NESS

Network of Environmental and Seismic Stations

NASA Solar System Roadmap

Objective 6Understand the current state and evolution of the ATMOSPHERE, surface, and INTERIOR of Mars

Mars Exploration Program Goals

• Goal 1: Determine if Life ever arose

• Goal 2: Characterize the Climate

• Goal 3: Characterize the Geology

• Goal 4: Prepare for Human Exploration

Mission Objective

• Determine the state and structure of the Martian interior and atmosphere using a network of stationary landers.

• Assess geologic hazards and long-term variations in climate/radiation environment in preparation for human exploration

NESS Science Goals• Current seismic activity

– How active is Mars?– Temporal and spatial distribution of Mars-quakes

• Planet interior – Composition and properties of layers– Size and state of core

• Global climate data– Global coverage from several meteorological stations– Concurrent data from 4 locations– Radiation & habitability for humans

• Geology of landing site – Panoramic camera for context– Change in environment with the weather over the year

Science Objectives

Measurement Objectives Instrumentation

Requirements Data Products

Geophysics & Seismicity        

1. Size and frequency of Mars-Quakes

Ideally, seismic measurements from

0.1mHz-100Hz and 0.1-1x10-8 m/s2 peak ground

acceleration

1 (3-axis) Very Broad Band Seismometer (0.1mHz-10Hz), 1 (3-axis) short period, high frequency

microseismometer (10Hz-100Hz).

4 Landers, good ground-coupling, 1 Earth year primary

mission to maximize

probability of Mars-quake detection

Continuous daytime collection and limited

nightime collection of 3-component (X,Y,Z)

seismograms from 2 seismometers on each

lander

2. Thickness and state of core, mantle, and crust

3. Variations of interior with latitude and longitude

4. Correlation of seismic activity with major geologic and tectonic features

Climate & Meteorology        

1. Air pressure, temperature Atmospheric pressure: 1 mbar-14mbars,

temperature: 125-300K, Wind speed and

direction: 0.1-100 m/s, UV: 200-400nm

wavelength

(1) Phoenix or Mars Polar Lander-Type Meteorology

Package including: thermocouple, barometer,

anemometer and UV radiation sensor

1 Earth year to track seasonal

climatic variation at multiple locations

Continuous daytime collection and limited nightime collection of

atmospheric measurements

2. Wind speed and direction

3. UV Radiation

Geologic & Geomorphic Context        

1. Images of landing site 3-color (RGB) stereo images at IFOV: 0.28

mrad at 1.5m to infinity. Subframed opacity

measurements with 4th neutral density sun filter.

(1) MER-Type Panoramic camera

Gimballed mast: 360o azimuth range,

+/- 90o elevation range

Image data2. Changes in landscape and atmospheric opacity with seasons

Mission Context

• Viking landed seismometers on Mars– Data noisy due to poor ground coupling– Determined upper limit on Mars seismicity

• Meteorological data available from Viking and Pathfinder– Limited concurrent measurements, no global

coverage

• These missions have characterized surface

5N, 205E

20N, 320E

32S, 70E

30N, 135E

60 degree latitude, 360 degree longitude distributionLander elevations are below -0.2km

Instrumentation

• Each lander will have:– Seismometers

• Two Very Broad Band Seismometers• One Broad Band Seismometer• One Microseismometer

– Barometer– Thermometer– Anemometer– Radiation sensor– Panoramic Camera– Microphone

Mission Design

• Trades and alternative designs– 6 landers versus 4– Level of redundancy– Alternative landing sites– Entry of carrier

