# Presentation: 259498

## Searching for Habitable Environments Science Perspectives for Candidate Mars Mission Architectures for 2016-2026 Mars Architecture Tiger Team (MATT)Philip Christensen, ChairReported to MEP June 16, 2008Presented to MEPAGSeptember 18, 2008

_***Searching for Habitable Environments ***_***Science Perspectives for Candidate Mars Mission Architectures for 2016-2026***_*** ***_***Mars Architecture Tiger Team (MATT)*****Philip Christensen, Chair*****Reported to MEP June 16, 2008*****Presented to MEPAG*****September 18, 2008***

## MATT Study-2:  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
- Chip Shearer  *(CAPTEM)*
- Mike Smith *(MSO SDT Chair)*
- Steve Squyres
- Christophe Sotin

_***NASA HQ***_
- Lisa May
- Michael Meyer *(MEP Lead Scientist)*_*** ***_
_***JPL Mars Office***__** **_
- Dave Beaty
- Jan Chodas
- Frank Jordan
- Richard Mattingly
- Rich Zurek

## MATT Study-2:  Context

-  **Key Directives for MATT-2**
- Focus on a program that achieves fundamental science and addresses the highest priority goals for Mars Exploration; do not worry about telecom infrastructure
- Assume there will be a 2013 Scout mission selected from the current competition
- Assume the MEP budget is sustained at some rate (~$550M/yr beginning in 2010) and trades can be made in peak spending years
-  **MATT-2 study builds on earlier work:  NRC and MEPAG**
** ****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 Discussions
- Involved the JPL Mars Office Advanced Studies Team regarding mission costs and feasibility

## MATT Activities

**MATT focused on the theme “Seeking Habitable Environments” for the 2016-2026 time period**
- This theme provides near-term focus for the general effort to understand “Mars as a System” for a planet where life may have developed
**MATT proceeded as follows:**
**Distilled mission science goals for 2016-2026.**  These goals:
- Are consistent with the “Seeking Habitable Environments” theme
- Are responsive to the NRC/Decadal Survey Priorities
- Address MEPAG Goals, Objectives and Investigations
**Identified mission “building blocks” that address the mission science goals for the decade**
- Includes:  MSR, MPR, MSO, NET, Scout
- Mission “blocks” identified at a high level--see following slides
**Developed a set of guidelines to determine mission sequences**
- Mission sequences considered in order of when MSR Lander would launch
- MSR launches are high priority science, but budget driven

## MATT Study-2:  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 - **Addressed by 2013 Scout**
- Explore a diversity of surface environments using rovers with sample acquisition, analysis, and caching capabilities
- Determine the composition and structure of the current atmosphere
- Investigate the deep interior using a network of landed geophysical experiments
- Return carefully selected and well-documented samples from a potentially habitable environment to Earth for detailed analysis
- Respond to new discoveries through focused missions

## MEP Building Blocks for 2016-2026 (1 of 2)

-  **MATT 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
**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

## MEP Building Blocks for 2016-2026 (2 of 2)

-  **MATT identified these potential mission building blocks to address the key scientific objectives for 2016-2026 (cont.):**
**Mars Science Orbiter (MSO)**
- Atmospheric composition, state, and surface climatology remote sensing plus telecom
- Science Definition Team formed and report given to MEP
**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
**Mars Scout Missions (Scout)**
- Competed missions to pursue innovative thrusts to major missions goals

## Option: Network 

** ****Concept:  ≥ 4 Landed Stations Arrayed in a Seismic Network**
**  ****Goals**:
- Characterize interior structure, composition and processes
- Elucidate evolution of the interior over time and role in Mars climate history
- Advance the comparative study of planetary formation and evolution
- Characterize local meteorology and provide baseline for orbital climate measurements
- Long-lived surface measurements
- Substantially enhanced by concurrent orbital remote sensing of the atmosphere
**Highest priority after sample return in NRC reports / Decadal Survey**
-  **Approach:**
- Conduct interior measurements, particularly of seismic signals
- Other goals:  Heat flow, magnetics
- Does not require precision landing
- Significantly enhanced by Orbiter relay for telecom
- Significantly enhanced by long-term (≥ 2 Mars years) observing period
- Could easily be part of an international collaboration
**Issues:**
- Unknown signal character complicates payload design
- A precursor demonstration may be needed to motivate (ExoMars?)
- Requires new EDL design for implementation (I.e., cannot use MER/MSL)

