The Occupy Mars Learning Adventure

Training Jr. Astronauts, Scientists & Engineers

Occupy Mars Tiger Team Training: CAMS Fellowship Program Barboza Space Center

Leave a comment

Presentation on theme: “1 Science Perspectives for Candidate Mars Mission Architectures for 2016-2026 Mars Architecture Tiger Team (MATT-3) Philip Christensen, Chair Presented.”— Presentation transcript:

tiger-dirk-freder-isp.jpg

1 1 Science Perspectives for Candidate Mars Mission Architectures for 2016-2026 Mars Architecture Tiger Team (MATT-3) Philip Christensen, Chair Presented to MEPAG March 3, 2009 NOTE ADDED BY JPL WEBMASTER: This document was prepared by Arizona State University. The content has not been approved or adopted by, NASA, JPL, or the California Institute of Technology. This document is being made available for information purposes only, and any views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of NASA, JPL, or the California Institute of Technology.

2 MATT-3 Interim Report: for discussion purposes only 2 MATT-3 Study: Participants Phil Christensen (ASU, Chair) Lars Borg (ND-SAG Co-Chair) Wendy Calvin (MSO SAG Chair) Mike Carr Dave DesMarais (ND-SAG Co-Chair) Francois Forget Noel Hinners Scott Murchie (MSS SAG Chair) Jack Mustard (MEPAG Chair) Lisa Pratt Mike Smith (MSO SDT Chair) Steve Squyres Christophe Sotin NASA HQ Dave Lavery Lisa May Michael Meyer (MEP Lead Scientist) JPL Mars Office Deborah Bass Dave Beaty Charles Budney Joy Crisp Frank Jordan Tomas Komarek Richard Mattingly Richard Zurek

3 MATT-3 Interim Report: for discussion purposes only 3 MATT-3 Study: Key Directives Focus on a program that achieves fundamental science and addresses the highest priority goals for Mars Exploration Note: Black text => Essentially Unchanged from MATT-2 Assess potential program architectures for a NASA-only program*, with an emphasis on the 2016, 2018, and 2020 opportunities, in light of: –The MSL launch slip to 2011 and the associated reduction in funding available for a 2016 mission Assume (for discussion only; budgets have not been decided) ~$700M for 2016 mission (through launch); ~$1.3B for 2018 –Recent discoveries (including the published report on methane) *NOTE: The directive to consider a NASA only program is not intended to preclude international partnering. In fact, there are ongoing discussions between NASA and ESA on potential collaborations for Mars. MATT-3 may be asked to consider the gain from such collaborations as the opportunities are defined.

4 MATT-3 Interim Report: for discussion purposes only 4 MATT-3 Study: Context MATT-3 study builds on earlier work: NRC: –NRC Reports and Decadal Survey Major Milestone: NRC Special Committee (drawn largely from the NRC Committee on Evolution and Life) and Report: An Astrobiology Strategy for Exploration of Mars MEPAG: –MEPAG Goals, Objectives,Investigations documentation –Mars Next Decade (ND) and Mars Strategic Science (MSS) SAGs –MATT-1 and MATT-2 Discussions –Consulted the JPL Mars Office Advanced Studies Team regarding mission costs and feasibility

5 MATT-3 Interim Report: for discussion purposes only 5 MATT-3 Questions 1)Are there any changes to the goals and guiding principles described by MATT-2? 2)Are there any changes to the rationale for a Mars Program? 3)Are the individual mission building blocks identified by MATT still appropriate? 4)What is the long-term (20-year) focus of the Mars Program – i.e. are there alternatives to MSR as the primary objective of the 3 rd decade? 5)Given the limited funds available for 2016, what are the primary mission options and possible priorities for a U. S. only program? Does the discovery of methane apparently varying in space and time cause MEP to emphasize a more astrobiological pathway? 6)What are science objectives and program goals for a possible 2018 rover/lander in a U.S. only program?

