For submission to the BNSC MOSAIC Programme 14 December …sjs/frisbee_mosaic_with_links.pdf · For submission to the BNSC MOSAIC Programme 14 December 2001 Lead Partner Steven J

FRISBEE

(Fast Resolution Investigations by a Space BEE)Boundary Layer and Substorm Physics by a Space

Weather Development Mission

For submission to the BNSC MOSAIC Programme

14 December 2001

Lead PartnerSteven J. SchwartzAstronomy Unit, Queen Mary, University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, UKTel: +44 (0)20 7882 5449, Fax: +44 (0)20 8983 3522, Email: [email protected]

Academic PartnersD Burgess (Queen Mary, London)C Carr, P Cargill, & A Balogh (Imperial College, London)A Coates, CJ Owen, & AN Fazakerley (Mullard Space Science Laboratory)M Lester & SWH Cowley (University of Leicester)T Dimbylow & C Perry (Rutherford Appleton Laboratory)J McFadden (University of California, Berkeley)

Industrial PartnersA da Silva (SSTL)M Smith (Astrium)

FRISBEE 14 December 2001 ii

Contents

1 Science Objectives 11.1 Magnetic Reconnection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.1.1 The Dayside Magnetopause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.1.2 Magnetic Reconnection at the Magnetopause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.1.3 Structure and Stability of the Magnetopause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.1.4 Mid-tail Reconnection and Substorms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.2 The Earth’s Bow Shock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.2.1 Quasi-parallel Shocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.2.2 Quasi-perpendicular Shocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.3 Serendipitous Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2 Mission Description 72.1 Mission Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.2 Mission Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.3 Orbit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.4 FRISBEE Spacecraft Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.4.1 Bus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.4.2 Science Payload - Magnetometer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122.4.3 Science Payload - Plasma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122.4.4 DPU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132.4.5 Upper Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.5 Launch and Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3 Exploitation 14

4 Need for Government Support 16

5 Project Team 175.1 Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

5.1.1 Queen Mary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175.1.2 Imperial College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175.1.3 Mullard Space Science Laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175.1.4 Leicester University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175.1.5 Rutherford Appleton Laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185.1.6 University of California at Berkeley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185.1.7 SSTL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185.1.8 Astrium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

5.2 Management Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185.3 Deliverables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205.4 Technical and Financial Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

6 Project Schedule 206.1 Study Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206.2 Build Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246.3 Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

FRISBEE 14 December 2001 iii

6.4 Wind-Down . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

7 Costs 257.1 Mission Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257.2 In-kind Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

A List of Acronyms 27

B Detailed Work Breakdown Structure 28

C Technical Specifications and Drawings 33

List of Tables1 Length-Time Scales in Solar Terrestrial Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Bus Configuration Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Mass Budget for FRISBEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Power Budget for FRISBEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Plasma Detector Characteristics: per Sensor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Science Data Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Risk Identification and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 Summary of FRISBEE Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 In-Kind Costs Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2710 Magnetometer Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3511 Plasma Sensor Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3712 Upper Stage Mass Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3713 Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3814 In-Kind Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

List of Figures1 High Resolution Magnetopause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 SLAMPs at a Quasi-parallel Shock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Bow Shock Crossing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 The Earth’s Magnetosphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Schematic showing layout of the FRISBEE spacecraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 FRISBEE atop the Hydrazine Upper Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 FRISBEE Orbit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Operations Centre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Project Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1910 Work Breakdown Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111 FRISBEE Project Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2212 Magnetometer Drawing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3413 Plasma Sensor Drawing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

FRISBEE 14 December 2001 iv

Executive SummaryFRISBEE is a UK-led, UK-built, UK-operated mission which builds on past successes to probe newscientific frontiers while developing and demonstrating next-generation UK technology.

FRISBEE will, for the first time, reveal the important microphysical processes which initiate,control, and effect the physics of magnetic reconnection. Reconnection between the interplanetarymagnetic field and the Earth’s magnetic field is responsible for the energisation of particles, for entryinto the lower atmosphere of solar particles, and for the escape of terrestrial plasma. Reconnection inthe Earth’s geomagnetic tail releases large amounts of energy in the form of both flows and acceler-ated particles which populate the van Allen radiation belts, give rise to spectacular aurorae, and cancause partial or total failure of space-borne and ground-level technical systems.

FRISBEE will also probe the internal processes at the Earth’s bow shock. Such collisionlessshocks are responsible for particle heating and acceleration, and, like reconnection, are found in avariety of astrophysical settings, from solar flares to extragalactic radio jets. Yet only near to Earthcan these phenomena be studiedin situ in order to underpin more distant applications.

FRISBEE will, for the first time, study the particle behaviourwithin these important boundarylayers by adopting a multi-sensor approach coupled with a rapid spacecraft spin rate to capture thefull 3D particle kinetic features 10 times more rapidly than any previous mission (or planned futuremission) to the outer magnetosphere. Previous and present missions, such as Cluster, could onlyresolve the consequences of such internal processes by measurements which were removed from thelayers themselves or compromised in terms of smeared measurements which prohibited definitiveidentification and quantification of how these layers accomplish their tasks. Thus while the meso-scale structure and consequences have received a great deal of attention, the micro-scale physics hasnot advanced to the same degree.

Thus FRISBEE will answer several key, outstanding questions, including:

1. Are current theoretical models of Hall reconnection an appropriate and adequate description ofreal reconnection?

2. Why is the magnetopause as thick as it is?

3. What is the role of sub-structure within collisionless shocks in accelerating particles?

4. What governs the division of energy incident on a collisionless shock between the ion andelectron populations?

Throughout the mission, FRISBEE addresses fundamental and universal plasma processes, in-cluding collisionless shocks, particle acceleration, and magnetic reconnection. FRISBEE also ad-dresses numerous technical challenges which must be met for constellation class missions, such asour recent SWARM proposal to ESA, aimed at establishing a large number ofin situstations through-out the magnetosphere. These challenges include the design of a small, inexpensive worker BEE suchas the modular nanosatellite (< 25kg) design put forward in the present proposal. For a small invest-ment the UK can move into a scientific and technical lead which will be unchallengeable for the next5–10 years.

FRISBEE 14 December 2001 1

1 Science ObjectivesFRISBEE addresses directly magnetic reconnection and collisionless shocks, the processes responsi-ble for momentum and energy exchange between the solar and terrestrial environments. Key phenom-ena include particle energisation, collisionless heating and acceleration, and non-steady processes.These fundamental topics arise in nearly all astrophysical environments, yet can only be studiedwithin the near-Earth environment wherein situ sampling of the plasma populations and electro-magnetic fields can be undertaken. This unique plasma physics “laboratory” holds the key to basic,universal problems in astrophysics. Critically, the laboratory conditions are surprisingly favourable:•Collisional mean free paths are long (∼ 1 astronomical unit) so that the pure collisionless aspectsare not compromised.•The Debye lengths are sufficiently large (∼ 10m) that the measuring appara-tus - the spacecraft - sits effectively in vacuo, does not disturb the natural environment, and is ableto measure individual particles together with the electromagnetic fields.•At least in the outer mag-netosphere and solar wind, the particle populations are predominantly protons and accompanyingelectrons, with only small admixtures of other ionic species and rare neutrals.•The gross timescalesof interest generally lie in the range of sub-second to hours, and can generally be resolved by existinginstrumentation, data transmission, and data analysis techniques.

As a result of these features, the main elements of the solar terrestrial system are known. The in-cident supersonic solar wind is slowed and heated at a bow shock, downstream of which it is furtherconditioned in the magnetosheath before impacting the magnetic barrier formed by the Earth’s mag-netic field at the magnetopause. This barrier is imperfect and can be broken, allowing direct access tothe Earth’s polar regions by particles of solar origin, energised by the release of magnetic tension inboth the dayside and extended tail regions of the magnetosphere. The consequences are spectacular(brilliant aurorae), astrophysically interesting (particle acceleration and magnetic reconnection, e.g.,with application to solar flares), and technologically dangerous (damage to communications satellitesand power grids).

Despite our current mature picture of the solar terrestrial system, several outstanding questionsremain:

1. What triggers the magnetic reconnection process and what local processes control its rate andduration? Are the current ‘Hall reconnection’ theories an appropriate framework?

2. How do microscale processes (turbulence, dc field structures, particle dynamics) subsume therole of collisions in the boundary layer phenomena which control mass, momentum, and energytransfer between solar and terrestrial environments? Why is the magnetopause as thick as it is?Are there other processes apart from reconnection operating?

3. How is energy partitioned between the main plasma constituents at the bow shock? Whatprocess(es) control this energy exchange? What controls the injection rate into acceleratedparticles?

