Space Robotics: Preview

Preview
Space Robotics
Robotics Technology Assessment

Current areas of research
State of technology maturity
Programmatic Needs
Robotics Technology and Programs

December 8, 2004
David Wettergreen
The Robotics Institute
NRC Solar System

Exploration Survey
NASA Vision for
Space Exploration
Carnegie Mellon University

2
Space Robotics Researcher
Space Robotics Researcher
David Wettergreen
Scientist in the Robotics Institute
Post-doc at NASA Ames
Research Areas
Field-deployable mobile
robots
System synthesis
Software architecture
and engineering
Sensor-based guidance
Adaptive control and
learning
Mobility
Exploration and
autonomy
Research Area
Robotic Exploration
Objective
To develop the methods and practice
needed to engage robots in scientific
discovery and meaningful work
3
Carnegie Mellon
Carnegie Mellon
Carnegie Mellon
Space Robotics at Carnegie Mellon
Creating new ideas and approaches

Space robot concepts and prototypes
Amber,1989
SM2, 1991
Dante I, 1992
Tesselator, 1993
Dante II, 1994
Ratler, 1995
Nomad, 1997
Bullwinkle, 1998
Skyworker, 1999
Hyperion, 2001
Zo, 2004
Experimental analysis in relevant environments

Field experiments:
Antarctica, 1992
Alaska, 1994
Chile, 1997
Antarctica, 1998,1999,2000
Canada, 2001
Chile, 2003, 2004
Carnegie Mellon
Carnegie Mellon
Technology infusion and mission development

Rover Software
TCA/TDL
IPC
Morphin (Gestalt)
D*
TEMPEST/ISE
Hyperion Navigator
Mission Proposals
Icebreaker
Victoria
Long Days Drive
HOMER
Training technologists and leaders
Carnegie Mellon people to and from:

NASA Ames
NASA Johnson
NASA Kennedy
NASA Goddard
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Probably all the NASA centers
Carnegie Mellon
What is a Space Robot?
Carnegie Mellon
Space Robotics Missions
Attributes?
Space Robot
Abilities?
Challenges?
Deep Space
Near Space
Ground
Service
Exploration
Lander
Flyby
9
Assembly &
Maintenance
Orbiter
Rover
Carnegie Mellon
10
Carnegie Mellon
Space Robotics Technology Assessment
Space Robotics Technology

Assessment
Assess current and future

state-of-art of space
robotics:
Mission feasibility
Technology gaps
Robots have been used
since the beginning of
space exploration
(Lunakhod, 1970)
What limits current robots?
What does the future hold?
12
Carnegie Mellon
Near Space Capabilities

Assembly
On Surface Capabilities
Inspection
Surface Mobility
Visual inspection of
exterior spacecraft
surfaces; path planning
and coverage planning;
automated anomaly
detection
Transporting and
mating of components;
making connections;
assembly sequence
planning and execution;
assembling small
structures
Science Perception, Planning &

Execution
Mobility Autonomy
Terrain assessment, path
planning, visual servoing
On-board and ground tools;

data analysis, target
selection, operations
planning and execution
Mobility Mechanism
Extreme terrain access,
energy efficiency
Human EVA interaction
Human EVA Interaction
Maintenance
Change-out of
components;
accessing
obstructed
components; robotic
refueling
13
Position sensors, collect

and process samples
Carnegie Mellon
Near-Space Assembly
14
Carnegie Mellon
Near-Space Robotic Assembly
Currently Possible:
Autonomous assembly of carefully
designed mechanism in a static,
known environment
Autonomous mating of robotfriendly connectors
Needs Work :
Recovering from errors/perturbations
Design and control of high DOF
robot systems
Manipulation of fragile components
Significant Challenge:
Autonomous assembly planning
including responding to unforeseen
situations
15
Instrument Placement
and Sample Manipulation
Tele-operation to
human supervision
robot/EVA astronaut
teams
Astronaut monitoring
and understanding
Monitoring and
documenting EVA tasks;
preparing a worksite;
interacting with
astronauts; human-robot
teaming
Component
capture
Teleoperated
capture of fixed
component
Teleoperated capture
of free-flying
component
Flight SOA
Mating
connectors
Teleoperated mating of
robot friendly
connectors
Fielded
SOA
Autonomous mating of
robot friendly connectors
Flight SOA
Grasp of gossamer
component with attach
point
10 year
nominal
Teleoperated mating
of EVA connectors
Fielded SOA
Carnegie Mellon
Near-Space Assembly Evaluation
Autonomous capture
of fixed component
10 year
nominal
Grasp of gossamer
component w/out attach
point
10 year
intense
Autonomous mating
of EVA connectors
Autonomous mating
of arbitrary connectors
10 year
intense
16
Carnegie Mellon
Near-Space Assembly Examples

Ranger
Teleoperated robots that move large components and mate parts
Skyworker
Closely supervised, semi-autonomous robots that move

large components and mate parts
Tested in neutral
buoyancy facility
Transport of objects
Teleoperated robots that can mate parts and make fine connections between parts
Tele-operated
Low-energy climb on
structure
Motion planning
Closely supervised, semi-autonomous robots that mate parts and make

fine connections between parts
Autonomous robots that move large components and mate parts with
minimal human intervention
Autonomous robots that mate parts and make fine connections between parts
with minimal human intervention
Autonomous robots that perform complete assembly of complicated
structure (e.g., large telescope) from start to finish with substantial support
from ground-based or Near-Space humans
Space Station RMS
Other Systems
Tele-operated crane
Requires special connectors
Limited mobility
Autonomous robots that perform complete assembly of complicated

structures (e.g., large telescope) from start to finish with minimal
human intervention
17
Carnegie Mellon
18
Robonaut
Langley Assembly Robot
ETS-VII
ROTEX
ERA
JEM Fine Arm
SPDM
Carnegie Mellon
Near-Space Robotic Inspection
Near-Space Inspection Evaluation

Robotic visual inspection of some exterior surfaces with no interpretation of
sensory data; teleoperated
Currently Possible:
Mobility and coverage of the
exterior of complex structures
Robotic visual inspection of some exterior surfaces with no interpretation of

data; human operator closely supervising via high-bandwidth communication
Autonomous
refueling/recharging of
inspection robot
Robotic visual inspection of some exterior surfaces; sensory data filtered

before being stored or sent; supervised autonomous operation
Needs Work:
Accessing interior spaces
(perhaps using snake or
other high DOF robots)
Robotic visual inspection of most exterior surfaces; autonomous

interpretation of most data; supervised autonomous operation
Significant Challenge
Autonomous anomaly
detection
Robotic visual inspection of most exterior surfaces; autonomous

interpretation of most data; autonomous refueling and recharging
19
Carnegie Mellon
Near-Space Inspection Examples

AERCam Sprint
Inspector
Failed in space
experiment
Flown on space
shuttle
Designed for
autonomous and
teleoperated operation
Other Systems
Autonomous inspection
Charlotte
PSA (IVA robot)
Path planning and

coverage
21
AERCam consists of two parts:

Hardware platform for external
inspection
Thrusters, Cameras, GPS,
Wireless
Compact size (8 in diameter)
Software for sensing,
reasoning and interface
capabilities that automate
both routine and anomalydriven external inspection :
Autonomous, safe navigation
Autonomous anomaly
detection
Improved crew interfaces and
situational awareness
Carnegie Mellon
Near-Space Robotic Maintenance
Space Shuttle Test Flight

of AERCam Sprint in 1997
22
Carnegie Mellon
Near-Space Robotic Maintenance
Currently Possible:
Autonomous change-out of
components that are designed
for replacement
Accessing components behind
covers under teleoperation
Needs Work:
Autonomous change-out of components not designed to
be replaced
Accessing components behind covers, blankets, etc.
under supervised autonomy
Interaction with badly damaged components
Advanced troubleshooting
23
Carnegie Mellon
AERCam (JSC)
Teleoperated freeflying camera
AERCam IGD and AVIS
20
Carnegie Mellon
Open loop control
Closed loop control

using special markers
A priori model of
undamaged
component
Locating a
component
Flight SOA
Teleoperated refueling
of satellite designed for
refueling
10 year
nominal
Fielded SOA
Autonomous refueling of
satellite designed for
refueling
Robotic
refueling
Current
10 year
nominal
Teleoperated
refueling of satellite
not designed for
refueling
A priori model of
damaged component
10 year
intense
Autonomous refueling
of satellite not
designed for refueling
10 year
intense
24
Carnegie Mellon
Near-Space Maintenance Evaluation
Near-Space Maintenance Examples

Robonaut
Robotic change-out of pre-designed components (e.g.,

ORUs) under teleoperated control
DEXTER
High DOF
grippers
Robotic change-out of pre-designed components (e.g.,

ORUs) under supervised autonomous control
Attaches to end of RMS

Multi-arm dexterous
manipulation system
Compliant grip
Telepresence
interface
Robotic refueling of spacecraft/satellites under teleoperated control

Robotic refueling of spacecraft/satellites under supervised autonomous
control
Robotic change-out of arbitrary exposed components under teleoperated control
Robotic change-out of arbitrary exposed components under supervised

autonomous control
Robotic access to and change-out of arbitrary, obstructed components
under teleoperated control
Robotic access to and change-out of arbitrary, obstructed components
under supervised autonomous control
ROTEX
Other Systems
Flown on space shuttle
Skyworker
Performed simple assembly

and change-out
ETS-VII
Ranger
Progress re-supply vessels
Mostly teleoperated, but with

some autonomous tests
Robotic troubleshooting of anomalies and arbitrary repair under

supervised autonomous control
25
Carnegie Mellon
26
Ranger (University of Maryland)
Ranger Robot Capabilities
Program objectives
Robotic System Performance:
Characterization of the
performance of the various
components of the robotic
system, along with
demonstration of representative
EVA and EVR servicing tasks.
Human Factors Effects: Effects
of local and remote teleoperation
of the robotic system, and
potential mitigating techniques
that may be applied to the user
interface.
Correlation of Flight Data to
Ground Simulations: Validate
the database from computer
graphic and neutral buoyancy
simulations developed in support
of the flight mission.
Four Robotic Manipulators

Two, 8 DOF dexterous arms with:
Interchangeable end effecter
mechanism (IEEM) for tool change
Wrist video camera
Minimum of 30 lbf capability at the
tool tip throughout the work envelope
63" maximum reach
Two tool drives for End Effecter control
One, 6 DOF Positioning Leg
Attached to Spacelab pallet on Linear Positioning Mechanism
Positions Ranger at each work site and puts Ranger into RLM
75" maximum reach
One, 7 DOF video arm with stereo video pair
Independently controlled LED lighting
55" working envelope radius
27
Carnegie Mellon
Near-Space EVA Assistance
Carnegie Mellon
EVA Assistance Overall Evaluation

Robots move humans from one work site to another; human
operator in high-bandwidth, low-latency communication
Currently Possible:
Tracking of EVA astronauts
Physical interaction with astronaut
by holding/handing tools
Recognition of gestures and natural
language commands
Site preparation given specific
requirements
Needs Work:
Site preparation based on task
Free-flowing dialog between robot
and human
Recognition of human emotional
and physical condition
29
28
Carnegie Mellon
Robots move humans from one work site to another; human operator in lowbandwidth, high-latency communication with robot.
Robots do site preparation and cleanup for EVA; human operator in highbandwidth, low-latency communication with robot.
Robots do site preparation and cleanup for EVA; human operator in lowbandwidth, high-latency communication
Robots in same proximity as humans working same tasks but no physical
interaction; human operator in high-bandwidth, low-latency communication with
robot
Robots in same proximity as humans working same tasks but no physical
interaction; human operator in low-bandwidth, high-latency communication with
robot
Robots that physically interact with humans; human operator in highbandwidth, low-latency communication with robot
Robots that physically interact with humans; human operator in lowbandwidth, high-latency communication with robot
Robots that are true teammates with humans, working on same tasks,
responding to natural language, gestures and high-level goals and
recognizing human intentions
Synergistic relationship between human and machine with direct, physical
connections and prostheses, i.e., super humans augmented with machines
Carnegie Mellon
30
Carnegie Mellon
Near-Space Assistance Examples

Robonaut
Robonaut (JSC)
RMS
High DOF
grippers
Teleoperated crane
Can move EVA
astronauts around
Compliant grip
Telepresence
interface
It consists of two arms, two

hands, a head and a waist
It is currently teleoperated
with a small amount of
autonomy. Future advances
in autonomy are planned
Other Systems
Ranger
FTS
Teleoperated
Tested in Neutral
Buoyancy Facility
31
Robonaut is a humanoid
robot being designed at
NASA Johnson Space Center
in cooperation with DARPA
Carnegie Mellon
Surface EVA Assistance
32
Carnegie Mellon
EVA Assistance Evaluation

Robot tracks an EVA crew member while carrying tools and a camera
Currently Possible:
Following of human (e.g.,
pack mule)
Site reconnaissance and
mapping
Gesture recognition
Plan recognition
Needs Work:
Site clean-up (e.g., picking up
tools, setting up experiments)
Dialog with human crew
Recognition of human mental
and physical state
Robots do site survey and preparation as well as post-EVA documentation
Robots carry tools, which they hand to the EVA crew member. Robots can
also collect designated samples
Robots physically interact with humans via high-level voice commands and
gestures
Robots that are true teammates with humans, working on same tasks,
responding to natural language, gestures and high-level goals and
recognizing human intentions
Synergistic relationship between human and machine with direct, physical

connections and prostheses, i.e., super humans augmented with machines
33
Carnegie Mellon
34
ERA Robot Capabilities
Planetary Surface Mobility
Autonomous traversal of rugged terrain via

GPS
Stereo vision for terrain mapping
Custom designed base
Tracking of suited crew member
Stereo vision with BiCLOPS head
Voice recognition
IBM ViaVoice
Manipulation
7DOF manipulator
Barrett hand
Dedicated trinocular vision system
Wireless connection to/from suit
Distributed control infrastructure
Remote workstation
Currently Possible:
Localization and local mapping
100s of meters between command cycles
Coverage patterns
Visual servoing
Obstacle avoidance
Needs Work:
Most terrain types with specialized machines
Globally consistent mapping
Robust navigation
Single vehicle that can access all terrain
types, cover long distances, survive 1000
days AND carry a payload.
Robust self-recoverable mechanisms
35
Carnegie Mellon
36
Carnegie Mellon
Carnegie Mellon
Extreme Terrain Access, Dante (CMU)
Long Distance Traverse, Nomad and Zo(CMU)
Can access most terrain

types with specialized
systems (robots and
supporting
infrastructure)
Can cover large distances with

appropriately sized and
specialized rovers
Nomad
Teleoperated 230km
Zo
Autonomous 10km/day
Dante I and II
volacano explorers
Tethered descent
Again, the challenge is building

general systems that can access
many kinds of terrain, travel
long distances, be sufficiently
light and carry a payload
37
Carnegie Mellon
38
Carnegie Mellon
Surface Traverse Distance
Instrument Deploy & Sample Manip.
Traverse distance per command cycle
Currently Possible:
Visual servoing to target
Contact measurements
Needs Work:
Robust visual servoing
combined with SLAM to visit
multiple targets in a single
command cycle.
Precise contact
measurements and
autonomous sample
manipulation
Drilling to 1000m depth (Mars
conditions)
1m
10 m
Flight SOA
100 m
Fielded
SOA
1000+ m
10 year
Forecast
39
Carnegie Mellon
Approach & Instrument Placement
Command
cycles /
operation :
Simple
surface
contact
measurements
Precision
surface
contact
measurement
s
Multiple
targets in
single cycle,
highly robust
Multiple
Multiple
Single
Highly autonomous
41
Carnegie Mellon
K9 Rover Target Assessment
Remote
measuremen
ts
Flight SOA Fielded

