NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS) 20050205034: Robotic Access to Planetary Surfaces Capability Roadmap

duanced

P tanning &

I ntegration

Office

Robotic Access to Planetary Surfaces

Capability Roadmap

RAPS Team
June 3, 2005

0930-1000

Introduction

Mark Adler

1000-1045

Atmospheric Transit

Neil

Cheatwood

1045-1100

Break

1100-1130

Surface Mobility

Samad Hayati

1130-1200

Accommodation of Instruments
and Access to Samples

Steve Gorevan

1200-1300

Lunch

1300-1345

Aerial Flight

Henry Wright

1345-1415

Cross-Cutting

Joe Parrish

1415-1445

Facilities and Conclusions

Bobby Braun

1445-1500

Margin

ntegration u ffice

2

r i

% Capability Roadmap Team

L.

• Co-chairs

- Mark Adler, JPL

- Bobby Braun, GaTech

• NASA

- Debora Fairbrother, GSFC

- Claude Graves, JSC

- Samad Hayati, JPL

- Dean Kontinos, ARC

- Tom Rivellini, JPL

- Brian Wilcox, JPL

- Henry Wright, LaRC

• Academia

- Dave Miller, MIT

• Industry

- Ben Clark,
Lockheed-Martin

- Steve Gorevan,
Honeybee Robotics

- Joe Parrish,
Payload Systems

- Al Witkowski,
Pioneer Aerospace

* Coordinators

- Harley Thronson,
NASA HQ SMD

- Carl Ruoff, APIO

3

r i

% Capability Description

L.

• Land, Fly, Rove, Dig

- Operating on (and under) planetary surfaces
and in planetary atmospheres

- Includes aerocapture

- Includes planetary protection

• On Large Solar System Bodies

- Moon, Mars, Venus, Titan, Europa, Gas Giant
atmospheres

- Earth landing for sample returns

- (not small bodies, asteroids, comets)

% Capability Breakdown Structure

Robotic Access to
Planetary Surfaces

Accommodation of
Instruments and
Access to Samples
6.3

Lead: Dean Lead: Samad Lead: Steve Lead: Henry Lead: Joe Parrish/Payload

Kontinos/ARC Hayati/JPL Gorev an/Honey bee Wright/LaRC Systems

5

r i

Roadmaps

L.

“Roads? Where we’re going, we
don’t need roads.”

Dr. Emmett L. Brown (Christopher Lloyd) in
Back to the Future

6

r i

p Strategic Roadmaps

L.

• Robotic Access directly driven by and
supports:

- Solar System Exploration Roadmap

- Mars Exploration Roadmap

- Lunar Exploration Roadmap

r i

Other Capability Roadmaps

L.

• Scientific Instruments and Sensors

- RAPS brings the instruments to the samples and the samples
to the instruments

- SIAS provides integrated instruments, e.g. down-hole

• Human Planetary Landing Systems

- Continues EDL evolution from RAPS

• Autonomous Systems and Robotics

- Provides high-level autonomy for surface robots

• Communication and Navigation

- Provides relay communications and radio-location services

• High Energy Power and Propulsion

- Provides nuclear power sources for in situ vehicles

• In-space Transportation

- Provides in-space systems for sample returns

• In situ Resource Utilization

- ISRU can provide propellant for very-long-range traverse

8

r i

% Coverage Assumptions

L.

Dduanced P tanning 6 Integration ^)ffice

• Human mission drivers

- Robots as assistants to humans in space and on planetary surfaces
(Human Exploration Systems and Mobility)

- ISRU and resource extraction (In situ Resource Utilization)

• High-level autonomy (Autonomous Systems and Robotics)

- Automated planning and sequencing — flight and ground

- On-board science analysis

- Proximity cooperation of multiple surface assets

- Machine perception, including vision to support pinpoint landing and
hazard avoidance

- Mobility and articulation goal seeking

• Robotic sample-return capabilities (In-space Transportation)

- Planetary ascent

- Autonomous rendezvous and capture

• Communications and Navigation (High-capacity Telecom and
Information Transfer)

- Surface relay communication and radio location determination

- Proximity communication between surface assets

- Approach navigation, including optical data types

- EDL and other critical event communication

- Post-entry EDL navigation aids (orbital and surface)

9

r i

% Roadmap Process

L.

1. Define scope of roadmap, Oct 14, 2004

2. Select team members to cover scope, Nov 1, 2004

3. Conduct public session to solicit input, Nov 30, 2004

4. Conduct three workshops with invited experts

1. Dec 15-17, 2004, JPL

2. Feb 2-4, 2005, ARC

3. Mar 3-4, 2005, Georgia Tech

5. Construct roadmap messages (3rd workshop)

6. Detail roadmap actions (April)

7. Executive Summary (May)

8. External Review (June)

9. Final Report (July)

10

Roadmap Approach

duanced I tanning & I ntegration u ffice

Define scope and preliminary reference missions

- Establish relations with other roadmaps

Canvas community for capability status, plans,
and hopes

- Significant overlap with HPLS in atmospheric transit,
held common workshops

Construct roadmap messages

- What we think NASA should do, action-oriented

Fill in details of the actions

- Metrics

^ Europa Ldr i j

- Applicable reference missions, or push missions

- Current and required capability readiness (descriptive)

- Key resources, e.g. facilities

- Rough cost and schedule estimates

Lay out a representative implementation plan

11

r i

NASA 2005 Strategy

L.

NASA Strategic Objectives (first 3 of 18):

1. Undertake robotic and human lunar exploration to further science
and to develop and test new approaches, technologies, and
systems to enable and support sustained human and robotic
exploration of Mars and more distant destinations. The first
robotic mission will be no later than 2008.

2. Conduct robotic exploration of Mars to search for evidence of
life, to understand the history of the solar system, and to prepare
for future human exploration.

3. Conduct robotic exploration across the solar system for scientific
purposes and to support human exploration. In particular,
explore the moons of Jupiter, asteroids, and other bodies to
search for evidence of life, to understand the history of the solar
system, and to search for resources.

All require robotic access to planetary surfaces

12

The Real Justification

• Derived from:

- Solar System Strategic planning

- Mars Exploration Program planning

- Robotic Lunar Exploration planning

• Subset of conceived missions chosen:

- To involve the scope of this roadmap

- To drive capability developments in time

o Does not include all applicable missions, only schedule
drivers

• Pathways

- Missions on separate pathways are included in the
capability development to enable the choice

• Schedule

- Assumed capability readiness required in all cases four
years before launch

14

• Lunar Precursor Lander 201 1

• Mars Sample Return 2016

• Titan Explorer (airship) 2018

• Europa Astrobiological Lander 2018

• Mars Deep Drill 2020

• Mars Astrobiological Field Laboratory 2020

• Venus Surface Explorer 2020

• Jupiter Atmospheric Probes 2020

• Neptune Orbiter (aerocapture) 2023

15

Top-Level Roadmap

Key Architectural Decisions

lP-

fiduanced P tanning & Integration ^)ffice

Key Architecture/Strategic
Decisions

Date Decision is
Needed

Impact of Decision on
Capability

Decision to launch Mars Sample
Return.

9 years before
the intended
launch.

