Preliminary Planning for an International Mars Sample Return Mission

1

Preliminary Planning for an International Mars
Sample Return Mission iMARS Working Group
2
This afternoons agenda
3
Introduction
David Beaty
4
iMARS Objective
Produce a plan for an internationalized MSR
From the iMARS Terms of Reference (source IMEWG)
The overarching goal of this activity is to
identify how international cooperation might
enable sample return from Mars, document the
existing state-of-knowledge on return of samples
from Mars, develop international mission
architecture options, identify technology
development milestones to accomplish a
multi-national mission, and determine potential
collaboration opportunities within the
architecture and technology options and
requirements, and current Mars sample return
mission schedule estimates of interested nations.
The activity will also identify specific national
interests and opportunities for cooperation in
the planning, design, and implementation of
mission-elements that contribute to sample
return. The Working Groups final product(s) is
expected to be a potential plan for an
internationally sponsored and executed Mars
sample return mission.
International Mars Architecture for the Return
of Samples
5
iMARSThe Team
31 primary participants, originating from three
sources. Within team discussions, all
participants treated equally
NOTE Participation was nominated by national
agencies.
6
iMARS Functional Organization, Processes

• Process Summary
• Start Sept. 2007
• Quarterly full meetings
• Lots of subteam telecon, e-mail, some subteam
  meetings
• IMARS Leadership Team Biweekly telecons

• Steering Committee
• David Parker, UK
• Bruno Gardini, ESA
• Doug McCuistion, NASA

• IMARS co-chairs
• David Beaty, USA
• Monica Grady, UK

• Engineering Subteam
• Denis Moura, CNES/ASI

• Facility/PP Subteam
• Gerhard Kminek, ESA

• Science Subteam
• Monica Grady, UK

Biweekly telecons
Biweekly telecons

• MEPAG ND-SAG
• Lars Borg
• Dave Des Marais
• Dave Beaty

CONCENTRATED TECHNICAL ANALYSES
Weekly telecons
7
Mission Rationale, Science Objectives, Samples
Needed to Achieve Objectives
David Beaty
8
MSR Mission Rationale

• Mars Sample Return (MSR) is an important mission
  for science because
• About half of the currently proposed
  investigations of Mars (e.g. MEPAGs list of 55
  investigations) could be addressed by MSR
• MSR is the single mission that would make the
  most progress towards the entire list.
• A significant fraction of these investigations
  could not be meaningfully advanced without
  returned samples.
• Mars meteorites are useful for some, but not all
  Mars questions.
• many key sample types are not represented
• The Mars meteorites are from unknown localities
  on Marsthe absence of sample context limits
  possible interpretation.
• After the recent phase of remote sensing
  observation from orbit (ODY, Mars Express, MRO),
  and the on-going surface missions (MER, Phoenix,
  MSL, ExoMars), the next step to make decisive
  advances in Mars exploration and prepare human
  missions is to analyze samples on the Earth with
  the most advanced techniques

9
Why Return Samples?

• There are three primary reasons why MSR would be
  of such high value to science.

1. Complex sample preparation, sample decisions
Image courtesy Dimitri Papanastassiou
Image courtesy Carl Allen
10
Why Return Samples?
2. Analysis Adaptability
3. Instrumentation

• Not limited by prior hypotheses

• Best accuracy/precision
• Diversityresults could be confirmed by alternate
  methods
• Instruments not limited by mass, power, V, T,
  reliability, etc.
• Calibration, positive and negative control
  standards
• Future instrument developments

UCLA MegaSIMS lab, courtesy Kevin McKeegan
.
JSC TEM lab, courtesy Lisa Fletcher
11
Relationship between Candidate Science Objectives
and Sample Types
12
Some Key Attributes of the Sample Collection

• Samples organized in suites
• Minimum necessary sample size/mass
• Minimum necessary number of samples
• Sample preservation needs (chemical, mechanical,
  and thermal)

13
Suites of samples are needed
Karatepe

• MSR would have its greatest value if the samples
  are organized into suites that represent the
  diversity of the products of various planetary
  processes.
• Similarities and differences between samples in a
  suite could be as important as the absolute
  characterization of a single sample
• The minimum number for a suite of samples is
  thought to be 5-8 samples.

