GEC: A Mission to the Threshold of Space

UPDATED OVERVIEW OF THE

REPORT OF THE NASA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEFINITION TEAM
FOR THE
GEOSPACE ELECTRODYNAMIC CONNECTIONS MISSION

May 2004
 T
HE GEOSPACE ELECTRODYNAMICS CONNECTIONS (GEC) MISSION
GEC: will provide the first comprehensive, direct measurements
of the threshold region of Earth’s atmosphere and its contact
A MISSION TO with space: GEC will tell us how the threshold of our high-latitude
atmosphere interacts with, responds to, and mediates externally
THE THRESHOLD imposed energy and momentum.

OF SPACE
At the very edge of Earth’s atmosphere lies a region that marks the
transition from the neutral atmosphere to the plasma state of space.
In this threshold region, both neutral and charged gases coexist,
interact, and respond to the magnetic and electric fields and energetic
particles of space. This region is an electrically charged planetary
boundary layer that constitutes the innermost layer of the ionosphere–
thermosphere (I–T) system. This I–T boundary layer acts as a deposi-
tory of energy from distant sources, an intermediary for charged and
neutral gases, and a regulator of electrical coupling with the mag-
netosphere. The I–T boundary layer is a crucial element in the electri-
cal connections that occur between the Sun and Earth. However, de-
spite the nearness of this layer, it is one of the least directly measured
regions of our geospace environment. The GEC Mission will explore
the role of this contact layer in the coupling between the overlying
space environment and our planet’s atmosphere.

The physical processes that characterize the I–T boundary layer are
dominated by interdependent interactions of the ionized and neutral
gases and by distant source regions that are coupled via Earth’s mag-
netic field. Significant energy is transferred into this region by the
charged particles, electric fields, and electric currents of the high-
altitude magnetosphere as well as by upward-propagating tides and
waves from the lower atmosphere. The I–T boundary layer generates
an upward feedback into the magnetosphere and modulates influ-
ences of the space environment on the lower regions. Resolving these
processes in our own I–T boundary layer is the heart of the GEC mis-
sion.

Mars and Venus, the most Earthlike planets in the solar system, have
a contact region like Earth’s except for one very important difference:
neither of these planets has a large intrinsic magnetic field. As part of
this mission, we will gain an improved understanding of how great a
role Earth’s magnetic field plays in the evolution and stability of life

Cover Photo: Processes that characterize the

Ionosphere–Thermosphere boundary layer coupling of
Earth’s space environment to our planet’s atmosphere
at high latitudes.

1
 on the planet’s surface. Understanding the contact of our geospace
environment and the atmosphere is a necessary part of providing clo-
sure to the connections between the Sun and our planet.

To accomplish the goals of the GEC mission, in situ measurements of

the neutral and plasma properties within the contact region are re-
quired. As such, a “deep-dipping” element of the mission is impera-
tive to reach the regions where fundamental interactions connect the
atmosphere and space. Because the response and scale dependencies
of the neutral and plasma gases are vastly different, a multispacecraft
mission is needed to quantify the persistence of the energy inputs
and the response of the contact region. In this report, we outline a
cost-effective, reconfigurable constellation of small satellites that will
resolve these key issues.

This document provides a brief, updated overview of the Science and

Technology Definition Team (STDT) report for GEC (the original re-
port is available at http://stp.gsfc.nasa.gov/missions/gec/). Our purpose
is to more clearly identify the key focus of the mission and to estab-
lish science priorities by which the anticipated productivity of the
mission can be evaluated. GEC will make a unique contribution to
the Sun–Earth Connection theme by exploring this region where the
ions in the atmosphere transition from being strongly influenced by
collisions to being dominated by the ambient electric and magnetic
fields. Specifically, GEC will discover how geospace energy is cou-
pled into the atmosphere.

