sign in sign up
<<
Home , Europa (moon), Europa (rocket), Europa Orbiter, Jody Deming, Jupiter Europa Orbiter, Jupiter Ganymede Orbiter

Europa System Mission

Joint Summary Report January 16, 2009

Europa Jupiter System Mission

A Joint Endeavour by ESA and NASA

Prepared by: Joint Jupiter Science Definition Team NASA/ESA Study Team

January 16, 2009

______Karla Clark Anamarija Stankov Study Lead ESA Study Manager California Institute of Technology, Jet Propulsion Laboratory

______Robert Pappalardo Michel Blanc NASA Study Scientist LeadLead Scientist Scientist for ESAfor ESA Study Study CESR & École Polytechnique, France CESR & École Polytechnique, France

ESA Study Scientist European Space Agency

Foreword

In February 2008, ESA and NASA initiated joint studies of two alternatives for a highly capable scientific mission to the outer : the Europa Jupiter System Mission (EJSM) and the System Mission (TSSM). Joint Science Definition Teams (JSDTs) were formed with U.S. and European membership to guide study activities that were conducted collaboratively by engineering teams working on both sides of the Atlantic. The ESA contribution to this joint endeavor will be implemented as the Cosmic Vision Large-class (L1) mission; the NASA contribution will be implemented as the Outer Flagship Mission with a launch date in 2020. An ESA Assessment Report and a NASA Final Report, which focused on the contribution of each agency to each mission, have now been completed. These will be reviewed by each agency between November 2008 and January 2009, with the agencies planning to reach a joint decision on the destination for the mission and announce that destination in February 2009. The Joint Summary Report (JSR) is intended to provide, for each of the destinations, a high-level description of the following: the science rationale and goals; the mission concept; the NASA and ESA responsibilities and interdependencies; the role of other space agencies; and the costs, schedule, and management approach. The JSR also describes the membership and roles of the JSDT and the engineering study teams that supported them and provides a guide to the extensive documentation that has been developed for each mission concept. The EJSM and TSSM study teams have worked together to develop a common format for the JSR that enables comparative evaluation of the missions while, at the same time, permitting their individual characteristics to be effectively portrayed.

James Cutts Peter Falkner Manager, NASA Outer Planet Flagship Mission Study Head of Planetary Exploration Studies Section California Institute of Technology European Space Agency Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Part of the research described in this report was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Research described in this report was also carried out at the European Space Agency.

Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.

NASA/ESA JOINT SUMMARY REPORT JANUARY 16, 2009 EUROPA JUPITER SYSTEM MISSION

Table of Contents 1.0 Overview...... 1 2.0 Science Goals and Objectives...... 3 2.1 Relevance and Motivation ...... 3 2.2 Science Goals and Objectives...... 3 2.3 Science Approach ...... 5 2.4 Science Synergies...... 7 2.5 Responses to Decadal Survey and Cosmic Vision Theme...... 8 3.0 Mission Concept...... 8 3.1 Mission Architecture Overview and Design ...... 9 3.2 Mission Elements ...... 10 3.2.1 Flight System ...... 10 3.2.2 ...... 12 3.2.3 Ground System ...... 12 3.3 Model Payloads...... 13 3.4 Operational Scenarios...... 15 3.4.1 Jupiter System Science...... 15 3.4.2 Icy Orbital Science ...... 16 3.4.3 Extended Mission...... 17 3.4.4 Decommissioning and Disposal Phase ...... 17 3.4.5 Data Return...... 17 3.5 ...... 17 3.6 Technology Needs...... 18 3.7 Other Risk Areas and Their Mitigation...... 18 4.0 NASA and ESA Implementation Responsibilities ...... 19 4.1 Mission Elements ...... 19 4.2 Science Instruments...... 20 4.3 Science Teams...... 20 4.4 Flight Operations ...... 20 4.5 Management Approach ...... 20 5.0 NASA-ESA Interdependencies...... 20 5.1 Launch Capabilities ...... 20 5.2 Telecommunications...... 20 5.3 Radioisotope Power Systems...... 20 6.0 Cost and Schedule ...... 21 6.1 NASA Costs...... 21 6.2 ESA Costs ...... 21 6.3 High-Level Schedule ...... 21 7.0 Study Team Members and Roles ...... 22 7.1 Joint Jupiter SDT Function and Membership...... 22 7.2 NASA Study Team ...... 22 7.3 ESA Study Team...... 22

Subject to NASA/ESA approval. i NASA/ESA JOINT SUMMARY REPORT JANUARY 16, 2009 EUROPA JUPITER SYSTEM MISSION

7.4 Other Study Support...... 22 8.0 Guide to Study Documentation...... 22 8.1 NASA Study Documentation...... 23 8.1.1 2007 OPFM Studies...... 23 8.1.2 2008 Study Ground Rules and Statement of Work ...... 24 8.1.3 2008 Mission Concept Study Report...... 24 8.2 ESA Study Documentation ...... 24 8.2.1 Laplace Proposal for Cosmic Vision 2015 – 2025...... 24 8.2.2 ESA CDF Report...... 24 8.2.3 ESA Assessment Report...... 25 8.3 Study Review Process...... 25 9.0 Summary and Conclusions...... 25 Appendix A. Study Team Members ...... 27

Subject to NASA/ESA approval. ii NASA/ESA JOINT SUMMARY REPORT JANUARY 16, 2009 EUROPA JUPITER SYSTEM MISSION

1.0 OVERVIEW Jupiter system with a , a Jupiter Jupiter is the archetype for the giant planets orbiter, and a small drop-off in of the and for the numerous Jupiter to study the . The planets now known to orbit other . Jupi- NASA Europa Explorer Study and the ESA ter’s diverse Galilean —three of Laplace Study teams have now worked very which are believed to harbor internal — closely to merge their respective concepts and are the key to understanding the habitability of align the goals through an integrated Joint icy worlds. The Galilean satellites are quite Jupiter Science Definition Team (JJSDT). distinct with respect to their , internal structure, evolution, and degree of past and present activity. To place Europa and its poten- tial habitability in the right context, as well as to fully understand the Galilean satellites as a system, the two internally active -bearing bodies — Europa and — must be understood. Thus, the Europa Jupiter System Mission (EJSM) is guided by the overarching theme: The emergence of habitable worlds around gas giants.

Mission architecture The baseline EJSM architecture consists of two primary elements operating in the Jovian system: the NASA-led (JEO), and the ESA-led (JGO). JEO and JGO will execute an intricately choreographed exploration of the Jupiter System before settling into orbit around Europa and Ganymede, respectively. JEO and Detailed architectural studies expanding on JGO carry eleven and ten complementary Europa, Ganymede, and Jupiter System sci- instruments, respectively, to monitor dynamic ence have been performed over the past dec- phenomena (such as ’s volcanoes and Jupi- ade. NASA studies have matured concepts to ter’s ), map the Jovian magneto- reach Europa. Under the ESA Cosmic Vision sphere and its interactions with the Galilean Programme, the Laplace concept has been satellites, and characterize oceans be- downselected; this concept will explore the neath the ice shells of Europa and Ganymede.