SOA
40
Scientist designated area

Anywhere on rock
segment rock from ground
Patches consistent with
instrument requirements
Sub-patches in manipulator
workspace
Effect of ground and other
rocks
List of possible instrument
poses with allowed error
bounds and surface normals
10 year forecast
Carnegie Mellon
v
x1 , !
1
42
v
x2 , !
2
Carnegie Mellon
K9 Rover Bayesian 3D Rock / Ground Segmentation
Rocky 7 (JPL)
Visual Servoing to Target
Better range estimates
Sense of 3D nature of
world
Slower than 2D methods
Statistical mixture model of 3D dot

clouds
Rock point distribution (spheres)
Ground point distribution (plane)
Parameter estimation with hidden
nuisance variables
K-means clustering
EM algorithm
Future: geometrical and surface
property (color, texture)
constraints
(Top view)
Java GUI display
[Nesnas et al]
Range data
43
Carnegie Mellon
Marsokhod (NASA Ames)
44
Carnegie Mellon
Surface Instrument Deployment

Nomad 2000 (CMU)
Direction
to
SDOG Motion Target
Correlator
SDOG Range
Correlator
Pan
Other Systems
Autonomous
approach and
placement.
Update
Template
Simple
environment.
[Bualat et al]
Pan-Tilt
Controller
Robot Motion
Controller
FIDO (2001) autonomous

target approach using
precise visual navigation
(JPL)
Limited
robustness.
Sojourner (JPL)
Supervised
teleoperation (3-5
command cycles)
Robot
Motion
Simple contact
measurements
Tilt
Compliant mechanism
Pan & Tilt Angles
Rudimentary Find
rock capability (unused)
45
Carnegie Mellon
Command
cycles /
operation :
Example
manipulators:
Precise and
predictable
manipulation
Carnegie Mellon
Surface Sample Manipulation
Whole Sample Manipulation

Imprecise
and
unpredictable
manipulation
46
Manipulate
complex
shapes
Operate in complex
environment w/ clutter,
constraints and occlusions
Robonaut (JSC)
Viking
Tele-operated
humanoid robot
Scoop to pick up
soil, and small
loose rocks.
Human tool use

Multiple
Multiple
Single
Highly autonomous
Scoops,
clamshell
Gripper
Dexterou
s gripper
Human hand
10 year forecast
Significant
Challenge
Flight SOA
Supervised teleoperation
Visual feedback
only
Mars Polar Lander (JPL)
Imprecise and
unpredictable
Other Systems
Supervised teleoperation
Imprecise and
unpredictable
Autonomous excavators (CMU)
Sub-surface vehicles (teleoperated)
Deliberately
limited to avoid
tipping over
lander
47
Carnegie Mellon
48
Carnegie Mellon
Science Perception, Plan & Execution
VIZ (NASA Ames)
Currently Possible:
Virtual presence for scientific exploration
Ground tools for scientists to plan days events.
Generation and robust execution of plans with
Contingencies
Flexible times
Weakly interacting concurrent activities
Limited, highly specialized, onboard science
perception
Needs Work:
Limited high level science goal commanding for
specialized tasks
Human level cognition and perception of science
opportunities.
Carnegie Mellon
Ground planning tool for

scientists
MER 2003 + WITS
MSF + ROAMS rover

simulators
50
Carnegie Mellon
Onboard Science Analysis
Software for the autonomous planning and

execution of basic space-craft functions.
Plans for and executes prioritized list of goals.
Constraints amongst tasks.
Flexible time constraints.
Contingencies.
Flown on DS-1 space-craft in 1999.
Flexible time,
contingencies
Other Systems
NASA Ames Research Center [Edwards et al, 2001]
DS1 / Remote Agent (NASA Ames)
Time
stamped
sequence
Virtual environment for

scientific visualization
(used in 1997 Pathfinder
mission)
Visual information only
49
None (teleoperation)
Return all data
Return selected data
Select targets
Characterize site
Recognize unforeseen
scientific opportunities
10 years
Significant
Challenge
Prioritized task list

with constraints
High level science

goals
10 years
51
Carnegie Mellon
Nomad (CMU, 2000)
52
Carnegie Mellon
Nomad Bayes network rock classifier

color
camera
Network topology reflecting

dependencies.
Rock /
Meteorite
type
Identify rock types
Iron
meteorite
Sandstone
Basalt
Sensor features with minimum

cross dependencies.
Train network by estimating
P(X|Rock Type)
from
example data.
x1
Compute posterior probability

from sensor data features:
x2
xN
color camera
P(RockType | Data) =
spectrometer
Meteorite
P(Data | RockType) P(RockType)

P(Data)
Autonomous onboard meteorite identification
spectrometer
Selects targets
53
Carnegie Mellon
54
Carnegie Mellon
Assessment Conclusions
Challenge of Robustness
System design is an overarching challenge
Human level adaptability and

response to adversity NOT likely
in near future.
Achieved through good system
engineering:
Humans in the loop
Specialized machines for each
task
Sustained testing
Diversify technology base
Respond gracefully to
unexpected situations:
Unmodeled situations
beyond orthodox FDIR
Adaptation
Spiral development because requirements are illspecified

Evolving from capability to reliability
Interaction with pesky humans
Operating on mission-level objectives
Getting beyond tactical autonomy
Continuing technical challenges
55
Carnegie Mellon
56
Human-Robot Interaction Challenges
Human Control is Not Safe!
Establishing a virtual
presence
Non-visual feedback such
as haptic and proprioreceptive.
Shared control (lowlevel control automated)
Adjustable autonomy
Teleoperation
high-level goal input
Human-robot teaming
Human operator to robot ratio
Interface to non-humanoid
robots
This situation occurred

when humans,
overriding the
autonomous
navigation system,
went into a very rocky
area.
"Blind" moves and
turns were used,
compounded by noise
on rate gyro.
Carnegie Mellon
[Brian Wilcox, JPL]

57
Carnegie Mellon
58
Mission Level Objectives
Technology Challenges
Problem
Scientific perception and discovery
go there and look for anorthosite.
Construction
Assemble that strut
Challenges
Understanding operator intentions (e.g. what strut)
Planning in open world and using common sense
reasoning
Complex plan execution in uncertain environment
Perception and computer vision

Robot health monitoring
Planning, replanning and adaptation
Carnegie Mellon
Non-visual feedback to human operator (e.g.,

haptic, kinematic)
High DOF systems
Actuation
Sensing
Control
Replication of human dexterity
59
Carnegie Mellon
60
Carnegie Mellon
10
Need for Sustained R&D
Space Exploration Priorities
Handful of robots
flown
Significant gap
between flight and
terrestrial systems
Review of the Solar System Exploration Survey

by NRC Space Studies Board
Sojourner has more

autonomy than was
used.
Massive in place
infrastructure for
human space flight
61
Carnegie Mellon
Motivational Questions & Scientific Goals
Scientific Themes for 2003 2013
Are we alone?
Determine how life developed in the solar system, where
it may have existed, whether extant life forms exist.
Where did we come from?
Learn how the Suns retinue of planets originated and
evolved.
Discover how the basic laws of physics and chemistry,
acting over aeons, lead to diverse phenomena
What is our destiny?
Explore the terrestrial space environment to discover
what potential hazards exist.
Understand how physical and chemical processes
determine the main characteristics of the planets
First billion years of solar system history
63
Carnegie Mellon
Volatiles and organics: The stuff of life

