preliminary planning for an international mars sample return mission imars working group

Presentation to IMEWG, July 8, 2008

Preliminary Planning for an International Mars Sample Return Mission iMARS Working Group

2

This afternoon’s agenda

Introduction 10 BeatyMission rationale, Science objectives, Samples needed to achieve objectives 25 BeatyScience System, Science Management 25 GradyDISCUSSION 15short break 10

Draft Requirements 15 MayOverall Architecture 15 PradierMission Analysis 20 JordanProtecting the Earth, Mars, and the samples 20 KminekFlight and Ground System Summary 20 MouraDISCUSSION 15short break 10

Development Timeline 15 MouraInvestment Plan 10 MaySummary of Primary Conclusions, Next Steps 15 Beaty

240

OVERALL DISCUSSION 60

3

Introduction

David Beaty

4

iMARS’ Objective

Produce a plan for an internationalized MSR

“The overarching goal of this activity is to identify how international cooperation might enable sample return from Mars, document the existing state-of-knowledge on return of samples from Mars, develop international mission architecture options, identify technology development milestones to accomplish a multi-national mission, and determine potential collaboration opportunities within the architecture and technology options and requirements, and current Mars sample return mission schedule estimates of interested nations. The activity will also identify specific national interests and opportunities for cooperation in the planning, design, and implementation of mission-elements that contribute to sample return. The Working Group’s final product(s) is expected to be a potential plan for an internationally sponsored and executed Mars sample return mission.”

From the iMARS* Terms of Reference (source: IMEWG)

*International Mars Architecture for the Return of Samples

5

iMARS—The Team

31 primary participants, originating from three sources. Within team discussions, all participants treated equally

National DelegatesBeaty, David (USA)Grady, Monica (UK)Moura, Denis JP (France/ Italy)Bibring, Jean-Pierre (France)Bridges, John (UK)Daerden, Frank (Belgium)Flamini, Enrico (Italy)Hipkin, Victoria (Canada)Hode, Tomas (Sweden)Jordan, Frank (USA)Kato, Manabu (Japan)Mani, Peter (Switzerland)Muller, Christian (Belgium)Ori, Gian Gabriel (Italy)Walter, Malcolm (Australia)

Agency ParticipantsGardini, Bruno (ESA), Member--IMEWGMcCuistion, Doug (NASA), Member--IMEWGKminek, Gerhard (ESA)Santovincenzo, Andrea (ESA)Khan, Michael (ESA)Pradier, Alain (ESA)Conley, Catharine (NASA)May, Lisa (NASA)Meyer, Michael (NASA)

Technical ParticipantsAllen, Carlton (USA, curation facility planning)Westall, Frances (France, sample science planning)Hayati, Samad (USA, technology planning)Buxbaum, Karen (USA, planetary protection planning)Mattingly, Richard (USA, system engineering)Stabekis, Pericles (USA, planetary protection planning)Fisackerly, Richard (ESA, technology planning)

NOTE: Participation was nominated by national agencies.

6

iMARS’ Functional Organization, Processes

Steering Committee• David Parker, UK• Bruno Gardini, ESA• Doug McCuistion, NASA

IMARS co-chairs• David Beaty, USA• Monica Grady, UK

Engineering Subteam• Denis Moura, CNES/ASI

Facility/PP Subteam• Gerhard Kminek, ESA

Science Subteam• Monica Grady, UK

MEPAG ND-SAG• Lars Borg• Dave Des Marais• Dave Beaty

Biweekly telecons Biweekly telecons

Weekly telecons

Process Summary• Start Sept. 2007• Quarterly full meetings• Lots of subteam telecon, e-mail, some subteam meetings

• IMARS Leadership Team: Biweekly telecons

CONCENTRATED TECHNICAL ANALYSES

7

Mission Rationale, Science Objectives, Samples Needed to Achieve ObjectivesDavid Beaty

8

MSR Mission Rationale

Mars Sample Return (MSR) is an important mission for science because:• About half of the currently proposed investigations of Mars (e.g.

MEPAG’s list of 55 investigations) could be addressed by MSR– MSR is the single mission that would make the most progress towards the

entire list.

• A significant fraction of these investigations could not be meaningfully advanced without returned samples.

• Mars meteorites are useful for some, but not all Mars questions.– many key sample types are not represented

– The Mars meteorites are from unknown localities on Mars—the absence of sample context limits possible interpretation.