4. How do these microscale processes relate to meso- and macro-scale structure?

Questions about microscale processes and electron/ion plasma constituents require measurementson commensurate length and timescales. Table 1 provides an overview of the key parameters invarious regions of the magnetosphere. FRISBEE will dive into the 3D meso-scale structures revealedby Cluster to study the micro-scale processes which lay within. Good measurements of the 3Dkinetic phase space distributions will enable FRISBEE to identify, characterise, and quantify the


Table 1: Length-Time Scales in Solar Terrestrial BoundariesRegion Scale Length Relative Speed TimeDayside Magnetopause: Diffusion RegionElectron Scales e− Inertial, Larmor 2km 10-50km/s 0.04-0.2sIntermediate Scales βec/ωpi 25km 10-50km/s 0.5-2.5sHall Scales Ion inertialc/ωpi 85km 10-50km/s 1.7-8.5s

Tail Plasma SheetElectron Scales e− Inertial, Larmor 7km 30-100km/s 0.07-0.23sHall Scales Ion inertialc/ωpi 300km 30-100km/s 3-10sThin Current Sheets Ion Larmor 70km 30-100km/s 0.7-2.3s

Quasi-parallel BowshockSLAMPs Reflected Ion Larmor 1000km 50-500km/s 2-20sShocklets Ion Inertial 100km 50-500km/s 0.2-2s

Quasi-perpendicular BowshockRamp/Whistler Ion Inertialc/ωpi 100km 30km/s 3sFoot/Downstream Cycles Refl. Ion Larmor 1000km 30km/s 30sInternal Structures Electron Larmor 10km 30km/s 0.3sInternal Structures Electron Inertial 2km 30km/s <0.1s

Note: Conversion from length to timescales assume no intrinsic temporal variation

plasma sources, sinks, currents, filamentary beams, and related micro-physical processes at the heartof phenomena in collisionless plasmas.

1.1 Magnetic Reconnection1.1.1 The Dayside Magnetopause

The dayside magnetopause represents a prime example of an astrophysical current sheet. As suchit provides a vital opportunity to study the structure of such layers and their role in separating plas-mas of different origins. The stability of these layers is also crucial to the occurrence of magneticreconnection, and the associated heating, acceleration and mixing of the plasmas on either side ofthe current sheet. This process is fundamental to the exchange of energy between magnetic fieldsand collisionless astrophysical plasmas. It is central to the exchange of mass, momentum, and en-ergy between the solar and terrestrial environments, and almost certainly plays a pivotal role in widerastrophysical plasmas, such as solar flares, interplanetary current sheets, extragalactic jets, accre-tion disks, etc. Recent decades have seen major advances in our understanding of the structure anddynamics of the magnetopause, particularly in the areas of modeling and simulation. However, fun-damental questions remain unresolved, particularly in relation to the reconnection process, largely asa result of an almost total absence of high-time resolution plasma measurements from these regions.These questions appear prominently in PPARC’s Long Term Science Review for the Solar System.

1.1.2 Magnetic Reconnection at the Magnetopause

Evidence for the occurrence of magnetic reconnection at the dayside magnetopause has come fromobservations made within the relatively large-scale boundary layers up- and downstream from thecurrent layer. This evidence includes observations of accelerated flows at speeds consistent with the


−90

0

90

θ°

14 11 34 14 11 36 14 11 38 14 11 40 14 11 420

20

40

|B| (

nT)

1998 Feb 11, hour min sec (UT)

0

5

Np (

cm−

3 )

Figure 1: The magnetopause current layer seen in high resolution (128 magnetic field vectors persecond) by the Equator-S spacecraft, together with the fastest plasma density measurement to date(squares). Note the inability of the plasma data to probe the processes within the current layer.FRISBEE improves on this resolution by an order of magnitude.

expectations of reconnection theory, and ion distributions with a characteristic D-shape, also con-sistent with theory. However, these observations are made outside the region in which reconnectionoccurs. They can be thought of as the large-scale consequences of the associated magnetic fieldreconfiguration, and are not indicative of the physics of this process itself.

The magnetic field reconfiguration itself is believed to occur within a highly localized ‘diffusionregion’ surrounding a magnetic null point. The scale size of this region is such that the magneto-hydrodynamic ‘frozen-in magnetic flux’ approximation is not valid. Under these circumstances oneor more microphysical processes control the dynamics of this region. These may include Hall ef-fects, the effects of electron pressure gradients, electron inertia effects or the effects of anomalousplasma resistivity associated with electromagnetic plasma waves. These processes occur on scalesbetween a few to a few tens of kilometers (see Table 1) and may cause the breaking of the field duringreconnection or control the reconnection rate.

In recent years there have been numerous models of reconnection based on one or more of theseprocesses. However, the total lack of plasma measurements at the fast time scales needed to resolvethe diffusion region, or other, related small-scale structures within the current layer, have preventedany observational test of these models. Neither is it possible to make an assessment of the roles ofthese microphysical processes in the stability of the magnetopause and the formation of a diffusionregion. Despite its fundamental nature, the magnetic reconnection process itself is thus almost en-tirely unknown from an observational viewpoint. Indeed, we do not know how, why or when thediffusion regions form on the dayside magnetopause, nor the dependence of this process on the largerscale properties of the solar-terrestrial system, such as interplanetary field direction or solar windspeed. FRISBEE will answer these questions, first posed by Dungey 40 years ago.


1.1.3 Structure and Stability of the Magnetopause

Previous spacecraft missions suggest that the dayside magnetopause current layer is of order 10 iongyroradii thick (∼800km). This contrasts with simple theoretical considerations which suggest themagnetic field rotation should occur within a single gyroradius. More sophisticated models andsimulations have predicted thicknesses of a few ion gyroradii and suggest that the current layer maycontain various plasma substructures and/or a number of separate discontinuities which support thechange in the magnetic field and plasma parameters from one side to the other. Such structures aremodel-dependent but in all cases vary as a function of the upstream solar wind and interplanetarymagnetic field conditions.

Observationally, however, very little is known about the plasma populations and dynamics withinthe current layers as they have yet to be resolved by previous and present instrumentation (see Fig-ure 1). High-time resolution plasma measurements are needed to distinguish between models and in-deed to determine the origin and properties of these current layer populations. For example, particlestrapped within the current layer may control the transition lengths and the position of the drift currentlayer within the magnetopause layer itself. In addition, small-scale structures within the current layer,such as localised filamentary currents, may play key roles in disturbing particle orbits to the point thatthey drive the magnetopause to instability. Such instabilities may result in magnetic reconnection orthe diffusion of plasmas through the magnetopause. The latter may play a role in the unexplainedpopulations of solar wind plasmas on closed field lines within the magnetosphere and/or the escapeof energetic magnetospheric particles upstream into the solar wind. In addition, such processes maybe modified by the action of magnetopause surface waves, driven either by pressure variations in theupstream solar wind or by Kelvin-Helmholtz instabilities. These waves may generate small-scalevortex structures which again cannot be resolved with present generation plasma instrumentation, butwhich may also play key roles in the coupling of plasmas across the magnetopause.

1.1.4 Mid-tail Reconnection and Substorms

Magnetic reconnection in the dayside regions of the magnetosphere causes the convection of mag-netic flux over the Earth’s polar regions and into the geomagnetic tail. Eventually, this flux loadingis violently relaxed by processes in tail, either by the formation of a near-Earth neutral line (NENL)at distances∼ 20−30Re (by comparison with the quiescent reconnection site believed to be at dis-tances∼ 100−200Re downtail), or by the disruption of the cross-tail current at even closer regionsin the tail. The Expansion Phase of the substorm deposits energetic particles in the auroral regions,where ground-based radars study the dynamic flow patterns in the footprint regions and polar-orbitingspacecraft (such as Cluster) study the dynamic particle populations.

Despite the presence of existing facilities, to date it has proved impossible to distinguish theNENL hypothesis from the current disruption model, because the coverage of the intervening 10s ofRe is too sparse to uniquely interpret the data in terms of a spatial and temporal sequence.

FRISBEE addresses directly these deficiencies. Its orbit design means it will dwell for long pe-riods (∼ 33hours) in the key intermediate regions of the tail. This coverage facilitates coordinatedmeasurements with ground facilities and other spacecraft and increases the number of events cap-tured by these multi-point multi-facility studies. Additionally, FRISBEE will dwell for long periodswithin the plasma sheet where its unique fast plasma measurements will resolve the micro-processescontrolling reconnection there.


Figure 2: Short Large Amplitude Pulsations observed by the 4 Cluster spacecraft in the vicinity ofthe quasi-parallel bow shock. The horizontal bars show a 4s cadence as required by the particleinstrument integration and reveal the extreme time aliasing which is so introduced.

1.2 The Earth’s Bow ShockThe Earth’s Bow Shock represents the prime example of a collisionless shock, with vital astrophysicallessons concerning the existence and structure of such shocks, their role in decelerating, deflecting,and heating flowing plasmas, and their role in important non-thermal processes including particleacceleration and energy partition amongst the constituent populations. The very existence of a col-lisionless shock initiated controversy prior to its observation in space. The past 30 years have seenenormous advances in our appreciation of the morphology and detailed physics of the bow shock.Yet despite these efforts, fundamental questions remain.

Advances over the years have concentrated on the bow shock position, on the large-scale impact inthe form of electron and ion “foreshock” regions populated by energised particles and accompanyingturbulence, and on characterising the field structure within the shock layer together with the kineticsignatures of processes accompanying these structures. A key controlling parameter is the orientationof the interplanetary field with respect to vector normal to the local shock plane.