Origin and evolution of habitable worlds
Processes: How planetary systems work
64
Carnegie Mellon
12 Key Scientific Questions Missions
First billion years of solar system history

1. What processes marked the initial stages of planet formation?
Comet surface sample return (CSSR)
Kuiper belt/Pluto (KBP)
South pole Aitken basin sample return (SPA-SR)
2. Over what period did the gas giants form, and how did the birth of
the ice giants (Uranus, Neptune) differ from that of Jupiter and its
gas-giant sibling, Saturn?
Jupiter polar orbiter with probes (JPOP)
3. How did the impactor flux decay during the solar systems youth,
and in what ways(s) did this decline influence the timing of lifes
emergence on Earth?
Kuiper belt/Pluto (KBP)
South pole Aitken Basin sample return (SPA-SR)
Volatiles and Organics: The stuff of life

4. What is the history of volatile compounds, especially
water, across our solar system?
Comet Surface Sample Return (CSSR)
Jupiter Polar Orbiter with Probes (JPOP)
5. What is the nature of organic material in our solar
system and how has this matter evolved?
Cassini Extended mission (CASx)
6. What global mechanisms affect the evolution of
volatiles on planetary bodies?
Venus In-situ Explorer (VISE)
Mars Upper Atmosphere Explorer (MAO)
65
Carnegie Mellon
66
Carnegie Mellon
11
Origin and evolution of habitable worlds

7. What planetary processes are responsible for generating and
sustaining habitable worlds, and where are the habitable zones in
our Solar System?
Europa Geophysical Explorer (EGE)
Mars Smart Lander (MSL) Mars Sample Return (MSR)
8. Does (or did) life exist beyond the Earth?
Mars Sample Return (MSR)
9. Why have the terrestrial planets differed so dramatically in their
evolutions?
Venus In-situ Explorer (VISE) Mars Smart Lander (MSL)
Mars Long-lived Lander Network (MLN) Mars Sample Return
(MSR)
10. What hazards do solar system objects present to Earths
biosphere?
Large-aperture Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST)
Processes: How planetary systems work

11. How do the processes that shape the contemporary character of planetary
bodies operate and interact?
Kuiper Belt / Pluto (KBP)
South Pole Aitken Sample Return (SPA-SR)
Mars Smart Lander (MSL)
Mars Upper Atmosphere Orbiter (MAO)
Mars Long-lived Lander Network (MLN)

12. What does our solar system tell us about the development and evolution
of extrasolar planetary systems, and vice versa?
Kuiper Belt / Pluto

68
Carnegie Mellon
Large-aperture Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST)
67
Carnegie Mellon
Missions: Key Scientific Questions
SURVEY THEMES
The First Billion
Years of Solar
System History
Volatiles and
Organics: The Stuff
of Life
The Origin &

Evolution of
Habitable Worlds
Processes: How
Planets Work

A flyby mission of several Kuiper Belt objects, including
Pluto/Charon, to discover their physical nature and determine the
collisional history of the Kuiper Belt.
1) Kuiper BeltPluto Explorer
2) Lunar South
Pole-Aitken
Basin Sample
Return
3) Jupiter Polar
Orbiter with
Probes
4) Venus In-Situ
Explorer
5) Comet
Surface
Sample
Return
Increasing Technical Challenge
69
Carnegie Mellon
70
Carnegie Mellon
Pluto/Kuiper Express (August 2000 Design)
Objective
Conduct the first reconnaissance of the Pluto/Charon
system, and attempt to encounter one or more Kuiper
objects.
GOALS:
Investigate the diversity of
the physical and
compositional properties of
Kuiper belt objects
Perform a detailed
reconnaissance of the
properties of the Pluto-Charon
system
Assess the impact history of
large (Pluto) and small KBOs
71
What processes marked the initial stages of planet

formation?
How did the impactor flux decay during the solar systems
youth, and in what ways(s) did this decline influence the
timing of lifes emergence on Earth?
How do the processes that shape the contemporary
character of planetary bodies operate and interact?
What does our solar system tell us about the development
and evolution of extrasolar planetary systems, and vice
versa?
Mission scenario
Launch in 2004 or 2006 on Delta-4, 11-13 year JGA
flight to Pluto
Small RTG-powered spacecraft (Cassini spare RTG)
Remote sensing and radio science instrumentation
Kuiper object flybys as extended mission objective
Mission Options
Pluto Flyby Using SEP
11
Use of solar electric propulsion instead of
ballistic JGA trajectory
10
- Enables roughly equivalent flight
times with launch any year (current
9
tech.)
- Improved SEP: flight times <10 years
Time of Flight to Pluto
350 kg Pluto S/C
8
- Allows use of smaller launch vehicle
Atlas IIIB Launch Vehicle
No LV Contingency
- Requires Earth flyby
SeEGA Trajectory
95% SEP Duty Cycle
7
Optimum Launch Dates
Use of novel gravity assist trajectories
No S/C Power
20% Neutral Mass Margin
- Allows later launch (2007-8)
6
Mellon
- Requires longer flight time or very lowCarnegie
2006
2008
perihelion
NSTAR-1: Isp = 3100 s

15-kW, 174-W/kg S/A, SeEGA

Carnegie Mellon
SEP Technology Level

New-1: 40-cm Engine, Isp = 4000 s
New-2: 40-cm Engine, Isp = 6500 s

2010
2012
2014
72
2016
Launch Year
12
Pluto Kuiper Express (PKE)
Pluto/Kuiper Express
Comments and Issues
Major or Unique Developments Required

PKE as designed required no new technology; key enhancing
capabilities include:
- Low-mass integrated remote sensing instrument package
- Low-mass, low-power avionics
- Uplink radio occultation (F5 power insufficient for
downlink occultation experiment)
Competition nearing conclusion - NASA

decision expected soon
Mission as described here is not based on any
proposal information
Improved SEP technology (development underway) would

be required if that option were selected
Cost (RY$, 2004 launch)

Mission class: Moderate
Technology risk: Low
Development/launch:
$402 M
Operations and data analysis: $150 M
Heritage and Commonality
Note: Includes NASA-directed data analysis costs and

taxes not specified in Pluto AO
Planned utilization of Cassini spare RTG (F5)
120
$RY Millions
PKE design shared avionics with Europa Orbiter (X2000)

Mass reduction motivated by Pluto Express would benefit
many other planetary missions - lightweight structure, lowmass antenna, etc.
100
80
60
40
20
0
2001
Carnegie Mellon
73
2002
2003
2004
2005
Fiscal Year
Carnegie Mellon
74
NOTE: Costs from August 31, 2000 from the OPSP office.
C osts assume a December 2004 launch.
South Pole Aitken Basin Sample Return
South Pole Aitken Basin Sample Return (SPASR)

A mission to return samples from the solar systems deepest crater,
which pierces the lunar mantle.

formation?
How did the impactor flux decay during the solar
systems youth, and in what ways(s) did this decline
influence the timing of lifes emergence on Earth?
75
Return to
Lunar Orbit
Lander
(Descent & Ascent Vehicle)
Powered Descent
Ascent Vehicle
Surface Science
and Sampling
Descent
Vehicle
Carnegie Mellon
Lunar Giant Basin Sample Return
76
Carnegie Mellon
Objective
Collect and return samples of lunar mantle material
from the floor of the South Pole - Aitken basin
Mission scenario (planning baseline)

Orbiter/lander/rover launched on single Atlas III
Direct descent trajectory, orbiter diverts to L2
Lagrange point for data relay
14 days lunar surface operations
Subsurface sampling to 2 meters
Sample collection via tele-operated rover
Lunar ascent vehicle (LAV) launches 4.6 kg of
samples into high Earth orbit
Orbiter rendezvous with sample return vehicle, sample
is transferred to entry vehicle for sample reentry

