Mars Architecture Tiger Team (MATT) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Mars Architecture Tiger Team (MATT) PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 19951-ZjEyY



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Mars Architecture Tiger Team (MATT)

Description:

Mars Architecture Tiger Team (MATT) Chip Shearer (CAPTEM) Mike Smith (MSO SDT Chair) ... The Mars Architecture Tiger Team strongly endorses the Mars architecture as ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:147
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 22
Provided by: PhilChri
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Mars Architecture Tiger Team (MATT)


1
Mars Architecture Tiger Team (MATT)
Membership
Philip Christensen (Chair) Lars Borg (ND-SAG
Co-Chair) Wendy Calvin (MSO SAG Chair) Mike Carr
Dave Des Marais (ND-SAG Co-Chair) Francois
Forget Noel Hinners Scott Murchie (MSS SAG
Chair) Jack Mustard (MEPAG Chair) Lisa Pratt
Chip Shearer (CAPTEM) Mike Smith (MSO SDT
Chair) Steve Squyres Rich Zurek Dave Beaty Jan
Chodas Richard Mattingly Lisa May (NASA
HQ) Michael Meyer (NASA HQ)
2
Mars Architecture Tiger Team Report
  • Background
  • The OMB requested an architecture from NASA for
    the Mars Exploration Program for the next decade
  • NASA chartered an assessment group to develop
    this architecture and provide an evaluation of
    the Mars Program relative to the SMD budget
    proposal submitted in the Presidents 5-year
    budget plan
  • Group consisted of 19 members of Mars science and
    engineering community, including the Chairs of
    MEPAG, the MEPAG Next Decade (ND), Mars Science
    Orbiter (MSO) and Mars Science Strategy (MSS)
    Science Analysis Groups, the MSO Science
    Definition Team, and CAPTEM
  • Group met in Washington D.C. on Feb. 14-15, 2008

3
Mars Architecture Tiger Team Report
  • Key elements of this study included
  • Assessment of the Mars Exploration Program
    architectures based on the Presidents FY09
    Budget release for 2009-2013 and SMD planning
    estimates for 2014-2020
  • Incorporation of the recommendations from the NRC
    Decadal Survey and the ND-SAG, MSS-SAG, and
    CAPTEM reports
  • Options for 2016 from MSS-SAG
  • Science priorities for collected samples from
    ND-SAG
  • The SMD stated desire for an MSR landed element
    no later than 2020 with a U.S. contribution to
    MSR of no more than 3.5B
  • Assessment of possible architectures relative to
    the stated science goals of the Mars Exploration
    Program
  • The assumption of significant international
    contribution

4
Mars Architecture Tiger Team Report
Past funding
2020
5
Mars Architecture Tiger Team Report
Past funding
5-year plan
2020
6
Mars Architecture Tiger Team Report
Past funding
SMD Planning Budget
5-year plan
2020
7
Mars Architecture Tiger Team Report
  • Group looked at two types of architectures
  • A science-driven architecture based on the SMD
    plan and the recommendations of the NRC Decadal
    Survey, the MEPAG Goals committees, and the MEPAG
    Science Analysis Groups over the past 5 years
  • Budget-driven architectures based on the recently
    released Presidents 5-year budget (FY09-FY13).
    For the FY14-FY20 period the group considered 2
    options
  • The current SMD Planning budget with a
    significant funding increase in FY17 through FY20
  • A flat funding profile that was based on the
    average of FY10-FY12 for FY14 through FY20

8
Mars Architecture Tiger Team Report
2a
2b
9
Architecture Assessment Summary
  • Key points
  • Given adequate funding the SMD plan can maintain
    the Mars Program and achieve its science goals
  • With the SMD Budget plan
  • MSR options have only Scout mission between MSL
    and MSR
  • 11 year period between NASA Mars landings (2009
    to 2020)
  • A 4 year gap exists between flight elements of
    MSR
  • Only 5 months of surface operations for MSR rover
    launched in 2022

CONCEPT
10
Conclusions
  • The Mars Architecture Tiger Team strongly
    endorses the Mars architecture as proposed by SMD
    that has a balanced scientific program and the
    launch of all MSR mission elements by 2020
  • However, the SMD planning budget, which includes
    the Presidents 5-year decreasing budget, does
    not support this architecture even with the
    planned rapid increase in funding beginning in
    FY17
  • Estimated cost of this balanced architecture is
    6B, including an estimated cost of an MSR
    mission with modest scientific goals of 4-5B
    however total SMD funding for new missions
    through FY20 is 4B
  • Phasing of SMD funding does not ramp up in time
    for a mission in 2016 nor for MSR launches in
    2018 and 2020
  • The MSR mission would require a substantial
    international contribution above the 3.5B U.S.
    contribution currently planned

11
Conclusions
  • The SMD planning budget through FY20, together
    with substantial international contribution could
    support MSR with some adjustment in phasing.
    However, the options would be
  • An MSR program with Scout in 2013 followed by the
    launch of the MSR mission elements in 2018 and
    2022 or
  • An architecture dedicated to the earliest launch
    of MSR, with no missions following MSL and the
    launch of the MSR mission elements in 2016 and
    2020
  • If the projected reinstatement of the funding for
    Mars exploration to levels of 500-900M per year
    does not occur sometime after 2013, then MSR will
    not happen
  • Projected funding levels in FY11-FY16 are 390M
    per year
  • Level funding could support medium-sized missions
    launched every other opportunity (not flagships)

12
Conclusions
  • A Mars architecture consisting of MSL followed by
    the launch of MSR elements in 2016 2020 (no
    Scout) or 2018 2022 (with Scout) would have a
    devastating effect on the Mars Program
  • Lack of progress toward the four goals of
    planetary science set out by the NRC Decadal
    Survey
  • Loss of scientific balance
  • Loss of technical and scientific expertise as a
    result of the gt11 year hiatus between landed
    missions of MSL and MSR

13
Conclusions
  • In all planning exercises the Mars Program should
    remember that
  • Major technology development is required starting
    at least 5 years prior to the MSR development
  • The existing assets at Mars have great
    capabilities that can be utilized to support
    future missions, including site characterization
    and certification, atmospheric characterization,
    and relay

14
Architecture Assessment Summary
  • Key points
  • Given adequate funding the SMD plan can maintain
    the Mars Program and achieve its science goals
  • With the SMD Budget plan
  • MSR options have only Scout mission between MSL
    and MSR
  • 11 year period between NASA Mars landings (2009
    to 2020)
  • A 4 year gap exists between flight elements of
    MSR
  • Only 5 months of surface operations for MSR rover
    launched in 2022

15
Mars Architecture Tiger Team Report
Past funding
SMD Planning Budget
5-year plan
2020
16
Mars Architecture Tiger Team Report
Backup
17
CONCEPT
18
Mars Architecture Tiger Team Report
19
Mars Architecture Tiger Team Report
Past funding
20
Mars Architecture Tiger Team Report
Past funding
5-year plan
21
Mars Architecture Tiger Team Report
Past funding
Proposed funding
About PowerShow.com