Latest date to start planetary
protection, Earth entry, heavy
Mars EDL, advanced mobility,
and sample handling capabilities.

Decision to launch an in situ life-
detection laboratory to Mars, either
rover-borne or on a fixed platform
deep drill.

7 years before
the intended
launch (though
see next row).

Latest date to start contamination
reduction and sterilization, and
complex sample handling.

Decision to launch a deep drill life-
detection laboratory to Mars.

8 years before
the intended
launch.

Latest date to start an
autonomous deep drill, and
down-hole instrumentation.

Decision to continue the exploration
of Titan with a long-lived airship
capable of surface sampling.

8 years before
the intended
launch.

Latest date to start airship
materials, guidance and control,
propulsion, and surface
interaction.

Decision to explore the Venusian
surface with a long-lived laboratory.

7 years before
the intended
launch.

Latest date to start extreme
environment survival system
studies and component
development.

Decision to deliver deep atmospheric
probes to Jupiter, or decision to
conduct an aerocapture at Neptune.

12 years before
the intended
launch.

Latest date to start thermal
protection materials, refurbish
test facilities, and analysis
capabilities.

17

r i

Cost and Schedule

L.

* Cost estimates have been provided where
available

- All are considered to have an uncertainty of a factor of
three in the up direction, unless otherwise stated

- Many areas require further definition since the cost is
strongly dependent on the requirements of the
capability, or the duration of the maintenance of a
capability

- The costs are provided for top-level conceptual planning
only. Detailed cost estimates should be requested from
providing organizations. Your mileage may vary.

* Schedule estimates are shown in the roadmap
graphics

- Similarly, detailed schedule estimates should be
requested, given more detailed scope definitions

18

19

r i

% 6.1 Atmospheric Transit

L.

* Entry, descent, and landing

* Entry: thermal protection and controlled
hypersonic flight in atmospheres, guidance in
hypersonic flight for precision landing and
aerocapture

* Descent: non-thermal supersonic and subsonic
deceleration and control in atmospheres,
guidance for pinpoint landing

* Landing: sensing and reaction for hazard
avoidance and controlled surface impact,
structure and mechanisms for surface impact
survival and stability

* Descent guidance and landing also apply to
bodies without atmospheres

20

Placement of instrument packages and vehicles
on planetary surfaces

- Landers / stations

- Rovers

- Sample returns (both ends)

Atmospheric measurements and sampling

- Atmosphere probes

- Atmosphere samplers (hyperbolic exit for return)

Deployment of aerial vehicles in the atmosphere

- Vehicles covered in 6.4

Aerocapture of orbiters

* Mars entry and descent (Viking, Pathfinder, MER)

* Legged soft landing (Surveyor, Apollo, Viking)

* Airbag rough landing (Pathfinder, MER)

* Atmospheric probes (Pioneer Venus, Galileo)

* Earth return (Apollo, Genesis, Stardust en route)

* Other countries:

- Luna landers at the Moon (USSR)

- Luna sample returns to Earth (USSR)

- Mars 3 lander? (USSR)

- Vega 1/2 landers at Venus (USSR)

- Vega 1/2 balloon deployments at Venus (USSR/France)

- Huygens atmosphere and surface probe at Titan (ESA)

22

r i

% 6.1 Driving Mission Assumptions

L. ^

* Assume sky crane technology developed for MSL

* Large ( > 1 mt) payloads to Martian surface

* Moon and Mars precision and pinpoint landing

* Gas giant atmosphere probes and aerocapture

* Venus atmosphere probes and surface landers

* Titan aerial vehicle delivery to pre-deployment
conditions

* Europa landing

* Earth landing for Mars Sample Return

- With very high reliability

23

ongoing .

Environmental Knowledge 6

r i

6.1.1 Atmospheric GN&C

L. ^

• Advanced GN&C algorithms must be brought from the
simulation & analysis realm to flight readiness with
sufficient reliability to enable precision (< 10 km) landing,
pinpoint (< 100 m) landing and aerocapture.

• Derivatives of Apollo GN&C algorithms exist but have not
been flight proven for aerocapture. Advanced GN&C
algorithms offer significant performance and robustness
advantages.

• Metrics: Landing precision, software complexity, compute
time and robustness

• Resources: GN&C expertise within NASA, industry and
academia.

• Applicable at multiple planetary destinations (Mars, Venus,
Titan, Neptune, Earth).

- MSL, MHP, MSR, AFL

• Cost: $10M

25

r i

% 6.1.1 Aerodynamics

L.

• Retain aerodynamic performance prediction capability.

- Knowledge of static aerodynamics to within 3% and dynamic
aerodynamics to within 10% will allow reduced design margin
and high reliability atmospheric transit.

• Aerodynamics expertise exists within the Agency and in
industry. Facilities for aerodynamic testing are operated by
NASA and are under threat of closure. Little to no flight data
for validation.

• Metrics: Aerodynamic coefficient uncertainty

• Resources: NASA LaRC Hypersonic Complex, Transonic
Dynamics Tunnel, and Vertical Spin Tunnel, Eglin and ARC
Ballistic Ranges

• All missions with trans-atmospheric flight: Mars, Venus,
Sample Return, Titan, Gas Giants

- MSL, MHP, MSR, AFL

• Cost: $40M

26

r i

6.1.1 Aerothermodynamic Modeling

L. ^

• Accurate prediction of entry heating environments for ^

mission design, and risk management.

- Understand radiating shock layer uncertainty to within ±50%, boundary
layer transition time to seconds, shock-boundary layer heating
predictions to ±25%, while reducing simulation time for multi-physics
interactions to hours.

• Expertise resides primarily within NASA.

- Currently able to predict forebody convective heating to ±15% and
forebody turbulent heating to ±25%. Radiative heating ±300%, transition
to turbulence time (minutes), aft-body heating ±100%, and ablative
shock layers ±200%. Insufficient flight data to validate models.

• Metrics: Aerothermodynamics uncertainty and computational time

• Resources: LaRC Aerothermodynamics Laboratory, ARC shock
tube and ballistic range, Calspan-University of Buffalo Research
Center LENS facility, Cal Tech T5, Supercomputing Facilities, high-
fidelity CFD analysis/codes

• All missions with trans-atmospheric flight: Mars, Venus, Sample
Return, Titan, Gas Giants: MSL, MHP, MSR, AFL

• Cost: $25M

27

r i

6.1.1 Ablative TPS

L.

• Develop reliable mid/high-density ablative TPS for specific entry
and aerocapture environments.

- Reduce mid-density TPS mass fractions from 25-30% to 15-20%.
Reduce high-density TPS mass fractions from 50-100% to 30-50%.
High fidelity TPS response modeling: surface temperature to within
100 deg C, in-depth temperatures to within 10% and 10 s, surface
recession to within 20%, char thickness and depth to within 10%.

• Few existing, poorly characterized mid-density ablative materials.
Heritage high-density materials needed for Gas Giants no longer
manufactured, recipe lost

• Metrics: TPS mass fraction and thermal response prediction

• Resources: ARC and JSC arc-jets, ARC Giant Planet Facility
(reconstituted) for Gas Giants.

