2

NASA’s Responses to the GDC IRB Recommendations

1) The GDC budget (total and yearly profile) needs to be corrected to be better aligned with plans, 

correct deficiencies identified, and to assign the proper UFE at the Project and NASA/SMD 

level.

Response: NASA concurs with the recognition that the project budget does not align with the current 

development plan, and is taking steps to resolve that discrepency. 

2) A system level optimization approach should be undertaken by the Project in the very near 

future to steer the plans for formulation and implementation towards global system level 

optimization and solutions, including designating a lead position whose job is to focus on the 

issues of supply chain, logistics, and production. 

• A probabilistic risk assessment to inform trades for implementation of the Class C risk 

classification (e.g., Level 2 versus Level 3 parts, selective redundancy, etc.).

• Define the trade space for instrument requirements against the spacecraft provider 

offerings so that there is clear understanding from the beginning.

Response: NASA concurs with the recommendation to emphasize system optimization, and 

appreciates the suggested considerations. NASA has taken the recommended lead position under 

advisement. The GDC project is currently investigating the potential scope of work and necessary 

expertise to fill this role. Beyond that specific position, NASA has been focusing on procurement lead 

times and anticipated supply chain delivery delays, and will continue in that manner. 

3) The Project should aggressively address risks associated with non-recurring engineering, 

multiple unit production, supply chain, interfaces and instrument accommodation to reduce 

risk during the non-recurring phase, such as: 

• Develop a fully integrated engineering unit (S/C and instruments) of sufficient fidelity to 

be upgradable to protoflight as 6th S/C for flight,

• Downselect a suitable spacecraft/SI&T provider from two candidate in a two-step 

process, and

• Explore other approaches designed to reduce the burden of the effort.

Response: NASA concurs with the recommendation to aggressively address risks that the Project 

faces in development and the production of multiple copies of instruments and spacecraft. NASA will 

take the IRBs specific recommendations under consideration as we continue to evaluate options for 

reducing these risks.

4) Life Cycle phases should be revisited to allow for the early development of the engineering unit 

S/C provider 2-step selection process.

Response: NASA partially concurs with this recommendation. It has been and remains NASA's intent 

to revisit the mission phase schedule once all elements of the project (e.g. spacecraft provider, all 

instrument providers) are incorporated in order to appropriately balance and optimize the 

development schedule. However, a two-step selection process for the spacecraft provider would carry 

procurement, technical, and schedule risks. 

5) Consistent with the guidance and intent of the 2013 Heliophysics Decadal survey and the midterm assessment, NASA SMD, HPD, and the GDC Project should proactively advocate for 
3

GDC and its critical contributions to the Heliophysics System Observatory (HSO) within the 

science and stakeholder communities.

Response: NASA concurs with the recommendation for stakeholder engagement. This engagement 

spans responsibilities held at the GDC Project, HPD, and SMD levels. As part of an overarching 

communications strategy, stakeholder engagement at those three levels will be clearly incorporated.

6) The leadership of the Project Scientist team should be empowered to speak authoritatively 

about GDC and assume prime responsibility for interactions with the community and science 

performance trades that enable cost effective system level solutions; RAA of the Project 

Scientist versus that of the Program Scientist need to be clear and unambiguous.

Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation. HQ assigned the Project Scientist that prime 

responsibility following the completion of the GDC Interdisciplinary Scientist and Investigation 

procurement activities. NASA will document the roles and responsibilities in the GDC team 

guidelines.

7) NASA should develop a strategy in close collaboration with NSF and other national and 

international GB facility operators for GB measurements (e.g., ISRs and FPIs) to calibrate and 

validate GDC measurements.

Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation. NASA has had initial conversations with 

potential inter-agency and international partners and will continue to pursue those options. 

Information on collaborations will be released for the community's awareness as they are finalized.

8) NASA should undertake a valuation exercise to assess the capability of the suite of simultaneous 

GDC, DYNAMIC-like, and GB observations, and to calculate the extent to which the collective 

contributions exceed the sum of individual element contributions. 

• The exercise should include the development of complementary aspirational budgets to quantify 

the cost of maximizing the return on the collection of GDC, DYNAMIC like, and GB 

investments.

Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation for Division activities beyond the GDC project. 

NASA sees GDC as a strategic focus that can be used to significantly advance scientific 

understanding of the upper atmosphere and its coupling to the Sun, Earth’s space environment, and 

the lower atmosphere. NASA pleased to see the IRB's endorsement of that vision. Further, NASA 

considers the identified observations to be part of a larger strategy that encompasses other 

spaceflight science investigations (Recommendation 11) and addresses long-term scientific needs 

(Recommendation 12). This strategy would be accomplished through synergy with other NASA 

missions, domestic and international partnerships, and coordination with ground-based 

observatories. These aspects have been a part of previous and on-going discussions, and NASA 

intends to continue in that manner.

9) NASA should capture lessons learned and revisit the approach for interactions and engagement 

with the heliophysics community for missions in the early stages, particularly strategic missions. 