6 MATT-3 Interim Report: for discussion purposes only 6 MATT-3 Activities to Date MATT-3 proceeded as follows: –Met three times via telecon over the past month. Additional discussions are planned following the MEPAG meeting to incorporate MEPAG discussion into the final report. This is a mid-term debriefing to MEPAG. –Revisited the science goals for potential missions in 2016 and beyond. These goals: Are consistent with the “Explore Habitable Environments” theme Are responsive to the NRC/Decadal Survey Priorities Address MEPAG Goals, Objectives and Investigations –Reexamined the major program goals, guiding principles, and mission “building blocks” that address the mission science goals for the decade Building blocks include: MSR, MPR, MSO/MSO-lite, NET, Scout –Mission “blocks” identified at a high level–see following slides –Revaluated potential architectures against the MSL launch slip, the expected MEP budget, and new discoveries

7 MATT-3 Interim Report: for discussion purposes only 7 Goals for the Next Decade The MEP has “followed the water” and discovered a diverse suite of water-related features and environments. –There are unanswered questions about each of these environments that MER showed can be addressed with in situ measurements –There are also unanswered questions about present habitability, especially whether trace gases are a signature of present habitable environments –There remain major questions about the state of the interior and the history of tectonic, volcanic, aqueous processes that are highly relevant to habitable environments The focus on future missions should be “explore habitable environments” of the past and present, including the “how, when and why” of environmental change. Key measurements are: –Rock and mineral textures, grain- to outcrop-scale mineralogy, and elemental abundances & gradients in different classes of aqueous deposits –Abundances and spatial/temporal variations of trace gases and isotopes in the present atmosphere –Nature and history of the interior and of processes shaping the surface The most comprehensive measurements of water-formed deposits would be made on returned samples

8 MATT-3 Interim Report: for discussion purposes only 8 Re-affirmed Program Rationale Mars has a unique combination of characteristics that translate into high science priority for Mars exploration –Diverse surface deposits whose mineralogy and morphology provide evidence for environments habitable by life, and evidence for methane that could indicate persistence of wet environments –Accessibility to robotic and human missions, with feedback into follow-on investigations on a decadal time-scale Questions pertaining to past & present habitable environments and their geologic context should drive future exploration: –When and where did liquid water persist with a sufficiently high activity to support life? Did life or pre-biotic chemistry develop? –What drove a fundamental change, from the Noachian to Hesperian periods, in the surface environment recorded in aqueous deposits? –How did Mars’ internal evolution influence the surface environment? Both landed and orbital investigations are required to address these questions. Their sequential nature & the need for orbital assets to support landed science dictate a coherent program.

9 MATT-3 Interim Report: for discussion purposes only 9 MATT Study: Expected Outcomes The MEP mission architectures developed by MATT for 2013- 2026 strive to achieve the following objectives: Investigate the physics, chemistry, and dynamics of the upper atmosphere, the effects of solar wind and radiation, and the escape of volatiles to space => MAVEN Determine the composition and structure of the current atmosphere => MSO/MSO-lite Explore a diversity of surface environments using rovers with sample acquisition, analysis, and caching capabilities => MPR Investigate the deep interior using a network of landed geophysical experiments => NET Return carefully selected and well-documented samples from a potentially habitable environment to Earth for detailed analysis => MSR+precursors Respond to new discoveries through focused missions => Scout, as well as strategic missions

10 MATT-3 Interim Report: for discussion purposes only 10 MATT-3 Guiding Principles (1 of 3) MATT-3 developed these strategic principles to guide mission architecture development: Conduct a Mars Sample Return Mission (MSR) at the earliest opportunity, while recognizing that the timing of MSR is budget driven. –Returned samples to meet minimum requirements set out in the ND-SAG report MEP should proceed with a balanced scientific program while taking specific steps toward a MSR mission –Immediately start and sustain a technology program to focus on specific sample return issues including, but not limited to, precision landing and sample handling => MSL delay has eliminated early funding for technology –Address non-MSR high priority science objectives, particularly as endorsed by NRC strategies and the Decadal Survey (sample return, aeronomy, network) Conduct major surface landings no more than 4 launch opportunities apart (3 is preferred) in order to: –Respond to discoveries from previous surface missions and new discoveries from orbit –Use developed technologies and experienced personnel to reduce risk and cost to future missions, especially MSR –Implies launch of rover mission in 2018 or 2020