Endurance Crater, July 19, 2004 (Opportunity
Sol 173)
Clark et al., 2005 (EPSL)
14
Sample size/mass

• The decision on sample size would be a trade
  between individual sample mass and total number
  of samples.
• If the samples are too small, a given sample
  could not be subdivided enough to meet the array
  of measurement and archiving requirements.
• If the samples are too big, their total number
  would be too small to satisfy minimum
  requirements for the diversity of the entire
  collection.
• Based on experience with Lunar and meteorite
  samples, iMARS has concluded that 10 grams per
  rock sample is a reasonable compromise.

Case History Martian meteorite QUE-94201 (mass
12.02 g)
QUE-94201
QUE has been subdivided into over 60 individual
samples, and analyzed by multiple laboratories.
Image courtesy Kevin Righter
15
Model of Minimum Number and Mass of Samples
16
Sample Preservation, Integrity, and Labeling

• Integrity of the samples must be preserved
• Samples must be labelled (to link to field
  context)
• Retain pristine nature of samples prior to
  arrival on Earth (including temp.)
• Samples would require secure and appropriate
  packaging to ensure that samples do not become
  mixed or contaminated

UNACCEPTABLE
Rock sample pulverized
Samples mixed
ACCEPTABLE
UNACCEPTABLE
Images courtesy Joy Crisp
Impact test, June 8, 2000 (max. dynamic load
3400 g, avg. 2290 g). 10 samples of basalt and
chalk in separate sample cache tubes with
tight-fitting Teflon caps. Many of the teflon
caps came off as a result of the impact.
Rock fractured
17
Science Strategy and Implementation
Monica Grady
18
Sampling Strategy

• Achieving the scientific objectives of MSR would
  be critically dependent on the samples collected
• Sample collection mechanism must be able to
• reach specified samples
• collect different types of material
• rock samples, granular materials (regolith, dust)
  and atmospheric sample(s)
• single cores to depths of 5 cm below the surface
• Would require mobility, moving from landing site
  to sampling site(s)
• Ability to rove beyond its landing site, carry
  out a sample-acquisition traverse, and return to
  the lander
• Rover must be able to visit multiple locations
  within a single landing site

Opportunity Landing Site
19
Scientific Sample Selection

• Effective sample selection would require
• sufficient knowledge of characteristics of
  candidate samples
• field context of the samples
• Several measurements made in situ would aid in
  identifying samples for collection, and would add
  value to the collected samples by providing
  context

Measurement Purpose of Measurement
High quality colour panoramic imaging identify samples of interest determine local geological context
Microscopic imaging resolution of 10s of microns (or better) examine rock and sediment textures
Mineralogy discriminate one rock from another establish geologic context of the samples
Measurements of elemental abundance essential for understanding the range of variability within a field site identifying the effects of geologic processes.
Reduced carbon measurements essential for understanding prebiotic chemistry, habitability, and life ppm-level sensitivity may be sufficient for screening for sample selection on Mars
Rock Abrasion Tool essential for characterizing the rocks many rocks have dusty or weathered surfaces
20
Sample Types Rocks
SEDIMENTARY

• IGNEOUS

Melas Chasma
Humphrey
Endurance Crater
Upper unit
Backstay
Middle unit
Lower unit
Irvine
Elizabeth Mahon 72 SiO2
HYDROTHERMAL
Images courtesy Hap McSween, John Grotzinger
21
Sample Acquisition 1 Rock Samples

• In order to maximize the scientific value of rock
  samples, the rover-based sample acquisition
  system should be able to
• Take samples from outcrops where the geologic
  context is well-known, and also from loose rocks
  of interest.
• Sample both the weathered exterior and
  unweathered interior.

• Sample specific sites (e.g. designated beds
  within a stratigraphic sequence, such as the
  Burns Cliff at Meridiani Planum).
• Deliver samples of an appropriate size and form
• Sampling
• A mini-corer capable of accessing unweathered
  terrains and acquiring small samples.
• Current estimate of minimum required depth is 5
  cm (TBC)

RAT on Opportunity
Image courtesy Steve Ruff
22
Sample Types Regolith
Soil with a salty chemistry dominated by
iron-bearing sulfates. These salts may record the
past presence of water.
Spirit, 01-12-06 sol 721
Ordinary regolith
Basaltic sand
Soil target El Dorado, Spirit
Sol114A_P2561_1_True_RAD.jpg
Soil target "Gertrude Weise, Spirit, March 29,
2007 sol 1187
Most patches of disturbed, bright soil in Gusev
are rich in sulfur, but this one has very little
sulfur and is about 90 percent silica.
Images courtesy Steve Ruff and Oded Aharonson
23
Sample Acquisition Regolith and Dust
Sol589A_P2559_1_False_L257.jpg

