# Presentation: 514188

## GOES-R Notional End-To-End Architectures

- Satellite Direct Readout Conference for the Americas
- December 9 – 13, 2002
- Miami, Florida

- Sandra Alba Cauffman
- GOES-R Deputy Project Manager

**Notes:**
Theme / flow -  Connect the user to what get flown.  
	talk about how we break distribute requirements to sensors 
	Talk about how we determine how much functionality we can put in a sensor

## Outline

- Mission goals
- Candidate instruments
- Instrument Formulation
- Architecture studies purpose / approach
- Possible configurations
- Top level Schedule

## GOES-R Series Mission Goals

- Develop and deploy a reliable operational system that provides continuous observations of the environment and severe storms to protect life and property
- Monitor solar activity and space environmental conditions
- Introduce improved atmospheric and oceanic observations and data dissemination capabilities
- Develop and provide new and improved applications and products for a wide range of federal agencies, state and local governments, and private users

## GOES R Mission begins with the User

- User requirements are demanding and exciting
- New data types and observing strategies
- More frequent updates
- Larger and more complex instruments
- GOES R-Series is part of an integrated “system of systems” with NPOESS and other data sources
- Data will be used in ways we haven’t thought of yet

**Notes:**
Play this up as a sales pitch
They are new
They are exciting
We are committed but probably will not be able to meet all of them

## Instrument Formulation

- Allocate user requirements to instrument/sensor capabilities
- Perform studies to determine feasibility and establish sensor resource requirements for the architecture studies
- Formulation contracts placed with industry
- Identify technology challenges
- Evaluate requirements that can be met now and in the future
- Identify risk reduction approach
- ABI is currently under contract.  Contract awards for other sensors are planned in 2003 and 2004
- Evaluate preliminary impacts to data flow and processing

**Notes:**
Converge GORD-0 requirements into instrument/sensor capabilities and analyze for redundancy. 
Evaluate pros and cons of various instrument implementation approaches (e.g., full disk imager, mesoscale imager, duplicate instruments for imaging and sounding, etc.)
Determine impacts
Justify higher payoff (cost and risk) for further investigation
Develop first order cost differences
Investigate transition to greater portion of spectrum covered by hyper spectral and justify payoff.
Examine impacts/cost/feasibility of newly requested observations
This includes all new instruments such as Coronagraph, Microwave Sounder, Lightning Mapper, Coastal Applications Imager, etc.
Evaluate preliminary impacts to data flow and image processing
Assess technology readiness and identify risk reduction approach
Investigate technology infusion strategies for sensor implementation and repartitioning 
Define timeline for risk mitigation and preparation of instruments for launch
Estimate S/C resources required for Constellation Study
Investigate the use of IOO resources as a technology demonstration venue. 
Determine what is the most cost effective way to insert new technology, test new observational approaches, etc.
Determine budget profiles for accomplishing instrument technology infusion.

Use this to determine how many of the requirements we can afford to meet now and hopefully develop plans to add in the future

## Candidate Instruments

- ABI – Advanced Baseline Imager
- 14 - 18 channels; rapid scan; 5 –15 min full-disk
- HES – Hyperspectral Environmental Suite
- High spectral sounding capability plus improved imagery for coastal waters, open oceans and severe weather/mesoscale
- SEM – Space Environment Monitor
- Magnetometer, Energetic Particle Sensors, X-ray Sensor, Extreme Ultraviolet Sensor (improved)
- SXI – Solar X-ray Imager
- Improved dynamic range, sensitivity and resolution
- CSI – Coronagraph Solar Imager
- GLM – GOES Lightning Mapper
- Lightning Sensor

**Notes:**
Is there a chart / cartoon that shows how these instruments were determined that could go in front of this?

Are there science words that can give an example of how GOES data can and will be used in conjunction with NPOESS.  Maybe from the AGS report

