Dynamic Mars: Activity, Transport and Change Strategic Goals for the 2013 Mars Science Orbiter

Overview
June 7, 2007

Report of the Mars Science Orbiter Science Analysis Group MSO SAG-2
Wendy Calvin, Chair

Mars Science Orbiter (MSO 2013) MEPAG Science Analysis Group Activity
Science Analysis Group (SAG-1) Chaired by C. B. Farmer
History: SAG-1 Current Study: SAG-2

Recommended Aeronomy and Trace Gas Measurements

Emphasized characterization of loss of water to space through the upper Mars atmosphere. Complemented by measurements of key biogeochemical gases (e.g., methane,ethane, etc.) in the lower Mars atmosphere, possibly identifying local areas for future landed exploration. Cost of mission, with straw-man payload, included in 2006 POP guidelines (carried over to 2007).

Follow-up
Two Mars Scout teams, both focusing on the upper atmosphere processes and escape to space, were selected for a head-to-head competition for the 2011 launch opportunity. A new Science Analysis Group was formed to re-evaluate options for the 2013 launch opportunity.

The New Study for MSO Science Analysis Group (SAG-2) Chaired by W. M. Calvin
Charter:
MRO-class spacecraft

Review concepts for MSO 2013 including, but not limited to: - Trace Gas Investigation (including work from SAG-1) - Imaging (1-meter/pixel class or better to support future missions) - Orbital Geophysics - Combination with a landed (drop-off) package Goal: Identify MRO-Class Missions with outstanding science and with scientific feed-forward to future near-term missions

MEPAG

MSO SAG 2 Final

Mars Science Orbiter (MSO 2013) MEPAG Science Analysis Group: SAG-2 Activity
Process
MSO Attributes: 10-year lifetime for telecom, MRO-Class Mission Group held weekly telecons, augmented by subgroup telecon meetings. Subgroups organized along discipline lines to develop key science questions, traceable to MEP goals and objectives: - Atmospheres, Polar, Geology/Geophysics, Landed Geophysics Several science themes considered with agreement on 3 final mission scenarios, each of which addresses an overall theme of Dynamic Mars: Activity, Transport, and Change: Plan A: Atmospheric Signatures and Near-Surface Change Plan P: Polar and Climate Processes Plan G: Geological and Geophysical Exploration A Core-Mission-Concept providing a good balance of in-depth focus and cross-disciplinary reach was defined for each scenario. Cost/mass option space was explored by considering options which either augmented or reduced the scope of the core concept. One core concept and two augmented options included a landed drop-off package with the following science: Geophysics (seismology, tracking for geodynamics, heat flow), Meteorology

Final Report
Discussed with MEPAG Chairs and MEP Lead Scientist for Mars Posted on MEPAG website: http://mepag.jpl.nasa.gov/reports/index.html

1 June 2007

MEPAG

MSO SAG 2 Final

MSO SAG-2 Members

Wendy M. Calvin, Chair - University of Nevada, Reno Mark Allen, Jet Propulsion Laboratory/Caltech W. Bruce Banerdt, Jet Propulsion Laboratory/Caltech Don Banfield, Cornell University Bruce A. Campbell, Smithsonian Institution Phil R. Christensen, Arizona State University Ken S. Edgett, Malin Space Science Systems (resigned 4/18/07) Bill M. Farrell, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Kate E. Fishbaugh, International Space Science Institute Jim B. Garvin, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center John A. Grant, Smithsonian Institution Alfred S. McEwen, University of Arizona Christophe Sotin, University of Nantes Tim N. Titus, U. S. Geological Survey Daniel Winterhalter Jet Propulsion Laboratory/Caltech (Study Scientist) Richard W. Zurek, Jet Propulsion Laboratory/Caltech (Mars Program Office)

MEPAG

MSO SAG 2 Final

Plan A: Atmospheric Signatures & Near-Surface Change

 Motivation:

Follows up on recent reports of methane and active gullies Measure with great sensitivity a suite of trace gases whose signatures may reveal subsurface geochemical and/or biochemical activity Identify source regions through direct observation and by model inversion constrained by concurrent atmospheric data Extend the climatological record from MGS, ODY, and MRO Continue to characterize surface changes Abundances of key trace gases including, but not limited to, methane Winds as well as profiles of dust, temperature and water vapor Imaging with sub-meter resolution and high signal-to-noise (preferred for science and landing site characterization) Gully in Hale crater,
MRO-HiRISE (U Az)

Strategy:

Key measurements:

Feed-forward:

Landing site certification and atmospheric environment characterization Identification of potential landing sites for astrobiological or detailed geochemical studies

AFL, Mid-Range Rovers, MSR

Synergistic with concurrent landed network science

MEPAG

MSO SAG 2 Final

Plan P: Polar and Climate Processes



Motivation:

Follows up on observations of active erosion of the residual south CO2 cap, of the diverse structures of the polar layered terrain, and of varied properties of seasonal volatile deposits Measure the volume and density of seasonal and interannual change in volatile deposits Characterize the radiative energy balance, particularly of the seasonal and residual polar caps Extend the stratigraphic record from MGS, ODY, and MRO, particularly of the polar layers Continue to characterize surface changes Precise elevation and volume of seasonal and residual volatile deposits Winds as well as temperature, composition and albedo for energy balance and transport Imaging with sub-meter resolution and high signal-to-noise (preferred for science and landing site characterization) Landing site certification and atmospheric environment characterization Identification of potential landing sites at high latitudes for future exploration

Strategy:

Key measurements:

Feed-forward:

Mid-Range Rovers, MSR High-latitude Network Station

MEPAG North polar stratigraphy, MRO-HiRISE (U Az) MSO SAG 2 Final

Synergistic with landed network science

Plan G: Geological and Geophysical Exploration



Motivation:

Fill the gap regarding subsurface and internal processes Explore synergy between orbital instruments and a single landed geophysical package Two themes: Ancient Climate Change and Near-Surface Change Today Characterize structure in the upper few meters of the Mars crust; observe thru dust mantles Extend the stratigraphic record from MGS, ODY, and MRO and continue to characterize surface gullies, debris flows, etc. Explore the structure and activity of the Martian interior with a landed geophysical package o Even a single station can characterize present subsurface activity and structure Imaging the upper few meters of ground Imaging with sub-meter resolution and high signal-to-noise (preferred for science and landing site characterization) Landed geophysical package with (in priority order) seismometer, ranging for geodynamics, and heat flow experiment

Strategy:

Key measurements:

Inclusion of an integrated meteorological package provides important cross-discipline capability

Feed-forward:

Landing site certification and subsurface structure characterization Identification of potential landing sites for future exploration

Mid-Range Rovers, MSR Guide development and strategy of network station instrumentation
MEPAG Recent Impact, MRO HiRISE (U AZ) MSO SAG 2 Final

Direct feed-forward to landed network science

Mars Science Orbiter (MSO) 2013 Science Rationale

Science Thrusts Atmosphere/Surface MEPAG Science Themes
Past and Present Habitability Modern Water Cycle Current Climate Activity

MSO Science Goals

Atmospheric Signatures of Subsurface Activity
Biotic or Geochemical?

Feed-Forward Science: Astrobiology Atmospheric Transport Surface Change Today Missions: AFL, MSR Mid-Range Rovers

DYNAMIC MARS: Activity, Transport and Change

Surface Change
Changes in Geomorphology

Geology/Geophysics

Tectonic Activity on Mars Geological History of Water on Mars Past and Present Climates

Seismic Activity
Crustal activity and Dynamics

Surface Change
Change in Geomorphology

Science: Ancient Climate Change Surface Change Today Missions: Network, MSR Mid-Range Rovers

Subsurface Structure
What lies beneath the dust mantle?

Polar/Climate

Polar Mass and Energy Budgets Polar Processes Today Geologically Recent Climate Change

Ice Cap Volume

Volatile Inventory

Dynamics of Volatile Exchange

Polar Energy Balance

Stratigraphy

Science: Modern Climate Change Volatile Inventory Polar Processes Missions: Polar AFL or Station Mid-Range Rovers, MSR

Credits: NASA/JPL and MRO CTX & MARCI (MSSS), MRO HiRISE (UA), MGS MOC (MSSS), M. Allen (JPL) MEPAG

MSO SAG 2 Final

Final Mission Scenarios

MSO Scenarios Solar occ FTIR Sub-mm spec MARCI like imager TIR spec (TES/MCS) HiRISE class imager (HCI) Multi-Beam Lidar Altimeter Radio Sci, Ultra Stable Osc. Multi-spec SWIR/TIR MOC+ 1m res Camera Syn Ap Radar (no ded. Antenna) Landed Seismo Precision Tracking -X-band DTE trnspd Landed Heat Flow Landed Met Package kg 42 35 1 10 65 32 1 30 20 45 2.4 1.5 2.4 3.2 Reduced Core Concept Augmented Alt. Augmented $M kg 35 35 1 12 45 30 5 30 25 40 8 10 5 5 Plan A $M 42 35 35 35 1 1 10 12 65 45 * kg Plan P $M 35 1 10 65 32 1 30 20 45 35 1 12 45 30 5 30 25 40 kg Plan G $M 42 35 1 10 65 1 12 45

Orbiter

** *

20 45 2.4 1.5 2.4 3.2 108 153 198 163

25 * 40 8 5 5 13 108 128 168 159

** *

30 45 2.4 1.5 2.4 3.2 121 151 193

30 40 8 5 5 13 98 147 182

Lander

Totals

99 164 209

108 146 186

* or ** indicates substitution of instrument in reduced science scenario

Atmospheric Signatures and Near-Surface Change Descopes imaging capability Trace gas, Atm. Monitor + dynamic Hi-res. Imaging SAR imaging Landed Sci

Climate & Polar Processes Descopes imag. & composition Polar monitoring Atm winds Hi Res imaging and composition SAR Imaging

Geological and Geophysical Exploration Descopes landed sci. & compos. High-res. Imag. + SAR imaging, Landed sci. + composition Trace gases Landed Payload kg $M 9.5 31 Lander delivery system & Orbiter accommodation costs not included

Note: Plans A and P have different desires for orbit inclination (sun drifting and sun fixed).