SCIENCE
PRIORITIES
S CIENCE PRIORITIES FOR THE MISSION have been established by noting
that the full effects of collisions between the ion and neutral gases
must first be understood. Then, the relationships between different
scales in the ion and neutral gases can be assessed, leading finally to
an ability to uncover how the many different scales evolve and inter-
act in time. Accordingly, the GEC scientific priorities can be clearly
set; these are described below in priority order:

1. ION-NEUTRAL COLLISIONAL INTERACTIONS

Key Question: How do the collisionally The electrodynamic connection of Earth’s atmosphere to space is de-
coupled charged and neutral atmospheric termined by the collisional interaction of the charged gases of the lower
constituents in the IT boundary layer respond ionosphere and neutral gases of the lower thermosphere. Within this
to electrodynamic input imposed from space? Ionosphere–Thermosphere region, energy and momentum are ex-
changed between the ionized gas and the neutral gas through mech-
anisms such as Joule heating and direct momentum transfer. The

2
 magnitudes and partitioning of energy and momentum transfer in
the interaction depend on the detailed multiple-scale physical param-
eters that can be determined only through direct in situ observations.
Spatial scales, temporal scales, and correlations among the fields, and
the ion and neutral parameters, all contribute to determining the re-
sponse to the electrodynamic input. Joule heating alters the tempera-
ture and pressure of the neutral gas, inducing strong vertical motions
that modify the composition and couple to the global circulation.
Momentum transfer modifies the ion-neutral velocity difference,
which in turn modifies the electrical currents and the heating rates.
While we know much about these interactions from previous mis-
sions at higher altitudes (>300km), there remains much that we do
not know, particularly at the lower altitudes (<200 km), where Joule
heating and momentum transfer effects are strongest.

Among the least well-known, yet most critical, factors that control
the I–T interaction is the ion-neutral collision frequency. The abso-
lute magnitude of heating and momentum transfer rates depends
critically on this parameter, as does the electrical conductivity of the
region. Without in situ measurements of the various electrodynamic
parameters in the altitude region where the collision frequency sig-
nificantly affects the observations, it can be inferred only from theo-
ry using estimates of the atmospheric composition and density. Such
estimates rely on laboratory measurements and theoretical calcula-
tions to determine the collision cross-sections, which are obtained
under pressures and temperatures for which their relevance to I–T
conditions entails considerable uncertainty. Hence, a critical element
of the GEC mission includes repeated excursions to low altitudes
(<200 km), where the appropriate measurements can be obtained
directly.

Currently, our knowledge of the magnitude and scale size of the dy-
namic interaction below 200 km altitude is insufficient to describe
the response of the system to the complex electric fields and particle
precipitation imposed on our upper atmosphere. To close this knowl-
edge gap, GEC must:

3
 R Measure the ion and neutral velocities, EIB velocity, and neutral
composition and density, over an altitude region where the
difference between the EIB velocity and the ion drift velocity can
be determined.
R Measure the electric field, energetic particle distribution, and
currents to specify the input drivers and their spatial structure.
R Use measurements of ion and neutral particle dynamics, composi-
tion, and density to determine the ion-neutral collision frequency.
R Measure the ion and neutral velocities to describe the neutral wind
response to ion drag forcing and altered pressure gradients.
R Measure temperature, densities, and velocities of the neutral and
ionized gases, including their relative compositions, to quantify
the multiple-scale responses of circulation and composition to Joule
heating.
R In an extended mission phase, assemble measurements from a pet-
al orbit configuration to reveal vertical gradients in the electric cur-
rents and in the atmospheric responses.

2. SCALES OF ELECTRODYNAMIC DRIVERS AND RESPONSES

Key Question: How are the spatial variations Spatial and temporal variations of the electrodynamic drivers inci-
and persistence of the electrodynamic drivers dent on the I–T system can produce a wide range of responses that
related to the neutral responses? depend on the scales and persistence of those variations. For exam-
ple, air can be accelerated toward the ion velocity only if the ion-drag
forcing is persistent, and if the forcing region is large enough that air
parcels remain within it for an extended period. The relevant times-
cale is determined by the effectiveness of the neutral-ion collisions,
which varies from many hours to a fraction of an hour, depending on
the ion density. The relevant spatial scale is, basically, this timescale
multiplied by the wind velocity. Since Joule heating is proportional to
the square of the ion-neutral velocity difference, the magnitude of
Joule heating is reduced when the wind velocity approaches the ion
velocity. Vertical neutral velocities respond within minutes to chang-
es in the local Joule heating. Acoustic-gravity waves are generated on
a wide range of temporal and spatial scales. Global circulation re-
sponds within a few hours to changes in the large-scale Joule heating.
Localized electric fields can interact in a significantly different way
with the air than larger scale fields, as the former are more likely to
produce plasma instabilities and irregularities, as well as intense ver-
tical winds that may cause mixing of air parcels over a greater verti-
cal extent. All of these responses are strongly dependent on altitude.
Our current ability to address these spatially and temporally varying
inputs and responses is severely limited by an inadequate knowledge