11 MATT-3 Interim Report: for discussion purposes only 11 MATT Guiding Principles (2 of 3) Controlling costs and cost risk is vital and can be achieved in the near-term while still making progress on science objectives by: –Utilizing the technology investment of MEP (landing systems, orbiters, aeroshells, and rovers) as much as possible for future landed missions –Not taking on too many technological objectives in any one Mars mission, even while making real progress toward MSR Require that landed missions leading to MSR: –Demonstrate elements of the sample acquisition and caching technologies or prepare an actual sample cache for MSR that meets the minimum requirements set out in the ND-SAG report –Preparation of the actual cache could be triggered by earlier discovery at a landed site –Provide scientific feed-forward to MSR by: Investigating new sites to explore the diversity of Mars revealed from orbit and to provide an optimized choice for MSR (may require precision landing) Utilizing new instrumentation and/or new access capability (e.g., drilling) at the same site to follow up a discovery

12 MATT-3 Interim Report: for discussion purposes only 12 MATT Guiding Principles (3 of 3) Provide long-lived orbiters to observe the atmosphere and seasonal surface change, and to provide telecom and critical event support –Provides flexibility to MSR flight configurations and is especially synergistic with network science and telecom needs Scout missions are included in the architecture to provide: –Rapid, innovative response to new discoveries –Opportunity to sustain program balance and diversity –Low-cost Scout missions were inserted as opportunities permitted and budget profiles demanded

13 MATT-3 Interim Report: for discussion purposes only 13 MEP Building Blocks for 2016-2026 (1 of 3) MATT-1, -2, and -3 identified these potential mission building blocks to address the key scientific objectives for 2016- 2026: Mars Sample Return Lander (MSR-L) and Orbiter (MSR-O): –Two flight elements: Lander/Rover/Ascent Vehicle & Orbiter/Capture/Return Vehicle –High-priority in NRC reports and Decadal Survey; must address multiple science goals with samples meeting the minimum requirements set out in the ND-SAG report Mars Science Orbiter (MSO and MSO-lite) –Atmospheric composition, state, and surface climatology remote sensing plus telecom Respond to reported (and now published) methane discovery –Science Definition Team formed and report given to MEP –MSO-lite assessed by MSO-SDT (see later summary)

14 MATT-3 Interim Report: for discussion purposes only 14 MEP Building Blocks for 2016-2026 (2 of 3) MATT identified these potential mission building blocks to address the key scientific objectives for 2016-2026 (cont.): Mars Prospector Rover (MPR, also called Mid-Range Rover) –At least MER-class rover deployed to new water-related geologic targets –Precision landing (<6-km diameter error ellipse) enables access to new sites –Conducts independent science but with scientific and technical feed-forward to MSR –As a precursor, this can demonstrate feed-forward capabilities for MSR and opens the possibility for payload trade-offs (e.g., caching and cache delivery) with MSR Lander Network (NET): –4 or more landed stations arrayed in a geophysical network to characterize interior structure, composition, and process, as well as surface environments –Meteorological measurements are leveraged by concurrent remote sensing from orbit –High-priority in NRC reports and Decadal Survey

15 MATT-3 Interim Report: for discussion purposes only 15 MEP Building Blocks for 2016-2026 (3 of 3) MATT identified these potential mission building blocks to address the key scientific objectives for 2016-2026 (cont.): Mars Scout Missions (Scout) –Competed missions to pursue innovative thrusts to major missions goals MATT-3 discussed the possibility of developing a “vertical sampling” building block as an additional component of the Mars architecture –Could be responsive to potential MSL or ExoMars discoveries

16 MATT-3 Interim Report: for discussion purposes only 16 MSO-Lite Study Report Summary – M. Smith Chair MSO-min: Minimum mission could follow up on the methane discovery within the harsh constraints outlined for a 2016 U.S. Mars mission  Will significantly improve knowledge of atmospheric composition and chemistry within the context of understanding Mars habitability  Extend record of climatology to characterize long-term trends for climate & transport model validation MSO-lite: Augmented mission can provide significant gain given increased resources or foreign partnering  More detailed mapping to identify localized source regions  Validate and significantly improve knowledge of current climate and models of transport, including inverse modeling for gas sources MSO: Full-up mission provides opportunity for all of the above, longer life, surface change detection and site certification Note: Telecom support included in all concepts

