space robotics current areas of research state of...

1

Space Robotics

Robotics Technology and ProgramsDecember 8, 2004

David WettergreenThe Robotics Institute

Carnegie Mellon University2 Carnegie Mellon

Preview

Robotics Technology Assessment•Current areas of research•State of technology maturity

Programmatic Needs•NRC Solar SystemExploration Survey

•NASA Vision forSpace Exploration

3 Carnegie Mellon

Space Robotics Researcher

David Wettergreen•Scientist in the Robotics Institute•Post-doc at NASA Ames

Research AreaRobotic Exploration

ObjectiveTo develop the methods and practiceneeded to engage robots in scientificdiscovery and meaningful work

4 Carnegie Mellon

Space Robotics Researcher

Research Areas• Field-deployable mobilerobots

• System synthesis• Software architectureand engineering

• Sensor-based guidance• Adaptive control andlearning

• Mobility• Exploration andautonomy

5 Carnegie Mellon

Space Robotics at Carnegie Mellon

Creating new ideas and approachesSpace robot concepts and prototypes• Amber,1989• SM2, 1991• Dante I, 1992• Tesselator, 1993• Dante II, 1994• Ratler, 1995• Nomad, 1997• Bullwinkle, 1998• Skyworker, 1999• Hyperion, 2001• Zoë, 2004

6 Carnegie Mellon


Experimental analysis in relevant environmentsField experiments:• Antarctica, 1992• Alaska, 1994• Chile, 1997• Antarctica, 1998,1999,2000• Canada, 2001• Chile, 2003, 2004

2

7 Carnegie Mellon


Technology infusion and mission developmentRover Software• TCA/TDL• IPC• Morphin (Gestalt)• D*• TEMPEST/ISE• Hyperion Navigator

Mission Proposals• Icebreaker• Victoria• Long Day’s Drive• HOMER

8 Carnegie Mellon


Training technologists and leadersCarnegie Mellon people to and from:• NASA Ames• NASA Johnson• NASA Kennedy• NASA Goddard• Jet Propulsion Laboratory• Probably all the NASA centers

9 Carnegie Mellon

What is a Space Robot?

Attributes?Abilities?Challenges?

10 Carnegie Mellon

Space Robotics Missions

Deep Space

Space Robot

Assembly &Maintenance

Near Space

Exploration

Lander

Rover

GroundService

OrbiterFlyby

Space Robotics TechnologyAssessment

12 Carnegie Mellon

Space Robotics Technology Assessment

Assess current and futurestate-of-art of spacerobotics:• Mission feasibility• Technology gaps

Robots have been usedsince the beginning ofspace exploration(Lunakhod, 1970)

What limits current robots?What does the future hold?

3

13 Carnegie Mellon

Assembly

Human EVA Interaction

Inspection

Transporting andmating of components;making connections;assembly sequenceplanning and execution;assembling smallstructures

Monitoring anddocumenting EVA tasks;preparing a worksite;interacting withastronauts; human-robotteaming

Maintenance

Visual inspection ofexterior spacecraftsurfaces; path planningand coverage planning;automated anomalydetection

Change-out ofcomponents;accessingobstructedcomponents; roboticrefueling

Near Space Capabilities

14 Carnegie Mellon

Surface Mobility

Human EVA interaction

Science Perception, Planning &ExecutionMobility Autonomy

Mobility Mechanism

Position sensors, collectand process samples

Terrain assessment, pathplanning, visual servoing

Extreme terrain access,energy efficiency

Tele-operation tohuman supervisionrobot/EVA astronautteamsAstronaut monitoringand understanding

On-board and ground tools;data analysis, targetselection, operationsplanning and execution

Instrument Placementand Sample Manipulation

On Surface Capabilities

15 Carnegie Mellon

Near-Space Assembly

Currently Possible:• Autonomous assembly of carefully

designed mechanism in a static,known environment

• Autonomous mating of robot-friendly connectors

Needs Work :• Recovering from errors/perturbations• Design and control of high DOF

robot systems• Manipulation of fragile components

Significant Challenge:• Autonomous assembly planning

including responding to unforeseensituations

16 Carnegie Mellon

Teleoperatedcapture of fixed

component

Flight SOA FieldedSOA

10 yearnominal

Componentcapture

Teleoperated captureof free-flyingcomponent

Autonomous captureof fixed component

Grasp of gossamercomponent with attach

point

Teleoperated mating ofrobot friendlyconnectors

Flight SOA Fielded SOA10 yearnominal

Autonomous mating ofrobot friendly connectors

Teleoperated matingof EVA connectors

Autonomous matingof EVA connectors

Matingconnectors

Autonomous matingof arbitrary connectors

10 yearintense

Grasp of gossamercomponent w/out attach

point

10 yearintense

Near-Space Robotic Assembly

17 Carnegie Mellon

Teleoperated robots that move large components and mate parts Closely supervised, semi-autonomous robots that movelarge components and mate parts

Teleoperated robots that can mate parts and make fine connections between parts

Closely supervised, semi-autonomous robots that mate parts and makefine connections between parts

Autonomous robots that move large components and mate parts withminimal human intervention

Autonomous robots that mate parts and make fine connections between partswith minimal human intervention

Autonomous robots that perform complete assembly of complicatedstructure (e.g., large telescope) from start to finish with substantial supportfrom ground-based or Near-Space humans

Autonomous robots that perform complete assembly of complicatedstructures (e.g., large telescope) from start to finish with minimalhuman intervention

Near-Space Assembly Evaluation

18 Carnegie Mellon

Ranger

Tested in neutralbuoyancy facilityTele-operated

Skyworker

Transport of objectsMotion planningLow-energy climb onstructure

Space Station RMS

Tele-operated craneRequires special connectorsLimited mobility

Other Systems• Robonaut• Langley Assembly Robot• ETS-VII• ROTEX• ERA• JEM Fine Arm• SPDM

Near-Space Assembly Examples

4

19 Carnegie Mellon

Near-Space Robotic Inspection

Currently Possible:• Mobility and coverage of the

exterior of complex structures• Autonomous

refueling/recharging ofinspection robot

Needs Work:• Accessing interior spaces

(perhaps using “snake” orother high DOF robots)

Significant Challenge• Autonomous anomaly

detection

20 Carnegie Mellon

Robotic visual inspection of some exterior surfaces with no interpretation of sensory data; teleoperated

Robotic visual inspection of some exterior surfaces; sensory data filtered before being stored or sent; supervised autonomous operation

Robotic visual inspection of some exterior surfaces with no interpretation ofdata; human operator closely supervising via high-bandwidth communication

Robotic visual inspection of most exterior surfaces; autonomousinterpretation of most data; autonomous refueling and recharging

Robotic visual inspection of most exterior surfaces; autonomousinterpretation of most data; supervised autonomous operation

Near-Space Inspection Evaluation

21 Carnegie Mellon

AERCam SprintTeleoperated free-flying cameraFlown on spaceshuttle

InspectorFailed in spaceexperimentDesigned forautonomous andteleoperated operation

AERCam IGD and AVIS

Autonomous inspectionPath planning andcoverage

Other Systems• Charlotte• PSA (IVA robot)

Near-Space Inspection Examples

22 Carnegie Mellon

Space Shuttle Test Flightof AERCam Sprint in 1997

AERCam (JSC)

AERCam consists of two parts:• Hardware platform for external

inspectionThrusters, Cameras, GPS,WirelessCompact size (8 in diameter)

• Software for sensing,reasoning and interfacecapabilities that automateboth routine and anomaly-driven external inspection :Autonomous, safe navigationAutonomous anomalydetectionImproved crew interfaces andsituational awareness

23 Carnegie Mellon

Near-Space Robotic Maintenance

Currently Possible:• Autonomous change-out of components that are designedfor replacement