• Regolith/dust samples
• Need an effective way to collect granular
  materials (e.g., scoop)

For Opportunity, the estimated net dust thickness
after one year was 1 to 10 microns (reflects both
additions and removal).
Image courtesy Steve Ruff
False-color Pancam image that shows thin dust
drifts at the top of Husband Hill.
24
Sample Acquisition Atmosphere

• Atmospheric gas sample sufficient gas for robust
  analyses
• Gas sample must be isolated from the rock,
  regolith, and dust samples
• Minimum 10 cm3 at a pressure of 0.5 bar
  (probably requires compression of gas sample)

Gas Analysis Sample Container (GASC) used on
Apollo 11 and 12 to sample lunar atmospheric
gases.   
JSC gas analysis lab (Image courtesy Don Bogard)
25
MSR Landing Site Selection
Nili Fossae Trough

• The choice of landing site would play a critical
  role in determining which of these objectives,
  and the level of detail, could be supported.
• We need to start preparing for landing site
  selection now, while valuable orbital assets are
  functional.
• Trade-off between ease of access and scientific
  value
• 30 latitude would allow for a wide variety of
  targets
• Special regions judged not to be necessary to
  achieve minimum acceptable science.

Image courtesy Scott Murchie
26
Science Management Plan
Monica Grady
27
Planning for Sample Science

• A significant challenge for an international MSR
  would be the process by which a large, diverse,
  international science team would be managed
• How would international participation in the
  following critical science-related decisions be
  managed?

EXAMPLE SCIENCE DECISION Sub-division and
allocations for part of Mars meteorite QUE-94201

• where to land,
• which samples to collect,
• Mars surface operations strategy, and its
  relationship to risk management
• subdivision of the samples once back on Earth
• allocation of the samples
• Would require an international oversight body
  that includes
• international and technical diversity
• budget decision-makers

• scientists, engineers, strategic planners, and
  managers
• Proposal for International MSR Science Institute
  (IMSI)

28
Proposed MSR Science Process Roadmap
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
MAV launch
Lander Launch
Earth Arrival
SRF Ground breaking
SRF Site(s) selection
Strategic guidance, oversight
IMSI
Public Outreach
POWG
Landing Site selection and certification
LSWG
Surface Operations and sample selection
SOWG
Sample Science, Preliminary examination
SSWG
Science
Selection
AO
PIs
Curation transition/operations
CWG
Sample allocation
MSASC
National entities would be involved in curation,
instrument development, laboratory upgrades,
sample management and analysis technology
29
DISCUSSION
30
Draft High-Level Requirements
Lisa May
31
Draft High-Level Requirements
Category Requirement
Sample types to meet science objectives MSR would have the capability to collect samples of rock, granular materials (regolith, dust) and atmospheric gas
Sample mass MSR would return a minimum of 500 g of sample mass
Sampling redundancy including contingency samples at landing site MSR would have both a rover-based sampling system and a lander-based sampling system
Sample encapsulation MSR would have the capability to encapsulate each sample in an airtight container to retain volatile components of solid samples with the associated solid samples and protect samples from commingling
Cache retrieval If Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) ends its mission in an accessible location with a cached sample on board, MSR should be designed to have the capability to recover the cache(s)
32
Draft High-Level Requirements (Contd)
Category Requirement
Horizontal mobility to acquire diverse samples needed to meet science objectives In order to sample various geological sites, MSR would have the ability to rove to the edge of its landing error ellipse (go-to capability), carry out a 2.5 km sample acquisition traverse, then return to the lander.
Landing site latitude range MSR would be able to access landing sites within /- 30 deg latitude
Planetary protection All MSR flight and ground elements would meet the planetary protection requirements established by COSPAR an MSR mission is classified as category V, restricted Earth return
International cooperation MSR mission planning would enable international cooperation
Timing The launch of Lander Composite would be no later than 2020.
33
Reference MSR Architecture
Alain Pradier
34
Proposed Reference MSR Architecture

