Global Environmental MEMS Sensors (GEMS):

A Revolutionary Observing System

for the 21st Century
NIAC Phase II CP_02-01
John Manobianco, Randolph J. Evans, David A. Short
ENSCO, Inc.
Dana Teasdale, Kristofer S.J. Pister
Dust, Inc.
Mel Siegel
Carnegie Mellon University
Donna Manobianco
ManoNano Technologies, Research, & Consulting
November 2003
Outline
Description
Potential applications
Phase I (define major feasibility issues)
Phase II
Methods / Approach
Plan
Summary
Description
Integrated system of airborne probes
Mass produced at very low per-unit cost
Disposable
Suspended in the atmosphere
Carried by wind currents
MicroElectroMechanical System (MEMS)-based sensors
Meteorological parameters (temperature, pressure, moisture, velocity)
Particulates
Pollutants
O
3
, CO
2
, etc.
Acoustic, seismic, imaging
Chemical, biological, nuclear contaminants
Self-contained with power source for
Sensing
Navigation
Communication
Computation
Description (cont)
Broad scalability & applicability
~10
10
probes
Global coverage
1-km spacing
Regional coverage
100-m spacing
Mobile, 3D wireless network with communication among
Probes, intermediate nodes, data collectors, remote receiving platforms
Potential Applications
Weather / climate analysis & prediction
Basic environmental science
Field experiments
Ground truth for remote sensing
Research & operational modeling
Potential Applications
Planetary science missions
Manobianco et al.: GEMS: A Revolutionary Concept for Planetary and Space Exploration,
Space Technology and Applications International Forum, Symposium on Space Colonization,
Space Exploration Session, Albuquerque, NM, February 2004.
Potential Applications
Planetary science missions
Manobianco et al.: GEMS: A Revolutionary Concept for Planetary and Space Exploration,
Space Technology and Applications International Forum, Symposium on Space Colonization,
Space Exploration Session, Albuquerque, NM, February 2004.
Space Environment Monitoring
Potential Applications
Battlesphere surveillance
Intelligence gathering
Threat monitoring & assessment
Homeland security
Phase I (Define Feasibility Issues)
Communication
Networking
Deployment
Scavenging
Environmental
Data collection/management
Data impact Cost
Navigation
Dispersion
Probe design
Power
Measurement
Phase II Methods / Approach
Optimization of trade-offs
(cost, practicality, feasibility)
Multi-Dimensional Parameter Space
(Power, Deployment, Cost,)
Physical limitations
(measurement &
signal detection)
Scaling
(probe & network size)
Phase II Plan
Study major feasibility issues
Extensive use of simulation
Deployment, dispersion, data impact, scavenging, power,
System model
Experimentation as appropriate / practical
Cost-benefit analysis
Projected per unit & infrastructure cost
Compare w/ future observing systems
Quantify benefits
Develop technology roadmap & identify enabling
technologies
Pathways for development & integration w/ NASA missions
Meteorological Issues
Deployment strategies
Dispersion
Scavenging
Impact of probe data on analyses & forecasts
Dynamic simulation models
Virtual weather scenarios
Dispersion patterns
Simulated probe data & statistics
OSSE (Observing System Simulation Experiments)
Deployment / Dispersion
Release (N. Hemisphere)
High-altitude balloons
10
o
x 10
o
lat-lon
Deployment
4-day release
18-km altitude
1 probe every 6 min
Terminal velocity
0.01 m s
-1
Duration
24 days
15 Jun 9 Jul 2001
Total # of probes
~200,000
Scavenging
Light Rain Heavy Rain
Simple Collision Model
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Time (minutes)
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

S
u
r
v
i
v
a
l8 mm/hr
128 mm/hr
Observing System Simulation Experiments (OSSE)
0 1 .. 10 11 12 13 14 .. 29 30
Nature run (Truth from Model 1)
Simulated observations
Time (days)
Benchmark (Model 2)
Data insertion window (assimilate simulated observations)
Experiment 1 (Model 2)
Compare with nature & control run to assess data impact
Experiments 2, 3, (Variations on Exp. 1)
OSSE Domains
Same boundary & initial conditions
30 km
10 km
2.5 km
Nature Run (Model 1)
Summer / winter case
Probes deployed / dispersed for 20-30 days
10 km
30 km
OSSE (Model 2)
Engineering Issues
Components
Size & shape
Sensors
Fundamental limits
Whats next?
Network
Cost of basic operations
Mesh network implementation
Limitations & scaling challenges
Optimization
Probe Components
Power:
Solar cell (~1 J/day/mm
2
)
Batteries ~1 J/mm
3
Capacitors ~0.01 J/mm
3
Fuel Cell ~30 J/mm
3
Sensing & Processing:
Temperature, pressure, RH sensors
Analog Front-end
Digital Back-end
Communication:
RF antenna (shown)
Optical receiver
Sample, compute,
listen, talk (RF)
once per hour for 10
days
230 J:
25 m
2
solar cell
Probe Size & Shape
Goal: Probe dropped at 20 km
remains airborne for hours to
days
Strategies:
Dust sized particles
Materials
Buoyancy control: positively
buoyant probes
Probe shape:
dandelion/maple seed
F
a
l
l