• After the recent phase of remote sensing observation from orbit (ODY, Mars Express, MRO), and the on-going surface missions (MER, Phoenix, MSL, ExoMars), the next step to make decisive advances in Mars exploration and prepare human missions is to analyze samples on the Earth with the most advanced techniques

9

Why Return Samples?

There are three primary reasons why MSR would be of such high value to science.

1. Complex sample preparation, sample decisions

Image courtesy Dimitri Papanastassiou

Image courtesy Carl Allen

10

Why Return Samples?

3. Instrumentation 2. Analysis Adaptability

• Best accuracy/precision• Diversity—results could be

confirmed by alternate methods• Instruments not limited by mass,

power, V, T, reliability, etc.• Calibration, positive and negative

control standards• Future instrument developments

….

JSC TEM lab, courtesy Lisa Fletcher

UC

LA

Me

ga

SIM

S la

b,

cou

rte

sy K

evi

n M

cKe

eg

an

• Not limited by prior hypotheses

11

Relationship between Candidate Science Objectives and Sample Types

Objective Nickname Sed

imen

tary

su

ite

Hyd

roth

erm

al

suit

e

Lo

w-T

W/R

su

ite

Ign

eou

s S

uit

e

Dep

th-

Res

olv

ed S

uit

e

Reg

oli

th

Du

st

Ice

Atm

osp

her

ic

Gas

Habitability H H L L M L L LPre-biotic, life H H L M M L

water/ rock H H H MGeochronology M M H

Sedimentary record H MPlanetary evolution H M M

Regolith M H MRisks to human explorers L H H M

Oxidation H H M MGas chemistry M M M H

Polar M H M

Rocks Other

main types of required samples

12

Some Key Attributes of the Sample Collection

• Samples organized in suites

• Minimum necessary sample size/mass

• Minimum necessary number of samples

• Sample preservation needs (chemical, mechanical, and thermal)

13

Suites of samples are needed

Endurance Crater, July 19, 2004

(Opportunity Sol 173)

KaratepeMSR would have its greatest value if the samples are organized into suites that represent the diversity of the products of various planetary processes.

• Similarities and differences between samples in a suite could be as important as the absolute characterization of a single sample

• The minimum number for a suite of samples is thought to be 5-8 samples.

Clark et al., 2005 (EPSL)

14

Sample size/mass

• The decision on sample size would be a trade between individual sample mass and total number of samples. – If the samples are too small, a given sample could not be subdivided

enough to meet the array of measurement and archiving requirements.– If the samples are too big, their total number would be too small to satisfy

minimum requirements for the diversity of the entire collection.

• Based on experience with Lunar and meteorite samples, iMARS has concluded that 10 grams per rock sample is a reasonable compromise.

QUE has been subdivided into over 60 individual samples, and analyzed by multiple laboratories.

QUE-94201

Case History: Martian meteorite QUE-94201 (mass = 12.02 g)

Image courtesy Kevin Righter

15

Model of Minimum Number and Mass of Samples

Number

Sample TypeMechanical Properties

Proposed science

floor

Mass/ sample

(gm)

Total sample

mass (gm)

Sedimentary suite rockHydrothermal suite rock

Low-T W/R suite rockIgneous suite rock

Other rockLander-based sample rock or reg. 4 20 80

Regolith granular 4 15 60Dust granular 1 5 5Ice ice or liquid 0

Atmospheric Gas gas 1 0.001Cache from previous

mission rocks 0

TOTAL (min.) 30 345

Mass

20 10 200

16

Sample Preservation, Integrity, and Labeling

• Integrity of the samples must be preserved

• Samples must be labelled (to link to field context)

• Retain pristine nature of samples prior to arrival on Earth (including temp.)

• Samples would require secure and appropriate packaging to ensure that samples do not become mixed or contaminated

Impact test, June 8, 2000 (max. dynamic load ~ 3400 g, avg. ~2290 g). 10 samples of basalt and chalk in separate sample cache tubes with tight-fitting Teflon caps. Many of the teflon caps came off as a result of the impact.