• Sample return missions (Mars, Lunar), aerocapture missions
(Venus, Neptune), entry probes (Venus, Saturn, Jupiter)

- MSR, Moonrise

• Cost: $30M for mid-density, $30M high-density

28

fa

6.1.1 Deployable Decelerators

(Inflatable Hypersonic)

fiduanced P tanning & I ntegration

• Develop deployable entry systems that package on existing
launch vehicles and experience extremely low entry heating
(1-10 W/cm2).

• Current planetary program relies on rigid aeroshells and
ablative thermal protection systems. The Russians have
flown, unsuccessfully, an inflatable system. In the US,
system studies for deployables and inflatables are ongoing.

- Key challenges are materials, deployment, aerostability, and
control.

• Metrics: Materials characterization, aerostability, integration

• Resources: NASA LaRC Hypersonic Complex and
Transonic Dynamics Tunnel, High altitude balloon flight
testing (NASA WFF), Sounding rocket flight testing (NASA

WFF, strategic assets), Super-computing facilities for
dynamic aero-thermal-structural simulation.

• Applicable to Venus, Titan, and Nepture aerocapture, Heavy
Mars landers and Earth return.

• Cost: $75M to $150M

29

r i

6.1.2 Supersonic Parachute

L. ^

* Develop supersonic parachute to support Mars
entry masses ~4000 kg, Mach 2.5 deploy

* Currently limited to Viking heritage, ~1000 kg
entry mass, Mach 2.1 deploy

- Have been living off of the Viking parachute qualification
for over 30 years

* Metrics: drag area, deploy Mach, mass, stability

* Resources: High altitude balloon flight testing
(NASA WFF), NASA LaRC TDT, NASA GRC 10x10,
Sounding rocket flight testing (NASA WFF,
strategic assets)

* Needed for MSR, AFL, Deep Drill

* Cost: $140M (within 30%)

30

fa

6.1.2 Deployable Decelerators

(Inflatable Supersonic)

* Develop supersonic deployable drag device for
enabling large entry mass (> 4000kg) to Mars.

* Parachute systems are prohibitive due to size
and Mach number constraints. Numerous studies
and experiments of inflatable supersonic
decelerators. Devices are not flight tested, and
will require additional subsonic decelerator for
adequate performance.

* Metrics: drag area, deploy Mach, mass, stability

* Resources: High altitude balloon flight testing
(NASA WFF), NASA LaRC TDT, NASA GRC 10x10,
ARC NFAC, Sounding rocket flight testing (NASA
WFF, strategic assets), Supercomputing facilities

* May be applicable to MSR, AFL, MHP

31

r i

6.1.2 Subsonic Parachute

L.

• Develop subsonic parachute to support large
Mars entry mass > 4000 kg. Guidance
enhancement enables wind drift compensation
for pinpoint landing

• One test in relevant environment of single
ringsail with no steering

• Metrics: drag area, mass, stability, L/D

• Resources: High altitude balloon flight testing
(NASA WFF), NASA LaRC TDT, NASA GRC 10x10,
ARC NFAC, Sounding rocket flight testing (NASA
WFF, strategic assets), Supercomputing facilities

• May be applicable to MSL, MSR, AFL, MHP

• Cost: $20M (within 30%)

32

r i

6.1.3 Landing Airbags

L.

* Develop low mass (60-80 kg), high reliability, rock-
tolerant airbag systems for MER class Mars landing.

* MER and Pathfinder used Vectran bags (125 kg). Zylon
and its variants offer potential mass savings but no
work has been done to explore its applications to
airbags.

* Metrics: Airbag system mass, reliability

* Resources: NASA Glenn Research Center Plum Brook
Station (Space Power Facility and B2 vacuum
chambers)

* Applicable to Mars Scout or MER-class and lunar
missions.

* Cost: $20M

33

'P 6.1.3 Terrain Sensing

* Develop high performance terrain sensing
customized for the unique requirements of
spacecraft landing.

* Recent lander missions have used modified
military radars with limited performance.
Advanced technologies are in development, but
not ready for flight qualifiction

• Metrics: Acquisition altitude, Velocity error, Map
resolution

* Resources: Industry

* Applicable to Mars Scout, MSL, MSR, AFL,
Europa lander, lunar landers, Venus lander,
Venus sample return, Titan explorer, small
body/comet sampling and rendezvous missions.

34

r i

6.1.3 Descent Propulsion

L.

* Develop a high reliability, throttleable descent
propulsion system

* Current technologies are variants of 1960's
technologies and span a limited thrust range.
Pulse-mode work arounds add control interaction
complexity and risk.

* Metrics: Control authority, thrust range

* Resources: Industry

* Applicable to MSL, MSR, AFL, Europa lander,
lunar landers, Venus lander, Venus sample
return, Titan explorer, small body/comet sampling
and rendezvous missions.

35

r i

6.1.3 Surface Penetrators

L.

* Develop low mass, high reliability, single-stage entry to
impact system capable of penetrating at least 1-3 m
below Mars surface

* Space exploration application limited to DS-2 Mars
Microprobe (failed), Soviet mission (failed), Japanese
mission (postponed). Extensive military application of
penetrators.

* Metrics: System mass, impact depth & g’s, terrain type

* Resources: Sandia National Laboratory air guns and
test facilities.

* Applicable to Mars, Lunar and small body missions

* Cost: $30M

36

r i

6.1.4 Atmosphere Characterization

L. ^

• Develop planetary atmosphere modeling capability that yields
predictions of density within 10% and a credible basis for wind and
atmospheric opacity estimation.

• Flight through a planetary atmosphere is complicated by our lack
of atmospheric knowledge (density, winds and dust content) at
hypersonic maneuvering (20-60 km) and terminal descent altitudes
(0-10 km).

• Metrics: Atmospheric uncertainty, Quantifiable entry system
margin reduction.

• Resources: Atmospheric science expertise within Agency and
academia. May require atmospheric observer orbiter, probe or
network science (micro probe) missions as well as instrumentation
reqts for all entry systems.

• Applicable to MSL, MSR, AFL, Venus sample return, Titan explorer,
Gas Giant entry missions

• Cost: $10M per project for entry instrumentation, unknown cost for
atmospheric instrumentation piggyback or on dedicated orbiter

37

6.2 Surface Mobility

r

38

r i

6.2 Surface Mobility

L.

