An Update on MoonLITE

1. An Update on MoonLITE Rob Gowen UK Penetrator Consortium EGU Vienna 2009 April 23

2. MoonLITE - Update Mission Overview Impact trial Programme advances International Engagement Next steps

3. MoonLITE - Mission Polar comms orbiter 3 • Spacecraft:Lunar polar orbit, altitude ~100km, <40km for penetrator release.Potential ILN comms link • Payload:4 descent modules, each to implant a ~13Kg penetratorat 300m/s into lunar surface • Landing sites:Globally spaced - far side, polar regions, near side • Launch & Duration: Planned for 2014&1 year operations • Objectives: • network seismology • polar water and volatiles • ISRU (water/radiation/quakes) Far side 4 2 1

4. MoonLITE Heritage • UK commissioned study of Lunar Mission options • BNSC-NASA Joint study on Lunar Exploration • LunarEx Cosmic Visions proposal (= Phase 0) • (May08) Pendine Impact Trials • (July08) International Peer Review • (Mar09) Phase-A Proposal Review • (Mar09) Parallel technology development Prog

5. Pendine Impact Trials

6. Pendine Impact Trials • Full Scale ‘component level’ trials • Conducted at Pendine, South Wales • May 2008 • 3 penetrators fired at 300m/s into dry sand

7. Penetrator Outline Full-scale trial– Scheduled May 19-23 2008 Fire 3 penetrators at 300m/s impact velocity ~13 Kg 0.56m

8. Impact trial – Contributors

9. Impact trial – Payload Mass spectrometer Radiation sensor Batteries Magnetometers Accelerometers Power/Batteries Interconnection Processing Micro-seismometers Accelerometers, Thermometer Batteries,Data logger Drill assembly

10. Trial Hardware Bays Stack

11. Impact Trial - Configuration Rocket sled Penetrator

12. Target entrance aperture Dry sand 2m x 2m x 6m(deep)

14. Results - 1st Trial • Firing parameters: • Impact velocity: 310 m/s • (c.f. 300m/s nominal) • Nose-up ~10degs (c.f. 0 degs nominal) • => worst case • Penetrator found in top of target • Glanced off a steel girder which radically changed its orientation. • Penetration: ~3.9m • Much ablation to nose and belly • Rear flare quite distorted. • Penetrator in one piece✓

15. 1st Trial

16. 1st Trial – Opening up s

17. 1st Trial – after opening up.. Micro seismometer bay Connecting to MSSL accelerometer and data processing bay

18. 1st Trial – accelerometer data Peak gee forces 10 kgee Along axis cutter Main impact Girder 15 kgee Vertical axis 4 kgee Horizontal axis Along axis: • Cutter : 3 kgee • Main impact : 10 kgee • Girder : 1 kgee

19. Hi-res MSSL accelerometer data Lots of high frequency structure

20. 2nd Trial

21. 3rd Trial Steel nose for 3rd trial

22. Survival Table Triple worst case: exceeded 300m/s, and >8deg attack angle No critical failures

23. Impact Trial Objectives Demonstrate survivability of penetrator body, accelerometers and power system. Assess impact on penetrator subsystems and instruments. Determine internal acceleration environmentat different positions within penetrator. Extend predictive modelling to new penetrator materials,and impact materials. Assess alternative packing methods. Assess interconnect philosophy.

24. International Peer Review

25. International Peer Review (9-11 July 2008, London) • Dr. Carle Pieters1 (Chair), Brown University • Dr. Catherine L. Johnson, University of British Columbia and Scripps Institution of Oceanography • Dr. Gregory Neumann, NASA GSFC • Professor F.W. Taylor, University of Oxford • Dr. Mark Wieczorek, CNRS & IPGP • Assessed science of MoonLITE • Assessed strawman payload • Provided prioritization (penetrators/instruments) • Plus a lot of useful advice and direction

26. Outcomes • ‘The Panel found the scientific potential of the MoonLITE penetrator network concept to be exceptionally high in the context of the international exploration activities. • In particular the internal structure of the Moon and the existence/nature polar volatiles. • This exciting mission would provide a stand-alone cornerstone to the proposed International Lunar Network and is a particularly valuable contribution to the early phases of a broader Global Exploration Strategy (GES).’ ‘Both of these fundamental science issues (Internal structure and nature of possible polar volatiles) are well suited to be addressed by an approach that uses a distributed network of instrumented penetrators across the Moon. This is the unique capability potentially provided by the MoonLITE concept.’

27. Phase A

28. UK announces Phase A Study • In December 2008 the UK announced it would undertake a Phase A study of the proposed MoonLITE mission • This study would be supported by NASA • Study duration 9 months, K.O. April 2009

29. MoonLITE Phase A Academic Institutes: Birkbeck College Imperial College London (2 departments) Open University University of Cambridge University College London (2 departments) University of Leicester University of Surrey Industrial Sub-contracts: Astrium Magna Parva QinetiQ (2 sites) Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd

30. Baseline Mission Architecture Mission Level PDS Level Penetrator Level Comms Level Comms Interface Definition PDS Interface Definition Penetrator Interface Definition Mission Requirements Science Requirements

31. Penetrator Product Breakdown Structure Descent Camera Penetrator Structure Platform Subsystems Science Instruments Shell Bays Impact protection Thermal insulation Thermal control Communications Power Digital Electronics Seismometer Geochemistry package Water/Volatiles package Heat flow Sample Acquisition Magnetometer Radiation monitor Accelerometer/Tilt Sample imager Other

32. International Engagement

33. NASA support to Phase A Baseline Mission Architecture Mission Level PDS Level Penetrator Level Comms Level Comms Interface Definition PDS Interface Definition Penetrator Interface Definition Mission Requirements Science Requirements

34. International Lunar Network • MoonLITE is potentially the UK’s contribution to the ILN • The MoonLITE orbiter could go on to become a relay communications orbiter for a future ILN • (Penetrator data could be uplinked to other orbiters) • (EOL satellites could provide useful artificial seismic events)

35. International Mission Participation • Mission Level • Mission sub-system • Launch • Mission planning • Penetrator Level • Contributions to penetrator elements and instruments • Science Level • Contribution to science exploitation

36. Instrument AO • Given a successful Phase A and UK funding approval: • During 2010/11 an International AO will be made for penetrator payload instruments against a strawman payload • Selection will be according to: • Scientific merit • Impact of penetrator systems budgets • Technological maturity/risk

37. Mission Risks • Technical credibility • Parallel technology demonstration • Cost • Loss of focus

38. Please contact Rob Gowen (rag@mssl.ucl.ac.uk)