IPPW-6 – Overview of Flagship Class Venus Mission Architectures, Balint, Cutts, Kwok, June 24, 2008 Pre-decisional – for discussion purposes only Page-1.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Session 3: Advances in Our Understanding of Mars Searching for Evidence of Past or Present Life on Mars David J. Des Marais NASA, Ames Research Center.
Advertisements

1 Planetary probes: ESA Perspective Jean-Pierre Lebreton ESA’s Huygens Project Scientist/Mission Manager ESA’s EJSM & TSSM Cosmic Vision Study Scientist.
Science Motivation Comparative planetology of the outer planets is key to understanding the origin & evolution of the solar system S. Atreya (2006) –Deep,
The first 80% of the History of Venus?. Some Geological Conclusions from Magellan Analysis -Volcanism and tectonism are the most abundant geological processes.
Mercury Venus Earth Mars Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune Dwarf Planets Sun Eris Pluto Ceres By Michelle Stephens.
Preliminary management plan for PACE SDT What are the Goals of PACE? The goals of the PACE mission are: 1-Extend key climate data records on ocean color.
Robbie Hood NOAA UAS Program Director 20 June 2013.
Copyright 2011 | Company Proprietary Parachute Development for Venus Missions Christopher Kelley – Airborne Systems Robert Sinclair – Airborne Systems.
Surface and Atmosphere Geochemical Explorer (SAGE) Anita Sengupta, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology Rob Maddock, Juan Cruz,
Temperature ( C) Pressure ( bars) Jupiter Probes Venus Surface Exploration CNSR Europa Surface and Subsurface Titan.
Technology Enabling the Exploration of Mars Brooke Tuttle ITMG – PowerPoint Presentation 11/18/2008.
Surface Water and Ocean Topography Mission (SWOT)
Mercury, seen from Earth through a moderate telescope.
Venus Exploration Analysis Group: Scientific Goals for Surface Exploration Ellen R. Stofan, S. Mackwell, K. Baines, S. Atreya, J. Luhmann, J. Cutts, T.
Page 1 / 9 FMI FMI LFEM-STEP Mars MetNet Collaboration A.-M. Harri, J. E. Tillman; JET 25 July, 2003; JET 22 Jan., 2004 Finnish Meteorological Institute.
Solar System Exploration: Space Science Highlight Featuring the Research of Suzanne E. Smrekar, Pierre Moreels, and Brenda J. Franklin To be published.
ENG 450: Potential Projects Nilton O. Renno, Professor Manish Mehta, Graduate Student University of Michigan.
Ares Aloft: Martian Atmospheric Entry and In-Situ Resource Use via CubeSat Jeffrey Stuart Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology.
Terrestrial Planets- Mercury & Venus THE SOLAR SYSTEM.
IPPW- 9 Royal Observatory of Belgium 20 June Von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics Obtaining atmospheric profiles during Mars entry Bart Van Hove.
A.Space Probes- a vehicle that carries scientific instruments to planets or other bodies in space. 1) The soviets were first to launch a probe.
Mars Program Update James L. Green Acting Director, Mars Exploration Program NASA Headquarters May 13, 2014 NOTE ADDED BY JPL WEBMASTER: This content has.
Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Titan Mariner Spacecraft Study Titan Team! IPPW-5 June 24, 2007.
Mars Exploration Directorate National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California.
Understand how space organizations use concepts of operations and system integration plan to ensure the success of their program Space Concept of Operations.
EFFECTS OF THE VENUS GROUND AMBIENT ENVIRONMENT ON MATERIALS Principal Investigator: Linda Del Castillo Co-Investigators: James Polk, Michael Pauken, Elizabeth.
*K. Ikeda (CCSR, Univ. of Tokyo) M. Yamamoto (RIAM, Kyushu Univ.)
The Jupiter System Observer: A Mission to Study Jupiter, its Moons and Magnetospheric Environment Dave Senske 1, Louise Prockter 2, Johnny Kwok 1, Tom.
JAXA’s Space Exploration Scenario for the Next Twenty Years - Science Strategy - Masato Nakamura Steering Committee of Space Science Institute of Space.
Filling Mars Human Exploration Strategic Knowledge Gaps with Next Generation Meteorological Instrumentation. S. Rafkin, Southwest Research Institute
Solar System Missions Division Solar Orbiter Next major Solar and Heliospheric mission ESA ILWS flagship Now with the Inner Heliospheric Sentinels.
SMD Suborbital Science in the Planetary Science Division Philippe Crane Planetary Atmospheres Discipline Scientist LCANS Meeting 28 April 2007.
5 th IPPW, Bordeaux, June 25-99, 2007 Kinetic Micro-Penetrators For Exploration Of Solar System Bodies. R. Gowen & A. Smith, MSSL/UCL.
Mars 2020 Project Matt Wallace Deputy Project Manager August 3, 2015.
The Solar System Chapter 6 COPY DOWN THE LEARNING GOALS ON PG SKIP 5 LINES BETWEEN EACH!