• Mobile platforms on planetary surfaces

- Traversal over the surface

• Wheeled vehicles

• Expandable deployed vehicles

• High-mobility non-wheeled vehicles

- (Swimming considered but not covered in this
roadmap due to number of decades away and
lack of characterization of potential
environments)

39

aW 6.2 Benefits

• Access to features away from landing
location (a la Opportunity in Eagle crater)

• Exploration of multiple geological units

• Access across and beyond landing ellipse

• Combined with precision/pinpoint landing
and high-mobility, access to any selected
point on the surface

40

• Apollo lunar rover (human operated)

• Sojourner rover on Mars

• Mars Exploration Rovers

• Other countries:

- Lunakhod, teleoperated on the Moon (USSR)

41

r i

% 6.2 Driving Mission Assumptions

L. ^

• Mars Sample Return

- Rapid sample collection and delivery

• Mars Astrobiological Field Laboratory

- Long traverse, increased autonomy

• Lunar Precursor Lander

- New terrain for our robotic rovers

42

43

r i

6.2.1 Wheeled Rovers

L.

flduanced P tanning & I ntegration

• Develop more capable wheeled rovers (longer
life, modular architectures, increased computer
throughput, and robust navigation sensors)

* Currently limited to MER capabilities; i.e, heavy
dependency on human-in-the-loop and designed
for 90 sols (cannot be guaranteed to operate for
several years)

* Metrics: Long life, modularity, and increased
navigation and compute power (to accommodate
more autonomous operation)

* Resources: NASA (JPL and ARC), university
testbeds

* Needed for MSL, MSR, and AFL

* Cost: $2M/yr for technology and $1 M/yr for
maintenance of testbeds, for the next 5-15 years

44

r i

% 6.2.2 Expandable and Deployable Rovers

L. ^

* Develop rovers that have high vertical climb to
stowed ratio (increase from 0.3 to 0.8) and ability
to traverse steeper slopes (increase from 30° to
60°)

* Currently limited to MER capability of ~0.3 and ~30°

* Metrics: Vertical climb to stowed ratio. Traverse
on steep slopes

* Resources: Some component technologies and
materials exist. Non flight-like prototypes have
been developed

* Needed for Mars scouts and Mars, Solar System,
and Lunar SRMs

* Cost: $1-2M/yr for 10 years

45

r i

% Expandable Rover Capabilities

L. ^

46

r i

% Expandable Rover Deployment

L. ^

47

r i

^ 6.2.3 Walking, Rappelling, Hopping

L. ^

* Develop mobility systems that are capable of
exploring very difficult to access regions (gullies,
cliffs, and very rough terrain)

* Currently limited to MER capability; moderate
terrain roughness, no capability to explore cliffs
or gullies

* Metrics: Terrain roughness and slope

* Resources: Technologies in an early stage of
development exist at universities and NASA

* Will enable missions in Lunar, Mars and Solar
System SRMs

* Cost:

- $1 M/yr first 5-year, $2M/yr 2nd 5-year, $3M/yr 3rd 5-year

48

r

'P Climbing Mobility

49

fa

6.3 Accommodation of

Instruments and Access to Samples

50

fa

6.3 Accommodation of

Instruments and Access to Samples

• Access to subsurface (mm to km)

- Grinding, digging, drilling, melting

• Sample contamination avoidance

• Acquisition and transfer of samples to
instruments or containers for return

- Processing and preparation of samples for
instruments

• Automation of sample access sensing and
control

• Integrated design of sensors with access
approach

51

Access older samples below newer surfaces

Access material protected from environment and
contamination

Access different geological units at depth

Access pristine samples

Transfer samples to laboratory instruments

Transfer samples to container for sample return

Enable operations on irregular natural objects of
unknown composition with reactive automation

Integrate instruments into access devices

W 6.3 State of Practice

Apollo drill (human operated and powered)
Viking scoop

Mars Exploration Rover rock abrasion tool
Mars Exploration Rover trenching

Other countries:

- Luna, Venera, Vega drills (USSR)

53

r i

% 6.3 Driving Mission Assumptions

L. ^

• Mars Sample Return

• Mars Deep Drill

• Europa Astrobiological Lander

• Venus Sample Return

54

I

6.3 Sample Access Roadmap

Lunar Pre

Venus Surf

i

VSR

MSR

k

1

AFL/

Deep Drill

Europe Ldr

Jupiter Prbs

T

Titah\‘£xpl

-rtr

J r

%

A

*

L

Neptuhe Orb

-

10 cm

HI

10 m

-y-

100 m

I

1 km

Subsurface Access 6.3.

i /

N-

r

Aseptic samp Jj Clean samp

Contamination Reduction 6.3.2

Caching Si/bsarop/e~"j fr

Sampling and Handling 6.

V S'

Caching Subsample

Automation 6.3>

Down-hole

Co-Engineered Instruments 6.

• Reliable, flexible, and repeatable access from millimeter to
kilometer range in rocks, ice, ice mix, and regolith.

• Currently limited to MER RAT (1-13 mm), shallow trenching
using wheels or scoops, and past Lunar drills.

• Metrics: Depth of penetration, mass, power, and volume

• Resources: Capabilities exists mostly at industry. NASA
and universities have some capabilities.

- Unfortunately, very little can be leveraged in this area from
terrestrial drilling technologies

• Needed by Mars (MSL, MSR, AFL, Deep Drill), Solar System
(Venus In-situ and Surface Explorer missions), and Moon
Reference Lander

• Cost: 10 cm - $7M, 1m- $10M, 10 m- $20M, 100 m - $45M, 1
km+ $130M

56

r i

6.3.2 Contamination Reduction

L.

* Develop forward and cross contamination
control, localized barriers, in situ sterlization, and
hermetic seals capabilities for sample return
canisters

* Capabilities in an early stage of development
exist at NASA and industry

* Metrics: PPM of containment in samples, bio-load
vs. non-organic contaminants

* Resources: NASA, university, and industry to a
limited extent.

* Needed by MSR, greater degree by Mars
AFL/Deep Drill and Europa lander

* Cost: $5M

57

r i

6.3.3 Sampling and Handling

L.

* Develop capabilities to acquire precision samples
(powder, solid, soils, and fluids), preserve
ingredients, and manipulate, process, and
transfer samples

* Sample handling and transport systems have
been demonstrated in laboratory settings

* Metrics: Number of transfers (hand-offs of
sample)

* Resources: Industry leads. NASA is developing
systems, universities to lesser degree

* Needed by all reference missions

- MSL is now struggling with complex sample handling
requirements, in retrospect more such development
should have been done earlier

* Cost: $20M

58

r i

6.3.4 Automation

L.

* Develop capabilities to autonomously operate
sampling systems safely and efficiently in a
highly unstructured environment

* Current capability is at the level of laboratory
demonstration for various technologies.
Significant new capabilities are required.

* Metrics: Number of ground loops required, hours
of continuous operations

* Resources: Industry, NASA, and universities

* Needed by almost all missions in Mars and Solar
System SRMs

* Cost: $15M

59

r i

% 6.3.5 Co-engineered Instruments

L. ^

* Develop capabilities for sub-surface instrument
access via integrated and embedded instruments
into subsurface access systems

* Current capability is at the level of laboratory
demonstration, not yet in flight-like configurations

* Metrics: Mass, volume, power, allowable vibration
level, and instrument sample requirements

* Resources: Industry, NASA, and universities

* Needed by almost all missions in Mars and Solar
System SRMs

* Cost $ 15 M (highly dependent on requirements)

60

61

r i

6.4 Aerial Flight

L.

• Heavier than Air Systems

- Airplanes

- Gliders

• Lighter than Air Systems

- Balloons

- Airships

62

* Aerial vehicles fill a unique planetary science
measurement gap, that of regional-scale, near-
surface observation, while offering a new
perspective for potential discovery.

- Regional-scale science (hundreds to thousands of km)

- In-situ atmospheric measurements in the near-surface
planetary boundary layer

- Atmosphere-surface interactions (photochemical
sources/sinks)

- High-spatial resolution

- Flight over inaccessible surface terrain

63

• Heavier than Air Platforms:

- No planetary flight experience

- Today’s airplane technology is sufficient to enable “first flight”
on another planet.