1.2.1 Quasi-parallel Shocks

When the interplanetary field is roughly aligned with the shock normal, under the collisionless plasmaconditions in the solar wind particles are free to traverse the shock in both directions. This resultsin an extended “foreshock” region which is the site of electron and ion beams, waves, turbulence,and classic first-order Fermi acceleration. Such ion beams drive electromagnetic instabilities withtimescales comparable to the proton gyroperiod (5-10s). As these evolve, they steepen to discreet“shocklets” with scales controlled by the whistler waves which, due to their dispersive nature, carryenergy away from the shocklets and thus limit the steepening.

Deep in this foreshock lurk Short Large Amplitude Magnetic Pulsations (SLAMPs) which arebelieved to play the dominant role in both the thermalisation of the incident plasma (via reflection,shocklets, and mixing/thermalisation analogous to that at quasi-perpendicular shocks) and in thenon-thermal acceleration of a subset of particles to high energies. Figure 2 shows two SLAMPsobserved by Cluster on 2nd of February 2001. The spacecraft were separated by∼600km, and theSLAMPs duration is 5-10s. With such brief events, the particle integration time of 4s inevitably mixesmeasurements taken in different parts of a single SLAMP, and typically encompasses both interiorand exterior regions. The horizontal bars show a 4s integration cadence and reveal the inability ofmeasurements at this resolution to characterise the particle behaviour within and, critically, near theboundaries of SLAMPs where the reflection and Fermi acceleration is likely to take place.


1.2.2 Quasi-perpendicular Shocks

When the interplanetary field is oriented “quasi-perpendicular” to the local shock normal the shockreflects a significant number (∼ 10%) of the incident ions. These reflected ions gyrate into the up-stream region before being returned to the shock and transmitted downstream. The resulting mixtureof directly transmitted solar wind ions and dispersed gyrating ions collectively fulfill the shock’s rai-son d’̂etre: to decelerate and “heat” the incident solar wind. The agents responsible for this processare believed to be a combination of dc electromagnetic fields within the thin (10’s of km) shock rampfollowed by secondary randomisation and thermalisation in the downstream turbulent regions.

The impact on the electron population is equally dramatic: the dc potential jump tears a gapinghole in the centre of the distribution. This hole has never been observed, nor the processes which serveto fill it in and yield the “flat-top” distributions routinely observed there. This process is displayedin Figure 3. The electron behaviour is controlled by the dc electrostatic potential in concert withhigh frequency electromagnetic turbulent scattering, while the ion reflection involves a combinationof electric and magnetic effects (the “non-coplanar” component of the magnetic field is believed toaccount for the difference between the bulk flow energy lost by an ion and the lesser energy acquiredby an electron). Thus, these detailed fields and particle behaviour govern entirely the partition ofincident energy between the ions and electrons. This partition is theoretically a free parameter, sincethe shock conservation laws only impose constraints on the total energy flux.

The sampling of the particle data, at a cadence of 4s as shown in Figure 3, is incapable of resolvingthe physics of the ion reflection and electron flat-top formation described above. Yet this 4s samplingrate by Cluster is amongst the fastest undertaken in space; no full 3D particle measurements have everbeen taken at the bow shock with a resolution better than 3s. Accordingly, whilst the results of theenergy partition are clearly visible in the data, the physical processes are poorly understood. This hasprevented the construction of a theoretical framework applicable under the more extreme conditionsfound in other regions of the universe.

Similar, though less severe, comments apply to the ion randomisation processes occurring via thelarger-scale oscillations seen, for example, in the right of Figure 3 after the main steep ramp. Thesevariations, on scales∼ 5s, are smeared out by 4s particle sampling. At the other extreme, on smallscales there are believed to be ripples in the shock which trap and accelerate particles. Althoughsuch ripples have been seen in detailed numerical simulations, their identification in the data, andconfirmation of their influence on the particles, has proved elusive.

1.3 Serendipitous ScienceThe highly eccentric FRISBEE orbit means that FRISBEE will pass through and dwell within manyregions of interest. When the apogee is on the sunward side of the Earth, FRISBEE will monitor the“clean” solar wind (prior to its contamination by foreshock particles or its modification by processesat the shock and within the magnetosheath), yet close enough to allow good correlative timings andtherefore matching between interplanetary disturbances and consequences in the outer cusp and atground level. Other secondary science targets include the foreshock region itself and the magne-tosheath on the dayside, and the inner magnetosphere throughout the mission.


Figure 3: (left)Solar wind and magnetosheath electrons at a quasi-perpendicular bow shock, togetherwith the result of adding the inferred electrostatic potential to the field-aligned electrons.(right) Mag-netic field (top) and density (bottom) profiles through the same shock. The particle measurements, at4 second resolution, are totally unresolved within both the initial “foot” and subsequent steep “ramp”.

2 Mission Description

2.1 Mission GoalsFRISBEE is a UK-led, UK-build, UK-operated mission with three clear and complementary objec-tives:

1. Answering key questions concerning magnetic reconnection in collisionless plasmas by com-bined particle and field measurements at a temporal resolution which, for the first time, matchesthat of the microphysical processes believed to be operating.

2. Answering key questions concerning the micro-scale processes which operate within and con-trol particle heating and acceleration at collisionless shocks.

3. Developing and demonstrating modular, nano-satellite technology for re-use in constellation-class missions to study the global solar terrestrial problem, placing the UK in prime position tocontinue its European lead in this type of project and be able to respond decisively to industrialand scientific announcements of opportunity and tender actions.

To meet these objectives, FRISBEE carries 2 ion sensors, an electron sensor, and a magnetometeron-board a nano-satellite which offers modular and capable services.

2.2 Mission ConceptThe FRISBEE mission lasts two years, to provide two opportunities to study each of the target regionsas the orbit precesses relative to the Earth-Sun line. The configuration is such that the two ion sensorsare spaced 90◦ around the common spin axis. With 360◦ field-of-view detectors, a complete 3D iondistribution can be sampled in one-quarter of a spin period, and an electron distribution in one-half of


Figure 4: Sketch show-ing the main regionsof the Earth’s magne-tosphere and hypothe-sised locations of thenear Earth neutral line(NENL) and current dis-ruption regions. FRIS-BEE is targeted at theseregions.

a spin. With a fast spin period (1s), this is adequate to resolve all the ion microscales shown in Table 1and nearly all the phenomena characterised by electron length scales. For example, each samplinginterval shown in Figure 2 would be divided into 16 complete samples.

2.3 OrbitFRISBEE will be launched into an equatorial orbit in order to target the main boundary layers’ mostactive locations (subsolar bow shock/magnetopause and mid-tail). A high apogee (∼30Re) reachesimportant tail distances and provides good coverage of the dayside boundary layers even well awayfrom noon local time. Perigee is set at 2000km altitude to enable good positional and orbit deter-mination information via onboard GPS hardware. Radiation studies also feed into the final perigeeselected.

2.4 FRISBEE Spacecraft Description2.4.1 Bus

The baseline FRISBEE utilises a SSTL nanosatellite bus with a total mass of 24.2kg including sciencepayload. Communications, power and attitude control are provided by the standard SSTL subsystemswhich, together with other systems, are summarised in Table 2. To provide adequate EM cleanliness,all surfaces need to be conductively coated. The spacecraft concept consists of an 8-sided structure,225mm×600mm square aluminium honeycomb top and baseplate. The accommodation can be seenin the sketch in Figure 5. The spacecraft will spin at 60rpm to facilitate fast plasma measurements;the spin axis is nominally perpendicular to the ecliptic plane.

Tables 3 and 4 provides an overview of the mass and power specifications. Mass breakdownfor the Hydrazine Upper Stage is shown in the Appendix at Table 12. Total mass of FRISBEE andHydrazine Upper Stage is 78.6kg. The addition of a 35% mass contingency leaves the total wellwithin a 120kg launcher limit.

Specific subsystem components include:

Power Primary power to the satellite is supplied via 4 solar panels (Multi-junction GaAs cells),measuring 220mm high× 310mm, fixed to the four side panels of the structure and delivering21.6 W orbit average power (25W instantaneous peak). An 8 AmpHour Lithium Ion battery


Table 2: Bus Configuration SummarySubsystem Description Comments

Power Body-mounted panels base-lined

21.6W orbit average

Communications S-band system, DSN Flight-qualified Tx & Rx to beused

Command & data handling Data storage via mass storagemedia

2 Gbytes space-qualified sys-tem to be used

ADCS Spin-stabilised 8 × thrusters (4× axial (±)and 4× tangential (±))

Structure Aluminium Top and BaseplateModule boxes are not struc-tural members

On board Propulsion Xenon propulsion system Preliminary Baseline is 1tank;∆V 15m/s

Upper Stage Hydrazine propulsion system ∆V 650 m/sThermal Control System Passive system Thermal tapeAttach fitting (Upper stage) Ring attach fitting with pyros

is baselined.Final design dependent onspacecraft coupled loads anal-ysis

Bee separation mechanism Dual redundant pyro system Final design dependent onspacecraft coupled loads anal-ysis

