Dynamic Mars: Activity, Transport and Change Strategic Goals for the 2013 Mars Science Orbiter

1. Dynamic Mars: Activity, Transport and ChangeStrategic Goals for the 2013 Mars Science Orbiter Overview June 7, 2007 Report of the Mars Science Orbiter Science Analysis Group MSO SAG-2 Wendy Calvin, Chair

2. Mars Science Orbiter (MSO 2013) MEPAG Science Analysis Group Activity • Science Analysis Group (SAG-1) Chaired by C. B. Farmer • Recommended Aeronomy and Trace Gas Measurements Emphasized characterization of loss of water to space through the upper Mars atmosphere. Complemented by measurements of key biogeochemical gases (e.g., methane,ethane, etc.) in the lower Mars atmosphere, possibly identifying local areas for future landed exploration. Cost of mission, with straw-man payload, included in 2006 POP guidelines (carried over to 2007). • Follow-up Two Mars Scout teams, both focusing on the upper atmosphere processes and escape to space, were selected for a head-to-head competition for the 2011 launch opportunity. A new Science Analysis Group was formed to re-evaluate options for the 2013 launch opportunity. History: SAG-1 The New Study for MSO Science Analysis Group (SAG-2) Chaired by W. M. Calvin Charter: Review concepts for MSO 2013 including, but not limited to: - Trace Gas Investigation (including work from SAG-1) - Imaging (1-meter/pixel class or better to support future missions) - Orbital Geophysics - Combination with a landed (drop-off) package Goal: Identify MRO-Class Missions with outstanding science and with scientific feed-forward to future near-term missions MRO-class spacecraft Current Study: SAG-2 MEPAG

3. Mars Science Orbiter (MSO 2013) MEPAG Science Analysis Group: SAG-2 Activity Process Group held weekly telecons, augmented by subgroup telecon meetings. Subgroups organized along discipline lines to develop key science questions, traceable to MEP goals and objectives: - Atmospheres, Polar, Geology/Geophysics, Landed Geophysics Several science themes considered with agreement on 3 final mission scenarios, each of which addresses an overall theme of Dynamic Mars: Activity, Transport, and Change: Plan A: Atmospheric Signatures and Near-Surface Change Plan P: Polar and Climate Processes Plan G: Geological and Geophysical Exploration A Core-Mission-Concept providing a good balance of in-depth focus and cross-disciplinary reach was defined for each scenario. Cost/mass option space was explored by considering options which either augmented or reduced the scope of the core concept. One core concept and two augmented options included a landed drop-off package with the following science: Geophysics (seismology, tracking for geodynamics, heat flow), Meteorology Final Report Discussed with MEPAG Chairs and MEP Lead Scientist for Mars Posted on MEPAG website: http://mepag.jpl.nasa.gov/reports/index.html MSO Attributes: 10-year lifetime for telecom, “MRO-Class” Mission 1 June 2007 MEPAG

4. MSO SAG-2 Members • Wendy M. Calvin, Chair - University of Nevada, Reno • Mark Allen, Jet Propulsion Laboratory/Caltech • W. Bruce Banerdt, Jet Propulsion Laboratory/Caltech • Don Banfield, Cornell University • Bruce A. Campbell, Smithsonian Institution • Phil R. Christensen, Arizona State University • Ken S. Edgett, Malin Space Science Systems (resigned 4/18/07) • Bill M. Farrell, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center • Kate E. Fishbaugh, International Space Science Institute • Jim B. Garvin, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center • John A. Grant, Smithsonian Institution • Alfred S. McEwen, University of Arizona • Christophe Sotin, University of Nantes • Tim N. Titus, U. S. Geological Survey • Daniel Winterhalter Jet Propulsion Laboratory/Caltech (Study Scientist) • Richard W. Zurek, Jet Propulsion Laboratory/Caltech (Mars Program Office) MEPAG