UNACCEPTABLE

UNACCEPTABLEACCEPTABLE

Rock sample pulverizedSamples

mixed

Rock fractured

Images courtesy Joy Crisp

17

Science Strategy and Implementation

Monica Grady

18

Sampling Strategy

• Achieving the scientific objectives of MSR would be critically dependent on the samples collected– Sample collection mechanism must be able to:

• reach specified samples• collect different types of material

– rock samples, granular materials (regolith, dust) and atmospheric sample(s)

– single cores to depths of ~5 cm below the surface

– Would require mobility, moving from landing site to sampling site(s)• Ability to rove beyond its landing site, carry out a sample-acquisition traverse,

and return to the lander

• Rover must be able to visit multiple locations within a single landing site

Opportunity Landing Site

19

Measurement Purpose of Measurement

High quality colour panoramic imaging

•identify samples of interest •determine local geological context

Microscopic imaging •resolution of 10s of microns (or better) •examine rock and sediment textures

Mineralogy •discriminate one rock from another •establish geologic context of the samples

Measurements of elemental abundance

•essential for understanding the range of variability within a field site•identifying the effects of geologic processes.

Reduced carbon measurements

•essential for understanding prebiotic chemistry, habitability, and life•ppm-level sensitivity may be sufficient for screening for sample selection on Mars

Rock Abrasion Tool •essential for characterizing the rocks •many rocks have dusty or weathered surfaces

Scientific Sample Selection

• Effective sample selection would require:– sufficient knowledge of characteristics of candidate samples

– field context of the samples

• Several measurements made in situ would aid in identifying samples for collection, and would add value to the collected samples by providing context

20

Sample Types: Rocks

Irvine

Humphrey

Backstay

IGNEOUSSEDIMENTARY

HYDROTHERMAL Elizabeth Mahon:72% SiO2

Melas Chasma

Lowerunit

Middle unit

Upper unitEndurance Crater

Images courtesy Hap McSween, John Grotzinger

21

Sample Acquisition 1: Rock Samples

• In order to maximize the scientific value of rock samples, the rover-based sample acquisition system should be able to:– Take samples from outcrops where the geologic context is well-known,

and also from loose rocks of interest.

– Sample both the weathered exterior and unweathered interior.

– Sample specific sites (e.g. designated beds within a stratigraphic sequence, such as the Burns Cliff at Meridiani Planum).

– Deliver samples of an appropriate size and form

• Sampling– A “mini-corer” capable of accessing

unweathered terrains and acquiring small samples.

• Current estimate of minimum required depth is ~5 cm (TBC)

RAT on Opportunity

Image courtesy Steve Ruff

22

Sample Types: Regolith

Most patches of disturbed, bright soil in Gusev are rich in sulfur, but this one has very little sulfur and is about 90 percent silica.

Soil target "Gertrude Weise“, Spirit, March 29, 2007; sol 1187

Spirit, 01-12-06; sol 721

Soil with a salty chemistry dominated by iron-bearing sulfates. These salts may record the past presence of water.

Basaltic sand

Soil target “El Dorado“, Spirit

“Ordinary” regolith

Sol114A_P2561_1_True_RAD.jpg

Images courtesy Steve Ruff and Oded Aharonson

23

Sol589A_P2559_1_False_L257.jpg

Sample Acquisition: Regolith and Dust

• Regolith/dust samples– Need an effective way to

collect granular materials (e.g., scoop)

For Opportunity, the estimated net dust thickness after one year was 1 to 10 microns (reflects both additions and removal).

False-color Pancam image that shows thin dust drifts at the top of Husband Hill.

Image courtesy Steve Ruff

24

Sample Acquisition: Atmosphere

• Atmospheric gas sample sufficient gas for robust analyses– Gas sample must be isolated from the rock, regolith, and dust

samples

– Minimum ~ 10 cm3 at a pressure of 0.5 bar (probably requires compression of gas sample)

JSC gas analysis lab (Image courtesy Don Bogard)

Gas Analysis Sample Container (GASC) used on Apollo 11 and 12 to sample lunar atmospheric gases.

25

MSR Landing Site Selection

• The choice of landing site would play a critical role in determining which of these objectives, and the level of detail, could be supported.

• We need to start preparing for landing site selection now, while valuable orbital assets are functional.

• Trade-off between ease of access and scientific value

• ±30° latitude would allow for a wide variety of targets

• Special regions judged not to be necessary to achieve minimum acceptable science.