• SEVERAL KEY FACTORS SET THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE
  PROPOSED MSR ARCHITECTURE
• No direct return to Earth from Mars surface
• must split flight mission at some point
• ? creating 2 flight elements
• Current launcher capability
• 1 launch of both flight elements not currently
  possible
• ? 2 launchers
• Mass domino effect
• Two key elements, Earth return capsule and Mars
  ascent vehicle, lie at the end of long delta-V
  chains
• ? the masses of these elements are critical
  drivers of the overall mission

1
2
split
35
Proposed MSR Architecture - Launch
Mars Surface
Mars Atmosphere
Mars Orbit
Earth
Lander Composite Atlas A 551 (candidate)
Orbiter Composite Ariane 5 ECA (candidate)
Control Mission Centres and Stations
36
Proposed MSR Architecture - Arrival
Mars Surface
Entry, Descent Landing
Mars Atmosphere
Entry Descent Stage, Direct Entry
Mars Cruise Stage
Mars Orbit
Orbiter (Aerobraking)
Earth
Lander Composite Atlas A 551 (candidate)
Orbiter Composite Ariane 5 ECA (candidate)
Orbiter Aerobraking (NASA-MRO shown)
Control Mission Centres and Stations
37
Proposed MSR Architecture - Surface
Mars Surface
Surface Sampling Operations
Mars Sampling Rover
Mars Lander
Mars Atmosphere
Mars Ascent Vehicle
Entry Descent Stage, Direct Entry
Mars Cruise Stage
Mars Orbit
Orbiter (Aerobraking)
Mars Ascent Vehicle Launch
Earth
Lander Composite Atlas A 551 (candidate)
Orbiter Composite Ariane 5 ECA (candidate)
Control Mission Centres and Stations
38
Proposed MSR Architecture - Return
Mars Surface
Mars Sampling Rover
Mars Lander
Mars Atmosphere
Mars Ascent Vehicle
Entry Descent Stage, Direct Entry
Mars Cruise Stage
Expended MAV
Sample Container
Mars Orbit
Orbiter Captures Sample Container
Orbiter (Aerobraking)
Expended Propulsion Module
Diverted ERV
Earth Return Vehicle
Earth
Lander Composite Atlas A 551
Orbiter Composite Ariane 5 ECA
Sample Receiving and Curation Facilities
Control Mission Centres and Stations
39
Proposed MSR Architecture Earth Entry Recovery
Mars Surface
Mars Sampling Rover
Mars Lander
Mars Atmosphere
Mars Ascent Vehicle
Entry Descent Stage, Direct Entry
Mars Cruise Stage
Expended MAV
Sample Container
Mars Orbit
Orbiter Captures Sample Container
Orbiter (Aerobraking)
Expended Propulsion Module
Diverted ERV
Earth Return Vehicle
Earth
Lander Composite Atlas A 551 (candidate)
Orbiter Composite Ariane 5 ECA (candidate)
Earth Entry Vehicle
Control Mission Centres and Stations
Sample Receiving and Curation Facilities
40
Mission Analysis
Frank Jordan
41
Sample Return Mission Studies Background

• 1998-1999 Partnership NASA, CNES, ASI for
  mission launch in 2003-2005
• 2000-2006 NASA studies with U.S. industry
• 2003-2007 ESA studies with European industry
• 2007-2008 IMARS study

