NESS

1
NESS

• Network of Environmental and Seismic Stations

2
NASA Solar System Roadmap

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

3
Mars Exploration Program Goals

• Goal 1 Determine if Life ever arose
• Goal 2 Characterize the Climate
• Goal 3 Characterize the Geology
• Goal 4 Prepare for Human Exploration

4
Mission Objective

• Determine the state and structure of the Martian
  interior and atmosphere using a network of
  stationary landers.
• Assess geologic hazards and long-term variations
  in climate/radiation environment in preparation
  for human exploration

5
NESS Science Goals

• Current seismic activity
• How active is Mars?
• Temporal and spatial distribution of Mars-quakes
• Planet interior
• Composition and properties of layers
• Size and state of core
• Global climate data
• Global coverage from several meteorological
  stations
• Concurrent data from 4 locations
• Radiation habitability for humans
• Geology of landing site
• Panoramic camera for context
• Change in environment with the weather over the
  year

6
(No Transcript)
7
Mission Context

• Viking landed seismometers on Mars
• Data noisy due to poor ground coupling
• Determined upper limit on Mars seismicity
• Meteorological data available from Viking and
  Pathfinder
• Limited concurrent measurements, no global
  coverage
• These missions have characterized surface

8
60 degree latitude, 360 degree longitude
distribution Lander elevations are below -0.2km
9
Instrumentation

• Each lander will have
• Seismometers
• Two Very Broad Band Seismometers
• One Broad Band Seismometer
• One Microseismometer
• Barometer
• Thermometer
• Anemometer
• Radiation sensor
• Panoramic Camera
• Microphone

10
Mission Design

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

11
Mission Design

• Launch vehicle (type) Delta 2925H
• Flight schedule
• liftoff 25 Oct - 14 Nov 2011
• Mars arrival 12 Sep 2012
• Ls 170
• Flight performance
• trajectory Type 2
• C3max 10.7
• payloadmax 1217.5 kg
• payloadactual 983 kg

12
Launch Vehicle Configuration
13
Cruise Configuration
14
Carrier Only

• Bus total 314.5
• Spacecraft total 982.9
• Payload total 612.3
• Launch vehicle mass margin 234.6

15
EDL Only

• Bus total 69.4
• Spacecraft total 152.6
• 30 contingency
• Entry system diameter 1.2 m
• Drag coefficient 1.55
• Ballistic coefficient 87.9kg/m2

16
EDL Configuration
17
Lander Configuration
18
(No Transcript)
19
Lander Only

• Instrument mass contingency 5.5
• Total bus contingency 75.5
• Spacecraft total 81.1
• 30 contingency
• More timebetter defined mass, ex
  drill/instruments

20
Meteorological Package (from Mars Polar
Lander/MPF )
855g
855g
http//mars.jpl.nasa.gov/MPF/mpf/sci_desc.htmlATM
O
21
360deg. Panorama Camera
sharing the mast with Met package
300g
http//mars.jpl.nasa.gov/MPF/mpf/sci_desc.htmlIMP
Microphone(50g, 5.2cm5.2cm1.3cm)
22
http//www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/sixthmars2003/pdf
/3078.pdf
Seismological Package (from NETLANDER mission by
ESA/NASA)
1.75kg
23
22-5mm,22-5mm,10mm 3 10-4-10Hz, 10-2-10Hz
Evacuated Sphere
MicroSeismometer(SP/NB)
22-5mm,22-5mm,10mm 3 10-100Hz Resol10-9
m/(s2)/HZ-1/2 100g
Very Broad Band Seismometer (VBB) 800g
http//ganymede.ipgp.jussieu.fr/GB/projects/netlan
der/sismo/
24
(No Transcript)
25
Data Return Strategy
26
TELECOM Hardware

• Earth to Mars Transit
• Redundant X-band Trans/Rec
• 1 medium gain and 2 low gain antennae
• Entry, Decent, and Landing
• Electralite Trans/Rec
• UHF, non-directional monopole
• Comms with MTO
• Landers
• Electralite Trans/Rec
• UHF, non-directional monopole
• Comms with MTO

27
SDST
NESS CARRIER
X-band MGA Horn
X-Band Downconverter
command data to S/C CDS
TWTA X-band 35W, RF
Processor
X-Band Exciter
telemetry data from S/C CDS
WGTS
CXS
TWTA X-band 35W, RF
Ka-Band Exciter
X-band LGA
SDST
WGTS
X-band LGA
X-Band Exciter
command data to S/C CDS
UHF Monopole
NESS EDL
Ka-Band Exciter
Processor
telemetry data from S/C CDS
UHF Monopole
X-Band Downconverter
Electra Lite
D I P L
cxs
NESS LANDER
28
TELECOM Systems