Nili Fossae Trough

Image courtesy Scott Murchie

26

Science Management Plan

Monica Grady

27

EXAMPLE SCIENCE DECISION: Sub-division and allocations for part of Mars meteorite QUE-94201

Planning for Sample Science

• A significant challenge for an international MSR would be the process by which a large, diverse, international science team would be managed

• How would international participation in the following critical science-related decisions be managed?– where to land, – which samples to collect, – Mars surface operations strategy, and its

relationship to risk management – subdivision of the samples once back on

Earth– allocation of the samples

• Would require an international ‘oversight body’ that includes– international and technical diversity– budget decision-makers– scientists, engineers, strategic planners, and managers

• Proposal for International MSR Science Institute (IMSI)

28

Proposed MSR Science Process Roadmap

19 20 21 22 23 24 2509 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18Lander Launch

MAV launch

Earth Arrival

Sci

ence

Strategic guidance, oversightIMSI

SRF Ground breaking

National entities would be involved in curation, instrument development, laboratory upgrades, sample management and analysis technology

POWG

Public Outreach

Landing Site selection and certificationLSWG

Surface Operations and sample selection SOWG

Sample Science, Preliminary examination SSWG

Curation transition/operations CWG

AOSelection

PIs

MSASCSample allocation

SRF Site(s) selection

29

DISCUSSION

30

Draft High-Level Requirements

Lisa May

31

Draft High-Level Requirements

Category Requirement

Sample types to meet science objectives

MSR would have the capability to collect samples of rock, granular materials (regolith, dust) and atmospheric gas

Sample mass MSR would return a minimum of 500 g of sample mass

Sampling redundancy including contingency samples at landing site

MSR would have both a rover-based sampling system and a lander-based sampling system

Sample encapsulation MSR would have the capability to encapsulate each sample in an airtight container to retain volatile components of solid samples with the associated solid samples and protect samples from commingling

Cache retrieval If Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) ends its mission in an accessible location with a cached sample on board, MSR should be designed to have the capability to recover the cache(s)

32

Category Requirement

Horizontal mobility to acquire diverse samples needed to meet science objectives

In order to sample various geological sites, MSR would have the ability to rove to the edge of its landing error ellipse (“go-to” capability), carry out a 2.5 km sample acquisition traverse, then return to the lander.

Landing site latitude range MSR would be able to access landing sites within +/- 30 deg latitude

Planetary protection All MSR flight and ground elements would meet the planetary protection requirements established by COSPAR; an MSR mission is classified as category V, restricted Earth return

International cooperation MSR mission planning would enable international cooperation

Timing The launch of Lander Composite would be no later than 2020.

Draft High-Level Requirements (Cont’d)

33

Reference MSR Architecture

Alain Pradier

34

Proposed Reference MSR Architecture

SEVERAL KEY FACTORS SET THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE PROPOSED MSR ARCHITECTURE

• No direct return to Earth from Mars surface – must split flight mission at some point

creating 2 flight elements

• Current launcher capability– 1 launch of both flight elements not currently possible

2 launchers

• Mass domino effect– Two key elements, Earth return capsule and Mars ascent vehicle, lie at

the end of long delta-V chains

the masses of these elements are critical drivers of the overall mission

1

2

split

35

Proposed MSR Architecture - Launch

Mars Surface

Mars Atmosphere

Mars Orbit

Earth Lander Composite

Atlas A 551(candidate)

OrbiterComposite

Ariane 5 ECA(candidate) Control & Mission Centres

and Stations

Launch & Transfer

36

Proposed MSR Architecture - Arrival

Mars Surface

Mars Atmosphere

Mars Orbit



OrbiterComposite

Ariane 5 ECA(candidate) Control & Mission Centres

and Stations

Mars Cruise Stage

Entry & Descent Stage, Direct Entry

Orbiter(Aerobraking)

Entry, Descent & Landing

Orbiter Aerobraking(NASA-MRO shown)

37

Proposed MSR Architecture - Surface

Mars Surface

Mars Atmosphere

Mars Orbit

Earth

Control & Mission Centres and Stations

Mars Cruise Stage



Surface Sampling

Operations

Mars Ascent Vehicle Launch

Mars Ascent Vehicle

Mars Sampling Rover

Mars Lander

Lander Composite


OrbiterComposite

Ariane 5 ECA(candidate)

38

Proposed MSR Architecture - Return

Mars Surface

Mars Atmosphere

Mars Orbit


Atlas A 551

OrbiterComposite

Ariane 5 ECAControl & Mission Centres

and Stations

Mars Cruise Stage



Sample Container

Mars Ascent Vehicle

Mars Sampling Rover

Mars Lander

Orbiter Captures Sample Container

Sample Receiving and Curation Facilities

Expended Propulsion Module

Diverted ERVEarth Return Vehicle

Earth Return & Deflection of Return Vehicle

Rendezvous & Sample Container Capture

Expended MAV

39

Proposed MSR Architecture– Earth Entry & Recovery

Mars Surface

Mars Atmosphere

Mars Orbit

Earth


Mars Cruise Stage



Sample Container

Mars Ascent Vehicle

Mars Sampling Rover

Mars Lander

Expended MAV





Earth Entry Vehicle

High Speed Earth Entry

Lander Composite


OrbiterComposite


40

Mission Analysis

Frank Jordan

41

Sample Return Mission Studies Background

• 1998-1999 Partnership: NASA, CNES, ASI for mission launch in 2003-2005

• 2000-2006 NASA studies with U.S. industry

• 2003-2007 ESA studies with European industry

• 2007-2008 IMARS study

iMARS study has built on the past studies and has reached a consensus on reference mission design features