• Accessing components behindcovers under teleoperation

Needs Work:• Autonomous change-out of components not designed tobe replaced

• Accessing components behind covers, blankets, etc.under supervised autonomy

• Interaction with badly damaged componentsSignificant Challenge• Advanced troubleshooting

24 Carnegie Mellon

Near-Space Robotic Maintenance

Open loop control

Flight SOA Fielded SOA10 yearnominal

Locating acomponent

Closed loop controlusing special markers

A priori model ofundamagedcomponent

A priori model ofdamaged component

Teleoperated refuelingof satellite designed for

refueling

10 yearnominal

Autonomous refueling ofsatellite designed for

refueling

Teleoperatedrefueling of satellite

not designed forrefueling

Autonomous refuelingof satellite not

designed for refueling

Roboticrefueling

10 yearintense

10 yearintense

Current

5

25 Carnegie Mellon

Robotic change-out of arbitrary exposed components under teleoperated control

Robotic change-out of pre-designed components (e.g.,ORUs) under teleoperated control

Robotic change-out of pre-designed components (e.g.,ORUs) under supervised autonomous control

Robotic refueling of spacecraft/satellites under teleoperated control

Robotic refueling of spacecraft/satellites under supervised autonomouscontrol

Robotic change-out of arbitrary exposed components under supervisedautonomous control

Robotic access to and change-out of arbitrary, obstructed componentsunder teleoperated control

Robotic access to and change-out of arbitrary, obstructed componentsunder supervised autonomous control

Robotic troubleshooting of anomalies and arbitrary repair undersupervised autonomous control

Near-Space Maintenance Evaluation

26 Carnegie Mellon

RobonautHigh DOFgrippersCompliant gripTelepresenceinterface

DEXTERAttaches to end of RMSMulti-arm dexterousmanipulation system

ROTEX

Flown on space shuttlePerformed simple assemblyand change-outMostly teleoperated, but withsome autonomous tests

Other Systems• Skyworker• ETS-VII• Ranger• Progress re-supply vessels

Near-Space Maintenance Examples

27 Carnegie Mellon

Ranger (University of Maryland)

Program objectives• Robotic System Performance:

Characterization of theperformance of the variouscomponents of the roboticsystem, along withdemonstration of representativeEVA and EVR servicing tasks.

• Human Factors Effects: Effectsof local and remote teleoperationof the robotic system, andpotential mitigating techniquesthat may be applied to the userinterface.

• Correlation of Flight Data toGround Simulations: Validatethe database from computergraphic and neutral buoyancysimulations developed in supportof the flight mission.

28 Carnegie Mellon

Ranger Robot Capabilities

Four Robotic ManipulatorsTwo, 8 DOF dexterous arms with:

• Interchangeable end effectermechanism (IEEM) for tool change

• Wrist video camera• Minimum of 30 lbf capability at the

tool tip throughout the work envelope• 63" maximum reach• Two tool drives for End Effecter control

One, 6 DOF Positioning Leg• Attached to Spacelab pallet on Linear Positioning Mechanism• Positions Ranger at each work site and puts Ranger into RLM• 75" maximum reach

One, 7 DOF video arm with stereo video pair• Independently controlled LED lighting• 55" working envelope radius

29 Carnegie Mellon

Near-Space EVA Assistance

Currently Possible:• Tracking of EVA astronauts• Physical interaction with astronaut

by holding/handing tools• Recognition of gestures and natural

language commands• Site preparation given specific

requirementsNeeds Work:• Site preparation based on task

Significant Challenge• Free-flowing dialog between robot

and human• Recognition of human emotional

and physical condition

30 Carnegie Mellon

Robots move humans from one work site to another; humanoperator in high-bandwidth, low-latency communication

Robots do site preparation and cleanup for EVA; human operator in high-bandwidth, low-latency communication with robot.Robots do site preparation and cleanup for EVA; human operator in low-bandwidth, high-latency communicationRobots in same proximity as humans working same tasks but no physicalinteraction; human operator in high-bandwidth, low-latency communication withrobot

Robots that physically interact with humans; human operator in high-bandwidth, low-latency communication with robot

Robots that are true teammates with humans, working on same tasks,responding to natural language, gestures and high-level goals andrecognizing human intentions

Robots move humans from one work site to another; human operator in low-bandwidth, high-latency communication with robot.

Robots in same proximity as humans working same tasks but no physicalinteraction; human operator in low-bandwidth, high-latency communication withrobot

Robots that physically interact with humans; human operator in low-bandwidth, high-latency communication with robot

Synergistic relationship between human and machine with direct, physicalconnections and prostheses, i.e., “super” humans augmented with machines

EVA Assistance Overall Evaluation

6

31 Carnegie Mellon

RobonautHigh DOFgrippersCompliant gripTelepresenceinterface

RMSTeleoperated craneCan move EVAastronauts around

RangerTeleoperatedTested in NeutralBuoyancy Facility

Other Systems• FTS

Near-Space Assistance Examples

32 Carnegie Mellon

Robonaut (JSC)

Robonaut is a humanoidrobot being designed atNASA Johnson Space Centerin cooperation with DARPAIt consists of two arms, twohands, a head and a waistIt is currently teleoperatedwith a small amount ofautonomy. Future advancesin autonomy are planned

33 Carnegie Mellon

Surface EVA Assistance

Currently Possible:• Following of human (e.g.,

“pack mule”)• Site reconnaissance and

mapping• Gesture recognition• Plan recognition

Needs Work:• Site clean-up (e.g., picking up

tools, setting up experiments)Significant Challenge• Dialog with human crew• Recognition of human mental

and physical state

34 Carnegie Mellon

Robot tracks an EVA crew member while carrying tools and a camera

Robots carry tools, which they hand to the EVA crew member. Robots canalso collect designated samples

Robots physically interact with humans via high-level voice commands andgestures

Robots that are true teammates with humans, working on same tasks,responding to natural language, gestures and high-level goals andrecognizing human intentions

Robots do site survey and preparation as well as post-EVA documentation

Synergistic relationship between human and machine with direct, physicalconnections and prostheses, i.e., “super” humans augmented with machines

EVA Assistance Evaluation

35 Carnegie Mellon

ERA Robot Capabilities

Autonomous traversal of rugged terrain via• GPS• Stereo vision for terrain mapping• Custom designed base

Tracking of suited crew member• Stereo vision with BiCLOPS head• Voice recognition• IBM ViaVoice

Manipulation• 7DOF manipulator• Barrett hand• Dedicated trinocular vision system

Wireless connection to/from suitDistributed control infrastructureRemote workstation

36 Carnegie Mellon

Planetary Surface MobilityCurrently Possible:

• Localization and local mapping• 100’s of meters between command cycles• Coverage patterns• Visual servoing• Obstacle avoidance

Needs Work:• Most terrain types with specialized machines• Globally consistent mapping• Robust navigation

Significant Challenge:• Single vehicle that can access all terrain

types, cover long distances, survive 1000days AND carry a payload….

• Robust self-recoverable mechanisms

7

37 Carnegie Mellon

Extreme Terrain Access, Dante (CMU)

Can access most terraintypes with specializedsystems (robots andsupportinginfrastructure)•Dante I and IIvolacano explorersTethered descent

38 Carnegie Mellon

Long Distance Traverse, Nomad and Zoë(CMU)

Can cover large distances withappropriately sized andspecialized rovers• Nomad

Teleoperated 230km• Zoë

Autonomous 10km/day

Again, the challenge is buildinggeneral systems that can accessmany kinds of terrain, travellong distances, be sufficientlylight and carry a payload

39 Carnegie Mellon


10 yearForecast

10 m1 m 100 m 1000+ m

Traverse distance per command cycle

Surface Traverse Distance

40 Carnegie Mellon

Instrument Deploy & Sample Manip.

Currently Possible:• Visual servoing to target• Contact measurements

Needs Work:• Robust visual servoing

combined with SLAM to visitmultiple targets in a singlecommand cycle.