Subject to NASA/ESA approval. 1 NASA/ESA JOINT SUMMARY REPORT JANUARY 16, 2009 EUROPA JUPITER SYSTEM MISSION

EJSM — An international mission potential for the emergence of in the celes- that achieves Decadal Survey and tial neighborhood and beyond. Cosmic Vision goals EJSM fully addresses the high priority sci- ence objectives identified by the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Decadal Survey and ESA’s Cosmic Vision for exploration of the outer solar system. The Decadal Survey recommended a Europa Orbiter as the outer planet flagship mission and also identified Ganymede as a highly desirable mission target. EJSM uniquely addresses several of the central themes of ESA’s Cosmic Vision Programme, through its in-depth exploration of the Jupiter system and its evolution from origin to habita- bility.

Compelling scientific synergies with programmatic flexibility The EJSM mission architecture provides opportunities for coordinated observations by JEO and JGO of the Jupiter and Ganymede , the volcanoes and torus of Io, the , and comparative planetology of icy satellites. Each spacecraft can and will conduct “stand-alone” measure- ments, including the detailed investigation of Europa and Ganymede, providing significant programmatic flexibility. © Image by Don Davis, used with permission. Existing technologies and a low-risk Rich science of icy approach habitability and the Jupiter system Although engineering advances are needed EJSM will reveal the potential habitability for JEO (radiation designs) and JGO, no new of the active ocean-bearing Europa and technologies are required to execute either Ganymede, detailing the geophysical, compo- EJSM mission element. The development sitional, geological, and external processes that schedule for these missions is such that a affect these icy worlds. EJSM will also explore technology developed by 2012 – 2013 could Io and , Jupiter’s atmosphere, and the easily be incorporated if it enhances the mis- Jovian magnetosphere. By understanding the sion capability. Risk mitigation activities are Jupiter system and unraveling its history, the under way to ensure that the radiation designs formation and evolution of planets are implemented in the lowest-risk approach. and their satellites will be better known. Most The baseline mission concepts include robust important, EJSM will shed new on the and power margins.

Subject to NASA/ESA approval. 2 NASA/ESA JOINT SUMMARY REPORT JANUARY 16, 2009 EUROPA JUPITER SYSTEM MISSION

2.0 SCIENCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 2.2 Science Goals and Objectives 2.1 Relevance and Motivation The fundamental theme for the EJSM can Some 400 years ago, discovery of the four be further focused into science goals relating to large by Galilei habitability (focusing on Europa and Gany- mede) and processes at work within the Jupiter changed the view of the forever. In System and the system’s origin. the years 1995 – 2003, the Galileo spacecraft provided a wealth of information regarding the Goal: Determine whether the Jupiter Jupiter system, despite a crippled high-gain System harbors habitable worlds. antenna that greatly limited its data return. Europa is believed to have a saltwater ocean Today, Jupiter is the archetype for the giant beneath a relatively thin and geodynamically planets of the Solar System and for the numer- active icy crust (Figure 2-1). Europa is unique ous giant planets now known to orbit other among the large icy satellites because its ocean stars; moreover, Jupiter’s diverse Galilean is in direct contact with its rocky be- satellites — three of which are believed to neath, where the conditions could be similar to harbor internal oceans — are central to under- those on ’s biologically rich sea floor. The standing the habitability of icy worlds. discovery of hydrothermal on Earth’s sea By understanding the Jupiter system and floor suggests that such areas are excellent unraveling its history from origin to the possi- habitats, powered by energy and nutrients that ble emergence of habitats, a better understand- result from reactions between the sea water ing will be gained as to how gas giant planets and . Consequently, Europa is the and their satellites form and evolve. Most prime candidate in the search for habitable importantly, new light will be shed on the zones and life in the solar system. However, potential for the emergence of life in the galac- the details of the processes that shape Europa’s tic neighborhood and beyond. Thus, the over- ice shell, and the fundamental question of its arching theme for EJSM has been formulated thickness, are not well understood. as: The emergence of habitable worlds around gas giants. To address this theme, the Jupiter system will be explored, and the processes leading to the diversity of its associated components and their interactions will be studied. The focus will be to characterize the conditions that might have led to the emergence of habitable environments among its satellites, with special emphasis on the two internally active ocean- bearing worlds: Europa and Ganymede. To understand the Galilean satellites as a system, Europa and Ganymede are singled out for detailed investigation. This pair of objects provides a natural laboratory for comparative analysis of the , evolution, and potential habitability of icy worlds. The primary focus is on an in-depth comparative analysis of their internal oceans, current and past environments, surface and near-surface compositions, and Figure 2-1: JEO will address the fundamental their geologic histories. Moreover, objectives issue of whether Europa’s ice shell is ~ a few for studying the other two Galilean satellites, km (left) or > 30 km (right), with different Io and Callisto, are also defined. To understand implications for processes and habitability. In how gas giant planets and their satellites either case, the ocean is in direct contact with evolve, broader studies of Jupiter’s atmosphere the rocky mantle below, which can infuse the and magnetosphere will round out the Jupiter chemical nutrients necessary for life. system investigation.

Subject to NASA/ESA approval. 3 NASA/ESA JOINT SUMMARY REPORT JANUARY 16, 2009 EUROPA JUPITER SYSTEM MISSION

Ganymede is believed to have a liquid ments, and magnetospheric interactions. ocean sandwiched between a thick ice shell • Determine global surface compositions and above and high- ice polymorphs below, , especially as related to habitabil- more typical of volatile-rich icy satellites. It is ity. the only satellite known to have an intrinsic • Understand the formation of surface fea- , which makes the Ganymede- tures, including sites of recent or current ac- Jupiter magnetospheric interaction unique in tivity, and identify and characterize candi- the Solar System (Figure 2-2). date sites for future exploration. Accomplishing these objectives will fulfill the goal of determining whether the Jupiter system harbors habitable worlds, while detail- ing the geophysical, compositional, geological, and external processes that affect these icy and active planet-sized worlds. Goal: Characterize the processes within the Jupiter System. The Jupiter system includes a broad diver- sity of objects, including Jupiter itself, 55 currently known outer irregular satellites, the Jovian , four small inner satellites, and the four large Galilean Satellites: Io, Eu- ropa, Ganymede, and Callisto. The Galilean satellites comprise a fascinat- ing and diverse array of planetary bodies (Fig- ure 2-3). Io is the solar system’s most volcani- cally active world. The “” Europa is believed to have a relatively thin ice shell Figure 2-2: JGO will determine how Gany- above a saltwater ocean in direct contact with mede’s unique magnetic field interacts with its rocky interior. The ice-rich moons Gany- Jupiter’s, how the interactions vary with time, mede and Callisto have similar bulk properties and the role of a convecting core and internal and both are believed to have internal oceans. ocean. However, these moons have divergent evolu- EJSM will undertake in-depth comparisons tionary histories: Ganymede is strongly differ- of Europa and Ganymede to establish their entiated with a hot convecting core and a characteristics with respect to geophysical history of active tectonics and icy ; activity and habitability. To this end NASA’s Callisto is weakly differentiated with no signs JEO spacecraft will investigate Europa in of internal geological activity. EJSM’s strategy detail while ESA’s JGO spacecraft will focus for understanding the Galilean satellites as a on Ganymede. For Europa and Ganymede, system is to conduct an in-depth comparative both mission elements have objectives to: study of the two pairs of rockier inner Galilean • Characterize and determine the extent of satellites (Europa-Io) primarily with JEO and sub-surface oceans and their relations to the the icier outer satellite pair (Ganymede- deeper interior. Callisto) primarily with JGO, with in-depth • Characterize the ice shells and any subsur- focus on the internally active moons Europa face water, including the heterogeneity of and Ganymede and their probable subsurface the ice, and the nature of surface-ice-ocean oceans. The results will be placed in the exchange. broader context of the whole Jupiter system. • Characterize the deep internal structure, Io, Europa, and Ganymede are coupled in a differentiation history, and (for Ganymede) stable that maintains their orbital the intrinsic magnetic field. periods in a ratio of 1:2:4 and forces their orbital eccentricities; Callisto is not included in • Compare the exospheres, plasma environ- this resonance. Tidal interaction heats the