iMARS study has built on the past studies and has
reached a consensus on reference mission design
features
42
Mission Design Issues / Design Assumptions
Number of flight elements At least two Orbiter / Earth Return 3500 4000 kg Lander / Mars Ascent 4300 4800 kg
Reference launch vehicles Lander U.S. Atlas V 551 Orbiter Europe Ariane 5 ECA
Sequence of flights Orbiter, then Lander / Lander, then Orbiter/ same opportunity
Earth-to-Mars / Mars-to-Earth trajectories Direct flights (transit times less than a year) for lander. Orbiter may need Earth swingby with transit times more than a year.
Lander atmosphere entry Direct from transit trajectory
Orbiter achievement of Mars orbit Propulsive ?V to high Mars orbit, aerobraking to low Mars orbit, propulsion staging
Sample collection on surface Accurate landing for ease of mobility to compelling sample sites Rover with site characterization instruments and coring Lander-based sampling system
Sample return to orbiter Mars ascent vehicle and rendezvous/capture in orbit
Sample return from Mars orbit to Earths surface Propulsive ?V to Earth-vicinity transit trajectory Surface landing
43
Analysis of MSR Mission Options (Lander TC from
MSR orbiter)
Abbreviations A/b aerobraking DT
Direct Transfer (no Earth swing-by)
RdV Rendezvous and Capture IFO
In-flight operations.
44
Analysis of MSR Mission Options (Lander TC from
another mission)
The one considered later on
45
Landing Accuracy (1 of 2)
46
Landing Accuracy (2 of 2)
Capabilities vs concepts
47
Holden Crater Candidate MSL Site
Sampling Strategy Impact on Science
Area of Sampling Interest
MSL
MSR
48
Surface Exploration for Go To Sites
A Petal architecture 700 sols B Linear
architecture 385 sols
50m
500m
Science suites (5 cores per suite)
A
Lander MAV
Cores
B
Landing accuracy, 0 to 3kmsemi-major axis of the
landing ellipse
Smooth terrain 100 m/sol traverse
Rough terrain 35 m/sol traverse
49
Protecting the Earth, Mars, and the Samples
Gerhard Kminek
50
Planetary Protection Policy
Preserve planetary conditions for future
biological exploration avoid forward
contamination To protect Earth and its
biosphere from potential harmful extraterrestrial
sources of biological contamination avoid
backward contamination
51
Avoid Forward Contamination of Mars

• Numerical bioburden limits exist in international
  policy and national implementation requirements
• Size and complexity of the MSR flight system
  might require terminal sterilization prior to
  launch
• Even if a terminal system-level sterilization of
  the flight system were not necessary to meet the
  planetary protection requirements, general
  bioburden and (re)contamination control would
  affect the material and process selection,
  design, model philosophy and qualification
  program to a greater extent than a traditional
  one-way mission to Mars

2003 Beagle II
1975 Viking
1996 Mars Pathfinder
2007 Phoenix
52
Planetary Protection Policy
Preserve planetary conditions for future
biological exploration avoid forward
contamination Protect Earth and its biosphere
from potential harmful extraterrestrial sources
of biological contamination avoid backward
contamination
53
Avoid Back Contamination of Earth

• Requires breaking the chain of contact
• After samples are contained, engineering design
  and mission operation must break the chain of
  contact between Mars and the Earth
• This has to be taken into account for the
  interface design between flight elements
• End-to-end risk assessment to release martian
  material into the Earth environment
• Requires highly reliable sample containment
  throughout all mission phases, including
• Earth entry and landing
• Transport of the returned hardware and samples to
  an SRF
• Throughout operations carried out in the SRF
  until declared safe for release
• Numerical requirements exist in draft form
• Review, approval and release of these
  requirements is necessary to support further
  planning

54
Planetary Protection vs Mission Elements
Mars Surface
Mars Sampling Rover
Mars Lander
Mars Atmosphere
Mars Ascent Vehicle
Entry Descent Stage, Direct Entry
Mars Cruise Stage
Expended MAV
Sample Container
Mars Orbit
Orbiter Captures Sample Container
Orbiter (Aerobraking)
Expended Propulsion Module
Diverted ERV
Earth Return Vehicle
Earth
Lander Composite Atlas A 551 (candidate)
Orbiter Composite Ariane 5 ECA (candidate)
Earth Entry Vehicle
Control Mission Centres and Stations
Sample Receiving and Curation Facilities
55
Sample Receiving Facility
Health Protection Agency, UK
Has to provide containment and preservation of
returned flight hardware samples containment
equivalent to BSL-4 protect samples from Earth
contamination Has to allow execution of
planetary protection protocol preliminary
characterization and subsampling biohazard
assessment and life detection

• Robotic systems might be a good choice as an
  integral part of the sample handling chain
• A capability to decontaminate flight hardware,
  equipment used in the high-containment zone, and
  the samples must be provided
• Potential international character of SRF
  management
• Because of the public visibility and sensitivity
  related to the SRF public involvement and
  communication is of great importance
• SRF site should be in proximity to a relevant
  research environment
• Site selection and approval process with legal
  authorities could take several years