• Precise contactmeasurements andautonomous samplemanipulation

Significant Challenge:• Drilling to 1000m depth (Mars

conditions)

41 Carnegie Mellon

Remotemeasurements

Simplesurfacecontactmeasurements

Multipletargets insingle cycle,highly robust

Precisionsurfacecontactmeasurements


10 year forecast

Commandcycles /operation :

MultipleMultiple Single Highly autonomous

Approach & Instrument Placement

42 Carnegie Mellon

K9 Rover Target Assessment

Scientist designated area• Anywhere on rock

segment rock from groundPatches consistent withinstrument requirementsSub-patches in manipulatorworkspace• Effect of ground and other

rocksList of possible instrumentposes with allowed errorbounds and surface normals 2211

ˆ, ˆ, !! xxvv

8

43 Carnegie Mellon

K9 Rover Bayesian 3D Rock / Ground Segmentation

Statistical mixture model of 3D dotclouds• Rock point distribution (spheres)• Ground point distribution (plane)

Parameter estimation with hidden“nuisance” variables• K-means clustering• EM algorithm

Future: geometrical and surfaceproperty (color, texture)constraints

(Top view)

44 Carnegie Mellon

[Nesnas et al]Java GUI display

Range data

Visual Servoing to TargetBetter range estimatesSense of 3D nature of

worldSlower than 2D methods

Rocky 7 (JPL)

45 Carnegie Mellon

[Bualat et al]

Pan Tilt

SDOG Motion Correlator

UpdateTemplate

SDOG RangeCorrelator

Pan-TiltController

Robot MotionController

Directionto

Target

Pan & Tilt Angles

RobotMotion

Marsokhod (NASA Ames)

46 Carnegie Mellon

Nomad 2000 (CMU)Autonomousapproach andplacement.Simpleenvironment.Limitedrobustness.

Sojourner (JPL)Supervisedteleoperation (3-5command cycles)Simple contactmeasurementsCompliant mechanismRudimentary “Findrock” capability (unused)

Other Systems• FIDO (2001) – autonomous

target approach usingprecise visual navigation(JPL)

Surface Instrument Deployment

47 Carnegie Mellon

Whole Sample Manipulation

Impreciseandunpredictablemanipulation

Precise andpredictablemanipulation

Operate in complexenvironment w/ clutter,constraints and occlusions

SignificantChallengeFlight SOA

10 year forecast

Commandcycles /operation :

MultipleMultiple Single

Manipulatecomplexshapes

Highly autonomous

Examplemanipulators:

GripperScoops,clamshell

Dexterous gripper

Human hand

48 Carnegie Mellon

Scoop to pick upsoil, and smallloose rocks.Supervised tele-operationImprecise andunpredictable

Robonaut (JSC)Tele-operatedhumanoid robotHuman tool useVisual feedbackonly

Viking

Other Systems• Autonomous excavators (CMU)• Sub-surface vehicles (tele-

operated)

Mars Polar Lander (JPL)Supervised tele-operationImprecise andunpredictableDeliberatelylimited to avoidtipping overlander

Surface Sample Manipulation

9

49 Carnegie Mellon

Science Perception, Plan & Execution

Currently Possible:Virtual presence for scientific explorationGround tools for scientists to plan days events.Generation and robust execution of plans with• Contingencies• Flexible times• Weakly interacting concurrent activities

Limited, highly specialized, onboard scienceperceptionNeeds Work:Limited high level science goal commanding forspecialized tasksSignificant Challenge:Human level cognition and perception of scienceopportunities.

50 Carnegie Mellon

• Virtual environment forscientific visualization(used in 1997 Pathfindermission)• Visual information only

• Ground planning tool forscientists

Other Systems• MER 2003 + WITS• MSF + ROAMS rover

simulators

NASA Ames Research Center [Edwards et al, 2001]

VIZ (NASA Ames)

51 Carnegie Mellon

Software for the autonomous planning andexecution of basic space-craft functions.

• Plans for and executes prioritized list of goals.• Constraints amongst tasks.• Flexible time constraints.• Contingencies.• Flown on DS-1 space-craft in 1999.

None (tele-operation)

Timestampedsequence

Flexible time,contingencies

Prioritized task listwith constraints

High level sciencegoals

10 years

DS1 / Remote Agent (NASA Ames)

52 Carnegie Mellon

Onboard Science Analysis

Return all data Select targetsReturn selected data Characterize site Recognize unforeseenscientific opportunities

SignificantChallenge

10 years

53 Carnegie Mellon

colorcamera

spectrometer

•Autonomous onboard meteorite identification•Selects targets

Nomad (CMU, 2000)

54 Carnegie Mellon

Meteorite

x1 x2 xN…

Rock /MeteoritetypeIronmeteoriteSandstoneBasalt…

spectrometer

color camera

)(

)()|(

)|(

Data

RockTypeRockTypeData

DataRockType

P

PP

P =

Nomad Bayes network rock classifier

Network topology reflectingdependencies.Identify rock typesSensor feature’s with minimumcross dependencies.Train network by estimating

P(X|Rock Type) fromexample data.Compute posterior probabilityfrom sensor data features:

10

55 Carnegie Mellon

Assessment Conclusions

System design is an overarching challenge•Spiral development because requirements are ill-specified

Evolving from capability to reliabilityInteraction with pesky humansOperating on mission-level objectives•Getting beyond tactical autonomy

Continuing technical challenges

56 Carnegie Mellon

Challenge of Robustness

Human level adaptability andresponse to adversity NOT likelyin near future.Achieved through good systemengineering:• Humans in the loop• Specialized machines for each

task• Sustained testing• Diversify technology base

Respond gracefully tounexpected situations:• Unmodeled situations

beyond orthodox FDIR• Adaptation

57 Carnegie Mellon

Human-Robot Interaction Challenges

Establishing a virtualpresence• Non-visual feedback such

as haptic and proprio-receptive.

• Shared control (low-level control automated)

Adjustable autonomy• Teleoperation

high-level goal inputHuman-robot teamingHuman operator to robot ratioInterface to non-humanoidrobots

58 Carnegie Mellon

Human Control is Not Safe!

This situation occurredwhen humans,overriding theautonomousnavigation system,went into a very rockyarea."Blind" moves andturns were used,compounded by noiseon rate gyro.

[Brian Wilcox, JPL]

59 Carnegie Mellon

Mission Level Objectives

ProblemScientific perception and discovery• “go there and look for anorthosite”.

Construction• “Assemble that strut”

ChallengesUnderstanding operator intentions (e.g. what strut)Planning in open world and using common sensereasoningComplex plan execution in uncertain environment

60 Carnegie Mellon

Technology Challenges

Perception and computer visionRobot health monitoringPlanning, replanning and adaptationNon-visual feedback to human operator (e.g.,haptic, kinematic)High DOF systems•Actuation•Sensing•Control•Replication of human dexterity

11

61 Carnegie Mellon

Need for Sustained R&D

Handful of robotsflown

Significant gapbetween flight andterrestrial systems• Sojourner has more

autonomy than wasused.

Massive in placeinfrastructure forhuman space flight

Space Exploration Priorities

Review of the Solar System Exploration Surveyby NRC Space Studies Board

63 Carnegie Mellon

Motivational Questions & Scientific Goals

Are we alone?Determine how life developed in the solar system, where

it may have existed, whether extant life forms exist….Where did we come from?

Learn how the Sun’s retinue of planets originated andevolved.