Soft lunar landing requires development of a throttleable,
bipropellant main engine
Sample collection and handling
2-m deep drill and sample retrieval system on lander
Sample cache on rover is brought into sample container on lander
Tele-operated sample selection

Rover carries monochrome imaging, visible and near infrared point
spectrometer and X-ray fluorescence for sample selection
Sampling decisions must be made on Earth in real time
Ascent from lunar surface

Single-stage, solid rocket motor, spun-up from lunar lander
Rendezvous and sample transfer in Earth orbit

Rover design heritage from Mars missions
Mars sample return design heritage for rendezvous and sample
capture
Sample curation and analysis facilities exist
Descent engine could be used at other airless bodies (if low mass)
Mission Options
Launch sample directly to Earth - no rendezvous in Earth orbit
Avoids rendezvous issues and sample transfer, but requires larger launch vehicle
Rendezvous in lunar orbit
Mass penalty due to lunar orbit insertion and escape
Earth return using aero-entry ballute
Reduces entry vehicle mass and orbiter size, but requires technology development
Link to Earth using Ka-band
Carnegie Mellon
GOALS:
Obtain samples to constrain the
early impact history of the inner
solar system
Assess the nature of the moons
mantle and the style of the
differentiation process
Develop robotic sample
acquisition, handling, and return
technologies
77
Carnegie Mellon
78
13
Comments and Issues
Rendezvous in Earth orbit vs. direct return or

lunar orbit is a key mass/cost/risk trade
Real-time commanding of orbital and surface

elements during critical operations
Surface mission duration limited by power
LAV orbit injection accuracy is a concern.

Additional propellant needed on the
orbiter/rendezvous vehicle to accommodate
injection errors.

A close-orbiting polar spacecraft equipped with various instruments and
a relay for three probes that make measurements below the 100+bar
level.
Over what period did the gas giants form, and how did the
birth of the ice giants (Uranus, Neptune) differ from that of
Jupiter and its gas-giant sibling, Saturn?
What is the history of volatile compounds, especially water,
across our solar system?
What does our solar system tell us about the development

and evolution of extrasolar planetary systems, and vice
versa?
Cost (RY$, FY08 launch)

Life-cycle cost:
$450 - $600M (model: $480M)
RY $ (FY '08 Launch)
Lunar Basin Sample Return (RY $ [FY '08

Launch])

Technology risk: Low to Moderate
Multimission technology: ~$12M
Carnegie Mellon
250
200
150
100
50
0
L-4
L-3
L-2
L-1
Years From Launch (L)
79
80

GOALS:
Determine if Jupiter has a
central core to constrain
ideas of its formation
Determine the planetary
water abundance
Determine if the winds persist into Jupiter's
interior or are confined to the weather layer
Assess the structure of Jupiter's magnetic field
to learn how the internal dynamo works
Measure the polar magnetosphere to understand
its rotation and relation to the aurora
81
Objective
Carrier/Relay
Spacecraft
Initial Approach
V3
V1 V2
Study Jupiters deep atmospheric composition

and dynamics at multiple latitudes
North Probe

Three battery-powered probes (60 kg each)
carried on single spacecraft
Probes are released approx. 6 mos prior to
Jupiter flyby; trajectories allow entry at
different latitudes and different times
Probes operate down to 100 bars
Relay spacecraft records data from all three
probes and relays to Earth
Equatorial Probe
South Probe
Mission Options
Maximum probe depth drives probe mass

and power, and required relay arc
- Shallower probes simplify mission and system design and reduce cost
- May accept shallower depth from probe #1 (North) to increase link margin from probes
#2 and #3
Use of RTG rather than solar power (carrier) may reduce risk
Optimization of perijove, link data rate, frequency, and link duration affects total data return
Baseline Delta 4 LV, 6 yr total mission duration; 2-yr reduction possible at cost of ~$75M
Carnegie Mellon
82
Jupiter Deep Multiprobes
Relay Geometry

Low-mass thermal protection system (15,000K max)
- Materials and designs to be identified
- Some heritage from Galileo Probe
- Test facilities must be reactivated and
maintained (arc jet)
CRSC trajectory
North Probe
trajectory
Relay window durations

approx. 50 60 minutes
North Probe
link window
Equatorial
Probe
trajectory
Low-mass pressure vessel (100 bars)

Communication with reasonable data rate at 100 bar
depth through Jovian atmosphere
- Low-mass primary batteries
- Low mass/power UHF communications
Equatorial Probe
link window
- Relay link data rate:

1.0 kb/s shallow (up to 20 bar)
300 b/s deep (20 100 bar)
- Instrument data
generation rate
~50 kb/ sample
(uncompressed)

View From Earth
Carnegie Mellon
Notes:
- Jupiter rotation
rate limits link
window duration
Carnegie Mellon
Miniaturized GCMS and other instruments

- Prototype exists - development cost ~$8M
South Probe
link window

South Probe
trajectory
Carnegie Mellon
CRSC in solar orbit

for data playback
(220 b/s)
83
Significant Galileo probe heritage

Improved thermal protection and test facilities
benefit most sample return missions, esp. CNSR
Miniature instruments widely applicable, esp. GCMS
Carrier/relay bus can be very similar to INSIDE
Carnegie Mellon
Jupiter Discovery proposal
Probe payload (6.5kg):

Mass Spectrometer
Nephelometer
Atmospheric structure package
Ortho/para hydrogen detector
Accelerometers
Relay link Doppler
Solar net flux radiometer
84
14
Comments and Issues
Potential for continuing science following

probe data relay
- Heliocentric (cruise) science
- Comet/asteroid encounter?
- Possible capture into loose Jupiter orbit?
A core sample of Venus will be lifted into the atmosphere for

compositional analysis; simultaneous atmospheric measurements.
Number of probes could be increased to 4;

trade with data return from individual probes
Similar mission design is possible for Saturn

multi-probes
Mission Class: Moderate

Technology risk: Low to Moderate
Development
$350-425M
Mission Operations $25-30M
Launch Vehicle
$95M
What global mechanisms affect the evolution of

volatiles on planetary bodies?
Why have the terrestrial planets differed so
dramatically in their evolutions?

Carnegie Mellon
85
86
Venus In Situ Exploration
Objective
Conduct Venus surface/atmosphere measurements
Validate techniques for future Venus surface sample
return
GOALS:
Determine the compositional and
isotopic properties of the surface
and atmosphere
Investigate the processes involved

in surface-atmosphere interactions
Mission Options
87
Extend surface survival time to cover primary data relay instead of raising to altitude
- Reduces risk that balloon failure could compromise primary science goals
Carnegie Mellon
- Significant mass and cost impact to increase
surface survival; not required for VSSR
- Balloon inflation and ascent is a major element of future VSSR mission
Carnegie Mellon

Miniaturized in situ instruments
Miniaturized, high-accuracy GCMS (prototype exists)

Miniaturized age dating system (Rb-Sr)
Other instruments (XRF, DISR) are heritage
Insulation system for survival on Venus surface
Pressure vessel with CO2 outer layer and Xe i nner layer
Super-pressure helium balloon materials/systems
Sample acquisition and handling
Teflon-coated polybenzaxozole (PBO) lab tested

Two-stage balloon inflation for safe ascent
Ultrasonic drill prototype exists
Sample transfer at Venus surface pressure

Comments and Issues
Outer insulation
(CO2)
Titanium Pressure Shell
Inner noble gas

filled insulation
Payload
Thermal protection schematic
Mars Pathfinder cruise system and aeroshell design

Viking XRF, Huygens descent imager/radiometer
Pioneer/Venus, VEGA/Venera thermal and balloon
Ultrasonic drill common with MSR, CNSR
Miniature in situ instruments widely applicable
Carnegie Mellon
88
Lander system temperature profile