Figure 5: Schematic showing layout of the FRISBEE spacecraft


Table 3: Mass Budget for FRISBEE

FRISBEE Mass Mass Quant. Total SizeEach Mass xyz mm

BeeS−band Rx 1.3 11 1.3 190x135x44Rx antennas and harness 0.13 22 0.25 60x60x20S−band Tx 0.8 11 0.8 190x135x22S−band HPA 0.8 11 0.8 190x135x22Tx antennas and harness 0.2 11 0.2 60x50OBC 0.6 22 1.2 190x135x33ADCS controller 0.4 11 0.4 190x135x33Propulsion controller 0.8 11 0.8 190x135x34Magnetorquers 0.1 33 0.3 250x50x50Magnetometer 0.15 22 0.3 130x90x36Sun sensor 0.3 22 0.6 100x110x30Xenon tank 1.05 11 1.05 280x40Fill/drain valve 0.04 11 0.04Transducer 0.05 22 0.1Solenoid valve 0.13 22 0.25Filter 0.05 11 0.05Plenum 0.4 11 0.4Piping 0.7 11 0.7Thrusters 0.04 88 0.32Xenon 0.8 11 0.8Power system 0.3 11 0.3 190x135x33Solar panels 0.2 44 0.8 200x400x10Battery 0.9 11 0.9Ion sensor 0.9 22 1.8Electron sensor 0.9 11 0.9GPS 0.1 11 0.1Magnetometer head&boom 1.2 11 1.2Magnetometer release 0.4 11 0.4Magnetometer electronics 0.35 11 0.35Base plate 1.5 11 1.5 570x570x20Brackets 0.5 11 0.5Payload plate 11 11 11Top plate 0.6 11 0.6 400x400x10Balancing mass 0.5 11 0.5Harness 0.5 11 0.5Margin 10 %% 2.2One Bee 24.21


Table 4: Power Budget for FRISBEESub−systems Power (W) S−band version

Each Quantity Duty−cycle OAPS−band Downconvertor 1.15 11 100 1.15S−band Rx 0.35 11 100 0.35S−band Tx 44 11 20 0.8S−band HPA 29 11 20 5.8OBC (OBC695+1Gbyte) 55 11 100 55ADCS controller 0.5 11 100 0.5Magnetorquer 0.1 33 55 0.02Magnetometer 0.35 11 100 0.35Sun sensor 0.05 11 100 0.05DPU (OBC695+1Gbyte) 55 11 40 22Ion and Electron sensors 1.5 33 16 0.72Magnetometer payload 0.8 11 100 0.8Power system 0.5 11 100 0.5Margin (%) 10 1.8Total Platform power 19.84

pack will act as storage. With this capability, the payload and platform requirements (seeTable 4) can be met during eclipses and for standard orbit operations. The supply will be 28Vwith a 5V line direct to the science payload. A dedicated payload power converter will provideadditional services to the science instrumentation.

Communications will use an S-band transceiver through an omni-directional receiving antenna anddipole transmitting antenna. Preliminary link analysis shows that contact periods of 4 hoursduration and longer under 60,000km altitude are feasible at 1 Mbits per second into the RALreceiving station, with the possibility of twice that rate for shorter periods at lower altitudes.The total possible data transfer rate is therefore in excess of 14Gbits per contact period.

Navigation will use the SSTL SGR-05 GPS receiver. Good positional information can be derivedover the portion of the orbit below∼ 20,000 km altitudes. From this, the entire orbit can bedetermined to high precision. Studies of the achievable precision will be undertaken, and areof wide interest, for determining orbital elements.

ADCS will employ a system of 8 Xenon gas thrusters for attitude, spin, and orbit control. Magnetictorquing will be available to adjust the spin-vector. Attitude and spin-phase will be providedby a pair of Sun-Earth sensors to a post-processing accuracy of±1◦. Accurate on board timingis provided by data from a crystal oscillator.

On Board Data Handling SSTL is proposing to use its 695 model processor, which is currentlydue to fly on a number of missions, as a baseline. This hardware is being developed to meetESA specifications for radiation tolerance in a number of demanding applications. The modelto be used on the FRISBEE mission will be developed with rad hard components selected forthe expected radiation levels. SSTL will provide 16Gbits of radiation hard RAM for payloaddata storage. On board communication will be via a Control Area Network (CAN) network,a key proven element of SSTL’s microsatellite system. The science payload interface will beprovided by asecond OBC processorfor all commanding, data storage and manipulation, andpackaging. Telemetry and storage limitations prevent 100% science duty cycle. Data will be


selected during planned 6-12hour passes through the boundaries of interest. On-board triggeralgorithms will be employed to select events based on scientific criteria if storage or visibilityrestricts this below scientifically useful limits. Experience from the FAST mission will betransferred here.

SSTL’s experience of over 20 spacecraft builds will be drawn upon in order to implement themission in an efficient manner. The schedule of the mission will influence the final fabrication andassembly approach. The model philosophy will be defined during the study; however, it is envisagedthere will be a Structural Qualification Model produced to test the structure. Upon completion, theFRISBEE FM and the payloads will be integrated and tested (EMC, Moments of Inertia, Vibrationand Thermal Vacuum).

2.4.2 Science Payload - Magnetometer

The triaxial fluxgate magnetometer is located at the end of a 1.6m folding boom. The magnetometeris based on a long heritage of similar instruments and will sample the magnetic field at 128 vectorsper second with an accuracy of 0.05 nT. The sampling period is chosen to be synchronised withthe plasma instruments’ azimuthal sweep rates to eliminate time-aliasing between the two datasets.EM cleanliness to 1.0 nT at the end of the magnetometer boom is required, with stability to 0.1 nT.Figure 12 in the Appendix provides a detailed view of the magnetometer.

2.4.3 Science Payload - Plasma

The particle detectors (see Figure 13 in the Appendix for a technical drawing) are based on a com-mon unit incorporating a miniaturized electrostatic analyser based on Cluster PEACE and CassiniELS heritage. A prototype, funded by a technology development programme, is currently underconstruction. A minimum resolution of 15 Energy× 8 Azimuthal× 4 Polar bins is possible; thebaseline resolution consistent with the science objectives will employ a resolution of 60 Energy× 16Azimuthal× 8 Polar bins. Event selection by on-board trigger detection within the common payloadDPU and/or restricted data-taking will be employed to match the data rates and available telemetry.

The detectors are corner-mounted on the spacecraft with a full 360◦ field of view in a planeparallel to the spin axis. Thus full 4π ster-radian coverage by a single sensor is accomplished inhalf a spin period. The two ion sensors are mounted on adjacent corners, so that their fields of vieware 90◦ with respect to each other; thus their combined data have a resolution of a quarter of a spinperiod, i.e., 0.25s.

The electron sensor has similar design, and is mounted on a third corner of the spacecraft. Cornermounting minimises contamination by electrons from the spacecraft body and the effects of stray EMspacecraft fields. Full electron measurements are provided every half spin, i.e., every 0.5s.

Table 5 sets out the main science specifications. Meeting stringent mass, power and telemetryconstraints will require innovations in miniaturization and data compression which are key for futuremissions.

Special design will be required to enable the ion portion to resolve both the narrow solar wind ionbeam and also the hot, broad magnetosheath ions. This requires a combination of tailored geometricfactor and anode design within the sensor head and special instrument modes. The electron detectoris optimized for the thermal electron populations.


Table 5: Plasma Detector Characteristics: per SensorMode Energy Range Resolution per Spin Frequency Data Words/Spin

En× Azim × PolMinimal 0.01-30keV 15× 8× 4 2/spin 960Normal 0.01-30keV 60× 16× 8 2/spin 15360

Table 6: Science Data RatesMinimal Mode Instrument Words/s kbits/s

Magnetometer 384Ions 1920Electrons 960Housekeeping 32

Total 3296 26.4

Normal Mode Magnetometer 384Ions 30720Electrons 15360Housekeeping 32

Total 46496 372.0

Notes1 Words to bits assumes 2 byte science word and factor 2 compression; i.e., 8 bit telemetry require-ment.2 Housekeeping includes time stamps.

2.4.4 DPU

Both instruments will be controlled by a dedicated data processing unit (DPU) within the spacecraftbus which handles instrument power distribution, commands, data accumulation, processing, storage,and telemetry/spacecraft interfacing. The data budget is shown in Table 6.

Twelve hours of data, targeted during the dayside campaigns at 6 hour traversals from inside themagnetosphere to beyond the bow shock for both outbound and inbound portions of the orbit, will fillthe 16Gbits of semiconductor memory. There it can be held long enough for downlink at 1Mbps (orhigher) for 4 hours under 60,000km near perigee. The development of combined DPU technologyand interfaces paves the way for future small spacecraft, multi-point missions where mass, power andcost are at a premium.

2.4.5 Upper Stage

A hydrazine upper stage (see Figure 6) has been designed to perform all orbit insertion manoeuvresafter delivery to GTO. This stage, with a total∆V capability of 650m/s, relies on an internal link tothe nanosatellite for all power and commanding. The nanosatellite also provides all ADCS servicesduring this phase of the mission. A mass budget for the upper stage is shown in the Appendix atTable 12.


Figure 6: FRISBEE atop the HydrazineUpper Stage

2.5 Launch and OperationsFRISBEE is launched into GTO by an Ariane V ASAP. Further study may yield some cost reductionby utilising an alternative vehicle, such as a DNEPR. The working orbit has a semi-major axis of15Re, which makes its period∼ 3 days. Fine tuning will ensure that the orbit perigee remains inphase with the ground station for optimal data transfer throughout the mission. Figure 7 shows equaltime intervals around the orbit. A mono-propellant motor provides controlled thrust for apogee andperigee raising manoeuvres.

