Compiled DRRs from Public Review of ECSS-E-10-04B Draft 0.10
09.06.2008
Date of circulation: 04.04.2008
ECSS Working Group: E-10-04 WG
Deadline for reply: 28.05.2008
WG convenor: G. Drolshagen
DRRs received from ECSS members
The Working Group is requested to disposition all the DRRs coming from ECSS members and in case of “Rejection” or
“Acceptance with modification” contact the DRR-originator to inform him about the proposed DRR disposition.
ECSS TA member
Date of reply
Number of DRRs
ECSS registration no.
D. Baum (DLR)
No reply
1 DRR
003-DLR
IN/2008-46
F. Durand-Carrier (CNES)
28.05.2008
2 DRRs
001 to 002-CNES
IN/2008-46
F. Felici (ESA)
09.06.2008
No comments
-
IN/2008-65
R. Formaro (ASI)
No reply
I. Gibson (BNSC)
No reply
G.D. Meijvogel (NIVR)
No reply
Eurospace
29.05.2008
24 DRRs
004 to 027-Eurospace
IN/2008-47
Remarks: None
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DRRs reveived from non-ECSS members
The WG is requested to disposition the DRRs but has not the obligation to inform the DRR-originator about the proposed disposition.
Originator of DRR
W. Kent Tobiska – Space Environment
Technologies (U.S.A).
(ktobiska@spaceenvironment.net)
Total DRRs received
DRR received
5 DRRs
Number of DRRs
5 DRRs
028 to 032-Tobiska
ECSS registration no.
IN/2008-66
32 DRRs
Remarks: None
Page 1 of 13
Compiled DRRs from Public Review of ECSS-E-10-04B Draft 0.10
09.06.2008
4. Review Item no.
(Entered by Secretariat)
DRR number - Originator
5. Location of
deficiency
clause
page
(e.g. 3.1
14)
6. Review deficiency and justification
7. Proposed change
8. Disposition of
DRR
9. DRR
implemented
001-CNES
Radiation belt fluxes model : alternative models for
MEO orbits (GPS, Galileo) have been developed at
ONERA/DESP through CNES R&T complemented by
ESA/ESTEC R&D. Those models are based on longterm measurement series from GPS spacecraft.
Compared to the usual standard AE8 model, those
models offer a better time coverage and rely on actual
measurement data (few effective measurement in the
orbital zones of interest were used for building AE8). It
would be very beneficial to consider at least one of the
versions of these models (v1, v2) as alternatives to AE8
in the MEO range.
Accepted
New
paragraph
added to
include
MEOv2 model
as standard for
GPS type
orbits and as
option for
higher MEO/
Navigation
orbits.
002-CNES
Solar particle models : for peak SEU rate calculations,
it is necessary to consider not only average total solar
particle fluence over the mission lifetime, but also peak
particle fluxes during solar events. No solar event peak
flux model is proposed in this version of E-10-04.
Accepted
Table with
peak fluxes is
included.
I propose to include E-10-04 in the consistency review to
check it for compliance with drafting rules (e.g. in 6.2.2.b
requirements in requirement, 8.2.2.f not written as
requirement - should be a note).
Accepted
Text will be
checked and
updated where
required.
Rejected
This DRR is
not clear.
Tests are not
needed to
verify the
requirements.
Tests of
003-DLR
004-Eurospace
General
The description / specification of the environment is very
detailed.
What is missing is the reference to the tests which are
acceptable for the verification of the environmental
requirement.
Dispositions:
A
Accept comment as written
AM
Accept comment with modification (disposition with justification required)
R
Reject comment (disposition with justification required)
Add a test section or a reference where the test
approach is described.
Page 2 of 13
Compiled DRRs from Public Review of ECSS-E-10-04B Draft 0.10
09.06.2008
4. Review Item no.
(Entered by Secretariat)
DRR number - Originator
5. Location of
deficiency
clause
page
(e.g. 3.1
14)
6. Review deficiency and justification
7. Proposed change
8. Disposition of
DRR
9. DRR
implemented
systems or
subsystems
themselves
are outside the
scope of this
standard.
005-Eurospace
6.3
36
Table 6.3 and Annex G.9 are not in accordance: Annex
G.9 reports Ap=300 as a long-term high value, whilst
Table 6.3 reports Ap=25.
Provide consistent values between Paragraphs 6.2
and 6.3 and Annex G.9.
Accepted
Reference
data in Table
G3 will be
made
consistent with
index values in
Table 6.3.
