasma density probe Hawkins

Education/Public outreach Hawkins

GI sub-projects

ComponentSub-grant name

Scientific leadership Hex-Sci

Ground-based cameras Hex-DRO

Payload photometer Hex-Phot

Plasma density probe Hex-Plas

Education/Public outreach Hex-EPO

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.)

Down-range personnelEstablishment 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 – WescottOld Crow – NielsenToolik Lake – Lummerzheim or Desrochers

The Budget!

MATERIALS/SUPPLIES PHOTOMETER COMPONENTS 3,000 3,000 - LANGMUIR PROBE COMPONENTS 5,000 5,000 - CAMERA TRIPODS - 1,200 - OPTICAL & VIDEO SUPPLIES FOR SITES - - 5,000 PROJECT SUPPLIES 500 500 500

Total Materials/Supplies 8,500 9,700 5,500 OTHER DIRECT COSTS

GRADUATE STUDENT TUITION 5,868 5,868 5,868 PUBLICATIONS - - 3,000 POSTAGE, COMMUNICATIONS, TOLLS, ETC 300 300 300 MACHINE SHOP /HR$48 35,000 20,000 - ELECTRONIC SHOP /HR$42 20,000 15,000 - LAUNCH SUPPORT PHONE /MIN$0.18 - - 1,080

40 WINTER USER DAYS-TOOLIK LAKE/DAY$30 - - 1,200 4 SUMMER USER DAYS-TOOLIK LAKE/DAY$50 200

GI VEHICLE (1,000 MI RT) /MI $.65/MI S of bridge; $1.30/MI N of bridge - 891 AIR FREIGHT - 100 3,500

70 MI/TRIP-GI VEHICLE FOR PFRR/MI$0.65 910 910 1,820 SUBAWARD TO CLEMSON UNIV. 96,100 89,600 60,400

Total Other Direct Costs 158,178 131,778 78,259 TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 237,540$ 255,256$ 215,443$

FACILITIES & ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS(less equipment,subaward amts >$25K, & tuition) MTDC (base)= $150,572 $154,788 $149,175

51.3% 77,243$ 79,406$ 76,527$

TOTAL BUDGET 314,783$ 334,662$ 291,970$

THREE-YEAR TOTAL 941,415$

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

BUDGET GI 00 - 130

Mapping the E-region vertical and zonal (horizontal) winds near a stable auroral arc,…FIRST SECOND THIRDYEAR YEAR YEAR

SENIOR SALARIESPI M.Conde 3/3/2 mos 27.70 4,820 14,460$ 14,894$ 7,671$

CO-I J.Craven 1/2/1 mos 53.73 9,350 9,350 19,261 9,919 CO-I E.Wescott 0/1/2 mos 51.66 8,989 - 8,989 17,978 CO-I H.Nielsen 0/1/2 mos 51.94 9,038 - 9,309 19,176 CO-I D.Lummerzheim 0/1/1 mos 31.55 5,490 - 5,655 5,824 CO-I J.Hawkins 0/0/0 mos 0 - - - CO-I R.Smith 0/0/0 mos 0 - - -

(Includes 1.3% Leave Reserve, except Wescott)Subtotal Senior 23,810 58,107 60,568

PROFESSIONAL SUPPORTOptics Engineer, J.Desrochers 1/2/0 mos 26.40 4,594 4,594 9,464 -

(Includes 19.4% Leave Reserve)

Subtotal Professional 4,594 9,464 - GRADUATE STUDENT (70% annual salary) PhD Graduate Student 13.00 17,160 12,012 12,012 12,012 PhD Graduate Student (3 mo summer only) 13.00 6,864 - - 14,414 PhD Graduate Student (partial support) (8hrs/day*22days*3) 5,000 5,000 10,000

Subtotal Grad Students 17,012 17,012 36,426

TOTAL SALARIES 45,417 84,584 96,994 STAFF BENEFITS (FICA,Workers Comp, Retirement,Etc.)26.8% SR. SALARIES 6,381 13,164 11,414 25.8% PROFESSIONAL 1,185 2,442 -

7.9% WESCOTT; PhD (summers only) 560 575 403 1,113 3,031

Total Staff Benefits 7,969 16,718 14,445

TOTAL SALARIES & BENEFITS 53,386$ 101,302$ 111,439$ EQUIPMENT

2 PHOTOMULTIPLIERS & COUNTER$5,000 10,000 - - 2 CAMERAS W/DATA BACK & DRIVES - 5,000 -

Total Equipment 10,000 5,000 - TRAVEL 4/4/2 RT Fbks/ Wallops Is,VA /trip$1,500 6,000 6,000 3,000

12/12/6DAYS PER DIEM /day$123 1,476 1,476 738 1 RT Fbks/Prudhoe Bay /trip$600 600 2 RT Fbks/SanFrancisco-AGU /trip$900 - - 1,800 10 DAYS PER DIEM /day$185 - - 1,850 2 RT Fbks/ Old Crow,AK /trip$225 - - 450 2 DAYS PER DIEM-Dawson City /day$154 - - 308

40 DAYS PER DIEM-Old Crow /day$154 - - 6,160 2 RT Fbks/ Arctic Village,AK /trip$270 - - 540

40 DAYS PER DIEM-Arctic Village/day$120 - - 4,800

Total Travel 7,476 7,476 20,246

Funding by major componentComponent Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Totals

Scientific leadership1 41,526 41,960 38,559 122,045

Ground-based cameras1 6,182 37,617 84,028 127,827

Payload photometer1 77,350 62,916 15,743 156,009

Plasma density probe1 10,000 10,000 10,000 30,000

Education/Public outreach2 10,000 10,000 10,000 30,000

TMA payloads3 96,100 89,600 60,400 246,100

GI overhead 77,243 79,409 76,527 233,179

Totals 318,401 331,502 295,257 945,160

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.

Milestones Important to NASA

Mission Initiation Conference

Requirements Definition Meeting

Mission Readiness Review

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 ReviewsPre-Integration Review (PIR)

These meetings represent milestones in the overall project schedule. Each is treated as an important event.

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.

Mission initiation conferenceThe 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 ScheduleMechanical Devices and Structural ElementsFlight PerformanceInstrumentationAttitude ControlData ReductionTesting

Data package for MIC1. 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

8. Vehiclea) Performance b) Minimum Altitude Requiredc) Coning Angle Acceptable d) Despine) Special Systems f) Type Nose Coneg) 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 Supporta) Telemetry Ground Stationb) Tracking Requirementsc) Special Ground Support Equipment

12. Launch Conditionsa) Launch Range b) Time of Dayc) Azimuth d) Launch Anglee) Window f) Special Conditions -

Restraints13. Unique or special range requirements including special

checkout or support equipment. (Long lead time items)14. Radioactive Sources - Payload/Calibration15. 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.

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.