Discover how the basic laws of physics and chemistry,acting over aeons, lead to diverse phenomena…

What is our destiny?Explore the terrestrial space environment to discover

what potential hazards exist.Understand how physical and chemical processes

determine the main characteristics of the planets…64 Carnegie Mellon

Scientific Themes for 2003 – 2013

First billion years of solar system history

Volatiles and organics: The stuff of life

Origin and evolution of habitable worlds

Processes: How planetary systems work

65 Carnegie Mellon

12 Key Scientific Questions → Missions

First billion years of solar system history1. What processes marked the initial stages of planet formation?• Comet surface sample return (CSSR)• Kuiper belt/Pluto (KBP)• South pole Aitken basin sample return (SPA-SR)

2. Over what period did the gas giants form, and how did the birth ofthe ice giants (Uranus, Neptune) differ from that of Jupiter and itsgas-giant sibling, Saturn?

• Jupiter polar orbiter with probes (JPOP)3. How did the impactor flux decay during the solar system’s youth,

and in what ways(s) did this decline influence the timing of life’semergence on Earth?

• Kuiper belt/Pluto (KBP)• South pole Aitken Basin sample return (SPA-SR)

66 Carnegie Mellon


Volatiles and Organics: The stuff of life4. What is the history of volatile compounds, especially

water, across our solar system?• Comet Surface Sample Return (CSSR)• Jupiter Polar Orbiter with Probes (JPOP)

5. What is the nature of organic material in our solarsystem and how has this matter evolved?

• Comet Surface Sample Return (CSSR)• Cassini Extended mission (CASx)

6. What global mechanisms affect the evolution ofvolatiles on planetary bodies?

• Venus In-situ Explorer (VISE)• Mars Upper Atmosphere Explorer (MAO)

12

67 Carnegie Mellon


Origin and evolution of habitable worlds7. What planetary processes are responsible for generating and

sustaining habitable worlds, and where are the habitable zones inour Solar System?

• Europa Geophysical Explorer (EGE)• Mars Smart Lander (MSL) • Mars Sample Return (MSR)

8. Does (or did) life exist beyond the Earth?• Mars Sample Return (MSR)

9. Why have the terrestrial planets differed so dramatically in theirevolutions?

• Venus In-situ Explorer (VISE) • Mars Smart Lander (MSL)• Mars Long-lived Lander Network (MLN) • Mars Sample Return

(MSR)10. What hazards do solar system objects present to Earth’s

biosphere?• Large-aperture Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST)

68 Carnegie Mellon


Processes: How planetary systems work11. How do the processes that shape the contemporary character of planetary

bodies operate and interact?• Kuiper Belt / Pluto (KBP)• South Pole Aitken Sample Return (SPA-SR)• Cassini Extended mission (CASx)• Jupiter Polar Orbiter with Probes (JPOP)• Venus In-situ Explorer (VISE)• Comet Surface Sample Return (CSSR)• Europa Geophysical Explorer (EGE)• Mars Smart Lander (MSL)• Mars Upper Atmosphere Orbiter (MAO)• Mars Long-lived Lander Network (MLN)• Mars Sample Return (MSR)

12. What does our solar system tell us about the development and evolutionof extrasolar planetary systems, and vice versa?

• Kuiper Belt / Pluto• Jupiter Polar Orbiter with Probes (JPOP)• Cassini Extended mission (CASx)• Large-aperture Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST)

69 Carnegie Mellon

SURVEY THEMES

The First Billion Years of Solar

System History

Volatiles and Organics: The Stuff

of Life

The Origin & Evolution of

Habitable Worlds

Processes: How Planets Work

1) Kuiper Belt-

Pluto Explorer

2) Lunar South

Pole-Aitken Basin Sample

Return

3) Jupiter Polar

Orbiter with

Probes

4) Venus In-Situ

Explorer

5) Comet

Surface Sample

Return

Increasing Technical Challenge

70 Carnegie Mellon

A flyby mission of several Kuiper Belt objects, includingPluto/Charon, to discover their physical nature and determine thecollisional history of the Kuiper Belt.

• What processes marked the initial stages of planetformation?

• How did the impactor flux decay during the solar system’syouth, and in what ways(s) did this decline influence thetiming of life’s emergence on Earth?

• How do the processes that shape the contemporarycharacter of planetary bodies operate and interact?

• What does our solar system tell us about the developmentand evolution of extrasolar planetary systems, and viceversa?

Missions: Key Scientific Questions

•Kuiper Belt / Pluto (KBP)

71 Carnegie Mellon

Kuiper Belt / Pluto (KBP)

GOALS:•Investigate the diversity ofthe physical andcompositional properties ofKuiper belt objects•Perform a detailedreconnaissance of theproperties of the Pluto-Charonsystem•Assess the impact history oflarge (Pluto) and small KBOs

Carnegie Mellon 72

Pluto/Kuiper Express (August 2000 Design)

ObjectiveConduct the first reconnaissance of the Pluto/Charonsystem, and attempt to encounter one or more Kuiperobjects.

Mission Options• Use of solar electric propulsion instead of

ballistic JGA trajectory- Enables roughly equivalent flight

times with launch any year (currenttech.)

- Improved SEP: flight times <10 years- Allows use of smaller launch vehicle- Requires Earth flyby

• Use of novel gravity assist trajectories- Allows later launch (2007-8)- Requires longer flight time or very low

perihelion

Mission scenario• Launch in 2004 or 2006 on Delta-4, 11-13 year JGA

flight to Pluto• Small RTG-powered spacecraft (Cassini spare RTG)• Remote sensing and radio science instrumentation• Kuiper object flybys as extended mission objective

6

7

8

9

10

11

2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Launch Year

NSTAR-1: Isp = 3100 s15-kW, 174-W/kg S/A, SeEGA



New-1: 40-cm Engine, Isp = 4000 s40-kW, 300-W/kg S/A, SeEGA

New-2: 40-cm Engine, Isp = 6500 s100-kW, 600-W/kg S/A, SeEGA

Time of Flight to Pluto350 kg Pluto S/CAtlas IIIB Launch VehicleNo LV ContingencySeEGA Trajectory95% SEP Duty CycleOptimum Launch DatesNo S/C Power20% Neutral Mass Margin

SEP Technology Level

Pluto Flyby Using SEP

13

Carnegie Mellon 73

Pluto/Kuiper Express

Major or Unique Developments Required• PKE as designed required no new technology; key enhancing

capabilities include:- Low-mass integrated remote sensing instrument package- Low-mass, low-power avionics- Uplink radio occultation (F5 power insufficient for

downlink occultation experiment)

• Improved SEP technology (development underway) wouldbe required if that option were selected

Heritage and Commonality• Planned utilization of Cassini spare RTG (F5)

• PKE design shared avionics with Europa Orbiter (X2000)

• Mass reduction motivated by Pluto Express would benefitmany other planetary missions - lightweight structure, low-mass antenna, etc.

Carnegie Mellon 74

Pluto Kuiper Express (PKE)

Development/launch: $402 MOperations and data analysis: $150 M

NOTE: Costs from August 31, 2000 from the OPSP office.Costs assume a December 2004 launch.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Fiscal Year

$R

Y M

illio

ns

Cost (RY$, 2004 launch)

Comments and Issues

• Competition nearing conclusion - NASAdecision expected soon

• Mission as described here is not based on anyproposal information

• Mission class: Moderate• Technology risk: Low

Note: Includes NASA-directed data analysis costs andtaxes not specified in Pluto AO

75 Carnegie Mellon

A mission to return samples from the solar system’s deepest crater,which pierces the lunar mantle.


• How did the impactor flux decay during the solarsystem’s youth, and in what ways(s) did this declineinfluence the timing of life’s emergence on Earth?