17 MATT-3 Interim Report: for discussion purposes only 17 Mission Scenarios – MATT-2 Option201620182020 #2 2022 # 2 2024 2026 Comments 2018a #1 MSR-OMSR-LMSONETScoutMPRFunded if major discovery? 2018b #1 MSOMSR-LMSR-ONETScoutMPRRestarts climate record; trace gases 2018c #1 MPRMSR-LMSR-OMSONETScoutGap in climate record; telecom? 2020aMPRMSOMSR-LMSR-ONETScoutMPR helps optimize MSR 2020bMPRScoutMSR-LMSR-OMSONETGap in climate record, early Scout 2022aMPRMSONETMSR-LMSR-OScoutEarly NET; MPR helps MSR 2022bMSOMPRNETMSR-LMSR-OScoutEarly NET, but 8 years between major landers (MSL to MPR) 2024aMPRMSONETScoutMSR-LMSR-OEarly NET; 8 years between major landers; very late sample return MSO = Mars Science Orbiter MPR = Mars Science Prospector (MER or MSL class Rover with precision landing and sampling/caching capability) MSR = Mars Sample Return Orbiter (MSR-O) and Lander/Rover/MAV (MSR-L) NET = Mars Network Landers (“Netlander”) mission FOOTNOTES: #1 Requires early peak funding well above the guidelines; 2018b most affordable of these options #2 Celestial mechanics are most demanding in the 2020 and 2022 launch opportunities; arrival conditions (Mars atmospheric pressure, dust opacity) challenging after 2020 Preferred Scenario for given MSR-L Launch Opportunity

18 MATT-3 Interim Report: for discussion purposes only 18 Mission Scenarios – MATT-3 Option20162018202020222024 2026 Comments 2014-2018 budget guideline precludes MSR before 2022 2022-M3.1 [2022b] MSO- lite #1 MPR #2 NETMSR-LMSR-OScoutMPR occurs 2 periods before 2022 MSR, which will need additional funding for tech development 2024-M3.2 [Swap in 2022b] MSO- lite #1 MPR #2 NETMSR-OMSR-LScoutGives chance for robust technology program preparing for MSR and time to respond to MPR tech demo 2024-M3.3 [Swaps in 2024a] MSO- lite #1 NETMPRScoutMSR-LMSR-OLowest cost early, but 8 years between MSL & MPR; MPR 2 periods before MSR; early NET MSO = Mars Science Orbiter MPR = Mars Science Prospector (MER or MSL class Rover with precision landing and sampling/caching capability) MSR = Mars Sample Return Orbiter (MSR-O) and Lander/Rover/MAV (MSR-L) NET = Mars Network Landers mission FOOTNOTES: #1 MSO-lite affordable for $750M; preferable to MSO-min in order to map potential localized sources of key trace gases #2 MPR may exceed the guideline ~$1.3B ($1.6B required?) Preferred Scenario for given MSR-L Launch Opportunity

19 MATT-3 Interim Report: for discussion purposes only 19 Proposed Architectures A Mars Sample Return mission remains an anchor point of the Mars Exploration Program MSO-lite in 2016 provides the broad atmospheric survey and mapping needed to follow-up the reported methane discoveries and to investigate the nature of its origin Given the conditions of an MSL launch slip to 2011 and reduced funding for the 2016 mission, MATT finds three near- term mission architectures to be scientifically compelling, while providing real progress towards an MSR. Furthermore, these three scenarios are closely related to the recommendations of MATT-1 and -2, and have the same initial missions as the latter, though typically reversed, in 2016 and 2018. This architecture accomplishes the previous Decadal Survey high priority mission goals (aeronomy, network, sample return) while responding to recent discoveries by MEP

20 MATT-3 Interim Report: for discussion purposes only 20 Issues, Findings, and Future Work (1 of 2) The implications of potential MSL and ExoMars results need further study in order to define the full suite of possibilities for the landed mission in 2018. –For example, an MSL discovery indicating the need for a significant change of payload (e.g., new instruments) or the need for vertical drilling may necessitate altering the architectures for 2018 and 2020. – This analysis should assess the options of: The MPR rover concept (e.g. precision landing, different site with MER-class payload, sample caching): A rover with significant in situ astrobiological science (ExoMars-like?) Vertical sampling capability versus sample coring and caching Is a “vertical sampling” mission building block needed? Starting and sustaining a technology program to focus on specific sample return issues including, but not limited to, precision landing and sample handling, is essential to reducing risk and controlling cost for MSR and precursors A#1 A#n => Actions MEPAG may want to pursue A#2