NMP EO-1 TECHNOLOGY WORKSHOP Section 2 Meeting Objectives.
Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology August 4, 2015 Austin Nicholas Landing Site Considerations Related to the Potential Sample.
IMARS History and Phase II Overview Presented to MEPAG 13 May 2014 L. May, NASA HQ NOTE ADDED BY JPL WEBMASTER: This content has not been approved or adopted.
Mars Geochemistry and Future Experiment Needs Mark A. Bullock August 7, 2002.
Mars in the Planetary Decadal Survey Steve Squyres Cornell University Chairman, Planetary Science Decadal Survey Steve Squyres Cornell University Chairman,
The Magellan Venus Probe Frank Koconis. Contents Venus compared to Earth Earlier exploration of Venus The problem: How to map the surface The Magellan.
MATT Report Feb. 20, Philip Christensen (Chair) Lars Borg (ND-SAG Co-Chair) Wendy Calvin (MSO SAG Chair) Mike Carr Dave Des Marais (ND-SAG Co-Chair)
Evaluating New Candidate Landing Sites on Mars: Current orbital assets have set the new standard for data required for identifying and qualifying new Mars.
TRS-1 Synergistic Science with an Thomas R. Spilker, SSSE Mark D. Hofstadter, JPL Neil Murphy, JPL 2013 June 19 10th International Planetary Probe Workshop.
TRS-1 Payload Options Thomas R. Spilker, Jet Propulsion Laboratory / CIT 2011 June 8 8th International Planetary Probes Workshop Portsmouth, Virginia,
Science Mission Directorate Understanding and Protecting Our Home Planet: NASA and Earth Science Cheryl Yuhas Suborbital Science Program Manager.
 The Multi-Tier Mission Architecture and a Different Approach to Entry, Descent and Landing Jeremy Straub Department of Computer Science University of.
Dr. Richard R. Vondrak Director, Robotic Lunar Exploration Program Science Mission Directorate NASA Headquarters September 2004 NASA Robotic Lunar Exploration.
ST5 PDR June 19-20, 2001 NMP 2-1 EW M ILLENNIUM P ROGRA NNMM Program Overview Dr. Christopher Stevens Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of.
PROPOSED 2018 Joint Rover Mission Plans for Proposed 2018 NASA & ESA Joint Rover Mission Landing Site Selection Matt Golombek Mars Exploration Program.
Ground-Truth Strategy Life in the Atacama 2004 Science & Technology Workshop Edmond A. Grin NASA Ames.
Goals for this Meeting: Day 1 Day 2 Update the community on progress in the exploration of Mars, including NASA and the European Space Agency (missions.
2010 Planetary Science Technology Review Interim Report; Assessment Phase National Aeronautics and Space Administration Prepared by the PSTR panel, advisors,
Team JUPITER Midterm presentation JUPITER – Jovian Unit Processing Intelligent Terrain and Environment Reconnaissance Skyler LaBuff, Jon Mefford, Jaime.
Science investigations in the framework of expedition to Europa
Venus Environmental Test Facility Capability List Rodger Dyson and Natasha Johnson March 9, 2012.
Miniature Probes for Planetary Atmospheric Exploration: Where Less is More Anthony Colaprete ASA ARC.
MEPAG Meeting October 4, 2012 Monrovia, CA Dave Des Marais, MEPAG Chair NOTE ADDED BY JPL WEBMASTER: This content has not been approved or adopted by,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration February 27, 2013 Defining Potential HEOMD Instruments for Mars 2020 A Work in Progress... NOTE ADDED BY.
PCOS/PhysPAG Town Hall AAS-HEAD, Monterey Richard Griffiths PCOS Program Scientist April 9, 2013 NASA HQ Perspective.
MEPAG: Action Items, Forward Planning Jack Mustard, MEPAG Chair MRO HiRISE / U. Arizona / JPL / NASA NOTE ADDED BY JPL WEBMASTER: This document was prepared.
Second GOES Users Conference, Boulder October 1-3, Issue B Page 1 ACTIVITIES TOWARDS USER REQUIREMENTS FOR POST-MSG by R. Stuhlmann GOES Users.
Workshop proposal to ISSI Quantifying the Martian Geochemical reservoirs.
Short Course: Destination Venus: Science, Technology and Mission Architectures James Cutts, JPL International Planetary Probe Workshop 2016 June 11-12,
The ionosphere of Mars and its importance for climate evolution A community white paper for the 2009 Planetary Decadal Survey Paul Withers
Pre-decisional – for Planning and Discussion Purposes Only 1 Technology Planning for Future Mars Missions Samad Hayati Manager, Mars Technology Program.
NASA, CGMS-44, 7 June 2016 Coordination Group for Meteorological Satellites - CGMS SURFACE PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS FROM THE ORBITING CARBON OBSERVATORY-2.
Planetary Science Decadal Survey David H. Smith Space Studies Board, National Research Council Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group Arlington,
Visions and Voyages: The Planetary Decadal Survey
Presentation transcript:

IPPW-6 – Overview of Flagship Class Venus Mission Architectures, Balint, Cutts, Kwok, June 24, 2008 Pre-decisional – for discussion purposes only Page-1 Overview of Flagship Class Venus Mission Architectures Tibor S. Balint, James A. Cutts & Johnny H. Kwok Overview of Flagship Class Venus Mission Architectures by Tibor S. Balint, James A. Cutts & Johnny H. Kwok Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia June 24, th International Planetary Probe Workshop IPPW-6, Session III: Probe Missions to the Giant Planets, Titan and Venus

IPPW-6 – Overview of Flagship Class Venus Mission Architectures, Balint, Cutts, Kwok, June 24, 2008 Pre-decisional – for discussion purposes only Page-2 Outline Introduction –Venus STDT & Study Overview –A world of contrasts –Extreme Environments of Venus –Role of Mission Architectures Typical mission architectures at Venus Venus STDT Process –VSTDT Process Description –Science & Technology Traceability & FOM Interim Study Results Conclusions

IPPW-6 – Overview of Flagship Class Venus Mission Architectures, Balint, Cutts, Kwok, June 24, 2008 Pre-decisional – for discussion purposes only Page-3 Venus STDT & Study Overview Introduction Venus STDT & Study Overview NASA is interested in a high science-return inner solar system Flagship mission in addition to Mars Sample Return –Target Launch: 2020 – 2025 –Life Cycle Mission Cost Range: $3-4B (FY’08) –Technology Maturation: TRL 6 by 2015 Venus STDT formed on 1/8/08 by NASA –to define a Flagship-class mission to Venus The combined team of scientists, engineers and technologists is tasked to –determine prioritized science objectives, –recommend suitable flagship class mission architectures, –assess cost, and other mission elements –recommend a Venus technology development roadmap Final report due to NASA by late November 2008