Winnipeg, Canada
56
Sample Curation Facility

• Has to provide physical security for the samples
• Proper curation of martian samples brought to
  Earth by spacecraft would require one or more
  dedicated laboratories and associated staff
• Could be stand-alone or dedicated curation
  laboratories associate with the SRF(s)
• Stringent requirements for sample storage
• and handling
• Dividing sample sets might improve overall
• sample security and take advantage of
• specific international expertise

Apollo sample handling, JSC
57
Planetary Protection Summary

• Planetary protection is about safe solar system
  exploration and preservation of our investment in
  scientific exploration
• Protecting the martian samples from terrestrial
  contamination throughout all mission phases
  breaking the chain between Mars and Earth would
  introduce considerable complexity in the mission
  design for MSR
• contamination control on sub-system and system
  level is beyond one-way missions
• The sample receiving facility would be a long
  lead item that has to be addressed in the
  pre-project phase
• full development, approval and commissioning
  would cover one decade
• Ground facilities (i.e., containment and
  curation) would of necessity be long-term
  investments
• Communication with the public of particular
  importance with respect to the sample containment
  facility

58
(No Transcript)
59
Flight and Ground System Summary
Denis Moura
60
MSR Baseline Architecture
Mars Surface
Mars Sampling Rover
Mars Lander
Mars Atmosphere
Mars Ascent Vehicle
Entry Descent Stage, Direct Entry
Mars Cruise Stage
Expended MAV
Sample Container
Mars Orbit
Orbiter Captures Sample Container
Orbiter (Aerobraking)
Expended Propulsion Module
Diverted ERV
Earth Return Vehicle
Earth
Lander Composite Atlas A 551 (candidate)
Orbiter Composite Ariane 5 ECA (candidate)
Earth Entry Vehicle
Control Mission Centres and Stations
Sample Receiving and Curation Facilities
61
Baseline Composite 1 (landing parts associated
carrier)
Part 1
Building blocks
Functional description
Tech. Development need
62
Baseline Composite 1 (landing parts associated
carrier)
Part 2
Building blocks
Functional description
Tech. Development need
63
Baseline Composite 2 (orbiting return parts)
Part 1
Building blocks
Functional description
Tech. Development need
64
Baseline Composite 2 (orbiting return parts)
Part 2
Building blocks
Functional description
Tech. Development need
65
iMARS Proposed Ground Segment
Building blocks
Functional description
Tech. Development need
66
DISCUSSION
67
Development Timeline
Denis Moura
68
Proposed Development Timeline

• An MSR mission realized within an international
  framework would face difficulty in coordination
  and synchronization between the Orbiter and
  Lander Composite engineering and development
  activities.
• In addition, two options might be defined based
  on the availability (or not) of telecommunication
  support from another orbiter mission in place
  during the Lander Composites arrival at Mars.
• In addition, it is recognized that approval and
  development of the Sample Receiving Facility/ies
  would also be complex and long.
• The iMARS working group has thus defined the
  following possible tentative development plans.

69
MSR Potential Timeline
Mission analysis scenario 5 (lander TC support
from another mission)
70
Associated Technology Maturation Plan
71
Investment Plan
Lisa May
72
Near-term Investment

• MSR mission costs estimated from 4.5B8B or
  B3B5.3
• Rough-order-of-magnitude estimate based on
• Past MSR studies
• Actual cost data from recent Mars missions (Mars
  Exploration Rovers, MSL, ExoMars)
• Require further development of a reliable
  estimate
• End-to-end costs and funding requirements for an
  international MSR
• Depends on final architecture, participants, and
  partnership structure
• Nations, agencies, and institutions could start
  to plan participation
• Near-term investment would be based on long-lead
  technologies and associated with building blocks
• Technologies must be proven in a relevant
  environment prior to the applicable PDR dates
• TRL 6 System/subsystem model or prototype
  demonstration in a relevant environment (ground
  or space)
• Requires early investment and invites parallel
  development.