Subject to NASA/ESA approval. 4 NASA/ESA JOINT SUMMARY REPORT JANUARY 16, 2009 EUROPA JUPITER SYSTEM MISSION

interior of Io and is responsible for its unparal- interior and magnetosphere. leled volcanic activity; maintains a liquid Jupiter’s magnetosphere is closely coupled ocean within Europa and causes faulting of its to the upper atmosphere and interior by elec- surface and within its ice shell; and trodynamic interactions. This giant magnetized powers convection within Ganymede’s - environment, driven by the fast rotation of its lic core to produce that satellite’s magnetic central spinning zone and populated by ions field. EJSM results will enable detailed com- coming from its moons, is the most accessible parative studies of how the different conditions and intense environment for direct investiga- with respect to have led to differ- tions of general astrophysical processes. EJSM ent histories and internal structures, surfaces, will measure the dynamics of the Jovian mag- and dynamic activities among the four Gali- netodisk (with angular momentum exchange lean satellites. and dissipation of rotational energy), determine the electro-dynamic coupling between the planet and the satellites, and assess the global and continuous acceleration of particles. One of the most important aspects of solar system studies is the identification of the proc- esses leading to the formation of gas giant planets. EJSM will provide new into this issue through understanding of the interior structure and properties of the Galilean satel- lites (especially Europa and Ganymede), deri- vation of the bombardment history on the Galilean satellites for application to the Jupiter system, and comparative compositional study of the satellites. Along with better understand- ing of Jupiter’s composition, this will improve knowledge of the thermodynamics of the Jovian . For the Jupiter system, both mission ele- Figure 2-3: EJSM will greatly improve upon ments have objectives to: simple models of the interior structures of the • Understand the Jovian satellite system, Galilean satellites based on Galileo data. The especially as a context for Europa and smaller, rockier pair — Io and Europa (top) — Ganymede. is the focus of JEO. The larger, icier pair — • Evaluate the structure and dynamics of the Ganymede and Callisto (bottom) — is the Jovian atmosphere. focus of JGO. All three ice-covered moons are • Characterize processes in the Jovian magne- believed to harbor oceans (blue); Europa’s is todisk/magnetosphere. the only ocean beneath a thin ice shell and in • Determine the interactions occurring in the direct contact with its rocky mantle. Within Jovian system. Callisto, the degree of ice- differentiation • Constrain the origin of the Jovian system. is highly uncertain. The satellites are shown to scale, along with the western edge of Jupiter’s Achieving these objectives will fulfill the (background). goal of characterizing processes in the Jupiter system, and will provide for rich comparisons Jupiter's internal and atmospheric structures to Cassini results in the Saturn system. are intimately coupled to the greater Jovian system environment. EJSM will extend ’s 2.3 Science Approach investigations to the lower latitudes of Jupiter’s Together, JEO and JGO address the science atmosphere while focusing on complementary goals and objectives of EJSM (Figure 2-4). scientific questions through measurements of Each intensely investigates one internally the troposphere, stratosphere, thermosphere, active icy satellite and provides significant and for comparisons with Jupiter’s science for another, and each addresses signifi-

Subject to NASA/ESA approval. 5 NASA/ESA JOINT SUMMARY REPORT JANUARY 16, 2009 EUROPA JUPITER SYSTEM MISSION

cant aspects of Jupiter system science. The and potential future landing sites will be char- overlap provides important synergistic and acterized through imaging at a variety of scales complementary observations (§2.4). Nonethe- (100 m/pixel, 10 m/pixel, and 1 m/pixel from less, each has the potential to be a “stand- 100 km orbital altitude) and through thermal alone” mission, providing compelling Decadal imaging that could locate any active “hot Survey and Cosmic Vision science (§2.5). This spots.” Modest modifications of the JEO in- approach to EJSM provides significant pro- struments ensure that they are also excellent grammatic flexibility. for remote sensing and in situ observations of the Jupiter system, both from afar and during close satellite flybys. Europa’s very tenuous atmosphere (2 pi- cobar) is a boon to orbital investigations of the surface and interior. Low orbital altitudes (~ 100 km) can be maintained, and atmos- pheric absorption and scattering are absent, allowing for optimal spatial resolution of remote sensing instruments. The low altitude greatly increases the sensitivity of radar sound- ing and magnetometry. The absence of atmos- pheric drag improves orbit and pointing knowledge, enabling measurements of higher order and time-dependent gravity field compo- nents accurately and quickly. Sputter- production of the tenuous atmosphere is useful in bringing material from the surface to the spacecraft. The benefits of exploring bodies with very tenuous are also appli- Figure 2-4: EJSM is carried out by two flight cable to flybys of the other Galilean satellites. elements, each with specific scientific targets as well as synergistic science objectives. The While the primary focus of JEO is to orbit satellite-specific objectives of each are encom- Europa, the science return encompasses the passed by Jupiter system science, as addressed entire Jovian system, especially as is relevant in significant part by both spacecraft. to Europa’s potential habitability. JEO uniquely includes flybys of Io and Europa, and JEO has as its sub-goal: Explore Europa includes flybys of Ganymede and Callisto, and investigate its habitability. During its along with ∼ 2.5 years observing Jupiter’s Europa orbital phase, JEO addresses the objec- atmosphere, magnetosphere, and rings. tives of characterizing Europa’s ocean and its JGO has three sub-goals, expressed as: De- deeper interior through geophysical methods: termine whether the Jupiter System harbors using gravity, altimetry, and magnetometry habitable worlds; Characterize the processes measurements conducted from low-altitude within the Jupiter System; Gain new insight orbit (100 – 200 km). To characterize Europa’s into the origin of the Jupiter System. JGO ice shell and any subsurface water, JEO em- addresses its sub-goal of determining whether ploys ice-penetrating radar, which can map the the Jupiter System harbors habitable worlds by distribution of water within and potentially focusing on Ganymede. From Ganymede orbit, beneath the ice shell. The tenuous atmosphere JGO characterizes Ganymede’s ocean, deeper of Europa and its magnetospheric interactions interior, magnetosphere, and surface using will be investigated through magnetometry, techniques analogous to those of JEO. Specifi- energetic particle and plasma measurements, cally it will exploit low-orbital altitudes to and UV spectroscopy, including stellar occulta- characterize the satellite’s ice shell and puta- tions. Surface composition and chemistry will tive ocean, understand its deeper interior and be characterized by remote sensing through IR intrinsic magnetic field, and map its surface spectroscopy, and in situ through ion and composition and geological features. neutral mass spectroscopy. Surface geology