- Inertially propagated navigation uncertainty is the limiting
factor for autonomous aerial flight.

- Four critical technology investment areas: Transition,
Autonomy, Surface Interaction, and Propulsion.

• Lighter than Air Platforms:

- Balloon flight has been successfully demonstrated on Venus

- Specific technologies for flight at Mars or Titan require
development.

- Key technology issues for airships and balloons revolve
around the trade between mission endurance and payload
capacity.

- Four critical technology investment areas for extended
duration flight: Transition, Autonomy, Surface Interaction, and
Envelope Materials.

64

r i

% 6.4 Driving Mission Assumptions

L. ^

* At the current time, NASA’s core science
missions do not include aerial vehicles.

* Design Reference Missions

- Titan Explorer: the NRC Decadal survey recommended
consideration of an aerial exploration of Titan as a
follow-on to the Cassini-Huygens mission.

- Venus In Situ Explorer

- Venus Sample Return

* Science teams from around the country are
intrigued with the potential for observations of
Mars and Venus via aerial vehicles.

65

66

r i

% Potential Capability Timeline

L. ^

Destination

Today

+10 Years

+20 Years

+30 Years

Mars

• Rocket
Airplane (500
- 800 km)
•Glider (40-100
km)

• Propeller
Airplane (10,000
km)

• Balloon - 90 days

• Propeller Airplane
(global)

• Balloon (global)

• VTOL

• Airplane
(unlimited range)

• Airplane (local
reconnaissance)

Venus

• Balloon (100
hours - high
altitude)

• Rocket Airplane

• Balloon (global)

• Balloon (low
altitude)

• Propeller Airplane

• Airship (global)

Titan

• Balloon

• Airship (90 days)

• Airship (global)
•VTOL

• Airship
(unlimited range)

67

r i

'P 6.4.1 Transition

L.

• Develop reliable strategies for mid-air transition from a
stowed payload to a flying platform

• Current HTA vehicle transition methods rely on rigid wings
and empennages with hinges, latches, and energy
absorbing devices, demonstrated with high-altitude balloon
Earth-based testing. LTA flight has been demonstrated on
Venus (Soviet Vega) and in high-altitude balloon Earth-
based testing.

• Metrics: Reliable/repeatable deployments, mass

• Resources: High altitude balloon flight testing (NASA WFF
and industry), NASA LaRC TDT, NASA GRC Large Vacuum
Chamber

• Applicable to Venus, Mars Scout and Titan missions

• Cost: $10M rigid wing, $20M inflatable wing, $8M
Venus/Titan balloon, $10M Mars balloon

68

r i

% 6.4.2 Autonomous Navigation

L. ^

• Improve long term navigation knowledge to < 1 km,
enabling exploration of unique science features.

• IMU propagation errors limit near-term flights to a few
hours duration. Promising navigation solutions include:
use of orbital assets for 2-way range and Doppler tracking,
feature recognition, and reduced power radar or laser
altimeters .

• Metrics: Position knowledge, Mission duration

• Resources: Captive carry testing and integrated low altitude
flight testing - NASA and Industry; Integrated High Altitude
Flight Testing - NASA WFF and Industry

• Applicable to Venus, Mars Scout and Titan missions

• Cost: RF $5M, optical $9M, active $5M

69

r i

'P 6.4.2 Autonomous Flight Control

L.

• Development of a robust flight control architecture which
allows self-diagnosis and problem resolution will allow long
duration (> 10 days for HTA, >30 days for LTA) aerial flight.

• Terrestrial systems have demonstrated end-to-end
autonomy. Soviet Vega balloon demonstrated autonomous
mission. High altitude flight testing on Earth in relevant
environment have demonstrated precursor GN&C methods.

• Metrics: Flight control robustness, aerial mission duration

• Resources: High altitude balloon flight testing (NASA WFF
and industry), NASA LaRC TDT, NASA GRC Large Vacuum
Chamber

• Applicable to Venus, Mars Scout and Titan missions

• Cost: $12M first flight, $25M long duration

70

6.4.3 Surface Interaction

flduanced P tanning 6 I ntegration

Develop reliable strategies to survive planetary
(Mars) surface landing.

Dropping a science package while in flight is
current state of the art. Technologies for soft
landing under study include hazard detection and
avoidance, precision navigation, and airplane
propulsion.

Metrics: Surface approach speed and terrain
type, mass, acquisition altitude

Resources: NASA and industry

Applicable to Venus, Mars Scout and Titan
missions

* Cost: package drop $5M, airship touch $12M,
airplane one soft landing $15M, airplane multiple
landings $30M (Mars)

71

r i

% 6.4.4 Heavier than Air Propulsion

L. ^

• Improve aerial traverse range (to 10,000 km) and duration
(to days).

• Current systems are limited to rocket powered vehicles with
ranges up to ~1000 km and 90 minutes duration. Propellers
and turbo-jets provide the highest near term promise for
improving conversion efficiency to enable longer duration
flight. Reducing the mass and increasing the robustness of
the gearbox between the motor or engine and the propeller
is an additional enabling technology.

• Metrics: Aerial performance: range and duration

• Resources: High altitude balloon flight testing (NASA WFF
and industry), NASA LaRC TDT, NASA GRC Large Vacuum
Chamber, NASA ARC NFAC

• Applicable to Venus, Mars Scout and Titan missions

• Cost: rocket $3M, propeller $18M, VTOL $20M

72

r i

'P 6.4.5 Lighter than Air Materials

L.

• Develop low mass, strong and reliable materials for LTA
vehicles

• Materials selection must balance toughness, pliability and
mass. Floating over Mars drives the need for lightweight
materials which are resistant to UV degradation with mild
cryogenic conditions. Risk mitigation drives system design
to multi-layer materials with higher strength. For Titan,
there is a need for cryogenic materials; whereas materials
for Venus are driven towards elevated temperature
characteristics and sulphuric acid resistance.

• Metrics: Aerial mass, longevity in extreme environments,
abrasion and tear resistance

• Resources: High altitude balloon flight testing (NASA WFF
and industry), NASA GRC Large Vacuum Chamber

• Applicable to Venus, Mars Scout and Titan missions

• Cost: Venus $7M, Titan $10M, Mars $4M

73

r i

% 6.4.6 Atmosphere Characterization

L. ^

• Develop planetary atmosphere modeling capability that
yields predictions of density within 10% and a credible
basis for wind and atmospheric opacity estimation.

• Flight within a planetary atmosphere is complicated by our
lack of atmospheric knowledge (density, winds and dust
content) at aerial traverse altitudes (0-5 km).

• Metrics: Atmospheric uncertainty, Quantifiable margin
reduction.

• Resources: Atmospheric science expertise within Agency
and academia. May require atmospheric observer orbiter,
probe or network science missions as well as
instrumentation reqts for all entry systems.