42

Mission Design Issues / Design Assumptions

Number of flight elementsAt least two:

• Orbiter / Earth Return 3500 – 4000 kg• Lander / Mars Ascent 4300 – 4800 kg

Reference launch vehiclesLander – U.S. Atlas V 551Orbiter – Europe Ariane 5 ECA

Sequence of flights Orbiter, then Lander / Lander, then Orbiter/ same opportunity

Earth-to-Mars / Mars-to-Earth trajectories

Direct flights (transit times less than a year) for lander. Orbiter may need Earth swingby with transit times more than a year.

Lander atmosphere entry Direct from transit trajectory

Orbiter achievement of Mars orbitPropulsive ∆V to high Mars orbit, aerobraking to low Mars orbit, propulsion staging

Sample collection on surfaceAccurate landing for ease of mobility to compelling sample sites

Rover with site characterization instruments and coringLander-based sampling system

Sample return to orbiter Mars ascent vehicle and rendezvous/capture in orbit

Sample return from Mars orbit to Earth’s surface

Propulsive ∆V to Earth-vicinity transit trajectory

Surface landing

43

Analysis of MSR Mission Options (Lander TC from MSR

orbiter)

Lander launched in 2022

Lander composite launched in 2020

Abbreviations:

A/b: aerobraking; DT: Direct Transfer (no Earth swing-by); RdV: Rendezvous and Capture; IFO: In-flight operations.

44

Analysis of MSR Mission Options (Lander TC from

another mission)

Lander launched in 2020, before the Orbiter composite

Lander composite launched in 2018, before the Orbiter composite

Lander launched in 2020, after the Orbiter composite

The one considered later on

45

Landing Accuracy (1 of 2)

• Entry System

• Parachute

• Propulsive descent system

46

Landing Accuracy (2 of 2)

Capabilities vs concepts

Unguided (MER, Phoenix, Exomars):

# 50 km radius

MSL 2009 SystemTriggers chute deployment on speed

~3km

Ignition

Chute Deploy

Parachute Phase

Pwred Desc (Gravity Turn)

Entry Phase

Ballistic guided entry phase (MSL):

# 10 km radius

~ 3km

Ignition

Chute Deploy

Entry Phase

Chute Phase

Pwred Desc(Gravity Turn)

Improved accuracy, triggers chute Deploymemt on position

Ballistic guided entry phase and optimised

parachute opening (enhanced MSL):

# 3 km radius

47

Holden Crater: Candidate MSL Site

Sampling Strategy Impact on Science

MSL

MSR

Area of Sampling Interest

48

Surface Exploration for “Go To” Sites

Lander & MAV

A: Petal architecture• 700 sols

B: Linear architecture• 385 sols

A

B

500m Science suites(5 cores per suite)

Cores

Landing accuracy, 0 to 3kmsemi-major axis of the landing ellipse

Smooth terrain100 m/sol traverse

Rough terrain35 m/sol traverse

50m

49

Protecting the Earth, Mars, and the SamplesGerhard Kminek

50

Planetary Protection Policy

Preserve planetary conditions for future biological exploration– avoid forward contamination

To protect Earth and its biosphere from potential harmful extraterrestrial sources of biological contamination

– avoid backward contamination

51

Avoid Forward Contamination of Mars

– Numerical bioburden limits exist in international policy and national implementation requirements

– Size and complexity of the MSR flight system might require “terminal sterilization” prior to launch

– Even if a terminal system-level sterilization of the flight system were not necessary to meet the planetary protection requirements, general bioburden and (re)contamination control would affect the material and process selection, design, model philosophy and qualification program to a greater extent than a traditional one-way mission to Mars

1996 Mars Pathfinder 2007 Phoenix

1975 Viking

2003 Beagle II

52

Planetary Protection Policy

Preserve planetary conditions for future biological exploration– avoid forward contamination