Perigee height is determined by other constraints, including GPS, orbit evolution, and radiationdose, but could be as low as 2000kmaltitude, making apogee at or beyond 28.5Re.

All spacecraft operations and downlink will be done within the UK. The baseline operations in-volves re-utilisation of the Beagle-2 Operations Centre within the National Space Centre in Leicester(see Figure 8), taking advantage of the public forum provided there. Telemetry links will use therecently refurbished facility at RAL. The data processing would be handled by the UK CDHF (a jointRAL/QM undertaking), currently supporting UK Cluster data processing. Instrument teams wouldcalibrate and process the data. Data would be open to the entire FRISBEE team, with a high qualityprocessed products deposited at the CDHF for access by the STP community at large. Other oper-ations options are also available, including commercial facilities at SSTL. These will be exploredfurther during the study phase of the mission.

3 ExploitationFRISBEE has two categories of end-users. The project team is drawn directly from both categories. Adedicated work package is in place to foster and monitor the full exploitation potential of the mission.

The academic scientists, both within the partnership and the wider community, require high-quality observations to study fundamental reconnection and shock microscale processes which con-trol the entire solar terrestrial interaction. On the dayside, the FRISBEE orbit passes through key


Figure 7: FRISBEE orbit in the tail.Equally-space (∼ 15hour) intervals areshown.

Figure 8: Beagle-2 Operations Centre facility at the National Space Centre, Leicester, which will bere-used for FRISBEE.


equatorial reconnection sites near the sub-solar point, traverses the bow shock, and then spends con-siderable time in the solar wind immediately upstream of the Earth. This permits accurate timingand event matching with phenomena observed by spacecraft located within the magnetosphere andby ground-based solar terrestrial facilities (such as CUTLASS and SuperDARN radars and ground-based magnetometers). The mid-geomagnetic tail (∼ 30Re) is a key region in that it lies betweendistant reconnection sites (∼ 100− 200Re) under quiescent times and near Earth sites (20− 30Re)during storm times.

The synergy between FRISBEE and the wider UK STP community is underpinned by an opendata policy for the mission. Basic parameters will be processed and placed online for public accessautomatically. The full set of high quality fully calibrated data will be made available at regularintervals throughout the mission.

The key instrumentation offers a rich dataset which is matched to the scientific expertise andareas of interest of the team and of considerable importance for studying the boundary layers ofthe magnetosphere. The fast plasma measurements offer the first opportunity to resolve, and henceelucidate, the processes and controlling parameters for the partition of mass, momentum and energyexchange between solar and terrestrial plasmas. (Cluster focuses, by contrast, on the meso-scalespatio-temporal structure of the boundary regions, and the polar cusp phenomena.)

The UK space industry requires the development and flight qualification of a small, capable,low-cost and reliable worker bee for more global, multi-point missions such as SWARM and oth-ers being considered by ESA and NASA, and highlighted in PPARC’s Long Term Science Review.Demonstration of industrial capability on such an international stage would put the UK space indus-try in a favourable position to secure major construction projects. Additionally, FRISBEE utilisesseveral innovative sub-systems, such as a low-mass data handling system, GPS for highly eccentrichigh-apogee orbits, miniaturised common payload electronics, and small low-mass detectors, whichhave wider applicability to other space projects, but for which the final stages of development andflight qualification are required. Finally, FRISBEE is a fully UK-led, constructed, and operated mis-sion of international impact.

The Study Phase details the design, sophistication, and commercial viability of the next-generationsub-systems and detector miniaturisations, and their implementation in a modular approach utilizingnanosatellite technology. Technical Reports represent an early output of the project.

4 Need for Government SupportFRISBEE demonstrates that internationally competitive, leading-edge science can be accomplishedby unilateral space projects in the STP area. While other STP projects, and other branches of as-tronomy, require bi- or multi-lateral projects and need to be pursued within, e.g., the ESA frame-work, such projects have long lead times, are complicated by international delays, and constrain bothscience and industrial involvement. The period between project starts is lengthening, making it in-creasingly difficult to hold teams at HEIs and SMEs together; vital national expertise is being lostincluding both science and technical/industrial prowess.

National programmes such as MOSAIC alleviate the impact of such possible losses by their rapidresponse and lack of external dependencies. In cases such as FRISBEE where world-beating sciencecan be undertaken, the national reward is huge for a modest investment.

Being a science-driven mission, FRISBEE has no immediate alternative source of funding otherthan the PPARC/BNSC partnership within the MOSAIC programme. Some modest “in-kind” contri-butions from industry, HEFCE staff, PPARC support to HEI Rolling Grants, and the National Space


Centre have been identified, but these cannot of themselves support the costs of instrument building,spacecraft construction, launch, and operations.

5 Project Team

5.1 MembersThe FRISBEE Team is a small, cohesive unit which brings together the full complement of expertiseand experience necessary to guarantee success of the mission.

5.1.1 Queen Mary

The FRISBEE team is led by QM (Prof. SJ Schwartz, overall Principal Investigator, and Dr. DBurgess). QM provides management, science direction and data services for the project, buildingon our roles in AMPTE UKS and more recently as Project Scientist and major contributors to the UKCluster Science Centre and mission-wide Data System. QM software tools are used by space plasmagroups around the world. We led the innovative SWARM proposal to ESA’s F2/F3 call for missions,and participate in ESA’s Space Weather Working Group. Both QM principals have been active at highlevels in PPARC planning committees and are well-versed in the UK’s strategy for STP research (seehttp://www.space-plasma.qmul.ac.uk/UK STP, the UK STP community’s strategy documentfor the new millennium which was shepherded and edited by SJS).

5.1.2 Imperial College

Dr. C Carr, lead, Profs. P Cargill and A Balogh provide the magnetometer. The group at IC has along and distinguished history of space-borne magnetometers, including AMPTE UKS, Ulysses, andCluster, all of which were/are outstanding scientific successes.

5.1.3 Mullard Space Science Laboratory

Drs AJ Coates, lead, CJ Owen and AN Fazakerley provide the plasma instruments. These are novel,low-mass analysers; a prototype has been built and tested under the MSSL-UCL Rolling Grant, basedin part on Cluster and Cassini heritage. MSSL-UCL has an excellent track record in innovative space-borne measurements of plasma particles including on AMPTE UKS, Giotto, CRRES, Polar, Cluster,and Cassini. MSSL-UCL has gained scientific leadership in several key areas of space plasma physicsfrom these involvements. MSSL-UCL recently participated in one of the ESA space weather con-sortia, leading a study on space instrumentation and system requirements, and is active in additionalspace weather studies engaging real users.

5.1.4 Leicester University

Profs. M Lester, lead, and SWH Cowley provide science input and coordination with ground-basedfacilities. Leicester has international responsibilities for the operation of important ground-basedradars and considerable scientific expertise in dayside and nightside reconnection/substorms, pulsa-tions and other magnetospheric phenomena.


Additionally, Leicester provides interfaces to the National Space Centre Public Understanding ofScience activities and spacecraft operations support. PUS forms an important component of FRIS-BEE which, due to its focus on unilateral UK activities, represents an ideal opportunity for nationalinterest.

5.1.5 Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

Dr. T Dimbylow is the director of the Satellite Operations Group at the Rutherford Appleton Lab-oratory. He is the manager for the Cluster Joint Satellite Operations Centre. The RAL group haveconsiderable experience in spacecraft operations and tracking including the STP spacecraft AMPTE-UKS and ACE. RAL also hosts the UK STP Co-ordinated Data Handling Facility, an offshoot of theUK Cluster Data Centre activities managed by Dr. C Perry, which will host the FRISBEE data accessand archival system.

5.1.6 University of California at Berkeley

Dr. J McFadden from Berkeley will contribute expertise and experience in the area of fast plasmameasurements and boundary triggers, drawing on his highly successful FAST mission design and op-eration. This sole non-UK participation adds key, targeted knowledge together with science directionas viewed from an international perspective.

5.1.7 SSTL

The industrial prime contractor is Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd (A da Silva). SSTL has over 20years’ experience in building and flying successful, cost-effective, small satellites.

5.1.8 Astrium

Astrium UK (Dr. M Smith) will play an important role in project oversight and Quality Assurance.Experience has shown this second industrial input to be invaluable in providing creative, alternativesolutions to problems as they arise, and to identifying potential problem areas early.

5.2 Management PlanFigure 9 shows the overall structure of the project management. The management is designed to bestreamlined but effective, consistent with a small, low cost project.

Steering Committee - representatives from PPARC, BNSC, DTI together with principals from theproject. Performs the traditional steering role to verify at key stages that the project can bedelivered successfully on time and within budget.

Science Team- all the academic partners and representatives of the wider UK STP community. Toplan in detail the science operations and ensure that the spacecraft and instrument design canmeet the science objectives. Advises the Project PI. Input from the wider UK STP communityis fed into the project via the Science Team.

Project PI - overall responsibility for the project


ProjectManager

to be appointed

Steering CommPPARC, BNSC,

DTI, ...

