GeoSpace Sciences MOWG Activities

1
GeoSpace Sciences MOWGActivities

• SECAS Meeting
• February 21, 2001
• D. M. Klumpar
• Montana State University,
• Space Science and Engineering Laboratory
• klump_at_physics.montana.edu

2
Current GMOWG

• Geospace Sciences Management Operations Working
  Group
• Appointed October 2000
• Report to Mary Mellott, Jim Sharber, Jim Spann,
  Geospace Sciences/SEC Program
• First meeting November 16-17, 2000
• Charge to the GMOWG
• Communications to from the community
• Special Senior Review of SRT/LCAS

3
GMOWG Membership

• Dave Klumpar, Chair Montana State Univ.
• Don Brautigam AFRL
• Jim Clemmons Aerospace Corp.
• Greg Earle Univ. of Texas at Dallas
• Bob Ergun Univ. of Colorado
• Miguel Larsen Clemson Univ.
• Jimmy Raeder UCLA
• Geoff Reeves Los Alamos Natl Lab.
• Phil Richards Univ. of Alabama
• Jim Slavin GSFC
• Harlan Spence Boston Univ.
• Gary Swenson Univ. of Illinois

4
GMOWG Issues The Access Instrument
Development Crisis

• Diminished LCAS Opportunities
• Sounding Rocket Program Privatization impacts
• Cost overrun cut launch rate from 30/yr (95) to
  8 (01)
• Loss of Wallops civil servants - uncompensated
• UNEX Program Scuttled
• Paucity of funded Geospace Instrument development
  activity
• in FY2000 4 of program award for instr dev
• How will flight hardware for LWS and Roadmap get
  developed and proven?

5
SEC Sounding Rocket Launches

• In 21 years the Sounding Rocket flight rate has
  decreased
• 21-year average 22 launches/yr
• 2000 5 flights
• 2001 8 flights
• Factors
• Complexity

UNEX 20Hit
6
The Access and Development Issue

• We are choking off at the source
• Instrument development for future missions
• Space qualification of these instruments
• The replacement generation of trained scientists
  and engineers
• Who will carry out our missions in 2010 if the
  source of young talent dries up?
• Solution Generous support for instrument
  development and both suborbital orbital access
  to space. A new initiative

7
Senior Review SRT/LCAS

• Evaluation Criteria
• What is the science quality and productivity of
  the science cluster, and to what degree does the
  cluster support or enable the strategic goals and
  objectives of the Space Science Enterprise?
• Judging by the priorities in the SSE strategic
  plan, is the current funding distribution across
  the nine science clusters the optimum one, or
  would the Panel recommend changes?
• Is the current science cluster structure optimal
  for attaining the long-term strategic goals of
  the Office of Space Science?

Guenter Riegler, SECAS Presentation, October 26,
2000
8
Senior Review Report Progress

• Outline drafted, section page counts assigned
• Formed writing teams
• Canvassed community for key science results
  (email letter and response template)
• 131 Investigators were asked to
• describe your key scientific result
• provide a figure and a reference
• describe future planned effort
• PI responses collected at http//sec.gsfc.nasa.g
  ov/sec_gmowg_sr.htm
• 59 responses from 43 investigators

9
Geospace Cluster Report Outline

• Section 0 (electronic) Mary Mellott
• Proposal oversubscription
• Budget info for FY2002-FY2004
• Section I. (1-2 pages) Dave Klumpar
• Science content of the cluster -- program
  overview
• Supporting Research and Technology
• Suborbital Program (LCAS)
• Section II. (12-14 pages) Consolidation
  Teams
• Recent Program Highlights (two to three tell
  a story could constitute more than one PIs
  work relevance to OSS Strategic Plan science
  discoveries, detector/instrument development or
  test flight.
• Section III (6-8 pages)
• Highlights of RA work currently in progress
  (relevance to strategic goals)
• Section IV (2-4 pages) Miguel Larsen
• New Initiative and vision for the future
  Development program for instruments
• fold in a vital sounding rocket orbital access
  program for flight verification