Subject to NASA/ESA approval. 6 NASA/ESA JOINT SUMMARY REPORT JANUARY 16, 2009 EUROPA JUPITER SYSTEM MISSION

To address the JGO sub-goals pertinent to 2.4 Science Synergies the Jupiter system, JGO will intensely investi- gate Callisto from a resonant orbit, and JGO The EJSM mission architecture offers will make extensive observations of the Jupiter unique opportunities for synergistic and com- system to complement those of JEO. Differ- plementary observations that significantly ences in techniques are that JGO uses sub- enhance the overall science return of the mis- millimeter wave sounding (instead of an ion sion, while providing unprecedented opportu- and neutral mass spectrometer) for composi- nity for comparative planetology of icy satel- tional measurements, and JGO foregoes very lites. An example timeline of the JEO and JGO high-resolution imaging. (The model payloads elements (Figure 2-5) shows that both are of JEO and JGO to accomplish the objectives planned to be in the Jupiter system simultane- are similar overall, though the characteristics ously, yet with staggered arrival times at Jupi- of most instruments differ in detail; see §3.3 ter and with different . Examples of and Table 3-4.). synergistic science opportunities include:

JGO results will enable detailed compari- • Jupiter magnetosphere studies: In the no- sons with the results for Europa. These results tional example where JEO enters Jupiter or- will be coupled with the data to be returned bit a few months prior to JGO (Figure 2-5), from Io, Callisto, and the Jupiter system as a JGO will monitor the solar , while JEO whole, to provide unparalleled insight into the observes the Jovian magnetosphere from archetypical gas giant . In this within, to help untangle the solar-wind ver- sus internally driven processes in magneto- way, JEO and JGO combine to address the spheric dynamics. overall EJSM theme of the emergence of habitable worlds around gas giants. • Io volcanism and torus dynamics: JEO will Should JAXA join the project, JMO will observe Io’s volcanic activity through re- explore the Jovian magnetosphere in situ as a mote sensing and in situ observations dur- template for an astrophysical magnetised disk. ing close flybys, while JGO will observe the global context and effects on the Io torus Adding JMO to EJSM will afford the opportu- via remote sensing from afar. nity for “3-point” investigations of the Jupiter system via synergistic observations with JGO and JEO.

Figure 2-5: Notional timeline for the EJSM, assuming launches one month apart in 2020. The blue bar represents the JEO mission timeline with encounters shown with triangles. Similarly, green bars and triangles represent the JGO mission timeline. The resulting synergistic observations of magnetospheric and other dynamic phenomena are unprecedented in planetary exploration and will be completed by the end of the 2020s. The relative phasing of the two spacecraft elements can be adjusted to optimize synergistic science opportunities.

Subject to NASA/ESA approval. 7 NASA/ESA JOINT SUMMARY REPORT JANUARY 16, 2009 EUROPA JUPITER SYSTEM MISSION

• Satellite and Jupiter monitoring: Both ESA’s Cosmic Vision is structured around spacecraft will observe dynamic phenom- various themes and sub-themes, many of ena, such as the meteorology of Jupiter and which will be addressed by EJSM. For exam- Io’s volcanic plumes, by simultaneous ob- ple, one theme relates to understanding solar servations with different viewing geome- system processes. Jupiter’s “mini-solar sys- tries, wavelengths, and resolutions. More- tem” is ideally suited for this purpose, through over, flybys by both spacecraft provide study and comparison of the diverse Galilean more complete spatial and spectral remote satellites by EJSM, by investigations of the gas sensing coverage of the satellites. giant and its magnetosphere to complement • Ganymede magnetosphere studies: JGO anticipated Juno results, and through analyses observes the Ganymede magnetosphere in of interactions among all the objects, such as situ, while JEO monitors the external Jovian the small satellites and the ring system. Thus, magnetosphere from Jupiter orbit and the Jupiter system is a natural laboratory for makes flybys through Ganymede’s magne- posing and testing hypotheses of planetary tosphere. Such observations allow for a bet- processes through spacecraft observations. ter understanding of effects of Jupiter’s Another Cosmic Vision theme relates to plane- field on the Ganymede magnetosphere and tary formation and evolution, which EJSM will for plasma measurements by JEO that aid in address through study of the gas giant, Jupiter. interpreting JGO’s measurements of the in- Investigations will include: a) assessing the duced component of Ganymede’s field. bulk compositions of the large satellites as • Comparative planetological study of icy critical constraints on formational models, b) satellites: The ultimate synergy of EJSM is observing the irregular satellites and their that of comparative planetology that comes relations to primitive objects thought to have from the detailed understanding of the sib- formed the cores of the giant planets, and c) ling icy satellites, Europa and Ganymede. studying motions in the upper atmosphere in The scientific benefit that is greater than the high resolution over long time-periods. sum of the parts comes from study of both is a central theme to both the Europa, with its thin ice shell above an Decadal Survey and the Cosmic Vision. De- ocean in direct contact with its rocky man- termining the habitability of Europa and com- tle, and Ganymede, with its thick ice shell paring the results with Ganymede will provide and ocean that is “sandwiched” between ice critical clues to habitability and the potential layers along with a hot core that generates for the emergence of life in the outer solar an intrinsic magnetic field. In this way, system. While the discovery of life beyond EJSM’s investigations will span the variety Earth will be profound, should niches be found of potentially habitable icy worlds. that are apparently habitable, yet do not con- tain known life forms, will be equally impor- 2.5 Responses to Decadal Survey and Cosmic tant. Vision Theme Operation of two spacecraft in the Jupiter EJSM fully addresses the high-priority sci- system provides the unparalleled opportunity ence objectives identified by the NRC’s De- to address the high-priority questions posed by cadal Survey and ESA’s Cosmic Vision for the Decadal Survey and Cosmic Vision for exploration of the outer solar system. The exploration of the outer solar system. The Decadal Survey’s Steering Group recom- EJSM mission concept represents a conserva- mended a Europa Orbiter as the outer planet tive and robust design approach to successfully flagship mission and listed six science objec- answering these high-priority questions and tives, each of which will be met by JEO. The making a major step forward in understanding Survey also identified a Ganymede mission, the emergence of habitable worlds around gas such as JGO, as a highly desirable future mis- giants. sion. Moreover, some 20 specific questions were posed for the exploration of large satel- 3.0 MISSION CONCEPT lites in the outer solar system, and EJSM, An international team of scientists, engi- through the combined operation of JEO and neers, and managers has defined a comprehen- JEO, will directly investigate all but one. sive mission concept that is a balance between

