ISU Team Project

This project has been sponsored by:

REVolution

Final Report

International Space University Summer Session Program 2005

The 2005 Summer Session Program of the International Space University was hosted by the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada.

Rear cover page image of ISU SSP 2005 poster courtesy of David MacEntee

Additional copies of the Executive Summary and the Report may be ordered from the International Space University Headquarters. The Executive Summary, ordering information and order form may also be found on the ISU web site at http://www.isunet.edu

International Space University Strasbourg Central Campus Attention: Publications/Library Parc d’Innovation 1 rue Jean-Dominique Cassini 67400 Illkirch-Graffenstaden France Tel. +33 (0)3 88 65 54 32 Fax. +33 (0)3 88 65 54 47 e-mail. [email protected]

ii ______Acknowledgements

The International Space University Summer Session Program 2005 and the work on the Team Project were made possible through the generous support of the following organizations:

SSP 2005 Host Location University of British Columbia

Team Sponsors

Team Project Staff George Dyke, 1st Quarter Co-Chair Gary Martin, 2nd Quarter Co-Chair Dr. Chris Welch, 2nd Half Co-Chair Sébastien Gorelov, Team Project Teaching Associate

International Space University Faculty and Academic Team Carol Carnett, Legal Aid Bureau, Inc. Jim Burke, Former NASA Jet Propulsion Lab

External Experts Harley Thronson, NASA Headquarters Dr. Jim Dator, University of Hawaii Prof. Takashi Kubota, JAXA Prof. Ichiro Nakatani, JAXA Dr. Kazuya Yoshida, Tohuku University Prof. Mikhail Marov, Russian Academy of Science Marie-Josée Bourassa, Canadian Space Agency Jon Bergstrom, Bergstrom Learning Center

We would like to take this opportunity to thank every single person who was involved with this project and offered their insights and experience. We would like to extend our apologies to anyone who we might have missed in the list above. Our appreciation also goes out to all the Faculty and Staff for their hard work without which this entire project would not have gone so smoothly.

iii ______Authors

Justo Alcázar Díaz Aroh Barjatya Technology R&D Engineer PhD Student, European Space Agency/ESTEC SPAIN INDIA Utah State University

Liliana Barrios Katia Belley Software Engineer BASc, Université de Sherbrooke MDA Space Missions MEXICO CANADA

Jeffrey Brink Yuanwen Cai Systems Engineer Beijing Institute of Space Medico- NASA Kennedy Space Center USA CHINA Engineering

Juan Martin Canales Romero Damien Cailliau German Space Operations Center EADS Space Transportation FRANCE PERU DLR

Fiorella Coliolo Daphne Dador European Space Agency Student, MA HQ, Paris ITALY USA George Washington University

Brian Derkowski Ahmet Eren Systems Engineer Student, MSc Middle East NASA Johnson Space Center USA TURKEY Technical University

Jixia Fan Marc Fricker Systems Engineer, Shanghai Robotics Instructor Academy of Spaceflight Technology CHINA CANADA Canadian Space Agency

Daniel Fudge Jean-François Hamel MDA Space Missions Ph.D. Student MASc, University of Toronto CANADA CANADA Université de Sherbrooke

Jonas Jonsson Niall Hurley MSc, Space Engineering Student, Electronic Engineering IRELAND SWEDEN Luleå Teleniska Universitet

Aaron Kennedy Adnan Khan MEng, Electro-Mechanical BEng, Electrical Engineering Engineering CANADA CANADA

iv Jade Lu Aijun Ma Systems Engineer Beijing Institute of Space Medico- The Boeing Company USA CHINA Engineering

Michael Meijers Richard Minns Systems Engineer, ASTRON Systems Engineer, MDA NETHERLANDS CANADA

Sadahiro Mizuatni Christine Nam Japanese Marketing MSc, University of Alberta X PRIZE Foundation JAPAN CANADA

Lilja Nikulasdottir Aimin Niu MSc, Spacecraft Engineering Senior Engineer, China Manned Luleå Teleniska Universitet ICELAND CHINA Space Engineering Office

Ramón Noguerón Sánchez Roger Oliva Balagué Ph.D. Student, Universitat Institut d’Estudis Espacials de Politecnica de Catalunya SPAIN SPAIN Catalunya

Courtney Pankop Vidar Ovrebo Engineer/Scientist Project Manager NORWAY USA The Boeing Company

Christian Paulsen Guus Reijnders MSc Space Technology Project Engineer Narvik University College NORWAY NETHERLANDS Bradford Engineering B.V.

Danielle Renton Alberto Rodríguez García Spacecraft Systems Engineer Telecom Eng., Msc. Mathematics European Space Agency/ESTEC CANADA SPAIN Robotic Research, ESAII

Frank Scheuerpflug Chris Runciman Student, Aerospace Engineering BASc, University of Toronto CANADA GERMANY University of Technology, Munich

Nicola Soper Florian Stagliano MEng, Mechanical Engineering Student, Aerospace Engineering University of Bath, UK UK GERMANY University of Technology, Munich

Bijal Thakore Luuk Van Barneveld MEng, Aerospace Engineering MSc, Delft University University of Bath, UK INDIA NETHERLANDS

v ______Abstract

The REVolution architecture proposes a series of missions, in a framework of international cooperation, to explore the planet Venus in a context of comparative planetology with Earth and Mars. Scientific interests in comparative planetology have recently been recognized by a panel of scientists as a major flaw in current NASA and ESA scientific roadmaps. The REVolution architecture directly addresses this concern. Moreover, within the architecture a series of scientific expeditions are planned to address the search for life in the upper atmosphere, the current state of the greenhouse effect, and understanding the surface composition of the planet.

The REVolution architecture includes missions that can be accomplished with current technologies, but addresses technology development that must occur for future missions to succeed. The timeline has been established to follow currently planned expeditions to Mars, in an effort to profit from any technology advances made within that program.

Unlike most scientific exploration plans, REVolution highlights key areas where private industry can participate, or at least benefit from an involvement in the program. A shift is intended for government agencies to slowly relinquish control of interplanetary exploration to private industry. The paper does not suggest that this will happen soon, rather it provides the initial steps that must be taken within the context of its timeframe.

Public awareness for the REVolution program starts immediately, and will be sustained by focusing on the search for life and the study of the greenhouse effect. Although the immediate stakeholders of the REVolution architecture are intended to be the major Space Agencies, a plan to address each person in those countries is suggested.

It is hoped that the people of the world will benefit equally from the rewards of knowledge gained through the exploration of Venus. At a minimum, the member states, or contributing industries, participating in the REVolution plan will benefit from advancement in technology that typically comes with exploration.

vi ______Faculty Preface

The 2005 International Space University (ISU) Summer Session Program (SSP) was held during July and August in Vancouver, Canada and was hosted by the University of British Columbia. The SSP brought together graduate students and space professionals from all over the world and immersed them in an intensive nine-week, interdisciplinary, intercultural and international curriculum of lectures, workshops, site visits and research.

A key component of every SSP is the Team Project in which the students produce a space project on a topic of international relevance. In 2005 three different Team Projects were undertaken. This report contains the findings of one of them: REVolution, a project examining a future international architecture for the robotic exploration of the planet Venus. Executed by a team of 42 students from 18 countries, REVolution was sponsored by NASA and supported by space experts from around the world, both inside and outside the ISU community.

The objectives of the project were to:

• Identify and evaluate inner solar system locations for exploration and define suitable missions to return appropriate data from them.

• Produce a report that can influence future international planning and execution of space exploration programs.

• Provide experience in multidisciplinary teamwork, under pressure of time and resources, on a problem of current world importance.

During the project the team analyzed current plans, identified future opportunities and challenges and offered recommendations to promote the future exploration of Venus while demonstrating professionalism, discipline and maturity. We, the team faculty and teaching associate, are pleased to commend both the team and its report to you.

George Dyke Chris Welch First Half Co-Chair Second Half Co-Chair ISU, Canada Kingston University, UK

Gary Martin Jim Burke First Half Co-Chair ISU Senior Faculty ISU, France JPL (ret.), USA

Sébastien Gorelov Teaching Associate MIT, USA

vii ______Student Preface

First, inevitably, the idea, the fantasy, the fairy tale. Then, scientific calculation. Ultimately, fulfillment crowns the dream. — Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, 1926

In the summer of 2005 a group of 42 students from 18 countries and with various experiences and abilities in diverse disciplines worked together to outline a program for the future exploration of Venus. Coming from such different backgrounds, our main uniting force was a common inspiration to explore, to reach beyond the boundaries of the Earth and learn of the wonders of space. Through this, as a group, we devised the idea, the fantasy, moved towards the scientific and technical reality and in the end proposed a roadmap to accomplish our vision.

Beyond the architecture, the proposals, the business plans, the most important benefit we received as members of TP REVolution was simply our interactions within the team. In a very short period of time we argued, we bonded, we went without sleep. But in the end we developed a respect for each other; a respect for different backgrounds, different beliefs and simply for the invaluable contributions that each team member added to our project and the experience as a whole.

The ISU has provided the unique opportunity to live and work in an interdisciplinary, international and intercultural environment. We will not forget this summer, spent in Vancouver, Canada, and hopefully the bonds of friendship we have forged will last a lifetime.

The members of TP REVolution would like to express their sincerest appreciation and gratitude for all of the assistance provided by all of our wonderful advisors, faculty and TAs throughout the summer session. We would also like to extend a special thank you to Jim Burke, Mikhail Marov, Chris Welsh, Gary Martin and George Dyke for all of your guidance and support. Sébastien Gorelov, thank you for your help and especially for the late night and early morning snacks. And very special thanks to Chris Runciman’s computer Steve for all of your tireless effort.

viii ______Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION...... 17 1.1 RATIONALE FOR EXPLORING THE INNER SOLAR SYSTEM ...... 17 1.2 MISSION STATEMENT...... 17 1.3 PROJECT SCOPE ...... 17 1.4 DESTINATION VENUS ...... 18 1.5 REPORT STRUCTURE ...... 18 1.6 REFERENCES...... 19

2 BACKGROUND ON THE INNER SOLAR SYSTEM ...... 21 2.1 INNER SOLAR SYSTEM MISSIONS AND OPEN QUESTIONS ...... 21 2.2 FUNDING FOR SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATION PROGRAMS ...... 23 2.3 POLICY AND SOCIETY ...... 25 2.3.1 Previous International Cooperation for Inner Solar System Exploration ...... 25 2.3.2 International Cooperation for Current and Proposed Inner Solar System Missions ...... 25 2.3.3 Outreach ...... 26 2.4 CONTEXT FOR COMPARATIVE PLANETOLOGY...... 26 2.5 REFERENCES...... 27

3 RATIONALE FOR PROGRAM SELECTION ...... 29 3.1 SCIENCE ...... 29 3.1.1 Venus and Comparative Planetology...... 29 3.1.2 Coordinating Science Objectives...... 30 3.1.3 Outstanding Science Objectives...... 31 3.2 POLICY AND OUTREACH ...... 41 3.2.1 International Cooperation Rationale...... 41 3.2.2 Social and Outreach Rationale...... 42 3.3 LEGAL ISSUES ...... 45 3.3.1 Identification of legal issues ...... 45 3.4 COSTING, FUNDING AND ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS...... 47 3.5 TECHNOLOGY...... 48 3.6 CONCLUSIONS ...... 48 3.7 REFERENCES...... 49 Brack, A., 1999. Geochemistry on Mars and the Search for Life. EUG 10, 28th March - 1st April, 1999, Strasbourg, France...... 49

4 PROGRAM OVERVIEW ...... 53 4.1 ARCHITECTURE GOALS ...... 54 4.2 COMMON CHALLENGES ...... 55 4.3 POLICY’S INFLUENCE ON SCIENCE...... 56 4.4 LEGAL OVERVIEW...... 57 4.5 COSTING, FUNDING AND ECONOMICS OVERVIEW...... 62

ix 4.5.1 Costing of missions for REVolution ...... 63 4.5.2 Selecting Funding models based on social and private returns estimate ...... 64 4.5.3 Application of funding models to space activities...... 64 4.5.4 Funding the REVolution program through a benefit-based approach ...... 65 4.5.5 Implication on architecture and technology selection ...... 66 4.6 ARCHITECTURAL OVERVIEW ...... 66 4.7 TIME LINE ...... 67 4.7.1 Near-Term...... 68 4.7.2 Mid-Term...... 69 4.7.3 Far-Term...... 70 4.8 CONCLUSIONS ...... 71 4.9 REFERENCES...... 72

5 NEAR-TERM PROGRAM (2006-2020)...... 73 5.1 INTRODUCTION...... 73 5.1.1 Launchers...... 74 5.2 MISSION 1: FIRST COMMUNICATION RELAY (2012) ...... 74 5.3 MISSION 2: FIRST SAR INTERFEROMETRY SYSTEM (2012) ...... 75 5.4 TRADE-OFF ANALYSIS FOR COMBINING MISSION 1 & MISSION 2 ...... 78 5.5 MISSION 3: ATMOSPHERE WEATHER AND COMPOSITION SATELLITE (2013)...... 78 5.6 MISSION 4: BALLOON EXPLORATION (2013) ...... 80 5.7 MISSION 5: PROBES (2013)...... 81 5.8 MISSION 6: SECOND COMMUNICATION RELAY (2017) ...... 83 5.9 MISSION 7: AEROBOTS (2017)...... 83 5.10 SOCIAL OUTREACH...... 84 5.10.1 Venusphere...... 85 5.10.2 Media Attention...... 85 5.10.3 Primary Outreach of the Project...... 86 5.11 COSTING, FUNDING AND ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS ...... 87 5.11.1 Mission cost ranking ...... 87 5.11.2 Funding model and economic implications ...... 88 5.11.3 Risk assessment ...... 89 5.11.4 Recommendations ...... 91 5.12 MOTIVATIONS FOR INVESTMENTS ...... 91 5.13 CONCLUSIONS...... 91 5.14 REFERENCES ...... 92

6 MID-TERM PROGRAM (2020-2030)...... 95 6.1 INTRODUCTION...... 95 6.2 MISSION 8: FIRST CONSTELLATION NAVIGATION AND COMMUNICATION RELAY (2020)...... 96 6.3 MISSION 9: ATMOSPHERIC SAMPLE RETURN MISSION (2020)...... 98 6.4 MISSION 10: LANDER ROVER MISSION (2021)...... 100 6.5 MISSION 11: SECOND GENERATION WEATHER/OBSERVATION SATELLITE (2025) ...... 102 6.6 MISSION 12: MINI-BALLOONS (2025)...... 103 6.7 MISSION 13 - SEISMOMETERS (2028) ...... 105

x 6.8 MISSION 14 - SECOND CONSTELLATION NAVIGATION AND COMMUNICATION RELAY (2029) ...... 106 6.9 MISSION 15 - A SWARM OF ROVERS (2029) ...... 106 6.10 OUTREACH 108 6.11 COSTING, FUNDING AND ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS...... 109 6.11.1 Mission Ranking...... 109 6.11.2 Funding model ...... 109 6.11.3 Risk assessment...... 110 6.11.4 Recommendations ...... 111 6.12 CONCLUSIONS...... 112 6.13 REFERENCES...... 112

7 FAR-TERM PROGRAM (2030-2050) ...... 115 7.1 INTRODUCTION...... 116 7.2 MISSION 16: SURFACE AND ATMOSPHERIC SAMPLE RETURN (2031)...... 116 7.3 MISSION 17: SWARM OF MINI-GLIDERS (2033)...... 118 7.4 MISSION 18: MOLES (2034)...... 119 7.5 MISSION 19: GREENHOUSE EXPERIMENTS (2036) ...... 120 7.6 MISSION 20: THIRD CONSTELLATION NAVIGATION AND COMMUNICATION RELAY (2039) ...... 122 7.7 MISSION 21: HUMAN ORBITAL MISSION (2040-2050)...... 122 7.8 MISSION 22: SOLAR POWERED ORNITHOPTERS (2040-2050) ...... 124 7.9 MARKET, FUNDING AND ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS...... 125 7.9.1 Mission cost ranking...... 125 7.9.2 Funding model ...... 125 7.9.3 Risk assessment...... 126 7.10 CONCLUSIONS...... 126 7.11 REFERENCES...... 127

8 ARCHITECTURE IMPLEMENTATION ...... 129 8.1 COMPARATIVE PLANETOLOGY IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM AND BEYOND ...... 129 8.2 PROPOSED FRAMEWORK FOR INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION ...... 130 8.2.1 Possible International Framework Structure in the Three Time Periods...... 132 8.3 SOCIAL & OUTREACH ...... 133 8.4 BUSINESS...... 134 8.4.1 Influence of the future on the architecture from a funding perspective ...... 136 8.5 LEGAL ISSUES...... 136 8.6 CONCLUSIONS ...... 137 8.7 REFERENCES...... 138

9 CONCLUSIONS...... 139 9.1 RATIONALE FOR PROGRAM SELECTION...... 139 9.2 PROGRAM OVERVIEW ...... 139 9.3 SCIENCE SUMMARY...... 139 9.4 ARCHITECTURE AND TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY...... 140 9.5 FUNDING/BUSINESS SUMMARY ...... 142 9.6 LAW SUMMARY...... 142

xi 9.7 POLICY SUMMARY...... 143 9.8 OUTREACH SUMMARY ...... 143 9.9 NEXT STEPS SUMMARY...... 144 9.10 KEY POINTS OF REVOLUTION ARCHITECTURE...... 144

10 TECHNOLOGY TIMELINE...... 147

xii ______Index of Figures

Figure 1: Comparison of costs of past and future interplanetary missions ______23 Figure 2: Slow decline in NASA funding (Artemis Society International, 2003) ______24 Figure 3: Rising interest in exploration missions (Global Security, 2005) ______24 Figure 4: Realms of Science Objectives for Venus Exploration ______31 Figure 5: Greenhouse Effect on Earth (Manitoba Energy, Science & Technology, 2005) __ 33 Figure 6: The Greenhouse Effect on Venus (ESA Science and Technology, 2005) ______33 Figure 7: Image of the Surface of Venus from the Venera 13 Lander______36 Figure 8: Comparison of impact craters on Mars, Earth, and Venus______37 Figure 9: (a) 3.3 Billion-year-old rock, (b) Microbial mat, and (c) Microbial filaments ___ 39 Figure 10 Overview of Near-Term REVolution Timeline (2006-2020)______53 Figure 11 Overview of Mid-Term REVolution Timeline (2020-2030)______53 Figure 12 Overview of Far-Term REVolution Timeline (2030-2050) ______54 Figure 13 Dependency Chart ______68 Figure 14 Near-Term ______73 Figure 15 Mid-Term ______95 Figure 16 Distributed antenna ______97 Figure 17 Far-Term ______115 Figure 18: Proposed framework for international cooperation.______131

xiii ______Index of Tables

Table 1: Geophysics Comparison among Venus, Earth, and Mars...... 36 Table 2: Comparison between Earth today and 3.5billion years ago...... 38 Table 3: Comparison among life requirements in present Earth, Mars and Venus...... 40 Table 4 Technology transfer model for Joint Strike Fighter ...... 59 Table 5 COSPAR Rules for planetary protection for solar system exploration mission ...... 61 Table 6 NASA Planetary Protection directives...... 62 Table 7 Mission cost categories for various space agencies, as of 2005...... 63 Table 8 Mission science goals matrix for the Near-Term ...... 68 Table 9 Mission science goals matrix for the Mid-Term ...... 69 Table 10 Mission science goals matrix for the Far-Term ...... 71 Table 11 Mission Trade Off Analysis...... 78 Table 12 Near-Term mission rankings as cost category and re-use opportunity ...... 88 Table 13 Financial and economic risks associated with the Near-Term architecture ...... 91 Table 14 Near-Term mission rankings as cost category and re-use opportunity ...... 109 Table 15 Financial and economic risks associated with the Mid-Term architecture ...... 111 Table 16 Cost Category per Spacecraft...... 112 Table 17 Characteristics of Venus atmosphere...... 119 Table 18 Mission Cost Ranking...... 125

xiv ______List of Acronyms

A AAV Autonomous Aerial Vehicles AIAA American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics AOCS Attitude and Orbit Control System ASI Italian Space Agency

C CCB Common Core Booster Comsat Communications Satellite COSPAR Committee on Space Research COPUOS Committee on Peaceful Use of Outer Space CSA Canadian Space Agency

D DEM Digital Elevation Map

E ESA European Space Agency ESF European Science Foundation

G GNC Guidance Navigation and Communication GPS Global Positioning System

I IAF International Astronautical Federation IAC International Astronautical Congress IR Infrared ISEO International Space Exploration Organization ISS International Space Station ISU International Space University ITAR International Treaty in Arms Regulations

J JAXA Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory JSF Joint Strike Fighter

L LTBT The Limited Test Ban Treaty

M MEMS Micro Electromechanical Systems MGS Mars Global Surveyor MOA Memoranda of Agreement MOU Memoranda of Understanding

xv MTO Mars telecommunication Obiter

N NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NEO Near Earth Object NPS Nuclear Propulsion Systems NRC National Research Council NRE Non-Recoverable Engineering

O OST Outer Space Treaty OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy

P PBO Polybenzoxazole PFA PolyFluoroAlkoxy PIBO PolyImidobenBenzOxazole PIDDP Planetary Instrument Definition and Development Program PPP Public Private Partnerships PTFE PolyTetraFluoroEthylene

R R & D Research and Development REVolution Robotic Exploration of Venus for Planetary Evolution ROI Return on Investment RTG Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators

S SAR Synthetic Aperture Radar SRG Stirling Radioisotope Generators STAIF Space Technology and Applications International Forum STG Space Technology Group

T TBD To be determined TPF Terrestrial Planet Finder

U UN United Nations USA United States of America USAF United States Air Force USD United States Dollar USGS United States Geological Survey USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics UV Ultraviolet

V VGS Venus Global Surveyor VIF Venus Interagency Forum

xvi ______Chapter 1 1 Introduction

1.1 Rationale for Exploring the Inner Solar System Humanity has striven to ensure and improve the quality of its existence through society, technology, and science. As societies grow, environments expand and humanity faces increasing challenges. In an endeavour to overcome these challenges, an awareness of our environment developed. As humanity becomes more of a global society it looks outwards to the Solar System. Curiosity about the origin and fate of our world causes us look to neighboring planets in order to see how the Earth evolved and may evolve.

Our knowledge of the solar system has developed significantly over the recent decades. However, exploration of the solar system to date has been focused primarily on bodies that lie beyond the Earth’s orbit. In the last ten years there have been more than ten missions to Mars, nine missions to comets, and no less than three missions to asteroids. By comparison, there has only been only one mission to a planetary body within the Earth’s orbit. To improve our understanding of the Earth and the entire Solar System, exploration is necessary (NASA, 2005a) (NASA, 2005b).

1.2 Mission Statement … To develop an architecture for robotic missions to Venus for the purpose of comparative planetology with the focus on planetary evolution.

The project shall provide innovative solutions to better understand the Earth through a framework of international co-operation.

1.3 Project Scope After considering various options for inner solar system exploration, presented in chapter two, the team decided to focus on developing an architecture for the long-term robotic exploration of Venus. The purpose of this large investment is to improve the understanding of Earth’s development by studying Venus in a context of comparative planetology. As a recent Space Studies Board review pointed out, NASA’s 2005 Space and Earth Sciences plan fails to improve the understanding of Venus to support comparative terrestrial planetology. The missions proposed will provide measurements in three key areas of comparative planetology of Venus: the atmosphere, the geophysics and the possibility of past or present life.

It is recognized that this task is large and challenging, but a necessary one to undertake, as explained in the following chapters. The presumption that one nation can undertake this challenge seems ill-conceived, given the priorities of current space programs and that of the general public. Therefore, it is imperative that the proposal outlined in this text, include strategies

17 Introduction

to engage the public, secure funding from governments and industry, and to suggest legal and policy changes that will enable this international collaboration. A collaboration which is important, since the Earth and its future belongs to all of its inhabitants. It is intended that the information collected be shared amongst all nations, allowing everyone to benefit from the knowledge gained, in fields ranging from science to philosophy

The outreach proposal addresses the study of the Greenhouse effect on Venus and the humanistic and philosophical questions of finding life on Venus. The importance of these questions to society and the implications of the findings are key to create an outreach program that can be easily understood and supported by the entire public of not only traditional space faring nations, but those who are emerging or are considering participation in space exploration.

The program architecture will layout project objectives in a logical and achievable order, in a context of international collaboration such that all the nations of the world may have a chance to participate in the proposed exploration of Venus. This collaboration will serve to reduce the immediate cost for each nation and at the same time assist in building stronger political and societal bonds. Finally, to enable all of what has been discussed above, technology in vital areas must advance. Therefore, technology investment areas will be highlighted throughout the architecture discussion.

1.4 Destination Venus Humanity is naturally intrigued by its own environment and how that environment affects its development. In the field of scientific research and understanding, some studies receive greater priority in public interest and appeal. Commonly, this applies to research with tangible outputs for society that affect the daily life of each person. Consequently, projects that seek knowledge that has direct impact on the future of society are more likely to attract interest and subsequently receive national or international funding.

In order to better understand Earth’s environment, it is desirable to consider our planet as one of a number of planets in the cosmos. Our neighboring planets, Mars and Venus, seem entirely dissimilar from Earth at first glance. We seek answers to the questions: Are they? And if so, how? And why?

It is possible that these planets had similar stages of evolution when compared to Earth. Some of these stages may yet be part of Earth’s future. It is important to clearly identify the physical processes that have driven the evolution of these planets to become so different from Earth. This knowledge may then be applied to ensure or improve the quality of life on Earth. From this perspective, the neighboring planets are a unique and invaluable resource of knowledge. Venus and Mars may be considered libraries of information, storing data on planetary evolution.

At this moment our ability to draw parallels between Earth and other bodies in our solar system is far from complete. With a multitude of recent Mars probes and remote sensing missions, humanity has just started to learn what it can from the library we call “Mars”. To understand Earth’s unique position in our solar system completely, this one source is not enough. It is time to resume getting information from the library we call “Venus”.

1.5 Report Structure This section serves as a guide to the report. From the initial problem statement, the team researched the broad topic of inner solar system robotic exploration, refined the scope of

18 Introduction investigation, and suggested an approach for the exploration for Venus. Below is a brief description of each chapter.

Chapter One outlines the vision and purpose of Team REVolution. The original problem statement is discussed, along with a brief discussion of why Venus became the focus of the team.

Chapter Two describes the early work of the team to determine the current state of knowledge of inner solar system exploration. Past, present, and proposed missions are discussed or referenced. Current and future challenges to exploration from a standpoint of legal, policy, business, society, and science are also discussed. Finally, “comparative planetology” is introduced.

Chapter Three includes a discussion of why Venus should be considered as a target for a sustained exploration program. Past findings and outstanding scientific questions are presented and discussed in the context of comparative planetology. Societal and engineering motivations for exploration are also discussed. Mechanisms to support Venus exploration are introduced from the business, policy, legal, and outreach standpoints. Finally, technology challenges that exist for the robotic exploration of Venus are introduced.

Chapter Four outlines the Venus exploration architecture, developed through the efforts of the team, as well as the methodology used to conceive the architecture. Venusian exploration is considered from many points of view. An architecture is presented that represents a marriage of these interests, while satisfying the goals outlined in earlier chapters. Finally, the proposed architecture is discussed briefly in the three epochs of investigation: Near, Mid, and Far.

Chapters Five to Seven delve further into the proposed architecture for the Near-, Mid- and Far- Term epochs. The discussions outline the science objectives satisfied, the missions that will provide the necessary measurements, and the mechanisms that will support and sustain exploration objectives in each timeframe. Critical technology developments that could enable these missions are also discussed.

Chapter Eight addresses the next steps for implementation of the proposed architecture. A Near-Term implementation strategy is presented. For the longer term, the futures are uncertain and policies may change, and public interest and priorities will change. The implementation of the architecture is discussed in the light of these considerations.

1.6 References NASA, (2005 a). Planetary Missions [online] (Last updated 20 January 2005). NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Available from: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/projects.html [Accessed 5 August 2005].

NASA, (2005 b). Solar System Exploration [online] (Last updated 25 May 2005). NASA Available from:http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/profile.cfm?Sort=Target&Target=Comets&Era=Pr esent [Accessed 15 August 2005].

______Chapter 2 2 Background on the Inner Solar System

In this report, the inner solar system is defined as the bodies inside the Earth’s orbit not including the Moon or Earth itself, although in astronomy the inner solar system includes Mars as well. World space agencies have only had limited focus on the inner solar system in recent years, partly because the extreme environments introduce additional technology challenges and preclude the physical presence of humans. With the current emphasis on exploration of Mars and the outer solar system, it is appropriate and timely to consider what is yet to be learned about Venus, Mercury, the Sun Near Earth Objects (NEOs) (e.g. comets, asteroids).

2.1 Inner Solar System Missions and Open Questions The exploration of the inner planets, the Sun, and small bodies provides a unique opportunity to study the formation and evolution of the solar system. The Sun, NEOs, Mercury, and Venus each hold clues to different aspects of the origin of the planets and habitable environments in the inner solar system. In this sense, exploration of the inner solar system is vital to understanding how Earth-like planets form and evolve and how habitable planets may arise throughout the galaxy.

The distance from Earth to the Sun makes it a challenging exploration target, but several earlier missions to have been able to investigated its physical structure (NASA, 2005a) and its influence on the rest of the solar system. There are currently several solar observatories which monitor space weather from Sun-Earth LaGrange points. Understanding the Sun and the solar wind could be one aspect of major importance for further understanding the formation and evolution of the solar system. In particular, there are two major compelling solar science objectives for inner solar system exploration: (1) the origin of the coronal temperature and the solar wind, and (2) how the Sun affects the climate/environment of the inner planets, including the implications for planetary evolution. Both aspects affect the Earth significantly, and understanding those features is a mandatory step toward accurate Sun predictive models. Both will require in-situ Sun exploration, preferably at the pole at solar maximum and solar minimum. Another major reason to monitor solar activities would be to support space weather modeling (Private communication).

NEOs are also of high importance for the study of the formation and evolution of the solar system and have been researched by flyby missions as well as orbiting craft. In the near future, landers will investigate these bodies by collecting samples (NASA, 2005a). One of the objectives of this research is to determine if these objects contain resources that could be used on Earth. In addition, a deeper understanding of the composition of comets and the possibility that they were the catalyst for life on Earth is of great interest. Finally, it is unclear whether vulcanoids exist. Vulcanoids are hypothetical asteroids that may be found within the orbit of Mercury. If

21 Background on the Inner Solar System vulcanoids do exist, what are their masses and how do they influence comets and asteroids in the inner solar system.

Mercury has only been visited once, by Mariner 10, but there are currently two new missions planned to investigate general planetary characteristics (NASA, 2005a): Messenger launched on Aug 2004 (JHUAPL, 2005) and BepiColombo to be launched in 2012 (ESA, 2005a). Mercury can be considered as a “Rosetta stone” in the sense that it preserves records of past events that are largely erased on other planets, such as the Earth and Venus. Improved understanding of this record could be considered a major objective for exploration. Some characteristics of the planet, such as its density, are quite similar to those of the Earth. In most aspects, however, it more closely resembles the Moon. There are still many compelling science questions regarding its current characteristics, its formation, and its evolution. For example, there are doubts about whether the core of Mercury is liquid or solid. Although current spectroscopic observations do not reveal the presence of iron, this element is the major constituent of Mercury, according to some models. Another major issue is the fact that Mercury still holds a weak dipole magnetic field while Mars, being a larger body, lost its dipole magnetic field millions of years ago. How does that magnetic field interact with the solar wind in absence of any ionosphere? Finally, it is also of interest to know what are the volatiles, such as ice, at Mercury’s poles and how did they get there (NASA, 2005c).

Since 1962, Venus has been the primary target for 19 successful Russian and American missions.. The initial American Mariner flyby missions characterised the fundamental planetary properties of rotation, mass, temperature, and magnetic field. These were followed by the Russian Venera atmospheric probes that profiled the atmospheric temperature, pressure, density, and composition. In addition to the atmospheric probes, the Venera missions deployed surface landers, which photographed and analysed Venus’s surface. Because of the extreme conditions on the surface of Venus, these lander missions had very short lives (longest duration approximately 2 hours). Finally, Russian and American orbiters produced planetary maps using Synthetic Aperture Radar ( SAR) and imaging (NASA, 2005b).

Despite these missions to Venus, knowledge of the planet is still relatively immature. Findings from past missions, in general, have led only to more questions about Venus and how it evolved. Little data is available regarding the composition of the Venusian surface as well as the nature of its geological activities, such as volcanism and plate tectonics. Several unusual surface features have been identified on Venus, but very little is known about the mechanism for the formation of these features. No appreciable magnetic field has been detected on Venus; the cause and possible effects on the planet’s environment is unknown. Of primary interest is to understand the nature of the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus and how that can be related back to Earth’s environment. Atmospheric dynamics are also enigmatic and worthy of investigation. At distances of about 50 km above the surface, the atmosphere of Venus has a four-day rotation period. Here, the existence of winds moving at approximately 175 km/h has been recorded together with strong vertical winds. This is called the super-rotation of the atmosphere (ESA, 2005b). The cause of this super-rotation is unknown. In addition, the composition of the atmosphere is not well known and should be investigated in more detail. The scarcity of carbon monoxide and the presence of hydrogen sulphide, sulphur dioxide, and carbonyl sulphide could be linked potentially to the existence of microbial life in Venus’s atmosphere, although this remains a controversial issue. Beyond these science questions, Venus occupies a unique position as a neighboring planet to Earth. Given the ongoing scientific exploration of Mars – Earth’s other neighbor – better understanding of Venus has particular appeal. Understanding the divergent evolution of these three planets through comparison is of high scientific value.

22 Background on the Inner Solar System

2.2 Funding for Scientific Exploration Programs The funding aspect of this proposed project is to provide innovative ideas to minimize mission costs and maximize the returns to the science community and the society at large. This section reviews past missions with respect to the planetary bodies that were investigated and the cost associated with those missions (NASA, 2004).

A summary of all interplanetary missions attempted to date is presented in Figure 1. This includes fly-by missions, orbiters, and landers. Some of the missions that had fly-bys for multiple planets have been counted multiple times, once for each planet they flew by. The failed missions are also included because public money was spent on them. The count includes all international efforts. Past missions Future missions

Pluto Neptune Uranus Saturn y Jupiter Bod Mars Venus Merc ury

0 1020304050 Numbe r of missions

Figure 1: Comparison of costs of past and future interplanetary missions Traditionally, space exploration programs have been publicly funded, even if the development of the flight system is done by private industry. The cost of space exploration can be broken down into 3 categories: development cost, launch cost, and mission operations cost. Of these three, development cost typically dominates.

For example, Mars Pathfinder mission cost a total of USD 265 million, of which development and construction of the lander was USD 150 million and the rover about USD 25 million. The recent NASA Mars Exploration Rover missions cost USD 425 million for each rover, including assembly, test, launch, and one year of operations. The cost of ESA’s Mars Express, excluding the lander, Beagle 2, was about USD 150 million. Beagle 2 itself cost about USD 65-80 million. For the purpose of cost analogy, the launch costs for missions to Mars range from USD 55-65 million and the operational costs range from USD 2.8-3.6 million per month. On the higher end, the Viking missions to Mars cost upwards of a billion dollars (in 1975 dollars) and the Magellan mission to Venus cost USD 680 million. NASA’s flagship missions, where the mission cost ranges from USD 800-2800 million, have traditionally been directed towards outer planets (NASA, 2004).

23 Background on the Inner Solar System

Figure 2: Slow decline in NASA funding (Artemis Society International, 2003) Public spending in the space sector is slowly declining. Figure 2 shows this trend in NASA’s budget, though it is still the largest in the worldwide space sector. No new public funds have been allocated for President Bush’s Moon-Mars initiative, so it is expected that funds will be slowly diverted from NASA science-driven initiatives to the human exploration programs. A projection of NASA’s future expenditure in this area is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Rising interest in exploration missions (Global Security, 2005)

24 Background on the Inner Solar System

2.3 Policy and Society 2.3.1 Previous International Cooperation for Inner Solar System Exploration The first two decades of missions focusing on inner solar system exploration have been sponsored mainly by individual states using large space science initiatives requiring years, even decades, from concept inception to receipt of data. During the earlier stages of space history, from 1958 till 1973, only the U.S. and Russia had the technical capabilities for inner solar system exploration.

For example, the USSR/Russia had many missions to Venus within 2 year intervals from 1961 until 1984 via the Venera series and later Vega missions. U.S. missions to the inner solar system included a series of Explorer and Pioneer missions also beginning in 1961. The political tensions of the Cold War made cooperation between the two states almost non-existent, although treaties have been signed to coordinate the study and utilization of space between the two super powers.

In general, space science missions have a rich history of successful international cooperation. In particular are the early collaborations in space science between the U.S. and Europe. From 1958 to 1983, 33 of 38 NASA cooperative agreements were with European entities. The relationship between the two space programs is evident in cooperative missions to the inner solar system. Notable cooperative ventures for the inner solar system include the Pioneer Venus-1 orbiter, which involved cooperation among Great Britain, the United States, Germany and ESA in 1978. The follow-up mission, Pioneer Venus-2 was sponsored by France and the U.S. in 1978. Other missions include the U.S.-sponsored Magellan mission to Venus (1989), which carried European experiments, and Galileo (1989), a Jovian mission that included a Venus fly-by. Galileo was sponsored by Germany and the U.S.

In terms of early inner solar system exploration, Europe and the United States have the best track record for international cooperation, although the Soviet Union in the years of the Cold War also utilized a few missions with countries located in the former Eastern bloc, as well as with India and France. For these early years, the mechanisms for cooperation were largely based on either the United States or the Soviet Union “tutoring” a developing State’s activities. “Most Europeans acknowledged that there was only one road toward building a mature space program – working with the United States,” (ESF&NRC, 1998).

The motivations for the “tutor” State to help other countries develop their space capabilities include economic and political objectives. Competition in space (including the space sciences) was part and parcel of concerted efforts made by the superpowers to convince other countries of their technical capabilities, and hence, leadership. These types of goals are not very far from today’s motivations for international cooperation. 2.3.2 International Cooperation for Current and Proposed Inner Solar System Missions For space science, “flexibility” within an international framework is important to the scientific community because “success should be driven by the achievement of the goal rather than the mechanism by which it is achieved,” (ESF&NRC, 1998). Reflecting this sentiment, there is currently no single model that shows how international cooperation should operate. However, states do have guidelines which incorporate basic principles of “how to cooperate.”