89
Mission must achieve the proper balance of

science and technology objectives
Key VSSR Technologies
Included
Not Included
Aeroshell entry/descent
Aerocapture/ballute
Surface survival - passive
Ascent vehicle
Drill sample acquisition
Sample transfer
Balloon ascent/mobility

Development/launch: $460 - 525M
Mission operations:
$20 - 30M
Development of in situ age dating is the most

challenging objective, but this mission can
VISE Cost Profile (RY $['08 Launch])
achieve important science/technology objectives
120
without that measurement
100
Increasing data return from surface (prior to
80
balloon inflation) is a near-term study goal
60
Technology development investment of ~$50M
40
will significantly benefit other missions
20
0
L-6
L-5
L-4
L-3
L-2
L-1
L
Carnegie Mellon
90
Technology risk: Moderate to high
(RY $['08 Launch])
Launch Dec 2008, Delta 4, significant margins

Single s/c, direct Venus entry using aeroshell
Free-fall descent, atmospheric science and descent
imaging. Landing at 3-5 m/s
Surface science/sampling during ~1hour on surface,
passive thermal control
Balloon ascent to ~70 km for sample analysis
(possibly including age dating) and telecom direct to
Earth. Minimal data return from surface.
Balloon mission continues for ~3 days
Lander delivery from Venus orbit

- Improves site selection and
delivery accuracy but adds cost
- Insertion into orbit via aerocapture
would validate additional technology for VSSR but is not required for precursor
science mission
Elucidate the history and stability of

Venuss atmospheric greenhouse
Carnegie Mellon
Years from Launch (L)
15

Several pieces of a comets surface will be returned to Earth for
elemental, isotopic, molecular, mineralogical, and structural analysis.

formation?
What is the history of volatile compounds, especially water,
across our solar system?
What is the nature of organic material in our solar system
and how has this matter evolved?
91
Carnegie Mellon
92
Comet Nucleus Sample Return
CNSR in the Sequence of Comet Exploration Missions
Objective
Return pristine samples of volatile materials from a comet nucleus for analysis on Earth

Rendezvous with and orbit an active short-period comet using SEP
30-day mapping for site selection; separate lander descends to surface
Anchor and drill samples from >1 meter depth, minimum 2 sites, rendezvous with orbiter
Samples maintained cryogenic during Earth return (SEP) and direct ballistic entry
CNSR launch opportunities occur almost every year

Launch as early as 2007 - 2008 is feasible, depending on science and sampling goals
Key project decisions should build on results of current/planned comet missions
Coordination with MSR sample handling and analysis facilities will reduce costs
Year
Mission
Deep Space 1
Mission Options
Full science with drilling to 1 m at multiple sites, well documented,
vs. surface grab sample
- Major implications for science return and cost
2001 2002
2003
2004
Single or dual spacecraft (separable lander)

- Dual s/c reduces risk to orbiter due to comet environment and
simplifies landing site selection
- Additional flight system (lander) increases cost and requires
rendezvous/capture for Earth return
Contour
Carnegie Mellon
2009
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
DArrest
Rosetta (ESA)
93
2011
SW3
Wirtanen
Phase A
Phase B
Phase C/D
Landing
Launch
CNSR Example:
2011 launch to
Comet Brooks 2 Carnegie Mellon
Return
2019
Brooks2 ?
94

Comments and Issues
CNSR fits logically within the progression
of comet exploration missions:
Advanced Solar Array
Basic nature of the nucleus - Giotto, DS1

Diversity of comets - CONTOUR
Nature of the dust/coma - Stardust
Internal strength/structure - Deep Impact
Active surface processes - Rosetta
Volatile inventory - CNSR

Development/launch: $500-1000M
(depending on science reqmts)

CNSR is one of the few missions to outer solar
system destinations that does not require RTGs
Precision Guidance
and Landing
Single Spacecraft Landed Configuration
Mission operations:
Wide range of science/risk/cost options can be

explored; key driver is surface vs. drilled
sample and cryogenic preservation
Ground sample handling costs not estimated;
expect significant leverage with MSR
Multimission technology development costs
~$45M for key technologies
Next Generation SEP

95
Technology risk: Moderate
$75-150 M
CNSR Cost Profile (RY $[FY '11 Launch])
Mission class: Moderate to large

Carnegie
2.1 Mellon
M
2010
Tempel 1
Contour
Significant progress in designing and prototyping hardware was

made during ST4 mission development
Commonality with Mars Sample Return, esp. in guidance/landing,
rendezvous and docking, sample transfer, ground facilities
Stardust/Genesis Earth re-entry vehicle and techniques
DS1 validation of SEP and subsequent ground testing
2008
Wild2

Anchoring and drilling systems (prototypes developed under ST4)
Sample transfer and cryogenic maintenance
Dust mitigation techniques
Development of cometary simulants for test and validation
Precision guidance and landing
Validation of Earth re-entry materials for higher velocities
Terrestrial sample handling and analysis facilities
2007
Encke
Stardust
Contour
Use of SEP for both outbound and return trajectories

- SEP provides best mass performance and flight time
- Dust may affect solar array performance, esp. if single s/c option
Return to comet explored in prior mission or select unexplored target
2005 2006
Borrelly
Deep Impact
Carnegie Mellon
GOALS:
Return near-surface cometary materials to Earth for
detailed compositional, isotopic, and structural
analysis
Assess the detailed organic composition of the
cometary nucleus
Assess the porosity and other physical properties of
nuclear material
Assess the physical relationship among volatiles,
ices, organics and refractories and their relationship
to porosity
Assess the isotopic and mineralogic content at both
microscopic and macroscopic scales assess the
detailed organic composition of the cometary
nucleus
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
L-5
Carnegie Mellon
L-4
L-3
L-2
L-1
96
Science Station Deployment
16

GOALS:
Assess the effects of tides on the

satellite's ice shell to confirm the
presence of a current global
subsurface ocean.
Characterize the properties of the
ice shell and describe the three-dimensional distribution
of subsurface liquid water.
Elucidate the formation of surface features and seek sites
of current or recent activity.
Identify and map surface compositional materials with
emphasis on compounds of astrobiological interest.
Prepare for a future lander mission
An orbiter of Jupiters ice-encrusted satellite will seek the nature

and depth of its ice shell and ocean.
What planetary processes are responsible for

generating and sustaining habitable worlds, and where
are the habitable zones in our Solar System?
97
Carnegie Mellon
98
Europa Orbiter
Europa Orbiter
Challenges of Europa Environment
Objectives
Conduct intensive orbital study of Europa to conclusively
determine presence or absence of subsurface ocean,
understand formation and evolution of surface, and
identify landing sites for possible future missions
Key Trades
Radiation Dose (Mega-Rads)
Delta-4H launch in 2008, direct to Jupiter (2.5 yrs)

Propulsive capture into Jupiter orbit, 1.5 year gravity
assist tour to reduce energy
Propulsive capture into 200 km Europa orbit
30 day primary science mission, followed by maneuver
to achieve quarantine orbit
3.3 Mrad
Over 30 day
Science mission
In Europa orbit
3.2 Mrad
Over 1-2 years
in Jupiter orbit
before EOI
Delta-V requirements are very high
Impact
10 year
duration
Contingency
Science (allocation)
Spacecraft (CBE)
Shielding
Adapter
Adapter (CBE)
Propulsion
Subsystem (CBE)
Carnegie Mellon
Planned Missions
Propellant
Propulsion
loaded)
(fully
Contingency (dry)
Propellant (fully loaded)

