matt report feb. 20, 2008 1 philip christensen (chair) lars borg (nd-sag co-chair) wendy calvin (mso...

MATT Report Feb. 20, 2008 1

Philip Christensen (Chair)Lars Borg (ND-SAG Co-Chair)Wendy Calvin (MSO SAG Chair)Mike Carr Dave Des Marais (ND-SAG Co-Chair)Francois Forget Noel Hinners Scott Murchie (MSS SAG Chair)Jack Mustard (MEPAG Chair)Lisa Pratt

Mars Architecture Tiger Team (MATT)

Chip Shearer (CAPTEM)Mike Smith (MSO SDT Chair)Steve SquyresRich ZurekDave Beaty Jan Chodas Richard MattinglyLisa May (NASA HQ)Michael Meyer (NASA HQ)

Membership


Background

• The OMB requested an architecture from NASA for the Mars Exploration Program for the next decade

• NASA chartered an assessment group to develop this architecture and provide an evaluation of the Mars Program relative to the SMD budget proposal submitted in the President’s 5-year budget plan

• Group consisted of 19 members of Mars science and engineering community, including the Chairs of MEPAG, the MEPAG Next Decade (ND), Mars Science Orbiter (MSO) and Mars Science Strategy (MSS) Science Analysis Groups, the MSO Science Definition Team, and CAPTEM

• Group met in Washington D.C. on Feb. 14-15, 2008

Mars Architecture Tiger Team Report


Key elements of this study included:

1. Assessment of the Mars Exploration Program architectures based on the President’s FY09 Budget release for 2009-2013 and SMD planning estimates for 2014-2020

2. Incorporation of the recommendations from the NRC Decadal Survey and the ND-SAG, MSS-SAG, and CAPTEM reports• Options for 2016 from MSS-SAG• Science priorities for collected samples from ND-SAG

3. The SMD stated desire for an MSR landed element no later than 2020 with a U.S. contribution to MSR of no more than $3.5B

4. Assessment of possible architectures relative to the stated science goals of the Mars Exploration Program

5. The assumption of significant international contribution



Mars Exploration Funding

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

Fu

nd

ing

Level

($M

)

FY08 Dollars


Past funding

2020



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

Fu

nd

ing

Level

($M

)

FY08 Dollars


Past funding

5-year plan

2020



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

Fu

nd

ing

Level

($M

)

FY08 Dollars


Past funding

5-year plan

SMD Planning Budget

2020


Group looked at two types of architectures:

1) A science-driven architecture based on the SMD plan and the recommendations of the NRC Decadal Survey, the MEPAG Goals committees, and the MEPAG Science Analysis Groups over the past 5 years

2) Budget-driven architectures based on the recently released President’s 5-year budget (FY09-FY13). For the FY14-FY20 period the group considered 2 options:a) The current SMD Planning budget with a significant

funding increase in FY17 through FY20b) A flat funding profile that was based on the

average of FY10-FY12 for FY14 through FY20




2a

2b

Architecture Assessment Summary

Key points• Given adequate funding the SMD plan can maintain the Mars Program and

achieve its science goals• With the SMD Budget plan

• MSR options have only Scout mission between MSL and MSR• ≥11 year period between NASA Mars landings (2009 to ≥2020)• A 4 year gap exists between flight elements of MSR• Only 5 months of surface operations for MSR rover launched in 2022

Option 2009 2011 2013 2016 2018 2020 2022 Outcome

SMD Balanced

Program (1)MSL Scout MSO

MSR-L

MSR-O

Exceeds total funding;Improper cost phasing

SMD Budget Plan (2a)

MSL ScoutMSR-

OMSR-

LScout with MSR in

2022

SMD Budget Plan (2a);

Earliest MSRMSL

MSR-O

MSR-L

MSR-only programMSR in 2020

Level Mars funding FY14-

20 (2b)MSL Scout MSO Rover No MSR

CONCEPT


1. The Mars Architecture Tiger Team strongly endorses the Mars architecture as proposed by SMD that has a balanced scientific program and the launch of all MSR mission elements by 2020

2. However, the SMD planning budget, which includes the President’s 5-year decreasing budget, does not support this architecture even with the planned rapid increase in funding beginning in FY17 • Estimated cost of this balanced architecture is ~$6B,

including an estimated cost of an MSR mission with modest scientific goals of ~$4-5B; however total SMD funding for new missions through FY20 is ~$4B

• Phasing of SMD funding does not ramp up in time for a mission in 2016 nor for MSR launches in 2018 and 2020

3. The MSR mission would require a substantial international contribution above the $3.5B U.S. contribution currently planned

Conclusions


4. The SMD planning budget through FY20, together with substantial international contribution could support MSR with some adjustment in phasing. However, the options would be:• An MSR program with Scout in 2013 followed by the launch

of the MSR mission elements in 2018 and 2022; or• An architecture dedicated to the earliest launch of MSR, with

no missions following MSL and the launch of the MSR mission elements in 2016 and 2020

5. If the projected reinstatement of the funding for Mars exploration to levels of $500-900M per year does not occur sometime after 2013, then MSR will not happen• Projected funding levels in FY11-FY16 are ~$390M per year• Level funding could support medium-sized missions

launched every other opportunity (not flagships)

Conclusions


6. A Mars architecture consisting of MSL followed by the launch of MSR elements in 2016 & 2020 (no Scout) or 2018 & 2022 (with Scout) would have a devastating effect on the Mars Program• Lack of progress toward the four goals of planetary science

set out by the NRC Decadal Survey • Loss of scientific balance• Loss of technical and scientific expertise as a result of the >11

year hiatus between landed missions of MSL and MSR

Conclusions


7. In all planning exercises the Mars Program should remember that:

• Major technology development is required starting at least 5 years prior to the MSR development

• The existing assets at Mars have great capabilities that can be utilized to support future missions, including site characterization and certification, atmospheric characterization, and relay

Conclusions

Architecture Assessment Summary

Key points• Given adequate funding the SMD plan can maintain the Mars Program and

achieve its science goals• With the SMD Budget plan

• MSR options have only Scout mission between MSL and MSR• ≥11 year period between NASA Mars landings (2009 to ≥2020)• A 4 year gap exists between flight elements of MSR• Only 5 months of surface operations for MSR rover launched in 2022

Option 2009 2011 2013 2016 2018 2020 2022 Outcome

SMD Balanced


MSR-L

MSR-O



MSL ScoutMSR-

OMSR-

LScout with MSR in

2022


Earliest MSRMSL

MSR-O

MSR-L






0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

Fu

nd

ing

Level

($M

)

FY08 Dollars


Past funding

5-year plan

SMD Planning Budget

2020


Backup


Option 2009 2011 2013 2016 2018 2020 2022 Outcome

SMD Balanced


MSR-L

MSR-O



MSL ScoutMSR-

OMSR-

LScout with MSR in

2022


Earliest MSRMSL

MSR-O

MSR-L




CONCEPT




0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

Fu

nd

ing

Level

($M

)

FY08 Dollars

Real Year Dollars



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

Fu

nd

ing

Level

($M

)

Real Year Dollars


Past funding



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

Fu

nd

ing

Level

($M

)

Real Year Dollars


Past funding

5-year plan



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

Fu

nd

ing

Level

($M

)

Real Year Dollars


Proposed funding

Past funding

matt report feb. 20, 2008 1 philip christensen (chair) lars borg (nd-sag co-chair) wendy calvin (mso...

Documents

sciencedriven architecture

members of mars science

mars science orbiter

mars program relative

mso science definition

smd budget proposal

nasa mars landings

science goalswith