## Option: Mars Science Orbiter 

**Concept: Long-lived Science Orbiter Providing Atmospheric Remote Sensing and Mission Support**
**Goals**:
- Extend atmospheric and seasonal surface climate baseline through next decade
- Provide improved and new (e.g., winds) profiling capabilities
- Provide extensive global, diurnal and seasonal survey of key trace gases, including carbon-bearing compounds with implications for interior bio/geochemical processes
- Methane and higher order hydrocarbons
- Photochemical products, isotopes (CO, NO, etc.)
- Synergistic with Network for both relay and atmospheric science
- Synergistic (lower atmosphere) with 2013 Scout (upper atmosphere)
- Provide telecom, site characterization and atmospheric monitoring for the future
-  **Approach**:
- Low-cost sounders & wide angle imagers with new microwave/sub-mm profilers
- Provide high-resolution, high-sensitivity spectrometers for trace gas detection
- Payload could accommodate international contributions
**Issues**:
- Methane detection has been controversial
- Could be paradigm shifting, but does diverge from the current path of geologic/geochemical landed missions leading to MSR

## 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

## Qualitative Comparison of Candidates

***Qualitative Comparison of Candidates***

- Characterizes interior structure and composition in ways not possible with MSR, MSL; atmospheric objectives leveraged by orbital remote sensing

## Qualitative Comparison of Candidates

***Qualitative Comparison of Candidates***

- Strong contribution to high-priority Goal II objectives not addressed by MSR; extends local MSL results spatially

## Qualitative Comparison of Candidates

***Qualitative Comparison of Candidates***

- Potential to extend analytical capabilities to classes of surface deposits not measured by MSL or MER

## MATT Guiding Principles (1 of 2)

**MATT 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 meet minimum requirements set out in the ND-SAG report
- If MSR is deferred, MEP needs to 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
- Address non-MSR high priority science objectives, particularly as endorsed by NRC strategies and the Decadal Survey (e.g., 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

## MATT Guiding Principles (2 of 2)

**MATT developed these strategic principles to guide architecture development (cont.):**
- Require that rovers preceding MSR:
- Demonstrate sample acquisition and caching technologies that meet the minimum requirements set out in the ND-SAG report
- Investigate new sites to explore the diversity of Mars revealed from orbit and to provide multiple options for MSR
- This requires precision landing to access the most promising sites and to feed-forward to MSR
- 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

## MATT Architecture Assessment

**Specific Assumptions:**
**2013 Scout would be chosen from the current competition**
- Scout would provide telecom for a Lander/Rover launched in 2016
***Mission sequences considered in order of when MSR Lander would launch (after FY16, as directed)***
- MSR is at least a 2-element mission (lander/rover/ascent + orbiter/capture/return)
- Generally launch MSR-O after MSR-L to give extended sample time on surface
**2009 MSL launch => a major landed mission no later than 2018**
*If not MSR in 2018, substitute “Prospector” rover in 2016 or 2018*
**Precede landed network (NET) with long-lived orbiter**
- Synergistic both for atmospheric science and for telecom
- MSR-O does not provide this capability
**“****Ballpark” Budget guidelines**
- 450 M/yr or 550 M/yr(2009 $ inflated for future years)
- Early budget constraints preclude an MSR Lander launch in 2016

## Mission Scenarios

| Option | 2016 | 2018 | 2020#2 | 2022#2 | 2024 | 2026 | Comments |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2018a#1 | MSR-O | MSR-L | MSO | NET | Scout | MPR | Funded if major discovery? |
| 2018b#1 | MSO | MSR-L | MSR-O | NET | Scout | MPR | Restarts climate record; trace gases |
| 2018c#1 | MPR | MSR-L | MSR-O | MSO | NET | Scout | Gap in climate  record; telecom? |
| 2020a | MPR | MSO | MSR-L | MSR-O | NET | Scout | MPR helps optimize MSR |
| 2020b | MPR | Scout | MSR-L | MSR-O | MSO | NET | Gap in climate record, early Scout |
| 2022a | MPR | MSO | NET | MSR-L | MSR-O | Scout | Early NET; MPR helps MSR |
| 2022b | MSO | MPR | NET | MSR-L | MSR-O | Scout | Early NET, but 8 years between major landers (MSL to MPR) |
| 2024a | MPR | MSO | NET | Scout | MSR-L | MSR-O
 | Early 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*