IPPW-6 – Overview of Flagship Class Venus Mission Architectures, Balint, Cutts, Kwok, June 24, 2008 Pre-decisional – for discussion purposes only Page-4 Acknowledgments – VSTDT & Study Team Introduction Acknowledgments – VSTDT & Study Team Atmosphere Subgroup David Grinspoon (DMNS) Anthony Colaprete (NASA Ames) Sanjay Limaye (U. Wisconsin) George Hashimoto (Kobe U.) Dimitri Titov (ESA) Eric Chassefiere (U. of Nantes--France) Hakan Svedhem (ESA) Geochemistry Subgroup Allan Treiman (LPI) Steve Mackwell (LPI) Natasha Johnson (NASA GSFC) Geology and Geophysics Jim Head (Brown University) Dave Senske (JPL) Bruce Campbell (Smithsonian) Gerald Schubert (UCLA) Walter Kieffer (LPI) Lori Glaze (NASA GSFC) Technology Elizabeth Kolawa (JPL) Viktor Kerzhanovich (JPL) Gary Hunter (NASA GRC) Steve Gorevan (Honeybee Robotics) Ex Officio Ellen Stofan (VEXAG Chair) Tibor Kremic (NASA GRC) JPL Venus Flagship Study Core Team Johnny Kwok (Study Lead) Tibor Balint (Mission Lead) Craig Peterson Tom Spilker NASA and JPL Jim Cutts (JPL) Adriana Ocampo (NASA HQ)

IPPW-6 – Overview of Flagship Class Venus Mission Architectures, Balint, Cutts, Kwok, June 24, 2008 Pre-decisional – for discussion purposes only Page-5 Introduction Venus: World of Contrasts Why is Venus so different from Earth? –What does the Venus greenhouse tell us about climate change? Could be addressed with probes & balloons at various altitudes –How active is Venus? Could be addressed with orbiters & in-situ elements –When and where did the water go? Could be addressed with landers Atmosphere Core Climate Crust Solar wind Ref: M. Bullock, D. Senske, J. Kwok, Venus Flagship Study: Exploring a World of Contrasts (Interim Briefing), NASA HQ, May 9, 2008 Ref: Image by E. Stofan & T. Balint Ref: VEXAG White Paper,

IPPW-6 – Overview of Flagship Class Venus Mission Architectures, Balint, Cutts, Kwok, June 24, 2008 Pre-decisional – for discussion purposes only Page-6 Introduction The Extreme Environment of Venus Greenhouse effect results in VERY HIGH SURFACE TEMPERATURES Average surface temperature: ~ 460°C to 480°C Average pressure on the surface: ~ 92 bars Cloud layer composed of aqueous sulfuric acid droplets –at ~45 to ~70 km attitude Venus atmosphere is mainly CO2 (96.5%) and N2 (3.5%) with: – small amounts of noble gases (He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe) – small amount of reactive trace gases (SO2, H2O, CO, OCS, H2S, HCl, SO, HF …) Zonal winds: at 4 km altitude ~1 m/s; at 55 km ~60 m/s; at 65 km ~95 m/s Superrotating prograde jets in the upper atmosphere Ref: C. Wilson, U of Oxford, Personal communications Ref: V. Kerzhanovich et al., "Circulation of the atmosphere from the surface to 100 km",

IPPW-6 – Overview of Flagship Class Venus Mission Architectures, Balint, Cutts, Kwok, June 24, 2008 Pre-decisional – for discussion purposes only Page-7 Role of Mission Architectures Introduction Role of Mission Architectures Science Mission Architectures Programmatics Technologies e.g., - NRC Decadal Survey; - VEXAG goals & objectives - Project science team measurements & investigations e.g., - mission class (flagship, NF, Discovery) - mission cost cap - SSE Roadmap; mission lineup - international collaboration e.g., - extreme environments technologies - systems approaches: tolerance, protection & hybrid systems - atmospheric entry, descent, landing, balloon inflation - instrument technologies e.g., - single or multi-element architecture - single or dual launch - mission elements (orbiter, flyby, balloon, lander, probe, plane) - lifetime (hours, weeks, years) - telecom link (relay, Direct-to-Earth) Note: NF – New Frontiers mission class (assumed cost cap: ~$650M w/o launch vehicle) Flagship class (assumed cost cap: ~$2-4B); Discovery class (assumed cost cap: ~$450M)

IPPW-6 – Overview of Flagship Class Venus Mission Architectures, Balint, Cutts, Kwok, June 24, 2008 Pre-decisional – for discussion purposes only Page-8 Mission Architectures Potential Venus Mission Elements