•South Pole Aitken Basin Sample Return (SPA-SR)

76 Carnegie Mellon

Powered Descent

Return to

Lunar Orbit

Surface Science

and Sampling

Descent

Vehicle

Ascent Vehicle

Lander

(Descent & Ascent Vehicle)

South Pole Aitken Basin Sample Return

GOALS:•Obtain samples to constrain theearly impact history of the innersolar system•Assess the nature of the moon’smantle and the style of thedifferentiation process•Develop robotic sampleacquisition, handling, and returntechnologies

Carnegie Mellon 77

Mission Options• Launch sample directly to Earth - no rendezvous in Earth orbit

– Avoids rendezvous issues and sample transfer, but requires larger launch vehicle• Rendezvous in lunar orbit

– Mass penalty due to lunar orbit insertion and escape• Earth return using aero-entry ballute

– Reduces entry vehicle mass and orbiter size, but requires technology development• Link to Earth using Ka-band

Objective• Collect and return samples of lunar mantle material

from the floor of the South Pole - Aitken basin

Mission scenario (planning baseline)• Orbiter/lander/rover launched on single Atlas III• Direct descent trajectory, orbiter diverts to L2

Lagrange point for data relay• 14 days lunar surface operations• Subsurface sampling to 2 meters• Sample collection via tele-operated rover• Lunar ascent vehicle (LAV) launches 4.6 kg of

samples into high Earth orbit• Orbiter rendezvous with sample return vehicle, sample

is transferred to entry vehicle for sample reentry

Lunar Giant Basin Sample Return

Carnegie Mellon 78

Major or Unique Developments Required•Soft lunar landing requires development of a throttleable,bipropellant main engine•Sample collection and handling

–2-m deep drill and sample retrieval system on lander–Sample cache on rover is brought into sample container on lander

•Tele-operated sample selection–Rover carries monochrome imaging, visible and near infrared pointspectrometer and X-ray fluorescence for sample selection–Sampling decisions must be made on Earth in real time

•Ascent from lunar surface–Single-stage, solid rocket motor, spun-up from lunar lander

•Rendezvous and sample transfer in Earth orbit

•Heritage and Commonality•Rover design heritage from Mars missions•Mars sample return design heritage for rendezvous and samplecapture•Sample curation and analysis facilities exist•Descent engine could be used at other airless bodies (if low mass)


14

Carnegie Mellon 79

Comments and Issues• Rendezvous in Earth orbit vs. direct return or

lunar orbit is a key mass/cost/risk trade

• Real-time commanding of orbital and surfaceelements during critical operations

• Surface mission duration limited by power

• LAV orbit injection accuracy is a concern.Additional propellant needed on theorbiter/rendezvous vehicle to accommodateinjection errors.

• Mission class: Moderate• Technology risk: Low to Moderate• Multimission technology: ~$12M

Lunar Basin Sample Return (RY $ [FY '08

Launch])

0

50

100

150

200

250

L-4 L-3 L-2 L-1 L

Years From Launch (L)

RY

$ (

FY

'08 L

au

nch

)

Cost (RY$, FY08 launch)Life-cycle cost: $450 - $600M (model: $480M)


80 Carnegie Mellon

A close-orbiting polar spacecraft equipped with various instruments anda relay for three probes that make measurements below the 100+barlevel.

• Over what period did the gas giants form, and how did thebirth of the ice giants (Uranus, Neptune) differ from that ofJupiter and its gas-giant sibling, Saturn?

• What is the history of volatile compounds, especially water,across our solar system?


• What does our solar system tell us about the developmentand evolution of extrasolar planetary systems, and viceversa?


• Jupiter Polar Orbiter with Probes (JPOP)

81 Carnegie Mellon

Jupiter Polar Orbiter with Probes (JPOP)

GOALS:•Determine if Jupiter has acentral core to constrainideas of its formation•Determine the planetarywater abundance•Determine if the winds persist into Jupiter'sinterior or are confined to the weather layer•Assess the structure of Jupiter's magnetic fieldto learn how the internal dynamo works•Measure the polar magnetosphere to understandits rotation and relation to the aurora Carnegie Mellon 82

Jupiter Deep Multiprobes

ObjectiveStudy Jupiter’s deep atmospheric composition

and dynamics at multiple latitudes

Mission scenario (planning baseline)• Three battery-powered probes (60 kg each)

carried on single spacecraft• Probes are released approx. 6 mos prior to

Jupiter flyby; trajectories allow entry atdifferent latitudes and different times

• Probes operate down to 100 bars• Relay spacecraft records data from all three

probes and relays to EarthMission Options• Maximum probe depth drives probe mass and power, and required relay arc

- Shallower probes simplify mission and system design and reduce cost- May accept shallower depth from probe #1 (North) to increase link margin from probes#2 and #3

• Use of RTG rather than solar power (carrier) may reduce risk• Optimization of perijove, link data rate, frequency, and link duration affects total data return• Baseline Delta 4 LV, 6 yr total mission duration; 2-yr reduction possible at cost of ~$75M

Carrier/Relay Spacecraft

North Probe

Equatorial Probe

South Probe

Initial Approach

ΔV1ΔV2ΔV3

View From Earth

Carnegie Mellon 83


North Probe link window

Equatorial Probe link window

South Probe link window

North Probe trajectory

South Probe trajectory

Equatorial Probe trajectory

CRSC trajectory

CRSC in solar orbit for data playback(220 b/s)

- Relay link data rate:1.0 kb/s shallow (up to 20 bar)300 b/s deep (20 – 100 bar)

Relay window durationsapprox. 50 –60 minutes

- Instrument datageneration rate ~50 kb/ sample(uncompressed)

Relay Geometry

Notes:- Jupiter rotationrate limits linkwindow duration

Carnegie Mellon 84


Major or Unique Developments Required• Low-mass thermal protection system (15,000K max)

- Materials and designs to be identified- Some heritage from Galileo Probe- Test facilities must be reactivated andmaintained (arc jet)

• Low-mass pressure vessel (100 bars)

• Communication with reasonable data rate at 100 bardepth through Jovian atmosphere

- Low-mass primary batteries- Low mass/power UHF communications

• Miniaturized GCMS and other instruments- Prototype exists - development cost ~$8M

Heritage and Commonality• Significant Galileo probe heritage• Improved thermal protection and test facilities

benefit most sample return missions, esp. CNSR• Miniature instruments widely applicable, esp. GCMS• Carrier/relay bus can be very similar to INSIDE

Jupiter Discovery proposal

Probe payload (6.5kg):Mass Spectrometer NephelometerAtmospheric structure package Ortho/para hydrogen detectorAccelerometers Relay link DopplerSolar net flux radiometer

15

Carnegie Mellon 85


Comments and Issues

• Potential for continuing science followingprobe data relay

- Heliocentric (cruise) science- Comet/asteroid encounter?- Possible capture into loose Jupiter orbit?

• Number of probes could be increased to 4;trade with data return from individual probes

• Similar mission design is possible for Saturnmulti-probes

• Mission Class: Moderate• Technology risk: Low to Moderate

Development $350-425MMission Operations $25-30MLaunch Vehicle $95M

Cost (RY$, FY12 launch)

Multimission technology: ~$18M

86 Carnegie Mellon

A core sample of Venus will be lifted into the atmosphere forcompositional analysis; simultaneous atmospheric measurements.

• What global mechanisms affect the evolution ofvolatiles on planetary bodies?

• Why have the terrestrial planets differed sodramatically in their evolutions?



•Venus In-situ Explorer (VISE)

87 Carnegie Mellon

Venus In-situ Explorer (VISE)

GOALS:•Determine the compositional andisotopic properties of the surfaceand atmosphere

• Investigate the processes involvedin surface-atmosphere interactions

•Elucidate the history and stability ofVenus’s atmospheric greenhouse

Carnegie Mellon 88

Objective• Conduct Venus surface/atmosphere measurements• Validate techniques for future Venus surface sample

return

Mission scenario (planning baseline)• Launch Dec 2008, Delta 4, significant margins• Single s/c, direct Venus entry using aeroshell• Free-fall descent, atmospheric science and descent

imaging. Landing at 3-5 m/s• Surface science/sampling during ~1hour on surface,

passive thermal control• Balloon ascent to ~70 km for sample analysis

(possibly including age dating) and telecom direct toEarth. Minimal data return from surface.