21 MATT-3 Interim Report: for discussion purposes only 21 Issues, Findings, and Future Work (2 of 2) MATT finds that MSO-lite (preferred to MSO-min) is an affordable, highly valuable scientific mission for 2016. Does MEPAG agree? MEPAG may wish to consider the consequences of MSO-lite instead of MSO in the context of the long-range architecture choices. These consequences include: –Loss of follow-on of HiRISE-class imaging for site certification –Possible loss of meter-scale imaging for change detection –Reduced telecom capability or duration –Further reduction to MSO-min jeopardizes the ability to identify potential localized trace gas sources MEPAG should consider how best to prepare for the selection of future landing sites –What are the implications if follow-on high-resolution imaging is not available from MSO-lite? –Should a landing site selection process be established now to best utilize the existing missions for the future program? A#3 A#4

22 MATT-3 Interim Report: for discussion purposes only 22 Summary (1 of 2) Mars Sample Return remains an anchor point of the Mars Exploration Program and should be conducted at the earliest opportunity within the available budget constraints MSO-lite would make a significant scientific contribution to our understanding of martian trace gases and atmospheric state, and could be achieved in a U.S.-only program for 2016 Given the conditions of an MSL launch slip to 2011 and reduced funding for the 2016 mission, the preferred architecture is: –Now: Start technology program focused on developments that enable MPR and feed-forward to MSR –2016: Launch Mars Science Orbiter (MSO-lite: trace gas survey, atmospheric state, telecom support) –2018: Launch Mars Prospector Rover (MPR) to a new site –2020: Launch Network Mission (NET) –2022-2024: Launch MSR-L and MSR-O

23 MATT-3 Interim Report: for discussion purposes only 23 Summary (2 of 2) Future landed missions should utilize the technology investment of MEP (landing systems, aeroshells, rovers, and orbiters) in order to contain cost and risk, while continuing to make significant progress toward Mars sample return MATT was directed to consider a NASA-only program and its findings are not meant to preclude international partnering. –Significant partnerships with non-NASA partners could considerably enhance the overall program –Many missions considered here are well-suited to international participation and partnering Prime examples for major subsystems or flight elements are MSR and Network Opportunities for participation also exist for MSO and MPR

24 MATT-3 Interim Report: for discussion purposes only 24 MATT-2 Option Is: Mars Exploration Program Launch Year 2022 20162018202020132011 2024 MAVEN Mars Prospector Rover Mars Network Mars Sample Return ExoMars (ESA) MSO

25 MATT-3 Interim Report: for discussion purposes only 25 MATT-3 Option Is: Mars Exploration Program Launch Year 2022 20162018202020132011 2024 MAVEN Mars Science Laboratory Mars Prospector Rover Mars Network Mars Sample Return ExoMars (ESA) MSO-lite

26 Back-Up

27 MATT-3 Interim Report: for discussion purposes only 27 Option: Mid-Range Rover/Prospector Concept: MER-Class Rover Deployed to New Class of Sites Goals: –Respond to recent discoveries showing a variety of aqueous mineral deposits and geomorphic structures reflecting water activity on Mars –Characterize site & prepare sample cache for possible retrieval by future MSR Approach: –MER-class payloads, with modest augmentation as capability allows –Takes advantage of latest EDL development and preserves it for MSR Key is access to new sites not reachable with current MER/MSL landing error ellipses –Updates “Sky Crane” technology to enable precision landing (< 6 km diameter ellipse) Capability needed to get to the most compelling sites Capability also useful for MSR collection/rendezvous to return samples –Conducts (“Prospector Option”) sample selection, encapsulation and general handling needed for MSR, provides retrievable sample cache Issues: –Requires (modest?) improvement of EDL system –Prospector concept requires development of sample handling capabilities –Requires new EDL design for implementation (I.e., cannot use MER/MSL technologies) –Builds on recent discoveries, but delays broadening scope of Mars science exploration

Advertisements

Author: Kids Talk Radio

Bob Barboza is an educator, STEM journalist, software designer and founder of The Occupy Mars Learning Adventures and the Barboza Design and Space Centers. He leads a team of scientists, engineers and STEAM++ educators. They are training students to become Jr. astronauts, scientists and engineers. His team provides internships and workshops in STEAM++ and the integration of Common Core State Standards and Next Generations Science Standards. Contact information: Bob.Barboza@Gmail.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s