Protect Earth and its biosphere from potential harmful extraterrestrial sources of biological contamination

– avoid backward contamination

53

Avoid Back Contamination of Earth

– Requires breaking the chain of contact

• After samples are contained, engineering design and mission operation must break

the chain of contact between Mars and the Earth

• This has to be taken into account for the interface design between flight elements

• End-to-end risk assessment to release martian material into the Earth environment

– Requires highly reliable sample containment throughout all mission phases,

including

• Earth entry and landing

• Transport of the returned hardware and samples to an SRF

• Throughout operations carried out in the SRF until declared safe for release

– Numerical requirements exist in draft form

• Review, approval and release of these requirements is necessary to support

further planning

54

Planetary Protection vs Mission Elements

Mars Surface

Mars Atmosphere

Mars Orbit

Earth


Mars Cruise Stage



Sample Container

Mars Ascent Vehicle

Mars Sampling Rover

Mars Lander

Expended MAV





Earth Entry Vehicle

Lander Composite


OrbiterComposite


55

Sample Receiving Facility

Has to provide containment and preservation of returned flight hardware & samples

– containment equivalent to BSL-4– protect samples from Earth contamination

Has to allow execution of planetary protection protocol– preliminary characterization and subsampling– biohazard assessment and life detection

– Robotic systems might be a good choice as an integral part of the sample handling chain

– A capability to decontaminate flight hardware, equipment used in the high-containment zone, and the samples must be provided

– Potential international character of SRF management – Because of the public visibility and sensitivity related to the SRF

public involvement and communication is of great importance– SRF site should be in proximity to a relevant research

environment– Site selection and approval process with legal authorities could

take several yearsWinnipeg, Canada

Health Protection Agency, UK

56

Sample Curation Facility

–Has to provide physical security for the samples

–Proper curation of martian samples brought to Earth by spacecraft would require one or more dedicated laboratories and associated staff

–Could be stand-alone or dedicated curation laboratories associate with the SRF(s)

–Stringent requirements for sample storage

and handling

–Dividing sample sets might improve overall

sample security and take advantage of

specific international expertise

Apollo sample handling, JSC

57

Planetary Protection Summary

• Planetary protection is about safe solar system exploration and

preservation of our investment in scientific exploration• Protecting the martian samples from terrestrial contamination throughout

all mission phases & breaking the chain between Mars and Earth would

introduce considerable complexity in the mission design for MSR• contamination control on sub-system and system level is beyond

one-way missions• The sample receiving facility would be a long lead item that has to be

addressed in the pre-project phase• full development, approval and commissioning would cover one

decade• Ground facilities (i.e., containment and curation) would of necessity be

long-term investments• Communication with the public of particular importance with respect to

the sample containment facility

59

Flight and Ground System Summary

Denis Moura

60

MSR Baseline Architecture

Mars Surface

Mars Atmosphere

Mars Orbit



OrbiterComposite



Mars Cruise Stage



Sample Container

Mars Ascent Vehicle

Mars Sampling Rover

Mars Lander

Expended MAV





Earth Entry Vehicle

61

Baseline Composite 1

(landing parts + associated carrier)

a

b

cgc

h e df

Building blocks Functional description Tech. Development need

b) Lander (including EDL)

• Carries landed systems including rover, MAV, and

sample container to the surface of Mars

• Provides landing within accuracy requirements

• Carries contingency sample collection and

containment system

• Sample collection and

containment system,

• Precision landing

• Sample transfer system

a) Mars Cruise Stage• Carries the Lander from launch to its entry point in

the Mars atmosphereNone

c) Rover

• Mobile system to acquire samples • Carries instruments and tools • Carries sample collection and containment system• Transfers samples to Lander

• Sample collection and

containment system

• Sample transfer system

d) Rover Payload • Characterizes the sample site and sample targets None

e) Rover Sample

Acquisition System

• Includes tools to acquire samples of soil, rock,

regolith, and atmosphere

• Puts samples into encapsulation system

• Coring tools

• Other sample-acquisition tools

Part 1

62

Baseline Composite 1

(landing parts + associated carrier)

a

b

cgc

h e df

Part 2


f) Lander Sample

Acquisition System

• Carries tools to acquire, at a minimum, soil and

atmosphere samples, possible subsurface sample

acquisition.

