1

Planetary Science Deep Space SmallSat Mission Concepts 

The Woodlands, TX - March 18th, 2018

Mars Aerosol Tracker 

(MAT)
The case for MAT

 Dust and water ice aerosols affect the Martian “weather”:

 They are both radiatively active. 

 There is need for continuous and synoptic aerosol monitoring: 

 To understand the interaction between aerosols and circulation;

 To enable weather forecasting (e.g. evolution of dust storms);

 To support robotic AND future human exploration.

 The key factor is the orbit! An areostationary orbit is ideal:

 To observe a large, fixed region (~80° away from nadir); 

 To provide high sampling rate (fractions of the hour);

 To monitor throughout the daily and seasonal cycles; 

 To continuously/synoptically monitor the aerosol evolution; 

 To monitor changes in surface properties (e.g. albedo, T. inertia). 2
3

A regional dust storm from areostationary vs polar orbit

Mars Global Surveyor

Thermal Emission Spectrometer 

Gridded IR Column Dust Optical Depth

Data from:

Montabone et al., Icarus, 2015

View from about 17,000 km

above the equator

Polar orbiter Areostationary orbiter
4

Mission objectives

 Monitor at high sampling rate a large, fixed portion of the planet 

where dust storms and water ice clouds are likely to occur, using

visible and infrared wavelengths; 

 Observe the temporal evolution of dust storms and water ice clouds 

in the monitored area throughout the diurnal cycle

 Detect possible changes in surface properties (e.g. thermal inertia 

and albedo), particularly after the occurrence of large dust storms.

What are the processes controlling the dynamics of dust and water ice clouds, 

and promoting the evolution of regional dust storms into planet-encircling storms?

To provide answers to the scientific questions:

We plan to place and operate MAT in areostationary orbit in order to:
5

Mission objectives

What are the processes controlling the dynamics of dust and water ice clouds, 

and promoting the evolution of regional dust storms into planet-encircling storms?

To provide answers to the scientific questions:

Relevant to:

 NASA 2014 Science Plan 

 Decadal Survey, Priority C 

 MEPAG Goal II, Objective A 

 MEPAG Goal IV, Objective A 

Advance the understanding of how the chemical and physical processes

in our solar system operate, interact and evolve

What are the processes controlling the variability of the present-day climate?

What are the primary causes behind the occurrence of global dust events? 

What are the processes coupling the carbon dioxide, dust and water cycles?

monitoring the Martian atmospheric structure and dynamics

variability on diurnal, seasonal, and inter-annual scales 

from ground to >80 km in both ambient and various dust storm conditions
Payload

 One visible camera: Off-the-shelf camera 

( ECAM-C50 from MSSS): 

 Fixed-focus, narrow-angle lens; 

 2592 x 1944 pixels; 

 29° x 22° FOV (full disk and limb).

 4 km resolution

 Two thermal infrared camera developed by MSSS:

 Fixed-focus, narrow-angle lens;

 640 x 480 pixels; 

 Same field of view as visible camera; 16 km resolution;

 Filter wheel for selecting 6 spectral ranges; 

 Detectors responsive in the range 7.9 - 16 μm.

 Digital Video Recorder: Off-the-shelf from MSSS (ECAM-DVR4)

 Buffer Size: 32 GB Non-Volatile / 128 MB Volatile 6

Malin Space Science Systems, Inc

Proprietary Information
Products

 Visible Images during daylight

 Maps from IR retrievals: Temperature 

and aerosols (dust, water ice) optical 

depth up to ~60° from nadir :

 2D maps of τdust and τice ;

 2D maps of T at 3 altitude levels;

 Maps and images are co-located 

and simultaneous.

 Three observational modes:

 Continuous monitoring (low res);

 H2O ice cloud observational campaign

(high res, only a few sols);

 Dust storm tracking campaign 

(high res, 10-20 sols).