25 Background on the Inner Solar System

The US model for current international cooperation in space follows these basic guidelines to formulate the mechanism for partnership:

1. Designation by each participating government of a government agency for negotiation and supervision of joint efforts. 2. Conduct projects and activities having scientific validity and mutual interest. Agreement upon specific projects rather than generalized programs. 3. Acceptance upon specific projects rather than generalized programs. 4. Provision for the widest and most practicable dissemination of the results of cooperative activities (Johnson-Freese, 1990).

In addition assumed projects are considered by NASA, its science advisory committees, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the Office of Management Budget and Congress. In contrast with the US program, European science projects are recommended by the ESA Space Science Advisory Committee and selected by the ESA Science Program Committee (SPC).

Cassini-Huygens is a current example that involves international collaboration among the United States, ESA, and Italy. The Cassini orbiter was built and managed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The Huygens probe was built by ESA. The Italian Space Agency (ASI) provided Cassini's high-gain communication antenna. Seventeen nations contributed to building the spacecraft. More than 250 scientists worldwide are studying the data.

The cooperation mechanism leading to Cassini-Huygens involved a series of study teams that developed the mission and the partner agencies that would build and execute the mission. One of the first study teams was the Outer Planets Study Team (OPST). OPST constructed plans for candidate Saturn system missions to be jointly carried out by ESA and NASA. Once their study had been conducted, a joint ESA-NASA assessment study was carried out.

In the true spirit of international cooperation, the study resulted in nothing on its first pass. In the case of Cassini-Huygens, ESA was able to gain approval of a long-term science program and considered Cassini-Huygens as one these missions, but NASA’s commitment was lacking so the mission was put on hold. The study was then advocated by another study group a few years later and NASA agreed at this point. The Cassini-Huygens experience demonstrates the lack of a direct methodology to create an international partnership. 2.3.3 Outreach Currently, there are many organizations that have developed outreach plans, most of which are for Mars exploration. In general, these are mission-specific and aimed at educational programs (Gramoll, 1995). There is a lack of a central location that gives a broad perspective on space exploration as identified in “The First Int. Conference on Concept Mapping” (Geoffrey Briggs, 2004). Whereas the major agencies have specific web-pages for Mars the outreach plans are unclear and seem understated, with few exceptions. One innovative program is the Arts Catalyst organization, which is conducting a study for ESA to “investigate and focus the real interest of the cultural world in the International Space Station,” (ESA, 2005c).

2.4 Context for Comparative Planetology By human standard, Venus is truly a hostile planet. It is characterized by extreme temperatures and pressures. At the same time it is comparable in size and mass to Earth and is roughly the

26 Background on the Inner Solar System same distance from the Sun. How could Venus have such remarkable similarities to the Earth but evolve into something with such remarkable differences? It is suggested that the study of Venus, as the closest neighbor of Earth, has the greatest potential to improve humanity’s understanding of our home planet (Crisp, 2002). Better understanding of Earth is arguably the most compelling rationale for scientific space exploration.

Comparative planetology is a methodology which compares the different natures of the planets in our solar system with the goal of better understand the origin, history, and future of Earth (Mars Now Team/California Space Institute, 2002). There is currently immense focus on exploration of Mars as an essential component for comparative planetology. NASA’s Mars Exploration Program has already implemented several exploration missions and has many more planned (NASA/JPL, 2005).

By focusing exclusively on exploration of Mars, we could potentially misinterpret or neglect key processes that led the evolution of Earth and other terrestrial planets to their current environments. Investigating the origin, evolution, and potential habitability of both our neighboring planets naturally offers the most complete view of Earth’s place in the solar system. To accomplish this comprehensive understanding, we must consider coordinated Venus and Mars exploration programs (Crisp, 2002).

Hence, we will propose an architecture for Venus exploration to better understand our closest neighbor, to coordinate comparative planetology efforts among Mars, Venus, and Earth, and to ultimately better understand our home planet.

2.5 References

Artemis Society International. (2003). The Artemis Project [online]. Available from: http://www.asi.org/images/2003/index.html [Accessed August 2005].

Briggs, G., D. A. S., Cañas, A.J., Carff, J., Scargle, J., and Novak, J., 2004. In: A. J. Cañas, J. D. N., F. M. González, eds. First Int. Conference on Concept MappingPamplona, Spain.

CRISP, D., et al., 2002. Divergent Evolution Among Earth-like Planets: The Case for Venus Exploration. ASP Conference Series. The Future of Solar System Exploration, 2003-2013, 272, 5-34.

European Science Foundation and the National Research Council (ESF&NRC), 1998. US- European Collaboration in Space Science, Washington D.C.

ESA. (2005a). BepiColombo [online]. European Space Agency. Available from: http://sci.esa.int/science- e/www/area/index.cfm?fareaid=30 [Accessed 15 August 2005]

ESA. (2005b). No shortage of mysteries on Venus [online]. (Last updated 28 November 2002). European Space Agency. Available from: http://www.esa.int/esaCP/ESAHRH7708D_Expanding_0.html [Accessed 15 August 2005]

ESA, 2005c. In: ESA Press Release. 20 May.

Global Security. (2005). Budget Proposal for NASA [online]. (Last updated 27 April 2005). Available from: http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/budget/fy2005-nasa/ [Accessed August 2005].

27 Background on the Inner Solar System

Gramoll, K. (1995), Educational Outreach Programs for K-12 in Aerospace.

JHUAPL (2005). Mercury [online]. The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. Available from: http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/ [Accessed 15 August 2005]

Joan Johnson-Freese, 1990. Changing Patters of International Cooperation in Space. Orbit Foundation Series.

Mars Now Team/California Space Institute. (2002). Mars Main Index-Science-Comparative Planetology [online]. Available from: http://calspace.ucsd.edu/marsnow/library/science/comparative_planetology/ [Accessed 8 August 2005].

NASA. (2004). Planetary Missions, Data and Information [online]. (Last updated 01 September 2004). Goddard Space Flight Center. Available from: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planets/ [Accessed July 2005].

NASA, (2005a). Solar System Exploration [online] (Last updated 25 May 2005). NASA Available from:http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/profile.cfm?Sort=Target&Target=Comets&Era=Pr esent [Accessed 15 August 2005].

NASA. (2005b). Planetary Missions [online]. (Last updated 20 January 2005). NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Available from: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/projects.html [Accessed 5 August 2005].

NASA. (2005c). Solar System Exploration Roadmap [online]. (Last updated 22 February 2005). NASA. Available on: http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/scitech/index.cfm [Accessed on July 25, 2005]

NASA/JPL. (2005). The Mars Exploration Program's Science Theme [online]. (Last updated 16 March 2005). National Aeronautics and Space Administration/Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Available from: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/science/ [Accessed 8 Augusts 2005].

28 ______Chapter 3 3 Rationale for Program Selection

In the previous chapter it was shown that there are open questions about the inner solar system and that a space architect program to Venus would be beneficial. The focus of this chapter is to justify the choice of robotic exploration of Venus for the purpose of comparative planetology and the deeper questions associated with Venus. Besides the scientific rationale, the questions that must be answered are why people should invest money and how? And, what are the opportunities for social outreach?

In this chapter, section one gives the science aspects of an architectural program to Venus. It addresses comparative planetology and how science objectives can be coordinated within comparative planetology. Moreover, it discusses outstanding science objectives for Venus in the fields of geophysics, exobiology and atmospheric studies. The policy and outreach aspects of the Venus program are discussed in section two. The political climate of the current space agencies and the implementation of the project are dealt with here. In section three the laws concerning Venus exploration are dealt with, starting with the identifications of the legal issues concerned. Business and Funding is then discussed in section four. Here funding models are selected and application of funding models to space activities is handled. The funding of the REVolution program and the costing of the missions are discussed. Finally section five discusses that Venus will be an excellent proving ground for technology. The chapter ends with a reference section.

3.1 Science Although Venus is comparable in size and mass to the Earth and is roughly the same distance from the Sun on the solar scale, it is characterized by extreme temperatures and pressures resulting from a runaway greenhouse effect. There is increasing interest within the science community to better understand how Venus differs from the Earth and why. A convincing argument for the study of Venus:

"the lesson we can learn from the Venusian climate is not ‘Don't let this happen to your planet;’ but rather ‘Here is another nearby planet with a complex, evolving climate system; study it and you will achieve a more mature, less provincial understanding of planetary climate’. That could save our hides." D.H. Grinspoon (1997) 3.1.1 Venus and Comparative Planetology Surprisingly, a simple fairy tale is often used to describe life in the habitable zone of the solar system. The fairy tale, called Goldilocks and the three bears, relates the story of a young girl, Goldilocks, who happened upon the home of three bears. The bears had conveniently left three bowls of porridge set out, and Goldilocks proceeded to taste them. She found the first bowl of

Rationale for Program Selection porridge to be too hot, and the second too cold. But the third bowl of porridge was just right, and she ate it up. Similarly, life found Venus to be too hot, Mars too cold, but Earth was just right. So life took up residence and flourished (ThinkQuest Team, 2000a).

The Goldilocks analogy serves as a simplistic demonstration of Earth’s unique position within the habitable zone, (i.e., the region around a star in which liquid water could exist on a planet's surface, since liquid water is one of the necessary ingredients for life). (ThinkQuest Team, 2000b) Life thrives on our planet and there are renewable processes that keep our ecosystem in balance. It is not clear, however, how delicate this balance is, or whether the Earth can continue to sustain the growing human population. With heightened awareness of the side effects of human activities here on Earth (such as the increased production of greenhouse gases) the question must be asked: How durable is the Earth? Understanding the origin and evolution of Venus and other Earth-like planets may be the key to answering these important questions.

Comparative planetology posits that by looking outward toward neighbouring worlds, it may be possible to better understand the Earth. Venus and Mars are two critical examples of how Earth might have evolved, demonstrating the different extremes (Marov and Grinspoon). A better understanding of the processes which led to the divergence among the evolutions of Earth, Mars and Venus would enable a more comprehensive view of atmospheric, geophysical, and biological processes. Beyond this, there is an opportunity for a new perspective on how to appreciate the fragile, yet extraordinary planet, Earth. 3.1.2 Coordinating Science Objectives Recently, great emphasis has been placed on the exploration of Mars as an important neighboring planet for comparative planetology. NASA’s Mars Exploration Program has already performed several exploration missions and has many more planned to accomplish the following science objectives (NASA/JPL 2005):

1. Determine if life ever arose on Mars 2. Characterize the climate of Mars 3. Characterize the geology of Mars

ESA’s Mars Express is investigating similar questions regarding the Martian atmosphere and the planet’s structure and geology. (ESA Space Science, 2004) An equally ambitious science program for Venus is needed to complement these Mars science objectives. Coordinating the science objectives offers the greatest potential for a comprehensive view of the origin, evolution, and potential habitability of Earth and other terrestrial planets (Crisp et al., 2002).

To effectively target a coordinated science exploration program focused on a better understanding of the Earth, the issues of interest in Earth science must be considered. Some of the prevailing Earth science questions include (NASA Science Mission Directorate, 2005; RESA’s NASA Space Science Strand, 2005):

1. How has the ecosystem interacted with the atmosphere and hydrosphere? 2. What are the motions of the Earth’s interior, and how do they directly impact the environment? 3. What is the structure of the matter inside the Earth and the nature of the convective flow that carries heat to the surface? 4. How do ecosystems, land cover, and biogeochemical cycles respond to and affect global environmental change? 5. How is the origin and evolution of life characterized in extreme Earth environments?

30 Rationale for Program Selection

These Earth science questions are driven primarily by the desire to better understand and model water and energy cycles. The ultimate goal is the capability to forecast natural hazards such as droughts, floods, Earthquakes, landslides, erosion, and volcanic eruptions. In addition to the ability to predict future conditions and trends for ecosystems, the global carbon cycle is of utmost concern. Interest in this stems from the desire to better understand the greenhouse effect, depletion of the ozone layer, and acid rain. It has been suggested by the science community that theoretical fluid-dynamical and numerical climate models developed for Earth could be applied to the Venusian and Martian atmospheres for critical testing and validation (Prinn and Fegley, 1987). Efforts to predict global warming on Earth have given incongruous and uncertain results. In 2001, for example, a United Nations group predicted world temperatures could rise anywhere from 3 degrees to 10.5 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. Using Venus as a model of extreme warming could greatly enhance Earth climate models, enabling much more accurate predictions about warming on Earth (Onion, 2002).

Based on the current scientific objectives for Mars and Earth, focused on the concept of comparative planetology, three areas for investigating Venus emerge. The first is atmospheric studies. The scientific and the environmental communities are highly concerned with the greenhouse effect and global warming on Earth. A comparison of the runaway greenhouse on Venus and runaway refrigerator (known as “inverse greenhouse effect”) on Mars would greatly improve understanding of atmospheric evolution and dynamics. The second area for comparison is geophysics. Since geophysical mechanisms, such as plate tectonics and magnetic fields, drive surface processes and atmosphere-surface interactions, a better understanding of how these processes evolve and what role they play on habitable planets would be of great interest. Finally, it is important to determine how the terrestrial processes enable habitability and what roles these may have played in the evolution of Venus. Finding evidence of past or present life beyond the Earth, or determining why life has not evolved, has significant implications on the understanding of the conditions which are needed for the evolution of life. 3.1.3 Outstanding Science Objectives Despite the multitude of past missions to Venus, many of the planet’s characteristics remain relatively unknown. The atmosphere has been a primary focus, though there have also been a few short-lived lander missions to examine the surface. Detailed knowledge of the surface topography and composition is limited. Beyond this, there is much debate in the science community about whether life is truly a possibility on a planet with extreme conditions such as Venus. Nevertheless, new examples of life in extreme environments on Earth add some plausibility to the astrobiology objective.

Atmosphere Geophysics

Astro/ Exobiology

Figure 4: Realms of Science Objectives for Venus Exploration

Rationale for Program Selection The science objectives for Venus exploration will be examined within the realms of atmosphere, geophysical properties, and astrobiology (see Figure 4); however, these processes are interrelated. Interactions between the atmosphere, surface, subsurface, and any microbial life (past or present) must be considered for an integrated view of planetary evolution.

Venus Atmosphere

Despite approximately thirty exploratory spacecraft that have visited Venus to date, its atmosphere has yet to be characterized in detail. Several theories and models exist for the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus, but additional data is required to truly understand this phenomenon. Insight into the nature of the runaway greenhouse effect as well as other unique features of the Venusian atmosphere is of great interest to Earth and planetary science communities. A full understanding of the origin and evolution of Venus’s atmosphere, through comparative planetology, can be used to improve atmospheric models for Earth and other terrestrial planets.

The original Venusian atmosphere, which formed with the solid body, like those of the other terrestrial planets, was lost in the past as the Sun went through phases of high activity. The present atmosphere would have been produced much later, although the process for its formation is unclear. One theory is that the current atmosphere was produced by outgassing from the crust (i.e. volcanism) and by an influx of cometary and meteoritic material (Taylor et al., 2005). The relative contributions of these distinct sources on Venus can be deduced to some extent from the data which is gradually being accrued on the composition, and, in particular, the isotopic ratios in the contemporary terrestrial planet’s atmospheres, and in comets and meteorites. Beyond the formation of the atmosphere, it is unknown what triggered the runaway greenhouse effect.

In the present-day atmosphere of Venus, chemical reactions coupled with transport and radiative processes regulate the abundances of the most important minor constituents. The most important are the cycles involving water vapor, sulphuric acid, and their products, which maintain the cloud layers, and which probably also involve reactions between the atmosphere and the surface (Taylor et al., 2005).

On Earth, 70% of the incoming solar radiation is absorbed - the majority of which is absorbed by the atmosphere (16%); clouds (3%), and by the land and oceans (51%). This absorbed energy influences the atmosphere, oceans, land and life (Wikipedia, 2005). The Earth also radiates thermal energy, 71% of which is absorbed by the atmosphere before it can escape. Thus the atmosphere absorbs both incoming solar energy and thermal radiation from the Earth. The greenhouse effect is the reduction of radiation loss through the absorption of energy by the atmosphere (Raval and Ramanathan, 1989). The degree in which the atmosphere absorbs energy depends primarily on its composition. On Earth, water vapour causes approximately 60% of the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect (Wikipedia, 2005). Other greenhouse gases on Earth include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Industrial compounds such as perflurocarbons and chloroflurocarbons are also extremely potent greenhouse gases that have exceptionally long lifetimes. These compounds contribute up to 25% of the greenhouse effect and pose a threat to the ozone shield (Kimball, 2004). Figure 5 provides an overview of the greenhouse effect on Earth.

32 Rationale for Program Selection

Figure 5: Greenhouse Effect on Earth (Manitoba Energy, Science & Technology, 2005)

On Venus, the high concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, along with CO2, H2O, and SO2 gases and H2SO4 in clouds, cause a powerful greenhouse effect (Crisp and Titov, 1997). Thick layers of clouds develop, restricting the amount of incoming solar radiation. Less than 10% of the incoming radiation penetrates the atmosphere and makes it to the surface. The thermal heat emitted by the planet surface, however, cannot escape due to the absorption by gas and clouds resulting in surface temperatures of around 735K (ESA, 2005a). Figure 6 provides a diagram of the runway greenhouse effect on Venus.

Figure 6: The Greenhouse Effect on Venus (ESA Science and Technology, 2005)

The Venusian atmosphere was not always dominated by CO2, having earlier contained vast amounts of water vapour. The constant impact of the solar wind caused dissociation of water vapour and the promoted subsequent escape of hydrogen atoms into space. Measuring the ratio of hydrogen to deuterium (a heavier isotope of hydrogen that does not escape as quickly) shows that deuterium on Venus is approximately 150 times more abundant than on Earth (Donahue et al., 1997). This high concentration can be interpreted as the signature of a lost primordial ocean or the steady supply of water to the surface by comets or volcanism. The primordial ocean is believed to have evaporated as the temperature of Venus increased, which lead to water vapour

Rationale for Program Selection in the atmosphere trapping infrared radiation and so beginning the runaway greenhouse effect. As surface carbonate rocks decomposed, carbon dioxide was reintroduced to the atmosphere, accounting for the levels seen currently.

It is important to understand what initially triggered the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus and at what point the effect became possibly irreversible. This may be the key to forecasting similar greenhouse inflection points on Earth. In addition, Venus could be used as a potential test bed for greenhouse reversal experiments. For example, atmospheric data from Venus could support development of Earth-based laboratories which use self-replicating machines and bacteria to experiment with Greenhouse reversal. Finally, Venus data can be used to develop and validate math models which can be used for forecasting, greenhouse trends on Earth.

Related to greenhouse issues, above Venus's clouds, ultraviolet light breaks open fluorine and chlorine compounds, yielding chemicals that deplete terrestrial ozone. This discovery contributed to scientists' investigations of a similar phenomenon on Earth. Another related factor is that Venus's sulphur dioxide clouds produce acid rain, a form of precipitation that continues to threaten Earth's lakes and forests, especially around industrial regions.

The presence of carbon monoxide (CO) as a minor constituent is very important in the upper atmosphere of Venus, as would be expected from the action of solar ultraviolet radiation on carbon dioxide. It is strongly depleted in the cloud layers (<1 parts per million by volume, or ppm/v) since it is involved in reactions with SO2 and the other species which make up the sulphur cycle. Below the clouds, and near the surface, however, the CO value recovers to around 30 ppm/v, and shows a marked equator-to-pole gradient. It seems likely that CO is transported rapidly down from the thermoshpere in the polar vortices to the troposphere where it is gradually removed by reactions in the hot lower atmosphere and at the surface (Taylor et al., 2005). These minor constituents represent disequilibrium in the atmosphere. The source of this disequilibrium is unknown; however, it has been suggested that this could be evidence of astrobiological processes (Schulze-Makuch and Irwin, 2002).

In addition to the desire to better understand the evolution and chemical regulation of the atmosphere, there is much to be learned about the dynamics of the atmosphere. Two main factors must be considered when addressing the structure and dynamics of the atmosphere (Taylor et al., 2005):

1. The absence, at least near the surface, of a strong Coriolis force. Persistent high winds in the order of 100 meters per second are observed near the cloud tops, 50 or 60km above the surface, where the density of the air is similar to that near the ground on the Earth. Currently, it is not reliably known how these are produced. 2. The presence of planet-wide cloud cover, which obscures the surface at visible wavelengths. On Venus, the clouds have a complex layered structure, and although never completely absent, coverage is variable. The upper layers consist of a sulphate aerosol, similar to the much thinner layers of volcanic origin found in the terrestrial stratosphere. These cloud layers play a major role in the energy balance of the planet through their contribution to the greenhouse effect.

Based on current knowledge of Venus, localized dynamical or ‘weather’ activity is dominated by four main phenomena: the cloud-top zonal super-rotation, the ultraviolet markings at the clouds top and associated planetary waves, cumulus dynamics in the deeper layers, and the double vortex structures at the poles. No doubt these are linked to each other and to the general circulation, but all remain poorly understood (Taylor et al., 2005).

34 Rationale for Program Selection

Although previous missions to Venus provided useful information into the atmospheric circulation and composition, the surface composition, and surface features, there are still many open questions. In this sense, a baseline of information about the lower atmosphere (e.g., atmospheric chemistry, vertical gradients in reactive species, thermal structure, oxidation state) is necessary to understand surface-atmosphere interactions. Given the linkage between atmospheric processes and the surface, study of Venus requires a highly interdisciplinary approach (Campbell et al., 1999).In summary, the priority atmosphere science questions to be considered include:

1. What is the nature of the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus? This question could be examined through better understanding of the physical and chemical composition of the lower atmosphere. Science requirements include: a. In-situ measurements of cloud layer composition – primarily interested in aerosols. b. In-situ measurements of the isotopic ratios of the noble gases. c. Measurements of minor atmospheric constituents, particularly water vapour, sulphur dioxide and other sulphur compounds. d. Measurements of the size distribution, temporal, and spatial variability as well as the chemical composition of the cloud particles.

2. What was the origin and evolution of the atmosphere? This question is of interest in determining how the Venusian atmosphere evolved so differently compared to Earth. Science requirements include: a. Measurement of atmospheric dynamics (i.e. zonal super-rotation, the dynamics of the polar vortices, and the meridional circular). b. Measurement of temporal and spatial variations of the cloud layers.

Geophysics of Venus

By better understanding the geophysical properties of Venus, we can better understand Venus's geologic evolution and perhaps better understand geological activity and interactions on Earth. For instance, if the lack of plate tectonic activity on Venus is due to high surface temperatures, is it possible that plate tectonics could halt on Earth if surface temperatures rise? The evolution of these processes on Venus may provide insight into how Earth’s geological activity may change over time. In addition, this will sharpen the contrast among Venus, Earth, and Mars to encourage a more holistic view of fundamental geophysical processes.

Comparative geology, and, in particular, impact craters, can be a useful tool to reconstruct the geological history of terrestrial planets and to obtain information about the ages of the surfaces on which they lie. The oldest craters of the Venus surface seem to be only 500 million years old, which may indicate that the planet behaves like a volcanic pressure cooker (ESA Science and Technology, 2005). On Earth, the constant eruption of volcanoes and the shifting of the Earth's surface, causing Earthquakes, ensures that the energy released in the Earth is dissipated gradually. Venus, Earth, and Mars share many similarities and differences in the geophysical realm (see Table 1). The available experimental data from Venus, however, is scant compared to Earth and Mars, creating a data gap for comparative planetology. The Russian Venera Lander missions on the surface of Venus were the first steps for gathering some of this data (see Figure 7). The landings showed that, at the landing site, the rocks were flat and slab-like in nature. It was also shown that there exists a darker, fine grained soil of unknown size present among the rocks. Scattered throughout the soil and atop the rocks are pebble-sized objects that could either be

Rationale for Program Selection small rocks or clods of soil (NASA, 2003). Additional investigations near the Venusian surface are required to better understand the geophysical features.

Table 1: Geophysics Comparison among Venus, Earth, and Mars (Nineplanets, 2005; Thinkquest, 2000). Geophysics Venus Earth Mars 227,940,000 km 108,200,000 km (0.72 149,600,000 km (1.52 AU) from Orbiter AU) from Sun (1.00 AU) from Sun Sun

Diameter 12,103.6 km 12,756.3 km 6,794 km Mass 4.869e24 kg 5.972e24 kg 6.4219e23 kg Magnetic Field (gamma) None detected 60,000 50 - 100 gamma Surface Gravity (m/s2) 8.87 9.78 3.72 75% rolling lava Impact craters, plains, 25% raised shield volcanoes, Surface Features plateaus, shield Tectonics fault/rift valley, volcanoes, rift valley, runoff channels impact craters

Figure 7: Image of the Surface of Venus from the Venera 13 Lander (Credit NSSDC Image Catalog)

This probably does not happen on Venus. Instead, pressure builds up inside the planet until the whole world is engulfed in a global eruption, resurfacing the planet and destroying any craters that have formed. This probably happened last about 500 million years ago, accounting for the lack of older craters. Thus, analysis of impact craters can provide clues about the timing, extent and nature of tectonic and volcanic processes to give further insights on the existence of plumes on Venus. Venus has over 1600 major volcanoes, but no long, linear volcanic chains. There may also exist over 100,000 smaller volcanoes. There is some speculation that none are active, but data is limited (Volcano World, 2005).

The images shown in Figure 8 of impact craters on Mars, Earth, and Venus were taken by the Mars Express, Proba, and Magellan missions, respectively. The analogous features among Mars, Earth, and Venus data from future missions will help scientists to better understand the formation and evolution of other planets within the Solar System.

In contrast to Earth, evidence suggests that there are no plate tectonics on Venus. Changes in the surface of Venus seem to be driven by mantle motions with the deformations distributed across broad zones tens to hundreds of kilometres wide. The lack of plate tectonics may be due to the high surface temperatures. The physical and chemical composition of the surface and subsurface is also relatively unknown. A number of Venera landers carried instruments to determine some basic information on the chemical composition of the surface. Only a few elements were measured, so no definitive information exists on the rock types or materials that

36 Rationale for Program Selection might be present (Venus Climate Britannica, 2005). Certain aspects of the composition could provide vital clues to the origin and evolution of Venus. Both the physical states and elemental abundances at the surface and subsurface could provide important clues into current and past geological activity, such as volcanism and heat flows.

Figure 8: Comparison of impact craters on Mars, Earth, and Venus (a) (b) (c) (a)A Crater in Vastitas Borealis, Mars: This unnamed impact crater is 35 km wide and has a maximum depth of approximately 2 km beneath the crater rim. The circular patch of bright material located at the centre of the crater suggest residual water. Credit ESA/DLR/FU Berlin (G. Neukum). (b)The Meteor Crater, Arizona: the most famous of 150 impact craters known on Earth. The 1186 km diameter crater is approximately 180 meters deep and is surrounded by a rim of smashed and jumbled boulders, some as big as houses. Credit ESA. (c)Crater Danilova, Venus: The crater has a central peak, a crater wall, a crater floor, an ejecta blanket, and crater outflow deposits. Credit NASA.

Although Venus is similar to Earth in size and composition, and is believed to have at least a partially molten core, it still lacks an appreciable magnetic field. A possible explanation may be the lack of plate tectonics. That is, without plate tectonics, the mantle on Venus cannot cool quickly enough to drive core convection and geodynamics. Another possibility is that Venus’s slow rotation is not capable of producing the dynamo effect. Venus rotates just once every 243 Earth days (HyperPhysics, 2005).

The Earth’s magnetic field serves as a protective shield from many of the Sun’s harmful ejections, such as the solar wind. On Mars, where no magnetic field exists, the solar wind is constantly eroding the atmosphere, which is believed to have been the major cause for the loss of water from its surface (Space Plasma Physics Group, 1996). Venus could also have lost its water in this manner. In order to protect the Earth it would be beneficial to understand this protective mechanism and how it works. Comparison of Venus, Earth, and Mars can provide insight into the influence of Earth’s magnetic field on geophysical and other processes.

In summary, there are three priority geophysics science questions to be considered:

1. What is the nature of the surface geological features? Do volcanic activities or plate tectonics play a role? Orbital mapping, as well as in-situ monitoring systems, is needed to address these questions. Science requirements include: a. High resolution radar mapping of the surface to identify surface features of interest. Requires a minimum of 5 meter horizontal and vertical resolution. b. Long duration seismic monitoring at multiple locations to detect geological activity.

2. What is the physical and chemical composition of the surface and sub-surface of Venus?

Rationale for Program Selection This question can be addressed primarily through in-situ measument. Science requirements include: a. Remote sensing in IR spectrum for global surface composition. Must be performed below the cloud layers (i.e. below 50km). b. In-situ sampling and measurement of surface and subsurface. c. Surface sample return.

3. Why is the magnetic field so weak and what effect does that have on the planet? Remote measurement of the magnetic field strength will be performed on ESA’s Venus Express mission (ESA Science and Technology, 2005); however, much better data could be collected below the cloud layer. Science requirements include: a. Magnetometer measurement to determine strength of magnetic field. Must be performed below the cloud layers (i.e. below 50km) to be of interest.

Astrobiology on Venus

Astrobiology, also known as exobiology, is a multidisciplinary field based on biology, planetology, astrophysics, and astronomy. Astrobiologists aim to answer the numerous questions regarding the origin, evolution, and distribution of life in the Universe (Brack, 1999). One of the biggest unknowns in this field is whether life is part of the evolution of the universe itself, of all terrestrial planets, or some unique event that has occurred on Earth alone.

For scientific purposes, it is assumed that primitive life is “any system able, as a minimum, to transfer its molecular information via self-reproduction and to evolve,” (Brack, 1999). Considering the strong interest in the science community in the search for life beyond Earth (e.g. Mars, Titan, Europa, extrasolar planets), a better understanding of Venus’s past climate and habitability could play a key role in understanding the origin, evolution, and distribution of terrestrial life in the Universe. In addition, there is much support for the plausibility of present life in the Venusian atmosphere or subsurface.

In order to investigate whether Venus could have supported life in the past, parallels can be drawn to conditions suitable for spontaneous generation and reproduction of life on Earth. The biosphere conditions of early Earth (approximately 3.5 billion years ago) were very different from those of today (see Table 2), largely because of co-evolution of the planet and life. The precise composition of the primitive atmosphere is uncertain, but it is known that there was no free oxygen or ozone layer. This implies that UV solar radiation was abundant on Earth and was able to form several primordial chemical compounds. Studies based on actual terrestrial life suggest that life on Earth originated in liquid water through simple chemical reactions.

Table 2: Comparison between Earth today and 3.5billion years ago Earth Earth Today 3.5 Billion Years Ago Temperature 15°C > 50°C pH 7.2 – 7.4 5-6 Atmosphere 21% O2 <0.2% O2 2 2 Radiation 1W/m 54 W/m (DNA-weighted UV) (DNA-weighted UV)

Some forms of primitive life on Earth can be found in geological mineralogical-chemical evidences for water-related environments. Microbial life produces textural, chemical, mineralogical signatures on rocks (Marinangeli, 2005). Figure 9 shows 3.3 billion-year-old rock,

38 Rationale for Program Selection microbial mat, and microbial filaments found on Earth. Since microbial life produces textural, chemical, mineralogical signatures on rocks, geological samples from Venus’s subsurface could be studied for similar evidence.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 9: (a) 3.3 Billion-year-old rock, (b) Microbial mat, and (c) Microbial filaments (Westall, 2005)

Given its close proximity to Earth and comparable size and mass, it is reasonable to suggest that Venus’s early evolution could also have been similar to that of Earth. Moreover, Venus had an early geological evolution similar to the Earth, at least from the point of view of thermal history (Marov and Grinspoon, 1998) and still is a geologically active planet. Thus, exchange of gases from the planet to the atmosphere could generate the carbon cycle that is required for formation of life.

The presence of water is also required for the origin of life. On present-day Venus, water vapour is only present at 30 parts per million by volume, but there are some clues that could prove the existence of past oceans on Venus’s surface. The high deuterium/hydrogen ratio is a key indicator of the past presence of water, though this ratio could also be explained from incoming comets and interplanetary dust particles (Johnson and Fegley 2000). Models of the evolution of H2O-CO2 atmospheres and the amount of Argon in the Venusian atmosphere are also indicative of former water (Schulze-Makuch and Irwin, 2002). Hydrous minerals - such as tremolites - on the surface of Venus could answer this question definitively. Some authors suggested that these minerals can withstand the extreme Venusian conditions (Johnson and Fegley, 2000) and may be found on the surface of Venus today. If water subsisted for a long period of time (approximately 2 billion years), then conditions on Venus were favourable for the development of life. (Marov and Grinspoon, 1998)

There are plausible arguments to suggest that Venus may have been a habitable planet and that life could have once originated in its surface, just as on the Earth. Current surface conditions on Venus are now too extreme for living systems, mainly due to the dramatic greenhouse effect. If the changes from hospitable to hostile environment was gradual, some exotic forms of life could have evolved and adapted in environmental niches (Schulze-Makuch and Irwin, 2002): the subsurface, and atmosphere, which is in liquid-like state because of its high pressure.

As has been suggested for Mars, Venus could hold abundant water beneath the surface in a supercritical liquid state. Little is currently known about the subsurface; however, observed eruptions on Venus’s surface would require abundances of magmatic volatiles to overcome the atmospheric pressure. Water is a likely candidate for these magmatic volatiles. (Schulze-Makuch and Irwin, 2002). There are many possible deterrents to the development of life, so water in the subsurface would not be conclusive evidence. Comparable studies for Mars could be used to constrain the plausibility of life in the Venusian subsurface. A mission to dig or drill below the surface of Venus for in-situ sampling would help solve this mystery.

Rationale for Program Selection

Data collected by the Russian Venera missions, the Pioneer Venus probes, and the Magellan probes show that the atmosphere of Venus is composed mainly of carbon dioxide (96%) and nitrogen (3%) with some traces of other gases. The presence of oxygenated gases (i.e. O2 and SO2) and reduced gases (i.e. H2S and H2) in trace amounts suggest that the atmosphere is in disequilibrium. Of particular interest is the presence of hydrogen sulphide and sulphur dioxide. These compounds generally react with each other and do not occur in the same place naturally. Moreover, the presence of carbonyl sulphide is indicative of organic processes. Schulze-MaKuch and Irwin (2002) suggest that a mysterious ultraviolet (UV) absorber detected in the atmosphere could be microbes which metabolize sulphur dioxide with carbon monoxide and possibly hydrogen sulphide or carbonyl sulphide.

In an early Venusian scenario, bacteria originating from liquid water could, following the runaway greenhouse effect, have adapted themselves to environmental niches in the atmosphere. The actual physical-chemical conditions on the Venus atmosphere are suggestive for extremophile life. At an altitude of 50 - 60 km, the Venusian atmosphere becomes very Earth- like with a pressure near one bar, temperatures between 0 and 100 C, and abundant solar energy. Beyond this, viable organisms have been found in clouds on Earth (Landis, 2003). It is believed that water vapour concentrations are present in the lower cloud layers, so it is possible that extraterrestrial bacteria have been able to fix H2O from water vapour (Schulze-Makuch et al., 2004).

There are several examples of organisms living in extreme conditions, or extremophiles, on Earth. Some extremophiles can survive at extremely low pH values. For instance, Ferroplasma acidarmanus can live at pH0, and bacteria with a pH 1-2 have been found in hot springs in New Mexico, US. In addition, some terrestrial organisms, such as the fungus Fusarium alkanophylum, use specific organic pigments to protect themselves from UV radiation (Schulze-Makuch et al., 2004). These are just two examples of how terrestrial life can survive in incredibly hostile environments. The study of extremophiles on Earth and beyond is important to better understand microbial adaptability to severe physical and chemical conditions. Table 3: Comparison among life requirements in present Earth, Mars and Venus

Earth Today Mars Today Venus Today Liquid water Yes Some water No (mostly frozen) (due to Greenhouse effect) Geochemical, Hydrothermal, Energy source Yes Yes and Solar Carbon source Yes Yes Yes Water vapour, no usable Nutrients Yes Limited organics at surface Geologically active Yes Limited Yes

Habitable? Yes Subsurface Subsurface, Atmosphere (Westall, 2005)

For comparative planetology in astrobiology, Mars is the other planet of great interest. In the past, Mars had many the characteristics that we believed make a planet habitable, including liquid water, energy source, carbon source, nutrients, and geological activity. Increased knowledge of Mars from the recent exploration program will be of great help to better focus objectives on Venus.

40 Rationale for Program Selection

Venus data will give scientists crucial insight into the evolution of solar system environments and will provide a model of comparison for other potentially habitable bodies such as Titan, Europa, and extra-solar terrestrial planets. Exploration of these potentially habitable worlds offers a more complete and universal definition of habitable zone.

In summary, the priority astrobiology science questions to be considered include:

1. Is there evidence for present life in the atmosphere of Venus? The return of samples from Venus’s atmosphere can solve fundamental questions about the evolution of habitable environments and life development. Scientific requirements include: a. High resolution spectroscopy and in-situ gas analyses to look for biomarkers, especially water vapour, hydrogen sulphide, sulphur dioxide, and carbonyl sulphide. b. Investigation of atmospheric chemistry disequilibrium – could processes related to life cause this disequilibrium? (i.e. molecular homochirality) c. Sample return from atmosphere.

2. Is there evidence for past life on the surface or subsurface of Venus? This question is intimately related to evidence of water presence in the past. In-situ exploration of planetary surfaces is necessary to identify and analyze potential habitable niches and to find traces of past water or life. Science requirements include: a. Remote sensing in IR spectrum of areas of high interest, such as crater ejecta blankets, highland plateaus and tesserae. b. In-situ measurements in areas selected by remote sensing data. c. In-situ measurement of the subsurface to obtain older data.

3.2 Policy and Outreach The long-term and global nature of REVolution’s science objectives requires a significant political, economic, and social effort from society when compared to existing inner solar exploration initiatives (NASA, 2005; ESA, 2005b). Since it is by no means possible to conduct REVolution unilaterally, an international cooperation scheme has to be developed. In order to create support for our project from societies worldwide, considerable outreach activities have to be considered to effectively mobilize the public. 3.2.1 International Cooperation Rationale International cooperation is a prerequisite to reach the REVolution objectives. To improve the execution of the architecture the cooperation not only has to take into account the traditional space agencies and science groups, but also countries with emerging space capabilities and organizations traditionally not involved in space.

International cooperation today, and in the past, still finds its primary motives in national gain rather than global fellowship or any other “romantic” notions. The international collaboration in the International Space Station (ISS) is probably the best example at this moment. REVolution’s architecture takes into account the geopolitics of today’s states, but also strives to create true international space collaboration among multiple stakeholders.