Long term high
index values
will be
changed.
Additional
short term
index values
and reference
data will be
added.
006-Eurospace
6.3
36
Why have the (long-term) F10.7 and Ap indices been
reduced so heavily, when compared with version A of
this standard? Does this mean that past and current
satellites are being designed with pessimistic atomic
oxygen values?
Please clarify.
Rejected
The values
had not
changed from
previous
version A of
the standard.
007-Eurospace
9
4753
This section does not include the models to calculate the
displacement damage doses, the effects of which have
to be analysed according to ECSS-E-10-12.
Update the section introducing the displacement
damage equivalent fluence depth curve
(expressed in 10MeV p/cm2).
Rejected
This is within
the scope of
ECSS-E-10-12
and not within
Dispositions:
A
Accept comment as written
AM
Accept comment with modification (disposition with justification required)
R
Reject comment (disposition with justification required)
Page 3 of 13
Compiled DRRs from Public Review of ECSS-E-10-04B Draft 0.10
09.06.2008
4. Review Item no.
(Entered by Secretariat)
DRR number - Originator
5. Location of
deficiency
clause
page
(e.g. 3.1
14)
6. Review deficiency and justification
7. Proposed change
8. Disposition of
DRR
9. DRR
implemented
ECSS-E-1004.
008-Eurospace
9.2.1
4950
The subparagraphs titles are not in line with the title of
the paragraph which refers to fluxes, not orbits or
analyses.
Subparagraphs titles should all refer to fluxes, or
alternatively they should all refer to orbits.
AM
Titles of subpragraphs are
modified. The
sub-paragraph
on internal
charging will
be kept in this
clause with
modified title.
Para. 9.2.1.3 should be removed from this section,
possibly introduced in section 8.
009-Eurospace
9.2.1.2
50
Paragraph deals only with electron fluxes in
geostationary orbits, disregarding protons.
Even if trapped protons are much less significant in
a GEO orbit than e.g. in a LEO orbit, the paragraph
should include all particle models in a way similar
to para. 9.2.1.1.
Accepted
Text is
modified and
paragraph
restructured
accordingly
010-Eurospace
9.2.1.2
50
The NOTE “Models for other orbits are available, more
information on these models is given in Annex I” should
not be placed under paragraph titled “electron fluxes in
geostationary orbits”, unless the intention is to provide
delta information on electron fluxes in GEO orbits only.
Move the note to another location and give clear
indications on which models for which orbits the
informative annex provides useful delta information
to be considered (e.g., MEO electron
environment).
Accepted
Text is
modified and
paragraph
restructured
accordingly
011-Eurospace
9.2.2
50
The organisation of the paragraph is not clear and may
lead to misunderstanding. There is no introducing
sentence. Moreover:
The paragraph should be re-arranged, possibly
sub-divided in sections for particle types (protons,
ions) and subsequently on orbit type and then on
mission duration.
AM
Paragraph will
be re-arranged
for
clarification.
Sub-division
will be into
fluences and
fluxes.
Re-arrange the paragraph making clear whether
Accepted
Paragraph will



012-Eurospace
9.2.2
50
It seems that bullet c) refers to bullet a).
Bullet d) refers to a specific orbit whilst the previous
bullets refer to mission times.
Bullets e) and f) refer to ions, whilst the first 4 bullets
refer to protons.
“For ions other than protons, either: the CREME96 model
Dispositions:
A
Accept comment as written
AM
Accept comment with modification (disposition with justification required)
R
Reject comment (disposition with justification required)
Page 4 of 13
Compiled DRRs from Public Review of ECSS-E-10-04B Draft 0.10
09.06.2008
4. Review Item no.
(Entered by Secretariat)
DRR number - Originator
5. Location of
deficiency
clause
page
(e.g. 3.1
14)
Solar
particle
event
models e.
013-Eurospace
014-Eurospace
6. Review deficiency and justification
[RN.18] (only available online) or Table B.7, Table B.8,
and Table B.9 shall be used.”
7. Proposed change
8. Disposition of
DRR
points b., c., d. are applicable to SPE protons, SPE
ions, or both.
9. DRR
implemented
be re-arranged
Are the “conservative” assumptions on mission duration
(point b.) and scaling with the distance (point d.)
applicable to bullet a. (SPE protons / ESP model)
intended to be applicable to bullet e. (SPE ions /
CRME96) as well?
9.2.2
Solar
particle
event
models d.