• The approach for GDC was unnecessarily constrained, and eroded confidence in the 

plans and motivations. 

• Mission plans, definition, and early formulation processes should be open and transparent 

with the community to every extent possible. 

• Best practices for the conduct of an STDT (or equivalent) process should be captured and 
4

normalized across NASA/SMD in the form of a handbook.

Response: NASA concurs with the recommendation on capturing lessons learned, and appreciates the 

IRB's inclusion of community perspectives to be addressed.

10) Much stronger collaboration between NASA and other agencies, including NOAA 

NESDIS/OPPA, NOAA NWS/SWPC, Space Force, Air Force, and the Navy, as well as 

commercial stakeholders is urged to understand and proactively address space weather impacts 

on space assets and to develop plans to incorporate GDC data streams into operational models; 

coordination with NOAA NWS/SWPC which holds the federal mandate for space weather 

operations, is particularly encouraged.

Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation, and has appointed a Deputy Project Scientist 

that has leading project involvement in these collaborations as one of their primary duties. These 

types of collaborations have been a part of previous and on-going discussions with inter-agency 

partners and NASA intends to continue in that manner. 

11) Given the international interest in the science that GDC will address, NASA should investigate 

plausible future collaboration with international partners, such as ESA, to augment and extend 

GDC science. 

• Collaborations could include, instruments, hosted payloads, additional spacecraft and GB 

support.

Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation as part of a larger Division strategy, as 

discussed in the response to Recommendation 8. This aspect has been a part of previous and ongoing discussions, and NASA intends to continue in that manner.

12) NASA should investigate the additional benefit from existing and soon-to-be-launched, 

international magnetospheric and ionospheric missions to provide long-term continuous, 

synergistic and important contextual measurements as well as CAL/VAL, including SMILE 

(specifically the auroral imager) and Swarm missions within ESA and the JAXA FACTORS 

mission.

Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation as part of a larger strategic approach, as 

discussed in the response to Recommendation 8. These types of collaborations have been a part of 

previous and on-going discussions with inter-agency and international partners, and NASA intends to 

continue in that manner.
GeospaceDynamics Constellation (GDC)

Independent Review Board (IRB) Report

Co-Chair -O. Figueroa

Co-Chair -M. Hagan
Table of Contents

• GDC Background

• Introduction

• IRB Members

• Executive Summary

• GDC Architecture

• GDC Investigations/Instruments

• Terms Of Reference (TOR) and Findings 

• Recommendations

• Other Observations 

• Summary and Conclusions 

• Appendix (Acronyms)
GDC Background

• The Geospace Dynamics Constellation (GDC) is a strategic, Living With a Star (LWS) 

mission that will accomplish breakthroughs in the fundamental understanding of 

processes that govern the dynamics of the Earth’s upper atmosphere which 

surrounds and protects the planet 

• The goals of GDC are to reveal how the high latitude ionosphere-thermosphere (IT) 

system responds to variable external forcing by the solar wind and magnetosphere, 

and how internal processes in the global IT system redistribute mass, momentum, 

and energy

• The GDC was recommended in the 2013 Decadal Survey, “Solar and Space Physics: A 

Science for a Technological Society” as a strategic LWS mission (and reinforced in the 

mid term review)

• The GDC constellation will provide unprecedented measurements of the IT system on 

local, regional, and global scales and will inform space situational awareness and 

space weather prediction models
Introduction

• The NASA Science Mission Directorate Associate Administrator (SMD/AA) 

convened an IRB for the GDC mission to independently review whether the 

overall architecture and technical concept developed during Pre-Phase A is 

robust from a science, technical, and programmatic perspective

• GDC was approved to proceed into formulation in September 2020 as a 

strategic mission within the NASA/SMD Heliophysics Division (HPD) LWS 

Program

• Investigations and Interdisciplinary Science Teams (IDSs) selections were in 

progress at the start of the IRB and remain in progress 

• The IRB conducted the assessment over ~ three months, relying upon IRB 

plenary sessions, IRB sub panels , interviews, attendance at community 

meetings, and one-on-one interviews with Project personnel and other key 

stakeholders 
GDC IRB Members

Orlando Figueroa (Co-Chair) Richard Howard

Maura Hagan (Co-Chair) Mark Jacobs

Steven Battel Justin Kasper

David Bearden Jens Oberheide

Anthea Coster Nicholas Pedatella

James Crocker Dorothy Perkins

Ann Devereaux (SRB Chair) Jonathan Rae

Andrew Driesman Steven Thibault

Jennifer Gannon Olga Verkhoglyadova

Shea Kearns (Review Manager)

Tara Roberts (Review Manager)
Executive Summary – 1 of 2

• The mission architecture, selected and planned investigations/instrumentation, and the concept of 

operations proposed for GDC will address the primary 2013 Decadal Survey recommendations 

• Unprecedented GDC observations will enhance understanding of prevailing space weather 

conditions in the ionosphere-thermosphere (IT) system and lead to improvements in IT models that 

are foundational to space situational awareness and space weather prediction

• The GDC mission is strongly supported by the heliophysics community and the community of 

stakeholders

• The current NASA FY23 budget and profile does not support a Launch Readiness Date (LRD) of 