REVolution’s architecture is designed so all current space agencies and developing space-faring nations can join. REVolution’s missions produce the traditional reasons for international cooperation, where the motive is national gain. It maintains an architecture that is flexible for

Rationale for Program Selection international cooperation and, importantly, its science objectives are useful for learning about Earth. The answers which the program seeks to discover provide the driving rationale to sustain the program from a policy and outreach perspective.

International cooperation is a form of foreign relations. The introduction of Russia into the ISS by the United States is a prime example of space policy as an extension of foreign policy. Consequently cooperation is heavily motivated by the political gains that each state will receive. Given this geopolitical context, REVolution provides many traditional reasons for cooperation:

1. Economic benefit 2. Increased technical capability 3. Strengthen relations with other States for politically-motivated purposes 4. Space science goals are generally politically neutral 5. Cost/risk sharing 6. Access to expertise of other countries/chance to learn the expertise of other nations 7. Decision makers pressured/encouraged by public support

But even more imported are the idealist rationales, because of their long-term and socially beneficial vision:

1. Promote goodwill between all states 2. Answers to important questions which affect all of humanity (i.e. Greenhouse effect) 3. Decrease in duplicate research leading to more efficiency through program coordination

REVolution and its international cooperative focus should be attractive to all stakeholders. Generally, space science is easier to coordinate between international partners given its goals which are benign in nature. States tend to favor space science because it promotes good relations among other states, increases scientific knowledge, and is usually politically neutral.

Space agencies are the primary stakeholders because they are currently the best and only resource for executing space science missions. But support from non-space-faring nations is beneficial as well.

Countries who are not involved in the space community will also find the REVolution program beneficial. Whether countries are motivated by the global nature of the program - greenhouse gases do not recognize political boundaries - or by the chance to develop their technology, or to conduct their own experiments on one of REVolution’s missions, the project is flexible and attractive enough for non-space-faring nations to join.

Non-space-faring nations may want to get involved in the project in order to avoid a “technology gap”. Involvement of non-space-faring nations will help these communities to enhance their technological capability that will lead to an increase in industrial development and economic growth. 3.2.2 Social and Outreach Rationale The challenge of outreach is best described by Aldridge (2004): “Public participation is critical to sustaining the space exploration vision…the taxpayers who pay the bill – must assert ownership of the space program that transcends politics and the political environment.” People must connect with their space program and its activities. If we fail to realize the connection, public support for space efforts will continually erode.

42 Rationale for Program Selection

Focusing on science and robotic exploration, alone will probably not result in the necessary public participation: When space science effort segments are ranked, Earth-focused science application easily out-ranks exploration science programs (Hardersen, p. xvi, 1997). “Similarly, robotic exploration is interesting to Americans only so long as it is viewed as an adjunct, not a substitute, for human exploration. There is little interest in robotic exploration per se unless as a precursor of manned exploration and exploitation of robotic discoveries” (The Center for Cultural Studies & Analysis, 2004).

To create the necessary participation an effort is necessary that fulfills the considerations of Aldridge (2004): “The unwavering support of key groups is needed to bring the “Earthly” benefits of space exploration to the attention of the broader public”. In addition to this report, Harris and Sollinger (1994) note that a viable space program at least needs to: consider multiple policy perspectives, develop broad-based program involvement, and include frequent demonstrations of progress.

Outreach Key Groups

An identification of key groups is given below:

1. Space Agencies (as discussed in section 3.2.1) 2. Science community: For space science research, international cooperation is a “given.” The science objectives of REVolution need a global effort in order to be sustainable. The science[this is the term you have bee using above] community will find REVolution open to their participation throughout the entire architecture. “The desire within the scientific community to maximize the benefit accrued from each others’ efforts has “engendered a unity of purpose that transcends national boundaries.” (AIAA, p.19, 1993) 3. Media 4. General Public and in particular a. Religions b. Scholars & Students c. Environmental Organizations (Greenpeace, etc.): Among the environmental organisations of the world, the topic of the greenhouse effect is cause for concern. These agencies spend significant portions of their budget on raising awareness of the process and proposing schemes to reduce the effect. d. These goals are common to the REVolution program and collaboration with these agencies could prove mutually beneficial, depending on the agreement of the agencies as to the process of achieving these goals. It will be difficult to get these extremely geo-focused organizations involved in REVolution, but the big support from [society to environmental organizations can be very beneficial to REVolution societal support.] not sure what this means e. One of the larger and more famous non-governmental organizations, Greenpeace, spent € 8,892,000 in 2003 compared to € 10,761,000 in 2002 (Greenpeace, 2004) on greenhouse gas awareness. These figures suggest that an environmental agency’s budget is not sufficient to contribute significantly to the space program. However, this does not rule out Greenpeace as a partner in terms of publicity and raising awareness, where they could still make valued contribution. f. The environmental agencies have made statements in the past implying that they would at least entertain the goals outlined in REVolution and would be open to persuasion on the matter. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through the U.S. Initiative on Joint

Rationale for Program Selection Implementation, organizations in the United States and other countries have been encouraged to implement projects that reduce, avoid, or sequester greenhouse gas emissions. EPA Ireland has stated that Ireland must actively participate in international efforts and discussions, and must define and develop further national actions. (EPA, 2004)

Focus on Earth

The social and outreach rationale for the REVolution project centers on facilitating the exposure of the missions to the general public in a manner that conveys the direct benefits of the scientific objectives. By making this mission architecture relevant to Earth an outreach plan becomes more feasible and builds upon prior outreach and space programs.

One of REVolution’s objectives is to study Venus’s planetary evolution and how it compares to Earth’s evolution. The three scientific goals examine:

1. Atmosphere and the greenhouse effect 2. Geology 3. Astrobiology

For outreach the message is: Planetary evolution provides direct scientific benefits that will improve the appreciation and understanding of Earth.

In addition, by having these three scientific goals there is a clear and direct link to current education programs, namely: geography, geology, biology, ecology, environmental studies, energy sources, pollution, natural disasters, and evolution.

Comparative planetology is another objective that supports the outreach campaign. The program architecture for Venus should compliment previous scientific goals and architectures, with the ultimate objective of enhancing the knowledge obtained from studies on both Mars and Earth.

To the general public we can explain that of the three planets in the habitable zone of our solar system- Mars, Earth and Venus - only one is known to support human life. And even on Earth, humans live on a very small portion of its surface because of the many hostile environments present on our own planet. From the tallest mountain above sea-level to the deepest trench in the ocean is a distance less than .2% of the radius of the Earth. Exploring in these extremes is only possible through life support technology. Complex life on Earth exists only within strict temperature, temporal, pressure, and water requirements.

Thus, another outreach theme focuses on our fragile planet: by studying the hostile environments of Mars and Venus humankind can better understand its frailty and will appreciate the delicate nature of the conditions for life.

Frequent demonstrations of progress

In order to sustain public support trough out the execution of REVolution, progress on the program objectives has to be shown repetitively as is addressed in the program architecture and the mission objectives.

44 Rationale for Program Selection

3.3 Legal Issues Historically, all space exploration missions carried out within the solar system take place in a complex, international legal framework. This law may change depending on political situations between different ‘space powers’, as it has done in the past. Even if in a society, where international cooperation leads to dissolution of different states, space activities are highly influenced by societal and cultural beliefs, which manifest themselves strongly in the overall policy that shapes law.

REVolution propose a space exploration endeavour in a framework of international cooperation where issues such as export control, protection of intellectual property, liability for accidents and environmental changes in outer space can influence the programmatic architecture. It becomes essential to incorporate a discussion of the current legal framework if it might delay or lead to aborting the mission, and to minimize risks imposed by these legal issues.

In addition to achieving scientific goals, changes proposed within this new vision for Venus exploration could create opportunities for private industry, allowing them to independently profit from the space environment. In turn, these dealings may bring forward new legal issues The subsequent chapters address legal issues specific to REVolution’s architecture and provide better models that can be adopted to resolve these wherever possible and seen within feasible scope of this report.

There are many legal instruments within the body of law applicable to and governing space- related activities. These include treaties, regulations, rules, principles and standards governing outer space elaborated under the auspices of the UN. In addition to these, space law encompasses international agreements, national law and legislation , executive and administrative orders, as well as judicial decisions. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 (OST) enjoys the broadest subscription and highest regard of all treaties relating to activities in outer space with ratification from 98 states and signed by 27 others as of January 2003 (UN, 2005). Other relevant treaties are discussed here in the context of inter-planetary exploration with emphasis on the new vision for Venus exploration. 3.3.1 Identification of legal issues Major legal issues for both science missions and the stimulation of commercial opportunities are identified in summary form below, but are addressed in greater detail in Chapter 4. These sections will explain which national or international law applies and whether any legal issues will be problematic under the law as it currently exits. This section also attempts to answer several questions: If a law creates a problem, then how does one overcome the problem so that the project can succeed? Can these laws be interpreted in order to help us? Is a change in the law required or would the law just be ignored in the future? Finally, one of the most important question that needs to be answered remains: What is the risk/likelihood of success on the proposed solutions?

Promotion of Private Industry

Exploration missions are primarily only carried out by public entities due to the lack of ‘commercial value’ for inter-planetary science missions. Can a public infrastructure be utilised to engage the private sector for future commercialisation of space exploration, as it has successfully created an Earth satellite telecommunications market? ‘Commercialization’ (as opposed to ‘privatization’), in the sense used within the architecture discussed here refers to the ‘sale’, of profit-making (or value added) transfer of goods and services. As Tatsuzawa (2005) explains

Rationale for Program Selection further “the subjects of commercialization are not only the private enterprises but also the states or international organizations.”

The promotion of private-sector investment and its involvement in public space exploration activities is becoming increasingly important for the exploitation of commercial potentials of outer space, and are not prohibited by Articles VI and IX of Outer Space Treaty. Indeed,within the text of the OST, some would assert that the term ‘exploration and use’ is used in an economically and scientifically large sense (Tatsuzawa, 2005). It should be noted that the specific commercial space activities suggested in this report conform to the common interest principle of the international space law.

This principle of common interest under the provision of international law, provides the possibility of inclusion of entities from countries that may not possess the necessary financial and technical means. However, accepted international law does not address consideration of whether benefits derived from the results of this exploration and use should be shared among all countries. It is intended to discuss if a publicly set up infrastructure can be utilised by private sector in the future. It shall help to assess if commercialization of space exploration is possible in similar ways to that of the satellite communications sector on Earth and address any shortcomings of this model.

Property Protection

Many economists and lawyers specializing in space law advocate for the creation of a property rights regime established in order to protect the intellectual property, infrastructure, and space objects (currently protected by OST for only signatory states) that the private sector invests in. This legal issue ought to be addressed within the REVolution exploration architecture and to be used as an incentive for private sector involvement.

Intellectual property

Currently there is a limited number of players in the space exploration market. Consequently, competition first exists between nations and only also between firms within those nations. A private entity expects protection for its Research & Development investment, to confer competitive advantage by utilising a cost saving innovation or a certain innovative technological solution. Intellectual Property Regulation also protects the private sector company’s freedom of work without threat from 3rd party claims or offensive actions and the right to receive royalties on competitors’ turnover (Kopal, 2004).

The non-recurring developments costs are heavily subsidized and thus determining real cost is difficult. As a result, the normal corrective role of free market economy forces does not work effectively in the space exploration sectors.

Liability for accidents

For space programmes carried out within a framework of international cooperation, issues regarding technology transfer, liability and responsibility are more complicated. Most of the technology associated with space exploration activity is accounted as dual-use. This reflects in most international space programmes in which, export control, data transfer as well as incorporation of different countries for launching and development constitute serious obstacles.

Export control

46 Rationale for Program Selection

Export control acts is a domestic law specifically written to regulate how freely public and private entities of one state can share technology and information with other states involved within collaborative space activities. Each country has its own export control laws, however in recent times; the US International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) laws have created a standard for a new extreme. The US imposed ITAR laws encompass all technologies and software that could be used for space applications. Mission success depends on limiting the effects of export controls.

Use of nuclear power sources/propulsion systems

In this section, we evaluate what happens if parties would be in favour of utilising nuclear devices and to use Venus as a trial base for this technology. The section in Chapter 4 shall analyze the exiting law on use of nuclear devices and any legal barriers posed by the law.

Environmental changes Article IX under the auspices of the OST lays out the foundation for conducting exploration without any contamination and adverse changes of the Earth’s environment from extraterrestrial matter. All inter-planetary missions also subject to sterilization and decontamination standards set up by the Committee on Space Research, COSPAR. All governmental agencies have adopted these rules in order to limit forward contamination, to environments of outer space and other celestial bodies due to space objects from Earth. Backward contamination, extraterrestrial contamination brought back to Earth from space objects returning from space travel. Subsequent section in Chapter 4 shall discuss how law would address the potential effect of REVolution’s mission architecture and other space activities on Venusian environment.

3.4 Costing, Funding and Economic implications There are two rationales that justify, from a business perspective, REVolution pursuing program architecture towards Venus. The first is “learning factor”, which justifies our choosing program architecture over a single in-depth mission design. The term “learning factor” refers to progressive understanding, technological as well as programmatic, from one mission to the next such that the cost for development and mission operations reduces to the limit of mere production cost. One of the only examples where this seems to have occurred is the Mariner series of spacecrafts where total research, development, launch, and support costs for the Mariner series of spacecraft (Mariners 1 through 10) was approximately USD 554 million (in 1970's US dollars). The series built up on older missions and the probes within the series were sent to different planetary bodies. REVolution will address the Venus science questions in a series of missions such that the architecture maintains a high learning factor (NASA, 2004).

Figure 2 (Section 2.2) shows that the public funding in space sector, at least in the major space countries as the US, has been on a slow decline. It is not easy to relate this decline to specific reasons, although one might argue that a lack of public interest could be the origin. A clear vision of the goal of space programs is needed in order to focus nation’s energy, hence money, on such expenses. Such a vision could be to bring more benefits directly to the society. Strong motivations exist within the private sector to use interplanetary space as a potential market or source of revenue. Such motivation needs subsequent evolution in those companies’ ability as well as in the general legal framework. We therefore propose to use scientific space exploration as a starter to bringing the private industry into a sustainable interplanetary space business by helping it to gain knowledge, technologies and ability to independently build affordable and reliable assets. REVolution proposes to uses programmatic architecture of Venus exploration to do so.

Rationale for Program Selection 3.5 Technology The technical challenges presented by the Venusian environment are not unique in the context of solar system exploration. The surface temperature on Mercury (during the day) is nearly identical to the Venetian surface temperature (Russell, 2005). The atmospheric pressure on the surface of Venus is a factor of 90 times higher than on Earth but comparable to that in the upper atmosphere of the gas giants in our solar system (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune). The dense, windy atmosphere on Venus applies significant force to exploration vehicles but this challenge is also present on other planetary bodies with super rotation (Titan) and gas giants with dense atmospheres (Strobel, 2004). As a result of these similarities, the Venusian environment represents an excellent technological proving ground for future exploration technologies while also providing the opportunity to produce meaningful scientific data.

Technological advancements from the exploration of Venus will affect far more than just work in extreme environments. High temperature electronics would be a welcome addition to the notebook computer industry. Highly corrosion-resistant materials or coatings could be used in automobiles, aircraft, and virtually any type of machinery. In general, missions to new, challenging environments yield large quantities of spin-off technologies and the exploration of Venus will be no exception.

An example of one of the most important technological challenges to be solved for sending robotic missions to Venus is high temperature electronics, which has plenty of on-Earth applications or spin-offs such as nuclear reactors, avionics, automotive applications or power generation.

Spin-ins are also considered as one of the main drivers for the Near-Term part of the architecture. Deep see technologies used in high pressures are going to be considered as the main point to solve problems regarding the extreme atmosphere pressure in Venus surface.

Spinins and spinoffs will make the technology development requirements both more affordable and realistic.

3.6 Conclusions Comparative planetology focuses on neighbouring worlds to better understand the Earth. Because Earth stands between two quite similar planets that evolved in two directions, Venus and Mars, comparing the divergent evolution can enhance the understanding of Earth’s environment. Scientific exploration of Venus could provide data to improve and validate Earth climate models for greenhouse effects. The study of Venus will focus on three realms of scientific objectives: atmosphere, geophysics and evidence of past and present life. Key science investigations within these realms can be used to complement and enhance Earth and Mars science programs.

The primary stakeholders of this architecture are the national space agencies, of both developed and developing space-faring nations. Beyond these, non-space faring nations, environmental agencies, the general scientific community and public will be involved. Direct benefits of science and the applicability of required technology to the society on Earth will be key. Due to the diversity in the proposed international collaboration, issues such as regulations, standards, export control, data transfer, intellectual property, and liability will need to be addressed.

Involving the private sector can provide significant incentives including development of low cost designs and technologies with ownership or exclusive licensing of technology; private investment

48 Rationale for Program Selection on technologies with a guaranteed Return On Investment; and sales of services to government agencies.

3.7 References Aldridge Jr., E.C., “A Journey to Inspire, Innovate, and Discover, President Commission’s Report on the Exploration of Space,”2004.

Brack, A., 1999. Geochemistry on Mars and the Search for Life. EUG 10, 28th March - 1st April, 1999, Strasbourg, France.

Campbell, B., et al., 1999. The VEVA Mission: Exploration of Venus Volcanoes and Atmosphere. 30th Annual Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, March 15-29, 1999, Houston, TX, Abstract No. 1667.

The Center for Cultural Studies & Analysis, “American Perception of Space Exploration, A Cultural Analysis for Harmonic International and The National Aeronautics and Space Administration”, Washington DC, May 2004

CRISP, D. et al., 2002. Divergent Evolution Among Earth-like Planets: The Case for Venus Exploration. ASP Conference Series: The Future of Solar System Exploration, 2003-2013, 272, 5-34.

Crisp, D., and Titov, D., 1997. The Thermal Balance of the Venus Atmosphere. In: S. W. Bougher, D. M. Hunten, and R. J. Phillips (eds). Venus II. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 353 – 384.

Donahue, T. M., Grinspoon, D. H., Hartle, R. E., and Hodges R. R. Jr, 1997. Ion neutral escape of Hydrogen and Deuterium: Evolution of Water. Venus II. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 385.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Ireland, Ireland’s Environment 2004, EPA – Ireland, 2004.

ESA. (2005a). Venus Express Mission Definition Report [online]. Available from: http://sci2.esa.int/Venusexpress/docs/DefStudyRep_small.pdf [Accessed 28 July 2005].

ESA, 2005b. Cosmic Vision 2015-2025.

ESA Science and Technology. (2005). Venus Express [online]. Available from: http://sci.esa.int/Venusexpress [Accessed 15 August 2005].

ESA Space Science. (2004), Mars Express Overview [online]. (Last update 2 April 2004). Available from: http://www.esa.int/esaSC/120379_index_0_m.html [Accessed 15 August 2005]

Elwyn Harris and Jerry Sollinger, “Linking Space Exploration Programs to National Goals”, IP-139, 1994 “Available from: http://www.rand.org/publications/IP/IP139/ip139.html

Greenpeace, Annual Report, Greenpeace, 2004.

GRINSPOON, D.H., 1997. Venus Re-vealed: A New Look Below the Clouds of Our Mysterious Twin Planet. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley

Rationale for Program Selection

HyperPhysics. (2005). Magnetic Field of the Earth [online]. Available from: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html [Accessed 8 August 2005].

Kimball, J. (2004). The Carbon Cycle [online]. (Last updated 18 August 2004). Available from: http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/C/CarbonCycle.html [Accessed 10 August 2005].

Kopal, V, Progressive Development of Space Laws by the United Nations, Proceedings of the 13th European Summer Course on Space Law and Policy, (Pg.25) School of Law, University of Graz, 16-17 September 2004, European Centre for Law

Johnson, N. M. and Fegley, B., 2000. Water on Venus: New Insights from Tremolite Decomposition. Icarus, 146, 301-306

LANDIS, G.A. (2003). Astrobiology: The Case for Venus [online]. Available from: http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/GLTRS/browse.pl?2003/TM-2003-212310.html [Accessed 2 August 2005].

Manitoba Energy, Science & Technology (2005). The Greenhouse Effect [online]. Available from: http://www.gov.mb.ca/est/climatechange/images/greenhouse_effect.gif [Accessed 15 August 2005].

Marinangeli, L., 2005. Life and Habitability in the Solar System and Beyond. ESA Cosmic Vision 2015-2025 Workshop, ESA publication, 18 March.

Marov, M. Y. and Grinspoon, D.H., 1998. The Planet Venus, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

NASA. (2003). Venus-Venera 13 Lander [online]. (Last updated 02 May 2003). Available from: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/v13_vg261_262.html [Accessed 12 August 2005].

NASA/JPL. (2005). The Mars Exploration Program's Science Theme [online]. (Last updated 16 March 2005). Avaliable from: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/science/ [Accessed 8 August 2005].

NASA Science Mission Directorate. (2005). Earth Science Roadmaps [online]. (Last updated 27 April 2005). Avaliable from: http://science.hq.nasa.gov/strategy/roadmaps/index.html [Accessed 2 August 2005].

NASA, Strategic Roadmap SRM 3 – The Solar System Exploration Strategic Roadmap, 2005.

Nineplanets. (2005). Earth [online]. (Last updated 11 February 2005). Available from: http://www.nineplanets.org/Earth.html [Accessed 12 August 2005].

Onion, A., 2002. Is Venus Our Future? Scientists Seeking to Learn More About Earth Through Its 'Twin'. ABCnews.go.com, 22 April, p.1-2.

Prinn, R.G. and Fegley, B, Jr., 1987. The Atmospheres of Venus, Earth, and Mars: A Critical Comparison. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 15, 171-212.

Raval, A. and Ramanathan, V., 1989. Observational Determination of the Greenhouse Effect.

50 Rationale for Program Selection

Nature, 342, 758-761.

RESA's NASA Space Science Strand. (2005). On Earth: Extreme Environments [online]. Avaliable from: http://www.resa.net/nasa/onEarth_extreme.htm [Accessed 1 August 2005].

Russell, R. (2005). Table of Planets [online]. University Corporation for Academic Research, The Regents of the University of Michigan. Available from: http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/our_solar_system/planets_table.html

Taylor, F. W., Hourdin. F., and Lopez-Valverde, M.A. The Venusian Environment [online]. Available from: http://www-atm.physics.ox.ac.uk/user/fwt/WebPage/Venus%20Review%204.htm [Accessed 5 August 2005].

Schulze-Makuch, D. and Irwin, L.N., 2002. Reassessing the Possibility of Life on Venus: Proposal for an Astrobiology Mission. Astrobiology, 2, 197–202.

Schulze-Makuch, D., Grinspoon D.H., Abbas, O. Irwin, L.N. and Bullock, M.A, 2004. A Sulfur-Based Survival Strategy for Putative Phototrophic Life in the Venusian Atmosphere. Astrobiology, 4 (1).

Space Plasma Physics Group (1996). Magnetosphere [online]. (Last updated 24 September 1996). Avaliable from: http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/sppb/edu/magnetosphere/mag4.html [Accessed 8 August 2005].

Strobel, Nick. (2004). Astronomy Notes.: Earth-Venus-Mars [online]. Available from: http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s9.htm [Accessed 1 August 2005].

Tatsuzawa, K, The Regulation of Commercial Space Activiites by the Non-Governmental Entities in Space Law, IISL ? – 88-083. Last updated, accessed 10 August 2005, http://www.spacefuture.com/pr/archive/the_regulation_of_commercial_space_activities_by_t he_non_governmental_entities_in_space_law.shtml

ThinkQuest. (2000a). Astrobilogy: The Living Universe [online]. Avaliable from: http://library.thinkquest.org/C003763/index.php?page=planet07 [Accessed 11 August 2005].

ThinkQuest (2000b). Compare the Planets [online]. Available from: http://library.thinkquest.org/C005921/compareIt.htm [Accessed 12 August 2005].

Venus Climate Britannica (2005). Venus: the Fire-Drenched Goddess [online]. Available from: http://www.space.com/reference/brit/Venus/climate.html [Accessed 6 August 2005].

Volcano World (2005). Volcanoes on Venus [online]. Available from: http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/planet_volcano/Venus/intro.html [Accessed 8 August 2005].

Westall, F., 2005. Habitability in the Solar System and Beyond. ESA Cosmic Vision 2015-2025 Workshop, ESA publication, 18 March.

Wikipedia On-Line Encyclopedia (2005). Greenhouse Effect [online]. Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus [Accessed 11 August 2005].

Rationale for Program Selection Office for Outer Space Affairs- United Nations Office at Vienna: United Nations Treaties and Principles on Space Law. Last updated 10 May 2004, accessed 10 July 2005, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/treaties.html

UN. (2004). United Nations Treaties and Principles on Space Law [online]. (Last updated 10 May 2004). Office for Outer Space Affairs-United Nations Office at Vienna. Available from: http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/treaties.html [Accessed 10 July 2005]

52 ______Chapter 4 4 Program Overview

The proposed architecture for robotic exploration of Venus represents an integration across many program drivers including science, technology, business, social, and policy. The architecture used to implement the missions and timelines shown in Figure 10 was selected to optimize trades between the various drivers while achieving incremental objectives. This chapter will discuss technological challenges, and political, legal, and financial influences which led to the selected architecture. In addition, an overview of the Revolution roadmap is presented for the Near-, Mid-, and Far-Terms of the architecture, each term outlining the relationship between science objectives and mission designs.

Figure 10 Overview of Near-Term REVolution Timeline (2006-2020)

Figure 11 Overview of Mid-Term REVolution Timeline (2020-2030)

53 Program Overview

Figure 12 Overview of Far-Term REVolution Timeline (2030-2050)

4.1 Architecture Goals The missions that compose the REVolution architecture were selected so that they collectively accomplish as many of the major goals identified by the various disciplines. Some of the high- level goals are outlined below:

From a Science perspective • Science missions must be driven by science requirements. • The schedule must allow enough time for data analysis and modeling between dependant missions. A minimum of 4 to 5 years is needed between dependent missions to accommodate transit, data collection and preliminary analyses and ensure that updated science objectives can be applied. • Missions should be planned strategically to build upon data obtained by science programs on Earth, Mars, and other Earth-like planets. This will aid in the coordination between science programs and allow for effective analysis of data sets. • Missions capable of observations at a global level should be coordinated with detailed missions to specific regions to produce a more comprehensive collection of data.

From a Technology perspective • Missions should have a logical progression so that advances in technology can be incorporated. • Technologies used should be proven for those missions most critical to the overall architecture goal. • Some missions should provide an opportunity for proving of technological advances.

From a Business perspective • The selected missions should capitalize on the enabling technology developed for them to apply to future missions. • Technologies should also be applicable on Earth; for example, high temperature or high pressure situations. • Technologies should be incorporated from other industries, where possible, to decrease the cost of non-recurring development. • Multiple small missions are preferred when compared to a single large mission. This allows for the inclusion and support by small companies and independent space programs.

54 Program Overview

• It would be preferable to have individuals and organizations providing support through the generation of business cases that include human spaceflight as part of the architecture.

From a Society and Outreach perspective • Missions should occur at regular intervals for maintaining public interest. • Outreach must occur immediately and in parallel with the development of a mission • This program must compliment and support the outreach of concurrent space missions.

From a Policy and Law perspective • Inclusion of various international groups for individual missions provides flexibility in case of policy changes or in case a group is unable to fulfill their commitments. • Far-Term missions are considered most risky with respect to susceptibility towards policy, legal, and political changes. • Results are needed within a political lifetime. Approximately 2 years is acceptable. • The willingness of international participation may be inhibited if technological developments have dual-use capabilities.

The architecture includes missions that do not address every concern of each discipline; such missions will further the program as a whole by setting up the infrastructure. Missions should be geared towards the creation of an infrastructure that can be used by all subsequent missions. This was selected to facilitate reuse of previously developed technologies. By making use of the capabilities present in this infrastructure, tasks such as communication and navigation will remove the necessity for advanced systems that would otherwise need to be incorporated on the spacecraft itself. Future missions are able to focus resources and effort on accomplishing more ambitious goals. The foundation laid down by the infrastructure approach increases the likelihood that the exploration of Venus will continue into the future. The investment made in setting up the infrastructure enables the financial savings associated with future missions. The timeline of the architecture was chosen for missions to maximize return on infrastructure investment, and would also allow enough time for data from one mission to be used to plan and improve the next dependent mission. This plan meets the goals for social outreach, inclusion of business and small space programs and obtains results within political lifetimes.

To achieve a logical flow of presentation and analysis, the architecture was divided into three timelines: Near-Term, Mid-Term, and Far-Term. The time period considered by the architecture (2006-2050) allows for enough future planning to drive current decisions towards the goal, but still remains within a future that does not require making unrealistic assumptions. This architecture has been designed to minimize its sensitivity to the variety of possible futures in order to increase the likelihood of success in the long term. It is intended that this plan be implemented by 2006, so that outreach occurs in parallel with development.

4.2 Common Challenges Atmospheric and surface conditions The hot corrosive atmosphere and clouds puts large demands on the materials and structures. Strong vertical movements in the atmosphere could impact the descent of a lander or a vehicle. Cryogenic fuels used in traditional rockets would be difficult to store and use due to these conditions. Electric motors and other mechanical moving parts that need lubrication pose challenges due to the extreme temperature of Venus. This is especially, a challenge for long duration missions of a lander type.

55 Program Overview

Energy Sources Solar power is not a very useful alternative because of the interference from the clouds and the long duration on the dark side of Venus.

Sun Effects and Radiation

The clouds of Venus block most of the incoming radiation around the visible part of the spectrum. This limits the conventional use of solar power. The potential use of nuclear reactors introduces a whole new set of challenges, not least of which are in the field of policy and law. The high level of radiation reflection affects the use and design of any remote sensing instruments.

Guidance Navigation and Communication (GNC) The distance to Venus creates a time delay for communication of up to 15 min in one direction. The atmosphere of Venus ionizes and cuts off parts of the radio communication due to the clouds absorbing much of the energy in the electromagnetic wave. This makes communication with ground probes or activities challenging.

Contamination It is important to avoid the contamination of Venus with organic matter from Earth and vice versa. This is perceived as low risk because the Venusian atmosphere perfectly sterilizing any known extremophiles travelling from Earth to Venus. Return missions should account for the possibility of Venusian life and take necessary precautions.

The forward contamination of Venus is currently under review by the Space Studies Board of the National Academy of Sciences. By drawing parallels with the issue of decontamination of Mars, updated policy specific to Venus can be developed detailing a procedure to prevent the forward contamination.

4.3 Policy’s Influence on Science In the terms of comparative planetology, acquiring a greater understanding of how our planet has formed and evolved necessitates studying its neighbours. Both Mars and Venus have similar attributes to the Earth and are often referred to as Earth’s twins. In this time of intense Mars exploration most people are familiar with its similarities. Pictures have been dispersed worldwide of a Martian landscape that closely resembles desert landscapes on Earth.

Venus, on the other hand, is much more exotic. With its extremely high temperatures and pressures combined with the toxic atmosphere, the similarities with Earth are not readily apparent. However, early in its lifetime, Venus developed in a manner very similar to the Earth. So why is it now so different? Why is its environment so hostile to life as we know it on Earth? These questions are essential to our understanding of the development of habitable planets and, in particular, the development of the Earth.

One of the key aspects of interest with respect to Venus is its runaway greenhouse effect. On Earth the greenhouse effect is responsible for rendering the planet habitable. The greenhouse gases in the atmosphere - water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, and nitrous oxide absorb heat from the Sun, trapping it when it otherwise would have escaped back into space.

Yet on Venus this same mechanism that enabled the development of life and allows its continued existence on Earth, is the cause for the extremely hostile environment. The high concentration of greenhouse gases in the Venusian atmosphere causes a massive overheating of

56 Program Overview the planet. Based on Venus’s distance from the Sun, its surface temperatures should be much lower. The presence of a runaway greenhouse effect is responsible for the extremely high surface temperatures.

The runaway greenhouse effect is an issue of current concern on the Earth. Could the increased presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere lead to global climate change? By studying the climate and atmosphere on Venus and learning of the development and evolution of its runaway greenhouse effect we can gain a greater understanding of this mechanism. This can aid in the understanding of this effect on Earth and perhaps help us to prevent any damaging consequences.

In our Near- and Mid-Term science objectives the goal is to gain a greater understanding of this mechanism through investigations of the atmosphere, climate, and geology of the planet. As a further step in the Far-Term, the planet could potentially be used as a test bed for studies into the greenhouse effect. Strategies to mitigate damaging effects on Earth could potentially be safely tested in the Venus environment prior to any implementation on Earth.

From an outreach approach, this is a much easier objective to market to the general public as it relates to tangible physical phenomena on Earth. If the greenhouse situation continues to deteriorate the effects will make the program more urgent, making the proposition sustainable. Through the construction of an enclosed pseudo-Venusian atmosphere, Venusphere, experimentation and testing could begin in the Mid-Term in addition to outreach programs. This would provide a focus and forum for research relevant to the study of Venus which could, in part at least, be funded by the REVolution program.

Often the question of how to justify space expenditures when the budget could be put to good use elsewhere is asked, and the ultimate goal of being able to tackle the greenhouse effect and global warming is a more than satisfactory answer. The REVolution program ultimately addresses a global issue that affects everyone on Earth, both developed and undeveloped countries.

Through the programmatic study of Venus in a frame of comparative planetology a greater understanding of the development and evolution of our planet can be gained. Insights will be developed into the future course of the Earth and will be able to aid in the maintenance of the habitability of our planet. In addition to the overall development of our planet, the investigation of Venus will help in the understanding of the greenhouse effect on Earth, an issue of particular current concern (The Encyclopaedia of Astrobiology, Astronomy and Spaceflight).

4.4 Legal Overview The REVolution mission architecture takes existing laws into account with regard to all legal issues addressed in preceding section 3.3. It encompasses missions of affordable size within a framework of international cooperation, in order to encourage developing countries that do not have the financial means to initiate scientific exploration missions on their own. Such cooperation will increase the tangible benefits for the ‘common good of mankind’ and increase the number of space faring countries.

The mission architecture allows sufficient time to address how to develop a suitable legal strategy for complying with international space law and regulations. Amendments to the current laws may be advisable, but may take some time. Changes might not be realized until the Mid-Term or Far-Term timeframes within the REVolution’s architecture. The architecture tries to keep legal barriers to space activities to a minimum by, for example, avoiding environmental changes to

57 Program Overview

Venus. However, regulations for using nuclear propulsion sources must be reviewed because the mission architecture contemplates utilizing these approaches to propulsion.

Promotion of private sector The US Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 was formulated in order to support and encourage private launch industry by a streamlining regulatory approval process to govern space activities. It also implements a consistent application of licensing requirements in order to ensure fair and equitable treatment to all entities. It ensures that private industry has an incentive to provide safe, reliable and reasonably-priced launch services within acceptable risk of loss and without infringing any foreign policy and national security concerns. Such a framework ought to be set in place on an international scale for private-sector enterprises that wish to enter scientific inter-planetary business. Political motivations, societal changes and an increase in focus on Near- Term cross benefits which the private sector could gain from would act as drivers for a suitable framework. With an increased number of exploration missions and the current efforts towards the Moon and Mars, advocating such a set up immediately would prove timely to see the benefits return within Mid-Term timeframe.

One goal of the architecture is to stimulate commercial opportunities, but the law then must protect the property interests of the entities investing in the endeavour. A ‘registration-regulation and operation’ regime as carried out in Earth satellite sector may prove to be favourable to engage private sector’s involvement and commercialization of scientific missions.

Further, an appropriate framework within intellectual protection rights in the form of adequately adapted national/supranational patent laws, ought to be designed to engage the private sector’s interest in developing and investing in future technology capability. This, however, is not the only solution. To complement this, it is necessary to harmonize an international patent law for space technologies by appropriate means: including a simpler enforcement mechanism. It is possible to continue to use existing patent acts to protect properties and sell the use through contracts by payment of flat fees in the Near-Term, but a revision of many existing patent laws is called for by the Mid-Term timeframe. Extension on how many years patents can stay valid until would determine the timeframes for private entities to obtain royalties on the use of technology invested in, or developed by them. A more appropriate model would include how export control legislations would be shaped in the future leading up to Far-Term timeframe.

Models of cooperation have been tried in other areas that involve technology transfers, such as the technology transfer model used for Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft. The JSF program establishes a hierarchical regime of four levels of international participation where technology transfer takes place through Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) and Memoranda of Understanding (MOU). These are detailed in Table 4.

58 Program Overview

Table 4 Technology transfer model for Joint Strike Fighter Level of participation Description Technology transfer tool (I) Collaborative Full partners with a MOA/MOU framework with MOU Development Partnership the ability to influence requirements (II) Limited partner within the MOA/MOU MOU Associated/Limited framework. These participants have limited Partnership participation with limited influence on core technologies and hence, a limited ability to influence requirements. They are allowed to access the project information so as to better understand the usability of the project only. (III) Informed Partner Allowed to use information to better understand MOU the utility of the project, but can not affect requirements (IV) Major Participant Countries participating as a customer fall into this MOA category. They are termed as Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customer. They participate in insight through studies, technological assistances and access to predetermined data.

Use of a model, such as the JSF model presented above is not enough. The JSF model has only been validated for the development phase at present and is not cited here as a robust solution. Issues with actual implementation and dissemination of results from space exploration, through the territorial patchwork which can lead to legal uncertainty, also need to encompass how the parties structure their agreement on the evolution of the law.

Export controls The proposed architecture of the missions is structured as an international effort, and law will control the parties’ ability to share technology. Restrictions such as export control laws are increasingly applied to current space missions for any technological capability developed domestically (provision of hardware, software, designs, interfaces and ‘know-how’), especially for future innovative approaches with a foresight to demilitarization.

Export control laws have significant practical effects on space programs because they can: • Increase overall cost of the programs; • Cause significant delay due to regulatory work needed to be carried out among all parties • Demand more difficult integration of space projects; and • Impose limitation on which states can participate As (ISU, 2003) rightly suggests, “If technology cannot be shared, innovation is stifled. Space projects become more difficult, costly, slow, and there become little incentive for cooperation.”

On the other hand, under the governing text of the OST, outer space qualifies as a res communis (property of all) (Hurtak, 2005). Technology transfer tools in the form of patents and licensing help encourage the investment of the private sector entities by protecting their technology. While this might be the regular practice for other space projects, it is not common within exploration missions due to the high costs.

In present day situations, where international cooperation in space activities are almost certain, such national laws cannot be viewed in isolation. The US ITAR has led various space-faring states to consider amendments to export control measures. Initiatives of intergovernmental organizations such as the International Institute for Unification of Private Law (Unidroit) help

59 Program Overview examine ways of harmonizing and coordinating the private law of states and allow various countries to gradually adopt uniform rules of private law.Initiatives such as these would help create favourable changes for international cooperation.

