1  1  

Human Mars Surface Science Operations Preliminary Results from NASA’s Human Spaceflight Architecture

Mars Destination Operations Team

Marianne R. Bobskill, Ph.D. NASA Langley Research Center

Hampton, VA

Mark L. Lupisella, Ph.D. NASA Goddard Spaceflight Center

Greenbelt, MD

SpaceOps 2014 AIAA 13th International Conference on Space Operations

5 – 9 May 2014 Pasadena, CA, USA

2  2  

INTRODUCTION  

•  Human long-duration Mars surface missions present novel and challenging science operations

•  Mission “Concepts of Operations” study was conducted by NASA’s Human Spaceflight Architecture (HAT) Mars Destination Operations Team (DOT) –  Developed a comprehensive surface operations concept with initial

emphasis on a multi-phased mission that includes 500-day surface stay –  Primary Objectives

o  Capture range of capabilities needed to inform architectures, system design, and technology investments

o  Inform linkages across NASA's Science & Human Exploration Directorates

•  Primary operations guidance: (2005) Human Exploration of Mars Design Reference Architecture DRA 5.0 NASA/SP-2009-566 + Addendum

•  Focus of study was crewed + robotic Mars surface science-driven operations

•  Detailed description of study in preparation by full study team

3  3  

SCIENCE  FOUNDATION  for  CONCEPT  OF  OPERATIONS  

•  Collected and organized science information as foundation for development of crew science activities within mission ConOps

–  Primary Reference source for science goals and activities: *MEPAG HEM-SAG document, (2008) Planning for the Scientific Exploration of Mars by Humans

–  Derived Science goals & objectives across Geology, Geophysics, Atmospheric & Climate Science, and Astrobiology

–  Hosted “special briefings” by Subject Matter Experts (SMEs): o  Deep Drilling, Biocontainment of Pathogens, Planetary Protection (PP)

–  Created science activities “workbook” to collect science ops information, e.g., o  Sampling location, drilling depth, landing site proximity, data collection approach,

analysis location, sample return, contamination control, etc. –  Interviewed MEPAG science discipline SMEs –  Held “Educational Forum”

o  EVA, Mars crew medical & toxicology, crew safety, sample handling, PP operations –  Reviewed multiple NAS NRC and PP guiding documents –  Toured NASA JSC Sample Curation Laboratories

*Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group Human Exploration of Mars – Special Interest Group

4  4  

MARS  SCIENCE-­‐DRIVEN  MISSION  CONOPS  

•  Goal of ConOps development –  Construct representative ConOps for crewed long-duration mission to Mars’

surface, driven by science objectives o  To understand capabilities, assets, and equipment needed to increase

fidelity of architecture assessments

•  Groundrules & Assumptions: Identified fundamental G&As, e.g., –  Number of crew = 6 –  Mission duration on Mars’ surface = 500 days –  Mission elements (e.g., surface habitat & laboratory, two pressurized rovers)

•  Defined Mars Mission Phases & estimates of *“sols” –  Prior to cargo landing/cargo landing & Post cargo landing (~2.25 years) –  Crew landing & acclimation (~30 sols) –  Local exploration (~30 sols) –  Regional exploration (~410 sols) –  Preparation for ascent (~30 sols) –  Post crew departure (TBD, years?)

One sol = a Mars “solar day” = 24 hours + 39 minutes in “Earth time”

5  5  

•  ConOps Development –  Decomposed science objectives into sets of activities/operations –  Grouped into operations “building blocks” = Small segments of crew

activities + “times-to-complete” –  Operations “building blocks” organized into 2-hour “chunks” of crew time –  Integrated into larger groupings around science ops “theme” (e.g., emplace

geophysics instrument) –  Integrated into full mission within Mars mission phases framework

Sol 1 Sol 2 Sol 3 Sol 4 Sol 5 Sol 6 Sol 7 Sol 8

Traverse EVA Rest Sol EVA IVA Characterization Traverse EVA Rest Sol

Traverse Local Seismometry Rest Sol Surface

Measurements Traverse Traverse Local Seismometry Rest Sol

IVA Characterization

Drill Setup Rest Sol Target of

Opportunity Traverse IVA Characterization

Drill Setup Rest Sol

IVA Characterization

Surface Sampling Rest Sol Retrieve Drill &

Sample Traverse IVA Characterization

Surface Sampling Rest Sol

Example crew operations for six crew across eight sols during the “Regional Exploration” phase of Mars surface operations

(“Shallow-Drilling Focus” traverse)

MARS  SCIENCE-­‐DRIVEN  MISSION  CONOPS  

6  6  

SCIENCE  CONSIDERATIONS  in  a  CREWED  MARS  SURFACE  SCIENCE-­‐DRIVEN  MISSION  

•  Most significant scientific challenge: Effectively dealing with Mars samples –  Requires integrated approach across a number of areas –  MEPAG HEM-SAG document was sample acquisition & handling starting point –  *COSPAR policies informed PP approach

•  Key areas: •  Traverses

o  Use long duration of crew on Mars’ surface o  Science ops is key driver of traverse planning & execution o  Both walking & mobile traverses need to accommodate PP o  Long traverses (~15 days, ~250-300 km) critical for science return – require reliable

pressurized rovers, meeting sample integrity needs

•  Sample Acquisition & Handling o  Significant challenge = maintaining sample integrity in uncertain environment o  Much sampling done by EVA crew by hand or tool o  Acquiring “Special Region” & subsurface samples requires caution & ops diligence.