2029/30; it delays the LRD to 2032 or later at additional cost, and exposes NASA to uncertainty and 

risks

• An LRD of 2029/30 (Project Estimate to Complete (ETC) Aug/2029) is credible for a mission of the 

scope and nature of GDC, but additional funding on the order of $200-$300M is likely required

• GDC is challenged by production of 6 spacecraft/6 identical set of instruments with unique 

requirements; concerted efforts are necessary to address supply and production planning, and 

strategies to simplify spacecraft/instrument interface requirements and deliverables
Executive Summary – 2 of 2

• GDC offers a unique opportunity for NASA to document and apply lessons learned from the GDC 

Project’s approach to pre-formulation, formulation, and implementation for application to future 

constellation architecture endeavors

• The influence of atmospheric wave forcing from below on the IT system as envisioned in the 2013 

Decadal Survey is unaddressed by GDC, stressing the need for concurrent measurements by other 

missions

- There is also great community interest in concurrent observations to address the forcing from below 

from a mission like DYNAMIC 

• Communication with the heliophysics community about GDC status and decisions has been 

constrained, which the IRB attributes to overly strict adherence to process and interpretation of 

policies and regulations by NASA, and that permeated and negatively impacted the Science 

Technology Definition Team (STDT), the Announcement of Opportunity (AO) process, and the 

interfaces with the Project

• Efforts to educate and engage a more diverse community through workshops (e.g., early career 

scientists, HPD Helio2050 science planning workshop) are noteworthy and should be expanded, 

along with efforts to educate the general public about GDC
GDC Architecture

• Baseline mission: Six spacecraft (6 

identical sets of instruments) in 

different inclinations 81-82 

degrees/400Km orbits, differential 

procession separates the orbit 

planes as they precess in local time

- Important to launch 6 S/C to 

protect the integrity of the 

minimum required (5) to meet 

science objectives in 3 years

• Threshold mission: Four spacecraft 

address highest priority science 

objectives in the STDT
GDC Investigations/Instruments

AO Selections - to Date

• Modular Spectrometer for Atmosphere and Ionosphere Characterization 

(MoSAIC) - Principal Investigator: Dr. Mehdi BennaUMBC/GSFC

• Atmospheric Electrodynamics probe for THERmal Plasma (AETHER) –

Principal Investigator: Dr. Laila Andersson LASP/U of CO

• Comprehensive Auroral Precipitation Experiment (CAPE) – Principal 

Investigator: Dr. Daniel Gershman GSFC

AO Selections - Pending

• Thermal Plasma instrument to provide information about energy of ions 

and electrons; MoSAIC measures total ion and electron density 

• Magnetometer

Others (TBD)

• Radio Occultation, Dosimeter
Terms Of Reference (TOR)

1. Are the scope and cost/schedule understood and properly aligned? 

a. What is the likely range of probable cost and schedule, and what are the drivers? 

b. How do non-optimal funding profiles affect the cost/schedule of the mission, and what is the impact of staying within the funding profile guidelines? 

2. Is the management approach and structure adequate for a project of this 

scope and complexity? 

a. Do the acquisition strategy and subsequent procurements have sufficient focus and oversight to 

ensure the delivery of high-quality products on cost and within schedule?

3. Are the GDC science team and the planned collaborations structured and 

focused to maximize the return on NASA’s investment, both scientifically and 

for potential contributions to National interests? 

a. Are the suggested real-time Space Weather data transmission of significant value to the scientific community, other U.S. agencies, and/or our Space Industry including applications to topics of 

space weather (e.g. navigation/communication) and of space situational awareness (e.g. orbital 

debris)? 

b. Are there potential collaborations on or synergies with topics of scientific and National importance 

currently unexplored for GDC? 
Terms Of Reference – Findings
Strengths of GDC

• The GDC Project benefits greatly from the management and technical support 

and assistance provided by the Explorers & Heliophysics Projects Division 

(EHPD) at NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)

• The GDC team has done a stellar job of thinking about the concept of 

operations (CONOPS) and science operations; they have identified mission 

phases, operating modes and a constellation management approach that puts 

science first, simplifies spacecraft operations, and adds robustness

• The GDC Project has been very responsive to requests for developing and 

providing budget and schedule details and iterations with HPD at NASA/SMD 

and was very open and responsive to IRB requests for similar and other 

requests

• The early “Request For Information” from spacecraft providers is a positive 

step to aid with early planning efforts

• The interdisciplinary science (IDS) teams are selected
Terms Of Reference – 1 of 3 

1. Are the scope and cost/schedule understood and 

properly aligned? 

a. What is the likely range of probable cost and schedule, and what 

are the drivers? 

b. How do non-optimal funding profiles affect the cost/schedule of 

the mission, and what is the impact of staying within the funding 

profile guidelines? 
TOR Question #1: Are the scope and cost/schedule 

understood and properly aligned?

