Mars Exploration Program

1. Mars Exploration Program MEPAG February 20, 2008 “Those who labor over robotic missions are some of the great explorers of our times, even though their feet never tread the soil of another world” National Academy of Science “Assessment of NASA’s Mars Architecture 2007-2016” Doug McCuistion Director, Mars Exploration Program NASA HQ

2. AGENDA • Key Accomplishments and Program Status • Mars Sample Return Progress • Mars Program R&A—Dr. Jim Green

3. Key Accomplishments • Scout--2011 • Phase A’s completed and Concept Study Reports received • During review, a conflict of interest was identified that resulted in a slip to 2013 • Selection planned September 2008 • ExoMars--2013 • ESA Implementation Review Board in May approved baseline mission • No orbiter but full 16.5kg payload—2 US instruments included • NASA provision of telecommunications, engineering (w/in ITAR constraints) and science adopted • Requested NASA provide landing site imagery and dust storm monitoring for landing • PDRs start in early to mid 2008 • Urey and MOMA selected for technology development as MoO’s under Scout AO • Tech development selections due to immaturity and 2-year ExoMars launch slip • Independent Assessment Panel chartered by HQ to work with UREY and MOMA • Focus is Technology Readiness Levels, budgets, etc. • Selection process and additional technology development in planning Mars Sample Return—2018+ • US Studies underway for FY10 POP process • Initiated International Mars Sample Return activities with formation of the International Mars Acquisition and Return of Samples (IMARS) working group • Bi-lateral meetings with ESA in addition to IMARS

4. Key Accomplishments • National Academies Solar System Assessment Report—Mars • Released in December 2007; Mars Program assessed against • 2003 New Frontiers in the Solar System (Decadal Survey) • 2003 Assessment of Mars Science and Mission Priorities • 2006 Assessment of Mars Architecture • Key recommendations: • Active planning for MSR In progress • Begin survey for astrobiological instrument technologies  Will occur with MSR work • Begin technology investments for MSR (SRF, sample handling, MAV)  In planning • Make a decision on 2016/18 missions  In progress • Community review of architecture to ensure sample value is worth mission cost  In progress

5. Mars Sample Return

6. Mars Sample Return Progress • Mars Sample Return is the Program’s major focus for the next decade • Objectives: • Develop affordable and successful first sample return mission • Ensure science value is worth the investment • Include international collaboration to enhance science, mitigate risk, and share costs • New planning for MSR started Fall ‘07 • Mars Exploration Program planning • Advisory groups • International cooperation • Significant efforts are underway to plan: • US-only mission capped at $3.5B • Internationally-dependent Mars sample return missions • IMARS international working group chartered by IMEWG • NASA-ESA bi-lateral activities

7. MSR’s Expanding International Nature • International interest in 2020 mission expanding: • NASA dates align with ESA Aurora Program MSR plans. • ESA considering adding caching to 2013 ExoMars mission. • NASA offered the MSL cache; ExoMars “real estate” limitations • ESA proposed a 2016 Mars MSR precursor mission to Programme board in Feb ‘08 • Initial funding request to November 2008 Ministerial • ESA’s Aurora Program contains MSR in 2020: • Largely aligns with NASA/MEP timing • NASA Leadership planned, with ESA partnership (30-40%) • IMARS provides opportunity for individual countries to participate in shaping an architecture and joining the partnership • The potentially paradigm-changing nature of sample return from Mars, and mission expense, lends itself to an international effort: • IMEWG-chartered working group (iMARS) is critical to solidifying plans, architectures, partnerships

8. Supporting Efforts for MSR Concepts • MEP planning • Established Program Executive and JPL/MPO Team • Overall planning, technology, architecture, planetary protection, etc. • Dual-function as US support to IMARS team formed by IMEWG • Critical milestone for MSL implement-ability through FY2010 budget process • ND-SAG • Analyze critical Mars science that can be accomplished in conjunction with MSR • Evaluate science priorities guiding the makeup of the sample collection to be returned by MSR • Determine dependencies of mobility and surface lifetime on science objectives, sample acquisition capability, diagnostic instrument complement, and number and type of samples. • Support MSR science planning as requested by IMARS (international participation) • Technology Workshop February 6-8 • High-level survey to assess current state of the art in key MSR technology areas • Validate assumptions on • Availability • Technology Readiness levels • Key Technology Challenges • Identify new technologies or developments • EDL, EEV, MAV, Planetary Protection, Contamination, Sample Acquisition, Sample, Receiving Facility, Bio-containment, Rendezvous and Capture • Identify next steps • Key developments • Lead times • Decision criteria