4
 of the significant spatial and temporal scales. Parameterizations in
models are also based upon an inadequate knowledge. To close this
knowledge gap, GEC must:

R Use multiple satellites configured with “pearls on a string” sepa-

rations along the same orbit path to resolve space and time varia-
tions of the electrodynamics drivers and the local neutral and ion-
ized gas response properties.
R Determine the persistence and correlation of the inputs and respons-
es by obtaining the measurements with temporal spacings between
at least two satellites ranging from 10 seconds to 30 minutes.
R Measure the electric field energetic particle flux and plasma densi-
ty with a sample rate that allows resolving static structures with
scale sizes of 1 km and greater.
R Measure the EIB, ion, and neutral velocities with a resolution of
1 km over an altitude region where the difference between the ion
drift direction and the EIB direction can be determined.

3. EVOLUTION AND FEEDBACK

Key Question: How, and under what condi- Electrodynamic inputs to the system produce responses in the neu-
tions, do the responses evolve and feed back on tral and ionized gasses that differ in both spatial and temporal scales
the drivers? because of the greater influence of inertia and viscosity in the neutral
gas. The neutral response may extend well beyond the period and
spatial region over which the input is delivered. Inertia in the neutral
atmosphere can maintain an imprint of the input that is conveyed
back to the ionized gas via a flywheel effect. Thus, while currents
may be driven in the region from outside influences, they are modi-
fied by the response of the system. By modifying the current in the
magnetosphere–ionosphere–thermosphere (M–I–T) circuit, the altered
I–T system will feed back on the magnetospheric driver. Currently,
we have very little information on these influences and how they
evolve. Understanding them, however, is critical to understanding
the interaction between the atmosphere and the geospace environ-
ment. To rise to this challenge, GEC must:

R Measure electric and magnetic fields to identify the direction of

electromagnetic energy flow, which is downward for magneto-
spheric input and upward when driven from below by the flywheel
effect.

5
 R Measure the neutral wind, ion drift, electric fields, and plasma den-
sity in situ with temporal separations from 10 seconds to 30 min-
utes between at least three satellites to characterize the evolving
properties of the ionospheric portion of the M–I–T circuit.
R Correlate the rate of change of the electric field, energetic particles,
and currents with changes in the ion and neutral drifts and gas
properties including composition to expose the influence of feed-
back from the atmosphere.

IMPLEMENTATION
F ROM MISSIONS SUCH AS ATMOSPHERE EXPLORER, which made very
limited excursions to low altitudes with low-duty-cycle, low-data-
rate instruments, and TIMED, which measures some important sig-
natures of the lower I–T region via remote sensing, we know that, in
order to understand the interaction of the neutral and ionized gases
as well as the impacts of the temporally varying inputs, we must sam-
ple this region directly. The GEC spacecraft must, therefore, have the
capability to dip to low altitudes into the region where collisional ef-
fects are dominant. A deviation of the ion drift from the EIB drift is a
key indicator that must be detected with high fidelity. It will be nec-
essary to measure not only below 150 km, but also at a range of alti-
tudes above 150 km, because the collisional effects vary strongly with
height. In fact, data from GEC’s “parking perigee” of 200–250 km
will provide a wealth of information about ion-neutral interactions
and their effects in a region that has hitherto been only sparsely sam-
pled. However, measurements at 200–250 km alone will not be able to
answer the primary science questions of GEC.

The GEC mission must also consist of two or more spacecraft strung
out primarily along a common orbit, in a pearls-on-a-string manner,
or sometimes vertically aligned in a petal orbital configuration as they
carry out their low-altitude passes to discover and specify the spatial
and temporal variations in the region. The number of satellites re-
quired to gather the necessary data to successfully address each GEC
science question varies in accordance with each question. Significant
progress on the first GEC science question concerning understanding
the basic ion-neutral collisions can be achieved with one satellite. Two
satellites are needed to significantly advance our understanding of
the second GEC science question, concerning electrodynamic scales
and responses. The third GEC science question, to understand the
evolution of the lower I–T system and its feedback on the magneto-
sphere, requires three satellites. This is summarized in Table 1.

6
 Table 1. GEC—Science Drivers for the Multiple Satellite Approach
Minimum number of satellites to ensure
Science Question
comprehensive progress
1. Ion-neutral collision interactions 1
2. Scales of electrodynamics drivers and response 2
3. Evolution and feedback 3

In order to put the GEC data in context as well as define the I–T bound-
ary layer background parameters, GEC observations should be gath-
ered in conjunction with dedicated campaigns in coordination with
ground-based facilities, such as incoherent scatter radars and all-sky
cameras. Theoretical and empirical modeling will also be an integral
part of the mission strategy.