• The IRB examined Project costs and 

schedule from multiple perspectives

- Analysis of Project Estimates & HQ Funding

- IRB Independent Cost Modeling

- Analogy Comparisons

• The FY23 budget profile is not conducive to a credible Project plan

- Limitations force the Project to artificially adjust plans to comply

- FY24 reduction significantly handicaps Project’s ability to effectively start

- Delays the mission to 2032 LRD or later, with added risk and uncertainty

Note: Costs shown do not include HQ UFE

President’s 

Budget 

Request FY23 

stops at FY27

NOTE: All IRB cost analyses explore Project costs @ 50% confidence level and do not include HQ UFE

Project Estimate to Complete (LRD August 2029)
TOR Question #1: Are the scope and cost/schedule 

understood and properly aligned?

• Payload costs appear underestimated and ramp 

down too early for the Aug 2029 LRD

• The planned early ramp up for the S/C and 

Payload is not achievable with current budget 

- FY24-28 deficiencies in $97-295M range

• The Project ETC ramp-downs for the S/C+I&T 

and Payload are unrealistic

BTC values not 

specified in 2023 

President’s Budget

Redacted due to procurementsensitive information
• Comparison of IRB results to the Project ETC based on 

Phases B/C/D cost models

- Project’s Phase-A costs are $156M and run into FY24 

but have too little time for Phase-B (only 9 months)

- Phase-B is assumed to start in FY24 for model comparisons

• IRB estimates are significantly higher for the Payload, 

Science Team

• Analogy comparisons to VAP and MMS show a similar 

cost difference

- Both analyses show a $200-300M underestimate

TOR Question #1: Are the scope and cost/schedule 

understood and properly aligned?

Redacted due to procurementsensitive information Redacted due to procurement sensitive information Redacted due to procurement 

sensitive information
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

L-5yrs L-4yrs L-3yrs L-2yrs L-1yr Launch

GDC Development Funding Profile Comparisons, 

% of Last 5+ Dev Years

GDC Project ETC HQ Funding MMS (inflated) VAP (inflated)

BTC values not 

specified in 2023 

President's Budget

(Plot assumes Project 

ETC is fully funded)

• Life Cycle Phases A-C need revisiting

- GDC Phase-B is unrealistically short

• The HQ Funding profile provides insufficient 

early funding to support development of six 

flight units 

- More early funding is used as the number of flight 

units increases from VAP (2) to MMS (4)

- Project ETC estimated profile appears more 

realistic but likely not sufficient to support six units

• GDC schedule adjustments are needed to 

comply with available HQ Funding

TOR Question #1: Are the scope and cost/schedule 

understood and properly aligned?
• The IRB explored an “Option 2” to develop an 

Engineering Unit/Prototype (S/C and instruments) 

by CDR to help refine the system design (See Table)

- Address risks associated with non-recurring 

engineering, multiple production, supply chain, 

and instrument accommodation

- Engineering Unit turned to Protoflight 6th S/C 

for flight

• Adds to early funding needs but reduces risk

- Adds ~$100M to the IRB cost model estimate and 

moves the LRD out by ~6 months

• Enables a better informed Key Decision Point 

(KDP)-C and reduces risks on Project and HQ UFE 

in later stages

President’s 

Budget 

Request 

FY23 stops 

at FY27

TOR Question #1: Are the scope and cost/schedule 

understood and properly aligned?

Redacted due to procurement 

sensitive information

Redacted due to procurement 

sensitive information

Redacted due to procurement 

sensitive information
• The Project provided limited information about their 

President’s Budget Request (PBR) FY23 scenario

• Many schedule inefficiencies are applied to meet 

funding profile requirements

- Extending Phase-A to over four years

- Low budget profile during fabrication extends 

schedule negating possible savings from multiple units

• More detail regarding the underlying PBR FY23 

assumptions is needed to support a credible IRB 

assessment, and the IRB questions the basis for 

estimates

TOR Question #1: Are the scope and cost/schedule 

understood and properly aligned? Project Plan (PBR FY23)

Redacted due to 

procurement-sensitive 

information
Terms Of Reference – 2 of 3

2. Is the management approach and structure adequate 

for a project of this scope and complexity? 

a. Do the acquisition strategy and subsequent procurements have 

sufficient focus and oversight to ensure the delivery of high-quality 

products on cost and within schedule?
TOR Question #2: Is the management approach and 

structure adequate for the scope and complexity? 

• The Project organization is typical with very experienced key personnel 

identified, but not clear who is responsible for the system level/global view for 

the integration of plans to face the challenges associated with multiple copies

- Planning, supply chain, logistics, production and integration of instrument by institutions 

that may be unaccustomed to operate under such demands

- Many high voltage power supplies, each with long lead parts (e.g., transformers and/or 

optocouplers, accelerated lifetime test requirements, etc.)