IPPW-6 – Overview of Flagship Class Venus Mission Architectures, Balint, Cutts, Kwok, June 24, 2008 Pre-decisional – for discussion purposes only Page-9 Mission Architectures Grouping of Typical Venus Mission Architectures Mission Class Floor: Small mission Medium mission Large mission Heritage SSE Roadmap recommended Ref: Cutts, Balint, “Overview of typical mission architectures”, 3 rd VEXAG meeting, Crystal City, VA, Jan.11-12, 2007

IPPW-6 – Overview of Flagship Class Venus Mission Architectures, Balint, Cutts, Kwok, June 24, 2008 Pre-decisional – for discussion purposes only Page-10 Flowchart for the VSTDT FOM Process VSTDT Process Description Flowchart for the VSTDT FOM Process Figure of Merit (FOM) combines –Science ranking –Technology ranking –Mission architectures –Programmatics (e.g., costs) Venus STDT Assessment Science VEXAG Goals, Objectives, & Measurements Technology EE Technologies & Instrument Tec Map Investigation to Instruments & Arch. Elements Rate Technologies for Arch. Elements for Criticality & Maturity Assessment of Mission Architecture Concepts Calibrate Rapid Cost Estimation for (13) Architecture Elements Science FOM for Investigations & Mission Architectures Science Subgroups To Recommend Desired Flagship Mission Architecture Concepts Rapid Costing for Representative Mission Architecture Concepts Technology FOM Criticality / Maturity For Arch. Elements Assess Figure of Merit (FOM) for 17 Flagship Mission Architectures (from Science Score & Cost & Technology Score) Redefine Flagship Class Mission Architecture Concept, Endorsed by the 3 Science Subgroups Phase 2: Proceed With Recommended Mission Architecture(s) Ref: M. Bullock, D. Senske, J. Kwok, Venus Flagship Study: Exploring a World of Contrasts (Interim Briefing), NASA HQ, May 9, 2008

IPPW-6 – Overview of Flagship Class Venus Mission Architectures, Balint, Cutts, Kwok, June 24, 2008 Pre-decisional – for discussion purposes only Page-11 Science Traceability Matrix & Technology Assessment VSTDT Process Description Science Traceability Matrix & Technology Assessment Flagship Priority Scoring (Column E) 1 = Essential to have 2 = Highly Desirable 3 = Desirable 4 = Very Good to have Instrument & Platform Goodness Scores Directly answers Major contribution Minor contribution or supporting observations Does not address Geology & Geophysics subgroup Atmospheres subgroup Geochemistry subgroup Measurement Technique & Instrument type Investigations Architecture Element Priorities Two technology categories: –For operation and survivability of subsystems on architectural elements –For science measurements. Technology Assessment Process: – STDT technology sub-group identified major technology drivers for all potential missions – Technology Figure of Merit (FOM) was determined using two factors: Technology criticality for a specific architecture element – assessed by the mission architecture team Technology maturity – assessed by the technology sub-group Science & Technology FOMs were then used in the overall proposed mission architecture selection

IPPW-6 – Overview of Flagship Class Venus Mission Architectures, Balint, Cutts, Kwok, June 24, 2008 Pre-decisional – for discussion purposes only Page-12 Summary of FOM & Costing for Mission Architecture Elements Architecture Element Figure of Merit (FOM) Summary of FOM & Costing for Mission Architecture Elements Architecture Element Orbiter High-Level Aerial (> 70 km) Mid-Level Aerial (52-70 km) Low-Level Aerial (15-52 km) Near-Surface Aerial (0-15 km) Single Entry Probe (no surf.) Multiple Entry Probe (no surf.) Short-Lived Lander (Single) Short-Lived Lander (Multiple) Long-Lived Lander (Single) Long-Lived Lander (Multiple) Surface System with mobility Coordinated Atmospheric Platforms Science FOM Technology FOM Cost Estimate (in $B)