 Bottleneck: Downlink data rate (20 kbits/sec 

on average)

Weighting functions for several 

spectral ranges on one side of the 

CO2 15 μm absorption band. 7
Mission Architecture

8

We analyzed 3 mission scenarios 

Case 1 (proposal)

Rideshare on an orbiter mission to 

Mars, release after Mars capture, 

descent into areostationary orbit

Case 3 (promising)

Being released in GTO, 

autonomous navigation to Mars, 

autonomous Mars capture, 

descent into areostationary orbit

Case 2 (current baseline)

Rideshare on a mission to Mars, 

autonomous Mars capture, 

descent into areostationary orbit

35 kg spacecraft wet mass

45 kg spacecraft wet mass

64 kg spacecraftwet mass
The 45 kg SmallSat with electric propulsion

“Halo” 3rd Generation Prototype Solar Array Deployment 9

Xenon gas tank

IRIS transponder + KaPDA antenna

ESPA ring
Key challenges identified for the MAT concept

(major to minor)

 Propulsion: Solid Iodine fuel technology not yet ready; Xenon gas 

tank increases mass and volume; Thruster reliability to be tested.

 Communication: Despite using JPL KaPDA high-gain antenna adapted 

to the X-band, the data downlink rate is still low.

 Heat dissipation: This is one of the identified top risks;

 Radiation: This is another identified top risk, particularly in the Case 

3 scenario when leaving from GTO.

 Data pre-processing: It would be desirable to develop advanced 

automatic event detection algorithms based on neural networks.

 Launch opportunities: Few for Case 2, more for 3; Desirable to look 

at innovative opportunities for Mars capture (e.g. ballistic capture). 

 Station keeping: Challenging, but we identified mitigation options.

10
Thanks for your attention !

lmontabone@spacescience.org

11

Summary of the mission concept

 Spacecraft: ESPA-class orbiter; 45 kg; Electric propulsion (micro Hall thrusters, Xenon gas propellant).

 Payload: Visible and 2 thermal infrared fixed-focus cameras (6 filters for selecting IR spectral ranges).

 Journey to Mars: Rideshare on a primary orbiter mission; deployment before Mars capture.

 Orbit: Areostationary (i.e. equatorial, circular, planet-synchronous orbit) at ~17,000 km above the equator. 

 Duration: 1 Martian year (primary mission).

 Cost: Total anticipated cost estimated to nearly $24M (no launch nor DSN) + 25% cost reserve

Baseline Mission Overview

Science Objectives

 The onset, transport, and decay of large (i.e. regional) dust storms for extended periods.

 The formation, evolution, and dissipation of extended water ice clouds at high sampling rate.

 The changes in surface properties (e.g. thermal inertia, albedo) over the observed area.

 High-resolution (up to 4 km/pixel), visible images during daytime;

 2D maps of column aerosol optical depth, multiple times a day;

 2D maps of atmospheric temperature at few altitude levels, multiple times a day;

Monitor:

Produce:
12

Backup slides
Payload and Products

13 Inc

 VISIBLE CMOS Camera (ECAM-C50)

• 2592x1944 pixel (full frame), pixel size: 2.2 μm pixels

• Bayer Pattern filter for RGB color: (400-500 nm, 500-575 nm, 575-750 nm)

• FOV: 29 x 22 degree

• Weight: 360 grams

 Thermal Imaging System (2 IR cameras, 1 filter wheel and stepper motor)

• 640x480 pixel (full frame), pixel size: 17 μm pixels

• Six Bandpasses: 7.9 μm – 16 μm

• Camera 1: 7.9 μm, 9.3 μm, 11.8 μm

• Camera 2: 15.0 μm, 15.6 μm, 16.0 μm

• FOV: 29 x 22 degree

• Weight: ~ 1420 grams (camera+wheel+motor)

 Digital Video Recorder (ECAM-DVR4)

• Compression: JPEG (Lossy), Huffman (Lossless)

• Buffer Size: 32 GB Non-Volatile / 128 MB Volatile

• Weight: 1110 grams Malin Space Science Systems,

Proprietary Information
Trajectories to Mars

Case 1: This requires a ΔV of 

1.9 km/s, a fuel requirement 

of 3.5 kg, and a burn time of 

35.5 days.

Case 2: An estimate of ΔV ranges from 

693 m/s to 2.1 km/s for capture burn, 

depending on a wide range of 

assumptions including burn initiation 

and final capture orbit

14

Case 3: If we assume using only one 

thruster, this requires 3.9 km/s of ΔV, 10.6 

kg of fuel and 190 days. If there was an 

option to use two thrusters, the transfer 

time to escape would only be 90 days.
The 45 kg vs 64 kg SmallSat configurations

Case 2 Xenon Subsystem 

Mass percentage

Case 3 Xenon Subsystem 

Mass Percentage

15