• The level of coordination and volume of work required to meet the mission 

needs for a 2029/2030 LRD will place high demands in procurement/contracts 

personnel support to meet the schedule plans and options at GSFC and 

elsewhere

• In general, staffing to support instruments and spacecraft efforts will place 

high demands on the Project and GSFC
• There are significant accommodation expectations associated with the 

instruments that will challenge providers of “production” or “off-the-shelf” 

spacecraft buses (e.g., EMI/C Requirements, Mag and electrostatic cleanliness, 

purge, contamination control)

- Providers have experience and expectations that accommodations will be made to 

maximize science return and may underbid

- Spacecraft providers will try to leverage constellation/production capabilities to reduce 

cost 

- Likely to increase system complexity resulting in increased costs, longer schedules and/or 

compromises in science measurements

• With six+ copies of instruments and complex accommodations, payload system 

engineering is a significant challenge in need for a different approach to payload 

system engineering

- Payload system engineers typically deal with integrating a single payload onto a single 

bus assuring programmatic and technical success

- Science instrument providers do not have recent experience fabricating and testing 

relatively large numbers of instruments and subassemblies

TOR Question #2: Is the management approach and 

structure adequate for the scope and complexity? 
• Phase-A is excessively long, while nine months for Phase-B is aggressive to 

mature the preliminary design for compliance (or compromise) on the 

reference mission requirements

- The plans do not seem to take advantage of the line experience from providers that can 

adapt to production and to a somewhat compressed Phase C/D by negotiating 

requirements to take advantage of their capabilities

• Integration and test schedule for builds of six+ instruments are overly 

aggressive and will be a strain on limited resources

- Production strategies for instruments vary but they all assume aggressive fabrication and 

I&T phases

- These are likely not realizable given the lack of recent experience and other industry-wide 

issues, such as management of multiple concurrent activities 

TOR Question #2: Is the management approach and 

structure adequate for the scope and complexity? 
• The KDP-A decision memo did not include the mission risk classification 

agreement between the parties, and the Formulation Authorization 

Document (FAD) is ambiguous in this regard, stating that the mission is 

“envisioned as a Class C”

- Signed Mission Assurance Requirements (MAR) includes Class “B” upgrades (e.g., EEE 

Parts) without the benefit of an in-depth risk assessment

- Risk classification is important in that it will drive decisions at multiple levels (e.g., 

Mandatory Inspections, Decision making review boards, EEE Parts, PCB Boards, 

radiation, etc.) with cost and schedule implications 

- The IRB is concerned that the mindset of architecture level redundancy, and the natural 

tendencies to upgrade at the spacecraft level will close the door to more 

programmatically and technically effective solutions

TOR Question #2: Is the management approach and 

structure adequate for the scope and complexity? 
Terms Of Reference – 3 of 3

3. Are the GDC science team and the planned 

collaborations structured and focused to maximize the 

return on NASA’s investment, both scientifically and for 

potential contributions to National interests? 

a. Are the suggested real-time Space Weather data transmission of 

significant value to the scientific community, other U.S. agencies, 

and/or our Space Industry including applications to topics of space 

weather (e.g. navigation/communication) and of space situational 

awareness (e.g. orbital debris)? 

b. Are there potential collaborations on or synergies with topics of 

scientific and National importance currently unexplored for GDC? 
• The mission architecture and concept of operations proposed for GDC address 

the 2013 Decadal Survey recommendations for the notional reference mission, 

pending final investigation/instrument selections, with the notable exception 

of the effects of atmospheric wave forcing from below

- The GDC constellation will provide unprecedented measurements of the IT 

system on local, regional, and global scales with six identical spacecraft 

providing simultaneous multi-point observations

- Concurrent operations of a mission like DYNAMIC would address the 

shortfall and increase the return on NASA’s investment beyond the 

individual GDC and DYNAMIC missions

TOR Question #3: Are the GDC science team and the 

planned collaborations structured and focused to maximize 

return on investment? 
• NASA’s overly strict adherence to process, interpretation of policies and regulations, 

inability to adopt recognized best practices from past STDT efforts, and inadequate 

planning for inclusivity, negatively impacted the communication and community 

support efforts required for GDC success

- NASA established the STDT under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and was 

managed in an unnecessarily constrained fashion limiting communications with the 

community

- During the early stages of GDC formulation, NASA neglected to both brief the community 

about progress and plans, and to demonstrate strong and enthusiastic support for the mission

- Some questions and issues raised by community members in response to the draft GDC 

investigation/instrument AO were not acknowledged, addressed, or publicly archived on the 

GDC acquisition homepage

• Notwithstanding the GDC mission is of critical importance and NASA can establish a 

sustained path to overcome these challenges

TOR Question #3: Are the GDC science team and the 

planned collaborations structured and focused to maximize 

return on investment? 
• The mission has been in a protracted transition period, leading to confusion in 

the community about Roles, Accountability, Authority (RAA), while the 

Program Scientist is managing the open AO for the selection of the remaining 

GDC investigations/instruments

- The IRB applauds the July 2022 selection of the Project Scientist and Deputies that 

were added to support the effort; delays in these formal appointments had a 

negative impact in cementing the Project Scientist role as a leader and advocate for 

