170 likes | 380 Views
Planetary Probes: When Less is More. Planetary Probes: When it Has to be In-Situ. Anthony Colaprete NASA Ames Research Center 10 th Annual International Planetary Probe Workshop June 17, 2013. What is a Planetary Probe? Planetary “probes” come in all shapes and sizes:
E N D
Planetary Probes:When Less is More Planetary Probes:When it Has to be In-Situ Anthony Colaprete NASA Ames Research Center 10th Annual International Planetary Probe Workshop June 17, 2013
What is a Planetary Probe? • Planetary “probes” come in all shapes and sizes: • Atmospheric entry probes, landers, rovers, orbiters, balloons, airplanes • Common feature: in-situ • Some questions required measurements that are in-situ • Potentially limiting the total data and/or the “breadth” of observation • Often very complex (read: “expensive”) to get “a lot” on an in-situ probe • They have to compete with a perception that more is better • A missions duration or number of terabytes often used as measure of intrinsic value • Sometimes more data is better, e.g., increasing SNR, more complete spatial or temporal coverage, etc. • All against a backdrop of dwindling opportunities and resources
Examples of when in-situ measurements are unique and critical • Atmospheres • Concentrations of key species, e.g., Nobel gasses • Ratios of stable isotopes, e.g., those in the Martian (MAVEN and Curiosity), Venus, Titan and in the Saturn atmosphere • Dynamics, e.g, atmospheric structure, stability and winds in the Venus, Mars, Titan and Saturn • Surface and Subsurface • Specific elemental composition at small scales • Soil/regolith processing for composition or other parameter • Micro-scale morphologies • Sub-surface access; volatiles, environment (thermal state) • Geophysical parameters: seismometery and geotechnical measures
How do we adapt our thinking of planetary probes to changing resource profiles? To be acceptable (i.e., selected) in-situ probes must align with: • Unique and critical measurements – Worth the headache of not making the measurement remotely • Be more affordable – Both monetarily and in terms of engineering metrics (mass, power, etc.) • Use new techniques, designs, and architectures – Make them applicable to a range of parent architectures; take advantage of multitude of launch opportunities
Keep the Science Focused KISS From D. Bearden, The Aerospace Corporation
An example of how focusing the science can “enable” a probe mission: Saturn Probes • The key science objectives that would be addressed by a Saturn Probe mission include: • Origin and Evolution–Saturn atmospheric elemental ratios relative to hydrogen (C, S, N, O, He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe) and key isotopic ratios (e.g., D/H, 15N/14N, 3He/4He and other noble gas isotopes), He relative to solar, Jupiter. • Planetary Processes –Global circulation, dynamics, meteorology. Winds (Doppler and cloud track), interior processes (by measuring disequilibrium species, such as PH3, CO, AsH3, GeH4, SiH4). [P, C] NASA – Cassini: PIA03560: A Gallery of Views of Saturn's Deep Clouds Ref: Atreya, S. K. et al., (2006) Multiprobe exploration of the giant planets – Shallow probes, Proc. International Planetary Probes Workshop, Anavyssos, 2006. Ref: David Atkinson
Probe Size and Data Rate Drive Architecture A high-level view to illustrate how two key parameters drive design to the same conclusion Antenna Size and Type Telecom Data # and Type of Instruments Descent vs Com. Power LV Mass Size Cost # of Probes Galileo-Type Probes
Alternate Architectures An alternate Architecture would start with the most focused payload possible • For example, to address the critical questions regarding composition, the most important instruments are: • Neutral Mass Spectrometer (NMS) or Gas Chromatograph Mass Spectrometer (GCMS) • Atmosphere Structure Instrument (ASI) • Accepting just these two measurement/instrument types would approximately halve the data, mass, and power requirements of the payload • This assumes no improvements over Galileo instrumentation, which is an incorrect assumption • Significant savings can be realized in reduced mass instrumentation, in particular in the area of the NMS/GCMS • The lower mass, power and data rate can result in a smaller probe • Assuming a payload mass fraction of approximately 10% the probe mass, a 100-150 kg probe is a reasonable goal
Example of Alternate Architecture Trade Space Focused Payload Probe Size/Mass Relay Options Descent Depth Frequency vs Antenna Reqs. Instruments on Probe and Probelet Probelet Drop Depth Wind Shear Data Rate Water Constraint Look Angles Structure Measurements A fresh look, beginning with a highly focused measurement set, greatly opens otherwise closed trade space
Shrinking the Probe: Technologies looking for a home? • While we can build all sorts of nano-scale probes, are they capable enough to address important questions in a meaningful way? • Strengths in their small “footprint”: more opportunities to fly more payloads more often • Need to take care to align with the “Unique and critical science” Aerojet 1U Champs NanoSpace MEMS propulsion module MIT Space Propulsion Lab/Paulo Lozano NLAS 6U dispenser Cubesat reaction wheels (Sinclair Interplanetary) JPL cubesat transponder LMRST antenna
MicroProbe Examples • Microprobes defined here as 10-100 kg • Include cubesat technologies and architectures • Concepts floating about include entry vehicles, aero-platforms, landers, rovers, spacecraft (orbiting, flyby, or rendezvous, comm-relay) • Payload mass typically 1-10 kg • Sufficient to include instrument capable of of critical measurement(s) • Newer technologies allow for very capable propulsion • These Microprobes have the potential to extend deep-space access to low-cost research One example is the Planetary Hitch Hiker (PHH), a low-cost rideshare platform for exploring Near-Earth Asteroids (NEAs)
Micro-Entry Probes Examples • Small entry probes have potential to open up a new means of exploring Mars, Venus, and other planetary bodies with atmospheres • With small payloads entry probes can be scaled down considerably (2x-3x scaling) • In the low end of the Microprobe size class (~10 kg) with half the mass being for the payload From Marc Murbach For Example: Mars MET Stations Cubesat Compatible Spine (Science Station Baseline) Initial mW Generator Fits at the core of the Baseline Science Station
Commercial Partnerships, COTS Products, and Secondaries • Increased commercial access to space is accelerating commercial product lines, everything from components to complete spacecraft • Many smaller commercial companies eager to work with NASA or other agencies and larger business to provide or develop instruments, components and systems • A few examples: • Using commercial product line, partnered with NASA to develop a flight version: • LCROSS Ultraviolet spectrometer done in <9 months • RESOLVE NIR spectrometer, done in <1 year • One of the largest financial commitments is the launch vehicle • Every kg of lift capacity should be taken advantage of • Opportunities for micro-probes LADEE UVS
Closing Thoughts • Past Probe Missions: • 1978 (PV), 1995 (GL), 2000(DS2), 2004(HUY) • With this trend might have expected the next probe mission in ~2012 • But what opportunities? • Decadal Survey called out Venus and Saturn Probe missions • Numerous Discovery class concepts • Very competitive, risk adverse • Need to be ready with Strong Concepts and New Ideas: • Starts with focus, unique science goals • Minimize complexity • Take advantage of smaller systems and components • Build commercial / government alliances • A secondary on every launch! ?