73
Building Blocks with Near-Term Technology Needs
(1 of 2)
Proposed Orbiter Composite 2019 launch TRL 6 need date early CY 2015
Earth Entry Vehicle (EEV) Sample thermal protection End-to-end system tests
Rendezvous Capture System Low-light detection Autonomy
Sample Containment and Verification Robust verification technologies for sealing and containment
Proposed Lander Composite 2020 launch TRL 6 need date late CY 2015
Lander, including EDL Precision landing Hazard avoidance Sample transfer system Forward planetary protection
Rover Mobility and autonomy Sample encapsulation and transfer system
Sample Acquisition Rover Coring tools
Sample Acquisition Lander Sampling tools Sample encapsulation and transfer system
74
Building Blocks w Near-Term Technology Needs (2
of 2)
Proposed Lander Composite (contd) 2020 launch TRL 6 need date late CY 2015
Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV) Propellant and materials for long-duration storage and performance in Mars environment Launch from low-mass landed platform
Sample Container Orbital detection Reliable containment
Proposed Ground Facilities TRL 6 need by CY 2013
Ground Recovery and Transport Safe transportation technology
Sample Receiving Facility(ies) (SRF) Sample handling in containment with strict contamination control
75
Summary, Conclusions, Next Steps
David Beaty
76
Summary of Primary Conclusions

• The first MSR mission would make a significant
  contribution to many fundamental scientific
  questions.
• Scientific return would depend on the character,
  diversity, and quality of the samples returned.
• Critical technologies would need new development
• Require substantial effort in the short/medium
  terms to reach a correct maturity level in the
  early phases of the project.
• Planetary protection challenges for an MSR
  mission would be beyond those encountered for
  one-way Mars missions. There would be some
  significant technological planetary protection
  challenges, including aseptic sample transfer,
  redundant containment of the flight system, and
  biohazard assessment after the samples return to
  Earth.
• Implementation of planetary protection and
  contamination control requirements for the
  end-to-end mission system is critical

77
Summary of Primary Conclusions

• Existing launch capabilities in NASA and ESA
  would be sufficient
• Two launch vehicles would be mandatory
• Other systems in development, especially for
  ExoMars and MSL, could be used for MSR
• MSR could be divided into separate elements to be
  considered for funding by different international
  entities
• Who does what? is not something iMARS could
  resolve on its own
• With adequate resources and responsive decision
  making, the first MSR mission could be started in
  2013 (phase B start)
• Would launches around 2020
• Receiving a sample back on Earth 3 years later

78
Forward PlanningOrganizational

• Organize into three subteams
• Engineering
• Science (re-form, using a Nominating Committee)
• Earth Operations
• Specific recommendations have been made for each
  of the above three subteams
• Planetary Protection Officers as ex
  officiocarefully manage the boundary between
  setting of policy and implementation of policy

79
Forward PlanningGeneral

• Request IMEWG approval of iMARS Phase II, up to
  start of Phase 0
• General objectives
• Consolidate current basics such as high-level
  requirements and the reference architecture
• Respond to details regarding international
  aspects of this mission when known
• Refine science and engineering sensitivities
• Assess trade-offs between cost and value to
  optimize the flight, Earth, and on-Mars systems
• Improve confidence in current cost estimates
• Define mechanism to engage potential participants
  and to assess degree of interest and
  appropriateness of technical capabilities
• Further understanding of mission components that
  different financial and implementation entities
  could take on
• Clarify interfaces between these components and
  establish processes for interface management
• Identify candidate, common approaches to managing
  the risks associated with an international MSR
  mission

80
Forward PlanningEngineering Subteam

• Further define building blocks and functional
  requirements
• Refine mass, performance, and other requirements
• Depends on independent efforts of MSR
  participants
• Further analyze the planetary protection and
  contamination control implementation
  options/requirements
• Iterate on surface operations strategies in
  conjunction with mission and system studies
• Consolidate engineering and technology efforts of
  MSR participants into overall international MSR
  architecture and requirements
• Update technology challenges and needed
  capabilities (timeline, strategies...)
• Address open issues such as reqt for precursor
  mission(s), ITAR, organization for Phase 0
• Address relevance to human missions

81
Forward PlanningScience Subteam

• Develop draft Science Management Plan
• Includes IMSI definition/proposal
• Begin landing-site selection process
• Identify dedicated observations with current
  assets
• Refine open questions re lander-based sampling
  system
• Surface operations planning, impact on
  requirements
• Update contamination requirements
• Address sample measurements and instrument
  requirements for Earth-based laboratories

82
Forward PlanningEarth Operations Subteam

• Restructuring subteam from planetary protection
  and facilities to Earth Operations
• Focus on requirements definition
• Earth landing site ops
• Earth surface transportation
• SRF functional requirements
• Curation

83
General Discussion
Doug McCuistion, Bruno Gardini