50
9.2.2,
9.2.3
50,
51
“For interplanetary missions, the results of the solar
particle models shall be scaled by a factor calculated as
the mean value over the mission of: (1/r2) for r<1AU
[RN.16] and 1 for r>1AU, where r is in unit of AU. “
Rejected
This issue was
discussed at
length in the
WG. As all S/C
start at 1 AU
and the
propagation of
SPE particles
still has
uncertainties it
was decided to
keep the
present
requirement.
Rejected
This is a
suggestion for
updating tools.
The need to
implement the
standard
models into
the relevant
risk
assessment
tools is
acknowledged
The scaling is acceptable for scientific missions, but note
that it is not consistent with the requirements for
ExoMars mission (r > 1 AU), where a 1/r scaling is
specified.
To satisfy para. 9.2.2 and 9.2.3 requirements, the use of
different SW tools (e.g. OMERE for ESP model and ISO
15390, CREME96 for ions during solar event) is
necessary. SEU rate calculation becomes more
laborious than in the past.
Dispositions:
A
Accept comment as written
AM
Accept comment with modification (disposition with justification required)
R
Reject comment (disposition with justification required)
It would be advisable to have all necessary models
to allow the computation of component SEU rates
included in one single SW tool available to the
community of users.
Page 5 of 13
Compiled DRRs from Public Review of ECSS-E-10-04B Draft 0.10
09.06.2008
4. Review Item no.
(Entered by Secretariat)
DRR number - Originator
5. Location of
deficiency
clause
page
(e.g. 3.1
14)
6. Review deficiency and justification
7. Proposed change
8. Disposition of
DRR
9. DRR
implemented
Out of scope
of this
standard.
No change
proposed.
015-Eurospace
9.3
52
a)
Bullet 3) requires to include “Maximum
instantaneous energy spectra of trapped electrons,
trapped protons and solar energetic protons
(geomagnetically shielded) for the mission, for
internal charging and sensor interference analysis”
in the radiation environment specification.
Paragraph 9.2.1.3 accounts only for electron fluxes
for charging analysis, not protons.
b)
Bullets 4) and 5): why both 5 min. peak and worst
day ion let spectrum need to be specified? (Note
that CREME96 should be used only for ions other
than protons during solar event).
c)
Bullet 8): uncertainties in the environmental models
are not necessarily known to the Company who is
in charge of preparing the radiation environment
specification.
Dispositions:
A
Accept comment as written
AM
Accept comment with modification (disposition with justification required)
R
Reject comment (disposition with justification required)
1.
If charging analysis inputs and sensor
interference analysis inputs are to be specified
in a radiation environment specification,
section 9.2 should be updated to include
instantaneous spectra models also for protons
(trapped and solar). At least, a reference to
the appendix (if electron models
instantaneous are given) should be made.
AM
Models for
Instantaneous
fluxes are not
available for all
species. Text
in 9.2 and 9.3
is modified
accordingly.
2.
Bullet 5) should be removed or it should state
explicitly that the customer / user has to define
which instantaneous ion spectra is to be used.
AM
Text will be
modified tor
clarification.
Bullets 4. and
5. will be kept
as they
address fluxes
and fluences,
respectively.
3.
Bullet 8) should be removed or modified giving
the customer / user the possibility to define
margins to cover the uncertainties in the
environment models.
Rejected
Model
uncertainties
are included in
this standard.
The customer /
user is free to
define his own
Page 6 of 13
Compiled DRRs from Public Review of ECSS-E-10-04B Draft 0.10
09.06.2008
4. Review Item no.
(Entered by Secretariat)
DRR number - Originator
5. Location of
deficiency
clause
page
(e.g. 3.1
14)
6. Review deficiency and justification
7. Proposed change
8. Disposition of
DRR
9. DRR
implemented
margins.
d)
016-Eurospace
10.2.1
General
requirem
ents
10.2.2.1.
Space
debris
a)
Appendix
J.4.3
55
The radiation environment specification is not
required to include specific particle fluxes per unit
area for solar generators degradation.
General comment.
An “impact risk assessment” is required for space debris
and meteoroids. This assessment would give only
general indications on the severity of the particulate
environment expected on a few oriented surfaces in the
S/C orbit, but in order to understand whether the S/C
design is robust or whether (and how) the configuration
is to be modified a “failure risk assessment” is
necessary.
In order to properly perform a risk assessment, it is
necessary to have an analysis tool implementing the
applicable environment models (MASTER-2005 Debris,
Divine/MASTER-2005, “modified” Gruen model).
