Date post: | 13-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | terence-hardy |
View: | 220 times |
Download: | 0 times |
NESS
Network of Environmental and Seismic Stations
NASA Solar System Roadmap
Objective 6Understand the current state and evolution of the ATMOSPHERE, surface, and INTERIOR of Mars
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
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
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
Science Objectives
Measurement Objectives Instrumentation
Requirements Data Products
Geophysics & Seismicity
1. Size and frequency of Mars-Quakes
Ideally, seismic measurements from
0.1mHz-100Hz and 0.1-1x10-8 m/s2 peak ground
acceleration
1 (3-axis) Very Broad Band Seismometer (0.1mHz-10Hz), 1 (3-axis) short period, high frequency
microseismometer (10Hz-100Hz).
4 Landers, good ground-coupling, 1 Earth year primary
mission to maximize
probability of Mars-quake detection
Continuous daytime collection and limited
nightime collection of 3-component (X,Y,Z)
seismograms from 2 seismometers on each
lander
2. Thickness and state of core, mantle, and crust
3. Variations of interior with latitude and longitude
4. Correlation of seismic activity with major geologic and tectonic features
Climate & Meteorology
1. Air pressure, temperature Atmospheric pressure: 1 mbar-14mbars,
temperature: 125-300K, Wind speed and
direction: 0.1-100 m/s, UV: 200-400nm
wavelength
(1) Phoenix or Mars Polar Lander-Type Meteorology
Package including: thermocouple, barometer,
anemometer and UV radiation sensor
1 Earth year to track seasonal
climatic variation at multiple locations
Continuous daytime collection and limited nightime collection of
atmospheric measurements
2. Wind speed and direction
3. UV Radiation
Geologic & Geomorphic Context
1. Images of landing site 3-color (RGB) stereo images at IFOV: 0.28
mrad at 1.5m to infinity. Subframed opacity
measurements with 4th neutral density sun filter.
(1) MER-Type Panoramic camera
Gimballed mast: 360o azimuth range,
+/- 90o elevation range
Image data2. Changes in landscape and atmospheric opacity with seasons
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
5N, 205E
20N, 320E
32S, 70E
30N, 135E
60 degree latitude, 360 degree longitude distributionLander elevations are below -0.2km
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
Mission Design
• Trades and alternative designs– 6 landers versus 4– Level of redundancy– Alternative landing sites– Entry of carrier
Mission Design
Launch vehicle (type): Delta 2925H
Flight schedule:
liftoff 25 Oct - 14 Nov 2011Mars arrival 12 Sep 2012
Ls 170
Flight performance:
trajectory Type 2
C3max 10.7
payloadmax 1217.5 kg
payloadactual 983 kg
Launch Vehicle Configuration
Cruise Configuration
Carrier Only
• Bus total = 314.5
• Spacecraft total = 982.9
• Payload total = 612.3
• Launch vehicle mass margin = 234.6
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
EDL Configuration
Lander Configuration
Lander Only
• Instrument mass + contingency = 5.5
• Total bus + contingency = 75.5
• Spacecraft total = 81.1
• 30%+ contingency
• More time=better defined mass, ex drill/instruments
Meteorological Package (from Mars Polar Lander/MPF )
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/MPF/mpf/sci_desc.html#ATMO
~855g855g
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/MPF/mpf/sci_desc.html#IMP
360deg. Panorama Camera
sharing the mast with Met package
~300g
Microphone(50g, 5.2cm×5.2cm×1.3cm)
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/sixthmars2003/pdf/3078.pdf
Seismological Package (from NETLANDER mission by ESA/NASA)
1.75kg
http://ganymede.ipgp.jussieu.fr/GB/projects/netlander/sismo/
Very Broad Band Seismometer (VBB)~800g
MicroSeismometer(SP/NB)
22-5mm,22-5mm,10mm×310-100HzResol:~10**-9 m/(s**2)/HZ**-1/2~100g
22-5mm,22-5mm,10mm×310**-4-10Hz, 10**-2-10Hz
(+BRB)VBB Axis JPL Axis
Evacuated Sphere
Data Return Strategy
TELECOM Hardware
A. Earth to Mars Transit• Redundant X-band Trans/Rec• 1 medium gain and 2 low gain antennae