• Applicable to Venus, Mars Scout and Titan missions

74

75

• Subsystems and generic vehicle requirements for
atmosphere and surface operations

- Power

- Propulsion

- Telecom

- Navigation

- Autonomy

- Extreme Environments

- Planetary Protection

- Thermal Control

- Risk Assessment

• Interfaces with other capability roadmaps

76

• New throttled liquid propellant engines for sample returns

• Small radioisotope power systems for small explorers

• Black box for hard impact data return

• Extreme environments capabilities required for Venus and
Europa surface missions

• Planetary protection and risk assessment capabilities
required for Mars Sample Return

• Higher performance subsystems enable existing and new
mission concepts

77

W 6.5 State of Practice

• Solar power at 23% efficiency

• Nuclear radioisotope power at 6%
efficiency

• Solid propellant and pulsed liquid
thrusters

• Survival in Martian, Titan surface
environments

• Planetary protection forward
contamination at class IVA

• Autonomous waypoint surface navigation

78

r i

% 6.5 Driving Mission Assumptions

L. ^

• Mars Sample Return

- Planetary protection

• Venus Surface Explorer

- Extreme environments

• Europa Astrobiological Lander

- Extreme environments

- Planetary protection

• All landers

- Propulsion

79

6.5 Cross-Cutting Roadmap

Lunar Pre

Venus Surf

MSR

AFU
Deep Drill

Jupiter Prbs

Europa Ldr 1
> —

i

VSR

Titan Exp!

j^eptun^Ot^^

Solar cell efficiency , nuclear power, energy storage

Small, throttleable rocket engines

Black boxes, local wireless communication

Navigation beacons, visual localization

Fault isolation and recovery

Temperature, pressure, radiation, acceleration

Spacecraft sterilization, cleaning

Assured sample containment in transit, sample handling on Earth

Power and Prop 6.5. 1/2

Comm and Nav 6. 5.3/4

Autonomy 6.5.

Extreme Environments 6

Planetary Protection 6.5

Probabilistic Risk Assessment, Risk Communication

Risk Assessment 6

7

>

• 5 ^>

^ 6.5.1 Solar Power

• Develop crystalline cells with efficiency >
45%, thin-film cells with efficiency > 15%
for longer mission durations

• Status :Triple junction crystalline cells
limited to 27% efficiency, thin film cells
<10%; no dust mitigation

• Metrics: efficiency, output degradation,
mass

• Resources: Plum Brook Testing Facility

• Needed for: small Mars landers

• Power and Propulsion CRM should cover

81

p 6.5.1 Radioisotope Power

• Develop small (~1-10 We) radioisotope
power systems for small spacecraft and
planetary surface missions, use in hard
landers

• Status: Current systems have >100 We
output and mass > 20 kg

• Metrics: Power output, mass, impact G
survival

• Needed for: small, long-life landers at any
body, surface network missions

• Power and Propulsion CRM should cover

82

r i

% 6.5.1 Power Storage

L.

• Develop primary (non-rechargeable)
power storage with energy densities >500
W-hr/kg; secondary (rechargeable) energy
density >200 W-hr/kg

• Status: primary energy density is 250 W-
hr/kg; secondary is 90 W-hr/kg. Other
advanced technologies have been
infrequently utilized.

• Metrics: Energy density; safety

• Enhancing for all missions

• Power and Propulsion CRM should cover

83

r i

% 6.5.2 ISRU-based Mobility

L.

• Develop capabilities for using propellants
produced in situ from local resources for
local transport

• Status: No existing capability

• Metrics: transport system mass vs. range

• Needed for multiple sorties of very long
range on any body

84

p 6.5.2 Chemical Propulsion

• Develop small throttleable rocket engines
for sample return ascent

• Status: Throttleable rocket systems have
been used (Surveyor, Viking), but
capability needs to be rebuilt, non-trivial
development

• Metrics: maximum thrust, Isp, minimum
thrust fraction

• Needed for: Mars, Venus Sample Return

• In Space Transportation CRM should cover

85

p 6.5.3 Wireless Telecom

• Develop high-data-rate wireless
communication through liquid and solid
materials to enable exploration of
extremely remote regions

• Status: ELF (80Hz) to LF (100kHz) and
blue-green laser communication used with
submarines; seismic or acoustic
communication is possible in solid media

• Metrics: Depth of transmission; data rates

• Needed for: deep subsurface/ice missions
at Mars or Europa

86

r i

6.5.3 Black Box

L.

• Develop robust, survivable onboard data storage
and playback for post-mission data delivery to
avoid data loss (black box)

- Depending on the application, a challenge will be how to
communicate through wreckage or extract self from
wreckage

* Status: Aircraft use robust black boxes; no
dedicated data relay subsystems available for
space mission planners

• Metrics: G-level endurance, data storage; data
return bandwidth, mass

* Enhancing for aerial missions without landing
capability, failure diagnosis for landed missions

87

r i

% 6.5.4 Navigation Beacons

L.

* Develop high precision (10 cm, 1 degree), low
mass, short range (~ 100 km) navigation beacons
that offer both range and bearing information

* Status: Radio beacons and VHF Nav Systems
(VOR) used terrestrially to provide both range
and bearing information. ~15 nautical mile range

* Metrics: range and bearing precision, beacon
mass/operational range, required power, lifetime

* Enhancing for landed missions returning to the
same site, e.g. surface rendezvous MSR

88

r i

% 6.5.5 Autonomous Localization

L. ^

* Develop autonomous localization capability using
locally-sensed surface features, thus reducing
mission infrastructure requirements

* Status: Localizing current rover systems requires
significant interaction with ground controllers,
reducing mission throughput

* Metrics: Location estimation accuracy, time

* Enhancing for all mobile surface and aerial
missions

* Autonomous Systems and Robotics CRM should
cover

89

r i

% 6.5.5 Autonomous Fault Handling

L.

• Develop Capabilities for On-Board
Autonomous Fault Detection, Isolation,
and Recovery

• Status: Current systems require either
interaction with ground controllers or
react in a pre-scripted manner

• Metrics: Percentage of S/C faults
addressable through autonomous FDIR

• Enhancing for all missions

• Autonomous Systems and Robotics CRM
should cover

90

r i

% 6.5.6 Extreme Temp. Components

L.

* Develop actuators and avionics capable of
operating under extreme temperatures to enable
missions in extreme temperatures (down to -270C
or up to +460C)

* Status: Most ruggedized components are suitable
for MIL-SPEC temperature range of -40 to +85°C,
which is unsuitable for most planetary
applications.

* Metrics: Flight-allowable storage and operating
temperature ranges, lifetime

* Needed for: Venus Surface Explorer, Venus
Sample Return, Titan Explorer, Jupiter Probes

91

p 6.5.6 Extreme G Avionics

• Develop avionics capable of operating
under extreme (1,000 G to 100,000 G)
deceleration levels, to enable penetrator
missions for subsurface access

• Status: Avionics ruggedness is generally
limited to 10s or 100s of Gs; Some high-G
DoD applications

• Metrics: survivable acceleration levels and
profiles

• Needed for: Jupiter Atmospheric Probes,
Penetrators

92

r i

6.5.6 High Radiation Avionics

L.