The data returned by the GEC spacecraft and by the complementary

ground-based instruments will be highly detailed and complex. Their
interpretation will require advanced models with the ability to simu-
late the multiscale interacting ion-neutral processes over domains that
range from hundreds of kilometers to the entire globe. The unprece-
dented data will constrain and test the models in ways not previous-
ly achievable. In return, successful simulations will provide a contin-
uous space–time picture of the measured parameters, and will enable
detailed analyses of the physical processes that are operating. The
data will also contribute significantly to empirical models that, among
other things, provide inputs and parameterizations for the global sim-
ulation models.

MEASUREMENT GOALS
T ABLE 2 SUMMARIZES THE KEY MISSION MEASUREMENTS needed to ac-

complish the GEC science objectives. For each geophysical pa-

rameter, the range is dictated by its expected geophysical variability.
This variability results from the need to sample over all local time
regions and over an altitude region where the ion-neutral coupling
varies considerably. The accuracy is dictated by the magnitude of
changes associated with the magnetospheric drivers and the I–T sys-
tem response. For example, to measure changes in the field-aligned
currents will require a sensitivity in the measurement of magnetic
field perturbations of 10 nT. Changes in vertical neutral winds result-
ing from localized Joule heating will require a sensitivity of 5 m/s. It
should be emphasized that the GEC mission encompasses two phas-
es of an investigation: one of discovery and another of quantification.
Table 2 describes measurement goals in rather general terms without
discussion of the measurement techniques or the needs that are spe-
cific to a given investigation. The SDT believes that the discovery phase

7
 Table 2. GEC “Nominal” Mission Below 500 km—Critical Science Measurements
Science Questions Measurement Requirements
Q1. Q2. Q3.
Collisions, Temporal/ Evolution Temporal
Science Parameter Range Accuracy
Ion-Neutral Spatial and Resolution
Coupling Scales Response
Electric Fields (vector) H H H 0– 300 mV/m 0.25 mV/m 0.1 sec

Ion Velocity (vector) H H H 0– 6 km/s 5 m/s 0.1 sec

Neutral Velocity (vector) H H H 0– 2 km/s 5 m/s 1 sec

Magnetic Field (vector)* H H H 0– 65000 nT 10 nT 0.1 sec

Energetic Electron Fluxes 15% fluxes,
M M M 108– 1012 eV/cm2/s/sr/eV 1.1 sec
0– 20 eV (all angles, 20° res.)** 15% energy
20 eV– 30 keV (all pitch angle, 15% fluxes,
20° res.) H H H 106– 1010 eV/cm2/s/sr/eV 1.1 sec
15% energy
30 keV– 300 keV (downward 20% fluxes,
flux, 90° res.) L M H 104– 108 eV/cm2/s/sr/eV 1 sec
25% energy
Energetic Ion Fluxes 15% fluxes,
20 eV– 20 keV (all pitch M M M 105– 109 eV/cm2/s/sr/eV 0.1 sec
15% energy
angles, 20° res.)
20 keV– 1MeV (downward 20% fluxes,
L M H 103– 107 eV/cm2/s/sr/eV 1 sec
flux, 90° res.) 25% energy
Plasma Density H H H 102– 107 cm-3 ± 10% 1.1 sec

Ion & Electron Temperature H H H 300– 10000 ° K ± 10% 1 sec

Neutral Density H H H 109– 1012 cm-3 ± 10% 1 sec

Neutral Temperature H H H 300– 3000 ° K ± 10% 1 sec

Ion Composition
H H H relative concentration ± 1% 1 sec
(H+, O+, NO+, O2+, Mg+, Fe+)
Neutral Composition
H H H relative concentration ± 1% 1 sec
(O, N2, O2)
Importance: H = High, M = Moderate, L = Low

* Magnetic field measurements are needed to provide estimates of the local and remote measurements of
currents (field-aligned, Pedersen, Hall) as well as Alfvén wave measurements and Poynting Flux computa-
tions. GEC is not primarily interested in measurements of Earth’s ambient magnetic field.

** Suprathermal electron measurements would provide evidence of low-energy auroral fluxes, and if they
had sufficient sensitivity, could provide local current measurements associated with low-energy electrons.

can be successful even with slightly relaxed measurement capabili-

ties. It is expected that individual instrument proposals will demon-
strate the need and capability to provide measurements required for
specific investigation goals.

