ExoMars LSEC 2018 Landing Site Engineering Constraints LSSWS# December 2014 L. Lorenzoni and ExoMars Project

2  EXM Programme Overview and 2016 EXM EDM _Updates  2018 EXM Mission Landing Site Engineering Constraints (LSEC) subject to imminent updates Table of Content

ESA ESTRACK Proton M/Breeze M Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO) 2016 Mission 2018 Mission Carrier Module (CM) Landing Platform And NASA DSN Rover Descent Module (DM) Programme Overview 3 Proton M/Breeze M EDL Demonstrator Module (EDM) ESOC Science Operations Centre ESAC ROSCOSMOS Antennas ROCC  Two missions launched in 2016 and 2018, respectively  The 2016 flight segment consists of a Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO) and an EDL Demonstrator Module (EDM) - Schiaparelli  The 2018 flight segment consists of a Carrier Module (CM) and a Descent Module (DM) with a Rover and a stationary Landing Platform

EXM EDM, pictures from this morning

5  EXM Programme Overview and 2016 EXM EDM _Updates  2018 EXM Mission Landing Site Engineering Constraints (LSEC)  2018 EXM Mission Features _ Updates  EDL Corridors  Landing Platform Clearance  Summary Table of Content

Mission Features Overview SCC LEOP May-June 2018 DM Separation and CM BuBo Jan 2019 Interplanetary Cruise Arrival Jan 2019 Type I, C3 = 7.75 – 8.45 km2/s2 Launch May 2018  Launch 7 – 27 May 2018;  Arrival:  Ls 324°, at the end of the Global Dust Storm Season  LST 10:00am-11:05 am  Landing Site:  ≤-2 km MOLA  Between 5S-25N  Based on engineering and science constraints  EDL, Rover and Landing Platform Surface Ops data upload via UHF proximity link with TGO (and MEX as backup)  Backup Launch Date  Launch Aug 2020 – To Be Confirmed;  Arrival –To Be Updated, As per Last WS

Mission – EDL Timeline and Overview 7

8  Entry, Descent and Landing Analysis on the 6 Landing Sites  Refined Analysis in respect of LAV Heatshield sizing, DM Aerodatabase, Parachute Inflation Loads, etc..  Identification of range of entry conditions and impact on ellipse size and on landing ellipse orientation  Clearance of the Surface Platform during landing and for Rover Egress  Major Landing Platform Design Change to increase the clearance of the Landing Platform 2018 EXM EDL, Main Updates wrt Landing Site Engineering Constraints

EDL Corridor Status Summary 9 LSLat/Lon deg Entry CorridorCorridor Concerns Next Steps/Way Forward Simud Vallis8.49/ ✔ None Stop EDL Analysis Southern Isidis4.35/86.20 ✔ None Stop EDL Analysis Oxia Planum18.20/ ✔ Small margins Normal Work Hypanis Vallis11.80/ ✔ Small margins Normal Work Aram Dorsum7.87/ ✔ Verticalization constraint discrepancy Resolve Verticalization Discrepancy and update results Mawrth Vallis22.25/-18.00Not at 50 km landing ellipse Ellipse accuracy + Verticalization constraint Accept larger ellipse + resolve Verticalization discrepancy

LP Clearance and Rocks - 1 of 2 10 After S-PDR Last WS

LP Clearance and Rocks - 2 of 2 It was: “The landing platform is preliminary designed with a clearance between nozzles and terrain of 0.35 m as the legs touch down, and 0.18 m (TBC) following deformation of the legs’ shock absorbers”. Until this parameter has been confirmed, the applicable EDL rock distribution constraint is that the site must have a rock abundance ≤ 7%— derived from the rover constraint for rock abundance. 11 It may become : Probability of a encountering a rock with a height of ≥35cm in an of 7 (TBC)m² to be ≤1% (TBC)

Preliminary Surface and Terrain LSEC what is subject to update within Q Engineering ParameterPreliminary Constraint Possibility of Future Updates Landing Latitude5º S to 25º N Very Low Landing Elevation≤ –2 km MOLA Medium Landing Ellipse Dimensions Major axis:104 km Minor Axis: 19 km High for Latitudes above 11N (TBC) Landing ellipse Orientation for 2018 launch for 2020 launch Low/Medium Slopes at 2- to 10-km length scale ≤ 3.0  Low Slopes at 330-m length scale ≤ 8.6  Low/Medium Slopes at 7-m length scale ≤12.5  Medium Slopes at 2-m length scale ≤15.0  Medium Rock abundanceK < 7 % Medium/High Thermal Inertia≥ 150 J m -2 s -0.5 K -1 Very Low Albedo0.1 ≤ albedo ≤ 0.26 Very Low Radar Reflectivity Ka band backscatter cross- section at nadir: > –15 dB and < 27.5 dB Very Low ExoMars Project 2018 LSSWS Expect Significant Updates Possible Updates Envisaged Updates should be minor