Subject to NASA/ESA approval. 8 NASA/ESA JOINT SUMMARY REPORT JANUARY 16, 2009 EUROPA JUPITER SYSTEM MISSION

cost, risk, and science value. By using proven on the inner two Galilean satellites and the functionality and leveraging lessons learned other will focus on the outer two Galilean from numerous flight missions, the engineer- satellites. Both flight elements perform multi- ing teams have designed two flight systems year studies of the Jupiter system, including (JEO and JGO) that can be designed, fabri- the ’s magnetosphere, rings and cated, tested, and operated by two well- atmosphere, and the . JGO will experienced organizations, NASA and ESA, focus on Ganymede and Callisto, while JEO using their own assets and processes. EJSM’s will focus on Io and Europa (but also studying synergy arises from having two spacecraft Callisto and Ganymede up close). This archi- simultaneously operating in the Jupiter system tecture allows JGO to stay outside the most and from acquiring simultaneous observations intense radiation belts and, thus, be designed of certain targets where this is scientifically for a lesser radiation environment. JEO and valuable and complementary observations of JGO carry 11 and 10 instruments, respectively other targets for which the JEO and JGO have (§3.3). Complementary instrumentation allows been separately optimized. for each flight system to study the whole sys- Building upon more than a decade of study, tem from different perspectives and provide NASA and ESA have supplied a set of ground data for synergistic science. rules that have been used to define the more Launched independently in early 2020, each detailed assessment of EJSM. The ground rules spacecraft will use chemical propulsion and are summarized in Table 3-1. and Earth gravity assists to arrive at Table 3-1: NASA/ESA-provided ground rules Jupiter approximately 6 years later. Opportuni- lay the framework for study of EJSM. ties were studied between 2018 and 2022 to Power Source RPS Options - MMRTG or ASRG – to be launch these flight systems. For each opportu- Options provided by NASA, Solar nity, the mass delivered varies, but flight time Planetary Protection Europa Category III: ≤10-4 probability of to Jupiter can be traded to deliver adequate contaminating the Europa’s ocean, mass. Ganymede Category II Launch Vehicle (LV) NASA: IV-H, Ares and family— It is important to note that the launches of costs given including launch services and JEO and JGO are NOT dependent on each nuclear processing, ESA: or 5 other. The mission trajectories while in the Technology NASA: Conservative approach Jupiter system are very flexible and can be Philosophy ESA: TRL>5 by the start of B2 (~2012) easily altered to accommodate changes in Launch Dates Nominally 2020 but investigate 2018–2022 programmatic or scientific priorities. Numer- Ground Stations NASA DSN Capability: Ka band downlink ous parameters in the trajectory designs pro- available, current 70 m equivalent capability available (emergency use only), current 34 m vide flexibility to alter flight times, tour available, DSN ground system throughput of lengths, and orbital insertion timing to adjust up to 100 Mb/s the coincidence of the two flight systems in ESA: ESA ground stations Architecture NASA: Europa Orbiter as documented in 2007 orbit at Jupiter. Each flight element is launched study and operated independently to meet its primary ESA: new design, no restrictions; some science goals. heritage from previous ESA Technology Reference Studies After insertion into Jupiter orbit, both flight Radiation Design NASA: Further refine and begin executing systems will perform tours of the Jupiter sys- 2007 plan tem using gravity assists of the Galilean moons ESA: Design goal <100 krad for the whole mission (no additional margins) to shape the trajectory and to perform science measurements. JGO uses a gravity assist ma- 3.1 Mission Architecture Overview and Design neuver at Ganymede to shape its initial 13 × 245 Rj highly elliptical Jupiter orbit, The expansive Jupiter system is scientifi- thereby avoiding the main radiation belts of cally rich and is best studied using multiple Jupiter. After a nearly 10-month tour through elements. To explore the system in detail, two the Jupiter system — performing measure- flight systems, performing an intricately cho- ments in the magnetosphere, observing Jupiter reographed dance to explore the system from and performing a series of Ganymede flybys every perspective, are envisioned. Though both — JGO moves to a Callisto resonant orbit. will examine the whole system, one will focus JGO performs remote sensing observations

Subject to NASA/ESA approval. 9 NASA/ESA JOINT SUMMARY REPORT JANUARY 16, 2009 EUROPA JUPITER SYSTEM MISSION

during 19 flyby opportunities, with closest orbit and then descends to a 100 km-circular approach at 200 km. After more than a year in for another 8 months. The mission will end this resonant orbit with Callisto, JGO moves to when the flight system impacts Europa’s sur- Ganymede into an elliptical polar orbit (200 face. km × 6000 km) for up to 80 days, acquiring, The JEO floor mission is defined by taking among other observations, measurements in the baseline mission concept (same as the the magnetosphere of Ganymede. Thereafter, NASA-only mission concept) and descoping JGO enters into a 200 km near-polar circular elements of mission capability. The prioritized orbit for close observations of Ganymede with list of descopes is presented in Table 3-2. This durations of 140 to 180 days (depending on the list was worked between the JJSDT and study accumulated radiation total dose and orbital team. The resulting floor mission concept stability). The mission will end when the flight includes 7 instruments (some with less capabil- system impacts Ganymede’s surface. ity than their baseline versions), a 24-month JEO enters the Jupiter system by using Io tour phase, and only 3.5 months in Europa for gravity assist. This lowers the required orbit. propellant load but increases the radiation 3.2 Mission Elements exposure of the flight system. The technical trade between propellant mass and shield mass 3.2.1 Flight System still leaves more delivered mass capability (a The two flight systems are very similar to dry mass increase of ~ 160 kg). JEO has a 30- other large orbital spacecraft (e.g., Cassini, month Jupiter system tour that includes 4 Io Reconnaissance Orbiter). The similarity flybys (including one at 75 km), 9 Callisto of the science objectives and instrumentation flybys (including one near-polar), 6 Ganymede necessitates that flight systems with very flybys (including 4 at < 1000 km), and 6 Eu- comparable functionality are required. Concep- ropa flybys (including 3 early flybys at low tual designs for JGO and JEO are shown in altitude). JEO enters orbit at Europa and Figures 3-1 and 3-2, respectively. spends the first month in a 200-km circular Table 3-2: JEO’s prioritized descopes can be exercised to mitigate future problems. The actual order will depend on nature of problem to be mitigated. Descope Order Descope Item Science Impact 1 Ka-band Up (Ka transponder req.) Poorer gravity data for high-order gravity terms. 2 Color on the NAC Significant losses in Jupiter and Io science. 3 Energetic particle capability Significant loss of information regarding surface weathering of Europa and other moons by particles, including source of and ; total loss of information about penetrating radiation, radiation belts of Jupiter and their variations; degradation of magnetospheric science including beams and auroral processes. 4 USO Reduced opportunities for ionospheric and upper atmosphere studies. 5 INMS No in situ characterization of Europa's atmospheric species, including any sputtered organics; loss of in situ sensing of Io's atmosphere and torus. 6 OpNav Functionality Reduced delivery accuracy to the satellite aimpoints results in a minimum flyby altitude of 500 km imposed for safety. 7 Reduce Europa Science Phase by Loss of Campaign 4. 5.5 month 8 6 Interdisciplinary scientists 9 Thermal Instrument Loss of thermal emission maps of Europa’s surface, which are key in investigating current activity. 10 UVS Loss of sensitive Europa atmospheric measurement and plume searches, in addition to unique Ganymede/Jupiter auroral and Io torus investigations. 11 551 to 541 12 Tour Phase reduced by 10mo Loss of high latitude Ganymede and Callisto flybys results in significant degradation of interior and magnetospheric studies. 13 Hybrid SSR Loss of data storage and return capabilities during Io and System Campaigns. 14 Descope IR Capability (Reduce to Decreased spectral sensitivity hinders identification of Europa surface impurities, especially 0.9 - 5 µm, with decreased spatial organics, and poorer spatial resolution mapping reduces correlations with geological and spectral resolution) processes and decreases the chance of identifying unique compositional endmembers. 15 NAC One order of magnitude degradation in imaging resolution means loss of detailed surface charaxteriztion, including recent Europan activity and relative ages, and significant degradation of Jupiter system imaging.