The measurement requirements have been discussed at the end of

each science question section above. As can be seen in the table, a
complete suite of electrodynamics, neutral gas, and plasma measure-
ments are needed to address each question. Some of the particle mea-
surements are not discussed explicitly in the science question narra-

8
 tives, but are needed for context to distinguish boundaries and for
magnetospheric inputs. For example, the energetic ions are most use-
ful to define the cusp and dayside aurora. The high-energy ions and
electrons can be used to define the ring current trapping boundaries,
and their offset will provide information concerning the drivers of
subauroral ionospheric drifts. The suprathermal (0–20 eV) electron
measurement would be valuable as both a detector of low-energy au-
roral fluxes and a potential direct measurement of currents. Note that
this latter application has not yet been demonstrated, and it is not of
crucial importance, given the expected measurements of current from
magnetometer observations.

ORBIT REQUIREMENTS
T HREE ARRANGEMENTS OF THE SATELLITE ORBITS are required to con-

duct the GEC mission: “deep dipping,” pearls-on-a-string con-

figuration of multiple satellites separated along the same orbit, and
“petal orbits.” These options and their science drivers are discussed
in the original GEC STDT document. In brief, the pearls-on-a-string
configuration allows GEC to sample a particular region in the sequence
of one spacecraft followed by another (Figure 1). Separations between
1 and 30 minutes will allow temporal variations of these periods to be
specified for features that have corresponding longitude coherence.
This configuration is a powerful and necessary tool to discover the
impact of features with different levels of persistence. Vertical cou-
pling is most efficiently investigated by employing a petal configura-
tion that provides for the satellites to simultaneously sample the same
latitudinal region at different altitudes (Figure 2).

Guidance for prioritization of capabilities beyond minimum requirements,

in order of scientific value

1. Increased depth of dipping with a goal to achieve routinely perigees of 130 km.
2. More coordination of campaigns with ground-based facilities.
3. Increased number of high-latitude campaigns (conducted at other local times).
4. Addition of “petal” campaigns.
5. Increased campaign durations.
6. Addition of low-latitude perigee campaigns (perigee below 150 km desired).
7. Addition of high-latitude campaigns needed to resample local times during different seasons.

Additionally, the requirement to make measurements at high latitude and many local times makes
an orbital inclination of 83 degrees optimal.

9
Figure 1. The pearls-on-
a-string configuration.

Figure 2. The “petal”

formation for two of
the GEC spacecraft.

10
 DIPPING STRATEGY
T HE POSSIBLE APPROACHES TO DIPPING CAMPAIGNS are many be-

cause of the flexibility inherent in the locations, durations, and

amounts of perigee excursion. The trade space is large in terms of
science return and resource expenditure, so guidelines for develop-
ing a dipping strategy are necessary. The basic approach follows from
the science priorities above. Because the high-priority GEC science
occurs at high latitudes, the dipping strategy must emphasize cam-
paigns performed at high latitudes. The high-priority phenomena
manifest themselves most profoundly below 150 km, so spending a
significant amount of time below 150 km is a high priority. The phe-
nomena are not uniformly distributed in local time, so measurements
over a range of local time are necessary. Coordinated measurements
with ground-based facilities are also a high priority. These priorities
lead to minimum dipping requirements of three 1-week, high-
latitude campaigns having perigee less than 150 km. The campaigns
must be well separated in local time, and at least one of the cam-
paigns must be coordinated with a scientific radar facility such as
Sondrestrom or the National Science Foundation’s new Advanced
Modular Incoherent Scatter Radar (AMISR).

MISSION SUCCESS
CRITERIA T HE CENTERPIECE OF THE GEC MISSION is the ability to access the

collision-dominated region of the I–T boundary during so-called

“deep dipping” campaigns. This new in situ exploratory capability
should not detract from the important information that will be ob-
tained from the relatively low perigee of the baseline orbit and from
the opportunity to examine the behavior of our atmosphere at much
higher altitudes near apogee. In assessing the science goals set forth
by the STDT, it is clear that the major impacts to the full achievement
lie in the clarity with which the collisional effects can be described
and in the ability to quantify the spatial and temporal scales that are
important. This clarity will, in turn, depend upon the reproducibility
of the phenomena that are discovered and, thus, on the number of
opportunities to access the region and gather time-separated mea-
surements within it.