Mission Design

Launch vehicle (type): Delta 2925H

Flight schedule:

liftoff 25 Oct - 14 Nov 2011Mars arrival 12 Sep 2012

Ls 170

Flight performance:

trajectory Type 2

C3max 10.7

payloadmax 1217.5 kg

payloadactual 983 kg

Launch Vehicle Configuration

Cruise Configuration

Carrier Only

• Bus total = 314.5

• Spacecraft total = 982.9

• Payload total = 612.3

• Launch vehicle mass margin = 234.6

EDL Only

• Bus total = 69.4

• Spacecraft total = 152.6

• 30%+ contingency

• Entry system diameter = 1.2 m

• Drag coefficient = 1.55

• Ballistic coefficient = 87.9kg/m2

EDL Configuration

Lander Configuration

Lander Only

• Instrument mass + contingency = 5.5

• Total bus + contingency = 75.5

• Spacecraft total = 81.1

• 30%+ contingency

• More time=better defined mass, ex drill/instruments

Meteorological Package (from Mars Polar Lander/MPF )

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/MPF/mpf/sci_desc.html#ATMO

~855g855g

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/MPF/mpf/sci_desc.html#IMP

360deg. Panorama Camera

sharing the mast with Met package

~300g

Microphone(50g, 5.2cm×5.2cm×1.3cm)

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/sixthmars2003/pdf/3078.pdf

Seismological Package (from NETLANDER mission by ESA/NASA)

1.75kg

http://ganymede.ipgp.jussieu.fr/GB/projects/netlander/sismo/

Very Broad Band Seismometer (VBB)~800g

MicroSeismometer(SP/NB)

22-5mm,22-5mm,10mm×310-100HzResol:~10**-9 m/(s**2)/HZ**-1/2~100g

22-5mm,22-5mm,10mm×310**-4-10Hz, 10**-2-10Hz

(+BRB)VBB Axis JPL Axis

Evacuated Sphere

Data Return Strategy

TELECOM Hardware

A. Earth to Mars Transit• Redundant X-band Trans/Rec• 1 medium gain and 2 low gain antennae

B. Entry, Decent, and Landing• Electralite Trans/Rec• UHF, non-directional monopole• Comms with MTO

C. Landers• Electralite Trans/Rec• UHF, non-directional monopole• Comms with MTO

TWTA

X-band35W, RF

X-bandMGA Horn

X-BandDownconverter

SDST

command data to S/C CDS

Pro

cess

or

Ka-BandExciter

telemetry data from S/C CDS

X-BandExciter

CXS

X-BandDownconverter

SDST

command data to S/C CDS

Pro

cess

or

Ka-BandExcitertelemetry data

from S/C CDS

X-BandExciter

TWTA

X-band35W, RF

HYB

HYB

X-band LGA

WGTS

X-band LGA

NESS CARRIER

WGTS

Diplexer

Electra Lite

DIPL

cxs

UHF Monopole

UHF Monopole

NESS EDL

NESS LANDER

SOL 1 SOL 2 Avg 10 SOLS

58%

11%

14%

17%

38%28%

16%18%

TELECOM Systems• Optimal 128 kbps

– Decrease transmit window, maximize data volume transfer

– Average ~23 minute link per lander/SOL for 180 Mbits/SOL (avg. transfer capacity 315 Mbits/SOL)

– Potential increase to 256 kbps with loss of total data volume received, but decrease in power consumption

25%

25%26%

24%

Ground Systems: DSN

• Deep Space Network:• Launch, track TCMs, cruise • Lander deployments (biggest cost)

• 24-hour coverage for 6 weeks

• Science operations (relay through MTO)• Daily (1-hour) coverage in first month• Weekly (1-hour) coverage for duration

Cruise-Phase Power

• A 2 m2 fixed array powers the carrier – Supplies power to last lander for telecom, TCM’s, etc. – Charges lithium-ion lander batteries prior to separation

• During 32-day separation phase, landers sleep– Timer circuit wakes controller just prior to EDL– EDL is powered by short-term thermal battery– Li-ion battery powers array deployment once landed

Lander Array

• Supplies instruments and controller day and night with 23-minute daily telecom– Daily energy usage ~330Wh