Subject to NASA/ESA approval. 10 NASA/ESA JOINT SUMMARY REPORT JANUARY 16, 2009 EUROPA JUPITER SYSTEM MISSION

Propellant accounts for 50 - 60% of the total flexibility on both spacecraft for available mass of both these systems. Dominated by the power that can be overcome by strategically significant amount of propellant required to operating the instruments at varying duty enter orbit at their respective destinations, the cycles. However, even with current assump- flight systems use the large propulsion tanks as tions, the resources available for instrument the primary structure around which the system operations far exceed those needed to meet the is built. minimal science requirements as defined by the JJSDT. Design characteristics that are similar: • Full redundancy for engineering functions. • Three-axis-stabilized structure using both thrusters and reaction wheels for control. • Bi-propellant chemical propulsion systems with single main engine. • Lithium ion battery energy storage. • Multi-Layer Insulation and radiators for thermal control. Conceptual Design • X/X-band for telecommunications, com- manding, tracking, and emergency commu- Figure 3-1: The JGO baseline Flight System nications. utilizes solar power to operate 10 instruments • A Ka-band transponder for dual-band radio while in the Jupiter System, including the time science (X and Ka). spent in resonant orbit at Callisto and in tight Table 3-3: Significant mass margin is orbit at Ganymede. available given current launch vehicle capability and launch opportunities with both systems carrying enough propellant for the full dry mass capability. Dry Mass (excluding Adapter) JEO JGO Current Best Estimate (CBE) without contingency or margin 1371 kg 957 kg Subsystem Contingency 338 kg 106 kg Required System Margin 224 kg 213 kg Extra Margin 336 kg 333 kg Total Dry Mass Available 2271 kg 1610 kg Total Margin (Total Margin/CBE) 66% 68% Total Margin (Total Margin/Total) 40% 41%%

The radiation environment of the Jupiter system is highly complex and, unlike the Conceptual Design Earth’s radiation belts, is dominated by elec- trons. The radiation dose rate near the orbit of Figure 3-2: The JEO baseline Flight System Europa is roughly a factor of 30 higher than uses radioisotope power to operate 11 instru- near the orbit of Ganymede. However, the ments while in the Jupiter system and makes actual ratio is a function of the amount of many flybys of all four Galilean satellites shielding because more energetic before entering a tight circular orbit at Europa. predominate at Europa. For electronic design purposes, it is the integrated mission dose that Typical mass and power margins held in is important and, in this respect, the differences Pre-Phase A are 30 - 50% (margin/CBE). Both between JEO and JGO are not as pronounced. JEO and JGO are designed conservatively with For instruments, it is often the instantaneous significant mass margins, as shown in Table 3- fluence that drives the shielding requirements. 3. Power margins (margin/CBE) are 50% for JEO and 20% for JGO and are consistent with Radiation design points have been estab- organizational guidelines. There is additional lished for both flight elements of EJSM. These

Subject to NASA/ESA approval. 11 NASA/ESA JOINT SUMMARY REPORT JANUARY 16, 2009 EUROPA JUPITER SYSTEM MISSION

points give guidance to mission and compo- Antenna while JEO uses a heritage 3.0-m 2- nent designers for performing trades within degree-of-freedom High Gain Antenna. the mission concepts without having to adjust • JEO augments the telecom system with Ka- designs when the actual estimates based on Band downlink for telemetry. trajectories fluctuate. Actual estimated radia- • JEO augments its electrical heater thermal tion exposures based on baseline trajectories system with Radioisotope Heater Units. are currently within the design points are • The Command and Data Handling system shown in Table 3-4. for JEO consists of RAD750 computer and Table 3-4: The radiation environment has 20 Gbits of memory (4 Gbits are mega- experienced by JEO contains more penetrating rad hard). JGO uses a LEON2 Fault Toler- spectral components than JGO. As a result, ant processor and 256 Gbits of flash mem- even with shielding equivalent to 8 mm of ory. JEO’s smaller on-board data storage is aluminum, components experience almost 1 driven by the higher radiation environment Mrad on JEO but less than 100 krad on JGO. and mitigated by the near-real-time JEO JGO downlink approach adopted by JEO (data is Design Point behind 100 mils (2.5 mm) only buffered on-board) and mitigated with of Al 2.9 Mrad 1.1 Mrad the articulated High Gain Antenna. Current estimated exposure behind 100 As a result of both the higher power and mils (2.5 mm) of Al 2.8 Mrad 900 krad Design Point behind 8 mm of Al higher capability telecommunications systems 820 krad 100 krad on JEO, its downlink data rate is roughly 10 Current estimated exposure behind 8 mm of Al 810 krad 82 krad times that for JGO (300 - 600 kbps vs. 40 - 66 Current Best Estimate for shielding mass 190 kg 80 kg kbps). 3.2.2 Launch Vehicle Since JGO focuses on Callisto and Gany- The launches of the JGO and JEO flight mede, it can stay outside Jupiter’s main radia- systems are not dependent on each other. ESA tion belts. JGO uses shielding as the primary will launch the JGO flight system and NASA protection for standard electronics, resulting in will launch the JEO flight system. The parame- approximately 80 kg of shielding for instru- ters for the two 2020 launches are shown in ments and avionics. This shield mass estimate Table 3-5. corresponds to the 82-krad current estimate Table 3-5: By using Venus and Earth gravity environment. assists, very capable flight systems can be For JEO, exploring the inner Galilean satel- delivered to Jupiter within 6 years to begin lites exposes the system to a greater radiation multi-year investigations of the Jupiter system. dose. The JEO design levels are much higher JEO JGO than is practical for standard parts and shield- Launch Vehicle Atlas V 551 ECA ing. Therefore, JEO takes a more aggressive Launch Date 2/29/20 3/11/20 approach and assumes all electronics will be Trajectory VEEGA VEEGA designed with radiation-hardened electronics Flight Time to Jupiter 5.8 years 5.9 years to minimize shielding required. Some - Delta V 2260 m/s ~3000 m/s ics and detectors will utilize spot shielding to Launch Mass Capability 5040 kg 4362 kg lower radiation exposure. Approximately 190 Launch Vehicle Adapter 123 kg 190 kg kg of shielding is estimated for the JEO mis- Propellant 2646 kg 2562 kg Current Best Estimate Dry sion. Other significant flight system differ- Launch Mass 1367 kg 957 kg ences between JEO and JGO are: Total Dry Mass Margin 973 kg 653 kg • JGO is to use solar arrays, due to the lower radiation exposure, and carries a total 3.2.3 Ground System 51-m2 solar array, with GaAs solar cells op- EJSM does not require any new capability timized for Low Intensity Low within the ground stations currently envisioned and one degree of freedom. JEO uses Ra- in the near term for NASA’s DSN or ESA’s dioisotope Power Sources (note that the ESTRACK. The baseline MOS for JGO is to baseline design for JEO can be imple- be provided by ESA/ESOC and supported by mented with 5 MMRTGs or 5 ASRGs). the ESA ground station network (ESTRACK). • JGO uses a heritage 2.8-m fixed High Gain