• Optimal 128 kbps
• Decrease transmit window, maximize data volume
  transfer
• Average 23 minute link per lander/SOL for 180
  Mbits/SOL (avg. transfer capacity 315 Mbits/SOL)
• Potential increase to 256 kbps with loss of total
  data volume received, but decrease in power
  consumption

11
28
25
24
14
38
58
17
26
25
16
18
SOL 1 SOL 2 Avg 10 SOLS
29
Ground Systems DSN

• Deep Space Network
• Launch, track TCMs, cruise
• Lander deployments (biggest cost)
• 24-hour coverage for 6 weeks
• Science operations (relay through MTO)
• Daily (1-hour) coverage in first month
• Weekly (1-hour) coverage for duration

30
Cruise-Phase Power

• A 2 m2 fixed array powers the carrier
• Supplies power to last lander for telecom, TCMs,
  etc.
• Charges lithium-ion lander batteries prior to
  separation
• During 32-day separation phase, landers sleep
• Timer circuit wakes controller just prior to EDL
• EDL is powered by short-term thermal battery
• Li-ion battery powers array deployment once landed

31
Lander Array

• Supplies instruments and controller day and night
  with 23-minute daily telecom
• Daily energy usage 330Wh
• Landers are identical, so must design for
  worst-case latitude
• Array is non-articulating because diffuse light
  limits benefit of orienting toward sun

32
Lander Array Power Estimation
daily solar incidence per m2 during landed mission
Orbital state (LS)
Minimum solar flux day
? ? ? ?
Latitude

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

33
Thermal Design Overview
Need to keep instruments, parachutes, and
propulsion tanks heated
34
Command and Data Handling

• Requirements for CDS
• Data volume storage of 180 Mbits per sol for up
  to 8 days
• Data transfer rate to MTO (Mars Telecom Orbiter)
  at 128 kbps
• Data transfer rate between instruments and data
  storage average of 1 kbps (camera burst rate of10
  Mbps)
• Modified I/O card
• interface between computer and I/O card
• Interface to instruments, power, propulsion, ACS
  (Attitude and Control Subsystem) elements,
  telecom, carrier separation interface state of
  health to carrier
• Design assumptions of CDS is rad-tolerant
• Total dose 20-50 krad
• SEU (Single Event Upset) threshold LET 20
  MeV/mg/cm2
• SEU error rate 10-7 10-8 bits per day
• Data storage capability (per lander)
• 8 Gbits (includes data storage for missed pass)
• capable of storing up to 40 sols of data
• 2 landers will be capable of controlling cruise
  and EDL (Entry, Descent, and Landing) stages of
  mission

35
Attitude Control -- Carrier

• Cruise stage
• Three-axis attitude control, with control
  electronics on landers. One lander is used,
  others are for redundancy.
• Eight sun sensors (coarse), for safe mode.
• Two star trackers (6 arcsec accuracy)
• Two IMUs (inertial measuring unit), drift
  corrected by star trackers
• Lander deployment
• Attitude adjustments for lander deployment
  accurate to within 0.1. Each lander is spun up
  to 2 RPM with a spin table, and popped out using
  springs.

36
Attitude Control -- Landers

• Three accelerometers to determine
• When to deploy parachute
• When the lander impacts Martian surface
• Orientation after touchdown

ACS Costs

• Carrier
• 10,087,000
• Lander
• 477,000
• Total
• 10,564,000

37
Public Engagement
38
Public Engagement
Today, America has a serious shortage of young
people entering the fields of mathematics and
science. This critical part of NASAs Mission is
to inspire the next generation of explorers so
that our work can go on. This educational
mandate is an imperative. -- NASA
Administrator Sean OKeefe
Making Mars Real - Constructing a virtual
experience as psychologically real as
someones backyard Sharing the Adventure -
N.E.S.S. - An opportunity for us all to explore.
39
Public Engagement Education

• Formal-Learning experience inside classroom
• Nationwide workshops for educators (Teaching
  Teachers)
• Focus on Seismometry and Meteorology mission and
  science analogs.(K-12, college)
• Provide mission related materials to educators
  for the generation of curriculums that follow
  national guidelines. (Supporting Teachers)
• Informal-Learning experiences outside the
  classroom
• Imagine Workshops
• Science Seminars
• Museum Partnerships
• Youth Groups/Community Groups
• Guest Observer Programs
• Visualization/Imaging/Audio