Low-latency telerobotics may be key exploration approach. o  Drilling is important and a significant challenge

  >5m depth = “Special Region”   Drilling through near sub-surface ice creates “Special Region”   Drilling rates are too slow – depths required down to ~300 m (Astrobiology samples)   Level of drill autonomy?

*United Nations Committee on Space Research

7  7  

SCIENCE  CONSIDERATIONS  in  a  CREWED  MARS  SURFACE  SCIENCE-­‐DRIVEN  MISSION  

•  Key areas, continued

•  In-Situ Sample Analysis = “Enabler” for science return –  Aids in determining samples to return for in-depth analysis (Geology & Astrobiology) –  Analyze samples

o  At & near sampling location o  In lab at habitat o  “In hand” by EVA crew o  On rover o  “Downhole” during drilling

–  Identified representative instrumentation o  Some development required. Leverage Biotech microminiaturized instrumentation

•  Planetary Protection –  Key challenge for Mars surface science strategies, particularly for “Special Regions” –  COSPAR principles & guidelines in place – details are being developed –  Controls must be integrated into mission protocols -- impacts, e.g.,

o  Forward and backward contamination o  Bio monitoring, including microbial ID o  Equipment decontamination / sterilization o  Sample containment and handling o  Advanced Life Support (ALS) systems o  EVA equipment o  Quarantine protocols

–  Moon & asteroid missions provide testbeds for PP technology and ops development

8  8  

SCIENCE  CONSIDERATIONS  in  a  CREWED  MARS  SURFACE  SCIENCE-­‐DRIVEN  MISSION  

•  Cross-cutting Themes to be investigated in detail

•  Contamination Control o  Touches almost all areas of operations (including crew safety & system performance) o  Required for science reasons & may be more stringent than PP protocols o  Surface assets (e.g., habitats, EVA suits, rovers) could be significant source of

contamination due to venting, out-gassing and cleanliness levels associated with crew o  Cleaning and verification methods are required to clean and track contaminants,

including dust from contact with martian material

•  Low-Latency Telerobotic Science Operations o  Can address/facilitate safe & PP-compliant surface science with crew o  Autonomous, semi-autonomous, small telerobotic robotic rovers to scout traverses

  Useful reconnaissance technique for PP and crew safety reasons   Contributes to resource management optimization

o  Includes operation of lab at safe distance from habitat

•  Crew Autonomy o  Large communications delay requires crew to plan and perform many science tasks

without direct timely intervention from support on earth o  Key challenge is to strike operational balance between crew autonomy & earth support

  Approach can be tested in prior missions on Moon or in cis-lunar space

9  9  

CONCLUSIONS  &  KEY  FINDINGS  

•  An integrated ConOps was developed for a long-duration human Mars surface mission to understand interdependencies between functional requirements and capabilities needed to meet requirements to conduct “science-driven” Mars mission.

–  Nominal 500-Sol surface duration is technically feasible with sufficient time to address science and exploration objectives

–  Deep drilling for sampling is problematic   Could be significantly influenced by Mars “Special Region” constraints   Drill mass allocation & drill time available are probably insufficient for deep

drilling

•  ConOps helped identify potential missing mass from overall surface manifest, e.g. –  Science lab external to habitat, contamination control and verification, EVA suit

maintenance, robotic rovers for exploring “Special Regions,” dedicated rover for deep drilling operations…

•  Integrating planetary protection considerations into mission operations plans, architectures and systems, including nearer-term missions in cis-lunar space that can feed forward to Mars, will help reduce technical, operational and programmatic risks

10  10  

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  

The authors wish to acknowledge the primary members of the HAT DOT who participated in this study

•  Mr. Larry Toups, NASA JSC (study co-lead with the first author) •  Dr. Stephen Hoffman, SAIC •  Mr. David Reeves, NASA LaRC •  Ms. Michelle Rucker, NASA JSC •  Mr. David North, NASA LaRC

•  In addition, the authors gratefully acknowledge the time that members of the science community devoted to our team in helping us understand their operations requirements

•  Geology: Dr. Dean Eppler, Dr. Mary Sue Bell, Dr. Paul Niles, Mr. John Gruener (all NASA JSC)

•  Geophysics: Dr. Nicholas Schmer (NASA GSFC) •  Atmospheric & Climate Science: Dr. Joel Levine (formerly NASA LaRC, presently

with the College of William & Mary) •  Astrobiology: Dr. Peter Doran (University of Illinois at Chicago), Dr. Catharine

Conley (NASA Headquarters), Dr. Margaret Race (SETI Institute) •  Sample Curation & Contamination Control: Mr. Michael Calaway (NASA JSC)

•  The authors also acknowledge the contributions of a number of experts in various fields, both NASA and contractor, who contributed their time to this study effort

11  11  

Thanks…

You are here…