• Landers are identical, so must design for worst-case latitude

• Array is non-articulating because diffuse light limits benefit of orienting toward sun

Lander Array Power Estimation

• Driving power constraint is minimum solar energy for lander at 30N at Ls = 270 (approx. 6 months after landing)– 1900 Wh/m2/sol, 30% power reduction from dust, 27% efficient cells– A 1.2 m2 solar array (4 petals) gives a 30% contingency factor

Latitude

Orbital state (LS)

daily solar incidence per m2 during landed mission

Minimum solar flux day

Thermal Design Overview

RHU Temp

Sensors

Mylar Blankets

Heaters Thermo-

stat

Lander 9 30 7 5 5

EDL 0 30 15 10 20

Carrier 0 60 35 8 16

Need to keep instruments, parachutes, and propulsion tanks heated

Command and Data Handling• Requirements for CDS:

• Data volume storage of 180 Mbits per sol for up to 8 days• Data transfer rate to MTO (Mars Telecom Orbiter) at 128 kbps• Data transfer rate between instruments and data storage

average of 1 kbps (camera burst rate of10 Mbps)• Modified I/O card

• interface between computer and I/O card• Interface to instruments, power, propulsion, ACS (Attitude

and Control Subsystem) elements, telecom, carrier separation interface & state of health to carrier

• Design assumptions of CDS is rad-tolerant• Total dose: 20-50 krad• SEU (Single Event Upset) threshold LET: 20 MeV/mg/cm2

• SEU error rate: 10-7 – 10-8 bits per day• Data storage capability (per lander):

• 8 Gbits (includes data storage for missed pass)• capable of storing up to 40 sols of data

• 2 landers will be capable of controlling cruise and EDL (Entry, Descent, and Landing) stages of mission

Attitude Control -- Carrier

• Cruise stage– Three-axis attitude control, with control electronics on

landers. One lander is used, others are for redundancy.– Eight sun sensors (coarse), for safe mode.– Two star trackers (6 arcsec accuracy)– Two IMUs (inertial measuring unit), drift corrected by

star trackers

• Lander deployment– Attitude adjustments for lander deployment accurate to

within 0.1°. Each lander is spun up to 2 RPM with a spin table, and popped out using springs.

Attitude Control -- Landers• Three accelerometers to determine:

– When to deploy parachute– When the lander impacts Martian surface– Orientation after touchdown

ACS Costs• Carrier:

– $10,087,000

• Lander:– $477,000

• Total:– $10,564,000

Public Engagement

Public Engagement“Today, America has a serious shortage of young people entering the fields of mathematics and science. This critical part of NASA’s Mission is to inspire the next generation of explorers so that our work can go on. This educational mandate is an imperative.”

-- NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe

Making Mars Real- Constructing a virtual experience as “psychologically real as someone’s backyard”

Sharing the Adventure- N.E.S.S. - An opportunity for us all to explore.

Public Engagement Education

• Formal-Learning experience inside classroom– Nationwide workshops for educators (Teaching Teachers)– Focus on Seismometry and Meteorology mission and science analogs.

(K-12, college)– Provide mission related materials to educators for the generation of

curriculums that follow national guidelines. (Supporting Teachers)

• Informal-Learning experiences outside the classroom– Imagine Workshops– Science Seminars– Museum Partnerships– Youth Groups/Community Groups– Guest Observer Programs– Visualization/Imaging/Audio

An opportunity for us all to explore

Public EngagementOutreach

• Public Outreach– Name the landers/sites participation– The Mars Insider Program: Daily Updates from

N.E.S.S.(climate,weather, and sound) partnership with weather channels and programs

– Public presentations (mission scientist and engineers)– Dynamic educational Website– Make-a-seismometer project (Mars vs. My Backyard)