Subject to NASA/ESA approval. 12 NASA/ESA JOINT SUMMARY REPORT JANUARY 16, 2009 EUROPA JUPITER SYSTEM MISSION

The Cebreros 35-m station (see Figure 3-3) ence objectives. will be used during the cruise phase and the One common challenge for the instruments observation phase at Jupiter. Additional sup- is the performance and availability of sensors port will be provided by New Norcia for criti- that can meet the Jovian radiation and plane- cal phases, such as flybys and insertion. tary protection requirements. The challenge for For JEO, a standard MOS will be developed JEO is greater than for JGO as the radiation by JPL, and NASA’s Deep Space Network will flux and total dose is higher for JEO. be used for tracking support (see Figure 3-3). For the model payload, instruments were During the interplanetary and tour phases of evaluated on the basis of their ability to meet the mission, daily tracking coverage (one track the measurement objectives, perform in the per day) will be shared among 34-m stations at radiation environment, and meet planetary Goldstone, Madrid, and Canberra. During the protection requirements. Special attention was first 105 days in orbit at Europa, 24-hour given to the JEO instruments due to the higher coverage is assumed; this will require coverage radiation flux and total dose. Only publicly from all three stations. After the first 105 days available information is used in the concept in Europa orbit, tracking will resume at 1 track designs. Other techniques are available that per day, as in the tour portion of the mission. would lower resource requirements; however, JGO and JEO can be supported by the op- information on those techniques is not publicly posite networks (DSN and ESTRACK, respec- available and, therefore, not included in this tively) using standard services for emergencies report. and critical events. If needed, provisions for The model payload instruments were used to mutually supportive backup command, teleme- show proof of concept only, and should not be try, and navigation services can be included in taken to be final selections nor final implemen- the MOS designs for both missions using tations. Alternative instrument concepts and current capabilities. techniques may be selected via the NASA/ESA 3.3 Model Payloads coordinated Announcement of Opportunity The EJSM model payload instruments were process to meet the mission objectives. Table identified by the JJSDT to respond directly to 3-6 presents the model payloads, their primary the science objectives as outlined in §2.0, science contribution and key characteristics. along with traceability back to the science The mass of the JEO payload is 106 kg without measurement requirements. This planning shielding and the JGO payload is 73 kg without payload, while notional, is used to bound the shielding. These mass estimates account for engineering aspects of the mission design, projected modifications necessary to perform in spacecraft, and operational scenarios associ- the radiation environment. Mass for shielding ated with obtaining the data to meet the sci- is estimated separately.

ESA - ESTRACK (Cebreros) Science JGO Science JGO Mission Data Operations Teams System (ESOC)

Emergency Backup Mutual Data Products, Command & Tracking Analysis, Results Support Telemetry Science JEO Mission JEO Science Data Teams Operations System (JPL) NASA - DSN (Goldstone, Canberra, Madrid) Figure 3-3: Both missions will be independently operated using mature Mission Operations Systems and tracking systems as shown in Blue paths. NASA-ESA tracking system interopera- tions capabilities are currently in place, shown in Red and could be used to further enhance the capabilities or robustness of EJSM.

Subject to NASA/ESA approval. 13 NASA/ESA JOINT SUMMARY REPORT JANUARY 16, 2009 EUROPA JUPITER SYSTEM MISSION

Table 3-6: The complementary model payloads on the two flight systems provide unprecedented opportunities to obtain simultaneous observations of a single phenomenon. Model Payload JEO JGO Science Contribution Characteristics Science Contribution Characteristics Laser Amplitude and phase of Single-beam @1064 nm Amplitude and phase of Single Beam @ 1064 nm Altimeter gravitation tides on Europa; 50 m spot @ 100 km gravitation tides on 10 m spot @ 200 km Quantitative morphology of 26 Hz pulse rate Ganymede; Quantitative 175 Hz pulse rate Europa surface features morphology of Ganymede surface features Radio Science Tidal state of Europa to 2-way Doppler with Interior state of 2-way Doppler with determine the extent of the Ka-band transponder Ganymede, presence of Ka-Band transponder ocean and its relation to the a deep ocean and other deeper interior; Interior state Ultra-stable Oscillator gravity anomalies Ultra-stable Oscillator of Ganymede & Callisto Ice Europa ice/water interface and Dual frequency: 50 and 500 Structure of the Single frequency: 20-50 MHz Penetrating identify warm ice and/or water MHz, Vertical depths: 3 and 30 Ganymede subsurface & Radar pockets within the ice shell km identify warm ice and/or antenna: 30 m anomalies within the ice Dipole antenna: 10 m shell Visible-IR Composition of non-ice Pushbroom imaging Composition of non-ice Pushbroom components on Europa, spectrometer with two components on spectrometer with two Ganymede & Callisto; State & channels and along-track scan Ganymede & Callisto; channels with scan system crystalinity of ices; Io system State & crystalinity of monitoring; Jupiter surface ices atmosphere composition Spec. range: 400-5200 nm Spec. range: 400-5200 nm Spec. res: 5 nm @< 2.6 µm Spec. res: 2.8 nm @<2.2µm Spec. res: 10 nm @> 2.6 µm Spec. res: 5 nm @ >2.2 µm IFOV: 0.25 mrad @< 2.6 µm IFOV: 0.125 mrad IFOV: 0.50 mrad @> 2.6 µm IFOV: 0.250 mrad FOV: 9.2° FOV: 3.4° UltraViolet Composition & dynamics of EUV grating spectrometer with Composition & dynamics EUV and FUV+MUV grating Spectrometer the atmospheres of the scan system for stellar of the atmospheres of spectrometers Galilean satellites occultations Ganymede & Callisto

Spectral range: 70-200 nm Spectral range: 50-320 nm IFOV: 1.0 mrad IFOV: 0.01 mrad FOV: 3.7° FOV: 2° Ion and Composition of sputtered Reflectron Time-of-Flight N/A N/A Neutral Mass products from Europa Spectrometer Mass range: 1-300 Daltons Mass res: >500 Thermal Map temperature anomalies Pushbroom imaging Map temperature Imaging microbolometer array Instrument and thermal inertia of surface thermopile line arrays anomalies and thermal materials on Europa; Jupiter inertia of surface atmosphere composition & Thermal band: 8-20 µm materials on Ganymede Thermal band: 7.4 – 21.7 µm dynamics Thermal band: 20-100 µm 4 narrow filter bands 4 narrow filter bands, IFOV: 2.5 mrad IFOV: 0.5 mrad FOV: 3.0° FOV: 6.9° Narrow Angle Local-scale geologic Orbital Mode: Panchromatic N/A N/A Camera processes on Europa, pushbroom imager Ganymede & Callisto; Io OpNav Mode: Panchromatic volcano monitoring; Jupiter framing imager cloud dynamics & structure Jovian Science Mode: 9 color framing imager (filter wheel) IFOV: 0.01 mrad FOV: 1.2° Wide and Regional-scale Europa Wide: 3-color + panchromatic Global morphology of Wide: 12 filters Medium Angle Morphology & topography Pushbroom Ganymede; Global to Framing Camera from stereo; Global to IFOV: 1 mrad regional scale IFOV: 2 mrad regional-scale morphology of FOV: 58 deg morphology of Callisto FOV: 117 deg Io, Ganymede & Callisto; Med: panchromatic Med: 4-color + panchromatic Jupiter atmosphere dynamices Pushbroom Pushbroom IFOV: 0.1 mrad IFOV: 0.25 mrad FOV: 11 deg FOV: 14.7 deg