PISJ Schwartz

QMScience Team

All AcadPartners

Payload ProjectEngineer

(drawn fromIC/MSSL)

SpacecraftProject

ManagerSSTL

OpsManager(drawn from

RAL,Leicester)

Mag: IC SSTL RAL

Plasma: MSSL Leicester

SSTL

QAAdvisor

UKSTP

Figure 9: FRISBEE project management structure

Project Manager - a critical post, responsible for the day-to-day management of the project. Laysdown the detailed requirements for project documentation and scheduling. Coordinates amongstpayload, spacecraft, and operations segments to specify and monitor all necessary interfaces.Responsible for verifying that the project proceeds according to schedule and within budget.Also provides necessary Quality Assurance documentation, testing, and reporting.

QA Advisor - to advise PI on Quality Assurance aspects, appointing deputy QA inspectors for in-dustrial and laboratory visits in association with key stages and tests.

Payload Project Engineer - drawn from one of the instrument teams, for both cost and communica-tions reasons, this post verifies instrument delivery schedules and instrument quality assurance.Responsible for specifying payload side of interface to spacecraft and verification of compati-bility with spacecraft interface specifications.

Spacecraft Project Manager - internal to the spacecraft Prime Contractor. Responsible for all as-pects of spacecraft specification, construction, integration, and testing. Negotiates procure-ment of a launch vehicle and oversees delivery, integration, launch, orbit insertion, and finalorbit configuration. Continues after launch as interface for spacecraft health and safety andmanoeuvres through to the end of the mission.


Operations Manager - drawn from academic teams. Responsible for the establishment and day-to-day management of the mission operations center, including spacecraft/instrument command-ing, telemetry acquisition, and the delivery of mission data to the data centre/instrument teamsfor processing. Also responsible for the data centre activities, although in practice the datacentre may be separately managed and report through the Operations Manager to the Project.Coordinates operations with the Public Understanding of Science centre at the NSC with sup-port from the Science Team.

5.3 DeliverablesFRISBEE deliverables include various design documents written during the study phase (see theProject Schedule). Excerpts of some of these will also be bundled into stand-alone technical reports,together with follow-up reports based on in-flight experience. These reports include:

• GPS for high apogee spacecraft navigation

• Modular Spacecraft Data Processing Unit

• Plasma Instrument Miniaturisation

Milestone deliverables, in addition to design documents, take the form of the science payloadinstruments, spacecraft bus(es), and third stage motor culminating in delivery of a flight ready assem-bly. Delivery of science nuggets and support of PUS campaigns also appear in the schedule. Regularreports will be filed to PPARC, DTI, and BNSC as detailed in the MOSAIC AO.

5.4 Technical and Financial RisksThe instruments are all based on heritage components, although continued miniaturisation effortsresult in improved designs which will be monitored by laboratory tests. In-flight cross-calibration ofthe ion sensors is a critical task, and pre-flight calibrations together with planned cross-calibrationstrategies will be needed to minimise the error associated with mixing data from more than onesensor. These risks will be controlled by drawing on the highly successful multi-sensor experience ofthe FAST mission.

The specific items in Table 7 have emerged in the preliminary design phase as potential riskareas. All of the risks will be effectively managed by drawing on the team’s collective extensiveexpertise and experience in spacecraft design, manufacture, instrumentation, and operation to ensurea successful outcome. Financial risks are primarily concerned with absorbing the impact of launchand other delays outside our control. All costs include a 10% contingency margin.

6 Project ScheduleFigure 10 provides a top-level work breakdown structure for the entire project, which is detailed inAppendix B. These work packages result in a project schedule shown in Figure 11.

6.1 Study PhaseFRISBEE commences with a 7 month study phase. Objectives of this phase are to explore outstandingoptions, such as launch and operations scenarios, and to produce definitive designs covering:

1. Scientific payload, especially interface requirements with the spacecraft bus and DPU.


Figure 10: FRISBEE Work Breakdown Structure

S0000 Project SteeringS1000 ManagementS2000 DesignS3000 ConstructionS4000 Testing and ReviewsS5000 Launch and OperationsS6000 Exploitation

M0000 MagnetometerM1000 ManagementM2000 Sensor & Analogue ElectronicsM3000 Digital ElectronicsM4000 Payload Power ConverterM5000 Ground Support EquipmentM6000 Instrument AIVM7000 Reviews and DeliverablesM8000 Flight Operations

P0000 Plasma Sensors (2 ion, 1 electron)P1000 BreadboardP2000 Qualification ModelP3000 Electron Spectrometer Flight UnitP4000 Ion Spectrometer Flight Unit 1P5000 Ion Spectrometer Flight Unit 2P6000 Ion Spectrometer Flight Unit SpareP7000 Project Management

B0000 Spacecraft BusB1000 SpacecraftB2000 Upper StageB3000 Spacecraft SimulatorB4000 Launch ProcurementB5000 Orbit InsertionB6000 Operations SupportB7000 SSTL Internal Project Management

D0000 Data and OperationsD1000 CommandingD2000 Tracking and Data CaptureD3000 DecommutationD4000 Health and SafetyD5000 Raw Data DeliveryD6000 Data Processing and ValidationD7000 Data Access and ArchivingD8000 Outreach

FRISB

EE

14D

ecember2001

22

Figure

11:F

RIS

BE

EP

rojectSchedule

ID Task Name1 Study Phase

2 Kick-Off & Mission Req

3 Payload Design

4 Instrument Design Docs

5 Comms Design

6 Ops/Data Conceptual Design Doc

7 Accommodation

8 Payload Interface Doc

9 Bus Design

10 Spacecraft Bus Design Doc

11 Upper Stage & Launch Study

12 Design Review

13

14 Build Phase

15 Instrument Construction and Calibration

16 Magnetometer

17 Plasma Sensors

18 Instrument AIV

19 Payload Power Converter

20 Bus Detailed Design/Construction

21 Bus AIT

22 GSE

23 Spacecraft Simulator Delivery

24 Instrument/Bus AIV

25 Operations Manual -Writing

26 Operations Manual

27 Data Center Detailed Design Doc

28 Data Centre Construction

29 Flight Readiness Review

30

31 Operations Phase

32 Ship Out & Prep

33 Launch

34 Commissioning

35 Operations

36 PUS Event

37 PUS Event

38

39 Wind-Down

40 Final Data Processing

41 Final Data Archive

42 Exploitation Consolidation

43 Final Reports

Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5

FRISBEE Schedule

Tue 11/12/01


Table 7: Risk Identification and ManagementTop Risks Description Approach to risk managementStructure New structure SQM development combined

with extensive testing andmodeling

Single String No redundancy Cost vs. risk, SSTL’s provendesign and component selec-tion philosophy

Radiation Each subsystem is required tobe radiation tolerant

SSTL will upgrade the soft-ware and hardware where ap-propriate.

Multi-sensor Cross CalibrationInterleaving of data fromthe two ion sensors de-mands a high degree ofinter-calibration

A comprehensive labora-tory calibration programmetogether with FAST priorexperience

Financial Shortfall Delays in delivery and launchwould have a significant im-pact on the overall project fi-nances

Professional Project Manage-ment and re-use of heritagecomponents. A 10% contin-gency is built in to all costsestimates. Further financialstrain would be borne by atruncated operations phase

2. Communications systems on board and ground station requirements

3. Commanding and instrument/payload modes, triggering algorithms, data formatting

4. Mass, power, and accommodation specifications

5. Final bus design

6. Launcher selection

7. Design of upper stage

Outputs of the Study Phase are:

1. Instrument Design Document

2. Spacecraft Bus Design Document

3. Upper stage Design Document

4. Science Payload/Bus Interface Documents

5. Operations and Data Centre Conceptual Design Document

The Study Phase terminates with a Design Review.


6.2 Build PhaseThe Build Phase is scheduled for the 24-month period following a successful Design Review. TheBuild Phase consists of:

1. Instrument construction and laboratory calibration

2. Spacecraft bus construction

3. Upper stage construction

4. Upper stage testing

5. Spacecraft testing

6. Instrument testing

7. Instrument integration

8. Flight Readiness Tests

9. Operations and Data Centre Detailed Design

10. Flight Readiness Review

Outputs of the Build Phase are:

1. Operations and Data Centre Detailed Design Document

2. Operations Manual

3. Flight-ready Spacecraft and Upper Stage

6.3 OperationsThe Operations Phase lasts 26 months and includes:

1. Launch

2. Commissioning

3. Science Operations

4. Data Processing and Distribution

5. PUS Activities

6.4 Wind-DownA 3-month wind-down phase is required to ensure final calibration of the data and suitable archivalactivities.


Table 8: Summary of FRISBEE Costs

FRISBEE Costs Summary11 December 2001

Item £kMagnetometer 907.25Plasma Sensors 2123.45Bus & Upper Stage 3810.00Operations 1284.00Management & Data 1174.75Launch 1300.00

Total 10599.45

In −K ind Contr ibu tionsHEFCE Rolling Grant 390.00HEFCE Staff 618.75SSTL R&D 240.00NSC 400.00RAL Tracking 150.00UK Coordinated Data Handling 330.00UCB Planning 150.00PPARC MOSAIC Support 3000.00

Total In −K ind 5278.75

Total MOSAIC Funds Required 5320.70

7 Costs

7.1 Mission CostsTable 13 in the Appendix provides a detailed breakdown of a fully costed FRISBEE mission. Thesecosts include payload construction, spacecraft procurement, upper stage and launch services, scienceand mission operations, and wind-down phases of the mission. Also included there are various exist-ing funds for studies and development, without which FRISBEE would not be possible. Accordingly,these costs are attributed to the total mission cost, but later deducted as “in-kind” contributions.