Contingency (dry )
1221
100kg
273 kg
Europa Orbiter
Europa Orbiter
11.4 ft (3.5 m)
X2000 avionics for survival in Europa radiation

environment - low mass and power
Cost (from May 2001)
Independent panels have identified a Europa

orbiter as the only mission that can reliably
achieve the primary science objectives
Development
Launch vehicle
Operations
Subtotal
Taxes and fees
Total life cycle
Independent cost assessments show very

good agreement with project cost estimates
Radiation-tolerant sensors and instruments
X2000 avionics technology has been

selected for a number of space science
missions; significant industry interest
Advanced radioisotope power source (may be

required)

Cassini Bays
X2000 avionics has very wide applicability

throughout space science program - baselined for
Deep Impact, Starlight, SIM, Mars Smart
Lander; various DOD, NOAA, industry uses
considered
Carnegie Mellon
20 kg
354 kg
Rad s hielding (CBE)
33 kg
Adapter (CBE)
90 kg
Propulsion Subsy stem (CBE)150 kg
Propellant
Comments and Issues
Cassini
22.3 ft (6.7 m)
Command &
Data
Subsystem,
inc. Solid State
Recorder
Science (allocation)
Spacecraft (CBE)
Rad shielding (CBE)
Galileo
Galileo
Europa Orbiter
MASS BREAKDOWN:
Spacecraft
MEO
Telecom
Sats
7 year
duration
Iridium
Science
4 year
duration
Current Missions
Cassini spare RTGs are baseline
New electronics technology

development (X2000) to reduce mass
and risk
Total shielding = 39 kg
Intelsat
99
Science objectives
Achieve quarantine orbit
10-12 year
duration
Other Europa exploration modes (e.g. multi-flybys) have been examined as cost-reduction
measures but would lead to significant reductions in primary science objectives
Main engine, antenna, various subsystems

inherited
Europa
O
Orbiter
rbiter
(X2000)
(X2000)
Earth gravity assist trajectory reduces launch vehicle size and increases mass margin, but
increases flight time to Jupiter by 2 years
Carnegie Mellon
The Europa Orbiter must operate

with high reliability during the 30 day
mission
Mission scenario
Carnegie Mellon
Power
& Pyro
System
X2000 Chassis
Attitude &
Articulation
Control
Electronics
X2000
Electronics
170 kg
Mass
0.25m3
Volume
43 kg
$760M
170
120
1050
30
$1080M
Notes:
- Includes X2000 completion costs
- Includes reserves and contingency
- Includes RTG ($67M)
Primary remaining project risks are launch

vehicle certification and cost, radioisotope
power source selection, completion of
X2000 avionics, and understanding of
radiation effects
Mission class: Large
Technology risk: Moderate (on tasks to go)
0.074m3
1 MIPS Processing 60-200 MIPS

speed
101
Carnegie Mellon
102
17
Europa In Situ Exploration
Objective
Following Europa Orbiter, conduct the first surface
exploration of Europa as the next science and
technology step in a decadal exploration program
Voyager and Galileo

Europa Orbiter
Surface experiments: Science and
technology pathfinders
Soft landers, mobile science stations
Subsurface exploration: Ice and/or
water mobile platform (cryobot)
Sample return from the surface or
subsurface
Surface composition/geochemistry
Microscale surface imaging
Surface temperature, radiation
Seismicity
DS2-style penetrators rather than airbag lander

- Limits instrumentation but may enable
multiple landers
- Limited technology validation for future
missions
Powerstick radioisotope system coupled
with secondary battery can increase lifetime at
added cost
70 kg

Off-the-shelf solid rockets for de-orbit and descent
Mars Pathfinder airbag technology (thermal validation required)
Carrier has very significant commonality with Europa Orbiter
103
Carnegie Mellon
30 kg
104
Comments and Issues

Europa Pathfinder attempts to identify the
minimum surface mission that can make a
meaningful contribution to a long-term
Europa exploration program
Carrier accomodation issues have not been

addressed in detail
A spacecraft dedicated to studies of Marss upper atmosphere and

plasma environment.
Payload mass is severely limited by current

chemical propulsion technology
Planetary protection constraints are not well
understood and may fundamentally limit
future Europa surface exploration
Mission class: Large (carrier + lander)
Technology risk: Moderate to High
220 kg
Low-mass, survivable batteries

Bioload reduction and verification techniques
Surface simulation for testing and validation
Mission Options
Carnegie Mellon
Low-mass chemical propulsion for descent

- Enables significant payload increase vs. baseline
Low-mass, survivable avionics (extension of Europa Orbiter)
Miniaturized in situ instruments
Measurement goals for EPF
Carrier vehicle enters Europa orbit following a 2year gravity assist tour of the Jupiter system
2-week mapping in Europa orbit for site selection
Europa Pathfinder deployed for airbag landing
3-day surface mission, data relay via orbiter
~25Gbits data return
Elements of a Europa Exploration Program
Cost (very rough)

Carrier spacecraft: (assumes
simplest delivery vehicle, and that
Europa Orbiter heritage is available)
Pathfinder lander:
Launch vehicle:
Operations/data analysis:
Total:
$500-600M
Multimission technology:
(lander only)
$20M
Carnegie Mellon
100
125
100
$825-925M
What global mechanisms affect the evolution of volatiles

on planetary bodies?
105
106

GOALS:
Determine the dynamics of the middle and upper
atmosphere
Determine the rate of atmospheric escape
Measure the current neutral gas and ion
abundances and escape fluxes

A lander to carry out sophisticated surface observations and to
validate sample return technologies.
107
Carnegie Mellon
Carnegie Mellon
What planetary processes are responsible for

generating and sustaining habitable worlds, and where
are the habitable zones in our Solar System?
108
Carnegie Mellon
18
GOALS:
Mineralogy,chemistry, and geology of a watermodified environment
A globally distributed suite of landers equipped to make

comprehensive measurements of the planets interior, surface
and atmosphere.
Establish ground-truth for orbital observations

Measurement of atmospheric properties
Test for the presence of organics
Test and validate technology required for sample

return
109
Carnegie Mellon

110
Carnegie Mellon
GOALS:
Long-term (1 martian year) measurements from a

network of stations (4 minimum)
Determine the interior structure and activity
A program to return several samples of the Red Planet to

search for life, develop chronology and define ground-truth.
Measure the properties of the ground-level

atmosphere for analysis of meteorology,
atmospheric origin and evolution, chemical
stability, and atmospheric dynamics
What planetary processes are responsible for generating

and sustaining habitable worlds, and where are the
habitable zones in our Solar System?
Does (or did) life exist beyond the Earth?
Why have the terrestrial planets differed so dramatically in
their evolutions?
111
Carnegie Mellon
Carnegie Mellon
GOALS:
Return samples to Earth from a site selected on
the basis of remotely sensed and in situ data that
will address key scientific questions
Precisely measure the geochemical,
mineralogical, and volatile content of samples in
Earth laboratories
Assess the biological potential of Mars
Provide the ultimate ground truth for orbital and
in situ data to guide future exploration
113
112
Carnegie Mellon
Cassini Extended Mission (CASx)

Extension of orbiter mission at Saturn
What is the nature of organic material in our solar

system and how has this matter evolved?
What does our solar system tell us about the
development and evolution of extrasolar planetary
systems, and vice versa?
114
Carnegie Mellon
19
Titan In Situ Exploration
Cassini Extended Mission (CASx)
Objective
Conduct in situ exploration of Titans atmosphere and
surface as the next step beyond Cassini/Huygens
GOALS:
Follow up on significant
discoveries during the
nominal mission