* Develop avionics capable of operating in extreme
radiation environments (> 180 krad/day) to enable
Jupiter atmospheric probe and icy moon missions

* Status: Radiation-rugged COTS devices exist, but
are typically for nuclear events, not total dose

* Metrics: total dose storage survival, total dose
operating survival, error-free operation dose rate

* Needed for: Jupiter Atmospheric Probes, Europa
Lander

93

r i

% 6.5.6 Extreme Pressure Avionics

L.

* Develop avionics capable of operating under
extreme (>100 bar) pressure to enable long-
duration missions, such as probes, to planets
with high atmospheric pressure

* Status: Significant technology available for
terrestrial applications (e.g., oil exploration);
limited space flight qualification

* Metrics: Pressure, temperature tolerance,
lifetime, mass

* Needed for: Venus Surface Explorer, Jupiter
Atmospheric Probes, Venus Sample Return

94

r i

6.5.7 Spacecraft Sterilization

L.

• Develop Forward Planetary Protection Capabilities for
Whole-Spacecraft Sterilization and Cleaning

• Status: Viking-level capability decommissioned. New
facility must account for sensitive avionics and instruments

• Metrics: Spacecraft size; spores or bio-remnants per unit
area; decades of reduction, cost impact to spacecraft to use
components qualified to the process

• Resources: Whole-Spacecraft Sterilization Facility

• Needed for: Mars Sample Return, Mars AFL/Deep Drill,
Europa Lander

• Cost: $15M for selective cleaning and transport analysis
approach, if viable. If not, $60M for whole-spacecraft
sterilization process qualification and facility

95

r i

% 6.5.7 Assured Containment

L.

* Develop back planetary protection capabilities for
assured containment of returned samples (<10E-6
loss of containment risk) to enable sample return
missions

* Status: Technology development underway; not
yet flight qualified

* Metrics: Probability of containment loss

* Needed for: Mars Sample Return, other Class V
return missions

* Cost: $46M technology development + > $20M
Earth Entry vehicle flight test

96

r i

6.5.7 Returned Sample Handling

L.

* Multidirectional containment/contamination
control for returned samples to permit returned
sample analysis and to prevent sample
contamination

* Status: Limited technology development
underway for clean sample handling; Sample
Receiving Facility (SRF) architecture design, etc.

* Resources: Sample Receiving Facility

* Needed for: Mars Sample Return, other Class V
return missions

* Cost: $120M for basic capabilities and facility,
another $240M for outfitting facility with
instruments, facility operations, and separate
curation facility and its operations (within 30%)

97

r i

6.5.8 Thermal Control

L.

* Increase capability for insulation and active
thermal control (heating) for missions to cold
environments; temperature tolerance and heat
rejection (cooling) for missions to hot
environments

* Status: Limited capability for Mars missions -
inefficiency drives large power requirement

* Metrics: Heat transfer, heat rejection

* Needed for: Venus Surface Explorer, Mars
Sample Return, Astrobiology Field Lab, Europa
Lander

98

r i

% 6.5.9 Risk Assessment

L.

• Increase capability in risk assessment to permit
more rigorous, consistent design trades

* Status: Probabilistic Risk Analysis, experience,
and other methods are used in projects

• Metrics: Statistical accuracy and consistency of
risk assessments across projects

* Resources: Expertise spread across academia,
industry and NASA

* Needed for: All missions

• Systems Engineering CRM should cover

99

Facilities

100

fa

Required Resources (Facilities and

Human Capital)

• Robotic access technology development and
flight system qualification requires access to
numerous unique facilities across the
country as well as support of the resident
engineering talent that has honed a unique
skill set.

• A small set of facilities exist which are vital
for RAPS applications.

• Most of these same facilities also have direct
application to the Human Planetary Landing
Systems Capability Roadmap #7.

101

fa

Required Resources (Facilities and

Human Capital)

• No ground-based facility exactly replicates
high energy flight conditions. Instead,
individual facilities have been developed that
replicate a particular aspect of hypervelocity
flight.

• When combined with analysis and flight test
capabilities (e.g., sub-orbital balloon and
sounding rocket programs), these ground-
based facilities anchor robotic access
technology development and flight system
qualification.

102

fa

Ground-Based Facility Type and Use
(1 off 6)

• Wind-tunnels achieve fluid dynamic similarity to flight. These facilities are
used to obtain aerodynamics across a large range of relevant Mach
number regimes, patterns of heating to the vehicle, and the behavior of
transition to turbulence for the specific vehicle shape. Because these
facilities do not replicate the energy of the flow, flight heat transfer
conditions are not obtained.

% 1

^ R 1

1 JT

wf i' 1 1

w' * iiiirTw

• Subscale parachute testing in the LaRC TDT

• Full scale parachute testing in the Ames NFAC

• Entry stability testing in the LaRC VST

• Entry system aerodynamic characterization in the LaRC Aerothermodynamics Complex (2)

103

fa

Ground-Based Facility Type and Use
(2 off 6)

• Arc-jets are used to understand thermal protection system response
during hypersonic entry. These facilities can deliver flight-like heat rate,
temperature, heat load, and shear to a test sample. In this manner, the
thermal response of flight hardware can be determined.

• The existing ARC facilities are required for qualification of Mars entry and
Earth return thermal protection systems. For missions to the gas giants,
the Giant Planet Facility, a leg on the ARC arc-jet complex which is no
longer operational would need to be refurbished.

104

fa

Ground-Based Facility Type and Use
(3 off 6)

• Ballistic range facilities operate by firing a small projectile into a test
chamber. Such testing is useful for determining aerodynamic stability
and transition characteristics.

• The Eglin AFB ballistic range is typically used by current robotic Mars
and Earth programs. The ARC ballistic range offers the advantage of
controlling the gas composition and pressure, albeit for smaller models.

105

fa

Ground-Based Facility Type and Use
(4 off 6)

• Shock tunnels can combine fluid dynamic and energy similarity in some
cases.

• The T5 facility at Cal Tech and LENS at University of Buffalo Research
Center can be used to understand hypersonic convective heating and
transition to turbulence.

106

fa

Ground-Based Facility Type and Use
(5 off 6)

• Shock Tubes are used to understand the high temperature atomic,
chemical kinetic, and gas dynamic behavior of the atmospheric
gases at high temperature, which is essential for shock layer
radiation modeling.

TEST

SECTION

VACUUM
CHAMBER —
|U

COLLECTOR

RING

\ TMRU5T 5TAN0

/ NOZZLE
NOZZLE MODEL SUPPORT

SPOOL

• The ARC Electric-Arc Driven Shock Tube is the sole remaining
facility of its kind in NASA.

107

Ground-Based Facility Type and Use
6 of 6

duanced I tanning & I ntegration u ffice

Relevant Environment Structural Test Facilities are used to replicate the
relevant environment for structural design and qualification

• The National Science Balloon Facility, WFF Sounding Pr
Vacuum Chamber are unique national assets.