Table 8 summarises the mission costs. The following explanatory notes should be read in con-junction with the figures in the table and the detailed costs given in the Appendix.

1. Costs are based on a 7 month Study Phase, a 24 month Build Phase, 2 months of LaunchCampaign and Commissioning, 24 months Operations, and a 3 month Wind-down.

2. All costs include a 10% contingency. Launch uncertainties and delays will need to be accom-modated as part of the Study Phase


7.2 In-kind ContributionsTable 8 shows the following in-kind contributions, broken down in Table 14 in the Appendix.

IC Rolling Grant Instrument Development attributable directly to recent PPARC RG announce-ment for magnetometer development. Without this support, it would not be possible for IC tosupply the FRISBEE magnetometer.

MSSL Rolling Grant Instrument Development attributable directly to recent PPARC RG announce-ment for plasma detector miniaturisation and development. Without this support, it would notbe possible for MSSL to supply miniaturised plasma detectors.

HEFCE Staff HEFCE costs of an appropriate fractions of the Academic Partners’ effort devoted tothe project, typically 25% of the lead partner and a day per week for others. The project is notfeasible without the active participation of the academic partners, and these are real costs borneby HEFCE.

SSTL R&D for development of subsystems employed on SSTL’s SNAP nanosatellite.

NSC Developmentrelated to NSC facilities which will be devoted to FRISBEE outreach activities.

RAL Refurbishment invested at RAL to bring the tracking facilities there up-to-date and operablein semi-autonomous fashion.

CDHF RAL related to the development of generic data archiving, catalogues, and web access toolstogether with hardware infrastructure at RAL. Although these were funded for the Cluster mis-sion, this sum represents the investment in making the CDHF facilities more widely availableand suitable for other missions.

CDHF QM (3sy) invested at QM for the development of software tools and data formats whichwill be re-used for FRISBEE. These tools were developed for Cluster, but effort was investedto make them more widely suitable. These tools include the QM Science Analysis System(QSAS) which has been ported from the Cluster SUN/Solaris standard to Linux, and Qtran,which translates various file formats. Additionally, elements of 3D plasma software written forCluster PEACE data will be adapted for FRISBEE use.

UCB - roughly 1 staff year of effort during the mission in advising and participating in the scienceplanning, on-board event triggering, and cross-sensor calibration issues drawing on a furtherprevious year of developmental work related to the highly successful FAST mission led by theteam at UCB.

PPARC MOSAIC support primarily during the build and operations phases of the mission.

Table 9 apportions the above contributions into the MOSAIC Programme’s eligibility categories.


Table 9: In-Kind Costs CategoriesCategory Item Cost£kStaff Costs HEFCE Staff 618.75

UCB Planning 150.00MaterialsCapital Equipment RAL Tracking 150.00

HEFCE RG (part) 90.00NSC (part) 200.00UK CDHF (part) 50.00

Consultancy FeesTraining CostsReports and ManualsProject Management NSC (part) 200.00IPR HEFCE RG (part) 300.00

SSTL R&D 240.00UK CDHF (part) 280.00

Other Costs PPARC Support 3000.00Total 5278.75

A List of AcronymsADCS Attitude Determination and Control SystemASAP Ariane Structure for Auxiliary PayloadsBNSC British National Space CentreCDHF Co-ordinated Data Handling Facility, RALDPU Data Processing UnitEM Electro-magneticESA European Space AgencyFRISBEE Fast Resolution Investigations by a Space BEEHEI Higher Education Institution (e.g., University)IC Imperial College, University of LondonGPS Global Positioning SystemMSSL Mullard Space Science LaboratoryNSC National Space Centre, LeicesterOBDH On-board Data HandlingQM Queen Mary, University of LondonPPARC Particle Physics and Astronomy Research CouncilPUS Public Understanding of ScienceRAL Rutherford Appleton LaboratorySSTL Surrey Satellite Technology LtdSME Small and Medium-sized EnterpriseSTP Solar Terrestrial PhysicsUCB University of California, Berkeley


B Detailed Work Breakdown Structure

S0000Project SteeringS1000 Management

S1100 Steering CommitteeS1200 Science TeamS1300 Project ManagerS1400 Documentation TreeS1500 ScheduleS1600 Budget Control

S2000 DesignS2100 PayloadS2200 SpacecraftS2300 Upper StageS2400 InterfacesS2500 Science PlanningS2600 Operations

S3000 ConstructionS3100 InterfacesS3200 Spacecraft BusS3300 Science PayloadS3400 Spacecraft SimulatorS4400 Upper Stage

S4000 Testing and ReviewsS4100 Design ReviewS4200 Assembly, Integration, VerificationS4300 Flight Readiness ReviewS4400 Operations and Data Processing Review

S5000 Launch and OperationsS5100 Launch Campaign ManagementS5200 Commissioning PlanS5300 Calibration PlanS5400 Commanding and SchedulingS5500 Tracking and Data CaptureS5600 Science Data ProcessingS5700 Data Distribution and ArchivingS5800 OutreachS5900 Final Wind-down

S6000 ExploitationS6100 Monitor Science ExploitationS6200 Monitor Sensor Re-usabilityS6100 Monitor Subsystem Re-usabilityS6100 Monitor Bus Exploitation

M0000 MagnetometerM1000 Management

M1100 Resources Management


M1200 Industrial Contract ManagementM1300 Quality AssuranceM1400 DocumentationM1500 SchedulingM1600 ReportingM1700 ReviewsM2000 Sensor & Analogue ElectronicsM2100 DesignM2200 Breadboarding and evaluationM2300 QM ManufactureM2400 Flight and Spare manufacture

M3000 Digital ElectronicsM3100 DesignM3200 Breadboarding and evaluationM3300 QM ManufactureM3400 Flight and spare manufacture

M4000 Payload Power ConverterM4100 DesignM4200 Breadboarding and evaluationM4300 QM ManufactureM4400 Flight and spare manufacture

M5000 Ground Support EquipmentM5100 Electrical and Mechanical GSEM5200 Spacecraft Interface Simulator

M6000 Instrument AIVM6100 Design Verification Plan & Test ProceduresM6200 Sensor QM QualificationM6300 Electronics Integration & Functional TestM6400 Electronics QM QualificationM6500 Flight Hardware Integration & Functional TestM6600 Flight Hardware AcceptanceM6700 Ground CalibrationM6800 Interface Verification

M7000 Reviews and DeliverablesM7100 Conceptual Design ReviewM7200 Final Design ReviewM7300 Qualification Data PackageM7400 Flight Acceptance Data PackageM7500 Flight Readiness Review

M8000 Flight OperationsM8100 Instrument Operations and MonitoringM8200 In-flight CalibrationM8300 Data Processing

P0000 Plasma Sensors (2 ion, 1 electron)P1000 Breadboard

P1100 Electronics


P1200 MechanicalP1300 EGSEP1400 AIV

P2000 Qualification ModelP2100 ElectronicsP2200 MechanicalP2300 DetectorsP2400 EGSE UpgradeP2500 AIV

P3000 Electron Spectrometer Flight UnitP3100 ElectronicsP3200 MechanicalP3300 DetectorsP3400 EGSE UpgradeP3500 AIV

P4000 Ion Spectrometer Flight Unit 1P4100 ElectronicsP4200 MechanicalP4300 DetectorsP4400 EGSE UpgradeP4500 AIV

P5000 Ion Spectrometer Flight Unit 2P5100 ElectronicsP5200 MechanicalP5300 DetectorsP5400 EGSE UpgradeP5500 AIV

P6000 Ion Spectrometer Flight Unit SpareP6100 ElectronicsP6200 MechanicalP6300 DetectorsP6400 EGSE UpgradeP6500 AIV

P7000 Project ManagementB0000 Spacecraft Bus

B1000 SpacecraftB1100 Mechanics

B1110 SQMB1111 SQM Bill of MaterialsB1112 SQM Mechanics procurementB1113 SQM ManufactureB1114 SQM Test

B1120 FMB1121 FM Bill of MaterialsB1122 FM Mechanics procurementB1123 FM Manufacture


B1124 FM EGSEB1125 FM MGSEB1126 Separation system/Attach Fitting

B1200 AODCSB1210 ADCS Flight SoftwareB1220 Safety ModuleB1230 GPSB1240 MagnetorquersB1250 SensorsB1260 Magnetometers

B1300 Power systemB1310 BatteryB1320 BCMB1330 Power ModuleB1340 Solar Arrays

B1400 OBDHB1410 OBC 695B1420 OBDH Flight SoftwareB1430 TTC & CAN

B1500 RF systemB1510 RF AntennasB1520 S-Band ReceiverB1530 S-Band TransmitterB1540 S-Band Power Amp

B1600 PropulsionB1610 Prop systemB1620 Prop Electric ModuleB1630 Prop GSEB1640 Prop AIT and Test

B1700 Assembly Integration and testB1710 Assembly, Integration and TestB1720 Payload Engineering Model TestB1730 HarnessB1740 TransportationB1750 Environmental test

B1800 PayloadB1810 Interface control Doc.

