The ESA Space Weather Pilot Project Status in November 2005

1
The ESA Space Weather Pilot ProjectStatus in
November 2005

• A. Hilgers, A. Glover, E. Daly
• Space Environments and Effects Analysis Section,
• ESTEC, Noordwijk, The Netherlands
• C. de Matos and F. Ongaro
• EUI-A, ESA-HQ, Paris

2

• Historical Background
• 1996 ESA Round Table on Space Weather.
• 1998 FMI report on space weather capabilities in
  Europe.
• 1998 First ESA Space Weather Workshop.
• 1999-2001 ESA feasibility study on a Space
  Weather Programme.
• 2000 Setting up of Space Weather Working Team.
• 2001 Submission of programme initiative to ESA
  management board gtRejected (Quantification of
  value of service for sustainability and need more
  scientific basis).
• 2001 Start preparation of ESA-PP, COST724, and
  other
• 2003 ESA SW pilot-project formally starts.
• 2003 COST 724 starts.
• 2005 COST 296 starts.

3

• Where we stand now in Nov 2005
• Organisation of the scientific community (through
  COST 296, COST724).
• Coordinated service investigation/evaluation in
  Europe (To end April 2004).
• Options for next step
• - NoC for spacecraft effects
• - ERA-net for science
• - overall coordinations????

4

• Coordinated Service Investigation
• Space Weather European Network (SWENET)
• Network of 26 service development activities
  (SDAs) 16 ESA co-funded SDA applications
  activities began on 1st April 2003 10
  independently funded activities. Continuously
  increasing...
• Common support (portal, service provision, data
  access), evaluation method, modelling.
• Represents 5 M investment incl. 2 M from ESA
  GSP and rest from other ESA prog., national
  agencies, private investments,....
• Independent benefit assessment is establishing
  the economic and other
• benefits of the services (Contract with SEA).
• Interaction with EC Ongoing (cf COST, EUCORES,
  FP6).
• ESA participation to ISES (International Space
  Environment Services- under IUGG).

5

• SWENET as a sample for study
• Co-funding (approx. 3 M) made available to this
  project by users or developers from 9 member
  states.
• Broad community of users (incl. military).
• About 90 of the pilot project activities
  addressed three main types of effects which are
• External geomagnetic field
• Ionospheric perturbations of radio signal (comms,
  nav).
• Direct space environment effects on spacecraft.

6

• External geomagnetism in Europe
• Users survey, electric power, pipe-line,
  military.
• SW Service 1-3 M ground based magnetometers
  ACE.
• 10 Y Market trend remains of same order.
• Space advantage not needed for ground effects,
  speculative for global scale and/or forecast,
  major for Solar wind.
• gt Case for a SW monitor?

7

• Ionospheric effect on radio signal in Europe
• Users HF users (airlines, military and civilian
  security applications) and GPS single frequency
  (all) and dual frequency (geological surveying
  for prospecting, military, off-shore drilling in
  very deep sea, airlines for airport approach).
• SW Service 10 M/Y, Ionosonde, dual frequency
  networks.
• 10 Y Market Trend significant growth (Galileo,
  down stream growth).
• Space advantage global coverage, (possibly)
  forecast.
• gt Case for a LEO constellation?

8

9

• Direct effects on space systems in Europe
• Users spacecraft designers, operators,
  downstream users, manned space flight.
• SW Service 10 M/Y using US NOAA, NASA data.
• 10 Y Market Trend might be significant growth
  (new techno, manned space flight).
• Space advantage major (no serious alternative).
• gt Case for monitoring in critical regions?

10

11

• Space Infrastructure Options

12

• Discussion of space elements options
• Option 0 No change
• User satisfaction through US dominated service
  ( possibly hardware elements to support ESA
  missions on a case by case basis and with
  difficulties).
• Cost 1-5 M /Y (for ESA) 10-100 M /Y (for
  non-ESA).
• Market and related RD non space related market
  durably disconnected from ESA Slow development
  unless a new leadership and funding sources
  appear (COST724 ?).

13

• Discussion of options
• Option 1 Hitchhikers on planned missions
• User satisfaction partial near real-time service
  but poor coverage.
• Cost 10 M /Y (for ESA) .
• Market and related RD efficiently linked to ESA
  for S/C, Comm and Nav. via a programme or an
  inter-directorate activity rapid improvement
  expected upstream and downstream.

14

• Discussion of options
• Option 2 Hitchhikers dedicated spacecraft
• User satisfaction near real-time service with
  global coverage and forecasting capabilities.
• Cost 200 M/5 Y (through ESA).
• Market and related RD fully linked to ESA via a
  SW programme (e.g. like Meteosat or GMES)
  improvement expected.

15

• Conclusion
• SWPP has shown evidence of interest from users
  (incl. industry).
• Market now within 10-100 M /Y in Europe and rely
  on US or ground based data.
• Significant market potential growth might be
  expected for Nav and S/C (incl. manned space
  flight).
• Various space elements options are possible with
  investment commensurate with market size.
• Refinement of market scenarios and cost benefit
  analysis is in progress (contract with SEA).
• Possible undertaking for space elements need to
  be discussed after ESA council in December
  (relevant to next council in 2007-2008).
• S/C effect coordination may be taken care of by a
  NoC (TEC proposal).
• Ionospheric effect coordination is partly covered
  by COST 296.
• Fundamental science of space weather is covered
  by COST 724, ILWS, E-STAR (TBC) and a possible
  ERA-Net.
• Maintenance of overall coordinating structures
  (SWWT SWENET) is under discussion (Lefeuvre
  proposal to ESA).