• Carries sample encapsulation system

• Transfers samples to Sample Container

• Sampling tools, sample

transfer system

• Possible 2 - 3 m drill

g) Mars Ascent Vehicle

(MAV)

• Carries sample container to Mars surface on

Lander

• Launches sample container into Mars

rendezvous orbit

• Propellant and materials for

long-duration storage and

performance in Mars environment

• Launch from low mass landed

platform

• Low mass avionics

h) Sample Container

• Arrives at surface of Mars empty

• Is filled by rover and/or lander sample transfer

system

• Is launched by MAV

• Orbital detection

• Reliable containment

• Low mass

• Cleanliness

63


a) Orbiter

• Performs data relay with the Lander and

rover from Mars orbit

• Carries rendezvous and capture system and

Earth return vehicle with Earth Entry Vehicle

• Captures sample container in Mars orbit

• Releases ERV/EEV with the Lander and the

rover

• Autonomous rendezvous in

Mars orbit (sensors, GNC,

algorithms and operations)

• Sample thermal protection• End-to-end system: no entry

ever done from Mars

c) Earth Entry Vehicle

(EEV)

• Is carried by the ERV• Re-enters Earth’s atmosphere and lands

with samples returned from Mars

b) Earth Return Vehicle

(ERV)

• Carries and released the EEV.

• Diverts to a non-Earth impact trajectory

from Mars orbit

None

Baseline Composite 2 (orbiting & return parts)

e

a b

d

f c

Part 1

64

Baseline Composite 2 (orbiting & return parts)

e

a b

d

f c

Part 2


d) Propulsion Module

• Provides propulsion/fuel to reach Mars

and insert into orbit

• Perform rendezvous manoevers and

propels the ERV from Mars orbit

None

e) Rendezvous &

Capture System

• Detects and captures the sample container

in Mars orbit

• Low light detection

• Autonomy

f) Sample containment

& verification

• Seals sample container and verifies flight

containment on return trip

• Robust sealing and

containment verification

technologies

65

iMARS Proposed Ground Segment


Sample Receiving Facility(ies) (SRF)

• Provides containment and contamination

control for returned samples

• Contains all means for cataloguing

samples and conducting PP protocols

• Sample handling in containment

with strict contamination control

• Optimized PP test protocol

Curation Facility(ies) (CF)

• Provides for documentation, storage, and

distribution of samples once it has been

deterimined that the samples harbor no life or threat

to human health or the environment

• May be collocated with SRF(s)

None

Science Support

• Participates in requirements development,

landing site selection, sample selection and

science analysis of returned samples

• Evaluates extended mission opportunities

None

Mission Ops Centers(Orbiter & Rover)

• Performs mission operations by commanding

and controlling the Orbiter and lander compositesNone

Research Laboratories • Scientific measurements on the return samples None, unless sample cannot be declared as non hasardous

66

DISCUSSION

67

Development Timeline

Denis Moura

68

Proposed Development Timeline

• An MSR mission realized within an international framework would

face difficulty in coordination and synchronization between the Orbiter

and Lander Composite engineering and development activities.

• In addition, two options might be defined based on the availability (or

not) of telecommunication support from another orbiter mission in

place during the Lander Composite’s arrival at Mars.

• In addition, it is recognized that approval and development of the

Sample Receiving Facility/ies would also be complex and long.

• The iMARS working group has thus defined the following possible

tentative development plans.

69

MSR Potential Timeline

Mission analysis scenario 5 (lander TC support from another mission)

70

Associated Technology Maturation Plan

71

Investment Plan

Lisa May

72

Near-term Investment

• MSR mission costs estimated from $4.5B–$8B or B€3–B€5.3

• Rough-order-of-magnitude estimate based on – Past MSR studies– Actual cost data from recent Mars missions (Mars Exploration Rovers, MSL,

ExoMars)

• Require further development of a reliable estimate – End-to-end costs and funding requirements for an international MSR– Depends on final architecture, participants, and partnership structure

• Nations, agencies, and institutions could start to plan participation – Near-term investment would be based on long-lead technologies and associated with

building blocks – Technologies must be proven in a relevant environment prior to the applicable PDR

dates • TRL 6: System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment

(ground or space)

– Requires early investment and invites parallel development.

