MSR Planning Presentation to the Planetary Science Subcommittee 23 June Lisa May MSR Program Executive

Transcription

1 MSR Planning Presentation to the Planetary Science Subcommittee 23 June 2008 Lisa May MSR Program Executive

2 Mars Sample Return Planning Overview: NASA Planning Community Input International Planning Special Topics: SRF Planning Update Update on MSR Beyond

3 NASA MSR Planning MSR Planning Ground Rules Telecom relay must be available to support landed element(s) Landing site at ±30 degrees latitude and >0 km MOLA NEPA process would need to begin more than 10 years before samples leave Mars Mobility would be required to collect diverse samples either within or just outside landing ellipse Time to collect samples vs time on surface is key trade MAV and rover lifetimes are factors Two-element architecture would include lander with MAV and sample collection rover, orbiter with Earth return vehicle Three-element architecture would include precursor caching rover Included in MATT smorgasbord SRF and ground facilities iare included in planning for all architecture options Programmatic Budget expectations must be credible and defendable Cost estimates will drive launch date possibilities Independent estimates required International collaboration is probably necessary 3

4 Community Input MEPAG Next Decade Science Assessment Group (ND-SAG; Feb. 08) Analyze critical Mars science in conjunction with, and complementary to, MSR Evaluate science priorities guiding the makeup of the MSR sample collection Determine dependencies of mobility and surface lifetime on science objectives, sample acquisition capability, diagnostic instrument complement, and number and type of samples Mars Architecture Tiger Team (MATT; Spring 08) Chartered to examine next-decade architecture(s) that fit the current Program budget and phasing PSS (Mar 08) Endorses the return of appropriately selected and documented samples from Mars as the highest-priority scientific objective for Mars exploration over the next years. Recommends that NASA take the necessary budgetary, partnering, and planning steps including needed strategically linked precursor missions to enable the launch of a Mars Sample Return mission by CAPTEM (Apr 08) Conference on scientific purpose(s) of MSR Recommendations to PSS on sample containment and curation PPS (May 08) Draft recommendations endorse MEP/PPO efforts to update Draft Test Protocol and plan for SRF 4

5 International Planning International Mars Architecture for the Return of Samples (imars; Sept 07, Nov 07, Mar 08) Chartered by IMEWG to define an affordable international MSR architecture Three subgroups: Science, Engineering, and SRF/Curation Phase I report to IMEWG in July Phase II charter to be presented Bilateral studies with ESA (Oct. 07, Jan 08, May 08) Mission design, mass estimation, biocontainment Support imars engineering team ESA/CNES International MSR Conference in July Focus on ESA s Aurora Programme Rollout of imars architecture 5

6 imars Phase I Report Conclusions In order for MSR to be broadly acceptable to the international scientific community, it would need to be able to return carefully selected, diverse samples from Mars. It would need to return these samples in a controlled way to maintain the sample s scientific integrity. These considerations have significant implications for the design and operations of the end-to-end Mars sample return mission including both the flight and ground systems. Between the flight elements, ground systems, and scientific analysis, imars identified approximately 20 primary building blocks that could be led or supported by different international participants. Five high-priority mission design options have been identified, all of which would make use of the launch opportunities from All options would involve two launches and at least one Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) certified prior to return of the sample. The development timeline for MSR has two long-lead aspects that must be planned for: New technology development for the flight elements and the SRF(s), and site selection for the latter. In both cases, substantive effort must begin at least 10 years before launch of the flight segment. The imars architecture and plans provide a path towards a fully international, affordable MSR mission. Public outreach and communication require particular attention due to the nature of this mission and need to be addressed in an open and well-managed way from the very beginning. 6

7 imars Draft Development Timeline 7

8 imars Identified Technology Tall Poles Precision landing capability to land near scientific targets of interest Hazard avoidance Forward planetary protection Flight system bioburden constraints Prevent martian sample contamination with Earth-sourced organisms Sample acquisition, handling, encapsulation, and transfer Faster mobility to increase rover speed to reduce the required time for surface operations Mars Ascent Vehicle Autonomous rendezvous and capture High-speed Earth re-entry Back planetary protection (biocontainment) to break the chain of contact with Mars and assure very low probability of contaminating Earth s biosphere with martian particles Sample Receiving Facility technologies Containment and contamination Planetary protection test protocol 8

9 Special Topic: SRF Planning Technology Development Planning investment in containment, robotics for sample handling, sample transfer (in SRF) and transport (outside SRF) SRF Requirements NASA and ESA Planetary Protection Officers leading revision of Draft Test Protocol Needed to better define and cost SRF functions and staffing SRF requirements would include curation prior to assessment, documentation, etc. Managing the Samples and Science Post evaluation curation could be in SRF and/or separate curation facilities imars has proposed Intl MSR Sample Institute Virtual institute to set framework for site selection, sample selection, and sample allocation (among other functions) imars conducting workshops on stuck in the SRF scenarios and overlap between assessment and science 9

10 Requested Update on MSR Beyond 2020 Suitability of opportunity depends on: Mass Launch mass margin varies with opportunity Analysis assumes two-element (full rover and MAV on lander) Landed mass may be an issue in dust storm season (2028, 2030) due to atmospheric thinning Time on surface to collect 20 samples (ND-SAG recommendation) Would depend on order of elements, MAV lifetime, number of elements, etc Analysis assumes orbiter first and intent to return samples in next Earth return opportunity Opportunity Launch Mass Margin Landed Mass Stay Time 2020 Tight 14 months Tight 6 months. May compromise science quality months. May compromise science quality months. Tight but doable TIght 8 months. Tight but doable TIght 13 months. 10

11 Requested Update on MSR Beyond 2020 (Cont d) Opportunities past 2020 for MSR are feasible, but have to be mindful of unique constraints for each Some issues to be traded in further architecture refinement: Whether orbiter or lander would go first If lander would go first and orbiter follow in a later opportunity, there would be ample sample collection time before next opportunity for orbiter to return to Earth May need orbiter to go first for telecom support May depend on international partner s schedule MAV stay time MAV would have limited lifetime on surface Assess risks of launching sample into Mars orbit to wait for a later orbiter Number of elements in architecture Caching rover in 3-element architecture would allow ample time for sample collection 11

12 Back Up 12

13 Two-Element Scenarios Considered by imars 13

14 MSR Beyond 2020: Comparative Lander Mass Capability for ATLAS V 551 Launch Year Approximate Lander/MAV/Rover Mass Requirement Approximate Launch Mass Capability Comment on Margin 2016* Tight 2022 Tight * * 5300 *Dust storm season landing mass capability at Mars atmospheric entry is very tight and likely infeasible for launches in 2016, 2028, and

15 MSR Beyond 2020: Comparative Lander Stay Times at Mars (for Leaving Mars in Next Opportunity) Launch Year 2016 Lander Stay Time (*months) 13 Comment Tight for roving and sample collection will compromise science quality Tight for roving and sample collection will compromise science quality Tight but doable Tight but doable *Allow 3 months for Mars ascent, OS detection, OS rendezvous, capture, and maneuver set-up for leaving Mars 15