Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, CA Current Orbiter Capabilities for Future Landing Site Selection Richard Zurek

Jet Propulsion LaboratoryCalifornia Institute of TechnologyPasadena, CA

Current Orbiter Capabilities for Future Landing Site Selection

Richard ZurekMars Program Office Chief Scientist

Jet Propulsion Laboratory

California Institute of Technology

MROMRO

Mars ExpressMars Express

OdysseyOdyssey


Proposed* Mars Mission Architecture

MROMRO

Mars ExpressMars Express

OdysseyOdyssey

MERMER

20132011Operational

Phoenix(completed)

Phoenix(completed) Mars Science

LaboratoryMars Science Laboratory

2001-2007

MAVEN* Aeronomy

Orbiter

MAVEN* Aeronomy

Orbiter

*Proposed Missions

2009 2016 2018 2020 & Beyond

ESA—NASAExoMars

TraceGas Orbiter*

ESA—NASAExoMars

TraceGas Orbiter*

NASA—ESA Rovers*

(Astrobiology/ Sample Return

Cache)

NASA—ESA Rovers*

(Astrobiology/ Sample Return

Cache)

Possible NASA-ESA Joint Mars Initiative

2Pre-decisional - For Planning and Discussion Purposes Only

ESA—EDLDemonstrator*

ESA—EDLDemonstrator*


Orbiter Support for Future Missions

• Orbital Information is critical to future missions landing on Mars in the following ways:– Identification, Characterization, and Certification (for safety) of

landing sites– Characterization of atmospheric environments for EDL – Characterization of surface environments for landed operations

• MER, PHX and MSL have all benefited from such data

• Future landers now proposed include the ExoMars 2016 EDM and a 2018 Dual Rover missions

• Large areas of the planet have been covered at increased spatial resolutions, with some coverage continuing to expand

• Major assets for providing additional critical data are currently: ODY, MEX, MRO– 2016 EMTGO data would arrive late in the process for any launch in 2018

po3Pre-decisional - For Planning and Discussion Purposes Only


HRSC

OMEGA

Surface SpatialScale1 km

300 m

100 m

30 m

10 m

3 m

1m

0.3 m

Visible Visible - Near Infrared Thermal Wavelength

Phenomena Sea beds?Channels

Polar LayeringPaleolakes?Salt Flats?

LayeringVents/Springs?

Mineral Deposits

GulliesDebris Fans

Fine Layering

Patterned GroundFractures

Rocks

THEMISVIS

THEMIS

TES

MOC-NA

MOC-WA

HRSC (SRC)

MRO

CRISM-Survey

CTX

MARCI

CRISM

HiRISE

MEX

ODY

MGS

MOC 1-D CPROTO

Required for Site Certification & Morphologic Detail

Thousands of small area exposures

Stratigraphic relationshipsof layers with

aqueous minerals

Observation Attributes

~70%

100%

~2%

~1%

~62%

~56%

4

Daily Global Maps

>>50%

~40%

~85%

2.8%


Surface Coverage

Project Team Observation Objective Resoln: m/pixel Coverage*

ODY THEMIS

(mid) Day IR(late) Day IR

Night IRVIS

CompositionMorphology

Thermal InertiaMorphology

100100100 18

~ 40% (55%)~100%~100%~ 40% (54%)

MEXHRSC

VIS (color, stereo)

Morphology ≤ 20≤ 60

~56%~85%

OMEGA VIS-IR Composition ~300 >> 50%

CRISM VIS-NIR Composition~200 in 72 bnd~200 in 264 bnd~ 18 in 544 bnd

~70% (80%)~15%~ few %

MRO CTX VIS (stereo) Morphology ~ 6 62%

HiRISEVIS (stereo, color swath)

Morphology(composition)

~0.3 – 0.6 (color)

~ 1%

5

* % of Mars surface covered with good quality data (total including high opacity periods)


MEX HRSC Coverage

6

Totals: 56% at ≤ 20 m/pixel 85% at ≤ 60 m/pixel


MRO CTX Coverage Map

7

As of July 31, 2010 MSSS / JPL / NASA


Coverage by time under low-opacity

conditions

Coverage by latitude under

low-opacity conditions

MRO CRISM Coverage (as of Sep. 2010)

~71% low-opacity mapping coverage

Type PSP+ESP ESP

FRT 10045 3918

HRL 3195 1286

HRS 1719 795

Targeted total 14959 5999

EPF 5885 2164

LMB 94 94

Gimbaled Total

20938 8257

TOD 9452 6082

MSW 2557 0

MSP segment 43038 12547

HSP segment 6968 6968

HSV segment 1449 1449

Survey segment total

51455 20964

8


Capabilities for Site Selection (1 of 2)

• ODY: Approved for second Extended Mission (FY11-12)− THEMIS IR & VIS: Working well in mid-afternoon orbit− Limited fuel will still support operations thru MSL prime mission

• MEX: Approved thru FY10, likely to be confirmed thru 2012, and request to be extended thru FY14 under review− Uncertain remaining fuel load should support operations thru this period− Orbit phasing periodically limits day-time viewing− All instruments still operating

• MRO: Approved for first full Extended Mission (FY11-12)− Telecom is essentially single string, but has been that way for 4 years− Safe mode entries vexing, but not thought to be life-limiting− Fuel not currently an issue given latest scenarios for covering MSL EDL− MCS, MARCI, CTX, SHARAD continue to work as in PSP/ESP− HiRISE and CRISM have seen some degradation (next slide)

9


Capabilities for Site Selection (2 of 2)

• MRO instrument issues:

– HiRISE: Team has used longer and more frequent warm-ups to compensate for increasing ADC (analog to digital converters) bit flip errors

• Considering an onboard annealing sequence which ground testing indicates could reduce errors by breaking up and dispersing the ADC contamination

− CRISM: Both the gimbal (needed for high resolution) and the coolers (needed for IR observations) have degraded with time

• Plan: Use full VNIR/IR capability for 2 weeks every other month in mini-campaigns focused on high priority items (especially during periods of higher data rate)

• VNIR-only mode can be used at other times (but avoid major dust events)o VNIR (0.4 to 1.1µm) aqueous mineral signatures are limited to ferric minerals

• Bottom Line: Full-resolution VNIR/IR targeting reserved for high priority targets

10


MRO EM Predicted Data Volumes

MS

L La

unch

MS

L A

rriv

al

Sol

ar

Con

junc

tion

S. Summer N. Spring N. Summer

270 Ls = 0 90 180

(Relatively) Low Dust Opacity


Summary

• Current Orbiter capabilities for support of future landed missions are substantial, but instruments and spacecraft are aging

– Best to start the process now for proposed missions like 2018• Need site criteria (e.g., as being developed by the E2E SAG)

– Need to use the capabilities conservatively where instrument and/or spacecraft limitations dictate

• Landing site selection processes should be structured so that the life-limited capabilities are used only for the highest priority items– Need to use the data already in hand—there’s a lot, even though

more needs to be done on many interesting places– Need to set site priorities using existing data and increased

coverage of lower resolution/survey observations• May be useful to exploit correlations that have emerged between spectral and

visible imagers (e.g., color variations and VNIR, IR & thermal IR)

– Need to have realistic expectations about the number of sites that could be certified (i.e., with nearly complete high resolution coverage) and the schedule of data acquisition

12Pre-decisional - For Planning and Discussion Purposes Only

Documents

Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, CA Current Orbiter Capabilities for Future Landing Site Selection Richard Zurek