• Balloon mission continues for ~3 days

Mission Options• Lander delivery from Venus orbit

- Improves site selection and delivery accuracy but adds cost- Insertion into orbit via aerocapture would validate additional technology for VSSR but is not required for precursor

science mission

• Extend surface survival time to cover primary data relay instead of raising to altitude- Reduces risk that balloon failure could compromise primary science goals- Significant mass and cost impact to increase surface survival; not required for VSSR- Balloon inflation and ascent is a major element of future VSSR mission

Venus In Situ Exploration

Carnegie Mellon 89

Major or Unique Developments Required• Miniaturized in situ instruments

– Miniaturized, high-accuracy GCMS (prototype exists)– Miniaturized age dating system (Rb-Sr)– Other instruments (XRF, DISR) are heritage

• Insulation system for survival on Venus surface– Pressure vessel with CO2 outer layer and Xe inner layer

• Super-pressure helium balloon materials/systems– Teflon-coated polybenzaxozole (PBO) lab tested– Two-stage balloon inflation for safe ascent

• Sample acquisition and handling– Ultrasonic drill prototype exists– Sample transfer at Venus surface pressure

• Heritage and Commonality• Mars Pathfinder cruise system and aeroshell design• Viking XRF, Huygens descent imager/radiometer• Pioneer/Venus, VEGA/Venera thermal and balloon• Ultrasonic drill common with MSR, CNSR• Miniature in situ instruments widely applicable

Outer insulation(CO2)

Titanium Pressure Shell

Inner noble gas filled insulation

Payload

Lander system temperature profile

Thermal protection schematic


Carnegie Mellon 90

Comments and Issues• Mission must achieve the proper balance of

science and technology objectivesKey VSSR Technologies

Included Not Included Aeroshell entry/descent Aerocapture/ballute Surface survival - passive Ascent vehicle Drill sample acquisition Sample transfer Balloon ascent/mobility

• Development of in situ age dating is the mostchallenging objective, but this mission canachieve important science/technology objectiveswithout that measurement

• Increasing data return from surface (prior toballoon inflation) is a near-term study goal

• Technology development investment of ~$50Mwill significantly benefit other missions

• Mission class: Moderate• Technology risk: Moderate to high

VISE Cost Profile (RY $['08 Launch])

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

L-6 L-5 L-4 L-3 L-2 L-1 L

Years from Launch (L)

(RY

$['

08

La

un

ch

])

Development/launch: $460 - 525MMission operations: $20 - 30M

Cost (RY$, FY08 launch)

Multimission technology: ~$25M


16

91 Carnegie Mellon

Comet Surface Sample Return (CSSR)Several pieces of a comet’s surface will be returned to Earth forelemental, isotopic, molecular, mineralogical, and structural analysis.


• What is the history of volatile compounds, especially water,across our solar system?

• What is the nature of organic material in our solar systemand how has this matter evolved?



92 Carnegie Mellon

Comet Surface Sample Return (CSSR)

GOALS:•Return near-surface cometary materials to Earth fordetailed compositional, isotopic, and structuralanalysis•Assess the detailed organic composition of thecometary nucleus•Assess the porosity and other physical properties ofnuclear material•Assess the physical relationship among volatiles,ices, organics and refractories and their relationshipto porosity•Assess the isotopic and mineralogic content at bothmicroscopic and macroscopic scales assess thedetailed organic composition of the cometarynucleus

Carnegie Mellon 93

Comet Nucleus Sample Return

ObjectiveReturn pristine samples of volatile materials from a comet nucleus for analysis on Earth

Mission scenario (planning baseline)• Rendezvous with and orbit an active short-period comet using SEP• 30-day mapping for site selection; separate lander descends to surface• Anchor and drill samples from >1 meter depth, minimum 2 sites, rendezvous with orbiter• Samples maintained cryogenic during Earth return (SEP) and direct ballistic entry

Mission Options• “Full science” with drilling to ≥1 m at multiple sites, well documented,

vs. surface “grab sample”- Major implications for science return and cost

• Single or dual spacecraft (separable lander)- Dual s/c reduces risk to orbiter due to comet environment and

simplifies landing site selection- Additional flight system (lander) increases cost and requires

rendezvous/capture for Earth return

• Use of SEP for both outbound and return trajectories- SEP provides best mass performance and flight time- Dust may affect solar array performance, esp. if single s/c option

• Return to comet explored in prior mission or select unexplored targetCarnegie Mellon 94

Phase C/D Launch Landing Return2019Phase A Phase B

2001YearMission

Contour

Stardust

Deep Impact

Contour

Contour

Rosetta (ESA)

Deep Space 1

Encke

Wild2

Tempel 1

SW3

D’Arrest

Wirtanen

Borrelly

20112002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Brooks2 ?

2012 2013 20152014 2016

CNSR Example:2011 launch to Comet Brooks 2

Comet Nucleus Sample Return CNSR in the Sequence of Comet Exploration Missions

• CNSR launch opportunities occur almost every year• Launch as early as 2007 - 2008 is feasible, depending on science and sampling goals• Key project decisions should build on results of current/planned comet missions• Coordination with MSR sample handling and analysis facilities will reduce costs

Carnegie Mellon 95

Major or Unique Developments Required• Anchoring and drilling systems (prototypes developed under ST4)• Sample transfer and cryogenic maintenance• Dust mitigation techniques• Development of cometary simulants for test and validation• Precision guidance and landing• Validation of Earth re-entry materials for higher velocities• Terrestrial sample handling and analysis facilities

Heritage and Commonality• Significant progress in designing and prototyping hardware was

made during ST4 mission development• Commonality with Mars Sample Return, esp. in guidance/landing,

rendezvous and docking, sample transfer, ground facilities• Stardust/Genesis Earth re-entry vehicle and techniques• DS1 validation of SEP and subsequent ground testing

Comet Nucleus Sample Return

Next Generation SEP

Precision Guidanceand Landing

Science Station Deployment

2.1 M

Advanced Solar Array

Single Spacecraft -Landed Configuration

Carnegie Mellon 96

Comet Nucleus Sample ReturnComments and Issues• CNSR fits logically within the progression

of comet exploration missions: Basic nature of the nucleus - Giotto, DS1 Diversity of comets - CONTOUR Nature of the dust/coma - Stardust Internal strength/structure - Deep Impact Active surface processes - Rosetta Volatile inventory - CNSR

• CNSR is one of the few missions to outer solarsystem destinations that does not require RTGs

• Wide range of science/risk/cost options can beexplored; key driver is surface vs. drilledsample and cryogenic preservation

• Ground sample handling costs not estimated;expect significant leverage with MSR

• Multimission technology development costs~$45M for key technologies

• Mission class: Moderate to large

• Technology risk: Moderate

CNSR Cost Profile (RY $[FY '11 Launch])

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

L-5 L-4 L-3 L-2 L-1 L


RY

$ (

FY

'11 L

au

nch

)

Cost (RY$, FY11 launch)Development/launch: $500-1000M(depending on science reqmts)

Mission operations: $75-150 M

17

97 Carnegie Mellon

Europa Geophysical Explorer (EGE)

An orbiter of Jupiter’s ice-encrusted satellite will seek the natureand depth of its ice shell and ocean.

• What planetary processes are responsible forgenerating and sustaining habitable worlds, and whereare the habitable zones in our Solar System?