the mission science with the community 

• Communication with the heliophysics community about mission status 

and decisions was to date sparse and disturbingly constrained, including 

during the June 2022 CEDAR and GEM community workshops

- Community members who were not in attendance at those workshops remain largely 

uninformed about the GDC mission status

TOR Question #3: Are the GDC science team and the 

planned collaborations structured and focused to maximize 

return on investment? 
Science Team Structure

• The early addition of the IDS teams was critically important to GDC and is now 

enabling efforts to meld individual instrument team science investigations in 

pursuit of cohesive mission and constellation objectives during GDC 

formulation

- The IDS teams also complement and extend the expertise and capabilities of the 

GSFC Project Scientist team and add diversity to its membership

TOR Question #3: Are the GDC science team and the 

planned collaborations structured and focused to maximize 

return on investment? 
Importance of GDC real-time data to space weather stakeholders

• NOAA NWS/SWPC , which holds the federal mandate for space weather 

operations, wrote a strong letter of support for GDC

• GDC data streams can be ingested into NOAA NESDIS/OPPA data pipelines, 

expanding infrastructure to support future NOAA-NASA collaborations

• Space weather disturbances occur throughout the solar cycle, as evidenced by 

the loss of 40 Starlink satellites worth ~$100M during minor storm (i.e., G1) conditions 0nly a day after they were launched in February 2022. GDC will provide 

valuable real-time observations when launched during any phase of the solar cycle

• Despite operational stakeholders’ (i.e., NOAA NESDIS/OPPA, NOAA NWS/SWPC, 

Space Force, Air Force, Navy) expressed support for GDC real-time data, it remains unclear which organization will incorporate these data streams into 

operational models

TOR Question #3: Are the GDC science team and the 

planned collaborations structured and focused to maximize 

return on investment? 
Importance of GDC to space weather stakeholders

• Unprecedented GDC observations will lead to improvements in state-ofthe-art IT models which are foundational to space situational awareness 

and space weather prediction

- GDC will facilitate improvements to current operational models, and the processes 

that drive space weather disturbances therein, including representations of 

thermospheric expansion (that leads to increased atmospheric drag on satellites), 

ionospheric irregularities, and high latitude aurora

- GDC will provide opportunities to assimilate unique geophysical data into R2O 

models, allowing assessment of predictive capabilities for future operational use. 

NOAA NWS/SWPC’s WAM-IPE is one example of such a model that is of top National 

priority for space weather

TOR Question #3: Are the GDC science team and the 

planned collaborations structured and focused to maximize 

return on investment? 
Importance of GDC to space weather stakeholders

• Unprecedented GDC observations will lead to improvements in stateof-the-art IT models which are foundational to space situational 

awareness and space weather prediction (continued)

- Updates and extensions to observation-based climatological models of the IT 

will offer higher spatial and temporal resolution with the inclusion of GDC 

measurements.

- Assimilation of GDC data into first-principle global circulation models of the IT 

system will provide exceptional new opportunities to explore the underlying 

physical processes governing the IT response and recovery to space weather 

events, while assessing the hindcast capabilities of these models

TOR Question #3: Are the GDC science team and the 

planned collaborations structured and focused to maximize 

return on investment? 
Potential collaborations or synergies with topics of scientific and National 

importance

• The GDC mission is of crucial importance to US National interests, warranting 

urgent attention

- US industry and government agencies have billions of dollars invested in technologies 

that society relies on orbiting in IT space, and US society increasingly relies upon these 

assets

- GDC science is foundational to understanding prevailing space weather conditions in the 

IT system, along with the system’s response to disturbances and extreme events, that 

often lead to orbital decay and potential satellite loss, communication and navigation 

degradation or losses, and radiation exposure to humans in space, among others

TOR Question #3: Are the GDC science team and the 

planned collaborations structured and focused to maximize 

return on investment? 
Potential collaborations or synergies with topics of scientific and National 

importance

• The GDC mission is of crucial importance to US National interests, warranting 

urgent attention (continued)

- It is unclear whether there is common understanding (i.e., among commercial 

stakeholders, the general public, and elected officials) of the extant and increasing 

vulnerability of space assets and the urgent need to fill IT system knowledge gaps aimed 

at enhancing space weather forecast capabilities in support of their preservation

- The IRB is concerned that pressures on the HPD budget drive decisions that compromise 

strategic Heliophysics flagship missions that address the recommendations of the 

Decadal Surveys

- NASA and the heliophysics community have yet to pursue strong and broad advocacy for 

a fully-funded robust and timely GDC mission in partnership with agencies and 

commercial stakeholders

TOR Question #3: Are the GDC science team and the 

planned collaborations structured and focused to maximize 

return on investment? 
Potential collaborations or synergies with topics of scientific and National 

importance

• The GDC mission is of crucial importance to US National interests, warranting 

urgent attention (continued)

- GDC will rely on ground-based (GB) measurements (e.g., ISRs and FPIs) to calibrate and 

validate GDC measurements; adding high-temporal resolution IT diagnostics from these 

same GB facilities would extend the GDC science return at mesoscales

- DARPA (Ref. April 2022 Technical Announcement for Ouija) seeks to deploy a 

constellation of eight spacecraft in a 200-300 km orbit to provide real-time information 

on ionospheric HF radio propagation via HF receiver, GPS radio occultation, and in-situ 

Langmuir probe measurements; areas of strong synergies with GDC science.