## Other Candidate Instruments

- FDS- Full Disk Sounder
- Rapid update for global and synoptic numerical weather prediction
- FDI – Full Disk Imager
- Capture rapidly changing weather and diurnal climate patterns
- EHS – Emissive Hyperspectral Sensor
- Mesoscale Severe Weather Imager
- RHS – Reflective Hyperspectral Sensor
- Cloud, land and open ocean imaging
- GMS – GOES Microwave Suite
- Limited passive microwave capability
- MFGS – Multi-Function GOES Sensor
- Sounding and imaging

## Purpose of the Architecture Studies

- Achieve as many of the user requirements as possible with acceptable risk
- Determine flexibility of various architectures to accommodate evolving user needs
- GOES-R will be in service from 2012 – 2027 – we don’t expect the configuration to be static
- Technology will evolve and allow GOES to meet more of the users’ needs
- Users’ needs will change
- Provide timely and reliable distribution of the data that can grow with the system
- Perform cost/benefits analysis
- Help make informed decisions on the cost and risk of each requirement
- Defend budget requests

## Architecture Study Structure

- End-to-End Systems
- Space & Launch
- Command & Control
- Product Generation & Distribution
- Archive & Access
- User Interface & Assimilation

**Architecture I**
** ****2 GEO Satellite Constellation**

**Architecture II**
**Multi-Satellite Constellation**

**Architecture III**
**Med Earth Orbit Constellation**

**User Needs**
**(Potential Sensors)**

**Recommend Alternative(s)**

**Comprehensive assessment with Cost Benefit Analysis as cornerstone**

**Potential solutions to fulfill mission needs**

## End-to-End System Formulation

- Perform a sequence of studies, each involving a suite of instruments
- Mixing and matching instruments will provide information to build comprehensive set of points (performance, risk, and cost)
- Each study includes an end-to-end systems design for the mission
- Each study is structured with a basic configuration and selected options
- Cost estimates developed for each configuration
- The aggregate of studies will provide significant data points along the continuum from minimal to maximal possible configurations and architectures envisioned for the GOES-R Series

## Matrix of Configurations Studied

**Notes:**
Matrix of all configurations looked at (combine IMDC and CDC)
Say you will talk briefly about 2 configurations

## 2 Satellite GOES-R Architecture

**West**

**East**

**Additional Instruments could be flown on existing or future satellites**
**Microwave Sounder****	****-****	****Coronagraph**
**Lightning Mapper****	****-****	****Multi-Function Sensor**

**Notes:**
Traditional GOES approach
Allows meeting many of requirements
Spacecraft resources places a practical limit on sensors 
With 2 major sensors per spacecraft -  we may need to limit the their capability due to mass power and data rate limits
Adding a sensor requires a greater impact on the total system
Requires on orbit spares to provide backup.
lifetime of spare is being consumed while in storage but not data is being generated

## Multi-Satellite GOES-R Architecture

**West**

**East**

**Additional Instruments could be flown on existing or future satellites**
**Microwave Sounder****	****-****	****Coronagraph**
**Lightning Mapper**

**Notes:**
May cost more than the traditional approach initially – still looking at the cost
With this number of spacecraft.  We believe that resources will be available to add small sensors as they are approved and developed
The system may not have full backup in orbit. Short term backup capability will be provided by alternate operation modes of some key sensors.  
Keep in mind that these are just notional.  We will be going out to industry with and RFI and a spacecraft formulation contract to get industry’s view of this.  There are a lot of smart people out there that may come up with different approaches that have merit.

## Preliminary Results

- Both, 2 GOES Satellite (current architecture) and Multi-satellite architectures, will meet a large number of current and future user needs
- A Multi-satellite architecture can better meet user needs while providing:
- Greater flexibility to fly more sensors
- Flexibility to introduce new sensor technologies
- An easier path to add additional sensors in the future

**Notes:**
Talk about preliminary results
Emphasis that still work in process

## GOES R Baseline ArchitecturePlanning Schedule

- GOES R Baseline ArchitecturePlanning Schedule

**Notes:**
Highlight the decision points
Tell when preliminary decision will be made
Final decision
This schedule is slightly out of data

## Back up

## GOES Coverage