According to appendix J.4.3, “ESABASE2/DEBRIS is
applicable for earth orbits and allows the optional use of
several meteoroid and debris flux models. The tool
includes the MASTER-2005 model and the sporadic and
stream meteoroid models given in 10.2.4, including the
altitude dependent velocity distribution”. However, the
currently available version of ESABASE2/Debris does
not implement these applicable environment models, yet.
Moreover, a few implementation problems affecting this
tool prevent its general use for industrial analyses. In
addition, no other debris / meteoroids risk assessment
tools exist which implement the MASTER-2005 model.
Dispositions:
A
Accept comment as written
AM
Accept comment with modification (disposition with justification required)
R
Reject comment (disposition with justification required)
4.
Add a bullet adding particle fluxes per unit
area to be used for solar cells degradation.
Modify text, adding a clear statement reflecting the
current status of the capabilities available in
Europe.
AM
Rejected
The definition
of fluxes will
be modified to
state that it is
per unit area.
A detailed
discussion of
the tools
available for
impact risk
and failure
assessments
is outside the
scope of this
standard.
Some
information will
be added on
the applicable
model for the
ISS in Annex
J.
The need to
implement the
standard
models into
the relevant
risk
assessment
tools is
acknowledged.
Page 7 of 13
Compiled DRRs from Public Review of ECSS-E-10-04B Draft 0.10
09.06.2008
4. Review Item no.
(Entered by Secretariat)
DRR number - Originator
5. Location of
deficiency
clause
page
(e.g. 3.1
14)
6. Review deficiency and justification
Until the ESABASE2/Debris is fixed and the required
environment models are successfully implemented, the
ECSS-E-10-04B can not be made applicable to
programmes for which a meteoroids / debris risk
assessment is required.
Note that for the International Space Station the
applicable environment models are SSP30425 (NASA90) and/or ORDEM-2000 even for ESA programmes. It
would be advisable mentioning this aspect.
7. Proposed change
8. Disposition of
DRR
9. DRR
implemented
Add a note mentioning that the MASTER-2005
model is not currently applicable to ISS related
programmes.
017-Eurospace
10.2.6
Margins
58
The need for a “worst case assumption” is undefined and
may lead a customer to ask for it in order to be on the
safe side. A factor of 3 may have unbearable impacts on
the design of a spacecraft in case the “worst case
assumption” is used for a risk assessment.
Modify text, adding explicitly a warning on the
impacts this factor may have on the design in case
a risk assessment is performed.
Accepted
Worst case
requirement
has been
removed.
Uncertainty of
fluxes is given
in note.
018-Eurospace
C.1.2.
flux and
velocity
distributio
n
78
It is requested to report and example for the computation
of the flux enhancement and the velocity distribution for
the “modified Gruen” model for at least a real case in
order to:
Add explicitly an example of the results obtained
for the flux enhancement and the modified velocity
distribution according to the procedure described.
AM
Examples of
velocity
distributions
and average
velocities for
different Earth
orbits are
added.

allow the user to cross check the procedure
(which is not straightforward) against the results
of a benchmark case

compare with the flux predicted by the
MASTER-2005/Divine model for the same
conditions.

compare the velocity shift respect to original
“unperturbed” velocity distribution
Dispositions:
A
Accept comment as written
AM
Accept comment with modification (disposition with justification required)
R
Reject comment (disposition with justification required)
A comparison
with the fluxes
from the
DivineStaubach
model could
be useful but
is omitted to
limit the size of
Page 8 of 13
Compiled DRRs from Public Review of ECSS-E-10-04B Draft 0.10
09.06.2008
4. Review Item no.
(Entered by Secretariat)
DRR number - Originator
5. Location of
deficiency
clause
page
(e.g. 3.1
14)
6. Review deficiency and justification
7. Proposed change
8. Disposition of
DRR
9. DRR
implemented
the standard
According to (C.2):
2
019-Eurospace
G
C.1.2
Factor G
78 79
v
2
v 2  v esc
According to (C.10):
v k2
Gk  2
2
v k  vesc
According to (C.5):
020-Eurospace
FE  G  FG
C.1.2
Fluxes
FE, FG
7879
Accepted
Text is
improved for
clarity
Accepted
Text is
improved for
clarity
Accepted
Text will be
improved for
clarity
Explain/Justify expressions (C.2) and (C.10).
It would be appreciable to spend a few words
about the meaning of the factor G and/or
provide reference.