98 Carnegie Mellon

Europa Geophysical Explorer (EGE)

GOALS:

•Assess the effects of tides on thesatellite's ice shell to confirm thepresence of a current globalsubsurface ocean.•Characterize the properties of theice shell and describe the three-dimensional distributionof subsurface liquid water.•Elucidate the formation of surface features and seek sitesof current or recent activity.•Identify and map surface compositional materials withemphasis on compounds of astrobiological interest.•Prepare for a future lander mission

Carnegie Mellon 99

ObjectivesConduct intensive orbital study of Europa to conclusivelydetermine presence or absence of subsurface ocean,understand formation and evolution of surface, andidentify landing sites for possible future missions

Mission scenario• Delta-4H launch in 2008, direct to Jupiter (2.5 yrs)• Propulsive capture into Jupiter orbit, 1.5 year gravity

assist tour to reduce energy• Propulsive capture into 200 km Europa orbit• 30 day primary science mission, followed by maneuver

to achieve quarantine orbitKey Trades• Earth gravity assist trajectory reduces launch vehicle size and increases mass margin, but

increases flight time to Jupiter by 2 years

• Other Europa exploration modes (e.g. multi-flybys) have been examined as cost-reductionmeasures but would lead to significant reductions in primary science objectives

Europa Orbiter

Carnegie Mellon 100

• The Europa Orbiter must operatewith high reliability during the 30 daymission

– Science objectives– Achieve quarantine orbit

• Delta-V requirements are very high

• Impact– New electronics technology

development (X2000) to reduce massand risk

– Total shielding = 39 kg

Radi

atio

n Do

se (M

ega-

Rad

s)

Current Missions Planned Missions

1

2

3

4

5

Iridium Galileo

6

7

EuropaOrbiter(X2000)

GalileoIntelsat

MEOTelecom

Sats

3.2 MradOver 1-2 yearsin Jupiter orbitbefore EOI

EuropaOrbiter(X2000)

7 yearduration

10 yearduration

4 yearduration

10-12 yearduration

3.3 MradOver 30 dayScience missionIn Europa orbit

MASS BREAKDOWN:Science (allocation)Spacecraft (CBE)Rad shielding (CBE)Adapter (CBE)Propulsion Subsy stem (CBE)Propellant (fully loaded)Contingency (dry )

20 kg354 kg33 kg90 kg

150 kg1221 kg273 kg

Science (allocation)

Spacecraft (CBE)

Rad shielding (CBE)

Adapter (CBE)

Propulsion

Subsystem (CBE)

Propellant (fully

loaded)

Contingency (dry)

Science

Spacecraft

ShieldingAdapter

Propulsion

Propellant

Contingency

Challenges of Europa Environment

Europa Orbiter

Carnegie Mellon 101

Major or Unique Developments Required

• X2000 avionics for survival in Europa radiationenvironment - low mass and power

• Radiation-tolerant sensors and instruments

• Advanced radioisotope power source (may berequired)

Heritage and Commonality

• Cassini spare RTGs are baseline

• Main engine, antenna, various subsystemsinherited

• X2000 avionics has very wide applicabilitythroughout space science program - baselined forDeep Impact, Starlight, SIM, Mars SmartLander; various DOD, NOAA, industry usesconsidered

Cassini Bays X2000 Chassis

X2000Electronics

Command &Data

Subsystem,inc. Solid State

Recorder

Power& PyroSystem

Attitude &Articulation

ControlElectronics

11.4 ft (3.5 m)Europa Orbiter

22.3 ft (6.7 m)Cassini

170 kg 43 kgMass

0.25m3 Volume 0.074m3

1 MIPS Processingspeed 60-200 MIPS

Europa Orbiter

Carnegie Mellon 102

Comments and Issues• Independent panels have identified a Europa

orbiter as the only mission that can reliablyachieve the primary science objectives

• Independent cost assessments show verygood agreement with project cost estimates

• X2000 avionics technology has beenselected for a number of space sciencemissions; significant industry interest

• Primary remaining project risks are launchvehicle certification and cost, radioisotopepower source selection, completion ofX2000 avionics, and understanding ofradiation effects

• Mission class: Large• Technology risk: Moderate (on tasks to go)

Cost (from May 2001)Development $760MLaunch vehicle 170Operations 120Subtotal 1050Taxes and fees 30Total life cycle $1080M

Notes:- Includes X2000 completion costs- Includes reserves and contingency- Includes RTG ($67M)

Europa Orbiter

18

Carnegie Mellon 103

Europa In Situ Exploration

Objective Following Europa Orbiter, conduct the first surface

exploration of Europa as the next science andtechnology step in a decadal exploration program

Mission scenario (planning baseline)• Carrier vehicle enters Europa orbit following a 2-

year gravity assist tour of the Jupiter system• 2-week mapping in Europa orbit for site selection• Europa Pathfinder deployed for airbag landing• 3-day surface mission, data relay via orbiter• ~25Gbits data return

Mission Options• DS2-style penetrators rather than airbag lander

- Limits instrumentation but may enablemultiple landers

- Limited technology validation for futuremissions

• “Powerstick” radioisotope system coupledwith secondary battery can increase lifetime atadded cost

Elements of a Europa Exploration Program• Voyager and Galileo• Europa Orbiter Surface experiments: Science and

technology pathfinders• Soft landers, mobile science stations• Subsurface exploration: Ice and/or

water mobile platform (“cryobot”)• Sample return from the surface or

subsurfaceCarnegie Mellon 104

Major or Unique Developments Required• Low-mass chemical propulsion for descent

- Enables significant payload increase vs. baseline• Low-mass, survivable avionics (extension of Europa Orbiter)• Miniaturized in situ instruments

• Low-mass, survivable batteries• Bioload reduction and verification techniques• Surface simulation for testing and validation

Heritage and Commonality• Off-the-shelf solid rockets for de-orbit and descent• Mars Pathfinder airbag technology (thermal validation required)• Carrier has very significant commonality with Europa Orbiter


Surface composition/geochemistryMicroscale surface imagingSurface temperature, radiationSeismicity

Measurement goals for EPF

220 kg

70 kg

30 kg

Carnegie Mellon 105

Cost (very rough)

Comments and Issues• Europa Pathfinder attempts to identify the

minimum surface mission that can make ameaningful contribution to a long-termEuropa exploration program

• Carrier accomodation issues have not beenaddressed in detail

• Payload mass is severely limited by currentchemical propulsion technology

• Planetary protection constraints are not wellunderstood and may fundamentally limitfuture Europa surface exploration

• Mission class: Large (carrier + lander)• Technology risk: Moderate to High


Carrier spacecraft: (assumessimplest delivery vehicle, and thatEuropa Orbiter heritage is available)Pathfinder lander:Launch vehicle:Operations/data analysis:Total:

Multimission technology:(lander only)

$500-600M

100125100$825-925M

$20M

106 Carnegie Mellon

Mars Upper Atmosphere Orbiter (MAO)

A spacecraft dedicated to studies of Mars’s upper atmosphere andplasma environment.

• What global mechanisms affect the evolution of volatileson planetary bodies?



107 Carnegie Mellon

Mars Upper Atmosphere Orbiter (MAO)

GOALS:•Determine the dynamics of the middle and upperatmosphere

•Determine the rate of atmospheric escape•Measure the current neutral gas and ionabundances and escape fluxes

108 Carnegie Mellon

Mars Smart Lander (MSL)

A lander to carry out sophisticated surface observations and tovalidate sample return technologies.

• What planetary processes are responsible forgenerating and sustaining habitable worlds, and whereare the habitable zones in our Solar System?




19

109 Carnegie Mellon

Mars Smart Lander (MSL)

GOALS:•Mineralogy,chemistry, and geology of a water-modified environment

•Establish ground-truth for orbital observations•Measurement of atmospheric properties•Test for the presence of organics•Test and validate technology required for samplereturn

110 Carnegie Mellon

Mars Long-lived Lander Network (MLN)

A globally distributed suite of landers equipped to makecomprehensive measurements of the planet’s interior, surfaceand atmosphere.




111 Carnegie Mellon

Mars Long-lived Lander Network (MLN)

GOALS:•Long-term (1 martian year) measurements from anetwork of stations (4 minimum)

•Determine the interior structure and activity•Measure the properties of the ground-levelatmosphere for analysis of meteorology,atmospheric origin and evolution, chemicalstability, and atmospheric dynamics

112 Carnegie Mellon

Mars Sample Return (MSR)

A program to return several samples of the Red Planet tosearch for life, develop chronology and define ground-truth.