## MATT Summary 

**High-priority science objectives can be addressed in 2016-2026 with a series of missions including, but not limited to, Mars Sample Return (MSR)**
*Early sample return is preferred as the findings are likely to affect profoundly future Mars exploration*
**An MSR-L launch in 2018--desired scientifically--significantly exceeds funding guidelines as early as FY15-17 **
- If early funding provided [unlikely], MSO goes in 2016 to provide mission support and to restart the climatology record measurements prior to MSR *[Option 2018b]*
***If an MSR-L launch is deferred until after 2018, MATT finds two near-term mission architectures to be scientifically compelling, while providing real progress towards an MSR.  Furthermore, these two scenarios have the same initial mission set for 2016 and 2018:***
**	*****Now:  Start technology program focused on developments that enable    ******	******         MPR and feed-forward to MSR ***
*	****2016:  Launch Mars Prospector Rover (MPR) to a new site***
***	******2018:  Launch Mars Science Orbiter (MSO) for long-lived observations ******	******         and telecom support for science***
*	****Option 2020a:  Launch MSR-L in 2020 followed by NET in 2024***
*	****Option 2022a:  Launch MSR-L in 2022 preceded by NET in 2020***
***	******	******	****-Earlier MSR option preferred*

## MATT Notes 

**Note #1:  Major discoveries by ongoing or near-term missions (PHX, MSL, ExoMars) may change the architecture assessment**
- For example, a PHX discovery may motivate a high-latitude lander with vertical access
- Response depends on nature of discovery--no attempt was made here to map out a “response tree” to the many possible discoveries that could be made
*The current operating missions are fully capable of making major new discoveries and their observation programs should be extended and data analysis supported*
**Note #2:  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 payload participation exist for MPR and MSO

## Back-Up

## Guidelines for the MATT-2 Study 

**Assumptions**:
- Telecommunications infrastructure, site selection, and critical event coverage, early in the next decade, should not be a concern of MATT for this study.  In other words, look at the science that is desired and assume the rest will follow.
- Assume the MEP budget is sustained at some rate (~$550M/yr beginning in 2010) and trades can be made in peak spending years.
- The 2016 mission could cost ~$1B
- Last element of MSR is launched in 2022
**Possible Considerations**:
- Proper caching of samples should be done on any future landed opportunity
- Possible role of virtual caching (i.e., sampling sites are characterized but samples are not cached)
- Two MER class rovers instead of one rover for sample caching.
- ESA may have a 2016 orbiter, for testing rendezvous and capture, and for delivery  of small landers to the surface
- Could/should two rovers be built simultaneously, and then each rover launched independently (either in the same of separate opportunities)
- Inform and solicit comments from the community, perhaps through an accompanying MEPAG announcement
- Possible Scout in 2018

## MATT Response to the Questions 

***Propose a Mars exploration architecture(s) that will optimize the science return within fiscal and programmatic constraints.***
***  ******Scenarios 2020a and 2022a***
- Is the proposed MSR the highest priority for the Mars science community, assuming the cost constraint listed below?
***MSR is the highest priority for this decade and should be conducted at the earliest opportunity; however, it would require additional (peak) funding above the cost  guidelines, no matter when it occurs; international partnering can help***
- Given that the 2016 opportunity is too early for the launch of either of two elements of the proposed MSR, what should be the 2016 mission?
***MPR in 2016 followed by MSO in 2018****** ******if MSR-L is launched after 2018***
- Can the proposed MSR be split between more than two flight elements to reduce peak costs in any fiscal year?
***Development and demonstration of precision landing and sample selection/caching will reduce risk and demonstrate progress towards sample return, but the MSR cost savings is modest even when MPR is a critical path element in MSR***
- What is the architecture if there is no sample return in the foreseeable future?
***Proceed with 2022a***