An opportunity for us all to explore

Overall Mission Risk Matrix

Likelihood

5

4 Sys:1 Sys:1 Sys:1 Sys:2

3 Tel:1

Cos:1, Ins:1,

Pow:1, Sci:1, Sys:1

Ins:2, Mis:1, Pow:1,

Str:1, Sys:2

Gro:1, Pow:1,

Ris:1, Sys:3

2 Ins:1, Sci:1Pow:1, Sys:1, The:2

Ins:2, Mis:1, Pow:1, Sys:1

EDL:2, Ins:3, Mis:3, Sof:1, Str:1,

Sys:2

ACS:1, Sci:1,

Sys:3, Tel:1

1

ACS:1, CDS:1,

Ins:2, Pro:2, The:2

ACS:1, Pro:1

ACS:1, Mis:1, Sci:1, Sys:1, Tel:1

Mis:1, Sci:2, Str:1, Sys:3,

Tel:2

ACS:3, Sci:2, Sof:1, Str:2, Sys:1

1 2 3 4 5

Impact

Major Risks to Mission Activities

• 26 risks have been identified. • 6 of the risks have been determined by many of the

systems/disciplines to be critical to the mission.– If don’t land on crushable material because of uncertain landing

terrain, then severe damage to lander and loss of data (Impact – 4, Likelihood – 3)

• Mitigation: Land in locations where terrain is most understood and fewest elevation changes (Impact - 4, Likelihood - 2)

– Single string redundancy on the lander (Impact - 5, Likelihood – 2)• Mitigation: Determine which systems have the lowest reliability and

either increase this reliability or add a redundant component (Impact - 4, Likelihood - 1)

– Seismometer can not take the large g-loads on landing (Impact – 5, Likelihood – 3)

• Mitigation: Perform adequate testing to insure that instrument will withstand landing (Impact - 5, Likelihood - 1)

Major Risks to Mission Activities (continued)

– Failure to establish seismometer contact with the ground (Impact – 5, Likelihood - 3)

• Mitigation: Increase reliability of ground contact mechanism (Impact - 5, Likelihood - 1)

– Failure to handover CDS control of cruiser (with landers still attached) if primary control system fails (Impact - 5, Likelihood - 3)

• Mitigation: Build into CDS an automatic handover of control to another landers processor if the primary CDS fails (Impact - 4, Likelihood - 2)

– Loss of power because of dust build up on the landers systems, such as solar arrays (Impact - 4, Likelihood – 3)

• Mitigation: More analysis needed to determine how much this will really effect the instruments

Project Schedule

Project Life CyclePhase Start Date Duration Notes

Pre Phase A

Advanced Studies

12+ month instrument tech development

Phase A

Mission & System Definition

11/14/08 5 months

Phase B

Preliminary Design

4/16/09 5 months

Phase C

Design & Build

9/15/10 15 months Descope

saved 1 month

Phase D

Assembly Test & Launch Operations

12/14/10 12 months Descope

Saved 1 month

Phase E

Operations

1/5/12 21 months

Organization Chart

Advisory BoardPI, Chair

Dean, PI's U.Dir For PFP, JPL

VP, S/C IP- Algorithm Development- Science Data Reduction SW- Science Data System- Science Data Processing- Education & Outreach

- Instrument Design- Instrument Fabrication- Instrument I&T

- Spacecraft Subcontracting & Fabrication & Integration- Flight System I&T- Operations Support

- Ground System Development- Flight Operations- NASA Ground Station I/F

Mission Design -Reqmts. Doc. -

Flight Sys I/Fs -L/V I/Fs -

Science Team

- Planning- Resource Analysis- Schedule Analysis- Earned Value Mgmt- Procurements

-Trajectory and Maneuver Design- Mission Activity Coordination- Mission and Navigation Plans

Safety & Mission AssuranceJPL

Business ManagerJPL

Project Systems EngineerJPL

Mission Design ManagerJPL

Instrument ManagerJPL

Flight System ManagerJPL

Mission Operations ManagerJPL

Project ManagerJPL

Principal Investigator

NASA Program Office(NPO)

21

4

WBS Levels

NOTES

01.RE: Includes all Project reserves as a non-WBS item.