11
 Full
Science Mission Achieved by a three-satellite configuration
in which all instrument complements function successfully and
as a constellation achieves at least 10 1-week-long, deep-dipping
campaigns, with three of these centered on the northern auroral
region as defined in the Minimum Science Mission. A petal or-
bit configuration established at high latitudes following the dip-
There are four discrete levels of success for GEC: ping campaigns will allow examination of altitude variations seen
Full Science, Minimum Science, Partial Science 1, along a single set of orbits.
and Partial Science 2 (described at right). Each
affects the science return for GEC objectives 1, 2,
and 3 differently. Minimum
Science Mission Achieved if two satellites are able to com-
Table 3 summarizes the STDT’s evaluation of plete three simultaneous deep-dipping campaigns. Each
campaign would need to be 1 week long, with perigee in the
GEC success. 130–140 km range, with latitude of perigee being the Northern
Hemisphere centered near 65° and in the local time sectors of
noon, premidnight, and midnight. The spacing between the sat-
ellites should be in the 2- to 10-minute range. The seasonal con-
straint would be that either the premidnight or midnight sector
be in winter.

Partial
Science Mission 1 Defined as the scenario in which two
GEC satellites successfully complete at least 10 deep-dipping
campaigns as outlined in the Full Science Mission. Note that
two satellites as described above have three possible interpre-
tations: 1) GEC has only two satellites, 2) GEC dips only two
satellites, or (3) only two GEC satellites have full operational
capabilities.

Partial
Science Mission 2 Defined as the scenario in which a full,
three-satellite GEC mission is able to complete only three deep-
dipping campaigns, but otherwise completes a 2-year mission.

Table 3. Relative Accomplishment of

GEC Science Goals for
Different Levels of Mission Performance
Science Science Science
Mission
Q1 Q2 Q3
Full
100% 100% 100%
Science
Partial 1 90% 60% 50%

Partial 2 70% 80% 70%

Minimum 60% 40% 40%

12
 CONTRIBUTIONS
OF GEC
T HE MULTISATELLITE GEC SCIENCE MISSION, with its comprehensive
measurement suite and with altitudes extending above 1,000
km, also will address a large number of outstanding ionospheric phys-
TO ics problems that are beyond the focus of GEC and, hence, are not
described in the GEC reports. Such secondary science constitutes an
SEC SYSTEMS important element of the GEC mission and demonstrates the great
SCIENCE utility of this unprecedented mission to NASA and the science com-
munity.

For example, the period since the STDT report was prepared has seen
the launch of NASA’s IMAGE and TIMED spacecraft, their exciting
new results, and the flowering of the so-called system science ap-
proach to understanding the physics of the Sun–Earth System. The
new results from TIMED and IMAGE have refocused our attention
on poorly understood phenomena occurring in and above the F region
ionosphere, such as Sub-Auroral Polarization Streams (SAPS) and
large-scale plasmaspheric dynamics. The instrumentation required
to meet the GEC science goals will also return data from the F region
and above that will resolve spatial/temporal ambiguities that have
limited our understanding of these and other high-altitude ionospher-
ic phenomena.

The systems approach to SEC science has clearly demonstrated

the value of using a fleet of operating satellites, originally launched
for diverse purposes, to address the flow of mass and energy through
the Sun–Earth system. These system studies are the focus of NASA’s
Living With a Star program. Several new missions, such as NASA’s
Magnetosphere Multiscale Mission, the LWS Ionospheric Storm
Probes, and proposed International LWS missions, such as Canada’s
EPOP (polar wind) mission, are anticipated. If GEC is propitiously
launched, it could contribute significantly to the systems science from
such a fleet of simultaneous geospace observatories.

13
AUTHORS GEC Science Definition L.J. Paxton
Team Members Applied Physics Laboratory

Co-Chair W.K. Peterson

J.J. Sojka NASA Headquarters/LASP
Utah State University
R.F. Pfaff
Co-Chair Goddard Space Flight Center
R.A. Heelis
University of Texas at Dallas J.P. Thayer
Stanford Research Institute
W.A. Bristow
University of Alaska, Fairbanks A.D. Richmond
National Center for Atmospheric
J.H. Clemmons Research
Aerospace Corporation
GEC Project Scientist
G. Crowley
Southwest Research Institute J.M. Grebowsky
Goddard Space Flight Center
J.C. Foster
MIT Haystack Observatory

C. Kletzing
University of Iowa

14