Liability for accidents All states are responsible for the space activities carried out by their private and public entities in outer space as stated by Article VII of the OST and Liability Convention. If a space exploration programme is carried out by one country only, then the national government has overall control and responsibility for all matters regarding risk, and liability.

A programmatic approach to Venus exploration within an international framework would require addressing a good model for liability for accidents. Typically, this could be handled by MOUs that waive liability among the participants and allocate third-party liability in an equitable fashion. Restrictions within export control, as discussed above, open few of the most effective international cooperative efforts and arrangements in situations regarding accidents of the space objects involved. Important lessons have been learned through past and current international space projects. One such example is the Long March Rocket accident case, which lead to a halt in cooperation resulting from illegitimate transfer of sensitive technology during investigation of an accident in 1998 (O’Sullivan, 1998). Better management of such issues would be complimented by implementing better liability issues.

Use of nuclear power sources/propulsion systems The Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT) of 1963 was the first legally binding document renouncing military uses of outer space. Article I of this Treaty forbids the explosion of nuclear devices in outer space to keep it relatively free from the adverse effects (the build-up of radiation around Earth) and contamination of human environments by radioactive substances and debris. In addition to this, the U.N. General Assembly Resolution and Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power sources in Outer Space provide that nuclear power sources are restricted to “those space missions which cannot be operated by non-nuclear energy sources in a reasonable way.” (Gerrard, et al,. 1997).

This law particularly affects innovative propulsion technologies, among the states who have signed the LTBT, in particular nuclear fission as a means of space propulsion. Although such technologies remain rather crude, it is essential to incorporate such considerations if there is ever the ability is to deliver extremely powerful propulsion (UN, 2004). The word ‘reasonable’ in the U.N Resolution on Nuclear power sources (above) is generally looked upon by space professionals and experts as a ‘loophole’: to mean ‘controlled’, as long as the use of nuclear power sources can be justified, space projects can utilise technologies such as the Radioisotope Thermal Generator, RTG, without being hindered. In any event, the UN resolution is not binding law. Some countries that are not bound by the LTBT could potentially use this innovative capability to emerge as a space power without having to develop the technology. This is important because more than anything else, political motivations drive the success of international cooperation on space programs.

The majority of space powers such as U.S, Russia, China, Japan and India are amongst 113 signatories to the LTBT, and withdrawal of any of these stirs a great deal of unrest within the international collaborations.

If the current political scenario is considered, international pressure on non-signatory states to conform to the LTBT would limit such a situation. But what could happen in the future? On the other hand, taking an optimistic view towards the rapid development of space technology, it is also important to consider a situation where effective measures to solve the issue of

60 Program Overview radioactive contamination have been found. It may be possible that the law could evolve to draw a distinction between the use of nuclear devices for propulsion only as opposed to explosion as a weapon. Also, it may be possible to interpret existing law to obtain the same results.

Environmental changes Venus exploration missions have not yet addressed the question of life in its environment. In addition to stricter regulations on sterilization and de-contamination, this may pose a risk to the entire programmatic architecture. What if the Near-Term missions did find life? It is understood that in order to avoid the possible violation of planetary protection laws, a thorough study of the ‘odds’ of finding life and its potential impact on the overall architecture needs to be assessed.

According to Art. 38, par.l, lit.b of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, ‘customary international law’ is the expression of a common long-lasting use recognized as law COSPAR Rules for planetary protection are accepted as customary international law even to space activities of countries which are not signatories of the OST.

It is important to note that Venus is currently classified under the COSPAR Rules separately from celestial bodies targeted for study of life. If the vision for Venus, proposed within REVolution’s architecture would involve a study of existing or extant life forms anywhere in Venusian environment, it would require a re-consideration of these rules to the more stringent standards as applied to the Mars probes (Flyby spacecrafts, Orbiters as well as Landers) as shown in Table 5 and Table 6 (Source: ESA house journal, 2003). Table 5 COSPAR Rules for planetary protection for solar system exploration mission Mission Category Target body and spacecraft Type of mission I Sun, Mercury and Pluto (Flyby, Missions not of direct interest for understanding Orbiter, Lander) the process of chemical evolution and no protection of such planets are warranted. II Venus, Saturn, Uranus, Bodies that are of significant interest, but only a Neptune, Comets, Jupiter, outer remote chance that contamination by a planets, satellites and asteroids. spacecraft could jeopardize future exploration. (Flyby, Orbiter, Lander) III Mars (Flyby, Orbiter) Missions of significant interst and /or the origin of life and which provide a significant chance of contamination which could jeopradize a future biological experiment IV Mars (Lander) These missions have the same priority as category III, but the types of missions are lander or probes. V All bodies All missions that returen to Earth. Are considered in particular the celestial bodies important for origin and evolution of life.

61 Program Overview

Table 6 NASA Planetary Protection directives Experiments Not of exobiological interest Important to detect sign of life Total bioload of the spacecraft Less than 300,000 spores Less than 300 spores The density of spores on the Less than 300 m2 surface

If Venus is to be used as a test bed for reversing the greenhouse effect, it would raise serious concerns with regards to altering its environment, which potentially could nurture future or contain extant life forms. As a policy matter, environmental restrictions be lowered because of the benefit of utilising Venus to alter the greenhouse effect on Earth and human lives saved thereof? Hence, laws governing future approaches and demilitarization are discussed with regards to the REVolution mission architecture in subsequent chapters.

Other issues It is important to note that legal changes are seldom isolated from significant impacts on political, social and policy issues. For example, many believe that during the formulation of the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963, the peoples of Republic of China rejected the treaty and accused Russia of ‘selling out the communist camp’ (Reynolds and Merges, 1989), which intensified the Sino-Soviet split. To understand the gravity of addressing a change in the legal framework, all these aspects need to be considered in the equation.

Looking forward In an ideal case, the mission would allow repeatability of the space activity and would be robust against any potential mission failures. In doing so, international cooperative framework would not be dependent on the public agencies and would allow commercialization of technology and infrastructure used for the Venus missions. States would not be under international political pressure and declining money. This could gradually allow for relaxation in stringent export control measures imposed by states.

It is beyond our scope to lobby for change in international law and/or national laws for any legal issue addressed here and this shall not be included in REVolution’s outreach plan.

At present, there is no real acceptance of the Moon Treaty. Some attention should be given to treaty provisions governing the relation between the Moon and Venus because legal provisions for the Moon have been drawn in such a manner that they also apply to Venus. In addition, a study should be initiated as to whether international agreements need to be made specifically for Venus because it differs so much from the Moon.

4.5 Costing, Funding and Economics Overview The possibility of implementing a roadmap relies heavily on the capacity to finance the different missions and to sustain the overall program. Several drivers lead to the capacity to raise the needed money, some of them relying on social issues, others on possible financial benefits. But financing requires having an estimation of the cost of the architecture and its repartition over the time.

62 Program Overview

4.5.1 Costing of missions for REVolution Table 7 gives mission classification of various space agencies as of 2005. The small missions are generally used for technology proving and missions to inner solar system bodies. On the other hand the flagship class missions are generally directed to outer planets. Table 7 Mission cost categories for various space agencies, as of 2005 NASA [5] ESA CHINA [6] JAXA[7] Small $300 - 500 M $100 - 300 M < $150M < $180 M Medium $500 - 800M $300 - 400M $150 - 300M $350 - 400M Flagship class $800 - 2800M $400 - 1000M $2000 - 3000M T.B.D

For REVolution, as we intend to generalize multi-crafts in one single mission (swarms, constellation), we propose to cost individual crafts (including associated launch and operation costs) rather than complete missions. Therefore, the cost of a mission will be the sum of the cost of each single craft. This is intended to facilitate participation of several contributors to a single mission.

Following those rankings, we define the REVolution crafts costing category as the following:

Small (S): small craft would cost in the range of $1M to $50M, accounting for today’s space technology and space industry. As long as launch costs don’t drastically decrease, several such crafts would have to be launched at a time to dampen the launch cost burden. Medium (M): medium crafts would cost around $200M, accounting for today’s space technology and space industry. Large (L): large craft would cost roughly $500M and over accounting for today’s space technology and space industry.

Since accurately costing future missions is virtually impossible, REVolution will estimate the program cost through a ranking of each single craft into the above 3 categories, without providing any monetary value. Yet, the proposed categories provide a comparative cost ratio we expect to be relevant in the long term.

When considering mission cost, it is important to account for the possible degree of re-use, that is, spin-ins and spin-offs. Indeed, the high technology spin-in degree makes for a lower risk and lower cost mission. On the other hand, high spin-off technology makes the missions more beneficial. In considering mission costing, three degrees of re-use will be provided: • High (H): the needed technology could either: o Be directly spun-in with little adaptation from previous space missions or other sectors (deep sea, automotive, etc.) o Be valuably spun-off to other missions or sectors • Low (L): the needed technology has limited spin-in or spin-off capacity or would necessitate large adaptation to fit the Venus environment. • None (N): the needed technology is completely specific and no re-use opportunity is envisioned.

Defining an architecture over more than 30 years requires consideration of the development of new technologies. Although this would be necessary, the level financial investment required to gain each core technology will not be provided in the report.

63 Program Overview

4.5.2 Selecting Funding models based on social and private returns estimate Generally speaking, one can see three major sources of funding for a space project. Each of these funding sources can be mobilized, if and only if, the project produces the adequate benefit: • Public (civil) funding requires social benefits such as gain of scientific knowledge, jobs, economical activity. • Public (military) funding requires social benefits as well, but also requires either increased military assets or potential dual-use technology within the project. • Private funding requires financial benefits.

Although public funding source benefits can be mid or long term in order to achieve the payback, private funding sources require short term payback.

For a particular project, in order to define the adequate funding scheme, one needs to evaluate social, private and potential dual-use benefits. From this it is possible to define the preferred funding source to seek, and therefore to build the most applicable funding models. {See: Classifying and evaluating space projects: a unified method for estimating social and private returns, W. Peeters, O. Gurtuna, A. Nicolas Hachem} Taking another perspective, one can understand that by emphasizing specific benefits (social, military or marketing) that could be provided by a given project, it could be possible to a certain extent to diversify the funding sources. 4.5.3 Application of funding models to space activities To date, several funding models are, or have been, implemented to enable space activities. Most of them are discussed in {Space marketing – A European perspective, W. Peeters, Space Technology Library, Kluver Academic Publisher, 2000} and {Space Economics, in Progress in Astronautics and aeronautics, Volume 144, Joel S. Greenberg, Henry R. Hertzfeld, AIAA, 1992}

The most common funding model uses purely civil public sources. This applies mainly to scientific missions and, more especially, exploration missions. As has been seen in the Earth telecommunication sector, when private return are high private industry can completely take over the funding and development of space infrastructures, and use it for the commercialization of subsequent services.

The Public Private Partnership funding model, on the other hand, is more and more implemented, for three main reasons: • It increases the short term payback of activities by a greater implication of the private sector (direct spin-off/spin-in, technology transfer) • It fills the gap created by the inadequacy of the government funding, • For a private company, it allows to share the risks with the public sector, bringing them in the “acceptable zone”.

Another funding model has been applied by the Canada Arm (MDA), where the Canadian Space Agency fully invested in the development of the first robotic arm with the intent of selling a series of robotic arms to NASA.

64 Program Overview

4.5.4 Funding the REVolution program through a benefit-based approach “Sustaining the long-term exploration of the solar system requires a robust space industry that will contribute to national economic growth, produce new products through the creation of new knowledge, and lead the world in invention and innovation. This space industry will become a national treasure”. This quote from the Aldrige Report clearly states the strategy of the USA to use their space program to strengthen further the US industry and the need for such strengthening to sustain long term scientific exploration programs. We argue that this approach could be applied to a global scale to bring the private sector to the level of expertise and autonomy needed to independently engage in actual commercialization of space. A strong support from public institutions is needed to encourage the space companies to engage in such ventures.

On the other hand, as seen in chapter 2.3, public funding of space programs has been declining for the past 30 years, especially within the countries or agencies that have a solar system exploration program. Even though NASA’s roadmap proposes an increase of the funding for exploration programs in the near future, most of this funding is mobilized by the Moon/Mars Exploration vision. An increased participation of the private industries, either financial or in terms of technical and innovative commitment could bridge this gap and help to sustain the REVolution roadmap.

Therefore we propose to setup a cross-beneficial relationship between the concerned public institutions and the private sector. The space agencies and the IVEWG’s main needs are the following: • To be able to rely on low cost technologies to implement the architecture on the long term, • To be able to rely on adequate high quality technologies, • To acquire innovative technologies and ideas to produce a low cost architecture, • To receive financial participation to support part of the program, • To help the space-related companies to emancipate, • To provide the society with enough spin-off (mainly in terms of technology and services) to justify the expanses in REVolution. On the other hand, the private companies’ main needs are the following: • To share the risks (technical and financial) implied by investing towards independently engaging in space commercialization, • To receive financial support for the development and the validation required technologies, • To gain or strengthen general knowledge of the interplanetary space environment and the various kind of activities

Various funding models can provide such significant benefits. They require a long term involvement of both parties and strong incentives. Examples of such incentives can be : • Ownership or exclusive licensing of the developed technologies • advanced low cost designs and technologies by privately-led consortia, with ownership and/or exclusive licensing • a guaranteed Return On Investment (ROI) • possibility to sale services, such as telecommunication, operation or data processing services.

65 Program Overview

At the same time, fostering a higher implication of the private sector requires a strong coordination and the extensive use of competition. Therefore, call for tender will be systematically used and the Space Technology Management Group, an international body regrouping representatives of the space agencies, the academics and the private industry, will coordinate the core technology developments.

The proposed REVolution funding roadmap is to evolve through three steps from purely publicly funded missions to ever-increasing involvement of the private sector. The first step, taken in the Near-Term timeframe, will be to set up the funding philosophy, demonstrate the proposed approach, and start to set the required framework. A second step, held during the Mid- Term timeframe, will fully develop the funding scheme and foster the creativity of the private sector through a systematization of business models such as PPP. In the last step, covering the Long-Term timeframe, we believe that high financial implication of the private sector will gradually erode as their capability will be extended enough to limit the need for specific developments.

It is not contemplated that any of the scientific missions to Venus will be designed, developed and operated on purely private funds with the sale of the collected data as sole source of revenue. Nevertheless, we argue that it is possible to mobilize the private sector resources, both financial and technical, to a larger extend than at present, and build-up a renewed long term win- win relationship between national and international institutions and the space industry and ventures. 4.5.5 Implication on architecture and technology selection Implementing such a strategy necessitates that the REVolution architecture and the associated technology respect some constraints:

1. The roadmap has to provide and guarantee a high number of missions, as numerous missions would allow for a limited market to be created. 2. The architecture design has to be based on numerous affordable and independent “bricks”, in order to reduce production costs, provide guaranteed ROI and allow for the participation of several different contributors. 3. The bricks have to be standardised, providing extended re-usability and allowing for several sources of production, very much in the same way as what is being done in the automotive sector. 4. Technology selection has to be spin-in driven, as selection of existing technologies, either from other exploration programs (eg. Mars or Moon exploration programs) or from Earth application (such as underwater robotics) could significantly reduce costs. 5. Technology development has to be spin-off driven, as investing in the development of technologies providing clearly stated spin-off applications would be more attractive to the private sector because of the increased ROI.

4.6 Architectural Overview Four different sets of guiding principles or philosophies were considered for Venus exploration: Conventional, Small Satellite, Infrastructure-based, and High Priority Science.

Conventional Philosophy uses a logical progression of missions based on increasingly advanced technology to accomplish program goals. A high level of redundancy ensures mission success but at a high cost.

66 Program Overview

Small Satellite Philosophy uses cost as the primary driver. Component selection favors existing technology and development is minimized. Scheduling and funding difficulties result from a strong dependency upon industry to develop technologies required for desired missions. As a result, this philosophy is not recommended for Venus exploration. However, because of advancements in technology and cost savings, this philosophy is appropriate for the Near-Term.

Infrastructure-based philosophy includes missions that do not satisfy a science objective but instead provide capabilities that make it easier for future missions to fulfill their objectives. Examples of infrastructure missions include a navigation, communication relay, and power generation, providing services for later vehicles. However, this philosophy is only practical if the infrastructure is utilized by a significant number of missions resulting in a reduction of cost and improvement in the scientific return. A long term commitment from the involved space programs is therefore required for this philosophy to be successful.

High Priority Science Philosophy pursues science objectives in order of importance without regard for conventional assessment of feasibility. This philosophy uses creativity, ingenuity, and accepts an increased tolerance of risk to satisfy mission objectives with current technology. This high risk-high reward strategy garners public interest similar to the Apollo XIII mission, only on a smaller scale. Support and criticism of the space agencies would be amplified by mission successes and failures. High risk missions are generally undesirable to space agencies that want to avoid the perception of squandering public money if the mission fails. This architectural philosophy is also not recommended for Venus.

An approach strongly rooted in the Infrastructure-Based Philosophy was chosen due to its applicability in the long-term exploration as well as providing a contrast to the Conventional philosophy. In providing navigation and communication relays, this approach effectively relaxes the mass constraints on scientific missions due to lower power consumption requirements and antenna size.

4.7 Time line

The dependency chart Figure 13 shows how different missions depend on other missions within the architecture. Based on Near, Mid and Far-Terms as well as science objectives. For example to do the SAR surface mapping first a traditional Comsat mission should be performed. Similarly, the Probe Lander Mission (2013) needs SAR (2012) in addition to the traditional Comsat (2012) to be performed first.

67 Program Overview

Figure 13 Dependency Chart 4.7.1 Near-Term The Near-Term program occurs between 2006 and 2020. It uses current technology and its intention is to perform basic studies that gather enough knowledge of Venus to generate the scientific, social, and political support required for the upcoming missions in Mid-Term program. Data from past missions is used in conjunction with fresh-data to gain a better understanding of Venus. Iterative modelling using new data will help validate current therories. The science goals in the Near-Term will focus on in-depth atmospheric studies including in-situ measurements, collection of detailed surface information, and preliminary astrobiology investigations. The atmospheric studies are to be coordinated with the public outreach agenda for greenhouse awareness.

GEOPHYSICS ATMOSPHERE ASTROBIOLOGY INFRASTRUCT

Missions-Science Goals Matrix Relay Surface Surface Tremolite Trace gas inventory Subsurface Subsurface composition Composition UV Radiation UV Biomarkers Wind speed Wind composition Magnetic Field Magnetic Atmospheric Temperature Temperature and Pressure Location Data Location Life Experiments Life Geologic Activity Geologic Communication Communication

Communication relay ??

SAR Interferometry Sys ? ? Atmosphere&Weather Satellite ????

Balloon+Orbiter ?? ??? ??

NEAR TERM Probe ?????

Two Aerobots ? ?????

Atmospheric sample ?? ?? Table 8 Mission science goals matrix for the Near-Term

Table 8 explains how science goals are achieved with the corresponding missions. Note that some missions in this chart are mainly focusing on building infrastructural elements similar to the Communications Relay Mission. Table 9 refers to the Mid-Term and Table 10 refers to the Far-Term.

In the Near-Term, the main science requirement is to perform an in-situ investigation of Venus’s lower atmosphere to complement the planned remote sensing investigations of ESA’s Venus Express and JAXA’s Planet-C missions. The main questions outlined in the previous chapter will need to be answered through investigating the physical and chemical composition of the lower atmosphere, nominally at 55km altitude. The nature of the atmospheric dynamics will also need to be studied, with correlations between global and in-situ coverage. This will require an orbiting

68 Program Overview spacecraft capable of tracking and taking measurements along with the vehicle inside the atmosphere for the in-situ measurements.

In the Near-Term, the goals for geophysical science are focused on the attainment of detailed surface information. High resolution mapping over a significant duration (several years) will provide the ability to study and analyse potential past and present geological activity on the surface.

Another goal for the Near-Term program involves the investigation into Venus’s magnetic field. To date it has not been possible to adequately examine this field because of its weak nature. By approaching closer to the surface, inside the atmosphere, it should be possible to detect and measure Venus’sintrinsic magnetic field.

The main scientific objective in terms of astrobiology is to begin a preliminary investigation of the disequilibrium of atmospheric chemistry and measurement of water vapour in the atmosphere. This can be accomplished through the in-situ investigation of atmospheric composition. 4.7.2 Mid-Term The Mid-Term program occurs between 2020 and 2030. At this stage, some research and development (R&D) has been completed and lessons have been learned during Near-Term studies. During the Mid-Term more in-depth scientific research on atmospheric composition, dynamics and the potential of microbial life in the atmosphere are to be investigated. Geophysical science objectives will be investigate in-situ with landers and rovers. The knowledge gained from the Near-Term period allows the mission to be more "action-oriented". Many of the technologies used during this period are incorporated from other industries such as from exploration technologies from the study of other bodies in the solar system, which have been adapted and modified for the conditions specific to Venus.

The Mid-Term missions build on the foundation provided in the Near-Term missions. With the fundamental science addressed and an infrastructure established, the missions performed in the Mid-Term focus on answering specific science objectives.

A number of missions during the Mid-Term focus on the use of swarm configurations in anticipation of the expected advancement in the manufacturing and control of such technologies. This approach provides the benefits of redundancy and the ability to reuse structural developments with various different payloads. This configuration will be applied to communications relay, mini-gliders studying the atmosphere, and surface rovers.

GEOPHYSICS ATMOSPHERE ASTROBIOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE

Missions-Science Goals Matrix Relay Surface Tremolite inventory Trace gas gas Trace Subsurface composition Composition UV Radiation Biomarkers Wind speed Wind composition Magnetic Field Magnetic Atmospheric Atmospheric Temperature Temperature Replacement and Pressure Location Data Location Life Experiments Geologic Activity Communication

Three Landers+Test Rover √√√√√√√

Orbiter √ √√

Mini-balloons √√ √√√ √

MID TERM Four Seismometers √√√ √

Swarm of rovers √√√√

Table 9 Mission science goals matrix for the Mid-Term

69 Program Overview

The main scientific objective for the Mid-Term is to study the physical, chemical, and mineralogical composition of the surface through in-situ investigations. Over this timeframe local measurements are required, and an increasingly global coverage for the surface investigations would be highly desirable.

For the Mid-Term the scientific objectives include a continued study of the atmospheric dynamics and composition. The size distribution, temporal and spatial variability, and the chemical composition of the cloud particles will be investigated. As a further step the in-situ measurements will be required on an increasingly global scale with multiple measurements at multiple sites at various levels in the atmosphere.

An extended goal for the Mid-Term is extensive compositional analysis of the atmosphere through an atmospheric sample return. Samples from the upper (~65 km) and middle (~50 km) cloud layers would provide a good preliminary treatment to gain in depth information of Venus’s atmospheric composition.

An additional objective for the Mid-Term is to set up a long duration seismometer network on the surface. The network would need to survive for a substantial period - on the order of years - to adequately monitor the planet for geological activity. Surface impacts or detonations could also be used to obtain local geological information.

The science objectives for astrobiology focus on the continued investigations of the disequilibrium of atmospheric chemistry and measurement of water vapour through study of atmospheric composition, culminating with an atmospheric sample return. Surface in-situ investigations will also be required to investigate the surface mineralogical composition as well as search for the past presence of water. 4.7.3 Far-Term The Far-Term program occurs between 2030 and 2050. This period is the least affected by the present situation and carries the greatest opportunity for exploration beyond the practical frontiers known to us today. The major space-faring s - China, US, Russia, ESA, possibly India and their allies could potentially be in cooperation with the goal of space exploration. We, therefore, are more confident factoring in emerging trends, technologies and conceptual material. We see their inclusion twofold:

1. Focus on and follow these developments as facilitators for the longer term strategic goals of the project. 2. Contribute to making the developments materialize in the shortest possible timeframe.

70 Program Overview

GEOPHYSICS ATMOSPHERE ASTROBIOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE

Missions-Science Goals Matrix Relay Surface Tremolite inventory Trace gas Trace Subsurface Subsurface composition Composition UV RadiationUV Biomarkers Wind speed composition Magnetic Field Magnetic Atmospheric Temperature Replacement and Pressureand Location Data Location Life Experiments Life Geologic Activity Geologic Communication Surface and Atmospheric return √√√√√√

Swarm of mini-gliders √√ √√ √

Moles √√√ √ √ Communication relay(6 Sat) with GNSS capability √√√

Beamed Power Implementation √√ √ √ √√

Human orbital mission √√ √ √ √

Solar powered ornithopters √√√√√√√√√

Table 10 Mission science goals matrix for the Far-Term For the Far-Term, samples from the lower atmosphere, below the cloud layer (~40 km), and near ground level would be required to complement previous sample returns. A sample return from the surface and subsurface to further study in depth the physical and chemical composition of the subsurface is also of high priority. This will also enable further investigations into mineralogical compositions and the past presence of water on the surface and subsurface for astrobiology purposes.

Extensive global in-situ investigations of the atmosphere over long durations are an objective for this timeframe. The investigations should cover various altitudes and should have a lifetime of at minimum a full Venusian day (243 Earth days).

In terms of geophysics the science objective is to study the physical, chemical and mineralogical composition of the subsurface, to a minimum of 10 m depth. Increasing depth will be required for the characterization of the Venusian geological conformation.

In the extended Far-Term the objective is to use Venus as a test bed for greenhouse effect studies. The main focus will be to use the atmosphere to test potential influencers on the global climate. This could also lead to potential terraforming experiments to further study the differences between Earth and Venus, as well to examine our potential ability to change Venus to render it more habitable.

4.8 Conclusions This chapter outlines the Venus exploration architecture as well as the methodology used to conceive the architecture. Venusian exploration is considered from many points of view, and the architecture represents a marriage of these interests, while satisfying the goals outlined in earlier chapters. Finally, the proposed architecture is discussed in the three epochs of investigation: near, mid, and far.

An infrastructure is created with the intention that future mission resources will focus on accomplishing more ambitious goals. The timeline of the architecture maximizes return on infrastructure investment, allowing time for collected data to be studied, used in mathematical models, develop new theories, plan and improve the next mission.

Studying the greenhouse effect on Venus and relating it to our understanding of the same process on Earth is an important aspect to the architecture. Not only will the atmospheric study

71 Program Overview of Venus offer a hint to the development and evolution of Earth but in regards to public outreach, the greenhouse effect is an excellent tool because the public is able to relate to this phenomenon and it is one that effects both developed and developing countries.

Since it is the intention to stimulate private sector participation in space activities, there is a need to adapt national and supranational patent laws to engage the private sector’s interest in developing and investing in future technology. There is also a need to better manage international technology transfer, overcome nuclear propulsion restrictions, and address the possible implications of finding life or having cross-contamination between Earth and Venus.

4.9 References Gerrard, M. B, Barber A. W., (1997). Asteroids and Comets: U.S and International Law and the lowest- probability, Highest Consequence Risk [online]. Available from: http://www.law.nyu.edu/journals/envtllaw/issues/vol6/1/6nyuelj4.html [Accessed 12 August 2005].

Hurtak, J. J., (2005). Existing space law concepts and legislation proposals [online]. The Academy for Future Science. Available from: http://www.affs.org/html/existing_space_law_concepts.html [Accessed 05 August 2005].

International Space University. 2003. TRACKS to Space. Summer Session Program Strasbourg, France.

O’Sullivan, M., 1998. Correspondent report SEA LAUNCH COOPERATION STOPPED (L- ONLY) [online]. Available from: http://www.fas.org/news/ukraine/980811-sl.htm

Reynolds, G. H., Merges, R.. P., (1989). Outer Space: Problems of law + policy. Westview Press, 1989.

The Encyclopedia of Astrobiology, Astronomy and Spaceflight. Runaway Greenhouse Effect [online]. Available from: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/R/rungreenhouse.html

UN. (2004). United Nations Treaties and Principles on Space Law [online]. (Last updated 10 May 2004). Available from: http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/treaties.html [Accessed 10 July 2005].

72 ______Chapter 5 5 Near-Term Program (2006-2020)

Figure 14 Near-Term In the previous chapter, an overview of the program as a whole was given. Aspects that are applied throughout the program were addressed and described features that determined the architecture shape. Building on the overview of the program in the previous chapter, this chapter will describe the Near-Term Program in a more detailed view. It will be going through the Business and Management, Policy and Society, Science and Engineering aspects and describe each proposed mission in detail.

5.1 Introduction Previous missions to Venus have included fly-bys, orbiters, landers and in-situ probes, which provided a basic description of the atmosphere and the surface of the planet. In the near future, new missions will be launched: ESA’s Venus Express (launch October 2005) and JAXA’s Planet- C (launch 2008). These orbiters will increase the knowledge of the atmosphere, plasma environment and surface, thus practically completing what can be considered as a first phase of global exploration of Venus from orbit. The next logical step, the proposed Near-Term missions, are focused on proceeding with a detailed in-situ exploration, and expanding upon the

73 Near-Term Program (2006-2020) previous successful Venera atmospheric probes (1967-1981), the Pioneer Venus 2 probes (1978), and the VEGA balloons (1985).

Venus Express is ESA’s first mission to Venus and it will be using instruments upgraded from ESA’s previous missions Mars Express and Rosetta. It will focus on studying the atmosphere in great detail (thermal structure, global circulation, wave phenomena, composition, chemistry, and clouds) as well as searching for volcanic and seismic activity in the surface. The JAXA Planet-C spacecraft is a Venus orbiter designed to study the atmospheric dynamics of the planet, particularly the super-rotation of the upper atmosphere. It will also measure atmospheric temperatures and look for evidence of volcanic activity and lightning.

To prepare for further atmospheric, geophysical and life exploration of Venus, a detailed review of the findings of the previous missions will be completed to assess the requirements and set a benchmark for future measurements. A similar review will be done for the data collected from Mars to successfully complete the task of comparative planetology.

In terms of life detection, the Near-Term will be focused on the search for the existence of present microbial life in the atmosphere such as bacteria. Shulze-Makuch and Irwin (2002) found possible evidence of life from Russian Venera data of atmospheric disequilibrium in the lower clouds on Venus. 5.1.1 Launchers The selection of launcher depends mainly on the cost of the launch, the mass and volume of the spacecraft, and politics. For the Near-Term these factors can be reasonably predicted, resulting in the selection of the Soyuz-Fregat and Atlas V systems for the missions. The Soyuz-Fregat is an updated Soyuz booster using a Fregat upper stage. Also known as the Soyuz 2, it is a modernization of the Soyuz launcher with increased general performance. The Fregat propulsion system powered the Fobos probe to Mars and Venus Express, and the main engine was fitted on nearly 30 interplanetary spacecraft. During its numerous missions, the engine demonstrated the highest reliability under extreme conditions, exceeding technical specifications. Additionally, the cost of Soyuz-Fregat is very competitive with a price for a launch around $40M USD (Encyclopedia Astronautica, 2005). The Atlas V launch vehicle system is based on the Common Core Booster (CCB) powered by a single RD-180 engine. When combined with a standard Atlas payload fairing, the configuration is part of the Atlas V 400 series. Atlas V 401 incorporates a stretched version of the Centaur upper stage (CIII). It allows for a four-meter diameter payload and one solid rocket booster. The Atlas V family of launch vehicles can be launched from either Cape Canaveral Air Station or Vandenberg Air Force Base Space (Encyclopedia Astronautica, 2005). Atlas V has been used in recent mission to Mars, powering the Mars Reconaissance Orbiter (JPL, 2005). This launch vehicle has been selected because it provides the performance needed to fly a large spacecraft to Venus. The originally estimated launch price in 1998 for the Atlas V 401 model was $77M USD. With the collapse of the commercial launch market, the USAF revised this in November 2004 to $138M USD (Encyclopedia Astronautica, 2005).

5.2 Mission 1: First Communication Relay (2012) The purpose of the first communication relay mission is to transfer information between Venus and the Earth. This infrastructure mission is one part of the large category. The communications relay is scheduled to be in orbit in 2012, and has an expected lifetime of 10 years. The large antennas of NASA’s Deep Space Network, and any similarly sized (70m) facilities (e.g. ESA and Russia), are needed for data reception from the communication relay. There is also a need for a

74 Near-Term Program (2006-2020) mission operations center to manage the satellite telemetry and control (e.g. the attitude and orbit of the satellite). This mission needs to be established early in the program, prior sending other missions to Venus.

Technology The greatest challenge of this infrastructure mission is obtaining an adequate data rate between Venus and Earth. The communication relay has a 5 meter deployable antenna with a 100 Watt transmitter. This is similar to the antenna size of TDRSS, NASA’s Tracking and Data Relay Satellite, with transmit power of Mars’ Reconnaissance orbiter. With NASA’s Deep Space Network as an example, a minimum ground antenna size of 70 meter results in 1 Mbps data bit rate with a link margin of about 9 dB. (NASA, 2003). The calculations are based on the worst case when the Earth and Venus are furthest away from each other (1.7 AU). If the best case is considered, when the planets are the closest to each other (0.3 AU), the bit rate is increased to 25 Mbps and a link margin of about 9 dB. As a reference, the Venus Express mission had an uplink data rate of 7.8125 bps to 2000 bps and a downlink data rate of 10.6667 bps to 262,144 kbps (ESA, 2003).

An option that is not part of the baseline mission, is the use of optical communications for a higher data rate. The use of a laser beam pointing at the relay satellite between Earth and Venus will provide a rate of up to 50 Mbps. However this requires very accurate pointing of the laser. Also, the beams are disturbed by dust, and operating at angles close to the Sun (near occultation) makes is difficult to detect the laser.

As with all other missions on the architecture, the launch opportunities are primarily driven by the Earth-Venus synodic period of 1.6 years. Assuming a communications relay satellite mass of approximately 2000 kg, an Atlas V launcher is used to place the communication relay into a Venusian orbit. (Encyclopedia Astronautica, 2005).

Outreach The 2005-2012 outreach program will focus on previous missions and currently proposed missions (Venus Express, Planet-C etc.) to increase the general knowledge of the planets’ environment and to prepare for the missions ahead. Bringing together outreach and education about the greenhouse effect will allow a connection to be made between the Venusian atmosphere and a possible ‘future’ extreme environment on Earth.

Missions in 2012 will introduce the program to the public, and reinforce ongoing program awareness. Photographs taken for geological imagery will give the public a physical sense of the environment on Venus.

From an education perspective it would be advantageous to show the architecture of missions to university and high school students. These first missions are integral to the success of later missions and this can be used to show the connection of a mission architecture for a long term plan.

5.3 Mission 2: First SAR Interferometry System (2012) As previously discussed, two SAR interferometry satellites will be used to gather topographical information on Venus. As the mission is primarily for planetary topography, no instrumentation is required for atmospheric studies or to search for microbial life. All of the data will be transmitted from Venus to Earth.

75 Near-Term Program (2006-2020)

Science Upon completion of the first planetary image, the following tasks are performed:

• Generation of elevation maps • Identification of key geologic points, such as potential volcanoes and faults • Identification of potential sites for future landers, probes and/or balloons • Measurement of long-term rate of deformation and short-term deformation associated with seismic activities • Look for active volcanoes • Monitoring for signs of tectonic activity • Reviewing of crater markings for signs of new impacts • Narrowing of scope of potential sites for further analysis by landers, probes and/or balloons

The resolution for the Near-Term will be approximately 3 meters. It will take one Venusian day (243 days Earth days) to map the entire surface of Venus. In the ten year mission life, 3650 days or 15 Venusian days, only 15 images of the entire planet will be generated.

Technology The SAR interferometry mission, named Venus Global Surveyor (VGS) occurs early in the timeline to generate the maps that are needed for subsequent missions. Once in Venus polar orbit, it deploys its SAR antenna and begins its mapping mission. Candidate sites are identified at low resolution and then high-resolution surveys are performed. Landing site maps of selected locations are generated in two phases:

1. Backscatter measurement to determine surface texture (smoothness). 2. Interferometry to generate Digital Elevation Maps (DEM) (slopes).

When the landing site survey is complete, the VGS continues imaging for one full rotation of Venus, 243 days, producing a global map. Beyond this, VGS images the surface and provides data for analysis of changes and signs of geologic activity (USGS, 2003).

The large volumes of data generated from the SAR imaging are downlinked to Earth via the communications relay satellite. Data rates are updated to accommodate changes in volume. Once received, it requires lengthy ground processing to generate the final maps. The design lifetime of the mission is 10 years.

The baseline mission requires two identical spacecraft to perform the interferometric mapping in one year. In case of a single spacecraft failure, the mission could still be completed but at twice the duration (i.e. two years to complete the first map). If insufficient budget is available for this approach, a second spacecraft could be redesigned to be a receive-only and rely on the first to illuminate the surface with radar. However, if the transmit spacecraft fails, then the entire mission is lost. A final option, would be to fly a single spacecraft, but that would have the following disadvantages:

• Less redundancies • Longer duration to produce planetary map • Fewer total images • More difficult to achieve desired resolutions

76 Near-Term Program (2006-2020)

The requirements for the payload are based on similar missions to Mars. The best analogy is the Mars Global Surveyor (MGS), which generated high resolution imaging of the surface, studied the topography and gravity, and studied the Martian magnetic field. (NASA, 2004). The MGS narrow-angle camera provided a resolution of 1.41 m/pixel and the wide-angle camera provided a resolution of 280 m/pixel. For the Venus Global Surveyor, similar resolutions are required but using SAR technology to penetrate the clouds.

In order to minimize development costs, a survey of existing SAR satellites revealed that the Canadian RADARSAT-2 spacecraft provided an economical solution, with horizontal resolutions from 3 to 100 meters (CSA, 2000). However, the following modifications are required:

• Enhanced propulsion system to enter Venus elliptical orbit. • New S-band and X-band communications systems are required to support communications across interplanetary distances. • The spacecraft (including the solar array) reinforced to survive the thermal and structural loads of aero-braking. • The GPS navigation system will be replaced with ground tracking from Earth. The accuracy of this tracking method has not yet been determined. • The solar arrays will be reduced in size due to the increased power that is available closer to the Sun. • The thermal control system will be resized to compensate for the additional heat from the Sun.

The estimated development cost of RADARSAT-2 was $305 million Canadian ($250 million US) in 1998 (MDA, 1999). The cost is reduced by eliminating non-recurring engineering (NRE) costs and using a partial small sat engineering methodology (minimize documentation and relying on heritage rather than extensive testing). This results in a cost of approximately $150 million US per satellite (launch and operational cost are not included in this amount). This estimation puts the VGS mission in the medium class.