An opportunity for us all to explore
40
Public EngagementOutreach

• Public Outreach
• Name the landers/sites participation
• The Mars Insider Program Daily Updates from
  N.E.S.S.(climate,weather, and sound) partnership
  with weather channels and programs
• Public presentations (mission scientist and
  engineers)
• Dynamic educational Website
• Make-a-seismometer project (Mars vs. My Backyard)

An opportunity for us all to explore
41
Overall Mission Risk Matrix
42
Major Risks to Mission Activities

• 26 risks have been identified.
• 6 of the risks have been determined by many of
  the systems/disciplines to be critical to the
  mission.
• If dont land on crushable material because of
  uncertain landing terrain, then severe damage to
  lander and loss of data (Impact 4, Likelihood
  3)
• Mitigation Land in locations where terrain is
  most understood and fewest elevation changes
  (Impact - 4, Likelihood - 2)
• Single string redundancy on the lander (Impact -
  5, Likelihood 2)
• Mitigation Determine which systems have the
  lowest reliability and either increase this
  reliability or add a redundant component (Impact
  - 4, Likelihood - 1)
• Seismometer can not take the large g-loads on
  landing (Impact 5, Likelihood 3)
• Mitigation Perform adequate testing to insure
  that instrument will withstand landing (Impact -
  5, Likelihood - 1)

43
Major Risks to Mission Activities (continued)

• Failure to establish seismometer contact with the
  ground (Impact 5, Likelihood - 3)
• Mitigation Increase reliability of ground
  contact mechanism (Impact - 5, Likelihood - 1)
• Failure to handover CDS control of cruiser (with
  landers still attached) if primary control system
  fails (Impact - 5, Likelihood - 3)
• Mitigation Build into CDS an automatic handover
  of control to another landers processor if the
  primary CDS fails (Impact - 4, Likelihood - 2)
• Loss of power because of dust build up on the
  landers systems, such as solar arrays (Impact -
  4, Likelihood 3)
• Mitigation More analysis needed to determine how
  much this will really effect the instruments

44
Project Schedule
45
Project Life Cycle
46
Organization Chart
NASA Program Office
(NPO)
Advisory Board
PI, Chair
Dean, PI's U.
Science Team
Principal Investigator
Dir For PFP, JPL
VP, S/C IP
- Algorithm Development
- Science Data Reduction SW
Project Manager
- Science Data System
JPL
- Science Data Processing
- Education Outreach
- Planning
Safety Mission Assurance
Business Manager
- Resource Analysis
JPL
JPL
- Schedule Analysis
- Earned Value Mgmt
Mission Design -
- Procurements
Project Systems Engineer
Reqmts. Doc. -
JPL
Flight Sys I/Fs -
L/V I/Fs -
Mission Design Manager
Instrument Manager
Flight System Manager
Mission Operations Manager
JPL
JPL
JPL
JPL
- Instrument Design
- Spacecraft Subcontracting
- Ground System Development
-Trajectory and Maneuver Design
- Instrument Fabrication
- Flight Operations
Fabrication Integration
- Mission Activity Coordination
- Instrument IT
- NASA Ground Station I/F
- Flight System IT
- Mission and Navigation Plans
- Operations Support
47
Work Breakdown Structure
48
Cost Estimation Process

• Cost Chair requests data from all subsystems
• The data are the parameters for equations in a
  cost model developed by Team X specialists using
  historical data
• These data are run through the cost model and
  tabulated
• The process is iterated until all subsystems are
  satisfied

49
Cost Assumptions

• Class B mission
• Cost Dollars are FY 2004
• Inflation rate 3.1
• We assumed a 97 learning curve for the landers
  and the EDL (Iearning curve equations
  incorporated into Team X models).

50
Expected Cost

• 572 M Expected Cost
• There is no single huge cost driver. The cost is
  spread roughly evenly among the different
  subsystems.
• The upper estimated bound of the cost is 686 and
  the lower estimated bound is 515.

51
Cost Breakdown
52
Mission Summary

• First global network of landers on Mars
• Addresses NASAs exploration goals
• Lay foundation for forecasting hazards and
  weather change for human exploration

53
Thank You

• Team X
• CoCo Karpinski and Anita Sohus
• JPL employees and facility managers
• PSSS

54
(No Transcript)
55
(No Transcript)