Compute and report the factor G values for a
few different velocity distributions (in LEO,
GEO…. free space)
Provide the definition of FG
Explain the meaning of “enhanced flux FE”
Provide the definition of N
According to C(6) and C(8):
N

G  0 n(v )G(v )dv   nk  Gk
Explain the meaning of
G
(scalar value?)
k 1
021-Eurospace
C.1.2
Velocity
distributi
on
function
at
distance
r
According to (C.8):
7879
N
N
k 1
k 1
G   nk  Gk   n' K
According to (C.9):
n’k=Gknk
Dispositions:
A
Accept comment as written
AM
Accept comment with modification (disposition with justification required)
R
Reject comment (disposition with justification required)
Clarify whether the distribution n’(vk), with
values n’k, is a normalized distribution like
n (v )
Plot the velocity distribution function for a few
distances r (LEO, GEO… free space) in a
single graph.
Suggested plot
is added.
Page 9 of 13
Compiled DRRs from Public Review of ECSS-E-10-04B Draft 0.10
09.06.2008
4. Review Item no.
(Entered by Secretariat)
DRR number - Originator
5. Location of
deficiency
clause
page
(e.g. 3.1
14)
6. Review deficiency and justification
7. Proposed change
022-Eurospace
AM
C.1.2
Rebinning
7980
….As a result the bin widths will now no longer be
equidistant in v, which is the independent variable
of the new distribution function n’(v), so re-binning
will be necessary by interpolating the values of
n’(v)…..
023-Eurospace
C.1.2
Flux
increase
024-Eurospace
Not
e,
p.
80
“The velocity correction which is used to increase
the flux with decreasing distance from the Earth is
used to adjust the velocity distribution which is then
re-binned accordingly”.
Clarify how to re-bin the values for the new
velocity distribution n’(v). Report at least an
example
Clarify the meaning of “…increase the flux…”
Clarify if there is actually an “increase” in the
meteoroid flux or just a different velocity
distribution with unchangeable total number
of meteoroid particles.
Clarify if and how Ge (paragraph C.1.3) is
correlated to G (paragraph C.1.2)
C.1.2
“Enhanc
ed”
meteoroi
d
velocity
at
distance
r
025-Eurospace
8. Disposition of
DRR
C.1.2
Meteoroi
d
According to (C.3):
78
2
v 2  vesc
 v2
/
/
Dispositions:
A
Accept comment as written
AM
Accept comment with modification (disposition with justification required)
R
Reject comment (disposition with justification required)
9. DRR
implemented
Text is
improved for
clarity
A specific
example of the
re-binning
procedure is
not felt
necessary.
Accepted
Text is
improved for
clarity
Accepted
Suggested plot
is added.
Accepted
Average
velocities are
given in
Plot the “enhanced” meteoroid velocity v(r) for
a few distances r (LEO, GEO …. free space)
in a single graph
Compute and report the average velocity
values of the meteoroid flux at different
distance r (LEO, GEO …. free space)
Page 10 of 13
Compiled DRRs from Public Review of ECSS-E-10-04B Draft 0.10
09.06.2008
4. Review Item no.
(Entered by Secretariat)
DRR number - Originator
5. Location of
deficiency
clause
page
(e.g. 3.1
14)
6. Review deficiency and justification
7. Proposed change
8. Disposition of
DRR
9. DRR
implemented
Caption of
figure with
velocity
distributions
for various
Earth
distances.
average
velocity
026-Eurospace
K.1.1.1
154
A typo is present in (K.1) equation: the reaction constant
is indicated by the symbol ”h”, while in the following line
the same quantity is indicated by the symbol “k”
Modify choosing an unambiguous symbol (usually
“k” is used)
Accepted
Symbol h is
replaced by k
027-Eurospace
K.2.1
158
one hierarchy level of kinematics modelling, i.e.
modelling of moving parts is also enabled, as the
relative motion or pointing of sub models with respect to
the main model or orbit
Add this feature in the COMOVA description
Accepted
Feature is
added in
description as
proposed
Following DRRs were received from non-ECSS members and shall be dispositioned by the WG as well but without the obligation to
inform the DRR-originator about the proposed disposition
028-Tobiska
6.1.2.2.15
3233
wavelength ranges are not consistent with IS
21348:2007 definitions (note that the ISO definitions
were developed with the consensus of the international
solar irradiance community between 2000-2007).
6.1.2.2.1: Soft X-rays or XUV (0.1 nm ≤  < 10 nm)
Accepted
Text will be
modified as
proposed.
