ESA briefing and Q&A for NOBEL www.irf.se/~yamau/m5/ * 550 MEUR Ceiling, and proposals are first screened by cost and feasibility with 5% margin before scientific assessment. cf. for NITRO & M5-standard subdivision of cost 1sc 2sc M5 ESA Project Team 34 55 55 (10%) Industrial Cost 150 257 290 (total 52%) Payload by ESA 18 18 =included Mission Operation (MOC) 40 80 80 (total 15%) Science Operation (SOC) 35 49 =included Launcher 45 90 70 (13%) = Arian 62 Contingeny (10%) 36 62 55 (10%) Total EaC 358 611 550 note 1: No matter orbit, two different spacecraft means double the cost for MOC and ESA project team. So, two-spacecraft option is too expensive for its science return compared to one-spacecraft option (clearly, ESA technical team does not like it). note 2: Electric propulsion is very expensive but probably affordable with one-spacecraft option. This could be an "option" * Schedule TBD (will be defied during SPC in February), but most likely - spring 2016: Call (and deadline 3-6 month after) - spring 2017 (after selection of M4): selection 3 candidates. - end 2017: phase-A - June 2019: selection - June 2021: mission adoption - Launch day (2029/2030) depends on technical complexity but not on ESA budget. * No A/O for payload. Therefore, letter of support is needed at the proposal level (the same as M4 and S1). * M4 result matters: Member state has funding limitation => P/L funding will be limited for member states that has high burden on selected M4. * International contribution: all possible scheme are considered if the endorsement letter issued. - For joint missions, there must be clear willingness (official letter), ability, and the same time scale. Unclear partner mission (US magnetospheric mission) should not be mentioned - Therefore, we should NOT mention the US proposals on M-I coupling mission at all - If any technology that ESA does not have (e.g. ATG) comes from USA/Japan/Russia, official endorsement letter to become official partner is needed. - Do not too much worry about SI contribution from Japana/NASA. NITRO level information (e.g., RFI) is sufficient. - However, strategic priority missions are exception (ESA will adjust the schedule to match these missions), and they are actually strong competitors. As such strong competitors, NASA and Japan seeks partner in the following three missions (1) NASA Europa mission (launch 2022) (2) JAXA IR observatory, (3) JAXA CMB polarization mission * Relation to EISCAT: ESA requires a letter of support (in science operation) from EISCAT director together with the information of the current funding situation, future funding plan, and progress of EISCAT_3D capabilities with time. * Technology readiness - The same as M4. - All components/payload must reach TRL=5/6 by April 2019 - In case of low TRL at the time of proposal, we must show backup method to keep the science (I do not see any problem for NOBEL). - Don't overdo the technical part of proposal (like NITRO). Technical description must be just proposal level. ESA need input for technical feasibility, and through feasibility study will be done in phase-A. - Old platform may not exist any more, and be careful about it. - Despan platforms and/or despun mirrors are possible, and technical feasibility and cost of despun platform, and even more so of despun mirrors only, are not considered to be a problem. The proposal should specify just requirement on how to keep the FoV of instruments. - 5 m boom is no problem. For 10 m, KTH must be involved. Wire book is ok(?) * Launcher (users manual expected spring 2016) - VEGA-C (from 2018, >38 Meur): +20% from VEGA, i.e., 1800 kg @ 700 km/polar - Ariane 62 (from 2020, >70 Meur): +50% from Soyuz-F, i.e., 3t to L2 - Ariane 64: similar to Ariane 5, i.e., 6.6t to L2 * Ground segment: - Out of tracking stations, three 35m Deep Space Antennas (Australia, Spain, Argentine) are particularly for science use. - They use X band (uplink/downlink) and K band (downlink) - For LEO/HEO/L1/L2, X-band 10 Mbps is available during visible hours - List includes Mars (30-230 kbps), Venus (15-200 kbps), and even Mercury (50 kbps) and Jupiter (50 kbps) - Operation must be done by ESA/ESOC * Proposal - Concentrate on writing a solid science case compatible with the available resources (technology/fund). Science is the key part. * General impression: ESA is seeking planetary missions using Arian 6. microwave team for observation below 500 km (N and water) auroral camera to German team (Johnna's boss) ---------- Favio Fatava: Todays question + member state => shape selection process Schedule: TBD => discussed with SPC in February (+ aim at phasing with M4, i.e., does not interfere M4). Call would be spring. 550 MEur Member state has funding limitation (SI) => P/L procurement through Member state International: all possible scheme but need willingness+ability with the same time scale. technological dependency means that country (US/Japan) must be partner to ESA. NASA missions have two categories (a) strategic mission = NASA e.g., NASA Europa mission (ESA was invited) and (b) competitive mission is PI Unclear partner mission (US magnetospheric mission) should not be mentioned Similar to M4. No A/O for P/L. => letter of support is needed even from international partner. phase-A = up to 3, < 18 month proposal must be focused on critical issues on science and techonlogy (don't try overdo it, like few % of mass etc). Technical description must be just proposal level. Concentrate on writing a solid science case compatible with the available resources (technology/fund) ----------------- Frederic Safa Cost space segment 52% (Industrial, inc. contingency) = 290 MEur = smaller than Euclid and Plato (300-350 Meur) MOC & SOC 15% for single ground station ESA project 10% launcher 13% (Ariane 62) Contingency 10% T0 = call = spring 2016 selection to 3 = T0 + 1 year (after M4 selection) Phase A kick off = End of 2017 M5 selection June 2019 M5 adoption June 2021 The same telchnology as other M-class (TRL>5/6) by spring 2019 backup technology in terms of keeping science. Some technology development activities might be possible (but very limited) from ESA for 2-3 years. VEGA-C (>38 Meur) or Ariane 62 (replacing Soyuz, >70 Meur). Non-European launcher in the context of collaboration, but not from China! VEGA-C 2018 => +20%, 1800 kg/700 km Arian-62 2020 => +50% from Soyuz-F, 5 t GTO and 3t L2. Arian-64, alightly better than Arian-5, 10.5t/GTO and 6.6 t/L2 (all figure including adaptor) ==> all detail will be available before the call (March 2016) Ground: Deep Space Antennea (35m) with 3 station are for science. LEO Xband upto 10 Mbps S 1 Mbps HEO X band up to 10 Mbps L1/L2 Xband 1 Mbpa Kband up to 75 Mbps Mars 30-230 kbps (VEX 2.2m 65W) Venus 15-200 kbps (VEX 1.3m, 70W) no help from ESA for proposal writig no European RTG no envisage spacecraft operation (ESA-funded spacecraft operation are done by ESA/ESOC) spacecraft component (despun plat form): case by case bottom-up cost calculation for phase 0/A/B1. Independent part is estimated by independently. Benchmarking is important. Although proposer are free to add links in the proposal, referring to detailed document, ESA may (or may not) consider them. Better not to mention. No breakdown of the operation cost. 15% of CaC would be reasonable unless exotic operation like NITRO. MOC+SOC was similar for MarcoPolo-R, ECHO, and LOFT (but different MOC(SOC distribution), and PLATO was 20% higher due to longer operation. No geo-return constraint for proposer. Old platform may not exist any more (at least with the same cost. Increased capability