T
i
m
e

I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
Particle Size Decrease
Sensors
MEMS temperature, pressure & RH sensors well-established
Need to optimize range for atmospheric measurements
Sensirion humidity & temperature:
Range: 0-100% RH, -40-124 C
0.2% RH
0.4 C
$18
Intersema pressure:
Range: 300-1100 mbar, -10-60 C
1.5 mbar
W per measurement
$18
5 mm
9 mm
Shrinking Probes
8 bit uP
3k RAM
OS accelerators
World record low power 8 bit ADC
(100kS/s, 2uA)
HW Encryption support
900 MHz transmitter
Circuit Board Layout
TI MSP430f149 16-bit processor
60kB flash, 2 kB RAM
Temp, battery, RF signal sensors
7 12-bit analog inputs
16 digital IO pins
902-928 kHz operation
Limiting Factors: -Fabricated Components
Moores Law
Thermal Noise: kT/2
(10
-21
J)
Sensors:
Fabrication limitations (aspect ratio)
Sensitivity (lower limit: molecules in Brownian motion?)
Inherent structural motion/vibration
The Next Generation: Nano Dust?
Nanotube sensors
Nanotube computation
Nanotube hydrogen storage
Nanomechanical filters for communication!
Cost of Basic Operations
Operation
Current
[A]
Time
[s]
Charge
[A*s]
Sleep 3
Sample 1m 20 0.020
Talk to neighbor
15 byte payload
25m 5m 125
Listen to neighbor
15 byte payload
10m 8m 80
Sound an alarm 25m 1s? 25,000?
Listen for alarm 2m 2m 4
Q
AAbattery
= 2000mAh = 7,200,000,00 A*s
Mesh Network Routing & Localization
Probe network determines optimal route to gateway, and
locates probes based on signal strength and GPS sensors.
Three motes
routing paths
Specialized
GPS motes
send position
information to
gateway.
Limit: Message traffic increases near gateway
Communication Limits
RF noise limit:
P
received
> kTB N
f
SNR
min
Sensitivity -102 dBm (<0.1 pW)
But, transmit power must be greater due to path loss
Network communication must be rapid enough to avoid
errors or loss of path due to probe motion
Signal
Power
Received
Thermal
Noise
-174+53 dBm
Receiver
Noise
+9 dBm
Signal to Noise
required by
downstream processing
+10 dBm
Link Budget
Probe Spacing = Transmission Power
Transmit Power vs. Probe Spacing
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Probe Spacing (m)
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t

P
o
w
e
r

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

(
W
)
Transmit Power Required for
0.1 pW at Receiver
10 GHz
Antenna Gain = 3
Network Scaling
Message traffic limited near gateway
Next step: event-based reporting (1-way communication)
Beyond: local event-based subnet formation & reporting any mote
becomes a gateway
Lots of message
traffic near gateway
Motes near event
wake up and
report
Optimization: Trade-offs
SIZE
+ Min Environmental Impact
+ Slow descent
- Decreased power storage
- Decrease SNR
POWER
+ Smaller power supply required
- Decrease transmission distance &
sampling frequency
- Shorter mote life
# PROBES
+ Improved network localization
+ Improved forecast
- Increased message traffic
Demonstration
Pressure
Humidity/Temperature
X,Y-Acceleration
Light
Cost / Benefit Analysis
Cost issues
Per unit cost
Deployment / O&M cost
Global versus regional (targeted) observations
Estimates for future observing systems (in situ v. remote)
Benefit issues
$3 trillion dollars of U.S. economy has weather / climate
sensitivity How much can we reduce sensitivity with
improved observations / forecasts?
Example (hurricane track forecasts)
72-h track forecast error 200 mi
Evacuation cost = $0.5M per linear mile
Potential savings with 10% error reduction = $10M for storms affecting
populated areas
Summary
Advanced concept description
Mobile network of wireless, airborne probes for
environmental monitoring
Phase I results
Define major feasibility issues
Validate viability of the concept
Phase II plans
Study feasibility issues
Cost-benefit
Generate technology roadmap including pathways for
development / integration with NASA missions
Acknowledgments
Universities Space Research Association
NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts
Phase I funding
Phase II funding
Charles Stark Draper Laboratory
James Bickford
Sean George