TOR Question #3: Are the GDC science team and the 

planned collaborations structured and focused to maximize 

return on investment? 
Synergies and potential GDC collaborations with international partners 

worth pursuing

• Potential European Space Agency (ESA) collaborations may include, but are not 

limited to, hosted payloads, additional spacecraft and GB support

• There are existing and soon-to-be-launched international magnetospheric and 

ionospheric missions such as the Swarm and SMILE missions within ESA and the 

JAXA FACTORS mission

• The synergistic scientific interests of the international ground-based community, and 

EISCAT 3D in particular, may include magnetosphere-ionosphere-thermosphere 

coupling processes as well as opportunities for GDC Calibration/Validation over the 

Arctic

TOR Question #3: Are the GDC science team and the 

planned collaborations structured and focused to maximize 

return on investment? 
Recommendations
Recommendations – 1 of 5

1. The GDC budget (total and yearly profile) needs to be corrected to be better aligned with plans, 

correct deficiencies identified, and to assign the proper UFE at the Project and NASA/SMD level

2. A system level optimization approach should be undertaken by the Project in the very near future 

to steer the plans for formulation and implementation towards global system level optimization 

and solutions, including designating a lead position whose job is to focus on the issues of supply 

chain, logistics, and production

• A probabilistic risk assessment to inform trades for implementation of the Class C risk classification (e.g., 

Level 2 versus Level 3 parts, selective redundancy, etc.) is urged

• Define the trade space for instrument requirements against the spacecraft provider offerings so that there 

is clear understanding from the beginning

3. The Project should aggressively address risks associated with non-recurring engineering, multiple 

unit production, supply chain, interfaces and instrument accommodation to reduce risk during the 

non-recurring phase, such as:

• Develop a fully integrated engineering unit (S/C and instruments) of sufficient fidelity to be upgradable to 

protoflight as 6th S/C for flight

• Downselect a suitable spacecraft/SI&T provider from two candidate in a two-step process 

• Explore other approaches designed to reduce the burden of the effort
Recommendations – 2 of 5

4. Life Cycle phases should be revisited to allow for the early development of 

the engineering unit S/C provider 2-step selection process

5. Consistent with the guidance and intent of the 2013 Heliophysics Decadal 

survey and the mid-term assessment, NASA SMD, HPD, and the GDC 

Project should proactively advocate for GDC and its critical contributions to 

the Heliophysics System Observatory (HSO) within the science and 

stakeholder communities

6. The leadership of the Project Scientist team should be empowered to speak 

authoritatively about GDC and assume prime responsibility for interactions 

with the community and science performance trades that enable cost 

effective system level solutions; RAA of the Project Scientist versus that of 

the Program Scientist need to be clear and unambiguous
Recommendations – 3 of 5

7. NASA should develop a strategy in close collaboration with NSF and other 

national and international GB facility operators for GB measurements (e.g., 

ISRs and FPIs) to calibrate and validate GDC measurements

8. NASA should undertake a valuation exercise to assess the capability of the 

suite of simultaneous GDC, DYNAMIC like, and GB observations, and to 

calculate the extent to which the collective contributions exceed the sum of 

individual element contributions

• The exercise should include the development of complementary aspirational budgets to 

quantify the cost of maximizing the return on the collection of GDC, DYNAMIC like, and 

GB investments
Recommendations – 4 of 5

9. NASA should capture lessons learned and revisit the approach for 

interactions and engagement with the heliophysics community for missions 

in the early stages, particularly strategic missions

• The approach for GDC was unnecessarily constrained, and eroded confidence in the plans 

and motivations 

• Mission plans, definition, and early formulation processes should be open and transparent 

with the community to every extent possible

• Best practices for the conduct of an STDT (or equivalent) process should be captured and 

normalized across NASA/SMD in the form of a handbook 

10. Much stronger collaboration between NASA and other agencies, including 

NOAA NESDIS/OPPA, NOAA NWS/SWPC, Space Force, Air Force, and the 

Navy, and DARPA as well as commercial stakeholders is urged to understand 

and proactively address space weather impacts on space assets and to 

develop plans to incorporate GDC data streams into operational models; 

coordination with NOAA NWS/SWPC which holds the federal mandate for 

space weather operations, is particularly encouraged
Recommendations - 5 of 5

11. Given the international interest in the science that GDC will address, NASA 

should investigate plausible future collaboration with international partners, 

such as ESA, to augment and extend GDC science

• Collaborations could include, instruments, hosted payloads, additional spacecraft and GB 

support

12. NASA should investigate the additional benefit from existing and soon-to-belaunched, international magnetospheric and ionospheric missions to provide 

long-term continuous, synergistic and important contextual measurements 

as well as CAL/VAL, including SMILE (specifically the auroral imager) and 

Swarm missions within ESA and the JAXA FACTORS mission
Other Observations – 1 of 2