B. Entry, Decent, and Landing• Electralite Trans/Rec• UHF, non-directional monopole• Comms with MTO
C. Landers• Electralite Trans/Rec• UHF, non-directional monopole• Comms with MTO
TWTA
X-band35W, RF
X-bandMGA Horn
X-BandDownconverter
SDST
command data to S/C CDS
Pro
cess
or
Ka-BandExciter
telemetry data from S/C CDS
X-BandExciter
CXS
X-BandDownconverter
SDST
command data to S/C CDS
Pro
cess
or
Ka-BandExcitertelemetry data
from S/C CDS
X-BandExciter
TWTA
X-band35W, RF
HYB
HYB
X-band LGA
WGTS
X-band LGA
NESS CARRIER
WGTS
Diplexer
Electra Lite
DIPL
cxs
UHF Monopole
UHF Monopole
NESS EDL
NESS LANDER
SOL 1 SOL 2 Avg 10 SOLS
58%
11%
14%
17%
38%28%
16%18%
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
25%
25%26%
24%
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
Cruise-Phase Power
• A 2 m2 fixed array powers the carrier – Supplies power to last lander for telecom, TCM’s, 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
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
Lander Array Power Estimation
• 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
Latitude
Orbital state (LS)
daily solar incidence per m2 during landed mission
Minimum solar flux day
Thermal Design Overview
RHU Temp
Sensors
Mylar Blankets
Heaters Thermo-
stat
Lander 9 30 7 5 5
EDL 0 30 15 10 20
Carrier 0 60 35 8 16
Need to keep instruments, parachutes, and propulsion tanks heated
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
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.
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
Public Engagement
Public Engagement“Today, America has a serious shortage of young people entering the fields of mathematics and science. This critical part of NASA’s 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 O’Keefe
Making Mars Real- Constructing a virtual experience as “psychologically real as someone’s backyard”
Sharing the Adventure- N.E.S.S. - An opportunity for us all to explore.
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
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
Overall Mission Risk Matrix
Likelihood
5
4 Sys:1 Sys:1 Sys:1 Sys:2
3 Tel:1
Cos:1, Ins:1,
Pow:1, Sci:1, Sys:1
Ins:2, Mis:1, Pow:1,
Str:1, Sys:2
Gro:1, Pow:1,
Ris:1, Sys:3
2 Ins:1, Sci:1Pow:1, Sys:1, The:2
Ins:2, Mis:1, Pow:1, Sys:1
EDL:2, Ins:3, Mis:3, Sof:1, Str:1,
Sys:2
ACS:1, Sci:1,
Sys:3, Tel:1
1
ACS:1, CDS:1,
Ins:2, Pro:2, The:2
ACS:1, Pro:1
ACS:1, Mis:1, Sci:1, Sys:1, Tel:1
Mis:1, Sci:2, Str:1, Sys:3,
Tel:2
ACS:3, Sci:2, Sof:1, Str:2, Sys:1
1 2 3 4 5
Impact
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 don’t 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)
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
Project Schedule
Project Life CyclePhase Start Date Duration Notes
Pre Phase A
Advanced Studies
12+ month instrument tech development
Phase A
Mission & System Definition
11/14/08 5 months
Phase B
Preliminary Design
4/16/09 5 months
Phase C
Design & Build
9/15/10 15 months Descope
saved 1 month
Phase D
Assembly Test & Launch Operations
12/14/10 12 months Descope
Saved 1 month
Phase E
Operations
1/5/12 21 months
Organization Chart
Advisory BoardPI, Chair
Dean, PI's U.Dir For PFP, JPL
VP, S/C IP- Algorithm Development- Science Data Reduction SW- Science Data System- Science Data Processing- Education & Outreach
- Instrument Design- Instrument Fabrication- Instrument I&T
- Spacecraft Subcontracting & Fabrication & Integration- Flight System I&T- Operations Support
- Ground System Development- Flight Operations- NASA Ground Station I/F
Mission Design -Reqmts. Doc. -
Flight Sys I/Fs -L/V I/Fs -
Science Team
- Planning- Resource Analysis- Schedule Analysis- Earned Value Mgmt- Procurements
-Trajectory and Maneuver Design- Mission Activity Coordination- Mission and Navigation Plans
Safety & Mission AssuranceJPL
Business ManagerJPL
Project Systems EngineerJPL
Mission Design ManagerJPL
Instrument ManagerJPL
Flight System ManagerJPL
Mission Operations ManagerJPL
Project ManagerJPL
Principal Investigator
NASA Program Office(NPO)
21
4
WBS Levels
NOTES
01.RE: Includes all Project reserves as a non-WBS item.