Summary and Imminent Steps for Q  Ellipses orientation  For 2020 launch opportunity, ellipse orientation is TBC  For 2018 launch opportunity, ellipse orientation constraints to be updated:  Reduce the azimuth range after nominal EFPA is established  Reduce and update Mawrth Vallis orientation range  On going work: Establish nominal trajectory for each of the landing sites  reduce the azimuth range for each landing site  Entry Corridors and Ellipse dimensions  Both for Aram Dorsum and Mawrth Vallis, most probably due to their high MOLA altitude, there is the need to refine the results and clean also minor discrepancy.  On going work: investigate verticalization constraints  confirm/update entry corridor results and associated ellipse dimension  Rock Abundance  LP design had major changes to allow higher clearance  On going work: update the rock related constraint  LSEC (Landing Site Engineering Constraints) Document to be updated 13

BACKUP ExoMars Project 14

Landing Target Accuracy Ballistic Entry: flight path controlled by aerodynamic laws Landing Target Accuracy is mainly driven by Navigation accuracy at Entry Interface Point Landing Ellipse Sizes for Mars Ballistic Entry Vehicles: MPF: 300kmx50km; MER:120kmx25km; PHX: 110kmx20km; Insight: 140kmx30km EXM 2016: 100kmx15km Landing Accuracy for sites at 25N latitude may have to be increased beyond 50 km Landing Accuracy for sites up to 11N is confirmed to be within 50 km at this EFPA Landing Sites at Lower Latitudes should be favored or Landing Sites at Northern Latitude shall consider a larger ellipse

ExoMars Project 2018 LSSWS 16 Preliminary Atmospheric LSEC

 EXM 2018 Rover is designed to survive at latitudes between 5S and 25N  Latitudes southern than 5S are not feasible for thermal condition and for electrical power degradation  Latitude northern than 25N would imply a degradation in the electrical power  EXM 2018 Entry conditions degrade when landing at northern latitude  Detailed analysis of landing accuracy between 11N and 25N is still ongoing  Risk of an enlarged ellipse at northern latitude (see Landing Altitude Slide Landing Latitude 17

Landing Altitude 18  EXM 2018 Vehicle shall be capable of landing at altitudes as high as -2 km MOLA Deploy Altitude: ~10 km MOLA Peak Deceleration Mars Missions Landing approximate Altitudes: Mars 3: Ptolemaeus Crater <-4km MOLA Viking1&2 : < km MPF: < - 3 km MER: -1.4 MOLA PHX: <- 2.5 km MSL: km EXM 2016: -1.4km MOLA InSight: -2.5km MOLA Thin atmosphere: Terminal Velocity is reached at very low altitude Low PD altitude: propulsive phase to brake the vehicle The lower the landing altitude the larger the performance (and mass) margins. The Landing Sites at lower altitudes allow design margin.

ExoMars Project 19 Slopes at 2 to 10 km length scale ≤3°To ensure slant and incidence compatible with the radar Length scale from 330m to 2 km Exponential self- affine model leading from 3° at 2 km to 8.6° at 330m Drives Fuel Consumption during powered descent phase Slopes at 7 m length scaleExponential self- affine model leading from 8.6° at 330m to 12.5° at 7m To ensure acceptable altitude error in the touchdown phase Slopes at 2 m length scale≤15°Platform Stability at Landing Slopes Constraints

Terrain & Surface Analysis: Backscatter ParameterEXM Value rangeDriver Ka-band backscatter[-15;27.5] dB for nadir pointing; [-17;-10] dB for 10  off nadir; [-18;-13] dB for 20  off nadir; Maximum Backscattering decay: –30.4 dB for 0  to 5  off-nadir –37.3 dB for 0  to 10  off-nadir dB for 0  to 15  off-nadir – Radar Performance

ExoMars Project 21 Landing SiteLatest Accuracy Results Mawrth km Mawrth km Oxia Planum 1< 54 km

ExoMars Project 22