AM
The proposed
value for S is
already
6.1.2.2.2: Extreme Ultraviolet or EUV (10 nm ≤  <
121 nm)
6.1.2.2.3: Ultraviolet or UV (100 nm ≤  < 400 nm)
6.1.2.2.4: Visible, optical, or VIS (380 nm ≤  < 760
nm)
6.1.2.2.5: Infrared or IR (0.76 m ≤  < 1 mm)
029-Tobiska
6.1.2.1
32
Solar constant should be defined as identical with IS
21348:2007 (note that the ISO definition was developed
with the consensus of the international solar irradiance
Dispositions:
A
Accept comment as written
AM
Accept comment with modification (disposition with justification required)
R
Reject comment (disposition with justification required)
solar constant, S:
total solar irradiance at normal incidence to
Page 11 of 13
Compiled DRRs from Public Review of ECSS-E-10-04B Draft 0.10
09.06.2008
4. Review Item no.
(Entered by Secretariat)
DRR number - Originator
5. Location of
deficiency
clause
page
(e.g. 3.1
14)
6. Review deficiency and justification
community between 2000-2007). Please see IS
21348:2007 for references.
7. Proposed change
the top of the Earth’s atmosphere through a
unit surface and at 1 ua with a mean value of
1 366 W m−2
See Reference [7].
NOTE The solar constant, a historical term, is not
constant. It varies geometrically with the Earth’s
distance from the Sun and physically with the
Sun’s magnetic field activity on short to long
timescales, as well as with the observer’s
heliocentric latitude. The value of 1366 W m−2 is
the measurement community’s current agreement
expressed through a TSI space-based composite
dataset that is normalized to an arbitrarily selected
set of missions defining the SARR (see Reference
[6]). A range of measured values extends from
SORCE/TIM 2003-2004(+?) values (1 362 W
m−2) to NIMBUS-7/HF 1978-1993 values (1 372
W m−2), but also includes SMM/ACRIM I 19801989 (1 368 W m−2), ERBS/ERBE 1984-2003 (1
365 W m−2), UARS/ACRIM II 1991-2001 (1 364
W m−2), EURECA/SOVA2 1992-1993 (1 367 W
m−2), SOHO/VIRGO 1996-2004(+?) (1 366 W
m−2) and ACRIMSAT/ACRIM III 2000-2004(+?)
(1 364 W m−2) measurements. The SARR
reduces all solar constant space measurements to
a single ensemble dataset. The currently
measured 1-sigma variation in the composite
dataset is approximately 0,6 W m−2 and there is a
long-term (yearly) smoothed solar cycle minimum
to maximum relative variation about the mean
value of approximately 1,4 W m−2 (see Reference
[7]).
Dispositions:
A
Accept comment as written
AM
Accept comment with modification (disposition with justification required)
R
Reject comment (disposition with justification required)
8. Disposition of
DRR
9. DRR
implemented
specified in
Table 6.2. The
proposed text
will be
included in
shortened
form
Page 12 of 13
Compiled DRRs from Public Review of ECSS-E-10-04B Draft 0.10
09.06.2008
4. Review Item no.
(Entered by Secretariat)
DRR number - Originator
5. Location of
deficiency
clause
page
(e.g. 3.1
14)
6. Review deficiency and justification
7. Proposed change
8. Disposition of
DRR
9. DRR
implemented
030-Tobiska
6.1.2.3.1
34
reference should be added for S10.7
Tobiska, W.K., S.D. Bouwer, and B.R. Bowman,
"The development of new solar indices for use in
thermospheric density modeling," J. Atm. Solar
Terr. Phys., 70, 803-819, 2008
Accepted
Proposed
reference will
be added
031-Tobiska
6.1.2.3.1
34
reference should be added for M10.7
Tobiska, W.K., S.D. Bouwer, and B.R. Bowman,
"The development of new solar indices for use in
thermospheric density modeling," J. Atm. Solar
Terr. Phys., 70, 803-819, 2008
Accepted
Proposed
reference will
be added
032-Tobiska
Other
Bibliograp
hy 6.
Natural
Electrom
agnetic
radiation
and
indices
170
reference should be added for solar indices
Tobiska, W.K., S.D. Bouwer, and B.R. Bowman,
"The development of new solar indices for use in
thermospheric density modeling," J. Atm. Solar
Terr. Phys., 70, 803-819, 2008
Accepted
Proposed
reference will
be added
Dispositions:
A
Accept comment as written
AM
Accept comment with modification (disposition with justification required)
R
Reject comment (disposition with justification required)
Page 13 of 13