10
SPACE SCIENCE PROCESS
STRATEGICGOAL

• SRT Contributions to PROCESS
• Strategic Goal
• Requires development of
• - theory
• - DA techniques
• - instruments
• Which are tested via the
• - laboratory and/or
• - suborbital program
• Leading to Flight Program
• and analysis of mission data
• 
  
  
  
  Which leads to either
• - achievement of the goal
• - or a new cycle which then
  
  
  
  
  leads to
• - achievement of the goal

Theory/Technique/ Instrument development
Validation via laboratory/ suborbital program
New Theory
Flight Program
Refined questions
Mission specific Data analysis
STRATEGIC GOAL
11
Consolidation Teams

• Collect and consolidate key science results from
  community (Section II)
• Mesosphere, lower thermos chemistry/dynamics
  (Swenson)
• Magnetosphere/empirical (include planetary mag)
  (Spence)
• Magnetosphere/modeling (Raeder)
• LCAS, instruments, techniques, ionosphere (Earle)
• Auroral/plasma interations (Clemmons)

12
PI Response Collection Page http//sec.gsfc.nas
a.gov/sec_gmowg_sr.htm
13
(No Transcript)
14
Example PI Response

• Short Title Metallic Ion Separation Within
  Ionospheric Layers
• Short statement of Result in Bullet form
• A rocket experiment has confirmed a 30-year old
  theory regarding the ability of neutral winds to
  separate metallic ions of meteoric origin into
  distinct layers in the lower ionosphere.
• Narrative Description
• A suborbital rocket launched from Puerto Rico in
  1998 carried a sensitive mass spectrometer to
  measure the content and fine-scale structure of
  meteoric ions in layered structures within the
  lower ionosphere (100-115 km). The instrument
  flew through such a layer and measured the
  concentrations of Fe, Mg, O2, and NO versus
  altitude. Results (see accompanying figure) show
  that the metallic ions are not intermixed, but
  instead are segregated into distinct overlapping
  layers by the action of neutral winds blowing in
  the vacuum of space. This finding confirms a
  theoretical prediction by Chimonas J. Geophys.
  Res., 74, 4189, 1968 regarding the action of
  such winds on ions with differing collision
  cross-sections.
• What role does this result play in the overall
  program and its contribution to OSS Strategic
  Goals)
• The coupling of atmospheric plasmas to the
  neutral atmosphere is of fundamental importance
  to a variety of ionospheric processes, including
  layered structures, scintillation-inducing
  irregularities, and tidal variations. The above
  example helps to quantify our understanding of
  part of this coupling.

Reference Ion layer separation and equilibrium
zonal winds in midlatitude sporadic E, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 27, 461, 2000. (G.D. Earle, T.J.
Kane, R.F. Pfaff, and S.R. Bounds)
15
Geospace RA Sr Rev Goals-1

• Geospace Sciences Senior Review Report will
• Show relevance to OSS Strategic Plan
• Demonstrate scientific vitality of the program
• Report major scientific findings-past 3 years

16
Geospace RA Sr Rev Goals-2

• The report will also Air the issues
• SRT
• Level then-yr dollars program funding
• Abysmal proposal win rate --gt It is nearly a
  lottery
• 146 proposals, 40 rated Ex or Ex/VG, 27 funded
• Marginal annual funding for winning proposals
  (83k/yr)
• LCAS
• Privatization implementation impacts 95 --32
  01-- 8(?)
• Loss of UNEX program - Barrier to entry for all
  but the largest research institutions.
• New meaning of LCAS Lack of Consistent Access
  to Space

17
Geospace RA Sr Rev Goals-3

• The Report will Propose Solutions
• Geospace Instrument Development Program GIDEP --
  A new initiative
• Full Cycle
• Concept instrument development
• Brassboard/breadboard
• Instrument preparation and testing
• Flight validation under Low-Cost Access

18
Geospace Cluster Report Schedule

• Section initial drafts
• March 7
• GMOWG normalization and polishing
• March 7-16
• Draft for red team review/comment/rework
• March 15 - 30
• http//sec.gsfc.nasa.gov/mowgs
• GMOWG working meeting
• Week ending March 30 or April 6
• Finalize and submit
• April 1 - April 15

19
GEOSPACE SCIENCES CLUSTER

• TheEnd