108

National Aerothermodynamic Capabilities

duanced P tanning &

National Aerothermodynamic Capabilities

NASA Centers with Aerothermodynamic Ground Test or Flight Test Capabilities
AEDC Aerothermodynamic Facilities

Non-govemmental organizations with Aerothermodynamic capabilities

Arnold Engineering and
Development Center
(AEDC) Tunnels B, C

CUBRC:

LENS Shock Tunnels

GASL:

HYPULSE Shock Tube

Ames Research
Center: Arc-jet and
Shock-tube
Facilities

AEDC: Tunnel 9

Langley Research Center:
Langley Aerothermodynamics
Laboratory

Cal-Tech:

T5 Shock Tunnel

Johnson Space Flight
Center:

Arc-jet Facilities

Dryden Flight
Research Center:
Flight-testing

fa

Required RAPS Ground-Based Facilities

(1 off 2 \

Facility

Location

Role

Aerothermodynamics

Complex

NASA LaRC

Understanding hypersonic aerodynamics and convective
heating, including transition to turbulence

Aeroballistic Research
Facility

Eglin AFB

Gather free-flight aerodynamic data using shadowgraph and
laser interferometry

Arc- Jet Test Facility

NASA ARC

Development and qualification of TPS under flight-like
thermo-structural conditions.

Transonic Dynamics
Tunnel (TDT)

NASA LaRC

Perform sub-scale developmental testing of supersonic
decelerators and planetary aerial platforms in relevant
conditions

National Full-scale
Aerodynamics
Complex (NFAC)

NASA ARC

Perform full-scale load testing at representative loads and
Reynolds number for Mars & Titan supersonic
decelerators and full-scale testing of Mars airplane
propeller drive systems.

National Science
Balloon Facility
(NSBF)

NASA WFF
(Palestine
TX)

Perform high altitude balloon drop testing essential for
scaled flight testing at relevant conditions (Mach and
Reynolds Number) for supersonic decelerators. NASA
suborbital balloon and sounding rocket programs
mitigate risk for planetary aerial platforms.

110

r i

% Required RAPS Ground-Based Facilities

L. ^

Facility

Location

Role

Plum Brook Facility
(Vacuum Chamber)

NASA GRC

Allow full-scale testing of landing systems at Mars surface
pressures. Allows scale testing of balloons and airships at
representative (Mars and high-altitude Venus) pressures.

Vertical Spin Tunnel

NASA LaRC

Perform sub-scale testing of entry systems and planetary
aerial platforms to investigate subsonic stability
characteristics.

T5 facility

Cal Tech

Understand hypervelocity convective heating, including
transition to turbulence

LENS

CUBRC

Understand hypervelocity convective heating, including
transition to turbulence

Ballistic Range

NASA ARC

Gather free-flight aerodynamic data using shadowgraph and
laser interferometry. Quantifying transition effectiveness
of ablated materials.

Electric-Arc Driven
Shock Tube

NASA ARC

Understand the high temperature atomic, chemical kinetic,
and gas dynamic behavior of the atmospheric gases at
high temperature for developing radiative heating models.

Arc- Jet Test Facility

NASA JSC

Development and qualification of TPS under flight-like
thermo-structural conditions.

111

• Facility cost information can be obtained from the appropriate
point-of-contact at each facility

• Because of the range of cost assumptions in use by these
facilities, cost information is not provided herein

• Additional information on these and other test facilities can be
obtained at:

• Recommendation: NASA should form a test facilities team to
develop a uniform cost basis for these facilities. Because of the
critical nature of the test facilities and the resident expertise, this
cost information is vital for planning RAPS (and other Capability
Roadmap) technology development.

112

r

Wrap-Up

113

r i

% Long-Term Breakthrough Concepts

L. ^

• We identified some ideas not included in

the roadmap, but worthy of system

studies:

- Micro-probes system design (incorporating
high-G, small RPS capabilities outlined here)

- Lightweight, low-power, high-capacity,
reconfigurable avionics

- High-capability Tele-operated Robotic
Explorers for Mars with Virtual Presence (for
global Mars access by human explorers)

- Melter/Drill for Mars and Europa

- Swimmer for Europa

114

r i

Conclusions (6.1, 6.4)

L.

• The capabilities for entry, descent, and landing are complex
and interrelated at the system level, and will require
significant coordination as mission plans change, including
the coordination of developments between robotic and
human planetary landing systems

• Small landers can be enabled with high-G systems and
small nuclear power sources, to permit consideration of
networks of landers

• A modest amount of Earth testing of aerial systems as part
of an organized program can open up new ways to take
advantage of planetary atmospheres for regional and global
observation

• EDL and aerial vehicle development depend heavily on
NASA test infrastructure and expertise — special attention
is needed to determine how to maintain that infrastructure
and develop new infrastructure, and how that will be funded

115

r i

Conclusions (6.1, 6.4 cont’d)

L.

* For both landed and aerial missions, precursor
environmental observations will enhance and
possibly enable the design and test of viable
systems for those environments. The
performance of systems in those environments
need to be well-characterized to reduce risk for
subsequent missions.

- This must be considered at the program level so that
instrumentation for these purposes can be incorporated
in orbiters and landers, and so that requirements can be
imposed for performance measurements of key systems
so that each mission can feed into the next

- Analogous to the telecomm infrastructure, we need a
sustained Mars atmosphere observation infrastructure

- These objectives should be balanced against the design
margin alternatives to reduced uncertainty

116

r i

Conclusions (6.2, 6.3)

L.

* New surface mobility systems should be
developed to access difficult and treacherous
terrain, and would need to be coordinated with
developments for human exploration robotic
assistants - this long-term investment will enable
a new class of missions not currently envisioned

* Sampling capabilities will initially be driven and
developed by missions. However, deep drilling
and down-hole instrumentation will require
considerable development and demonstration
before mission applications can be considered

117

r i

Conclusions (6.5)

L.

• Radioisotope power systems need to be scaled down in size for
use in small systems - rovers, ground penetrators, etc.

• Extreme environment systems are essential for the envisioned
strategic missions, yet there is no comprehensive program in
place to develop them. An organization needs to be assigned this
task, and the system engineering trades performed for these
missions to define the requirements

• More robust means of communication are required - to provide
data from, e.g., post-landing events, deep subsurface (liquid and
solid)

• New degrees of contamination control for both science and
planetary protection is required for life-detection missions (e.g.
MSR), but is currently at a low capability level

• Assured containment may be the single most vexing requirement
Mars Sample Return faces, for which a chain of events can all be
drivers, and for which most have no qualified capabilities at this
time

118

r i

% Summary

L.

* A set of robotic access to planetary surfaces
capability developments and supporting
infrastructure have been identified

- Reference mission pulls derived from ongoing strategic
planning

- Capability pushes to enable broader mission
considerations

- Facility and flight test capability needs

• Those developments have been described to the
level of detail needed for high-level planning

- Content and approach

- Readiness and metrics

- Rough schedule and cost

- Connectivity to mission concepts

119

1. Are the products connected in a logical progression and
are they linked to credible missions or mission classes?

2. Was the proper set of capabilities identified to address the
mission needs? Are there any alternative approaches that
were not considered?

3. Does the capability roadmap provide a clear pathway to (or
process for) technology and capability development?

4. Are technology development decision points identified,
described and justified?

5. Does the roadmap describe competently the products
planned for the technology development? Is the roadmap
written and presented in a manner understandable to the
non-specialist?

6. Are proper metrics for measuring the advancement of
technical maturity included?

7. Is there a clear and correct understanding of the technical

risks, 1/2 order of magnitude costs, and schedule
estimates to within a year?

120