9. Draft Baseline Architecture • Baseline two launches • Orbiter w/EEV • Lander w/rover and MAV • One landing site w/one lander • If cost vs. risk reduction indicates multiple landers/rovers, additional science objectives can also be met • Same major building blocks, shared testing, same workforce, common parts to minimize cost, etc • Latitude: +/- 30 degrees, Landing elevation: < +0km MOLA • Time on surface driven by number of samples and sample suites • Design for 12 months • Horizontal mobility is necessary • Have to return to lander from sample site…round trip travel! • Samples packaged separately in airtight containers • Thermal control: <= 20C • Additional Features in IMARS Int’l MSR Architecture: • Precision landing is a requirement • Land within 100m - 3km of highest priority sample site • Trade between precision and landed mass • Special region would not impose requirements beyond those required to avoid organic contamination • Study feasibility and cost/mass of -10C thermal control

10. Collaboration Outline Discussions on architectural trade space are becoming progressively more detailed • Round Trip Orbiter • Earth Entry Vehicle • Capture System • Launch Vehicle • Landed System • Entry, Decent and Landing system • Landed platform • Rover (fetch and/or instrumented) • Sample acquisition system • Sample container system • Mars ascent vehicle • Launch Vehicle • Sample Receiving Facility and location • Operations—orbiter • Operations—lander/rover • Curation facilities and Science Teams

11. You are here!

12. You are here! CONCEPT

13. Mars Rover Mars Lander Earth Return Vehicle Sample Receiving & Curation Mars Landing System Mars Ascent Vehicle Earth Entry System Launch Vehicles ? ? ? CONCEPT

14. MEP R&ADr. Jim Green

15. Mars Data Analysis Program (MDAP) Program Scientist: Bobby Fogel MDAP FY2008 awards by discipline review group Total # of awards: 31 (~40% of selectable) MDAP Historical Trend

16. 24% 21% 21% 21% 14% Mars Fundamental Research Program (MFRP) Program Scientist: Marilyn Lindstrom MFRP FY2008 awards by discipline review group Total # of awards: 29 (~38% of selectable) Total # of props: 100 MFRP Historical Trend

17. Mars Instrument Development Program (MIDP)Program Executive: Dave Lavery • Age Detectors • Atmospheric Investigations • Drilling Systems • Imagers • Orbital Instruments • Ground Penetrating Radars • Laser Ranging Transponders • Atmospheric Investigations • Infrared Spectrometers • Millimeter Wave Spectrometers • Neutral Mass Spectrometers • Organic & Biosignature Detectors • Particle Detectors • Photodetectors • Sample Handling • Spectrometers • Diode Laser Spectrometers • Gamma Ray Spectrometers • Infrared Spectrometers • Laser Ablation / Laser Breakdown Spectrometers • Optical Spectrometers • Raman Spectrometers • Florescence Spectrometers • Submillimeter Spectrometers • Thermal Emission Spectrometers Strawman Payloads for: Mars Science Orbiter Astrobiology Field Lab Network Science Mid-Rover Mission

18. MIDP 2007 Award Statistics Breakout of Selectable proposals--$9.2M selected over 3 years Highly • Organizational Distribution: Submitted Selectable Selectable Recommended NASA 29 15 3 1 Other Government/Labs 2 1 1 University 21 12 7 4 Corporate 7 4 1 1 Non-Profit / Non-academic 2 _______ _______ _______ _______ 61 32 11 7 NOTE: MIDP has a traditionally lower selection rate due to higher cost related to each proposal

19. Backup

20. NASA’s FY09 PRESIDENT’S BUDGET SMD

21. FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 Mars Exploration 634.9 553.5 386.5 299.6 344.5 341.1 413.8 -- 416.8 305.5 223.3 69.0 54.6 37.6 2009 Mars Science Lab 5.3 57.7 6.7 68.5 152.5 170.7 121.8 Mars Scout (2013) 14.2 27.4 24.9 25.9 26.7 27.1 27.5 Mars Research and Analysis 171.8 149.4 131.6 136.2 110.7 105.7 264.5 Operating Missions and Data Analysis { -- -- -- 10.0 20.2 31.0 160.2 Mars-16 -- -- -- -- -- Mars Sample Return 5.0 35.0 3.0 6.0 5.0 13.0 23.0 18.0 6.0 ExoMars 13.7 9.2 Mars Technology Program 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Mars Exploration Programin the FY09 President’s Budget

22. FY09 President’s Budget Horizon Planning Budgetfrom FY09 Budget Process • NOTES • Technology increases to $20M/year in 2014 and out

23. MSL confirmation Phoenix overguide MSL overguide $248M reduction* 2-Year Budget History of MEPDeclining resources during a time of increasing demands Consolidated 2006-09 MPE Budget Major budget milestones

24. ALH0084 Creation of MEP MRO Confirmed MER Confirmed MSL Confirmed Phoenix Confirmed MCO & MPL Failures Mars Program Budget Milestones 1995-2013