05: Use reserved elements 05.08 - 05.19 as needed for additionalinstruments and 05.21 - 05.29 as needed for additional technologypayloads.
05.03 and 06.03: Top level product assurance elements are used forsystem contracts providing more than one instrument or flight module
06.05: Use the WBS elements in 06.05 as the template for FlightSystem Modules that are implemented in-house at JPL.
06.06 Use the WBS elements in 06.06 as the minimum template forFlight System Modules that are implemented as System Contracts.Add selected WBS elements from 06.05 as needed for activitiesperformed by JPL.
06.07 - 06.10 : Use reserved elements 06.07 - 06.10 as needed foraddional Flight System Modules including Orbiters, Rovers, etc.
3 Proj Mgmt01.01
Business Mgmt01.02
Risk Mgmt01.03
Review Support01.04
Facilities01.05
Reserves01.RE
Proj Mgmt01
Proj Sys Eng02.01
Mission & Nav Dsgn02.02
Proj SW Eng02.03
eeis02.04
Info Sys Eng & Comm02.05
Config Mgmt02.06
Planetary Protection02.07
Launch Approval Eng02.08
Launch System Eng02.09
Project V&V02.10
Proj Sys Eng02
MA Mgmt03.01
Sys Safety03.02
Environ Eng03.03
Reliability Eng03.04
Parts Eng03.05
QA Eng03.06
SW IV&V03.07
Mission Ops Assur03.08
Mission Assurance03
Sci Mgmt04.01
Sci Implementation04.02
Sci Support04.03
Educ & Pub Outreach04.06
Science04
PS Mgmt05.01
PS Sys Eng05.02
PS Prod Assur05.03
PS CC and M&P05.04
Inst 105.05
VBB SeismometerNEtlander
Inst 205.06 (Contract)
Micro SeismometerJPL
Inst 305.07
GEO PhoneCommercial
Inst 405.08 - 05.19
MET PackJPL
Inst 505.20
Pan CamASU?
Common PS HW05.31
PS I&T05.32
Payload Sys05
FS Mgmt06.01
Reserved FS Modules06.07 - 06.10
FS Sys Eng06.02
FS Sys Testbeds06.11
FS Prod Assur06.03
FS I&T06.12
FS CC and M&P06.04
FS Module 206.06 (Sys Contract)
Flight Sys06
MOS Mgmt07.01
MOS Sys Eng07.02
Gnd Data Sys07.03
Inst MOS & GDS07.04
Operations07.05
MOS V & V07.06
Mission Ops Sys07
Launch Services08.01
Launch Syst08
MARS Lander S.S. 2004-2008NESS
Work Breakdown Structure
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
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).
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.
Cost Breakdown
Carrier
Instruments
Lander
EDL
ATLO
Launch Vehicle
Reserves
Other
Mission Summary
• First global network of landers on Mars
• Addresses NASA’s exploration goals
• Lay foundation for forecasting hazards and weather change for human exploration
Thank You
• Team X
• CoCo Karpinski and Anita Sohus
• JPL employees and facility managers
• PSSS