73

Building Blocks with Near-Term Technology Needs (1 of 2)

Proposed Orbiter Composite 2019 launch

TRL 6 need date early CY 2015

Earth Entry Vehicle (EEV) Sample thermal protection

End-to-end system tests

Rendezvous & Capture System Low-light detection

Autonomy

Sample Containment and Verification Robust verification technologies for sealing and containment

Proposed Lander Composite 2020 launch

TRL 6 need date late CY 2015

Lander, including EDL Precision landing

Hazard avoidance

Sample transfer system

Forward planetary protection

Rover Mobility and autonomy

Sample encapsulation and transfer system

Sample Acquisition: Rover Coring tools

Sample Acquisition: Lander Sampling tools

Sample encapsulation and transfer system

74

Building Blocks w Near-Term Technology Needs (2 of 2)

Proposed Ground Facilities

TRL 6 need by CY 2013

Ground Recovery and Transport

Safe transportation technology

Sample Receiving Facility(ies) (SRF)

Sample handling in containment with strict contamination control

Proposed Lander Composite (cont’d) 2020 launch

TRL 6 need date late CY 2015

Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV) Propellant and materials for long-duration storage and performance in Mars environment

Launch from low-mass landed platform

Sample Container Orbital detection

Reliable containment

75

Summary, Conclusions, Next Steps

David Beaty

76

Summary of Primary Conclusions

1. The first MSR mission would make a significant contribution to many

fundamental scientific questions.

• Scientific return would depend on the character, diversity, and quality of the

samples returned.

2. Critical technologies would need new development

• Require substantial effort in the short/medium terms to reach a correct

maturity level in the early phases of the project.

3. Planetary protection challenges for an MSR mission would be beyond

those encountered for one-way Mars missions. There would be some

significant technological planetary protection challenges, including

aseptic sample transfer, redundant containment of the flight system, and

biohazard assessment after the samples return to Earth.

4. Implementation of planetary protection and contamination control

requirements for the end-to-end mission system is critical

77

Summary of Primary Conclusions

5. Existing launch capabilities in NASA and ESA would be sufficient

• Two launch vehicles would be mandatory

• Other systems in development, especially for ExoMars and MSL, could

be used for MSR

6. MSR could be divided into separate elements to be considered for

funding by different international entities

• “Who does what?” is not something iMARS could resolve on its own

7. With adequate resources and responsive decision making, the first

MSR mission could be started in ~ 2013 (phase B start)

– Would launches around 2020

– Receiving a sample back on Earth ~3 years later

78

Forward Planning—Organizational

• Organize into three subteams– Engineering

– Science (re-form, using a Nominating Committee)

– Earth Operations

• Specific recommendations have been made for each of the above three subteams

• Planetary Protection Officers as ex officio—carefully manage the boundary between setting of policy and implementation of policy

79

Forward Planning—General

• Request IMEWG approval of iMARS Phase II, up to start of Phase 0• General objectives:

– Consolidate current basics such as high-level requirements and the reference architecture

• Respond to details regarding international aspects of this mission when known

– Refine science and engineering sensitivities• Assess trade-offs between cost and value to optimize the flight, Earth, and on-

Mars systems

– Improve confidence in current cost estimates

– Define mechanism to engage potential participants and to assess degree of interest and appropriateness of technical capabilities

• Further understanding of mission components that different financial and implementation entities could take on

• Clarify interfaces between these components and establish processes for interface management

– Identify candidate, common approaches to managing the risks associated with an international MSR mission

80

Forward Planning—Engineering Subteam

• Further define building blocks and functional requirements– Refine mass, performance, and other requirements

– Depends on independent efforts of MSR participants

• Further analyze the planetary protection and contamination control implementation options/requirements

• Iterate on surface operations strategies in conjunction with mission and system studies

• Consolidate engineering and technology efforts of MSR participants into overall international MSR architecture and requirements– Update technology challenges and needed capabilities (“timeline”,

strategies...)

• Address open issues such as req’t for precursor mission(s), ITAR, organization for Phase 0

• Address relevance to human missions

81

Forward Planning—Science Subteam

• Develop draft Science Management Plan

– Includes IMSI definition/proposal

• Begin landing-site selection process

– Identify dedicated observations with current assets

• Refine open questions re: lander-based sampling system

• Surface operations planning, impact on requirements

• Update contamination requirements

• Address sample measurements and instrument requirements for

Earth-based laboratories

82

Forward Planning—Earth Operations Subteam

• Restructuring subteam from planetary protection

and facilities to Earth Operations

• Focus on requirements definition

– Earth landing site ops

– Earth surface transportation

– SRF functional requirements

– Curation

83

General Discussion

Doug McCuistion, Bruno Gardini

preliminary planning for an international mars sample return mission imars working group

Documents

sample types

scientific sample selection

sample acquisition

technology development

timingscience objectives

mars fans

site selection

lead srf issuesprotecting