Launch to Saturn in 2010 or beyond, SEP or gravity
assist trajectory - flight time 6-10 years
Insert into Saturn orbit, ballute aerocapture at Titan
Ballute entry at Titan, balloon mobility and surface
sampling, possible lander package
Orbital and in situ observations; 3-year orbital
mission, 1-year in situ mission
Extension of spatial
coverage on Titan through
changing orbital geometry
Mission Options
Extension of time coverage

of dynamical phenomena at
Saturn and Titan
Range of in situ platforms is possible: Simple lander, mobile lander, simple balloon,
aerobot (controlled balloon)
- Mobility for multiple surface site sampling appears to be a key science driver
- Must plan for variety of surface conditions
- Relative balance of surface and atmospheric observations
Orbital science may be eliminated in favor of in situ science to save cost
Orbiter for telecom relay is probably required
- options
Carnegie
Mellon under study for direct-to-Earth

Comments and Issues
Must better understand relative priority of

future science goals experiment platforms
Several key technologies are independent of
final mission architecture and are common
with Mars and other missions - development
can begin now
Aerocapture, esp. ballute
Atmospheric descent/mobility
Advanced power (improved RTG) and
propulsion (SEP)
Multimission technology development costs
~$50M, not incuding RTG
We must understand future Titan mission
options well enough - and early enough - to
be able to capitalize on the interest generated
by Cassini/Huygens
Aerocapture and entry using ballute or aeroshell

Balloon mobility system - vertical control only, or full vertical and horizontal control
Advanced low-mass radioisotope power system able to operate in Titans atmosphere
Navigation within Titans atmosphere (no celestial references)
Miniaturized in situ chemical analysis instruments
Bioload reduction and verification for planetary protection
Titan surface/atmosphere simulants for testing and validation
116
Carnegie Mellon
Titan Aerover M ission Scenario
Titan Aerover Mission Scenario
Aerocapture under development

within Mars technology program,
candidate for NMP flight validation
Advanced RTG in study phase,
required by future Mars and outer
planet missions
Balloon mobility concepts benefit
from Mars technology investments
Planetary protection techniques
common with Mars
Mission class: Large

Technology risk: High
Carnegie Mellon
Mission operations: $150-200 M

Titan Explorer Cost Profile (RY $ [FY '10
Launch])
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
117
Asteroid Sample Return

Development/launch: $950-1125 M
115
Carnegie Mellon
L-5
L-4
L-3
L-2
L-1
118
Objective
Return well-documented samples of surface and sub-surface materials
from one or more asteroids
Rendezvous with and orbit a near-Earth asteroid(4660 Nereus)

Map for site selection; single spacecraft descends, anchors to surface
Surface and shallow subsurface materials collected from a single site
Spacecraft departs asteroid and returns to Earth for direct entry
Total flight time ~3 years, Delta 4240 LV

Near-Earth asteroid sample return requires no new technology, but does require new
engineering designs and development. Key areas include:
- Surface anchoring and sample acquisition systems
- Dust mitigation techniques
- Low-mass batteries
- Precision landing and hazard avoidance
- Development of surface simulants for system testing and validation
Main-belt asteroid or multiple NEA sample return requires improved SEP - higher
efficiency and throughput than DS1. Development is currently underway.
Mission Options
Return to Eros may minimize mission cost and risk
Multiple landing sites may be feasible...enhances science return but increases cost/risk
Successful navigation and landing of NEAR at Eros demonstrates fundamental capability

to explore near-Earth asteroids
Significant commonality with CNSR and Mars sample return in areas of sample
acquisition and transfer
Stardust/Genesis heritage Earth entry vehicles can be used with very minor modifications
Depth of subsurface access required, if any, drives sample system complexity and cost
Multiple targets could be sampled in a single mission using SEP
SEP enables access to greater number of targets, including main-belt asteroids
- Increases flight time (~7 years for Vesta sample return)
Carnegie Mellon
119
Carnegie Mellon
120
20
Space Exploration Priorities
Comments and Issues

Launch opportunities available virtually every
year
Panel
Inner Planets
New technologies could enhance science return

Surface and subsurface drilling
Sample handling technologies
Hazard avoidance
Mission Concept Name
Cost Class
Venus In-Situ Explorer

South Pole-Aitken Basin Sample Return
Terrestrial Planet Geophysical Network
Venus Sample Return
Mercury Sample Return
Discovery Missions
Medium
Medium
Medium
Large
Large
Small
Kuiper Belt-Pluto Explorer

Comet Surface Sample Return
Trojan/Centaur Reconaissance Flyby
Asteroid Rover/Sample Return
Comet Cryogenic Sample Return
Discovery Missions
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Large
Small
Cassini Extended Mission

Jupiter Polar Orbiter with Probes
Neptune Orbiter with Probes
Saturn Ring Observer
Uranus Orbiter with Probes
Discovery Missions
Small
Medium
Large
Large
Large
Small
Europa Geophysical Explorer

Europa Lander
Titan Explorer
Neptune Orbiter/Triton Explorer
Io Observer
Ganymede Orbiter
Discovery Missions
Large
Large
Large
Large
Medium
Medium
Small
Mars Sample Return

Mars Smart Lander
Mars Long-Lived Lander Network
Mars Upper Atmosphere Orbiter
Mars Scouts
Large
Medium
Medium
Small
Small
Missions listed in
Priority Order
Missions in bold face
were selected by the
Steering Group for
overall prioritization
Primitive Bodies
Cost
Planetary protection issues affect some classes

of asteroids and may increase costs
Development and launch:

Operations:
Main Belt Asteroid Sample Return would

require:
Improved SEP (propellant throughput)
High-efficiency solar arrays
Semi-autonomous navigation and landing
$300-400M
25-40M
Giant Planets
NEASR Cost Profile (RY $[FY '08 Launch])

Technology risk: Low
Large Satellites
200
150
100
Mars
50
0
L-4
Carnegie Mellon
L-3
L-2
L-1
121
122
Carnegie Mellon
Mars Exploration This Decade
Space Exploration
Vision for Space Exploration

2
Review
125
Carnegie Mellon
126
Carnegie Mellon
21

Space Robotics: Preview

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Space Robotics: Preview

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Space Robotics: Preview

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Preview

Robotics Technology Assessment

Robotics Technology and Programs

NRC Solar System

Carnegie Mellon University

Space Robotics Researcher

Space Robotics Researcher

Space Robotics at Carnegie Mellon

Space Robotics at Carnegie Mellon

Creating new ideas and approaches

Experimental analysis in relevant environments

Space Robotics at Carnegie Mellon

Space Robotics at Carnegie Mellon

Technology infusion and mission development

Training technologists and leaders

Carnegie Mellon people to and from:

What is a Space Robot?

Space Robotics Missions

Space Robotics Technology Assessment

Space Robotics Technology

Assess current and future

Near Space Capabilities

Science Perception, Planning &

On-board and ground tools;

Human EVA interaction

Human EVA Interaction

Position sensors, collect

Near-Space Robotic Assembly

Near-Space Assembly Evaluation

Near-Space Assembly Examples

Teleoperated robots that move large components and mate parts

Closely supervised, semi-autonomous robots that move

Closely supervised, semi-autonomous robots that mate parts and make

Space Station RMS

Autonomous robots that perform complete assembly of complicated

Near-Space Robotic Inspection

Near-Space Inspection Evaluation

Robotic visual inspection of some exterior surfaces with no interpretation of

Robotic visual inspection of some exterior surfaces; sensory data filtered

Robotic visual inspection of most exterior surfaces; autonomous

Robotic visual inspection of most exterior surfaces; autonomous

Near-Space Inspection Examples

Path planning and

AERCam consists of two parts:

Near-Space Robotic Maintenance

Space Shuttle Test Flight

Near-Space Robotic Maintenance

Teleoperated freeflying camera

AERCam IGD and AVIS

Open loop control

Closed loop control

Near-Space Maintenance Evaluation

Near-Space Maintenance Examples

Robotic change-out of pre-designed components (e.g.,

Robotic change-out of pre-designed components (e.g.,

Attaches to end of RMS

Robotic refueling of spacecraft/satellites under teleoperated control