Mars Architecture Tiger Team MATT

1
Mars Architecture Tiger Team (MATT)
Membership
Philip Christensen (Chair) Lars Borg (ND-SAG Co-C
hair) Wendy Calvin (MSO SAG Chair) Mike Carr D
ave Des Marais (ND-SAG Co-Chair)
Francois Forget Noel Hinners Scott Murchie (MS
S SAG Chair) Jack Mustard (MEPAG Chair) Lisa Pra
tt
Chip Shearer (CAPTEM) Mike Smith (MSO SDT Chair)
Steve Squyres Rich Zurek Dave Beaty Jan Chod
as Richard Mattingly Lisa May (NASA HQ) Michae
l Meyer (NASA HQ)
2
Mars Architecture Tiger Team Report
Background The OMB requested an architecture fr
om 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 archi
tectures based on the Presidents FY09 Budget
release for 2009-2013 and SMD planning estimates
for 2014-2020 Incorporation of the recommendation
s 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 lan
ded 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 internation
al 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 p
lan 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 recentl
y released Presidents 5-year budget (FY09-FY13).
For the FY14-FY20 period the group considered 2
options The current SMD Planning budget with a s
ignificant 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 ca
n maintain the Mars Program and achieve its
science goals With the SMD Budget plan MSR optio
ns 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 elem
ents of MSR Only 5 months of surface operations f
or 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 architectur
e 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 wou
ld 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 earlies
t 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 techn
ical and scientific expertise as a result of the
11 year hiatus between landed missions of MSL
and MSR
13
Conclusions
In all planning exercises the Mars Program shoul
d remember that Major technology development i
s required starting at least 5 years prior to the
MSR development The existing assets at Mars hav
e 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 ca
n maintain the Mars Program and achieve its
science goals With the SMD Budget plan MSR optio
ns 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 elem
ents of MSR Only 5 months of surface operations f
or 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