Programmatic Issues Discussion (Between NASA and CNES)

Programmatic IssuesDiscussion

(Between NASA and CNES)

Surface Water Ocean Topography

4-2

• 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

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

- recommended by NRC decadal survey for launch in 2013-16

Water-HM MeetingCNES HQ, Paris, France

Feb 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


Feb 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)


Feb 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?


Feb 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:

1. Atlas V or Delta IV (shared launch?)2. Minotaur IV3. 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

• 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

• 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

8- Instrument Concept:Instrument Suite Mass Summary I

Ka-Band Interferometer (single-string electronics) + Jason Instruments4/17/06

Item Quantity CBE each

[kg]CBE total

[kg]

CBE + uncert [kg]

Uncertainty

notesKa-Band Interferometer * 149.6 194.7 1.30

Antenna & Deployable Structures 1 69.7 69.7 90.7 1.30 scaled from WSOAElectronics 1 80.0 80.0 104.0 1.30 scaled from WSOA

Nadir Altimeter, Ku & C-Band 49.5 54.4 1.10Antenna & Structure 1 6.6 6.6 7.3 1.10 from OSTM Poseidon-3Electronics 2 21.4 42.9 47.2 1.10 from OSTM Poseidon-3

Three-Frequency Radiometer 20.3 22.3 1.10Antenna & Structure 1 13.0 13.0 14.3 1.10 from OSTM AMRElectronics & Feed 1 7.3 7.3 8.0 1.10 from OSTM AMR

GPS Receiver 7.2 7.6 1.05Antenna 2 0.9 1.8 1.9 1.05 from Jason TRSR / OSTM GPSPElectronics & RF Cable 2 2.7 5.4 5.7 1.05 from Jason TRSR / OSTM GPSP

Laser Retroreflector Array 0.8 0.8 1.05Passive Optics 1 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.05 from Jason / OSTM

Mass Total 227.4 279.8 1.23*assumes 10-m mast and 3.8 x 0.28 m reflectarray area

Ka-Band Interferometer (full redundancy) + Jason Instruments5/1/06

Item Quantity CBE each

[kg]CBE total

[kg]

CBE + uncert [kg]

Uncertainty

notesKa-Band Interferometer * 171.9 223.6 1.30


Nadir Altimeter, Ku & C-Band 49.5 54.4 1.10Antenna & Structure 1 6.6 6.6 7.3 1.10 from OSTM Poseidon-3Electronics 2 21.4 42.9 47.2 1.10 from OSTM Poseidon-3

Three-Frequency Radiometer 20.3 22.3 1.10Antenna & Structure 1 13.0 13.0 14.3 1.10 from OSTM AMRElectronics & Feed 1 7.3 7.3 8.0 1.10 from OSTM AMR

GPS Receiver 7.2 7.6 1.05Antenna 2 0.9 1.8 1.9 1.05 from Jason TRSR / OSTM GPSPElectronics & RF Cable 2 2.7 5.4 5.7 1.05 from Jason TRSR / OSTM GPSP

Laser Retroreflector Array 0.8 0.8 1.05Passive Optics 1 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.05 from Jason / OSTM

Mass Total 249.6 308.8 1.24*assumes 10-m mast and 3.8 x 0.28 m reflectarray area

Ku-Band Interferometer (single-string electronics) + AltiKa5/1/06

notes


AltiKa 40.0 52.0 1.30Electronics, Antenna & Structure 1 40.0 40.0 52.0 1.30

Mass Total 151.5 197.4 1.30

Ku-Band Interferometer (full redundancy) + AltiKa5/1/06

notes


AltiKa 40.0 52.0 1.30Electronics, Antenna & Structure 1 40.0 40.0 52.0 1.30

Mass Total 171.6 223.6 1.30

Launch Vehicle Payload (Kg) for SWOT Orbit

1000 km, i = 77 deg

Viability for SWOT Comment

Taurus XL (3110) 940* Marginal performance and interior PLF volume

Currently available from KSC but order log is limited

Delta II (2320-10) 1430* Not available >2013 KSC

Delta IV (4040-12) 7330* Expensive, lot of excess capacity Avail via KSC, Dual Launch capable but untested

Atlas V (401) ~7300 Expensive, lot of excess capacity Avail via KSC, Dual Launch capable but untested

Minotaur IV 1150 marginal performance and interior PLF volume

Air Force with potential cooperation with KSC

Taurus 2 ~1400 sufficient performance and interior PLF volume, Delta II equivalent

(New Development, Uncertain Reliabilty)

Falcon 9 7000*** no concerns for performance, volume, environment

(New Development, Uncertain Reliabilty)

Current NASA Launch Services (NLS)

Potential NASA LV in future Alternative Launch Program (ALP)

• 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

* Estimates based upon public information

Launch Vehicle Assessment and Considerations

* Yellow-shaded items indicate marginal feasibility or unavailable

* Estimates based upon public information

• Foreign Launch Vehicle possibilities are numerous but may be more restricted due to programmatic procurement constraints


Launch Vehicle Payload (Kg) for SWOT Orbit

1000 km, i = 77 deg

Viability for SWOT Comment

Eurockot (SS-19) ~1500 sufficient performance and interior PLF volume

ESA VEGA ~1350 sufficient performance and interior PLF volume

New Development

Ariane tbd no concerns for performance, volume, environment, lot of excess capability

Dual launch Adadter avail

PSLV tbd sufficient performance and interior PLF volume

Dual launch Adadter avail

SeaLaunch (Zenit) >6100 no concerns for performance, volume, environment, may be overkill

Soyuz ~4400 no concerns for performance, volume, environment, lot of excess capability

Proton tbd no concerns for performance, volume, environment, lot of excess capability

Foreign Launch Vehicles

• 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.


SWOT Project Key Strawman Milestones & Schedule

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.

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


Feb 1, 2008

Work Breakdown(to be completed)

NASA CNES

Project Management

Project Systems Engineering

Mission Assurance

Science

Education/Public Outreach

Payload

Wide-swath altimeter

Nadir altimeter

Radiometer

GPS

DORIS

Other instrument(s)

Spacecraft Bus

Ground Data System

Mission ops

Instrument ops

Spacecraft ops

Science Data processing

Launch Vehicle

Documents

Programmatic Issues Discussion (Between NASA and CNES)