Based on the launch mass of RADARSAT-2 of approximately 2300 kg, the launch capacity for the SAR mission needs to be greater than that of the communication satellite. Radarsat-2 is specified to be launched on a Delta-II rocket.; however, an Atlas V rocket is able to carry such mass into Venus transfer orbit. The cost for this launch is estimated at approximately 150 M USD (Encyclopaedia Astronautica, 2005).

Outreach Missions in 2013 focus on preliminary research on the three key science objectives, life, the atmosphere and geology. At this stage, the search for biomarkers and water can be used as a benchmark to introduce the idea of life on Venus. Life has been a ‘hot topic’ for Mars exploration missions (Mckay, et al., 1996) and (McKay, 1997), which further enhances the comparative planetology. The focus for outreach in this area will be to introduce the idea of a ‘habitable zone’ in the solar system. The outreach post-mission will be dependent on the findings however one key message that will be delivered is that complex life on Earth exists in a small comfort zone of temperature, pressure, temporal and illumination cycles.

Search for biomarkers will bring up the ethical issue of contamination of the planet with our own instruments (David, 2001) and the debate over whether we should be tampering with a possible past, current or future habitat. This is an important debate to be introduced into the public eye now, before possible future missions to carry out experimentation on the planet.

77 Near-Term Program (2006-2020)

Outputs from the 2013 missions will include a record of the sights, sounds and smells of Venus, which will lead onto developing the Venusphere, which is outlined in section. Education will now be removed from a literature based approach to a physical concept of the planet.

5.4 Trade-off Analysis for Combining Mission 1 & Mission 2 The series of missions proposed in this architecture places heavy demands on communication systems, such as NASA’s Deep Space Network. For example, the Venus Global Surveyor (SAR mapping) mission returns more data than any other NASA interplanetary mission. Historically, each mission carried its own communication system, capable of communicating directly to Earth. This system is overloaded. The benefits of a dedicated communications relay, was demonstrated with the Mars Odyssey, through transmission of 95% of the Mars Exploration Rover data (128 kbps) (Space News, 2005). The follow-up to this is the Mars Telecommunications Orbiter, MTO (JPL, 2005). This would have provided dedicated communications support for Mars missions at a rate of 1 – 30 Mbps (1), and was the basis for our Venus Communications Relay Satellite. Unfortunately, recent news indicates the MTO has been cancelled (Rocky Mountain News, 2005). The following trade-off analysis shown in Table 11 demonstrates the Venus system elements

Table 11 Mission Trade Off Analysis Characteristic Communication SAR Satellite Combined Relay Satellite Antenna 3 m diameter. 15 m diameter. Phased Compromise between 2 Design Parabolic. Steerable. array. Variable modes, missions. Less capable. High-power. polarizations, and resolutions. Frequency X-band C-band Hybrid (Magellan S-band) Orbit 5000 km (providing 800 km Limited communication. near continuous Less mapping. contact with Earth). Complexity Single mission Single mission Complex multi-mission Development Low Low (reuse Medium (Design new Work RADARSAT-2) satellite with multiple functions.) Total Cost Large Medium Less than total of individual missions Reliability If failure, one If failure, one system Loss of spacecraft would system replacement replacement only end both missions only

It is possible to combine both missions into one, but based on the analysis as shown above, having separated missions may reduce the risk and cost in the future, and provide better performance (Space News, 2005).

5.5 Mission 3: Atmosphere Weather and Composition Satellite (2013) The atmosphere, weather, and composition satellite is primarily dedicated to address and deepen the global atmospheric science objectives. It will conduct remote atmospheric sensing to provide

78 Near-Term Program (2006-2020) a regional and global context for in situ atmospheric measurements and to prepare for the in situ atmospheric measurements by mini-balloons in Mid-Term.

Science This remote sensing satellite will monitor the Venus atmosphere at all longitudes and latitudes. The information gathered is expected to be helpful to understanding the atmospheric composition and chemistry, the atmosphere dynamics, the atmospheric structure and the aerosols in the cloud layers. In addition, the orbiter will also perform remote sensing, with a large field of view of the polar regions in order to gather information about the dynamics of the polar vortices. The main objective for this mission, from the exobiological perspective is to search for biomarkers such as water vapour, hydrogen sulphide, sulphur dioxide and carbonyl sulphide. Precise concentrations and distribution of these gases may provide a better idea of where life may be hidden in the Venus atmosphere.

Payload Features From the science objective we can draw the payload features for weather/observation satellite:

• Weather and climate monitoring • Composition and chemistry of the atmosphere measurement • Atmospheric dynamics • Aerosols the components in the cloud layers determining • Balloon exploration support

Technology The philosophy of the satellite design combines low cost and the use of current technology as much as possible. For the satellite platform some technologies of ESA’S Venus Express mission and JAXA’S Planet C mission, (e.g. propulsion technology, power supply, AOCS, thermal control and structure) can be adapted to the design. The payloads are not new kinds of instruments, but the accuracy and resolution requirements will be higher. There are ongoing technology and instrument development programs in all space agencies. NASA’S Planetary Instrument Definition and Development Program (PIDDP) focuses on the new instrument concepts for Solar System exploration missions. NASA is continuing to invest in other instruments for developing new programs. So the mission can use new instrument technology that will be available.

INSTRUMENTS: In order to meet the payload features, the satellite needs to carry the following instruments:

• Microwave sounder • To measure microwave energy emitted and scattered by the atmosphere, to provide global atmospheric temperature, and water vapour profiles. • Broadband visible and infrared radiometer • To measure water vapour, dust, and temperatures in Venus’s atmosphere. • UV, Infrared and Visible Imaging Spectrometer • The observation of clearly defined important spectral features can help to find the chemical composition of the atmosphere. • X-ray spectrometer • To analyze the diffusion of sunlight by the atmosphere and clouds to determine the components of aerosol particles within the cloud layer.. • Spatial Heterodyne Spectroscopy

79 Near-Term Program (2006-2020)

• To measure globally the vertical distribution of OH in Venus atmosphere. Global OH observations can thus be translated into maps of the H2O distribution. • Doppler Interferometer • To measure the temperature, winds structures, wave-wave interactions, and airglow emissions in atmosphere. • Balloon and its deployment mechanism

DESIGN: The spacecraft is based on low mass and simplicity of design. By merging individual instruments onto one platform and sharing resources at a system architecture level considerable mass reductions can be achieved. The trajectory of Earth departure phase and orbit transfer can be optimized to minimize the delta-V and to reduce propellant mass. The launch mass of the satellite is estimated 1100 kg. A Soyuz-Fregat can be selected as the baseline for the first weather/observation satellite launching. Because weather/atmospheric science investigations need a large field of view and high revisit frequency, and the lower orbit apoapse needs more fuel to achieve the final orbit, a polar elliptical orbit is selected. It provides complete latitudinal coverage and gives the best compromise for allowing both high resolution observations near pericenter and global observations during the apoapse part of the orbit. The satellite will deploy the balloon before processing its final orbit. Combination of different observational tools gives the mission high level of overlap and redundancy ensuring the achieving of mission scientific objectives. The payload instruments will be incorporated into a highly integrated payload suite. The science data obtained by the satellite can be transferred to the communication relay satellite through an X-band link and can also be stored with on-board solid mass memory instrument. Since the Venus low polar orbit is much closer to the Sun and the satellite has longer lifetime, the spacecraft need to cope with higher temperatures and radiation environment. The satellite is more probably in a hazardous situation. Communication time delay is another challenge for Earth-ground control to respond autonomously to hazards. This proposes high requirements for the on-board computer’s software and hardware.

5.6 Mission 4: Balloon Exploration (2013) The balloon mission and the probe will share the same launch. They will operate in the area of thick cloud layers (around 50 - 55 km) of the Venus atmosphere for an observation period of at least one month. This mission will validate technologies and perform useful science measurement in Venus’s atmosphere. The deployment of the balloon is presented in. It will be used as a test bed for validating the performance of electronics and balloon material such as polybenzoxazole (PBO), polyimidobenzoxazole (PIBO), polyfluoroalkoxy (PFA) and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). Because of its thermomechanical properties, PBO is the most promising balloon material (Kerzhanovich et al., 2001).

Science The objective of this mission is to obtain data for atmospheric and exobiological analysis, this include:

• The in-situ measurements of the isotopic ratios of the noble gases - this can provide interesting information on understanding why and how the atmosphere has evolved so differently when compared to Earth. This is directly related to the scientific objective previously proposed of the origin and evolution of the atmosphere. • Composition and chemistry of the layer of clouds - this could be studied through the measurement of cloud constituents, specifically water vapour, sulphur dioxide and other

80 Near-Term Program (2006-2020)

sulphur compounds that will contribute to understanding of the greenhouse effect on Venus and its atmospheric chemical processes. • Measurements of aerosols - in particular the measurement of the size distribution, temporal and spatial variability as well as the chemical composition of the cloud particles is of interest for understanding the thermal balance and the atmosphere chemistry. • Trace gas inventory - in order to study the greenhouse effect and biomarkers • Other measurements - wind speed, temperature, pressure.

Technology For long-duration mission, the balloon system will be kept in a probe and ejected from the orbiter at the Sun’s side of surface. The pilot chute deploys and then the main chute deploys at altitude about 60 km. At 50 km, the balloon will inflate and then release the main parachute. Solar arrays will expand from the gondola at the same time for collecting Sun light.

One of the main technological challenges is that the radio-transmitter, system control electronics, batteries, solar panels, and other electronic measuring instruments on board have to withstand Venus’s harsh environment (high pressure, high temperature and acid atmosphere). Moreover, the vertical control mobility system needs to be able to maintain an altitude of about 50 km in Venus’s atmosphere. The required technology development involves breakthrough in PBO envelope material, a crystal polymer film whose fibers features high strength, resistance to heat, and low leakage for light gases. Extensive experiments are required to validate the new material design performance and the overall system’s lifetime. PBO balloon development will require about 2 to 4 years.

A Soyuz-Fregat launcher can be selected for the balloon and probe missions the cost will be approximately $50M.

The main design requirements of the mission are the following:

1. To be able to provide sufficient power for all of the electronics on board. 2. To be able to transmit data to Venus’s communication satellite 3. To have a vertical control mobility system that allows it to stay at an altitude of 50 km for science measurement and observation. 4. To be able to carry at least 21 kilograms with the following payloads: o Gondola: 7 kilograms, 1.3 meters long o Tether (connects the balloon and gondola): 13 meters

The gondola contains the radio-transmitter, the system control electronics, the antenna, the batteries, and the scientific payload. The balloon will carry the following five instruments:

1. Anemometer: Wind speed indicator 2. PIN diode photodetector: To measure light levels, vibrating quartz beam pressure sensor. 3. Nephelometer: To measure cloud density through light reflection 4. Spectrometers: To identify materials. 5. Gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer: To measure atmospheric composition.

5.7 Mission 5: Probes (2013) Three probes are expected to be in operation down to 10 km or less. One of the probes collects data from the poles, while the other two will be collecting data from the equatorial areas. Each probe is equipped with a high resolution stereoscopic camera that can take a minimum of 25

81 Near-Term Program (2006-2020) pictures of the surface during the descent period. They will descend via a combination of aerocapture, aerobraking and parachutes and will be a test for the entry, descent and landing techniques that will be used by the landers in following missions. There will be new geologic instrumentation on this mission. The probe mission and the balloons will share the same launch.

Science This mission is mainly devoted to studies of the atmosphere.

• Vertical profile of a few physical properties of the lower atmosphere - this is of interest due to the complicated atmospheric dynamical system of Venus and could contribute to understand better dynamics of the atmosphere. • Composition and chemistry of the lower atmosphere - this could be studied through the measurement of minor atmospheric constituents, specifically water vapor, sulphur dioxide and other sulphur compounds that will contribute to understand the greenhouse effect on Venus, atmospheric chemical processes and atmospheric surface chemistry, and will at the same time contribute to address the issue of the possible existence of volcanism. • Trace gas inventory - the concentration of gases in the atmosphere is the great interest in order to study and better understand the greenhouse effect. • Other measurements - wind velocity, temperature and pressure need be done as well.

Technology The probes will be activated before atmospheric entry and will have a 1 hour life after hitting the surface. The probe support equipment will include the electronics necessary to track the probe, recover the data gathered during its descent, and deliver the data to the orbiter. Then received data is transmitted from the orbiter to Earth via the communication relay. The probe will be carrying the following instruments:

• Atmospheric Structure Instrument: This instrument contains temperature and pressure sensors. Accelerometers measures the drag forces in all 3-axes which will give information about the density of the atmosphere and wind gusts since the aerodynamics of the probes are already known. • Doppler Wind Instrument: The probe measures the wind speed during descent by observing changes in the carrier frequency of the probe from the Doppler effect. • Surface Science Instrument: This instrument contains sensors to determine physical properties of the surface at the point of impact. An acoustic sounder is used to gain more information on atmospheric composition during descent as well as on surface properties like hardness or surface roughness via waves. • Gas Chromatograph and Mass Spectrometer: This instrument analyzes and measures chemicals in Venus atmosphere. There are samplers that will be filled at high altitude and make analyses during the descent and will transmit the data to the orbiter.

The main challenges of this mission are once again high pressure and temperature. The technology needed for this mission could be transferred from Cassini-Huygens mission to Titan (NASA, 2005). Given the success and similar science objectives of the Cassini-Huygens probes, much of the design and instrumentation can be transferred to this mission. Improvements to adapt this technology for the Venusian environment will be necessary; these improvements are based on the adaptations made to the USSR Venera missions over the course of that program (ESA, 2005). This mission is roughly estimated to use approximately 70 % of design reuse and 20 % component reuse from Cassini-Huygens mission to Titan (NASA, 2005).

82 Near-Term Program (2006-2020)

5.8 Mission 6: Second Communication Relay (2017) The second communication relay mission continues the capability of the communications infrastructure set up by the first communication relay. This communications relay is expected to be in orbit in 2017, and will also have an expected lifetime of 10 years. It is intended to be a clone form the first communication relay. Given that the launch gap between the two is only five years, parts availability and continuity in manufacturing and testing should not be a significant issue. The launch vehicle will have to provide a with multi-satellite delivery systems so that the launch is shared with the two aerobots. The launch and insertion module for aerobots will have an approximate cost of 170M USD.

5.9 Mission 7: Aerobots (2017) Science To support the atmospheric scientific requirements, in situ scientific exploration should be done at an altitude between 40 and 50 km. The forecast scientific objectives of the aerobots include measurements of the isotopic ratios of the noble gases, measurements of the minor gas constituents, aerosol analysis, and pressure, temperature, etc. The measurements expected to be done are similar to the previously completed by the balloons and the probes, but this time with increased accuracy and over a larger area. The expected duration of those measurements is one month.

The aerobot geophysical exploration segment of the mission is to employ a simple and lightweight surface composition analysis method such as IR and visible spectrometry. The aerobots will be used to provide localized aerial coverage of an area of interest. Instrumentation similar to the Venera or Mars Exploration Mission, but with a higher resolution may be used to send back preliminary data. If available, magnetic field measurements should be conducted using a magnetometer with a higher resolution than used by Venus Express. This will also provide an opportunity to confirm the Venus Express data. An in-depth study of the surface composition will need to be done at a later date when landers are available.

Based on data provided by previous Venus missions, the exobiological expectations are to narrow the scope for the search for life in the atmosphere. The orbiter, launched in the 2013, will be used to assess the best place where life can be found by detecting the concentration of biomarkers. If those biomarkers are not stable in the atmosphere, but instead move with its atmospheric dynamics, a detailed estimate of the location can be made by collected wind data. As aerobots are controllable, life experiments can be done where more chances of success are expected and will also be presumably done in the lower cloud layer (around 50 km.). Thus, the aerobots can be selectively placed within the atmosphere at locations that increase the potential for success. The aerobots will need to have in-situ equipment to conduct a homochirality experiment to help detect the presence of microbial life. Homochirality is the condition of a polymeric substance in which all the subunits (the monomers) are of the same handedness (mirror image form), that is, either 100 percent left handed or 100 percent right handed (Brack and Spach, 1979; Brack, 1993).

The purpose of the homochirality experiment is to study molecular dissymmetry by investigating the polarity of molecules in Venus’s clouds. Life on Earth is in fact exclusively associated with molecular homochirality: on left-handed amino acids and right-handed sugars. Life that would simultaneously use both the right and left-handed forms of the same biological molecules appears very unlikely. The presence of homochirality would be absolute proof of life as this characteristic is the only universal signature for organic molecules. This experiment is also

83 Near-Term Program (2006-2020) proposed for the future ExoMars mission (part of ESA’s Aurora exploration program) and is onboard ESA’s Rosetta mission (Brack and Spach, 1979; Brack, 1993).

Technology To complete the mission, a trajectory control system is required. This platform consists of a wing hanging on its side below the balloon on a very long tether. Because of the difference in winds between the altitudes of the balloon and the wing, the wing experiences relative atmospheric velocity that creates a sideways lifting force that can be used to pull the balloon (Gilmore, 2005).

Furthermore, a high resolution multi-spectrometry and camera, a transmission system, and a navigation, tracking and autonomous control systems are required. These devices will be contained in a titanium and stainless steel vessel to protect against high pressure, maintaining the temperature below 30 degrees, regularly ascending back up to a higher and cooler atmosphere to cool off as temperatures or pressure become a real hazard for the system. (Pankine, 2005)

The balloon will be filled with a mixture of helium and water and will be able to carry at least 60 kilograms with the following payloads:

• Gondola: 30 kilograms, 2 meters long • Tether: connects the balloon and gondola, 15 meters • Wing: with tether several km long.

The gondola contains the following systems: communications and radiometric tracking capabilities and system control electronics, antenna, batteries, boom and instruments payload for scientific measurements. The scientific instruments carried by the aerobot are:

• High precision thermometer and barometer • Gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer with aerosol inlet • Nephelometer – to measure cloud density through light reflection • Magnetic search coils on all three axes to measure the vector B-field • Radar altimeter • UV Spectrometer – to study UV radiation • Multispectrometer (Infrared) – to identify atmosphere and surface composition • X-ray fluorescence detector mounted within a boom - to measure surface element composition

Launcher: The approximate cost will be $170M USD. This launch will be shared with the second communication satellite.

Challenges: The main technological challenges of this mission are trajectory control for balloon mobility, both vertically and horizontally, protection vessel for high temperature and pressure close to the surface, and the reliability of the power supply. The balloon design can be implemented from previous balloon mission. It requires extensive validation on previous balloon mission is to validate the performance of new material design and the overall system’s life time. Moreover, a lightweight advanced power generation technology is required.

5.10 Social Outreach Then Near-Term program for public awareness will focus on building on previous outreach efforts in the space industry. Introducing the concept of Comparative Planetology will enable the

84 Near-Term Program (2006-2020)

Mars outreach programs of the current Mars missions to lift the profile of Venus missions in the short term. Features of the architecture can also be used separately to increase awareness of the program, from mission to mission.

In order to implement the above program it will be necessary to have a huge impact on a large audience. The following innovations will be implemented to rejuvenate outreach and society relations with the space industry. 5.10.1 Venusphere Amongst all the Mars outreach and education, the only sensation of Mars that can be transferred to the audience is images. For a better all round understanding of a place, a greater number of the senses comes into play. If the sights, smells and sounds of Venus could be made available to the public, the education would be more interactive, and not discriminative to the partially sighted or blind to ‘visualise’ the experience on another planet. This also would revolutionise the traditional museum/space centre method of education.

Part of the REVolution program includes a test facility of a pseudo-Venusian atmosphere on Earth. The temperature, pressure, atmospheric constituents etc in this controlled atmosphere allow for testing of instruments, experiments etc. This “Venusphere” could be used to advantage in drawing attention to space activities by providing a focal point for media attention and research.

The Venusphere could also be opened to the general public, where tourists/customers can don a spacesuit and experience life on Venus, secure in the knowledge that they are ultimately in a controlled environment. Here, the tourists/customers can affordably experience a close representation of the Venusian atmosphere in many forms such as surface composition and texture, atmospheric composition, temperature and pressure perhaps as humans on Venus might in the future.

Moreover, there are many tourist attractions which use the replication of an environment to put people in an unusual or inaccessible experience. To create a ‘Venus Experience’ like this would be a novel attraction to place people in a better position to understand the Venusian environment, and encourage involvement and interaction, especially from children. 5.10.2 Media Attention The media can be used to advertise anything. Marketing of the industry to everyone can not be done with a single marketing campaign. Young and old, different nations, and different disciplines require a different approach in order to get them excited about missions to Venus. However, it is proposed that the majority of the global general public have a reaction (whether supportive or critical) to the Green House Effect GHE research.

Media can be used in the form of fiction and non-fiction, provided that the emphasis is on raising the profile of Venus missions and the focus is on science objectives i.e. Green House Effect project. Uses of the media include:

• Reality television is being used increasingly to bring information to the public in an entertaining format. • Documentaries are an informative method of promoting the Venus missions, and can be targeted at different age groups, cultures and disciplines. • Newspaper articles on missions and the program allow for international coverage and initiating debate.

85 Near-Term Program (2006-2020)

• Journal articles and magazines can bring up the discussion of ethics and morality of some of the science objectives i.e. the debate about life on Venus and experimentation. They can also be used to highlight the spin in and spin off technologies, relating Venus missions to other industries. • Films on extreme environments, including space exploration, Venus missions, and experimentation with Venus can raise awareness, even through the fictional context. This is especially useful if the timing coincides with missions or an influential outreach campaign. • Merchandise has a global market and thus can be used to advertise the mission directly, or support the above outreach campaigns, i.e. a film or television program. Space centres around the globe use merchandise to give a ‘take home’ message to people who visit, in order to extend the period of interest from the day of the visit, to the later weeks and months. • The X-prize was supported by Tom Hanks, Tom Clancy and Buzz Aldrin. These are three celebrities who attended X-prize events and incorporated the discussion in interviews. James Cameron attended the IAF congress 2004 in Vancouver. These are just some examples of celebrity’s interest in the space industry and how using their face can encourage people who are not interested in the space industry to hear about projects. Celebrity support of planetary environmental issues is common, and this topic is likely to be a big driver for public support. • It is possible to advertise missions on the television and radio as a commercial. In the past the British Government set up a ‘milk drinking’ campaign to encourage young people to drink milk. With the correct approach, possibly though the subject of environmental conservation, an agency initiated commercial campaign could be designed on a global scale to increase awareness and advertise for participation.

Thus, in the Near-Term program the focus is on awareness, scoping the feasibility of generating support from other cultures and interest groups, and introducing the program of missions. Emphasis will be placed on the ‘habitable zone’ and the delicate nature of the environment in which life has evolved on Earth. 5.10.3 Primary Outreach of the Project Aside from the report, an Executive Summary has been written to summarize and serve as a first eye-opener for the outreach of the project. The first tier of outreach is aimed at advertising the REVolution project to prospective readers who will implement its contents. The stakeholders will be the national and international space agencies, specifically aimed at people within the departments of engineering, science, architecture, business and management, policy and outreach. The program can be put into action as a whole through the international cooperation of the agencies, or implemented through individual departments. The report has been constructed so that each department’s contribution is flexible to work within a current agency roadmap for Venus, independent from the proposed architecture.

The policy section outlines a program for international cooperation which includes the construction of an International Venus Exploration Working Group, IVEWG, who should be made up of interested parties from agencies and organizations. The group shall bring together those agencies who wish to cooperate in this program, and encourage the participating agencies to take on board the ideas of the project.

The presentation of ISU SSP-05 at the University of British Columbia will initiate the outreach and the next stage will be international conferences including:

86 Near-Term Program (2006-2020)

IAC05 - International Astronautical Congress, Fukuoka, Japan, 17-21 October 2005. www.iafastro.com ICAS05 - International Conference on Aerospace Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey, 25-27 November 2005. www.enformatika.org/conferences/2005/icas2005/ ISU05 - ISU Symposium, Strasbourg, France, 30 November-2 December 2005. www.isunet.edu UKSEDS05 - UKSEDS Annual Students Space Conference, Kingston University, London, 12- 13 November. IEE06 - 2006 IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, Montana, USA, 4-11 March 2006. www.aeroconf.org SO06 - SpaceOps 2006, 19-23 June 2006, Rome, Italy. www.spaceops2006.org AS06 - 44th Aerospace Sciences Conference, 9-12 January 2006, Reno, Nevada, USA. IAC06 - International Astronautical Congress, Valencia, Spain, 2-6 October 2006. www.iafastro.com

This schedule takes the current program of outreach to June 2006, after which the continuation of the primary outreach will be dictated by the success of the earlier efforts, and the dedication of the members of TP REVolution.

A project website has been designed by team member Juan Martin Canales Romero on the ISU website and it will be advertised as a reference for project information and contacts by the poster and oral presentations.

A broad scope of the international audience is reached when the team members go back to their respective institutions, agencies and companies and they will continue presenting at conferences and incorporating the report into future work and research, keeping the ideas in mind to be brought up at any relevant moment. Good Luck guys, we need all of you!

5.11 Costing, Funding and Economic Implications 5.11.1 Mission cost ranking The time period contains 7 missions. Table 12 provides the cost category of each craft constituting the Near-Term architecture missions, as well as the technology re-use opportunities (spin-in and spin-off), based on an analysis of their technical characteristics.

These cost rankings are provided as indication. More detailed analysis should be done as each mission evolves from high level concept to design to consolidate these estimations. Similarly, the identified core technologies would have to be detailed and actual re-use opportunities further assessed.

87 Near-Term Program (2006-2020)

Table 12 Near-Term mission rankings as cost category and re-use opportunity Mission Year Cost Core technology Spin-in Spin-off Com. Relay 1 2012 M Telecom H H SAR satellite 2012 M SAR, reused from RADARSAT H L Weather and atm. 2013 M Weather sensors L L Balloon 2013 M Balloon (to be re-used in subsequent N H missions) Polymers Standardazation ? ? L H Probe (each) 2013 M Entry/landing instruments design L H H N H N Com. Relay 2 2017 S Full re-use from Com. Relay 1 H L Aerobots (each) 2017 M Environment (temp., pressure, …) H H Standardization L H

The Near-Term missions mostly rank into the Medium cost category, for two main reasons:

• Most of the mission, especially in the beginning of this timeframe re-use existing design or approaches, • The advanced technology allowing for low cost crafts will not have been developed yet or would be tested by those missions (eg. Balloons and aerobots testing the standardization technologies).

Most of them show potential high spin-in, mostly from other existing exploration missions. Spin-off is rather limited to technologies or design that could be re-used within the architecture:

• Re-use of the communication relay within the same timeframe, • Re-use of the basic technologies developed to handle Venus’s environment in most of the other atmospheric or surface missions. 5.11.2 Funding model and economic implications The goal of this first phase of the roadmap is to set the conditions to draw the private sector from reactive participation in science program to proactive attitude. This means that the ideas are promoted and the basis technology developed. The space industry has to be gradually involved in the reflection that will lead to its being able to consider independent exploitation and commercialization of interplanetary space.

It is expected that the Near-Term missions will be mostly funded through public money, for two main reasons:

• There are only few expected spin-offs, all of them towards exploration missions • The first phase of the architecture doesn’t provide a proven sustained economic environment to motivate the private sector to participate to a large extent.

One single agency would not be able to handle the cost of those seven missions on such a short timeline. Therefore several international contributors will have to be found through the VIF, under the auspice of the IVEWG.

88 Near-Term Program (2006-2020)

Nevertheless, opportunities can be seen to implicate the private sector in the program. For instance, most of the specific technologies such as the balloons or the entry and landing techniques used for the probes will be re-used in subsequent missions. The VIF will therefore have to carefully select the industry partners to develop these technologies. Public Private Partnerships associating exclusive licensing could be used to incite self investment from the selected company.

In order to further draw the interest of the space industry, the VIF will initiate the technology investigations. The implication of the private sector will be achieved through the Space Technology working Group (STG). Created by the VIF, this international body will gather the various space agencies, the VIF, representative from the industry and academics, in a similar way as what is done in the software-related Object Management Group (OMG).

Its goal will be to provide the space community with advanced solution in terms of technologies and designs allowing building small, low cost and scalable crafts. It will focus its activity on:

• defining the roadmap in terms of generic technology development • identifying key technologies with high spin-off potential and concentrating the development on those • coordinating those technology development • advocating standardisation, miniaturization and plug & play approach for spacecrafts • setting up and promoting the resulting standards among the space community • stimulating global competition to foster creativity, low cost solutions and larger interest • promoting the emancipation of the space industry towards autonomous exploitation of interplanetary space through technical advances

The STG will operate through calls for tenders and stimulate international competition. It will be mostly financed by public funds (provided mostly by the VIF, although military sources and other interested institutions could participate) but will have the mission to maximize the financial involvement of the private industry. Indeed, it is believed that a strong competitive environment with subsequent incentives, if a clear focus is made on the direction to take, will increase the commitment and the interest of the private sector. 5.11.3 Risk assessment From a funding and economic point of view, Table 13 presents foreseen risks for this period. Risks are estimated in terms of likelihood (probability that the feared situation occurs) and severity (importance of the consequence of the feared situation if it occurs on the funding of the architecture) on a scale ranging from 1 (minor) to 5 (major).

In a first iteration, three major risks are identified in the Near-Term timescale with respect with the funding the REVolution architecture:

R1: the first risk relies on the failure to achieve the first Communication Relay missions, either because of a technical failure (launch failure or other) or because no participating country is willing to invest in an infrastructure mission that doesn’t have direct benefits. Being a single point of failure of the overall architecture, the consequence of such an event would be to severely put the complete REVolution architecture in danger. Reduction of the risk can be achieved by:

89 Near-Term Program (2006-2020)

• Providing the development of this infrastructure mission to a leading country having a clear commitment in the program, known financing resources and a proven capacity to develop, launch and operate the mission • Providing the country or agency with incentive in the Near-Term timeline such as priority on the data, leadership role in the program, preference in terms of development contracts, etc.

R2: the second risk relies in a lack of interest in the REVolution architecture by the potential partners, either due to a lack of funding or a reluctance to participate in missions to explore the inner solar system. The consequence would be the impossibility to finance all the planned missions. Most of those, especially the SAR mission and the Communication Relays missions, are mandatory since they provide necessary demonstration of key technologies or most of the following missions will rely on them or their results. Outreach and strong international cooperation framework are necessary in order to reduce this risk.

R3: the last risk relied in a lack of interest from the industry in the REVolution approach. The consequence of such an event could be a low implication of the private sector leading to poor design, less innovations and difficulty to provide the architecture with cutting-edge cost-cutting technologies, solutions and designs. Only a strong promotion of the philosophy towards the industry could reduce this risk.

As we don’t intend to provide an extensive risk assessment, other risks might exist. A more systematic risk analysis will be necessary, encompassing political, societal, technological and scientific aspects, in order to consolidate the REVolution architecture.

90 Near-Term Program (2006-2020)

Table 13 Financial and economic risks associated with the Near-Term architecture Id Risk Consequence Like- Seve- Reduction lihood rity R1 Failure or impossibility to set up Program failure 2 5 Com Relay 1 shall be provided by a Com. Relay 1 leading country in the program with proven capacity Incentives for the agency funding the infrastructure missions R2 Low interest from partners Not enough funding 3 3 Outreach Strong international framework R3 Low interest from industry Low implication, ill design 1 4 Outreach

5.11.4 Recommendations • Set-up the Space Technology working Group (STG), referring to the VIF to initiate advanced space technology development, with an emphasis on low cost solutions and standardization • Use outreach to promote the REVolution approach towards the industry and the space countries • Rely on international competition to dynamize, attract, obtain commitments and achieve higher creativity and quality • Provide incentives to interest private sector and partners in contributing

5.12 Motivations for Investments The Near-Term missions set up a framework such that basic questions can be answered, and other questions necessary for future exploration can be raised. The missions will use existing technologies and knowledge in order to begin the road towards the proposed exploration in a feasible manner.

5.13 Conclusions In the Near-Term program (2005-2020), the mission focus is to build and expand on the success of previous missions with a detailed in-situ exploration campaign. In the Near-Term REVolution architecture, seven missions are proposed. The first missions will install a communications infrastructure at Venus for the purpose of relaying commands and data from later aerial exploration platforms (such as balloons, probes, and aerobots).

Scientific objectives for the Near-Term are to:

• In-situ investigation of the physical and chemical lower atmospheric composition • Investigation of atmospheric dynamics with correlations between global and in-situ coverage • Attainment of detailed surface information through long duration (several years) high resolution mapping to investigate past and present geological activity • Investigation of Venus’s magnetic field • Preliminary investigation of the disequilibrium of atmospheric chemistry and measurement of water vapour in the atmosphere through in-situ investigation of atmospheric composition • Extensive compositional analysis of the atmosphere through an atmospheric sample return with samples from the upper (~65 km) and middle (~50 km) cloud layers

91 Near-Term Program (2006-2020)

To enable these and subsequent mid- and Far-Term missions, a combination of existing technologies, spin-in technologies and new technologies are needed. These include:

• Miniaturization, high-temperatures and radiation hardened electronics and instrumentation • High-pressure and corrosion-resistant materials • High-temperature tolerant, rugged, inflatable balloons • Aerocapture and aerobraking technologies • Low mass, volume generic purpose power generators

A Space Technology Group (STG) group is created in the Near-Term business program. This workgroup will increase private sector’s interest in independent exploitation and commercialization of interplanetary space. This is achieved by providing the private sector with advanced technologies and designs allowing to build small, low cost and scalable spacecrafts. It will coordinate design efforts with help of standards. Mission specific technology developments, such as instruments, are held by each contributor, independently of the STG. Missions in this time period are mostly publicly funded. The burden of the cost (6 Medium cost missions, 1 Small cost mission in less than 10 years) is distributed between the various international contributors. This will create international competition that can lead to higher creativity and better quality. Countries can be motivated to participate in infrastructure missions by providing incentives, so the lack of direct benefits is compensated

5.14 References Brack, A. and Spach, G., 1979. Beta-Structures of Polypeptides with L-and D-residues. Part I. - Synthesis and conformational studies. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 13, 35-46.

Brack, A., 1993. From Amino Acids to Prebiotic Active Peptides: A Chemical Restitution. Pure & Appl. Chem, 65 (6), 1143-1151.

CSA. (2000). RADARSAT-2 Data Products [online]. (Last updated 9 January 2000). Available from: http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/satellites/radarsat2/inf_data.asp#Imaging%20modes

Committee on Preventing the Forward Contamination of Mars, N. R. C. (2005) Preventing the Forward Contamination of Mars, National Academy of Sciences. David, Leonard., (2001). Science Tuesday.

Encyclopedia Astronautica. (2005). Soyuz ST / Fregat ST [online]. (Last updated 16 August 2005). Available from: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/soygatst.htm [Accessed 16 August 2005].

Encyclopedia Astronautica. (2005). Atlas V [online]. (Last updated 16 August 2005). Avaliable from: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/soygatst.htm [Accessed 16 August 2005].

Encyclopedia Astronautica. (2005). Soyuz [online]. (Last updated March 28 2005). Available from: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/soya511u.htm [Accessed 12 August 2005].

92 Near-Term Program (2006-2020)

ESA. (2003). Venus Express – Engineering – Communications [online]. (Last updated: 11 November 2003). Available from: http://sci.esa.int/sciencee/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=33877&fbodylongid=1438 [Accessed 15 August 2005].

ESA. (2005). Cassini-Huygens [online]. Available from: http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Cassini-Huygens/index.html [Accessed 10 August 2005].

Gilmore, M. S., et al., 2005. Investigation of the application of aerobot technology at Venus. Acta Astronautica, 56, 477 – 494.

JPL. (2005). Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter [online]. (Last updated: 4 May 2005). Available from http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/mro/mission/lv.html [Accessed 16 August 2005].

JPL. (2005). Mars Telecommunications Orbiter [online]. (Last updated 16 March 2005). Avaliable from: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/future/mto.html

Kerzhanovich, V. V., Hall J. L., Yavrouian A., 2001. Balloon Precursor Mission for Venus Surface Sample Return. IEEE. 163-170.

McKay, D. S., et al. 1996. xxx. Science, 273, 924-930.

McKay, C. P., 1997. Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres, Science, 27, 263-289.

MDA. (1999). RADARSAT-2 Press Release [online]. Available from: http://www.mda.ca/radarsat-2/news/pr1998030201.html

NASA. (2003). Mars Telecom Orbiter Spacecraft Design Studies [online]. (Last updated 11 August 2003). Available from: http://acquisition.jpl.nasa.gov/ rfp/mtodesignstudies/exhibit1.pdf

NASA. (2004). Mars Global Surveyor [online]. (Last updated 30 December 2004). Available from: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/marsurv.html

NASA. (2005). Cassini-Huygens Missions to Titan [online]. (Last updated 04 May 2005). Available from: http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/instruments-huygens.cfm [Accessed 10 August 2005].

NASA. (2005). Venera, Soviet Missions to Venus [online]. (Last updated 06 Jan 2005). Available from: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/venera.html [Accessed 12 August 2005].

Pankine, A. A., et al., 2004. Directed aerial robot explorers for planetary exploration. Advances in Space Research, 33, 1825–1830.

Rocky Mountain News. (2005). NASA scrubs Red Planet craft to save green [online]. Avaliable from: http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_3944768,00.html

Schulze-Makuch, D. and Irwin, L.N., 2002. Reassessing the Possibility of Life on Venus: Proposal for an Astrobiology Mission. Astrobiology, 2, 197–202.

93 Near-Term Program (2006-2020)

Space News. (2005). NASA To Test Laser Communications With Mars Spacecraft [online]. Avaliable from: http://www.space.com/spacenews/businessmonday_041115.html

Space News. (2005). Mars Telecommunications Orbiter: Interplanetary Broadband [online]. Avaliable from: http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/technovel_marstelecom_050505.html

USGS. (2003). The Venus Geologic Mappers Handbook [online]. (Last updated 21 May 2003). Available from: http://astrogeology.usgs.gov/Projects/PlanetaryMapping/VenusMappers/Overview.html

94 ______Chapter 6 6 Mid-Term Program (2020-2030)

Figure 15 Mid-Term In the previous chapter the timeline for the Near-Term part of the REVolution architecture was discussed. Building on the content of the whole program overview in chapter four and the Near- Term architecture in chapter five, this chapter gives a detailed description of the Mid-Term of the architecture timeline. It discusses an interdisciplinary approach of the 2020 – 2030 timeframe where for each mission relevant aspects of science, technology, business, outreach and policy are captured in a chronological manner.

6.1 Introduction From a science perspective, the Mid-Term phase is considered an evolutionary step from the initial in-situ exploration done during the Near-Term and a preparation step towards more intensive exploration challenges to be faced in the Far-Term. For the Mid-Term, several new mission concepts are to be introduced such as the atmospheric sample return, mini-balloons, landers, and rovers that will be further developed during in the Far-Term.

