1 / 15

Status and Strategies for COSMIC-II Planning Oct 10, 2008

Status and Strategies for COSMIC-II Planning Oct 10, 2008. Outline. Status of NSPO/NSC planning efforts Status of NOAA planning efforts Strategy to bring the COSMIC-II project together New Receiver Developments Missions of Opportunity. Status at NSPO.

jana-mccormick
Télécharger la présentation

Status and Strategies for COSMIC-II Planning Oct 10, 2008

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. Status and Strategies for COSMIC-II PlanningOct 10, 2008

  2. Outline • Status of NSPO/NSC planning efforts • Status of NOAA planning efforts • Strategy to bring the COSMIC-II project together • New Receiver Developments • Missions of Opportunity

  3. Status at NSPO • NSPO is currently working on three projects: • FORMOSAT-5 (a FORMOSAT-2 follow-on, a remote sensing project) • FORMOSAT-6 (a microsat project, payload to be defined) • Development of a small launcher (designed for FORMOSAT-6) • Currently NSPO does not have funding for COSMIC-II • NSPO is hoping to secure special funds from NSC for COSMIC-II • An Executive Board will meet in November and review all current NSPO activities, and make recommendations to NSC. Reprogramming is necessary to make funds available for COSMIC-II • NSPO would like U.S. to help their FORMOSAT-6 program, including payloads (prototype TriG?) and launcher. This may become a “risk reduction” project for COSMIC-II (if an agreement can be reached)

  4. NSC • Lou Lee’s (NSC Chairman) position: • Like to have a mission that represents significant advancement over COSMIC (e.g., more satellites, better receiver, better antenna gain, lower latency, …etc) • NSPO needs to contribute resources (e.g., funds and people) toward COSMIC-II (should not expect NSC to pay 100%) • Needs to stress new sciences made possible with COSMIC-II (NSC is not responsible for operation) • Needs to demonstrate 50-50 share between U.S. and Taiwan (Taiwan should not pay more than 50%) • Needs to have significant societal impact for Taiwan (e.g., improve typhoon prediction) – key factor to get approval by Taiwan congress

  5. Near Term Strategy • What we need NSC/NSPO to do: • Authorize Nick Yen (and his team) to work with NOAA to develop a preliminary program plan in October 2008. • Establish a “COSMIC-II Planning Project” – allow NSPO and NOAA to work on a detailed program plan (for 1-2 years) • Establish an oversight board to oversee COSMIC-II program development • Establish a clear chain of commands for COSMIC-II planning (whom does Nick report to?) • Identify “decision point” for moving forward with COSMIC-II (need to be synchronized with NOAA decision making) • Identify science team to work with U.S. science team

  6. Other Considerations for COSMIC-II Planning • Stick to name ‘COSMIC-II’ • Target Launch for 2013 • Need to start development of TriG or similar payload • Develop appropriate contractual and legal vehicles (e.g., AIT-TECRO Agreements, TAAs) • Need to continue to promote COSMIC and its science applications • Need to strengthen research, education and out reach • Need to build connections with other international missions

  7. Status of NOAA planning efforts • Submit a preliminary budget plan (for 2011 budget) for an RO mission by November 15, 2008 • Few details needed here, identify roles for various partners, develop funding profile DAVE?

  8. New Receiver Developments • Pyxis by BRE • GPS/Galileo, 1X4 HF patch antenna? • ROM cost $1M/unit? • Some funding/schedule risk (2011 Cicero launch), low technical risk • TriG by JPL/BRE • GPS/Galileo/GLONASS(CDMA), large antenna w/ beem steering • ROM cost, $7M+$1M/unit (no I&T, no data processing) • 30-month effort, Need funding NOW • ROSA by Italian Space Agency • Few details known, OL tracking • Launch 2008-9 • GRAS by Saab/Erickson • High gain antenna, expensive, massive, power hungry • JAVAD/GFZ • Few details known

  9. IGOR vs. IGOR+ vs. Pyxis IGOR/IGOR+ Pyxis

  10. Pyxis Specification Highlights • 3 Frequencies Required: L1, L2 and L5 • L5 is difficult to process w/ current direct sampling design • 2-bit Sampler Desired: ~1dB increase in SNR • 2-bit RF samplers difficult to find and relatively power-hungry and large in size • Noise floor reduction • Dominated by antenna filter/LNA >30dB Gain, <0.5dB NF LNA • Size reduction • Work to incorporate the current DIP/AMP/Sampler functionalities all within the volume of a current DIP/AMP box • Maintain or reduce power consumption of current • Including addition of higher-power LNA, OCXO, and new L5 signal • Elimination of commercial grade components • Attitude Determination Capability • API

  11. Size Comparison Dual Channel (L1 and L2) Discrete Modules with 1-bit Samplers: Triple Channel (L1, L2, and L5) RFIC with Integrated 2-bit Samplers: 3.0” x 1.5” x 0.5” GNSS RF-IC 0.35” x 0.35”, Plus supporting filters 3.0” x 1.5” x 0.5” 2-Channel Sampler 2.0” x 1.25”

  12. TriG GPS RO Receiver • JPL/BRE submitted whitepaper/proposal (30-month) to NOAA • Currently first choice in NOAA GPS RO plans • GPS + Galileo + GLONASS • Space hardened electronics (radiation tolerant CPU and RF down converters) • Tracks new signals: • GPS L2C and L5 • Galileo Open Signal • GLONASS’ CDMA Upgrade • 4-6 antennas, with identical RF-hybrid chips • Digital beam steering from 4-6 antennas • Dedicated CPU for science processing • BlackJack based real-time GNSS processing (reliable, flexible)

  13. Missions of Opportunity“Poor Man’s ” Constellation • We should do this anyway for science - less useful for operations • Pros • Lowest cost (to US/NOAA) • Some science to be done • Demonstrate truly receiver, platform independence • Supplement COSMIC, METOP, COSMIC-II data • Cons • Not optimized for global observations • Not an operational system • Degradation compared to COSMIC • Multiple platforms, receivers, software challenges • Significant efforts required for coordination and management • Need a center to serve as data repository (UCAR?) and to ensure conformity to uniform data format and processing software

  14. Future RO Missions

More Related