B2000 Upper stageB2100 Mechanics

B2110 SQMB2111 SQM Bill of MaterialsB2112 SQM Mechanics procurementB2113 SQM ManufactureB2114 SQM Test

B2120 FMB2121 FM Bill of Materials


B2122 FM Mechanics procurementB2123 FM ManufactureB2124 Separation system/Attach Fitting

B2200 PropulsionB2210 Prop systemB2220 Prop Electric ModuleB2230 Prop GSEB2240 Prop AIT and Test

B2300 Assembly Integration and testB2310 Assembly, Integration and TestB2320 HarnessB2330 TransportationB2340 Environmental test

B3000 Spacecraft SimulatorB3100 Simulator ModelB3200 Simulation Software

B4000Launch procurement and servicesB4100 Launch assessmentB4200 Launch procurementB4300 Launch Campaign

B5000 Orbit InsertionB5100 SimulationB5200 Orbit ManeuversB5300 Separation

B6000 Operations supportB6100 Attitude CommissionB6200 Bus CommissionB6300 Payload CommissionB6400 Bus Operations

B7000 SSTL Internal Project ManagementB7100 SSTL standard project management proceduresB7200 Reviews

B7210 Program Status Reviews (PSR)B7220 Kick-off MeetingB7230 Preliminary Design Review (PDR)B7240 Critical Design Review (CDR)B7250 Integration Readiness Review (IRR)B7260 Test Readiness Review (TRR)B7270 Test Acceptance Review (TAR)B7280 Flight Readiness Review (FRR)

B7300 SSTL PA/QAB7400 Document management

D0000 Data and OperationsD1000 CommandingD2000 Tracking and Data CaptureD3000 Decommutation


D4000 Health and SafetyD5000 Raw Data DeliveryD6000 Data Processing and ValidationD7000 Data Access and ArchivingD8000 Outreach

C Technical Specifications and DrawingsThe following pages provide technical drawings and specifications for the payload, upper stage, anddetailed cost tables.

FRIS

BE

E14

Dec

embe

r200

134

Fig

ure

12:

Mag

neto

met

erD

raw

ing

Ultra


Table 10: Magnetometer Specifications

MOSAIC / FRISBEE Proposal

Magnetometer Description Draft, 2nd November 01 Chris Carr [email protected] Mass 250g Sensor 50g Thermal blanket 180g Sensor Harness 350g Electronics 830g Total Does not include any radiation shielding or enclosure for the electronics. Mass for harness is 60 g/m plus 30g for connectors. Assume 2m boom plus 0.5m routing inside the s/c. Power 0.8W Total (secondary) power. Most power dissipated in the electronics (about 50mW in the sensor). Electronics requires +5V (� 5% regulation), and a bipolar supply of � 8V (� 10%). Bipolar supply could be up to � 15V, but power consumption increases. Accommodation Sensor is mounted by 4 off M4 screws to a bracket on the boom (see attached figure). Stand-offs provide thermal insulation from the boom structure, and allow the thermal blanket to be wrapped under the sensor. Other mounting attachments can be discussed. Harness is routed down the boom and located underneath a boom thermal blanket (which also provides a conductive surface). Electronics is a non-redundant unit, typically implemented on a single PCB 15cm x 25cm, however alternatives are possible. Requires about 350cm2 or less for the electronics including connectors.

FRIS

BE

E14

Dec

embe

r200

136

Fig

ure

13:

Pla

sma

Sen

sor

Dra

win

g


Table 11: Plasma Sensor Specifications

Table 12: Upper Stage Mass Specifications

Hydrazine Upper Stage Mass Quantity Total MassPropellant tank 6.5 11 6.5Latch valve 0.45 22 0.9Hydrazine 32.72 11 32.72Engine, incl. valves 0.6 11 0.6Filter 0.05 11 0.05Piping 0.3 11 0.3Brackets 0.4 11 0.4Tank supports 0.3 11 0.3Fill/drain valves 0.06 33 0.18Baseplate 1.5 11 1.5 570x570x20Controller unit 1.2 11 1.2Pressure transducer 0.1 22 0.2Bee support and separation 22 11 22Attach fitting Spacecraft part 11 11 11 348x28Attach fitting Launcher part 22 11 22 348x63Margin 10 %% 4.99Monoprop upper stage 54.84

Sizexyz mm


Table 13: Costs

FRISBEE Costs Devel Study 7m Build 24m Operations 26m Wind−down 3m TotalItem mm £k mm £k mm £k mm £k mm £kMagnetometer − IC

Staff 7.0 32.08 48.0 220.00 13.0 59.58 1.5 6.88 69.5 318.54Travel 2.92 20.00 5.42 0.63 28.96

Equipment 15.00 110.00 25.00 0.00 150.00Consumables 8.00 30.00 14.00 1.00 53.00

Magnetometer − Industry 0.00 88.00 0.00 0.00 88.00HEFCE (25%+20%+20%) 4.6 20.85 15.6 71.50 16.9 77.46 2.0 8.94 39.0 178.75

RG Devel 90.00 90.00907.25

Plasma Detectors − MSSLStaff (actual costs) 78.3 302.27 110.7 463.00 52.0 260.00 6.0 30.00 247.0 1055.27

Travel 1.57 13.28 21.67 2,5 36.52Equipment 73.77 279.75 25.00 0.00 378.51

Consumables 5.72 11.68 40.00 12.00 69.40Exceptional Items 21.00 84.00 105.00

HEFCE (25%+20%+20%) 4.6 20.85 15.6 71.50 16.9 77.46 2.0 8.94 39.0 178.75RG Devel 300.00 300.00

2123.45Payload Project Engineer (incl in IC/MSSL budgets)

Staff 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00Travel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


0.00Procurement from SSTL

BEE 0.00 1900.00 0.00 0.00 1900.00SNAP IPR 240.00 240.00

AIV 0.00 240.00 0.00 0.00 240.00Launch−related costs 0.00 350.00 0.00 0.00 350.00

Operations 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00Upper Stage 0.00 980.00 0.00 0.00 980.00

3810.00Outreach − Leicester

Staff 1.0 4.58 6.0 27.50 7.0 32.08 1.0 4.58 15.0 68.75Travel 0.42 2.50 2.92 0.42 6.25


HEFCE(20%+20%) 2.8 12.83 9.6 44.00 10.4 47.67 1.2 5.50 24.0 110.00NSC Development 400.00 400.00

639.00Ops/Data − RAL

Staff 2.0 9.17 12.0 55.00 26.0 119.17 3.0 13.75 43.0 197.08Travel 0.83 5.00 10.83 1.25 17.92


RAL Station Refurb 150.00 150.00CDHF Development 150.00 150.00

645.00

Staff 2.0 9.17 24.0 110.00 26.0 119.17 3.0 13.75 55.0 252.08Travel 0.83 10.00 10.83 1.25 22.92


HEFCE (35%+20%) 3.9 17.65 13.2 60.50 14.3 65.54 1.7 7.56 33.0 151.25Software Tools 180.00 180.00

627.25QA Advisor 20.00 80.00 100.00

100.00Project Manager

Staff 3.5 16.04 24.0 110.00 6.0 27.50 0.0 0.00 33.5 153.54Travel 1.46 10.00 2.50 0.00 13.96


297.50Planning − UCB

Staff 100.00 1.0 4.58 4.0 18.33 4.0 18.33 1.0 4.58 10.0 145.83Travel 0.42 1.67 1.67 0.42 4.17

150.00Launch eg. ASAP 1300.00 1300.00 1300.00Totals 110.5 637.01 282.7 5587.21 192.5 2618.80 22.3 146.44 608.0 10599.45 10599.45

Science/Data �� QM


Table 14: In-Kind ContributionsDevel Study 7m Build 24m Operations 26m Wind−down 3m Total

In−kind Contributions mm £k mm £k mm £k mm £k mm £kHEFCE IC 4.6 20.85 15.6 71.50 16.9 77.46 2.0 8.94 39.0 178.75 178.75RG IC 90.00 90.00 90.00HEFCE MSSL 4.6 20.85 15.6 71.50 16.9 77.46 2.0 8.94 39.0 178.75 178.75RG MSSL 300.00 300.00 300.00SNAP IPR 240.00 240.00 240.00HEFCE Leicester 2.8 12.83 9.6 44.00 10.4 47.67 1.2 5.50 24.0 110.00 110.00NSC Development 400.00 400.00 400.00RAL Station Refurb 150.00 150.00 150.00CDHF Development 150.00 150.00 150.00HEFCE QM 3.9 17.65 13.2 60.50 14.3 65.54 1.7 7.56 33.0 151.25 151.25Software Tools 180.00 180.00 180.00UCB Staff 100.0 1.0 4.58 4.0 18.33 4.0 18.33 1.0 4.58 10.0 145.83 145.83UCB Travel 0.0 0.42 0.0 1.67 0.0 1.67 0.0 0.42 0.0 4.17 4.17PPARC 1000.00 1854.50 145.50 3000.00 3000.00Total In−Kind 1610.00 77.19 1267.50 2142.63 181.44 145.0 5278.75 5278.75