95 Mid-Term Program (2020-2030)

The Mid-Term scientific requirements for atmospheric research include collecting samples at, and below, cloud levels using aerobots and balloons. The geological requirements are to continue to gather as much detailed information about the surface and sub-surface composition of Venus as possible by using landers and rovers. For exobiological exploration, the requirement is to continue focusing in the search for evidence of past water in the surface of Venus by whatever means are available.

6.2 Mission 8: First Constellation Navigation and Communication Relay (2020) Technology The communication relay swarm is an infrastructure mission which consists of a constellation of six or more micro satellites with added in-situ navigation capabilities based on Doppler and range observations. One or more regular size communication relays could also be included for enhanced capabilities. The system is based on the proposal of Mars Network, where only low- cost MicroSats are used (Bell, 2000), (Hastrup, 2003) and (Abraham, 1999). In addition to the business and policy rationales, there are many engineering motivations to provide a communication relay constellation with navigation capabilities in Venus orbit. Such a system will provide navigation functions for atmospheric entry of spacecraft which will enable more precise control of the entry point and therefore reduce risks to the mission. The system will also allow for communication between different spacecraft at the surface, in the atmosphere, or in orbit around Venus. Each mission will not be relying on its communication system, but rather on a distributed system. This will increase reliability since the system degrades gracefully with single failures.

The first swarm of communication relays with navigation capability will be sent in 2020 and will not depend on any previous missions. It will fulfill communication and navigation needs for all future missions during its 10-year lifetime. It will reuse about 80 % to 90 % of known technology.

The creation of a communication and navigation satellite constellation requires the development of more “plug-and-play” networks. This will allow flexibility for international participation at the spacecraft level. According to NASA’s roadmap, this technology should be available in 2010 (NASA, 2005a). It would also require navigation technology capability for accurate positioning of spacecraft with landing support, which should be developed between 2010 and 2020. This is why the first swarm of communication and navigation satellites will be launched in 2020 on its way to Venus.

The individual satellites of the constellation could be standard microsatellites, which reuse existing technologies from the communication relay used in other space missions and in the GNSS systems used on Earth. The design of the micro satellites would be greatly inspired by the MicroSat of the Mars Network architecture. Each of these satellites would weigh about 80 kg to which about 2 kg of propellant is added for orbit maintenance over a 10 year lifetime. This does not include the propellant needed to accomplish the ΔVs needed to go to Venus. These satellites could either be launched in a batch on a launcher or be sent as a secondary payload. They would be placed in orbit at an altitude of about 1 500 km. They would use Ka-band radio system to communicate with Earth, enabling a high rate data link. An UHF transceiver with an omni- directional antenna would be used to communicate with spacecraft in Venus’s atmosphere or on the ground. Navigation capabilities for spacecraft on Venus’s surface or atmosphere will be provided using the UHF link to collect 1-way Doppler data, or 2-way Doppler data if the user has a transponder. The 1-way Doppler data will be coupled with an ultra-stable oscillator. The

96 Mid-Term Program (2020-2030)

UHF link will also be capable to collect coherent Doppler tracking data between an approaching spacecraft and a microsatellite. Range will also be possible, but the exact implementation will depend on the technology available at that time. The precision of the positioning data is in the order of a few meters. The minimum number of required microsatellites is six based on the based on the Mars Network proposed structure; adding more satellites would increase the data rate and the average time needed to do positioning.

The regular size communication relay satellites are not required, but would provide a breakthrough increase in the data rate. These satellites are based on the design of MARSat satellites for the Mars Network. The orbit of those satellites would be high enough so that each can cover a whole hemisphere. They would be using a high-power, very high frequency Ka-band transceiver and a large, high-gain, dish antenna to provide a high capacity data link to Earth. They would also be able to communicate with the surface by using steerable, high-power X-band antennas. These satellites could achieve data rates higher than the first generation, however, they would weigh more and require larger solar arrays. They would have to be launched as a primary payload on a Delta type launch vehicle. They are an optional part of the communication relay system and would be implemented only if the budget allows it.

If the technology in 2020 for controlling constellation of satellites allows precise formations of satellites, the individual satellites themselves could be built from constellations of smaller satellites. The antennas needed to communicate with Venus surface and with Earth could be replaced by a constellation of small transponder spacecrafts, shown in Figure 16. Each transponder would regenerate the sensed signal, but with a time delay corresponding to the relative position of the spacecraft, so the receiver would get an amplified coherent signal. This could be achieved with either loosely distributed elements or with a stable formation such as a circular satellite formation. This solution would enable to have antennas with almost no size limit, which could dramatically increase the data transfer rate. The use of distributed antennas would also reduce the weight and volume of the satellites, but not greatly given that the communication instrumentation is only part of the total weight of any spacecraft.

Using swarm of spacecraft to replace antennas involves two major challenges. First, it requires an increased level of autonomy. The distributed spacecraft would have to keep track of their precise relative position and correct the time delay, and as a consequence their position. Second, this approach would also require a fuel-optimal control system to maximize the lifetime of the distributed antennas. If the consumption of fuel is not well balanced among spacecraft, some could run out of fuel before others. Autonomous cooperation and resource sharing are both currently active fields of research in robotics. According to Bekey, this technology should be available between 2010 and 2030 (Bekey, 2002). It will be used for the communication and navigation satellite constellation as soon as it is available.

Figure 16 Distributed antenna

97 Mid-Term Program (2020-2030)

For Earth ground support, the communication and navigation system will need a set of large deep space antennas on Earth. It will mainly use NASA’s Deep Space Network, but could also make use of ESA’s ESTRACK network (ESA, 2005).

The lifetime of the communication and navigation mission will be 10 years. This lifetime is based on data from past and future missions. The 10-year lifetime will not cause any problem since Pioneer Venus, which communicated with Earth through X and S bands, lasted for 12 years and was destroyed during atmospheric entry only because it ran out of propellant (NASA, 2005b). The satellites of Mars Network, which were originally designed to be launched in 2003, only have a design lifetime of about 5 years and 7 years for the regular-size one. Taking into account the history of communication satellites around Venus, the current lifetime of proposed satellites in orbit around other planets and the fast increase in the lifetime of GNSS systems on Earth, it is realistic to think that the lifetime of a communication and navigation system around Venus in 2020 would be at least 10 years. This approximation could even be pessimistic considering that the system gracefully degrades and doesn’t need all the spacecrafts to work.

Outreach The implementation of a global communication and navigation infrastructure will facilitate international cooperation. Because of the high capacity of the system, all international missions can use the same communication and navigation infrastructure. It will facilitate the participation of small space agencies since the cost of each mission will be reduced because no Venus to Earth communication system has to be included in future missions.

Business It is unlikely that private industry would be interested in this mission however, with the swarm configuration it may be possible to replicate a CanadArm model of corporate investment, thus allowing a nation to potentially develop a new telecommunications capability for space exploration.

6.3 Mission 9: Atmospheric Sample Return Mission (2020) Science The first mission proposed for the Mid-Term is an atmospheric sample return that is targeted to bring back to the Earth at least two samples from the Venusian atmosphere. One sample will come from above the cloud top (around 65 km) and the other one from the thick cloud layer (around 50 km). Although it would be beneficial to get other samples from the atmosphere at lower altitudes, this is not included as part of this mission because it would increase the overall technical complexity. It is more feasible to conduct lower altitude sample and return missions at a later date.

As stated in Chapter 3, it is believed that there exists a region in the atmosphere where microbial life may exist. The target for the second part of this mission is to filter the Venusian air in order to collect small particles and droplets over approximately one kilometre (From 49 km to 50 km height). The process of collecting the sample must be given serious consideration as it can significantly impact the results obtained. If life is found during the atmospheric sample return, the sample return mission will have the important task of carrying Venusian bacteria back to Earth. The samples should be maintained in their original conditions during the flight back to Earth in order to preserve life and reduce the risk of contamination. A complete analysis will be performed at a later date in a lab on Earth.

98 Mid-Term Program (2020-2030)

Technology A sample return from Venus is one of the most difficult missions in the Mid-Term, but the scientific and outreach potential of obtaining the sample is a major motivator. An even more complex sample return is scheduled for 2030 and, therefore this preliminary mission for an upper atmosphere sample return will allow technology proofing of orbital rendezvous and Venus to Earth return. It will also provide an insight into the atmospheric layer that most remote sensing satellites can analyze. The targets for this mission are two samples from 65 kilometers and 50 kilometers of altitude.

Although a full descent to the surface is not performed, a large ∆V will still be necessary to escape the Venusian gravity. The feasibility of this has been shown with current off the shelf rockets (Rodgers, 2000). Accurate control systems for the Venus Ascent Vehicle (VAV) and rendezvous rocket will need development. Rendezvous and capture in orbit are the limiting technologies for this mission.

Technical development of the control systems for the rocket rendezvous and capture are foreseen in NASA’s Technology Roadmap. A great deal of this technology can be reused from the Mars sample return project, that is scheduled in 2013, but some equipment modifications would be required, based on the difference in size and atmosphere between Mars and Venus. A number of Earth-based technologies are being developed, such as radio tracking techniques for rockets for the US Department of Defence’s Kinetic Kill Vehicle (KKV) program. This will allow the rocket to approach the orbiting satellite (ESA, 2003).

This mission could be coupled with the Mars sample return, but it is scheduled around 2020 to allow for technology development to incorporate the particular issues related to Venus. The sample collection would be completed within 1 or 2 hours of arriving in orbit, but the spacecraft return time is estimated to take up to 15 months.

Although the Earth ground control station would perform periodic check-ups during the transfer to Venus, constant monitoring is not needed. The mission is relatively short, but because it is intensive, the communication relay would be dedicated to it. Ground support will be more intense on the return journey because solar electric propulsion (SEP) will be used. Ion propulsion systems, like Boeings NSTAR engine (Boeing), utilize long term, low thrust burns to accomplish orbit transfers, which will require more frequent monitoring (Boeing).

Outreach The basic act of returning a sample of Venus’s atmosphere will be a high selling point to the public of all the nations involved. The use of this mission for outreach will depend upon the countries involved in the mission, the analysis of the sample, and the availability of the sample and the data to all agencies. Ideally from an outreach perspective scientists from across the globe will have access to the sample, that once analyzed will be displayed to benefit museums and universities.

Business The atmospheric sample return will require new technology and will be the focus of advertising these missions. The estimated cost of each spacecraft is large (USD 500M) therefore the intent of these types of missions is for public funding only. Space agencies will need to fund private industry within their nation in order to participate in this mission.

99 Mid-Term Program (2020-2030)

6.4 Mission 10: Lander Rover Mission (2021) Science During this period, three landers and one test rover will be deployed to the surface to collect samples and conduct in-situ analysis. The location at which the hardware will be placed is dependant upon the data collected from the SAR satellite and previous missions for the program. The instrumentation required to support the geophysical analysis will include, among other things:

• Electromagnetic conductivity measurement of the subsurface • Miniature Thermal Emission Spectrometer (Mini-TES) - an infrared spectrometer that can determine the mineralogy of rocks and soils from a distance, by detecting their patterns of thermal radiation. This is a difficult technological advancement which is targeted for development by 2008 as shown in the technology timeline shown in the Appendix A. • Mössbauer Spectrometer (MB) - an instrument used to study iron-bearing minerals. • Alpha Particle X-Ray Spectrometer (APXS) – an instrument used to determine the elemental chemistry of rocks and soils using alpha particles and X-rays. • Rock Abrasion Tool (RAT) - a powerful tool, able to grind a hole deep into a rock on the surface.

These instruments have been previously used in the Mars Exploration Program, therefore it is reasonable to assume that development costs and risk should be reduced with the use of this proven technology (NASA, 2005c).

Some of the measurements were conducted during previous Russian Venera missions; however, they were completed within a narrow analytical scope and limited instrumentation. A detailed analysis will need to be conducted by the geologic science community prior to the missions to focus in on the instrumentation that has:

• Made a giant leap in type or quality of data • Employs a new type of data that may not have been available or space-hardened prior to the missions • Made significant increases in resolution or detection methods when compared to previous missions

Exobiology research shall continue to search for evidence of life. The places selected to find hydrous minerals should be selected with the help of data collected by spectrometers on the aerobots, as well as data collected by the SAR. Though most of the Venus surface has been renewed recently by lava flows in a geological timescale, some suggestions have been made by Johnson and Fegley (2000), that ancient minerals may be found inside crater ejecta blankets and in areas of higher and cooler elevation, such as the highland plateaus and tesserae. The lander missions placed on the Venus surface in 2021 take these criteria in to consideration, together with the geological specification, in order to find suitable places to land. The payload of this spacecraft should include IR and visible spectrometry to study mineral composition and to hunt for any traces of hydrous minerals in the surface of Venus. Because of the lack of mobility, limited data will be available.

100 Mid-Term Program (2020-2030)

Technology The final landing location will be chosen after the processing of the data obtained by all previous missions (especially SAR and aerobots) in order to select the most suitable sites to fulfill geophysical scientific objectives. As a whole, it can be considered as a big mission, but because it is explicitly divided, it can be seen as the union of three different small missions.

A deployable cruise vehicle and three landers with identical structure will be used. Each lander will allow the possibility to adapt the instrumentation to fulfill the specific scientific goals that are to be achieved at the selected landing sites. The main technological aspects affecting this mission are the high temperature and pressure in the Venus environment and the efficient use of Venus atmosphere aerodynamics in order to reduce total fuel mass of the spacecraft.

The Venus atmosphere aerodynamics can be used efficiently through the combination of aerocapture, aerobraking and parachutes. For this purpose, Inflated Hypersonic Drag devices (Ballutes made of Polybenzoxazole or PBO materials) must be more mature than they are today and are expected to be so as shown in the technology timeline in Appendix A. For performing the aerocapture manoeuvre, shapes for the aerobraking shields and the modelling of the fluxes and trajectories in the entry stage for accurate navigation and landing will be done.

In the ground segment, a special infrastructure will be needed for both the on-board navigation instrumentation and the landing period to control the landing, using the rough teletracking system, and for on-board navigation instrumentation. The data obtained by all three landers will be transmitted to Earth by means of the relay communications satellites.

One of the main problems in surviving the environment on Venus is the high temperature -over 450ºC high enough to melt the solder on a circuit board. Because of this, standard circuitry and materials cannot be used. Instead, high temperature-resistant technologies must be used, such as silicon carbide semiconductor materials and micro-vacuum tube electronics (Nendeck, et al. 2002), and (Nendeck, 2001). To come around the problem of the high pressure at the surface, spin-in technologies from deep sea exploring vehicles will be used. The atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is about 90 bar (the pressure at surface level at Earth is 1 bar) and this corresponds to the pressure experienced at a depth of about 1 kilometre below the surface of the sea.

With the development of these technologies, mission duration can be raised from approximately 1.5 hours, (obtained by past Soviet missions), to a lifetime of 3 months. This will be a great challenge; however, this development is already being pursued by several space and non-space related institutions due to the potentially vast market that such advancements could have in other fields such as automobile, avionics, nuclear reactors, oil industry, and electric power conversion.

Electronics and materials capable of working during three months will result in the power consumption of the whole lander being decreased enormously, because the thermal control system being much less restrictive. For this purpose, the development of smaller nuclear power generators, as is being worked on by national space agencies, is highly desired, based on the same principles used by Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs) or by the next power systems: Stirling Radioisotope Generators (SRGs) which will raise the efficiency of thermal power conversion into electricity from 7% to 25% with the subsequent decrease in the nuclear fuel required (Wikipedia, 2005) and (Thieme, et al. 2003).

101 Mid-Term Program (2020-2030)

The possibility exists of including a small “test” rover, like the Sojourner for Mars, in one of the three landers as a technology proof precursor for the future swarm of rovers scheduled to be launched to Venus in the Mid-Term part of the architecture.

Outreach The three landers identified in this mission will allow for new high resolution images of the surface, pushing any outreach and education program to a new level, since the images will be of more interest to people today, than the images taken by the Russians 50 years ago. The landers will also give new results of the surface composition, which can lead to a re-creation of similar soil on Earth for simulation in museums and space centers as an addition to the ‘Venusphere’. The technology to enable the success of these landers will be innovative and allow an outreach campaign to introduce the proposed benefits of the mission for a swarm of rovers in 2029.

Business These missions have the potential to be attractive to private industry. As the landers are ejected from the cruise vehicle, or touch the surface, there is a possibility for marketing potential for the company. The cruise vehicle could image the landers as they depart. If nothing else PPP programs could easily be set up for the construction of one or more of the landers in the swarm. Because there are three landers, with more to follow in 2029, there is a possibility for a CanadArm style of funding support from the space agency involved.

6.5 Mission 11: Second Generation Weather/Observation Satellite (2025) Science For this mission, Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) may be used to produce cross-sectional imaging of sub-surface soil (currently available for depths of up to 10 metres). This mission could also take into consideration the exobiological expectations. It has been proposed by Schulze-Makuch and Irwin that water in a supercritical liquid state may be present inside the subsurface (Schulze-Makuch, 2002). They also proposed that life may have retreated and adapted to this location when atmospheric conditions on Venus became extreme. It should be noted that the second generation orbiter will have ground penetrating radar capabilities. Though the main purpose of the radar is for geological investigation, it could also be used to further investigate this hypothesis.

Technology The previous missions and the Near-Term Weather/Observation satellite have now provided a more detailed description of the Venusian atmosphere. The Mid-Term Weather/Observation satellite will take the place of the first Weather satellite sent during the Near-Term, and will have more advanced sensors installed on board. A new instrument -ground penetrating radar- will be added to the payload. Much higher accuracy and resolution data will be achieved. The satellite will also deploy a number of mini-balloons -unguided small and light weight craft driven by the wind- to provide support for in-situ atmospheric measurements.

The high resolution ground-penetrating radar will obtain different kinds of geologic information from that obtained by the Near-Term SAR satellite; it will use low frequency radar that can penetrate into the surface. The measurement will show the internal deformations of the Venusian surface and will depict the structural styles of the old crust which are essential to define the crust dynamics to improve understanding of the geological evolution of the planet.

102 Mid-Term Program (2020-2030)

According to the mission objectives, the satellite should carry the following instruments:

1. Advanced microwave sounder 2. Advanced broadband visible and infrared radiometer 3. Advanced UV, Infrared and Visible Imaging Spectrometer 4. Advanced X-ray spectrometer 5. Doppler Interferometer 6. Ground penetrating radar (to characterize Venus surface and sub-surface) 7. Mini-balloons and deployment mechanism

The second generation Weather/Observation satellite will inherit most of its structure from the first generation. It is also based on low mass and simplicity of design. The launcher and the trajectory can be the same as the first; other launchers are also alternative options. For the same reason as the first satellite, a polar elliptical orbit is also recommended. The pericenter can be lower than the first one in order to get high resolution radar data at reducing power consumption. The satellite will deploy the mini-balloons before processing its final orbit.

The payload instruments will be part of a highly integrated payload suite, except for the ground penetrating radar. The science data obtained by the satellite can be transferred to the communication relay constellation through an X-band link and can also be stored with on-board solid mass memory instrument. The platform uses the most of the first generation satellite technology but takes the new technology development into consideration.

Outreach For public outreach purposes this mission is to be labeled the ‘Dorothy mission’. Naming a mission helps the public to relate to the science or technological objective of the mission. In this case, the ‘Dorothy mission’ has been chosen because it will investigate tornadoes, although only people who are familiar with the story ‘The Wizard of Oz’ will recognize the connection. Names like these must be carefully chosen, so they are not specific to the cultures, which would remove the benefit for a large number of people around the world. Therefore this cultural implication would have to be weighed against the positives of naming a mission to advertise it.

Business These missions have the potential to be attractive to private industry. The surface of the balloons could make ideal marketing space for private companies to advertise for themselves, or to sell to other investors. Ideally, a private company could create their own vehicle, or if nothing else, PPP programs could be set up for the construction of one or many of the satellites in the constellation.

6.6 Mission 12: Mini-balloons (2025) Science It is envisaged that a global distribution network of balloons will be placed around the planet at varying altitudes (initial target between 30 and 60 km). The location and altitude will be defined at a later stage depending on data from previous missions. By establishing a global network, it will be possible to obtain multiple measurements at multiple sites simultaneously and at various levels in the atmosphere. At the same time, in-situ measurements will be complemented with the global remote sensing coverage to help track the aerial vehicles and provide global context to point measurements. Regarding the concrete atmosphere measurements to be done and their links to the scientific questions, they will be the same as those previously defined in the Near- Term schedule for the balloon and aerobots missions.

103 Mid-Term Program (2020-2030)

Technology The performance requirements and technology for this mission are very similar to the previous balloon mission. However, the advantage of using a constellation of mini-balloons to study the circulation of the Venusian atmosphere is that in-situ measurements can be obtained simultaneously at many locations. Measurements are desired at various altitudes, so the balloon’s volume must be able to increase or decrease without leaking. Measurements are also needed at a wide range of latitudes (Crisp, et al. 2002) which is challenging because the balloon’s direction of travel is entirely determined by the always-Westerly Venusian wind. This challenge can be overcome by utilizing polar-to-equatorial entry flight paths to deploy mini-balloons. If mini- balloon deployment cannot be accomplished during aerobraking, then it could occur as the entry vehicle glides to the surface. In light of volume constraints on the launch vehicle, the mini- balloons will need to be inflated during atmospheric descent. Since they will not have attitude control devices, data will need to be transmitted using an omni-directional antenna. Considering the number of mini-balloons in the constellation, a very large amount of pressure, temperature, and acceleration data will need to be transmitted back to Earth using the two Venus communications relays. This data will contain valuable information on transient winds because the relative size of mini-balloons makes them more sensitive to wind gusts. Of course, the balloon materials must be able to withstand high temperatures and pressures as well as be highly resistant to corrosion and puncture. The life expectancy of this mission is 7 months. Design reuse is expected to be in the order of 70% (smaller components with same function as 1st balloon, keeps some 1st balloon instruments but eliminates others, new power system, different balloon deployment mechanism). However, technology development will be needed to provide this mission with a mini-balloon deployment mechanism. A power system with a high power to mass ratio must be developed as well. Like all Venus in-situ missions, technology development is required for electronics cooling and corrosion protection.

This mission utilizes a weather satellite, as well as communication relay and navigation infrastructure. The first balloon mission will provide the mini-balloons with a proven technological heritage. The need to have these systems in place and operational, in addition to the need to develop power and deployment technology, dictates that this mission can not take place until the Mid-Term.

In addition to scientific gains, technologies from this mission enable later exploration goals. The glider constellation mission relies on knowledge of Venus’s atmospheric circulation to find thermal currents capable of increasing altitude. These currents will be experienced by the mini- balloons and detected as transient winds. Mini-balloon technology also has the potential to be used in subsequent atmospheric and surface sample return missions. Lighter-than-air vehicles can be used to reduce the atmospheric drag experienced by the sample return rocket shortly after launch (as well as reduce the distance to orbit). It should also be noted that this mission concept and technology can be used on other planetary bodies with high winds or super-rotation such as Titan and the gas giants of our solar system.

Ground support will be essential to maximize the scientific output of this mission. Ground control will be able to command individual mini-balloon altitude changes. Automating this feature would reduce costs but would not give scientists the opportunity to adapt the mission to study interesting altitudes in more detail. Ground data processing is needed to integrate global weather data from the weather satellite with localized in-situ data from the mini-balloons. A navigation system will be used to prevent error accumulation during mini-balloon position calculation and subsequent inaccurate models explaining this faulty data.

104 Mid-Term Program (2020-2030)

6.7 Mission 13 - Seismometers (2028) Science The chosen seismometer locations shall be dependent upon planetary images taken in the near and early Mid-Terms. The number of seismometers and specific locations shall be based upon surface changes detected by the SAR satellites during the planetary imaging missions. The seismometer data will be analyzed together with gravity and topography information, and used to generate and validate models of the interior structure of Venus.

Technology The Seismometer network is a mission to answer the proposed questions about the interior structure of Venus. Due to the low magnetic field, the normal techniques used to gather information about the core of Earth are not useful. A seismometer network is the best way to answer these questions. The network will consist of 4 seismometers placed around Venus gathering seismic data.

The seismometers will be distributed around Venus in a square pattern with separation distances between 200 km and 500 km. The smallest possible network can be built by using three seismometers. However, using four seismometers will increase the resolution of the events detected and will reduce the failure risk of the mission. In the case that one seismometer doesn’t land correctly or malfunctions after reaching Venus’s surface, the objective of the mission still can be achieved. The distance between the seismometers must be large enough to detect the events with enough time difference to locate them in a 3D space. (MSSS, 2005).

Data obtained by the seismometers will be transmitted with a small onboard antenna to the communication relay. From there the constellation of communication satellites will transmit to Earth. The seismometers will detect the geological activity of Venus’s core and localized data will be obtained also by means of impactors. Since the seismometer network is operable, every deployable cruise vehicle or satellite could be used as an impactor in order to obtain more data about the shallowest layers of Venus. The mission will be composed of a deployable cruise vehicle and four identical landing spacecraft that will use the same technique as the landers to land safely in the Venusian surface. The landing technique will have been developed and improved after the probe and lander missions.

One of the main challenges of the mission is to achieve enough life time to be able to fulfill science goals. Seismometers must remain in working in order for long enough to detect sufficient geological events, such that a precise model of the planet can be developed and tested. This focus on an extended life time is a natural continuation to the developments achieved in previous missions with duration of 3-months. High temperature electronics, for example Silicon Carbide instrumentation, will have to be completely developed. (Stoafan, et al. 1993).

Some parts of this mission will be able to reuse designs and technology from previous missions. For example, the cruise vehicle, the entry, descent and landing system or the power generation source that could be just used without any necessity of development. This makes the mission especially able to be developed at low cost and be considered as a small mission with potential of more than 70% of design reuse.

Business The 2028 mission will be sent to do tests on geological activity. It is proposed that seismometers from Earth based technologies will be ‘spun-in’ to the program to do this testing.

105 Mid-Term Program (2020-2030)

6.8 Mission 14 - Second Constellation Navigation and Communication Relay (2029) Technology The second (and third) generation of communication and navigation satellite constellation will replace the first generation at the end of its lifetime. The main goal of these missions is to ensure continuous coverage. They will incorporate new technologies for better performances, but will stay compatible with the first generation. They would respectively be launched in 2029 and 2039. If the satellites from previous generations are still functioning when new ones arrive in orbit, the new satellites will be used to enhance the performance of the existing constellation, thus enabling a better data rate and more accurate positioning in a smaller average time.

6.9 Mission 15 - A swarm of Rovers (2029) Science This mission is intended to conduct very specific geophysical explorations. The locations to be analyzed will be based on previous data, SAR imagery and the findings from the exobiology experiments. The swarm of rovers should give us through analysis of surface mineral composition. Also, any possible location suspected to still have hydrous minerals in the surface should be investigated. If any trace of hydrous minerals is found, it will certify that Venus had liquid water on its surface in the past. This should also reinforce suspicions that life could have developed on Venus. If bacterial life is actually found in any of the previous missions, hydrous minerals would give solid arguments to confirm that water is necessary for the appearance of life. These conclusions could help missions looking for life in extra solar planets about the necessity to identify water as a main biomarker for life.

Technology The tasks of a swarm mission could be accomplished by larger, single missions. However, although there are a number of disadvantages to using a swarm mission, there are also a number of advantages which made this the selected approach.

Advantages 1 Redundancy 2 Large area can be covered in a short time 3 Cooperation between robots; small distributed tasks, and larger integrated tasks 4 Concurrent experimentation (different payloads per set of rovers) 5 Miniaturization, light weight, low mass, less volume, less launch costs 6 Commercial spin-offs, disaster management applications, etc. 7 Outreach, small technologies for use in schools, universities etc. Although this is not a compelling driver due to the high cost of development, it is still a side-benefit. Models of interactive rovers can teach the concepts of missions design to complete complex science objectives. Ultimately, the rover mock-ups would provide a very engaging, hands-on activity for students of all ages.

Disadvantages 1 Reduced mobility (difficulties with obstacles due to smaller size wheels/chassis etc.) 2 Dependency on the central communications control 3 Limited size of payload, battery etc. 4 Difficulty in manufacturing small lightweight structures to withstand pressure 5 Thermal regulation

106 Mid-Term Program (2020-2030)

The mission involves a swarm of rovers distributed around the globe. Even if mobility is limited, having a swarm will ensure the ability to perform tasks and collect information from a wide area (McLurkin, 2005). The main structure of the rovers will be identical amongst all, but the sensor package may vary.

Rather than having one big rover methodically traversing a small area of the surface of Venus, a strategy using a number of smaller and less complex rovers working in cooperation will be used. Having a group of robots working together can solve tasks in different and more efficient ways than one robot working independently (RAS, 2004). Having a swarm of robots will avoid the possibility of a complete mission failure by increasing the redundancy. Losing a small part of the swarms will not jeopardise the whole mission. Even a damaged robot can still fulfill a certain task for the swarm. Working together the swarm can include from about 10 to several hundreds of small robots.

Each rover will have one main task to perform and there can be a number of these robots in a certain area. The robots can work on their own or together to achieve a mission goal. With the swarm of robots simultaneous measurements over a vide area can be achieved, useful when studying the dynamics and interaction of the atmosphere and the ground. Also several experiments can be performed concurrently by the different robots. By working together the small robots could join together in order to reach certain interesting areas such as a cliff wall by climbing down one over one another.

Two of the main challenges of having a swarm of robots is that with the decrease in size comes a potential decrease in capability. It also leads to greater complexity in temperature regulation given that the volume of a smaller rover decreases by the cube but its surface only by the square.

The potentially simplistic ability of a small rover could be overcome by setting up the swarm structure to be a master-slave relation where one robot acts as the master of the rest that is then designated as slaves. The master robot, probably the lander itself, would provide with power and communications and act as the outpost for the rest of the smaller robotic vehicles. The master robot could provide a range of instruments and tools which would be distributed amongst the slave robots as needed in regard to the environment and task at hand. The smaller slave robots would come back to the master robot to recharge batteries, leave samples for analysis and to change equipment.

Although the technology development of electronics and materials is expected to have been completed by the time frame of this mission, a contingency is to be put in place by sending rovers and designing the mission with the expectation that lifetime of any one rover will be moderate.

It will be difficult to having mechanical moving parts due to the problem of lubrication in a high temperature environment. To power the systems, new technology is needed. The solar intensity at the surface could be strong enough to use photovoltaic cells (Landis, et al., 2002), but the temperature is too high for this; high temperature photovoltaic cells will be required. For the purpose of power, SRGs and RTGs, as adapted from the lander rover missions, will be used.

Outreach Small technologies such as mini-balloons (mission 12) and rovers can be used as a way of introducing space technology in schools, colleges and universities, to a varying degree of complexity, since the rover mock-ups would provide an engaging hands-on activity for students. They can also be used to introduce the idea of mission design, completing science objectives, redundancy etc. The robotics designed for this mission has terrestrial applications, e.g. disaster

107 Mid-Term Program (2020-2030) area mapping. The spin-offs of technology in this area can be used to increase public awareness of the space industry’s activities and demonstrate its necessity as a research and development platform for innovations.

Business This mission is also intended for a high amount of private industry participation. The mission vehicles are small, although initial development costs might be high. The benefit, however would be spin-off models that could be made into high-end “gadgets” for education, or entertainment purposes. Moreover, the robust robotics design required for the above mission will have many dangerous terrestrial applications such as disaster area mapping, landmine excavation, etc. All of these spin off technologies can be used to increase public awareness of the space industries activities.

6.10 Outreach By the Mid-Term timeframe, space exploration to other bodies such as the Moon and Mars is assumed to be happening concurrently with the REVolution timeframe.

The Mid-Term outreach program will have to assess the status of public awareness, measure the success of previous outreach and education programs and offer the opportunity to change direction or build upon the previous ideas. It is likely that the motivations for states will change as results start to come back from Near-Term missions. The time these successes take to come into the public eye will lead to a delay in the reaction of such results, dictating the education of the Mid-Term program. Throughout this timeline the effect of the media, education and public awareness campaigns will be integral to sustaining interest. It is intended that the actions of the Near-Term section will have developed a global impact that can be used throughout the Mid- Term with respect to continuing religious support, use of the media, raising the profile of scientists and engineers as well as developing interactive tourist attractions. It is expected that previous successes of REVolution missions, coordinated by the International Venus Exploration Working Group, will have gathered more public support for Venus missions.

It will also be assumed that nations previously not involved in space activity have joined the program. Some are making components for mission robots, e.g., “swarm” missions. Others have requested their science experiments to be a part of missions and others are launching their own spacecraft. Notably, the partnerships to achieve the missions are becoming more complex as States get involved in intricate missions. The introduction of new space players further ignites the discussion of technology transfer and ownership of results. The International Venus Exploration Working Group continues its support of open sharing of scientific results arguing that the mission’s objectives are global in nature and thus mandates findings to be shared with the entire world.

Other discussion surrounds the formation of a more formal body for coordinating space missions. The Venus Interagency Forum has proved to be a useful tool for the smaller missions, but as coordination of the architecture missions become more complex and drawn out members begin to seriously consider the need for full-time staff to coordinate IVEWG activity. (Editor’s note: Need further research will expand)

108 Mid-Term Program (2020-2030)

6.11 Costing, Funding and Economic Implications 6.11.1 Mission Ranking The time period contains 8 missions, most of them are composed of several spacecraft. Table 14 provides the cost category of each spacecraft and any technology re-use opportunities (spin-in or spin-off).

These cost rankings are provided as indication. More detailed analysis should be done as each mission evolve from high level concept to design to consolidate these estimations. Similarly, the identified core technologies would have to be detailed and actual re-use opportunities further assessed. Table 14 Near-Term mission rankings as cost category and re-use opportunity Spacecraft Year Cost Technology Spin-in Spin-off Com. relay + 2020 S Telecommunication and H H positioning 1 (each) positioning spacecraft network Plug&play design L H L H Atmospheric 2020 M sample return Deployable cruise 2021 S Generic interfaces L H for landers, seismometer, etc.. Lander (each) 2021 S Nuclear power H H Weather 2 2025 M - - - Mini-balloon (each) 2025 S Deployment mechanism ? H Low mass/power ratio power L H generator Seismometers 2028 S ? ? ? (each) Com. relay + 2029 S - - - positioning 2 (each) Rovers (each) 2029 S ? ? ?

Thanks to investments started in the Near-Term timeline and pursued in this mi-term timeline, standardisation and small affordable crafts are possible. Therefore, most of the missions of this timeline are ranked in the Small cost category. 6.11.2 Funding model This phase of the roadmap intends to systematize the involvement of the private sector in order to achieve the REVolution goal (see Chapter 4).

In the framework of a proven, sustainable long-term architecture, the infrastructure missions provide opportunities for private companies to sell services. The infrastructure is developed and set-up under the responsibility of the VIF. The infrastructure is then given to a private company that sells services back to the VIF. Those services can be operation, sell of added value products, etc. This funding model could be applied for instance to the constellation of navigation and communication relay, their counterpart on the Earth. This scheme provides full responsibility of operation, maintenance and upgrade to a private company, lightening the burden of such activities on the VIF. In the same time, the private company get to operate deep space assets and learn from it.

109 Mid-Term Program (2020-2030)

Systematic focus on development of technologies and selection of technical solutions having high spin-off potential allows to systematize the involvement of the private sector. This trend is reinforced by the selection of swarms of craft as basic design scheme for most of the missions.

Indeed, in addition to open the possibility for several contributors to fund one single mission, swarms allow to create a small market. It is then possible for a private company to adopt a CanadArm-like approach, that is by self-financing the development of the craft or part of the craft. Return On Investment (ROI) is then made by selling the element to the contributors. This funding scheme could be applied for instance to any or all of the mini-balloons mission, the seismometers mission or the swarm of rovers, but also to the second constellation of navigation and communication relays.

High spin-off technology potential offer the opportunity for another funding scheme, where expenses are shared between the private company and the public institution. This funding scheme could be applied on the development of high power-mass ration power generator, that could find application on the Earth.

A part for the latter case, funding of the missions would still be at the end from public sources since agencies or countries would still have to buy the service or the device from the private company: there is no market outside the scientific exploration.

In the case of proven spin-off capacity technology, one can expect the private sector to share the cost of the development, since financial benefits could come from the application of the technology to other markets.

As for the Near-Term time period, selection of the private companies will be done through calls for tender. Building on the attempts made in the Near-Term period, technology developments will still be governed by the STG. 6.11.3 Risk assessment From a funding and economic point of view, Table 15 presents foreseen risks for this period, as presented in the previous chapter.

In a first iteration, three major risks are identified in the Near-Term timescale with respect with the funding the REVolution architecture: R1: as in the previous time period, the first risk relies on the failure to achieve to set-up the infrastructure, mostly because no participating country is willing to invest in a mission that doesn’t have direct benefits. Being a single point of failure of the overall architecture, the consequence of such an event would be to severely put the complete REVolution architecture in danger. Reduction of the risk can be achieved by:

R2: the second risk relied in a lack of interest from the industry in the REVolution approach and a consequent reluctance in self-investing in the proposed technologies. The consequence of such

110 Mid-Term Program (2020-2030) an event could be a low implication of the private sector leading to poor design, less innovations and difficulty to provide the architecture with cutting-edge cost-cutting technologies, solutions and designs. A strong promotion of the philosophy towards the industry could reduce this risk, together with a clear international political commitment to sustain the program on the long term.

R3: the third risk relies in failures within the international cooperation scheme that would lead to less participating countries, export control issues and an overall lack of funding for the program. A strong outreach, an even stronger and proven international cooperation framework, a rational selection of technologies that have to be developed could reduce the likelihood of this risk.

R4: the last risk relies in the inability to develop affordable technologies. All the architecture is based on the assumption that it is going to be possible to access to technologies providing for cheaper development and operation costs for each single independent brick. Failure in reaching this goal would cause program over-costs and lead to the impossibility to achieve the target architecture. Only a strong technology roadmap and the associated developments can help to reduce this risk. Selection of high spin-off technologies could also motivate the contributors, especially the private companies, to bring more resource and energy in the development.