5. Plan A: Atmospheric Signatures & Near-Surface Change • Motivation: • Follows up on recent reports of methane and active gullies • Strategy: • Measure with great sensitivity a suite of trace gases whose signatures may reveal subsurface geochemical and/or biochemical activity • Identify source regions through direct observation and by model inversion constrained by concurrent atmospheric data • Extend the climatological record from MGS, ODY, and MRO • Continue to characterize surface changes • Key measurements: • Abundances of key trace gases including, but not limited to, methane • Winds as well as profiles of dust, temperature and water vapor • Imaging with sub-meter resolution and high signal-to-noise (preferred for science and landing site characterization) • Feed-forward: • Landing site certification and atmospheric environment characterization • Identification of potential landing sites for astrobiological or detailed geochemical studies • AFL, Mid-Range Rovers, MSR • Synergistic with concurrent landed network science Gully in Hale crater, MRO-HiRISE (U Az) MEPAG

6. Plan P: Polar and Climate Processes • Motivation: • Follows up on observations of active erosion of the residual south CO2 cap, of the diverse structures of the polar layered terrain, and of varied properties of seasonal volatile deposits • Strategy: • Measure the volume and density of seasonal and interannual change in volatile deposits • Characterize the radiative energy balance, particularly of the seasonal and residual polar caps • Extend the stratigraphic record from MGS, ODY, and MRO, particularly of the polar layers • Continue to characterize surface changes • Key measurements: • Precise elevation and volume of seasonal and residual volatile deposits • Winds as well as temperature, composition and albedo for energy balance and transport • Imaging with sub-meter resolution and high signal-to-noise (preferred for science and landing site characterization) • Feed-forward: • Landing site certification and atmospheric environment characterization • Identification of potential landing sites at high latitudes for future exploration • Mid-Range Rovers, MSR • Synergistic with landed network science • High-latitude Network Station North polar stratigraphy, MRO-HiRISE (U Az) MEPAG

7. Plan G: Geological and Geophysical Exploration • Motivation: • Fill the gap regarding subsurface and internal processes • Explore synergy between orbital instruments and a single landed geophysical package • Strategy: • Two themes: Ancient Climate Change and Near-Surface Change Today • Characterize structure in the upper few meters of the Mars crust; observe thru dust mantles • Extend the stratigraphic record from MGS, ODY, and MRO and continue to characterize surface gullies, debris flows, etc. • Explore the structure and activity of the Martian interior with a landed geophysical package • Even a single station can characterize present subsurface activity and structure • Key measurements: • Imaging the upper few meters of ground • Imaging with sub-meter resolution and high signal-to-noise (preferred for science and landing site characterization) • Landed geophysical package with (in priority order) seismometer, ranging for geodynamics, and heat flow experiment • Inclusion of an integrated meteorological package provides important cross-discipline capability • Feed-forward: • Landing site certification and subsurface structure characterization • Identification of potential landing sites for future exploration • Mid-Range Rovers, MSR • Direct feed-forward to landed network science • Guide development and strategy of network station instrumentation Recent Impact, MRO HiRISE (U AZ) MEPAG

8. MEPAG Science Themes MSO Science Goals Feed-Forward Mars Science Orbiter (MSO) 2013 Science Rationale Science Thrusts Atmospheric Signatures of Subsurface Activity Biotic or Geochemical? Surface Change Changes in Geomorphology • Past and Present Habitability • Modern Water Cycle • Current Climate Activity Science: Astrobiology Atmospheric Transport Surface Change Today Missions: AFL, MSR Mid-Range Rovers Atmosphere/Surface Seismic Activity Crustal activity and Dynamics Surface Change Change in Geomorphology Subsurface Structure What lies beneath the dust mantle? • Tectonic Activity on Mars • Geological History of Water on Mars • Past and Present Climates Science: Ancient Climate Change Surface Change Today Missions: Network, MSR Mid-Range Rovers DYNAMIC MARS: Activity, Transport and Change Geology/Geophysics Science: Modern Climate Change Volatile Inventory Polar Processes Missions: Polar AFL or Station Mid-Range Rovers, MSR • Polar Mass and Energy Budgets • Polar Processes Today • Geologically Recent Climate Change Ice Cap Volume Volatile Inventory Dynamics of Volatile Exchange Polar Energy Balance Stratigraphy Polar/Climate MEPAG Credits: NASA/JPL and MRO CTX & MARCI (MSSS), MRO HiRISE (UA), MGS MOC (MSSS), M. Allen (JPL)