IPPW-6 – Overview of Flagship Class Venus Mission Architectures, Balint, Cutts, Kwok, June 24, 2008 Pre-decisional – for discussion purposes only Page-13 Potential Venus Flagship Mission Architectures Mission Architecture FOM Potential Venus Flagship Mission Architectures A total of 17 mission architecture concepts were assessed Including 3 science subgroups recommended mission architectures –one desired mission architecture per subgroup –one single architecture that combined all science goals Selected Mission Architecture Concepts Architecture Elements Cost (08M$) Science Score Technology Score Flyby Orbiter High-Level Aerial (> 70 km) Mid-Level Aerial (52-70 km) Low-Level Aerial (15-52 km) Near-Surface Aerial (0-15 km) Single Entry Probe (no surf.) Multiple Entry Probe no surf. Short-Lived Lander (Single) Short-Lived Lander (Multiple) Long-Lived Lander (Single) Long-Lived Lander (Multiple) Surface System with mobility Venus Mobile Explorer (VME) 11$5B38653 Geology Subgroup’s Choice 11$3.2B34720 Atmospheric Subgroup’s Choice 122$2.9B5395 GeoChem Subgroup’s Choice 12$2B21412 STDT Flagship 122$3.7B75315

IPPW-6 – Overview of Flagship Class Venus Mission Architectures, Balint, Cutts, Kwok, June 24, 2008 Pre-decisional – for discussion purposes only Page-14 Science FOM vs. Mission Cost & Technology Scores Mission Architecture FOM Science FOM vs. Mission Cost & Technology Scores

IPPW-6 – Overview of Flagship Class Venus Mission Architectures, Balint, Cutts, Kwok, June 24, 2008 Pre-decisional – for discussion purposes only Page-15 Ongoing Mission Architecture Study Conclusions Ongoing Mission Architecture Study Based on these, a mission architecture was identified, that –Meets all the highest science priorities, and –Has the highest Figure of Merit (FOM) A capable orbiter (years) with high resolution radar imaging and topography 2 instrumented balloons between 52 and 70 km (weeks) 2 landers with extended surface life (hours) that also would acquire detailed atmospheric data on descent –Potential add-on science with single long lived instrument is not excluded, and could enhance science return

IPPW-6 – Overview of Flagship Class Venus Mission Architectures, Balint, Cutts, Kwok, June 24, 2008 Pre-decisional – for discussion purposes only Page-16 Science Synergies for the Proposed Flagship Architecture Conclusions Science Synergies for the Proposed Flagship Architecture Deployment of in-situ elements: –2 landers + 2 balloons deployed at the same time –Probe descents to be targeted to go near balloon paths Measurement synergies for atmospheric science –2 landers would give vertical slices of the atmosphere during descent –2 balloons would give zonal and meridional slices roughly intersecting balloon paths Science synergies between geochemistry and atmosphere –Simultaneous geochemical and mineralogical analysis –Spatial and temporal atmospheric gas analysis Two disparate locations at the same time Science synergies between geology and geochemistry –Landings on tessera and volcanic plains for comparative geology and geochemistry Ref: M. Bullock, D. Senske, J. Kwok, Venus Flagship Study: Exploring a World of Contrasts (Interim Briefing), NASA HQ, May 9, 2008

IPPW-6 – Overview of Flagship Class Venus Mission Architectures, Balint, Cutts, Kwok, June 24, 2008 Pre-decisional – for discussion purposes only Page-17 Technology Considerations Conclusions Technology Considerations The proposed preliminary science- driven architecture combines technologically mature elements (TRL 6) with moderate technology development requirements –Requires system level technology development, for example: environmental testing (high P,T, CO2, Corrosion) pressure & temperature mitigation sample acquisition & handling –Requires instrument technology development for example InSAR High temperature in situ instrumentation For more high value science High P,T Seismometers High T power generation and storage High T electronics and telecom

IPPW-6 – Overview of Flagship Class Venus Mission Architectures, Balint, Cutts, Kwok, June 24, 2008 Pre-decisional – for discussion purposes only Page-18 International Collaboration Conclusions International Collaboration Multi-element architecture lends itself to international collaboration Proposed Timing for international collaboration: –NASA (Venus Flagship) –ESA's (VEX Current-2011 Cosmic Vision EVE > 2020) –JAXA (VCO 2010 follow on, mid-low-cloud balloon > 2016) –Russia (Venera D)

IPPW-6 – Overview of Flagship Class Venus Mission Architectures, Balint, Cutts, Kwok, June 24, 2008 Pre-decisional – for discussion purposes only Page-19 The End … or just the beginning …