Table 15 Financial and economic risks associated with the Mid-Term architecture Id Risk Consequence Likelih Severi Reduction ood ty R1 Low/no participation on Inability to finance the 3 4 Clear political commitment the infrastructure from infrastructure leading towards a sustained program contributor to program failure, Strong outreach delay or severe limitation R2 Reluctance from the Overruns, lack of 2 3 Strong outreach towards private sector to invest technological benefits to private sector development, lower Clear political commitment benefits feedback to towards a sustained program the society R3 Failure/limitation in Parts of the program 3 2 Strong outreach international participation can’t be funded, less Strong international incentive for cooperation framework participation of the Rational selection of private sector since technologies higher risk R4 Failure to develop cheap Program over cost 2 4 Early investment in technology leading to program technology development limitation Selection of high spin-off technology High involvement of the private sector

6.11.4 Recommendations • Continue focusing on spin-in selection of spin-in technologies • Continue focusing on high spin-off potential technology development • Continue coordinating technology development through the STG • Systematize the use of the private sector through call for tenders providing strong incentives and opportunities for emancipation • Create a technology roadmap early enough identifying key technologies and development time and cost

111 Mid-Term Program (2020-2030)

6.12 Conclusions The Mid-Term time period contains 8 missions, most of them are composed of several spacecraft. The focus of this timeframe has been to continue the efforts of the Near-Term, with regards to science objectives, technology development and outreach efforts. Efforts here have outlined a number of objectives, but in addition, the ground work is laid out for the Far-Term activities, which will be explained in the next chapter. summarizes the estimated cost category of each spacecraft and highlights any technology re-use opportunities (spin-in or spin-off) for all the Mid-Term missions. Table 16 Cost Category per Spacecraft. Spacecraft Year Cost Technology Spin-in Spin-off Com. relay + 2020 S Telecommunication and positioning H H positioning 1 (each) spacecraft network Plug & Play design L H

Atmospheric sample 2020 M L H return Deployable cruise 2021 S Generic interfaces L H for landers, seismometer, etc.. Lander (each) 2021 S Nuclear power H H Weather 2 2025 M - - - Mini-balloon (each) 2025 S Deployment mechanism ? H Low mass/power ratio power L H generator Seismometers (each) 2028 S ? ? ? Com. relay + 2029 S - - - positioning 2(each) Rovers (each) 2029 S ? ? ?

Whereas the Near-Term focused on utilizing existing technologies, new technologies are being developed for the intended missions here that will be further evolved Far-Term part of the program.

As will be shown in the following chapter, the Far-Term missions raise the stakes of exploring and experimenting with Venus, the Mid-Term serves as a stepping stone to take technology, science, and public interest into the future.

6.13 References Abraham, D., (1999). Mars Network - Gateway to the Mars Frontier [online]. (Last updated November 1999). JPL, California Institute of Technology. Avalaible from: http://marsnet.jpl.nasa.gov/index.html [Accessed 12 August 2005].

Bekey, 2002. Advanced Space System Concepts and Technologies. Aerospace Press, p275.

Bell, D. J., et al. 2000. Mars Network: A Mars Orbiting Communications & Navigation Satellite Constellation. IEEE Aerospace Conference Proceedings, 7,77-85.

Boeing. NSTAR Ion Engine, Boeing [online]. Available from: http://www.boeing.com/defense- space/space/bss/factsheets/xips/nstar/ionengine.html [Accessed 16 August 2005].

CRISP, D. et al., 2002. Divergent Evolution Among Earth-like Planets: The Case for Venus

112 Mid-Term Program (2020-2030)

Exploration. ASP Conference Series, 272, 5-34.

ESA. (2005). Cebreros marks major readiness milestone [online]. (Last updated 24 June 2005). Available from: http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMJDD2DU8E_index_0.html [Accessed 6 August 2005].

ESA. (2003). Space Technologies and the Mining and Minerals Industry - Down to Earth - [online]. Avaliable from: http://www.estec.esa.nl/conferences/03c49/

Hastrup, R. C. et al., 2003. Mars network for enabling low-cost missions. Acta Astronautica, 52, 227-235.

Johnson, N. M. and Fegley, B., 2000. Water on Venus: New Insights from Tremolite Decomposition. Icarus, 146, 301-306.

McLurkin, J. (2005). MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab [online]. Avaliable from: http://people.csail.mit.edu/jamesm/swarm.php [Accessed 11 August 2005].

MSSS. (2005). Malin Space Science Systems Home Page, Venus Geophysical Network Pathfinder. [online]. (Last updated 2005). Avaliable from: http://www.msss.com/Venus/vgnp/vgnp.txt.html#C1

NASA. (2005a). NASA Capability Roadmaps Executive Summary, p 350.

NASA. (2005b). Pioneer Venus Project Information [online]. (Last updated 6 January 2005). Available from: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/pioneer_Venus.html [Accessed 11 August 2005].

NASA. (2005c). Mars Exploration Rover Mission [online]. (Last updated 13 June 2005]. Avaliable from: http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/spacecraft_instru_mossbr.html

Nendeck, G., Philip, Okojie, S. I. Robert., 2002. High-Temperature Electronics: A Role for Wide Bandgap Semiconductors. Proceedings of the IEEE, 90, (6).

Nendeck, G., Philip., 2001. Silicon Carbide Electronic Devices. Oxford: Elsevier Science. Encyclopedia of Materials: Science and Technology, 9, 8508-8519.

Royal Astronomical Society. (2004). Why teams of co-operating robots make good planetary explorers [online]. Avaliable from: http://www.ras.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=657&Itemid=2 [Accessed August 2005]. G.A. Landis, C. LaMarre, A. Colozza., 2002. Venus Atmospheric Exploration by Solar Aircraft, IAC, Q.4.2.03.

Rodgers, D., Gilmore, M., Sweetser, T., Cameron J., Chen, G.-S., Cutts, J., Gershman, R., Hal,l J. L., Kerzhanovich V., McRonald A., Nilsen E., Petrick W., Sauer C., Wilcox B., Yavrouian A., Zimmerman W., and the JPL Advanced Project Design Team., 2000. Venus sample return: A Hot Topic. Proc. IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, March 18-15, MT.

Schulze-Makuch Dirk, Irwin, L. N. (2002). Reassesing the Possibility of Life on Venus: Proposal for an Astrobiology Mission [online]. (Last updated June 2002). Available from: http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/15311070260192264?cookieSet=1 [Accessed 16 August 2005].

113 Mid-Term Program (2020-2030)

Stofan, et al., 1993. Venus Interior Structure Mission (VISM): Establishing a Sismic Network on Venus. Workshop on Advanced Technolgies for Planetary Instruments, 23-24 Thieme, G., Lanny, Schreiber, G.Jeffrey: 2003. NASA GRC Stirling Technology Development Overview. AIP Conference Proceedings, 654, 613-620.

Wikipedia. (2005). Radioisotope thermoelectric Generator [online]. (Last updated 03 August 2005). Avaliable from: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric-generator [Accessed 16 August 2005].

114

______Chapter 7 7 Far-Term Program (2030-2050)

Figure 17 Far-Term In the previous chapters the Near-Term and Mid-Term programs were described going through the Policy and Outreach, Business and Management, Science and Engineering aspects of the terms as well as for the individual missions. Building on the content of the whole program overview in chapter four and the Near-Term and Mid-Term architectures in chapter five and six, this chapter gives a detailed description of the Far-Term of the architecture timeline. It discusses an interdisciplinary approach of the 2030 – 2050 timeframe where for each mission relevant aspects of science, technology, business, outreach and policy are captured in a chronological manner.

In this chapter, section one gives a introduction to the Far-Term and the Policy and Outreach and the Marketing and Funding aspects dealing with this term. The first mission in this term is the Surface and Atmospheric Sample Return 2031 and is described in section two. Described after this, in section three, is the Swarm of Mini-Gliders mission to be launched 2033. The Moles mission is the next in 2034, described in section four. Section five discusses the Greenhouse Experiments 2036 and section six the Third Constellation Navigation and Communication Relay mission in 2039. Section seven and eight deals with the Human Orbital Mission and the Solar

115 Mid-Term Program (2020-2030)

Powered Ornithopters missions in 2040-2050 period. The chapter ends with the section nine and ten, the conclusion and references.

7.1 Introduction The vision for the Far-Term program is to progress into missions that are the most tangible to society. This milestone period in human development, where the knowledge we have gained allows us to expand our horizons, will not be reached without having invested in the Near-Term and Mid-Term plans. This investment is the only way to push our previous boundaries of knowledge, in all disciplines, in order to lay down the necessary stepping stones for this next step of human civilization.

The Far-Term is the next, intensive step in the evolution of the exploration of Venus. The missions that occur in this period will rely heavily on information collected from previous missions and be driven by the best technology available at the time. Mission, similar to those completed in the Mid-Term, are repeated but with improved materials and electronics for longer mission life and increased aircraft range. Increased autonomy and artificial intelligence also optimizes robotic cooperation and control. In addition, more effective location selection based on results from previous missions and improved instrumentation increases the ability to better meet the scientific objectives. Planned missions include combined surface and atmospheric sample return missions, swarms of mini gliders, moles and greenhouse effect test bed hardware for potentially modifying the atmosphere.

7.2 Mission 16: Surface and Atmospheric Sample Return (2031) Science This sample return mission will consist of an orbiter and a module for landing, collecting and returning a sample to Earth. The orbiter should only include instruments that are directly relevant to the lander achieving its objective of returning to Earth, atmospheric and surface samples from Venus. In addition to a surface sample, it is of great scientific interest that several atmospheric samples are acquired from multiple altitudes and returned to Earth. As a minimum the following capabilities are expected: high resolution remote sensing of the surface at and around the sampling site in order to document the geological context of the sample site; characterization of the physical structure and the dynamics of the atmosphere for the safe navigation of the lander during its descent and ascent and the precise reconstruction of its trajectory; measurement of the atmospheric conditions at the time of the atmosphere samples acquisition.

As a preliminary recommendation the atmospheric and surface samples should consist of the following: Surface regolith 500 g Above the cloud top (65 km) 500 ml Thick clouds (40 km) 500 ml Below the cloud layer (15 km) 500 ml

The following outcomes are expected from the sample return mission:

• Returned atmospheric samples for analysis on Earth. In principle those samples should be collected at different altitudes and would include cloud particulate as well as general atmospheric samples.

116 Mid-Term Program (2020-2030)

• Composition and other measurements (nephelometry, radiative flux divergence, etc.) during the descent and ascent, particularly inside the cloud layers and the surface, where composition is likely to be a strong function of height for some functions. • Remote sensing from the orbiter, which is required to support the landing, and which could provide contextual information on cloud properties and dynamics in the region of descent/ascent. Multi-spectral imaging of Venus’s atmosphere all the way to the surface would be on interest.

There are several advantages to returning a sample to Earth for analysis as opposed to conducting experiments in-situ. The physical nature of the sample being measured is better known. An advantage of having a returned sample is that it is possible to conduct a greater variety of analyses with greater accuracy and precision in a laboratory than on the planet surface. In addition, it is possible to perform unplanned tests, when unanticipated findings arise. In particular, for a surface sample, chemical weathering caused by the atmosphere could change the characteristics of the rock. Returning a core of surface rock to Earth would enable a determination of the amount of weathering that has occurred. Also, comparative analysis could be done on Venusian sub-surface rock sample that may not have been affected by the atmosphere. Of course, the necessity of such a complex mission will be critically dependent on the results gained from the similar Mid-Term mission.

Technology A surface sample return from an inhospitable planet is a high priority objective of exploratory missions. This mission is highly complex and would be classified as a flagship mission necessitating a larger budget. Most current ideas for executing this mission are similar to the description presented by Rogers et al. The sequence after arriving at Venus is an aerocapture manoeuvre at Venus followed by stabilizing an orbit for lander deployment, and a quick descent to avoid the corrosive atmosphere. The sampler works quickly with low power, perhaps an ultrasonic drill or Mole device, collecting samples from the surface to several centimetres deep. Sample of the atmosphere at 3 predefined altitudes are foreseen. Ascent to the upper atmosphere is performed by a corrosion resistant balloon and then a 3 stage rocket raises the orbit to rendezvous with the return vehicle. Return to Earth is done through the most effective propulsion system available and tested on other solar exploration missions, such as the Mars sample return mission. One possible solution is Solar Electric Propulsion engines, like the next generation NSTAR under development (ESA, 2003).

In order to make this mission viable, a huge reduction in lander mass must be accomplished to reduce the effect of the gravity well of Venus. The corrosive atmosphere and high temperature impacts both the equipment and the material of the balloon. Landing at a site that is of importance is difficult because of the high winds in the Venusian atmosphere, not at the surface. Accurate control of the ascent vehicle has very similar requirements to the previous atmospheric sample return in 2023. Most rendezvous and capture technology will be based on the previous sample return missions. The SAR mapping from 2012 provides the high resolution needed for landing site selection. Russian technology has already proven short-term duration (1.5 hours) is possible on the surface and surface sampling technology is already being developed (Coste, et al., 2002). A great deal of this technology can be reused from the Mars sample return project, which is scheduled for 2013, but modifications based on the previous Venus missions would, of course, need to be performed (Rodgers, et al., 2000).

The mission destination would be dependant on most of the previous ground-based science missions (most importantly the surface composition data obtained by Mission 7: Aerobot in 2017), and the altitude for the three lower atmospheric samples will depend on the results of the probes and Aerobot mission. This puts the preliminary scheduled date for the mission to 2031.

117 Mid-Term Program (2020-2030)

The mission would be completed within 1 or 2 hours of arriving at the surface and the return sequence will have the same properties as the earlier atmospheric sample return.

Outreach This will be the first opportunity for people on Earth to see some of the solid substance of Venus with their own eyes. As with the previous atmospheric sample return, the intent is to have equal access to the sample, and public sharing of the results of the analysis. Since only 500 g is being collected, only single grains would be available for display at museums and space centers world wide.

7.3 Mission 17: Swarm of Mini-Gliders (2033) Science The objective for the mini gliders is to achieve an extensive global coverage for the in-situ investigations of the atmosphere over a long duration. The investigations should cover various altitudes and have a lifetime of at least one full Venusian day (243 Earth days). This can be best achieved through the use of a swarm of aerial vehicles capable of flying at different altitudes in the cloud layers. The location of each segment in the swarm will need to be known to a high degree of accuracy at all times during the mission lifetime in order to fully characterize the gathered in-situ data.

The instruments for this mission will be a next generation evolution of the hardware from the aerobots and swarm of mini balloons flown during the Mid-Term. This mission will provide increased global coverage for modeling of the atmosphere as compared to the aerobots, and will improve on the investigations from the balloon swarm through the controlled aspect of the gliders.

Technology Small, autonomous airplanes will be used to explore Venus’s atmosphere at an altitude with conditions similar to Earth (50-60 km). Above the major cloud cover at 65 km height, the pressure is about 0.1 bars and the temperature down to -30ºC. The solar intensity is as high as 90-95% of the exoatmospheric intensity and from the clouds below there is also a reflection of 80-90%. The solar flux at Venus is about twice that of Earth, thus providing an abundance of solar light for photovoltaic cells power generation.. The photovoltaic cells work equally well when mounted on the top as well as on the bottom of the craft making use of the light that is also reflected from underneath.

As one descends deeper down into the atmosphere, the solar intensity decreases while the pressure and temperature increases. Below the main cloud layer at 50 km height, the pressure has increased to about 1 bar and the temperature up to 80ºC. Here, the solar intensity has decreased to 20-50%. At the surface level, the conditions can be described as a very cloudy day on Earth. The solar power for the airplane decreases, but due to the denser atmosphere of Venus, the lift and drag increase, so the lift to drag ratio will need to be closely monitored to maintain proper flight.

118 Mid-Term Program (2020-2030)

Table 17 Characteristics of Venus atmosphere. Altitude (km) Characteristic Wind speed Solar intensity Pressure Temperature (m/s) (compared to (atmospheres) (degrees Celsius) exoatmosphere) 65 Top of major 95 m/s 90-95 % + 80-90 0.1 -30 cloud cover reflected from clouds below 50 Bottom of 60 m/s 20-50% 1.1 77 major cloud cover 0 Ground TBD TBD 92 462

The slow rotation of Venus around its axis makes it possible for a powered aircraft to stay on the sunlit portion of the planet all the time, making the need for batteries obsolete. In order for the airplane to continuously stay on the sunlit part of the planet, the speed of the airplane needs to exceed that of the winds. This means that the airplane will have to reach speeds of up to 95 m/s due to the upper super rotational atmosphere. Being able to exclude the batteries will make the airplanes much lighter.

Building the airplanes with gliding capability will also open the possibility of using the high vertical movements in the atmosphere. The orbiting atmospheric sensing satellites can help locate these thermals and the airplanes are then directed there to use these for gaining altitude. A general problem for the whole atmosphere is the sulphuric acid. Therefore, the airplanes are built using corrosion resistant materials available at the time.

The airplanes will be able to sample and make measurements of the atmosphere of a specific region and at different altitudes. The crafts could survive for 6 months or more, in the Earth like temperature and pressure atmosphere using continuous solar power. The crafts can be directed to certain areas of interest and flying in formation can make valuable measurements for a large portion of the atmosphere at the same time. Flying in formation, on a planet far away requires a high degree of autonomous operations of the aircrafts.

The main technological development will be the material to withstand the acid environment. This technology can be implemented from the balloon technology developed in the Mid-Term phase. In addition, high speed manoeuvrable capabilities need to be developed to accommodate the Venusian winds.

7.4 Mission 18: Moles (2034) Science Mole subsurface analysis will be able to study the physical, chemical and mineralogical composition of the subsurface, to collect remnants of the previous mantle. This will provide increasing information for the characterization of the Venusian geological conformation. Instruments will be determined based upon results from previous missions that examine the soil composition and geological behaviour of the planet. The mole subsurface analysis is of great interest for past water detection, especially if no tremolites have been previously detected on the surface. With the data provided by the ground penetrating radar, drilling into surface at strategic locations may help prove the existence of hydrous minerals, if any exists.

Technology The mission is composed of a lander with a tethered “mole” device for sampling sub-surface properties. The mole is an impact driller that burrows below the surface to a depth of up to 10

119 Mid-Term Program (2020-2030) meters, depending on the regolith. It is possible to record composition, temperature, density, and mechanical properties as the mole burrows.

The mole equipment would be especially vulnerable to the Venus environment because there is an exposed power/communication cable which would necessarily have to withstand the high temperature.

Although technically challenging, a great deal of work has been completed researching the method. Beagle 2, the lost ESA Mars mission, had a mole payload (Richter, et al. 2002). Although never tested on interplanetary missions the idea is now seen as a light weight simplistic subsurface sampling technology compared to drilling and has been considered for Mercury (Spohn, et al. 2001). High Temperature electronics and robust sampling devices are the largest technical hurdle but these could be inherited from the Mercury mission.

This mission is dependent on the SAR surface mapping, the surface composition aerobot, and the lander mission. To ensure that a suitable sampling area is chosen the mission should occur after most of the surface properties are mapped. This places the mission in 2034 which will allow the technology to mature from the Mars and Mercury missions. The mission duration would be around 4 weeks, which would allow a number of tests to be performed at locations around the lander. The mission is relatively low-data and probably highly autonomous so it would not need any development of Earth-based ground infrastructure.

7.5 Mission 19: Greenhouse Experiments (2036) Science The science objective for this mission is to provide a test bed for studying and comparing the greenhouse effect on Earth. Experiments should be preformed to study atmospheric reactions when a new agent is introduced. This will give new insights to the greenhouse effect on Earth. Some experiments must be done in advance on Earth using atmospheric samples obtained from previous missions; however, samples will be limited so full experiments won’t be possible. One option is to design a chemical catalyst that will convert carbon dioxide to other usable substance and elements. Reaction of hydrogen with carbon dioxide produces elemental carbon and water. (Wikipedia, 2005).

For the experiment, terrestrial bacteria can be introduced and tracked to see its capability to survive in Venus’s environment, study its behaviour under different physical-chemical conditions, and how it changes the atmospheric composition. Alternatively, a biological substance, such as future engineered bacteria, which can convert carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid to non-toxic substance, could be used. These objectives must be modified, of course, if any evidence of current life is detected by the earlier missions.

Beyond these experimental missions, some further possibilities should be considered to continue experimentation on Venus. One of these possibilities has been extensively discussed: terraforming Venus.

Terraforming is a theoretical concept of purposefully and artificially altering an inhospitable planetary environment so that terrestrial life may live there with little or no life support equipment (Freitas, 1985). Before terraforming can be considered, an analysis of the viability, necessity and sustainability of terraforming is needed; for this, a very developed understanding of how planetary ecosystems work is essential.

120 Mid-Term Program (2020-2030)

One of the greatest challenges involved in terraforming Venus is the dense, acidic, carbon dioxide based atmosphere. It has been proposed that the atmosphere could be ejected through a high speed collision (>20km/s) of an impactor (roughly 700km in diameter) with the planet (Pollack and Sagan, 1993). Unfortunately, this method cannot be easily investigated via experimentation. Another proposal to covert Venus’s atmosphere involves the use of in-situ replicating non-biological systems or biological systems. It has been suggested that self- replicating growing factory modules with full independence from Earth can be achieved in twenty years if it receives adequate funding (Freitas, 1985). Biological methods of altering the atmosphere, through seeding the clouds with micro-organisms, could take between eleven thousand and 1.1 million years (Landis, 2005; Fogg, 1995).

There are additional challenges with the terraforming of Venus to consider beyond the atmosphere, such as the slow-rotation of the planet. Although terraforming is a futuristic idea and well beyond the scope of this project, it is possible that experimentation beginning in the Far-Term time period may be of use in modeling terraforming methods.

Technology This mission will use the information gained from the previous missions about the environment of Venus in order to extend our knowledge to battle against the greenhouse effect on Earth. The far future will depend on global environment change on Earth and our knowledge and abilities to control it. The future of the runaway green house effect will depend greatly on biochemistry and engineering developments that will convert a small amount of Venus’s corrosive atmosphere to habitable living environment.

The goal of the mission is to develop a test chamber, about a cubic meter in size, which will be able collect Venus’s atmosphere and seal it. The test chamber will deploy from an orbiter and it will collect the atmosphere sample while it is falling to the ground. At an altitude of 1 kilometer the chamber will be sealed. Once the chamber is on the surface, a small amount of “green house reversing” biological or chemical substance will be released to the atmosphere in order to determine whether we can change the constituents of the atmosphere. The instrument inside of the test chamber will take measurements at least every minute and send the data to Earth via the communication satellite in Venus’s orbit.

The future engineered bacteria will be stored in cubic centimetre size test chamber inside of the cubic meter size test chamber. The test chamber design is a complex task when considering keeping the experiment while insulating the experiment from heat and counteracting the Venusian pressure.

The technology development time for the mission is estimated at roughly 20-30 years. The mission is dependent to communication system on the orbit in order to transmit the obtained data back to Earth. Spectrometers and chromatographs will be used to identify the existing gases inside the test chamber.

Outreach As with the Near-Term plan, discussion of the greenhouse effect will be used to stimulate public awareness of Space-based research. Again, this will depend on the results of previous missions, the degree to which the Venusian atmosphere is comparable to the Earth’s and the emergence of new space law to protect the planet from interference of this kind.

Experimentation will have been carried out in the Mid-Term on Earth prior to this mission, both for scientific benefit and as a tourist attraction. Emphasis can now be made on the experimental results of this Venusphere program as well as on the modeling of the Venusian atmosphere that

121 Mid-Term Program (2020-2030) may have been carried out. These can both be used not only to justify the experimentation but also for public awareness.

7.6 Mission 20: Third Constellation Navigation and Communication Relay (2039) Science The purpose of this mission is purely to set up the continuation of the infrastructure and is done to support later science missions.

Technology The 2nd and 3rd generation of communication and navigation satellite constellation will replace the first generation at the end of its lifetime. The main goal of these missions is to ensure continuous coverage. They will incorporate new technologies for better performances, but will stay compatible with the first generation. They would respectively be launched in 2029 and 2039. If the satellites from previous generations are still functioning when new ones arrive in orbit, the new satellites will be used to enhance the performance of the existing constellation, thus enabling a better data rate and more accurate positioning in a smaller average time.

7.7 Mission 21: Human Orbital Mission (2040-2050) Science Science drivers that would require human presence for the Far-Term are difficult to anticipate; however, most science objective can be more easily accomplished and enhanced by the human element. The human orbital mission would allow real-time modification to the mission taking into account new findings. In addition, teleoperated robotics will accelerate operations to allow more science exploration to take place.

Technology Current plans for human exploration of the solar system indicate that human missions to Mars could begin as early as twenty to thirty years from present day given the appropriate technology and human life science investments (Drake, 1998). This means that the infrastructure needed to enable exploration missions to other destinations in the solar system, for example Venus, could be within the realm of possibility if considered to occur at the same time or later. Before human missions to Venus are proposed, the need for such missions must be established. This will need to be reassessed as the program progresses.

The 2 most plausible rationales for humans to go to Venus are likely that:

1. They are required by mission objectives when robotic technology is insufficient, and 2. Human exploration for the sake of the human experience.

It is also argued in the current human Martian exploration program proposals, that humans on the surface would dramatically increase the amount and quality of science (Drake, 1998). The same argument could be valid on Venus as well, and given this, the two locations possible for human exploration of Venus could be on-orbit and in the atmosphere.

The question of whether humans and robots that contain artificial intelligence should be working together, or one in place of the other, should be addressed if considering missions to the surface. Such missions have been considered by Landis (2003). For this discussion, the team will not

122 Mid-Term Program (2020-2030) focus on human explorers to the surface of Venus, although, that topic could be the subject of a follow-on study.

Sending humans to the upper atmosphere on Venus, where the atmospheric pressures are more like those on Earth, could be beneficial in the long term, but the requirements for this are not clear at this time. Finally the Venusian orbit is considered as a destination. Humans in orbit could provide critical decision making functions for robotic exploration of the surface. This seems like the most likely scenario given the relatively low technology development requirement (beyond that required for Mars). A human orbital mission could also provide opportunities for tourism, outreach, a human in-situ analysis of samples from surface and the atmosphere, or possibly sample return. Tele-robotics and tele-operation from orbit will enable in-situ human analysis, eliminating the communication lag time that currently exists between the Earth and Venus. Such technologies have been considered for use on Mars and proposed for Venus (Hoffman, 2001; Landis, 2003).

The team proposes a human orbital flight in the 2042 mission opportunity. This mission would answer scientific primary objectives with important secondary outreach objectives, as well as organizational and commercial objectives. As mentioned above, this type of mission seems possible given that this mission would follow a human mission to Mars by approximately ten years (Hoffman and Kaplan, 1997). In this mission, it is proposed to use humans locally to conduct exploration of the lower atmosphere using remote control (tele-operation) as mentioned above. Drones (Autonomous Aerial Vehicles AAVs) or teleoperated robotic flights (such as the ornithopters mentioned earlier) could be used. It is envisioned that these missions would be performed from an orbital vehicle, such as the one used to traverse the distance from the Earth to Venus. This could be a vehicle analogous to one used in the Mars exploration program.

To support these missions many new technologies should be developed. Some are included in the NASA human exploration plans (Drake, 1998). The unique technology developments for these types of Venus missions should include advanced robotics (including artificial intelligence, human-like dexterity, and enhanced human/computer interaction), high-pressure and high- corrosive resistant materials and mechanisms. This could result in a merging of deep sea water technology (oil, gas, mining, scientific, etc.), and space technology. These technological transfers particularly could enable subsurface mapping down to several km and be important contributors to understanding the crust and core composition of the planet. As a precursor to human surface activity, deepwater equipment and experience could be challenged robotically on or near the Venusian surface. Missions to Venus, like those to Mars, would also need to be self-sufficient given medical emergencies or spacecraft malfunctions, and in terms of mission control support (daily conference with limited telemetry versus instantaneous monitoring and control (like in the present)). For propulsion, Hybrid nuclear / chemical engines independent of Hoffmann transfer shorten transit time.

Outreach Human missions in 2040-2050 time period will be used to promote space access, increase public interest and invite funding from entrepreneurs who wish to pay for the tourism opportunities. This can include sponsorship of missions or individual technologies. A mission to orbit Venus requires less time that traveling to Mars, and it is envisioned that by 2040 human missions to Mars (2020-2030) have been completed. These missions will set precedents that will need to be followed accordingly for the orbital mission to Venus.

123 Mid-Term Program (2020-2030)

7.8 Mission 22: Solar Powered Ornithopters (2040-2050) Science Orinthopters, flapping wing aircrafts, are a unique platform for scientific instruments. Through their inherent functionality, the instrument can be positioned in a variety of orientations, and be used in various modes, as to study a large area or at a particular point. This can be used for both atmospheric measurements as well as surface observation. With a collection of ten ornithopters, various instruments shall be used to monitor atmospheric chemical processes and study atmosphere surface chemistry. Unlike previous missions, if something of specific interest was detected, the craft will be stopped so observation on a particular area can be extended.

Technology The ornithopter mission is a Science mission to study atmosphere at varying locations and altitudes. The cost of the mission is dependent on the size and number of ornithopters deployed. Assuming the optimal size and performance tradeoffs between wingspan, mass, and airspeed based on natural fliers [1], a 1 kg ornithopter would have a wingspan of approximately 1 m.

Based on the small mass of an ornithopter, it is possible to launch a group of ten in a single launch. It should be noted that this mission has the flexibility to increase the number of ornithopters to capitalize on economies of scale and swarm technologies.

This mission must aero-brake, perform a controlled entry, deploy into the atmosphere at the appropriate altitude and survive the environment.

The technology required for the entry phase of the mission will be developed and tested approximately twenty years earlier in the aerobot mission and further refined a decade later during the mini-glider mission. The basics of data transmission and control will also have been tested in earlier rover, glider and balloon missions.

The primary difference in the control system will be the level of autonomy and intelligence required to maintain stability and optimize the wing motion. Based on local wind gusts and turbulent air, the optimal wing motion will require millisecond changes in wing geometry. This may be witnessed by watching a sea gull on a windy day. In addition, based on the wind speed and direction, scientific objectives, power requirements or logistics, the ornithopter may hover, soar, or accelerate or cruise in any combination of horizontally or vertically directions. These complex and non-linear problems would be best solved with artificial intelligence.

The general survivability of the ornithopter will have also been refined over the previous missions. To make any negatively buoyant aircraft efficient, the technology that protects it from Venus’s environment must be lightweight and none intrusive. This negates large heavy pressure vessels and implies coatings that can resist the corrosive atmosphere and components that can survive the pressures and temperatures.

Ornithopter design is currently under development and several successful designs have been created. These designs range in size from small 10g battery-powered and 5g super capacitor- powered ornithopters built upon Micro-Electromechanical Systems (MEMS) (Pornsin-sirirak, 2000), medium sized remotely controlled ornithopters (Delaurier, 1999), all the way through 300kg piloted ornithopters. Based on the current rate of advancement, ornithopter design should be at a mature state for the first Venus mission.

124 Mid-Term Program (2020-2030)

The major enabling technology for efficient ornithopter design is smart structures. To effectively mimic the natural fliers, smart structures must be developed to duplicate the embedded sensors (nerve endings), data links (nerves), artificial intelligence (the brain) and actuators (muscles and tendons) (Udd, 1996). All of these technologies currently have heavy investment due to their application to a wide variety of industries. It is assumed that these technologies will be available for the mission without program technology development.

These ornithopters will not be constrained by the thermals like the gliders or balloons. They will also have much more maneuverability and speed than the earlier aerobots. This speed may be used to remain continuously on the sun-side of Venus, thereby allowing for continuous solar power and long duration flight up to a full year.

Outreach Ornithopters represent a radical new exploration concept that could be used to capture the public attention. This idea could be supported with observation of the large interest generated currently by rover design competitions; which stem from the robotic rover exploration of Mars. Such student design competitions could capture a new generation of Venus exploration supporters. Ornithopters could become the identity for the exploration of Venus, as rovers have become the identity for the exploration of Mars.

7.9 Market, Funding and Economic Implications 7.9.1 Mission cost ranking The time period contains 5 main missions, each composed of several spacecrafts. Missions after 2040 are considered too far ahead and no costing will be provided. Table 18 provides the cost category of each spacecraft and the technology re-use opportunity (spin-in and spin-off). These cost rankings are provided as indication. More detailed analysis should be done as each mission evolves from high level concept to design to consolidate these estimations. Similarly, the identified core technologies would have to be detailed and actual re-use opportunities further assessed.

Table 18 Mission Cost Ranking Spacecraft Year Cost Technology Spin-in Spin-off Surface and 2031 L Sample return H H atmosphere sample Surface sampling H H return Drilling technology. H H Rendezvous H H Mini-gliders (each) 2033 S Autonomous flight, UAV H H Formation flying H H Mole (each) 2034 S Deep drilling L H Greenhouse effect 2036 M ? N H

The surface and atmospheric sample return mission is viewed as the most expensive and challenging missions of the overall architecture. All the other missions are made of Small cost crafts, following the strategy initiated in the Mid-Term period. 7.9.2 Funding model It is believed that as we go further in the Far-Term period, space will have gradually evolved towards commercial use, both thanks to the impulse provided by the REVolution program in the near- and Mid-Term periods and from purely private initiatives. Therefore private or semi-

125 Mid-Term Program (2020-2030) private companies will commercialize or be on the verge of commercializing services in interplanetary space on the regular basis: tourism, resource prospection, resources exploitation (mining, other), etc. This would be made possible by the existence of low cost launch services not only for the Earth orbit but also for interplanetary transfer orbits. Other infrastructures will be progressively privately developed, deployed and operated in space such as interplanetary telecommunication services, on-orbit assembly, etc. Generally speaking, through the opening of interplanetary space markets the private industry will have strengthened even further its mastering of low cost, high efficiency access to interplanetary space and the associated technologies.

Delivering technologies such as bus, launches, interplanetary cruise, general operation of robotic will be mastered by the private industry, no specific development will be needed in this field. This would participate in reducing the general cost of space missions. On the other hand, Far- Term mission require specific technologies with very high spin-off potential as this time, such as surface sampling, sample return, drilling, rendezvous, etc. All those technologies are needed to exploit resources on asteroid or on the Moon. There will therefore be an even stronger incentive to set-up strong partnership between the VIF and private ventures to share the development and validation risks. This Far-Term will therefore see the systematization of Public Private Partnerships.

Nevertheless, as the needed technologies are validated and mastered by the industry, less interest will exist in partnering with scientific exploration programs. Thus we expect that, as we cross 2040, robotic exploration programs will come back to pure public funding, using existing assets and services and outsourcing the development of specific technologies. 7.9.3 Risk assessment No specific risk can accurately be defined so far ahead. Nevertheless, as the program is followed, constant risk assessment will be necessary, in order to maintain the Far-Term sustainability.

7.10 Conclusions The Far-Term (2030 – 2050) includes the most ambitious missions, but there is also the most uncertainty with regards to funding, technology, policy and public support as well as in the definition of science objectives. The Far-Term includes seven missions such as combined surface and atmospheric sample return mission, swarms of mini gliders, moles and greenhouse effect tests. The first manned orbital mission is sent to Venus, given the appropriate technology developments.

The science objectives for the Far-Term include:

• Atmospheric sample return from the lower atmosphere, below the cloud layer (~40 km), and near ground level to complement previous sample returns. • Investigate, in depth, the physical and chemical composition of the surface and subsurface through sample return • Investigations into mineralogical compositions and the past presence of water on the surface and subsurface through sample return • Extensive global in-situ investigations of the atmosphere over long durations covering various altitudes • Investigate the physical, chemical and mineralogical composition of the subsurface • Use Venus as a test bed for greenhouse effect studies, using the atmosphere to test potential influencers on the global climate

126 Mid-Term Program (2020-2030)

• Potential terraforming experiments to further study the differences between Earth and Venus, as well to examine our potential ability for altering Venus to enhance habitability

It is assumed that technology developed in the near- and Mid-Terms would continue and enable the missions of the Far-Term. These include:

• Autonomous rendezvous operations • Solar electronic propulsion engines • High speed manoeuvrable air-capabilities • Venus ascent vehicles • Biological components catalysts for reverse greenhouse effect • Hybrid Nuclear propulsion (for human orbital missions)

Prior to 2040, the missions are financed by a mix of public and private funds, with public funding dominating the funding scheme except for some exceptions. Accounting for the number of swarm-based missions, the costs (1 Large cost mission, 1 Medium cost mission, 2 missions made of Small cost crafts in less than 15 years) is easily distributed between the various international contributors.

The technology development initiated by the STG in the near and midterm program opens interplanetary space markets for private industry. Far-Term missions require specific technologies with very high spin-off potential to exploit resources in interplanetary space. This makes it possible to create an even stronger incentive to set-up strong partnership between the Venus Interagency Forum and private ventures, which share in the benefit and in the development and validation risks.

7.11 References Coste P, et al (2002). Development of Sampling Techniques for Planetary Surfaces in ESA Programmes. Meteorites and Planetary Science.

Drake, B. G., 1998. The Reference Mission of the NASA Mars Exploration Study Team. EX13-98-036 - Exploration Office, NASA Johnson Space Center.

ESA. (2003). Soil Drilling and Sampling in ESA programmes: development and mission applications, Space Technologies and the Mining and Minerals Industry [online]. Available from: http://www.estec.esa.nl/conferences/03c49/

Fogg, M.J., 1995. Terraforming: Engineering Planetary Environments. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

Freitas, R., Jr., 1985. Terraforming Mars and Venus Using Machine Self-Replicating Systems (SRS). Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 36, 139-142.

Hoffman, S. J. and Kaplan, D. I., Human Exploration of Mars: The Reference Mission of the NASA Mars Exploration Study Team. NASA SP-6107 - NASA Johnson Space Center, July 1997

Landis, W. G., 2005. Regional Scale Ecological Risk Assessment Using the Relative Risk Model. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 286.

Pollack, J. and Sagan, C., 1993. Resources of Near-Earth Space. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

127 Mid-Term Program (2020-2030)

Richter, L. et al, 2002. Development and testing of subsurface sampling devices for the Beagle 2 lander. Elsevier, 50, 903-913.

Rodgers, D., Gilmore, M., Sweetser, T., Cameron J., Chen, G.-S., Cutts, J., Gershman, R., Hal,l J. L., Kerzhanovich V., McRonald A., Nilsen E., Petrick W., Sauer C., Wilcox B., Yavrouian A., Spohn, T., et al., 2001. A heat and physical properties package for the surface of Mercury. Elsevier, 49, 1571-1577.

Udd E., (1996). Applications of Fiber Optic Smart Structures. Northcon, 68-72.

Zimmerman W., and the JPL Advanced Project Design Team., 2000. Venus sample return: A Hot Topic. Proc. IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, March 18-15, MT.