05: Use reserved elements 05.08 - 05.19 as needed for additionalinstruments and 05.21 - 05.29 as needed for additional technologypayloads.

05.03 and 06.03: Top level product assurance elements are used forsystem contracts providing more than one instrument or flight module

06.05: Use the WBS elements in 06.05 as the template for FlightSystem Modules that are implemented in-house at JPL.

06.06 Use the WBS elements in 06.06 as the minimum template forFlight System Modules that are implemented as System Contracts.Add selected WBS elements from 06.05 as needed for activitiesperformed by JPL.

06.07 - 06.10 : Use reserved elements 06.07 - 06.10 as needed foraddional Flight System Modules including Orbiters, Rovers, etc.

3 Proj Mgmt01.01

Business Mgmt01.02

Risk Mgmt01.03

Review Support01.04

Facilities01.05

Reserves01.RE

Proj Mgmt01

Proj Sys Eng02.01

Mission & Nav Dsgn02.02

Proj SW Eng02.03

eeis02.04

Info Sys Eng & Comm02.05

Config Mgmt02.06

Planetary Protection02.07

Launch Approval Eng02.08

Launch System Eng02.09

Project V&V02.10

Proj Sys Eng02

MA Mgmt03.01

Sys Safety03.02

Environ Eng03.03

Reliability Eng03.04

Parts Eng03.05

QA Eng03.06

SW IV&V03.07

Mission Ops Assur03.08

Mission Assurance03

Sci Mgmt04.01

Sci Implementation04.02

Sci Support04.03

Educ & Pub Outreach04.06

Science04

PS Mgmt05.01

PS Sys Eng05.02

PS Prod Assur05.03

PS CC and M&P05.04

Inst 105.05

VBB SeismometerNEtlander

Inst 205.06 (Contract)

Micro SeismometerJPL

Inst 305.07

GEO PhoneCommercial

Inst 405.08 - 05.19

MET PackJPL

Inst 505.20

Pan CamASU?

Common PS HW05.31

PS I&T05.32

Payload Sys05

FS Mgmt06.01

Reserved FS Modules06.07 - 06.10

FS Sys Eng06.02

FS Sys Testbeds06.11

FS Prod Assur06.03

FS I&T06.12

FS CC and M&P06.04

FS Module 206.06 (Sys Contract)

Flight Sys06

MOS Mgmt07.01

MOS Sys Eng07.02

Gnd Data Sys07.03

Inst MOS & GDS07.04

Operations07.05

MOS V & V07.06

Mission Ops Sys07

Launch Services08.01

Launch Syst08

MARS Lander S.S. 2004-2008NESS

Work Breakdown Structure

Cost Estimation Process

• Cost Chair requests data from all subsystems

• The data are the parameters for equations in a cost model developed by Team X specialists using historical data

• These data are run through the cost model and tabulated

• The process is iterated until all subsystems are satisfied

Cost Assumptions

• Class B mission

• Cost Dollars are FY 2004

• Inflation rate = 3.1%

• We assumed a 97% learning curve for the landers and the EDL (Iearning curve equations incorporated into Team X models).

Expected Cost

• $572 M Expected Cost• There is no single huge cost driver. The

cost is spread roughly evenly among the different subsystems.

• The upper estimated bound of the cost is $686 and the lower estimated bound is $515.

Cost Breakdown

Carrier

Instruments

Lander

EDL

ATLO

Launch Vehicle

Reserves

Other

Mission Summary

• First global network of landers on Mars

• Addresses NASA’s exploration goals

• Lay foundation for forecasting hazards and weather change for human exploration

Thank You

• Team X

• CoCo Karpinski and Anita Sohus

• JPL employees and facility managers

• PSSS