• What planetary processes are responsible for generatingand sustaining habitable worlds, and where are thehabitable zones in our Solar System?

• Does (or did) life exist beyond the Earth?• Why have the terrestrial planets differed so dramatically in

their evolutions?• How do the processes that shape the contemporary

character of planetary bodies operate and interact?


113 Carnegie Mellon

Mars Sample Return (MSR)

GOALS:•Return samples to Earth from a site selected onthe basis of remotely sensed and in situ data thatwill address key scientific questions•Precisely measure the geochemical,mineralogical, and volatile content of samples inEarth laboratories•Assess the biological potential of Mars•Provide the ultimate ground truth for orbital andin situ data to guide future exploration

114 Carnegie Mellon

Cassini Extended Mission (CASx)

Extension of orbiter mission at Saturn

• What is the nature of organic material in our solarsystem and how has this matter evolved?


• What does our solar system tell us about thedevelopment and evolution of extrasolar planetarysystems, and vice versa?


20

115 Carnegie Mellon

Cassini Extended Mission (CASx)

GOALS:•Follow up on significantdiscoveries during thenominal mission•Extension of spatialcoverage on Titan throughchanging orbital geometry•Extension of time coverageof dynamical phenomena atSaturn and Titan

Carnegie Mellon 116

Titan In Situ Exploration

ObjectiveConduct in situ exploration of Titan’s atmosphere and

surface as the next step beyond Cassini/Huygens

Mission scenario (planning baseline)• Launch to Saturn in 2010 or beyond, SEP or gravity

assist trajectory - flight time 6-10 years• Insert into Saturn orbit, ballute aerocapture at Titan• Ballute entry at Titan, balloon mobility and surface

sampling, possible lander package• Orbital and in situ observations; 3-year orbital

mission, 1-year in situ mission

Mission Options• Range of in situ platforms is possible: Simple lander, mobile lander, simple balloon,

aerobot (controlled balloon)- Mobility for multiple surface site sampling appears to be a key science driver- Must plan for variety of surface conditions- Relative balance of surface and atmospheric observations

• Orbital science may be eliminated in favor of in situ science to save cost

• Orbiter for telecom relay is probably required - options under study for direct-to-Earth

Carnegie Mellon 117


Major or Unique Developments Required• Aerocapture and entry using ballute or aeroshell• Balloon mobility system - vertical control only, or full vertical and horizontal control• Advanced low-mass radioisotope power system able to operate in Titan’s atmosphere• Navigation within Titan’s atmosphere (no celestial references)• Miniaturized in situ chemical analysis instruments• Bioload reduction and verification for planetary protection• Titan surface/atmosphere simulants for testing and validation

Titan Aerover Mission ScenarioTitan Aerover Mission ScenarioHeritage and Commonality• Aerocapture under development

within Mars technology program,candidate for NMP flight validation

• Advanced RTG in study phase,required by future Mars and outerplanet missions

• Balloon mobility concepts benefitfrom Mars technology investments

• Planetary protection techniquescommon with Mars

Carnegie Mellon 118

Titan Explorer Cost Profile (RY $ [FY '10

Launch])

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

L-5 L-4 L-3 L-2 L-1 L


RY

$ (

FY

'10 L

au

nch

)


Comments and Issues• Must better understand relative priority of

future science goals experiment platforms• Several key technologies are independent of

final mission architecture and are commonwith Mars and other missions - developmentcan begin now

– Aerocapture, esp. ballute– Atmospheric descent/mobility– Advanced power (improved RTG) andpropulsion (SEP)

• Multimission technology development costs~$50M, not incuding RTG

• We must understand future Titan missionoptions well enough - and early enough - tobe able to capitalize on the interest generatedby Cassini/Huygens

• Mission class: Large• Technology risk: High

Cost (RY$, FY10 launch)Development/launch: $950-1125 M

Mission operations: $150-200 M

Carnegie Mellon 119

Asteroid Sample Return

Mission Options• Return to Eros may minimize mission cost and risk• Multiple landing sites may be feasible...enhances science return but increases cost/risk• Depth of subsurface access required, if any, drives sample system complexity and cost• Multiple targets could be sampled in a single mission using SEP• SEP enables access to greater number of targets, including main-belt asteroids

- Increases flight time (~7 years for Vesta sample return)

ObjectiveReturn well-documented samples of surface and sub-surface materialsfrom one or more asteroids

Mission scenario (planning baseline)• Rendezvous with and orbit a near-Earth asteroid(4660 Nereus)• Map for site selection; single spacecraft descends, anchors to surface• Surface and shallow subsurface materials collected from a single site• Spacecraft departs asteroid and returns to Earth for direct entry• Total flight time ~3 years, Delta 4240 LV

Carnegie Mellon 120

Major or Unique Developments Required• Near-Earth asteroid sample return requires no new technology, but does require new

engineering designs and development. Key areas include:- Surface anchoring and sample acquisition systems- Dust mitigation techniques- Low-mass batteries- Precision landing and hazard avoidance- Development of surface simulants for system testing and validation

• Main-belt asteroid or multiple NEA sample return requires improved SEP - higherefficiency and throughput than DS1. Development is currently underway.

Heritage and Commonality• Successful navigation and landing of NEAR at Eros demonstrates fundamental capability

to explore near-Earth asteroids• Significant commonality with CNSR and Mars sample return in areas of sample

acquisition and transfer• Stardust/Genesis heritage Earth entry vehicles can be used with very minor modifications


21

Carnegie Mellon 121

Comments and Issues• Launch opportunities available virtually every

year

• New technologies could enhance science return• Surface and subsurface drilling• Sample handling technologies• Hazard avoidance

• Planetary protection issues affect some classesof asteroids and may increase costs

• Main Belt Asteroid Sample Return wouldrequire:

• Improved SEP (propellant throughput)• High-efficiency solar arrays• Semi-autonomous navigation and landing

• Mission class: Moderate• Technology risk: Low


NEASR Cost Profile (RY $[FY '08 Launch])

0

50

100

150

200

L-4 L-3 L-2 L-1 L


RY

$ (

FY

'08 L

au

nch

)

CostDevelopment and launch: $300-400MOperations: 25-40M

122 Carnegie Mellon

Panel Mission Concept Name Cost Class

Inner Planets Venus In-Situ Explorer Medium

South Pole-Aitken Basin Sample Return Medium Terrestrial Planet Geophysical Network Medium Venus Sample Return Large

Mercury Sample Return Large Discovery Missions Small Primitive Bodies

Kuiper Belt-Pluto Explorer Medium Comet Surface Sample Return Medium Trojan/Centaur Reconaissance Flyby Medium

Asteroid Rover/Sample Return Medium Comet Cryogenic Sample Return Large Discovery Missions Small

Giant Planets Cassini Extended Mission Small Jupiter Polar Orbiter with Probes Medium

Neptune Orbiter with Probes Large Saturn Ring Observer Large Uranus Orbiter with Probes Large

Discovery Missions Small Large Satellites Europa Geophysical Explorer Large

Europa Lander Large Titan Explorer Large Neptune Orbiter/Triton Explorer Large

Io Observer Medium Ganymede Orbiter Medium Discovery Missions Small

Mars Mars Sample Return Large Mars Smart Lander Medium

Mars Long-Lived Lander Network Medium Mars Upper Atmosphere Orbiter Small Mars Scouts Small

Space Exploration Priorities

Missions listed inPriority OrderMissions in bold facewere selected by theSteering Group foroverall prioritization

Space Exploration

Vision for Space Exploration

Mars Exploration — This Decade

2

125 Carnegie Mellon 126 Carnegie Mellon

Review

space robotics current areas of research state of...

Documents