Cost-Benefit Brackets: Core Concept: Best combination focused on Scenario Science Theme Reduced: Compromise needed (varies) to fit Cost Guidelines from SAG-1 Study Augmented: Broader investigation, but requires significant augmentation

MEPAG

MSO SAG 2 Final

Mars Science Orbiter (MSO) 2013 Example Mission Concept Description

MISSION DESIGN MSO OBJECTIVES
Science thrusts Atmosphere/Surface Geology/Geophysics Polar/Climate Infrastructure for future missions Landing site imaging 10 years telecom capability Critical event coverage Science data relay Example Payload Considered
* Imager (1 m/pixel)
Landing site imaging, science investigations

Launch November 2013 MOI Capture Orbit 300 X 34,000 km Aerobrake ~9 months Science Emphasis ~3 yrs, ~ 300 km Relay Emphasis ~7 yrs, ~400 km Target Launch Vehicle Atlas V 411 Launch Mass Capability 3510 kg

Prominent Features
Nadir instrument deck Payload Mass 160 kg w/contingency 14 Gbits per 8-hr pass, X and Ka 500 Gbits data storage 10-year Ka/X/UHF telecom Simple monopropellant propulsion 1500 W EOL power

PAYLOAD ELEMENT OPTIONS

* Trace Gas Instrument

Atmospheric constituents, sources, sinks

* Winds Instrument
3D vector field wind mapping

FLIGHT SYSTEM

* Thermal IR Spectrometer
Mineralogy, atmospheric gases, polar ice

* Wide Angle Camera

Global atmospheric monitoring & surface imaging

* Included in Concept Payload

(Reduced Plans fit Cost Guideline)

Potential Substitutions/Augmentations

NEAR-TERM MILESTONES
SDT AO Release MCR 6/15/07 - 9/15/07 2/08 5/08

Synthetic Aperture Radar

Shallow subsurface imaging

HiRISE-class Imager

Geology and polar monitoring

Multibeam High-res. Laser Altimeter

Polar volatile balance and global topography Seismology, geodynamics, meteorology, and heat flow

Drop-off Package

MRO-class spacecraft
MEPAG MSO SAG 2 Final

Conclusions and Findings (1 of 3)

SAG-2 did not prioritize among the 3 scenarios



Each scenario will return significant new information relevant to our understanding of Mars, its history and potential for life

Each scenario provides new orbiter remote sensing capabilities at Mars--no one orbiter can address all scenarios adequately. A landed drop-package can return significant science return even from a single station.

All three scenarios have implications for missions now being studied to follow MSO, though the implications differ in nature and degree depending on the scenario and the future mission

Imaging with sub-meter resolution and high signal-to-noise capability is needed for certification of future landing sites. Different scenarios provide different kinds and levels of characterization of other environmental factors (e.g., winds for EDL). All scenarios provide information (though of different types) needed for human exploration of Mars.

MEPAG

MSO SAG 2 Final

Conclusions and Findings (2 of 3)

SAG-2 Findings


The Core Mission and Augmented scenarios may range $2065M above the present cost guidelines: this requires some funding augmentation, a paring down of orbiter costs, or provision of a major component by international partners

All major payload elements, whether or not contributed, should be reviewed against the key measurement requirements. The maturity of the required instruments is likely to vary considerably and reserves should be scoped accordingly. The need for science team preparations for Phase E should not be overlooked for Phases B-D.

A core Mars mission should address key questions with innovative, synergistic capabilities

The Core Mission Concepts achieve this with the significant science gain enabled by the proposed augmentations to the cost guidelines. All resources should not be devoted principally to one element of the mission. This includes maintaining significant, innovative orbiter science should a droppackage be part of the mission.

MEPAG

MSO SAG 2 Final

Conclusions and Findings (3 of 3)

Immediate Programmatic Decisions Needed



Is the drop-package to be a key component of the MSO mission?

The character of the MSO mission is very different with and without this high-profile package. The landed payload must accommodate (i.e., provide funding and mass) a meaningful geophysical package and should carry an integrated meteorological package as well to justify its cost.

Which scenario should the Science Definition Team focus on?

All return great science--programmatic issues thus become the discriminators. Different science scenarios are likely to require different choices of mission parameters (e.g., orbit inclination).

What cost and mass resources will be baselined for MSO?

MEPAG

MSO SAG 2 Final

For More Details, see the full Report:

MEPAG MSO-SAG-2 (2007). Report from the 2013 Mars Science Orbiter (MSO) Second Science Analysis Group, 72 pp., posted June 2007 by the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group (MEPAG) at http://mepag.jpl.nasa.gov/reports/index.html.

This overview has been approved for public release by JPL Document Review Services (CL#07-1783 )