9. Final Mission Scenarios MEPAG

10. NEAR-TERM MILESTONES SDT 6/15/07 - 9/15/07 AO Release 2/08 MCR 5/08 Mars Science Orbiter (MSO) 2013 Example Mission Concept Description • Science thrusts Atmosphere/Surface Geology/Geophysics Polar/Climate • Infrastructure for future missions Landing site imaging 10 years telecom capability Critical event coverage Science data relay Launch November 2013 MOI Capture Orbit 300 X 34,000 km Aerobrake ~9 months Science Emphasis ~3 yrs, ~ 300 km Relay Emphasis ~7 yrs, ~400 km Target Launch Vehicle Atlas V 411 Launch Mass Capability 3510 kg MISSION DESIGN MSO OBJECTIVES Prominent Features Nadir instrument deck Payload Mass 160 kg w/contingency 14 Gbits per 8-hr pass, X and Ka 500 Gbits data storage 10-year Ka/X/UHF telecom Simple monopropellant propulsion 1500 W EOL power Example Payload Considered * Imager (1 m/pixel) Landing site imaging, science investigations * Trace Gas Instrument Atmospheric constituents, sources, sinks * Winds Instrument 3D vector field wind mapping * Thermal IR Spectrometer Mineralogy, atmospheric gases, polar ice * Wide Angle Camera Global atmospheric monitoring & surface imaging * Included in Concept Payload (Reduced Plans fit Cost Guideline) Potential Substitutions/Augmentations Synthetic Aperture Radar Shallow subsurface imaging HiRISE-class Imager Geology and polar monitoring Multibeam High-res. Laser Altimeter Polar volatile balance and global topography Drop-off Package Seismology, geodynamics, meteorology, and heat flow FLIGHT SYSTEM PAYLOAD ELEMENT OPTIONS MRO-class spacecraft MEPAG

11. Conclusions and Findings (1 of 3) • SAG-2 did not prioritize among the 3 scenarios • Each scenario will return significant new information relevant to our understanding of Mars, its history and potential for life • Each scenario provides new orbiter remote sensing capabilities at Mars--no one orbiter can address all scenarios adequately. • A landed drop-package can return significant science return even from a single station. • All three scenarios have implications for missions now being studied to follow MSO, though the implications differ in nature and degree depending on the scenario and the future mission • Imaging with sub-meter resolution and high signal-to-noise capability is needed for certification of future landing sites. • Different scenarios provide different kinds and levels of characterization of other environmental factors (e.g., winds for EDL). • All scenarios provide information (though of different types) needed for human exploration of Mars. MEPAG

12. Conclusions and Findings (2 of 3) • SAG-2 Findings • The Core Mission and Augmented scenarios may range $20-65M above the present cost guidelines: this requires some funding augmentation, a paring down of orbiter costs, or provision of a major component by international partners • All major payload elements, whether or not contributed, should be reviewed against the key measurement requirements. • The maturity of the required instruments is likely to vary considerably and reserves should be scoped accordingly. • The need for science team preparations for Phase E should not be overlooked for Phases B-D. • A core Mars mission should address key questions with innovative, synergistic capabilities • The Core Mission Concepts achieve this with the significant science gain enabled by the proposed augmentations to the cost guidelines. • All resources should not be devoted principally to one element of the mission. • This includes maintaining significant, innovative orbiter science should a drop-package be part of the mission. MEPAG

13. Conclusions and Findings (3 of 3) • Immediate Programmatic Decisions Needed • Is the drop-package to be a key component of the MSO mission? • The character of the MSO mission is very different with and without this high-profile package. • The landed payload must accommodate (i.e., provide funding and mass) a meaningful geophysical package and should carry an integrated meteorological package as well to justify its cost. • Which scenario should the Science Definition Team focus on? • All return great science--programmatic issues thus become the discriminators. • Different science scenarios are likely to require different choices of mission parameters (e.g., orbit inclination). • What cost and mass resources will be baselined for MSO? MEPAG

14. For More Details, see the full Report:MEPAG MSO-SAG-2 (2007). Report from the 2013 Mars Science Orbiter (MSO) Second Science Analysis Group, 72 pp., posted June 2007 by the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group (MEPAG) at http://mepag.jpl.nasa.gov/reports/index.html. This overview has been approved for public release by JPL Document Review Services (CL#07-1783 )