• The progress achieved by HPD in addressing the 2013 Decadal Survey 

recommendations over the last decade is noteworthy

• The selection of investigations/instruments from multiple and varied 

organizations (e.g., GSFC, Universities, other institutions) may create 

unintentional inequities in access and turnaround times for resources, support, 

and response to actions; the GDC Project should be proactive in assuring the 

same opportunities to GSFC and non-GSFC investigation teams so that they 

are treated equitably and as full members of the GDC team

• GDC offers a unique opportunity for a new approach to constellation 

architectures of the future, NASA should take advantage of that possibility to 

find new and strategic approaches to formulation and implementation

• An IRB, when performing independent cost, schedule and risk estimates at 

this early stage, fills a gap to better inform KDP-A and how NASA approaches 

the formulation of assigned (i.e., not competed) missions
Other Observations – 2 of 2

• A more diverse NASA science community will set the stage for the success of 

future missions and programs. NASA SMD and HPD should continue and 

expand ongoing efforts to reach out to, educate, train, and develop more 

diversity in the broader science community and in heliophysics, starting with 

GDC

• Increased efforts are needed by NASA/HPD to demonstrate the importance of 

the science of GDC and other HPD missions 

- There is limited information, video, images, etc. to communicate with and engage the 

general public and stakeholders on the importance and benefits of the science in a way 

that is factual, accessible, and engaging
Summary and Conclusions – 1 of 2

• The GDC mission addresses the primary 2013 Decadal Survey recommendations 

• GDC science is foundational to understanding prevailing IT space weather conditions 

and the system’s response to extreme space weather events, that often lead to 

potential satellite loss, communication and navigation degradation or losses, and 

radiation exposure to humans in space

• The GDC mission is supported strongly by the heliophysics community and the 

broader national community of stakeholders

• The IRB examined Project costs and schedule from multiple perspectives and 

concludes that: 

- An LRD of 2029/2030 is credible for a mission of the scope and nature of GDC; the current 

President's profile and budget do not support this LRD

- The Project Baseline Plan requires additional $200-$300M for a 2029/2030 LRD 
Summary and Conclusions – 2 of 2

• Concerted efforts are necessary to specifically address the GDC challenges 

associated with supply and production planning, economies of scale, and 

strategies to simplify spacecraft/instrument interface requirements and 

deliverables 

• Communication with the heliophysics community about GDC mission status and 

decisions has been constrained and must be improved

• NASA should evaluate the capability of a project suite, involving GDC, a mission 

that characterizes dynamical forcing from below, and GB observations of the IT 

to determine if the collective contributions exceed the sum of individual parts 

- International agreements may offer opportunities to address some needs

• Collaborations between the NASA GDC team and interested operational space 

weather partners, including NOAA NESDIS/OPPA, NOAA NWS/SWPC, Space 

Force, Air Force, and the Navy, warrant improvement, particularly for 

coordination with NOAA NWS/SWPC, which has the federal mandate for space 

weather operations
Appendix
Acronyms

AO – Announcement of Opportunity

AETHER – Atmospheric Electrodynamics probe for THERmal 

Plasma 

BTC – Budget to Complete

CAPE – Comprehensive Auroral Precipitation Experiment 

CEDAR – Coupling, Energetics and Dynamics of Atmospheric 

Regions 

DARPA – Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

EEE – Electrical, Electronic, Electromechanical

EHPD – Explorers & Heliophysics Projects Division 

EMC – Electro Magnetic Compatibility

EMI – Electro Magnetic Interference

ESA – European Space Agency

ETC – Estimate to Complete

FAD – Formulation Authorization Document

FPIs – Fabry-Perot Interferometers

GB –Ground Based

GDC – Geospace Dynamics Constellation

GEM –Geospace Environmental Modeling

GSFC – Goddard Space Flight Center

HPD – Heliophysics Division

HSO – Heliophysics System Observatory 

HQ – Headquarters (NASA)

IDS – Interdisciplinary Science Teams 

IRB – Independent Review Board

ISRs – Incoherent Scatter Radars

IT – Ionosphere/Thermosphere
Acronyms Continued

KDP – Key Decision Point

LRD – Launch Readiness Date

LWS – Living With a Star

MAR – Mission Assurance Requirements

MCP – Micro Channel Plates

MMS – Magnetospheric Multiscale

MoSAIC – Modular Spectrometer for Atmosphere and 

Ionosphere Characterization 

NASA – National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NESDIS – National Environmental Satellite, Data, and 

Information Service

NOAA – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NWS – National Weather Service

OPPA – Office of Projects, Planning, and Analysis

PCB – Printed Circuit Board

R2O – Research to Operations

RAA – Roles, Accountability, Authority

SMD – Science Mission Directorate

STDT – Science and Technology Definition Team

SWPC – Space Weather Prediction Center

TOR –Terms Of Reference

VAP –Van Allen Probes

WAM-IPE – Whole Atmosphere Model-Ionosphere 

Plasmasphere Electrodynamics