Wikipedia. (2005). Bosch Reaction [online]. (Last updated 18 June 2005). Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosch_reaction

128 ______Chapter 8 8 Architecture Implementation

8.1 COMPARATIVE PLANETOLOGY IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM AND BEYOND

Exploration of Venus has the potential to provide crucial information toward better understanding the evolution of Solar System environments. In addition, Venus serves as a data point for comparison with Earth and Mars. As program implementation begins, it is important to consider what can be learned through comparison with other Earth-like bodies such as Titan (Moon of Saturn), Europa (Moon of Jupiter), and extra-solar terrestrial planets (i.e. planets orbiting stars other than the Sun). Exploration of these potentially life-bearing worlds offers a more complete and universal definition of habitable zone.

Titan, the largest of Saturn’s Moon, was recently visited by the Huygens probe in January 2005. With a solid surface and dense atmosphere composed of nitrogen, a small amount of methane, and a little molecular hydrogen, Titan’s similarities to terrestrial planets make it a fundamental body in the field of comparative planetology. Data collected reveals evidence of erosion by liquid methane and possibly rain. Methane, a by-product of many organisms that live in and near deep sea vents use chemical energy for the metabolism. Because sunlight is continuously destroying methane and collected data shows evidence of methane, methane on Titan could have a biogenic origin. Titan is being revealed as an extraordinary world, a natural laboratory where primitive Earth-like geophysical processes can be studied under completely different thermodynamic and chemical conditions. These data could play a key role in order to understand the habitability of other worlds.

Europa, one of Jupiter’s Moons, is also an important component in future space exploration. Images from the NASA Galileo mission show a complex surface pattern suggesting the presence of liquid ocean below the surface. Spectral data of the surface also suggests the presence of nutrients. This cold environment could be considered hospitable to extremophiles, not unlike the bacteria found in the Lake Vostok, Antarctica, which have been brought back to life after extended immersion in ice.

The year 1995 marked the discovery of extra-solar planets and a broadened horizon for space programs. Since then, roughly 100 extra-solar planets have been discovered, all Jupiter-like giants, rich in gas. In this context, space agencies have proposed new challenging programs: ESA’s Corot and Darwin missions and NASA’s Kepler and Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF) missions. These missions will be devoted to the search for Earth-like planets beyond the solar system. In particular, Darwin and TPF will use an advanced spectroscopy technique to analyze the make-up of their atmosphere and look for traces of biological activity such as ozone and methane.

129 Architecture Implementation

As comparative planetology programs reach maturity, it will be critical to include as much data points as possible so that observations of terrestrial planets in other solar systems are not misinterpreted. In moving forward with coordinated Venus and Mars exploration programs, consideration should also be given to new discoveries of Earth-like bodies in our solar system and beyond.

8.2 Proposed Framework for International Cooperation

The proposed framework for international cooperation is a possible model in which the REVolution Architecture can be implemented. Given today’s lack of a formal international space coordination body and current cooperative mechanisms which heavily favour agency to agency negotiations, we’ve created a framework which works in this current political context.

By “informal” relations, we describe a group that does not have binding paying over agencies, but a consultative role which makes sure that missions are executed such groups as the International Mars Exploration Working Group (IMEWG) and the International Lunar Exploration Working Group (ILEWG). For the purpose of this program, we will naturally create the International Venus Exploration Working Group (IVEWG).

The IVEWG is consultative body that is modeled after the “Forum” group proposed at the International Space University (Stoffel and Mendell, 1991). This structure is based on successful cooperative efforts such as the Space Agency Forum at the International Space Year (SAFISY), a group composed of 29 national space agencies and 10 international affiliates.

The structure of the IVEWG is also not formal. Modeled after the forum, the group will consist of 5 permanent staff members and several hundred scientists and experts from other disciplines. The group is to also be loosely affiliated with a well established organization, like the International Academy of Astronautics and funded preferably from non-governmental groups.

The IVEWG will consist of an international assemblage of experts. For example, scientists from previous Venus missions, particularly the Russian “Venera” program, as well as members of NASA’s Venus Exploration Analysis Group (VEXAG) will be asked to join. As one of the only groups dedicated to Venus exploration, VEXAG’s work, e.g., conferences and papers, as well as its members, would be a great resource for our program. IVEWG will also include professionals from other disciplines such as those in the fields of Engineering, Life Sciences, Social Sciences, Basic Sciences and more.

Together this group of professionals will ensure via regular meetings and conferences that the Revolution program is executed as long term, multinational effort. The IVEWG can have annual national and/or international conferences once a year to meet, as well as have regional branches that can meet more frequently. Regular meetings help to make sure that progress is being made on the program.

Although this group cannot force states to participate in REVolution missions, it does have certain tools to help coerce cooperation. For example, some influential IVEWG members may have the right connections to interest groups who are, or can be, affected by the program. The IVEWG will also have a strong outreach campaign to gain public support.

To organize space agency cooperation, the IVEWG will coordinate an international program of programs (Finarelli and Pryke, 2005). This forum is a place for representatives of agencies to meet with other agency representatives to discuss cooperation of Revolution missions. This

130 Architecture Implementation forum shall be known as the Venus Interagency Forum (VIF). VIF is literally a program of “programs” because it seeks to create a program that coordinates with other agencies plans/programs.

VIF is an agency-to-agency level forum where representatives from all space agencies can coordinate as a group. It is different from the IVEGW in that it is mainly concerned with how space agencies will actually coordinate and execute architecture missions. For example, the forum allows states to “select” partners based on technical capabilities and then determine the type of agreement to make the partnership work, e.g., Memorandum of Understanding.

The IVEWG will also create outreach programs for national space agencies to promote Venus exploration. Its members will also make efforts to promote REVolution including the creation of relationships with interest groups who are or can be affected by the program. Finally, the loose structure of the REVolution Architecture allows for flexibility in light of political uncertainty. The VIF does not have any say over national policies regarding such issues as technology transfer and funding. Any international effort aimed at cooperation in space has to take into account the policies and motivations of its potential partners, so these matters are still left to the states to determine.

Even though agency’s still need to negotiating amongst one another the IVEWG as an overseer is advantageous to have because the group ensures continuity of the project. For example, if one State pulls out of a mission, the IVEWG can advocate for another State to take over rather than let the whole project die. The flexibility of REVolution’s Architecture escapes the pressures that a long-term project like the International Space Station can create because of the interdependence of each State’s contributions.

This organization also makes it easy for states, including growing space players, to participate in the REVolution Architecture anywhere within the timeline, since no one agency dominates the group.

Figure 18: Proposed framework for international cooperation.

131 Architecture Implementation

8.2.1 Possible International Framework Structure in the Three Time Periods

Near-Term In the Near-Term the REVolution architecture will be outreached through conferences and networking to other professionals in the field. This group will lead to the formation of the International Venus Exploration Working Group (IVEWG). The IVEWG members will quickly mobilize to gather support for their missions from their respective national agencies. The early stages will involve a heavy public outreach program which can positively influence public support for the program. The IVEWG will also look to loosely affiliate itself with a well established international organization to add to its credibility.

As soon as possible the IVEWG will need to re-examine the science objects of the Near-Term program in order to ensure that the missions address the chief pressing questions concerning the evolution of Venus. Established models of the planet and data obtained from previous missions will need to be assessed in order to fully determine the next science steps for the program. This working group will also need to be active throughout the program phases in order to coordinate the results and analysis of data from completed missions with the objectives of the future ones. This will be accomplished through iterations of planetary models in order to establish the science measurements needed in follow on missions. The process will need to be continually iterative throughout the program.

Mid-Term By the Mid-Term of our program the International Venus Exploration Working Group is still coordinating missions on the REVolution architecture. More public and political support will be gained based on previous success of IVEWG-coordinated missions.

Notably, the partnerships to achieve the missions are becoming more complex as more and more states offer to cooperate. For example, multiple space players may find themselves capable of partnering with one another on a “swarm” style mission or new space agencies may sponsor their own experiments with a seasoned agency, and so forth.

The introduction of new space players furthers the debate of technology transfer and ownership of results. The International Venus Exploration Working Group continues its support of open sharing of scientific results arguing that the mission’s objectives are global in nature and thus mandates findings to be shared with the entire world.

By this time-frame, space exploration to other bodies such as the Moon and Mars are happening concurrently adding to the debate of ethical issues surrounding the conservation of planetary bodies.

The scientific community in the Mid-Term will also seek to coordinate with all the different groups focusing on Mars and Venus to eventually form an International Comparative Planetology Working Group. The IVEWG will work close with this group to ensure that its experiments contribute to the discussion of comparative planetology.

Other discussion surrounds the formation of a more formal body for coordinating space missions given the complex partnerships in the Mid-Term. The Venus Interagency Forum has proved to be a useful tool, but as coordination of the architecture missions involves more states, the group begins to seriously consider the need for more full-time staff to coordinate IVEWG activity.

132 Architecture Implementation

Far-Term The Far-Term of the project will most likely find policies, perhaps UN treaties, regarding planetary conservation. Development of Venus exploration robots also add to discussion on the relationship between robots and humans.

We may also find a case for the IVEWG to evolve into a more formal group. As missions to our solar system increase, including the Moon, Mars and beyond, a new framework for international cooperation may be necessary in order to pull together necessary resources and coordinate for further exploration.

A model for this formal group is the International Space Exploration Organization (ISEO), also proposed at ISU. ISEO is an international intergovernmental organization that is structured in a “conventional way” including a general assembly, a Board of Governors, and a Director General. ISEO will be a more formal organization that can coordinate space exploration activity. According to its creators, ISEO’s Board of Governors, “will be responsible for the design, development, construction, establishment, operation, and maintenance of the programs approved by the Assembly and will implement the general political outlines and long-term objectives issued by the Assembly” (Stoffel and Mendell, 1991).

Under an organization like ISEO, international cooperation will be further enhanced as the world begins to see the necessity to tackle long-term programs with global implications such as REVolution’s vision.

8.3 Social & Outreach Our outreach plan is intended to be globally international and intercultural. A change of space power, variations in budgets of each country, change in political standing should not change the whole outreach program, but just have local effects.

The multi-national cooperation called the International Venus Working Group will be dictating and implementing our outreach program, as well as assessing its effectiveness, proposing change and evolving it to keep it in line with the mission profile. They will therefore be responsible for changing the plan, in the event of a global change which will affect it large scale.

The results of missions will also have an impact on outreach. For example, if life is discovered on Venus in the Near-Term missions, the focus of the research is likely to change from the green house effect to a life based approach, discussing the habitable zone, etc. This will however be in line with changes to the mission architecture.

It must also be considered that the space industry will not be run as it is in today’s world via national space agencies. In the event that the space industry becomes controlled by the private sector it is likely that the outreach program will be irrelevant, since the key figures heading the missions will have their own tactics to promote the industry, including traditional commercial techniques like advertising, merchandise, events etc. They sound similar to the suggestions laid down in this report, however they will be controlled by the organizations who will dictate the content that is included in the public awareness campaign, and an education program will likely be biased to the company’s objectives and financial benefit.

133 Architecture Implementation

8.4 Business Building a architecture for exploring the inner solar system within an international framework necessitates a good understanding of the situation the world will face at the different stages. This is needed to:

• Understand the public motivation to support such programs • Assess the possibility of international cooperation based on the international political situation • Define the available technology based on the dynamism of the economy • Understand the situation of the space markets to infer the possible respective role of the private and the public sector

"Space 2030 - Exploring the future of space application" {Space 2030 – Exploring the future of space applications, OECD, 2004} proposes 3 possible futures based on the analysis of the current international, political, social, economical situation:

• Smooth sailing • Back to the future • Stormy weather

The next paragraph summarizes the key points about each of those possible futures.

Smooth sailing This scenario appears to be the most favourable, although somewhat extreme. Through the impulse and the guidance of strengthening international institutions, the world globalizes and sees the systematization of free market and democracy. This global world order leads to very favourable economic climate (high growth, lowering of poverty in developing countries, westernization) and enhanced international co-operation.

Significant advances are made in technologies such as nanotechnologies, biology, information technologies, mostly thanks to this internationally collaborating climate. Technology transfers are facilitated between countries, export control being less of an issue.

Public space activities are held by an international body, the International Space Agency, defining and implementing a worldwide space policy. This policy relies in an ambitious program of robotic and manned exploration of space under an international consortium.

The use of space and space infrastructures are heavily develop to tackle global geo-centered issues like telemedicine, security, environment and resource assessment. In particular, military use of space confirms its evolution towards providing integrated, high-tech, global solutions to security issues.

In parallel, commercial space expands, helped by the evolution of the legal framework. In this adequate environment for space commercialization, the space industry restructures and tends towards globalization, strongly competing to cut costs and enhancing its R&D. This leads to an opening of new space-based markets, development of low cost launches and generalization of micro and nano-satellites.

134 Architecture Implementation

Back to the future The second scenario is an expansion of today’s situation. USA, Europe and China become the three major economic powers leading the world. The East World (around China and Russia) tends to separate from the west world (USA and Europe, with attempts to include India). This leads to a clear regionalization of political, social and economical concerns. In this somewhat bipolar world security concerns raise and military budgets increase due to the international tensions. Although transatlantic co-operation is enhanced, mostly on security matters, export controls on sensitive matters are tightened.

The situation leads to a poor economic growth in the West world, whereas its remains high in China. The direct result is increased protectionism and global slow down of world growth. Globally the rate of innovation falls with a priority given to military-related and dual-use research: surveillance, communication, artificial intelligence, biotechnologies, nanotechnologies, and robotics. Militarization of space is generalized.

Space budgets become largely devoted to regional-based exploration programs, technological development and space-based response to regional social demands. As exploration programs are set-up mostly for prestige reasons, space applications increase under government sponsor, with an emphasis on dual-use technologies. Nevertheless significant advances in technologies like nanotechnologies, artificial intelligence and other provide cost cuts in development and launch of space assets. Space infrastructure evolves towards smaller satellites and specific economically useful missions.

The tensed international environment, with protectionism and low technology transfer, leads to a slower development of commercial space therefore limiting the development of new space business as space tourism. Semi-private firms integrate their activities and beneficiate form the military budgets in developing mostly dual-use technologies under PPPs.

Stormy weather This last scenario proposes the worst case in term of international conditions. Indeed, it addresses the situation where general tension rise between powers with a cut in international relations and erosion of international institutions. Consequently, unilateral behaviour and heavy protectionism raise from most of the developed countries. This brings liberalization of the world to a halt and therefore to depressed economic conditions.

The use of space becomes mostly focused on security, defence and strategy, leading to serious weaponization of the Earth orbit. Civil application in space are mostly geo-centered and potential dual-use is favoured. Civil space budgets decrease and strategies concentrates on space application having short term benefits.

No major exploration program is pursued, although some countries take spectacular initiatives in a unilateral way, mostly for prestige. Moon and Mars receive the favour of those initiatives, with technology becoming a main driver over science.

Protectionism, strong export control, poor economic conditions and market fragmentation have adverse effect in the development of commercial space, leading to a cutback in private investment and a slow in new space commercial application such as space tourism.

135 Architecture Implementation

8.4.1 Influence of the future on the architecture from a funding perspective The REVolution architecture has been so far designed and evaluated in the hypothesis of a world tending towards the ‘Back to the future’ scenario. This scenario opposes risks especially in the field of international cooperation, where regional concerns and export control could be a strong issue.

From a funding point of view, obtaining a long term engagement of international contributor in such an architecture is somewhat of a challenge. The choice of an infrastructure-based architecture could be seen as an issue for the contributor as it necessitates an upfront financial investment that could only be paid back if the program is pursued. Such a architecture could be either binding for longer term financial commitment by each player or on the contrary problematic.

The Smooth Sailing scenario is definitely the most suitable for most of REVolution’s objectives, and would especially facilitate fund raising and the involve the private industry. At the other extreme, under the Stormy Weather it would certainly be impossible to implement the proposed architecture, due to the difficulty to have sufficient investment in relevant technologies and the impossibility to fund the proposed mission on a national basis. Therefore, in order to reduce the financial risks for such a program any action has to be taken to draw the evolution of the world towards the smooth sailing scenario.

8.5 Legal issues This discussion of REVolution’s vision for Venus exploration brings one to a time in the future where we cannot adequately predict the political, societal and policy that would shape legal frameworks for space exploration. Is the future an extension of the current global geo-political scenarios or would there be a complete shift with developing countries emerging as the new space powers? It is beyond the scope of this report’s discussion to suggest what exact form would the future manifest itself in. But preceding sections highlight that any space exploration in the future would be strongly influenced by economics and space-posturing as suggested by Johnson-Freese sources (Stones to the Future of Space Exploration: A Workshop Report, 2004).

The success of such a programmatic architecture vision would require a high-level, sustained commitment, relative affordability and a clear goal. In the mid and the Far-Terms within REVolution’s timeframe, it would benefit from the current exploration missions set up for Moon and Mars exploration. Depending on the circumstances, “space mission denial” and “space-based engagement” can be potential treaty violations sources (Stones to the Future of Space Exploration: A Workshop Report, 2004). Endeavours carried out through international cooperation may introduce legal changes that would prove favourable for REVolution missions, for e.g. eliminate ITAR laws for science missions or among particular nations,

REVolution would also benefit from being a primarily science driven mission for a cause that is for the ‘common good’ of all mankind. ‘Events surrounding space technologies and cases have catalyzed the setting of precedents in the law [1]’. Activities within mission would be weighted against their environmental impact, economic value and public support behind them. If a large number of requests for revision of stringent regulations (or for that matter, any answered questions) when backed up by sufficient and sound scientific reasoning can rectify issues that may impose constraints on current space activities.

136 Architecture Implementation

Use of nuclear power sources is currently favoured only for missions that cannot be carried out using chemical propulsion. The NPS Principles distinguish between reactors and radioisotope generators and specify design requirements. Other nuclear uses may violate United Nations principles on nuclear power sources (Stones to the Future of Space Exploration: A Workshop Report, 2004). It can be argued that an appropriate RTG or similar device would be containing nuclear explosions in a ‘controlled’ environment. Further research advancement in this field may even lead to adequate measures to overcome the radiation contamination effects. It is hence, recommended that although this technology needs to be developed, the architecture should not depend on Nuclear propulsion in the Near-Term.

We don’t know what exact future of the three suggested scenarios awaits us, but it is certain that it would lead to a gradual evolution in the jurisdiction exercised by international space law and in particular, the OST, as well as national space law.

8.6 Conclusions The next steps for implementation of the proposed architecture are highlighted in this chapter. For the longer term, futures are uncertain, policies may change, and public interest and priorities change. Implementation of the architecture is briefly discussed given these futures.

Exploration of Venus has the potential to provide crucial information toward better understanding the evolution of Solar System environments. It is important to consider what can be learned through comparison with other Earth-like bodies such as Titan, Europa, and extra- solar terrestrial planets. Exploration of these potentially life-bearing worlds offers a more complete and universal definition of habitable zone. Similar programs to the one presented here could be suggested and could underline the importance of “comparative planetology.”

To foster and sustain international cooperation, a scientific body called the International Venus Exploration Working Group (IVEWG) is proposed. The IVEWG will:

• Consist of an international assemblage of international experts that will ensure via regular meetings and conferences that the architecture is executed as long term, multinational effort. • Coordinate an international program of programs to organize space agency cooperation. This forum, known as the Venus Interagency Forum (VIF), is a place for agency representatives to meet to discuss cooperation of Revolution missions • Create outreach programs for space agencies to promote Venus exploration.

Also discussed are possible international framework structures given the three architecture phases.

• The Near-Term involves publicizing this proposal in conferences and peer organizations such as the IVEWG. This group will coordinate the science in proposed Near-Term missions. • The Mid-Term will require more coordination between the participating nations, due to the introduction of new space players. The debate of technology transfer and ownership of data will be key debates. The IVEWG will serve as a forum for the sharing of scientific results. Coordination with other planetary exploration science groups to eventually form a broad International Comparative Planetology Working Group.

137 Architecture Implementation

• Although difficult to forecast, the Far-Term may likely find policies in place or being proposed regarding planetary conservation. As missions to our solar system increase, including the Moon, Mars and beyond, a new framework for international cooperation maybe necessary to combine the necessary resources and coordinate for further exploration.

The feasibility of the proposed funding strategy for REVolution depends on an insecure future. The most beneficial future in order to sustain REVolution corresponds to a world of international cooperation and strong economic growth. In this future an international institution leads most of the aspects and decisions. A bipolar world, provided that it is peaceful, would make REVolution possible to a certain extent, but with higher risks of failure at each step. From a economic and social point of view promotion of the globalization of the world would facilitate the next step of humanity towards an era of extended knowledge and exploration.

8.7 References American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (1993), International Space Cooperation Workshop, Washington DC.

Joan Johnson-Freese (1990), Changing Patters of International Cooperation in Space, Orbit Foundation Series.

Peggy Finarelli and Ian Pryke (2005), Optimizing Space Exploration through International Cooperation. Presented at the Briefing to the Mars Strategic Roadmap Committee, W.D.C.

Space 2030 – Exploring the future of space applications (2204) , OECD, 2004

Stepping-Stones to the Future of Space Exploration: A Workshop Report (2004) Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB), The National Academic Press, accessed 13 August 2005, http://www.nap.edu/books/0309092507/html/45.html

Wilhlem Stoffel and Wendell W. Mendell (1991), An Organization Model for an International Mars Mission.

138 ______Chapter 9 9 Conclusions

The proposed architecture developed in this report is a recommendation to conduct a robotic exploration program to the inner solar system, specifically Venus. This is done with the goal of comparative planetology and through a proposed framework of international collaboration. This chapter will summarize key points and summarize the findings of the REVolution team.

9.1 Rationale for Program Selection Comparative planetology looks toward neighbouring worlds to better understand the Earth. Earth stands between two quite similar planets, Venus and Mars, which evolved in opposite directions. Comparing the divergent evolution of Venus, Earth, and Mars can be used to enhance our understanding of Earth’s environment. Scientific exploration of Venus will provide data to improve and validate Earth climate models for greenhouse effects.

The study of Venus will focus on three realms of scientific objectives: atmosphere, geophysics and evidence of past and present life. Key science investigations within these realms can be used to complement and enhance Earth and Mars science programs.

9.2 Program Overview This chapter outlines the Venus exploration architecture, as well as the methodology used to conceive the architecture. The architecture developed by REVolution was created with the goals of several disciplines in mind, namely science, technology, business, society, outreach, policy and law.

An infrastructure was created with the intention that future mission resources would be focused on accomplishing more ambitious goals. The timeline of the architecture maximizes return on infrastructure investment, allowing time for collected data to be studied, analyzed, and for planning and improving of the next mission.

Since it is our intention to stimulate private sector participation in space activities, there is a need to adapt national and supranational patent laws to engage the private sector’s interest in developing and investing in future technology. There is also a need to better manage international technology transfer, overcome nuclear propulsion restrictions, and address the possible implications of finding life or having cross-contamination between Earth and Venus.

9.3 Science summary Both Mars and Venus have similar attributes to the Earth and are often referred to as Earth’s twins. Because Venus evolved to contain a toxic atmosphere and have extremely high temperatures, the similarities with Earth are not readily apparent. However, early in its lifetime,

139 Conclusions

Venus developed in a manner very similar to the Earth. So why is it now so different? Why is its environment as hostile to life as we know it on Earth? These questions are essential to our understanding of the development of habitable planets and in particular the development of the Earth. These lead to the identification of the following scientific objectives:

• Scientific objectives for the Near-Term are to: o In-situ investigation of the lower atmospheric physical and chemical composition o Investigation into the nature of atmospheric dynamics with correlations between global and in-situ coverage o Attainment of detailed surface information through long duration (several years) high resolution mapping to investigate past and present geological activity o Investigation of Venus’s magnetic field o Preliminary investigation of the disequilibrium of atmospheric chemistry and measurement of water vapour in the atmosphere o Extensive compositional analysis of the atmosphere through an atmospheric sample return with samples from the upper (~65 km) and middle (~50 km) cloud layers

• Scientific objectives for the Mid-Term are to: o Investigation of the physical, chemical and mineralogical composition of the surface through in-situ investigations o Continued study of the atmospheric dynamics and composition (size distribution, temporal and spatial variability as well as the chemical composition of the cloud particles) with multiple measurements at various sites and levels in the atmosphere o Establishment of a long duration seismometer network on the surface to monitor the planet for geological activity (surface impacts or detonations could also be used to obtain local geological information) o Continued investigations of the disequilibrium of atmospheric chemistry and measurement of water vapour through study of atmospheric composition o Investigation of the surface mineralogical composition and search for the past presence of water through surface in-situ investigations

• The science objectives for the Far-Term include: o Atmospheric sample return from the lower atmosphere, below the cloud layer (~40 km), and near ground level to complement previous sample returns. o Investigation into the physical, chemical, and mineralogical compositions and the past presence of water on the surface and subsurface through sample return o Extensive global in-situ investigations of the atmosphere over long durations covering various altitudes o Investigation of subsurface physical, chemical and mineralogical composition o Use Venus as a test bed for greenhouse effect studies, to test potential influencers on the global climate

9.4 Architecture and Technology Summary The architecture timeline developed for the REVolution project is based on an infrastructure philosophy that promotes participation of emerging agencies, non-spacefaring nations, institutions and the private sector. It involves the development of a multi-disciplinary strategic plan for Venus exploration founded on the concept of shared international support systems. The architecture has been designed to optimize integration of science requirements with social,

140 Architecture political, legal, and business drivers. Concurrently, this architecture was designed to promote the development of feasible technologies.

Near-Term (2005-2020),

• In the Near-Term program, the mission focus is to build and expand on the success of previous missions with a detailed in-situ exploration campaign. • Leading into the Near-Term are two complimentary missions: ESA’s Venus Express (launch October 2005) and JAXA’s Planet-C (launch 2008). • The Near-Term REVolution architecture includes seven missions. Initially a communications infrastructure at Venus is deployed for the purpose of relaying commands and data from future aerial exploration platforms. This will reduce the required functionality of such vehicles, thus reducing spacecraft mass and power requirements. • Near-Term missions primarily utilize existing technologies, spin-ins from Moon and Mars exploration programs, and Earth satellite technologies.

Mid-Term (2020 – 2030)

• If a successful Near-Term program is achieved, and a robust technology development program is in place, the possibility exists for more flexible and creative missions. • Emerging nations and enterprises, unknown at present, may become notable players. The architecture is framed so as to not preclude potential sources of funding and Space interest. • The Mid-Term architecture includes eight missions including atmospheric and surface sample return missions. It should be noted that space exploration to other bodies such as the Moon and Mars are assumed during this time period. • Mid-Term missions include the use of swarms of robots to increase redundancy thereby reducing mission risk and enabling scientific investigation on a global scale. New technologies developed in the Near-Term are required in the Mid-Term.

Far-Term (2030 – 2050)

• The Far-Term includes the most ambitious missions, but there is also the most uncertainty with regards to funding, technology, policy and public support. • Missions rely heavily on operational experience and data collected from previous missions. • Technology development in previous time frame is crucial to enable missions in this term. • Seven missions are carried out in this period concentrating on advancing atmospheric, surface and subsurface exploration using new technologies and enhanced solutions from previous missions. In addition, missions will be perform advanced experiments to study the greenhouse effect. Potentially, the first manned orbital mission to Venus is undertaken, given prior developments in other programs.

Specific technology developments needed for the near, mid and Far-Term phases are summarised in the Appendix A. Enabling technologies are shown with target and critical deadlines to support planned missions. At the forefront of these critical technologies are electronics which tolerate high temperatures, pressures, radiation doses. In addition, corrosion resistant materials, the PBO balloon shield, aero-capture and aero-braking technologies, as well as automation capabilities for robot swarms are key technologies which will drive program

141 Conclusions success. The time lag between target and critical deadlines serves as an indication of risk. Investment strategies should focus on high risk technology development to ensure program success.

9.5 Funding/Business Summary The capacity to finance a space project or a space program relies on the capacity to provide benefits to the stakeholders. The team proposes to use commercial involvement in the architecture to strengthen the international space industry by raising the private sector’s expertise and autonomy. This involvement will assist industry to engage in a broader space commercialization. At the same time, if public funding of space programs do decline, an increased financial or technical/innovative participation of the private industries could sustain the architecture.

The creation of a cross-beneficial relationship between the concerned public, proposed institutions and working groups, and the private sector is recommended. The creation of a Space Technology Group (STG) group is proposed in the Near-Term business program. This group will be a standards body to help coordinate design efforts and maintain the private sector’s interest in independent exploitation of interplanetary space. This is achieved by providing the private sector with advanced technologies and designs allowing building of small, low cost and scalable spacecrafts. Mission-specific technology developments are held by each contributor, independently of the STG.

In the Near-Term, missions are mostly publicly funded. The burden of the cost is distributed between the various international contributors. This will create international competition that can lead to higher creativity and better quality. Countries can be motivated to participate in infrastructure missions by providing incentives, so the lack of direct benefits is compensated.

In the Mid-Term a systematic focus on technology development with a high spin-off potential will open applications in markets outside of Space. Missions are mostly publicly funded, but an increased participation of the private sector in technology development is expected. The increased privatization of technology development and spacecraft design mitigates Return-On- Investment risk. The sustainable long-term architecture provides opportunities for private companies to sell services based on publicly-funded infrastructure. Taking advantage of the swarm systems, the cost of the missions (2 Medium cost missions, 7 missions made of small cost crafts in less than 15 years) is distributed between the various international contributors.

In the Far-Term, the technology development initiated by the STG in the Near and Mid-Term programs opens interplanetary Space markets for private industry. Far-Term missions require specific technologies with very high spin-off potential to exploit Space resources. This makes it possible to create an even stronger incentive to set-up public private partnerships (PPP) between the Venus Interagency Forum and private ventures, which then share the development and validation risks.

9.6 Law Summary A main driver for choosing the missions in the REVolution architecture was to increase private involvement in Space. In this case, the legal framework must allow protection of private property rights, and international technology transfer. Legal issues such as ITAR will need to be addressed by the global community if this architecture is to succeed. For the REVolution architecture to succeed, this process must continue with what currently exists and on a more worldwide scale.

142 Architecture

The General Assembly Resolution on Nuclear Power Sources in space frowns on using nuclear power sources in space. Although the harsh environment of Venus might preclude the use of other sources of power for some specific missions, nuclear propulsion and power sources, in the Near-Term, is not relied upon in the REVolution architecture. The REVolution architecture considers the prevention of planetary contamination, both forward and back. If life were to be found on Venus, a new evaluation of all planetary bodies may be required.

9.7 Policy Summary The policy goal is mandated by the final phrase of the Team REVolution mission statement: “The project shall provide innovative solutions to better understand the Earth through a framework of international co-operation.”. A mechanism is developed and presented that would allow willing nations to take part in our program architecture.

9.8 Outreach Summary As the proposed architecture relies heavily on public funding, a coordinated outreach effort is essential. The goal of the outreach strategy is to relate the program to Earth in such a way as to be relevant to as many aspects of society as possible.

• The search for life alone is not sustainable from an outreach perspective during the Mid- Term. This is because although finding life may inspire people, the search for life may not. A more effective approach is to make the overall program relevant to a substantial global problem. To this end, several lines of attack are proposed for the Near-Term: o Highlight the greenhouse effect as a substantial global problem, to gain the support of the general public and environmental agencies. o Elevate the status of the Engineers and Scientists to inspire and gain the support of future generations o Capitalize on the religious aspects of Space. Highlight the opportunities for funding and increased awareness within non-traditional Space support groups. o Use the media, by funding fiction and non-fiction multimedia, to capture the imagination of the public. o Create a pseudo Venusian environment (Venusphere) to create a tangible focus for public interest and awareness on Earth.

• During the Mid-Term, it is envisioned that a stronger mutual dependency will be developed between public spending and private Space activities. It is imperative that the momentum of the outreach is maintained and expanded. Steps to achieve this include: o Utilize high-resolution images from Venus to foster new public interest and to sustain it with public demonstrations of the new technologies. Mini-gliders could be used in schools and universities to engage students. o Bring new nations into the space faring world to develop their economy and to unite nations with a common goal.

• Public support for missions in this term is critical for the Far-Term since the program is mature, but may be seen as a previous generation’s program, not a priority of the current generation. To address these issues: o Build upon the message of global warming and the need to study the processes to understand how the problem on Earth can be avoided. o Build upon the proposed human missions to Venus and the innovative technology that enables them.

143 Conclusions

o Utilize ornithopters and other new technology to fuel the public imagination.

9.9 Next Steps Summary A Near and Mid-Term implementation strategy for the implementation of the proposed architecture, and its applicability beyond Venus is presented. For the longer term, futures are uncertain, policies may change, and public interest and priorities change. Three different possible future scenarios are explored, and the implementation of the architecture is briefly discussed given these futures.

To foster and sustain international cooperation, a scientific body called the International Venus Exploration Working Group (IVEWG) will be created. The IVEWG will: • Consist of an international assemblage of international experts that will ensure via regular meetings and conferences that the architecture is executed as long term, multinational effort. • Coordinate an international program of programs to organize space agency cooperation. This forum, known as the Venus Interagency Forum (VIF), is a place for agency representatives to meet to discuss cooperation of Revolution missions • The IVEWG will also create outreach programs for national space agencies to promote Venus exploration.

Also discussed are possible international framework structures given the three architecture phases: • Near-Term involves publicizing the results of this study through conferences and peer organizations such as the IVEWG. Also in the Near-Term, this body would coordinate the science involved with the proposed missions of the architecture. • Mid-Term will require more coordination between participating and newly emerged space-faring nations. Technology transfer and data ownership will be key debates. • The Far-Term of the project may likely find policies in place regarding planetary conservation and a new framework for international cooperation maybe necessary to coordinate further exploration.

Finally, a discussion is presented that outlines three futures and how our architecture may or may not be implemented given those conditions. The most beneficial condition in order to sustain the REVolution architecture and principles corresponds to a world of international cooperation and strong economic growth. Therefore, from a purely economic point of view, it is believed that promoting the globalization of the world would facilitate the next step of the humanity towards an era of extended knowledge and exploration.

9.10 Key Points of REVolution Architecture • Venus should be studied in the context of Earth and Mars (comparative planetology). • Venus exploration can be made more affordable to single contributors based on a foundation of international cooperation. • Long-term political commitment to Venus exploration is strengthened by international cooperation. • Architecture begins by utilizing existing technology and pre-deployed infrastructure to accomplish basic Science measurements. This is followed by increasingly advanced missions.

144 Architecture

• An infrastructure-based approach to Venus exploration enables participation of space- faring and non-spacefaring nations by relaxing mass and power requirements for each spacecraft. • A long-term international commitment to Venus exploration would foster privately funded infrastructure missions. • Increased mission reliability through the use of navigation infrastructure to enhance spacecraft guidance during Venusian atmospheric entry. • Robotic swarms increase redundancy and compensate for limited lifetime in the Venusian environment. • Minimize new technology development through the reuse of spacecraft design. • Utilize existing technology development programs, such as the Moon/Mars program, to reduce cost and schedule risk. • Technology developed for Venus exploration can be used for future missions to Titan, Europa, and the gas giants. • Emphasize increasing general awareness of global warming in the near- and Mid-Term to bolster public support for long-duration exploration architecture. • A flexible exploration architecture is necessary to accommodate modifications of the Science objectives based on the results from ongoing and prior missions.

145

______Appendix A 10 Technology Timeline

147 Technology Timeline

TECHNOLOGY TIMELINE & EXPECTED AVAILABILITY DATE Electronics technologies Power Generators for Spacecraft Swarms Spacecraft for Small Generic Purpose Generic Small "Plug & Play" Standard & Standard "Plug Play" High Pressure Materials High Pressure High Radiation Electronics High Radiation Aerocapture and Aerocapture Aerobraking Corrosion Resistant Materials Resistant Corrosion High temperature (300-400º C) C) (300-400º High temperature Inflatable and Deinflatable ballon and Deinflatable Inflatable Miniaturization and improvement Miniaturization of remote sensing instrumentation sensing remote of PBO (plybenzoaxozale) developmentPBO (plybenzoaxozale) High Strenght & Heat Resistant Ballon Ballon Resistant & Heat Strenght High Current 2007 2007 2007 2008 2009 2008 2010 2010 2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 1st Communicatrion Relay 2012 SAR 1st Atmospheric Satellite Balloon 2013 Prove (+ lander capabilities) NEAR TERM 2014 2015 2016 2nd Communication Relay 2017 Aerobots 2018 2019 Atmospheric Sample Return 2020 1st Const. of Navigation & Comm. Relay Landers (+ test rover) 2021 2022 2023 2024 2nd Atmospheric Satellite 2025 Mini-Ballons MID TERM MID 2026

PLANNED MISSIONS & LAUNCH DATE PLANNED MISSIONS 2027 Seismometers 2028 2nd Const. of Navigation & Comm. Relay 2029 Swarm of mini-Rovers 2030 Surface and Atmospheric Return 2031 2032 Swarm of mini-Gliders 2033 Moles 2034 2035 Testbed for reverse greehouse effect 2036

FAR TERM 2037 2038 3rd Const. of Navigation & Comm. Relay 2039 Solar Powered Ornithopter 2040-50 Human Orbital Mission

148 Technology Timeline

TECHNOLOGY TIMELINE & EXPECTED AVAILABILITY DATE Electronics Air-Capabilities Control Algorithms for Ballon Guidance Payload Technology Payload Navigation asistance Navigation Multi-Small Aerobots Venus Ascent Vehicle Venus Ascent Artificially Intelligence Long life Seismometer Long life Satellite Transportation Satellite High Speed Maneuvrable Maneuvrable Speed High for Swarms Cooperation for High temperature (600º C) C) (600º temperature High Deployment Mechanism for for Mechanism Deployment Landing with Parachute and Parachute Landing with Long Duration Test Chamber Test Long Duration "Plug & Play" Interchangeable Interchangeable & Play" "Plug for Reverse Greenhouse Effect Greenhouse Effect Reverse for TCS(Trajectory Control System) System) Control TCS(Trajectory Artificial Intelligence Algorithms Biological Components Catalyst Components Catalyst Biological RelativePosition for spacecrafts Increased Autonomy and Precise Precise and Autonomy Increased Autonomous Operation Rendevouz Launcher Adaptation for Multi-Small Multi-Small for Adaptation Launcher New Solar Electric Propulsion Engines Propulsion Electric New Solar 2012 2012 2015 2015 2015 2018 2020 2020 2020 2024 2025 2025 2025 2025 2030 2030 2006 2007 2008 2009 Mission that requires that technology 2010 2011 Date of suposed availability of the technology

2012 Deadline for development of the technology

2013 Date first Launch that requieres that technology

2014 2015 2016

2017

2018 2019

2020

2021 2022 2023 2024

2025

2026 2027 2028

2029

2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039

2040-50

149