Subject to NASA/ESA approval. 14 NASA/ESA JOINT SUMMARY REPORT JANUARY 16, 2009 EUROPA JUPITER SYSTEM MISSION

Model Payload JEO JGO Science Contribution Characteristics Science Contribution Characteristics Induction response from the Dual tri-axial fluxgate sensors Ganymede’s intrinsic Dual tri-axial fluxgate sensors Europa Ocean; Presence and magnetic field and its location of water within 10 meter boom interaction with the 3 meter boom Ganymede & Callisto Jovian field Plasma and Interaction between icy Plasma Analyzer Interaction between Plasma Analyzer Particles satellites and the space Electrons : 10 eV – 30 keV Ganymede & Callisto and Electrons: 1 ev – 20 keV environment to constrain Ions: 10 eV – 30 keV the space environment to Ions: 1- eV – 10 keV induction responses; constrain induction Composition and transport in Particle Analyzer responses Particle Analyzer Io’s plasma torus Electrons : 30 keV to 1 MeV Electrons: 15 keV -1 MeV; Ions: 30 keV to 10’s of MeV Ions: 3 keV - 5 MeV, High-energy Electrons >2, >4, >8 and >16 MeV ENA: 10 eV – 100 eV Submillimeter N/A N/A Dynamics of Jupiter’s’ 2 channels Wave Sounder stratosphere; Vertical Spec. range: 550-230 μm profiles of wind speed FoV: 0.15° – 0.065° and temperature Synergistic and complementary instru- The five mission operational scenarios are ments carried by the separate mission ele- summarized in Table 3-7. The interplanetary ments enhance the science while maintaining phase is typical of outer planets missions and a strong science return value for each inde- is not discussed further. pendent element. With the goal to explore the 3.4.1 Jupiter System Science Jupiter system as a whole in addition to fo- The Jupiter System Science investigations cused investigations of individual satellites, fall into five categories: satellite surfaces and the payloads provide instrumentation for interiors, satellite atmospheres, plasma and remote sensing (during flybys, as a distant magnetosphere, rings and small bodies, and observer and while in orbit around Europa and Jupiter atmosphere. Measurements supporting Ganymede) and to characterize the Jovian satellite specific objectives will be accom- environment. plished during the satellite flyby encounters. Remote sensing instruments provide over- Flyby geometries are highly varied for lati- lapping spectral coverage to readily facilitate tude and lighting but are opportunistic as the data cross-correlation and analysis. Compara- trajectories are optimized for meeting the ble field and particle payloads will provide science requirements along with duration, new information on the three-dimensional and delta-v and radiation dose. In addition to the temporal variability of the Jupiter radiation encounter observations, periodic distant moni- environment. The combined capability of the toring observations of Io, its plasma torus, two mission elements will provide science Jupiter, and its ring system, dust and gas, and return that exceeds that of each standing small bodies are planned. Monitoring and alone. measurement of the system plasma environ- 3.4 Operational Scenarios ment and magnetosphere and the Jupiter There are 2 major sciences phases of sci- atmosphere will be accomplished through ence for EJSM: Jupiter System Science and routine periodic measurements each week. Icy Moon Orbital Science. Jupiter System During the Jupiter System Science sub-phase Science will be the principal focus of the the instruments focusing on Jupiter science Jovian Tour phase of the JGO and JEO flight will be operating with higher priority with systems. There are 3 sub-phases: 1) Jupiter respect to the other instruments. System Science for JEO and JGO, 2) Callisto During the Callisto Science sub-phase, Science for JGO, and 3) Io Science for JEO. JGO will focus on understanding its water- Icy Moon Orbital Science is comprised of rock distribution, and its evolution. JGO will Ganymede Orbital Science for JGO and Eu- be able to collect and downlink 12 - 20 Gb for ropa Orbital Science for JEO. At the end of each Callisto flyby. JEO will make several Prime Mission, the project will either be close flybys of Callisto while JGO is in the allowed to extend the mission or will enter the resonant orbit, allowing synergistic science decommissioning and disposal phase. observations.

Subject to NASA/ESA approval. 15 NASA/ESA JOINT SUMMARY REPORT JANUARY 16, 2009 EUROPA JUPITER SYSTEM MISSION

Table 3-7.Pre-planned mission phases and campaign allow for early decisions on the highest priority science and more efficient operations. Mission Jupiter Europa Orbiter Jupiter Ganymede Orbiter Phase Jupiter System Science Campaign: 18 months Jupiter System Science Campaign: 12 months • 8 Callisto flybys, including North Pole observing • 4 Ganymede flybys • 6 Europa Flybys, IPR ocean search, 60% global imaging • Move to resonant Callisto orbit

• 6 Ganymede flybys, 50% global imaging • Transfer to Europa circular orbit

Jupiter System System Science Io Campaign: 12 months Callisto Science Campaign: 15 months • 1st Io flyby (pre-JOI) is primarily for engineering purposes • Resonant Callisto orbits, 19 flybys • 3 Io flybys, 30% global imaging • Global imaging • 1 Callisto flyby • Move to Ganymede elliptical orbit Europa Orbital Science Ganymede Orbital Science • Engineering Assessment: prepare for orbital ops (5 days) • Ganymede Campaign 1: 200x6000 km orbit (up to 80 • Europa Campaign 1: Global Framework 200 km (28 days) days) • Europa Campaign 2: Regional Processes 100 km (43 days) • Ganymede Campaign 2: 200 km circular orbit (up to 180

Orbital days)

Science • Europa Campaign 3: Targeted Processes 100 km (28 days) Icy Moon • Europa Campaign 4: Focused Science 100 km (165 days)

Specifically during the Io Science sub- essing capability, both JEO and JGO will be phase, JEO will be making close flybys of Io able to optimize the amount of data to be (as close as 75 km) and imaging 20% of Io’s returned to Earth. surface at 200 m/pixel resolution. At the same The highest data return for JGO (~300 Gb) time, JGO will be monitoring Io from a dis- will occur during the Ganymede circular orbit tance to add context to JEO observations. campaign. The main drivers for data volume Each orbiter will be able to collect 10 - 20 will be the cameras, the V/NIR Imaging spec- Gb of science data during closest approach for trometer (VIRHIS), and the radar, which all each flyby. JEO and JGO can store and return have high data rates (up to 5 Mb/s). Both the all of the collected data from flyby and observ- cameras and the spectrometer have compres- ing opportunities within scheduled downlink sion factors ranging from 2 to 10 using new times. Both orbiters have similar payloads and compression algorithms. Operating the instru- data acquisition capabilities with minor varia- ments in a sequence such as every other orbit tions in data rates and compression schemes. will be necessary to fit into the ~ 1.7 Gb aver- One difference is that during observations, age daily downlink data volume. In the circular JGO will not be able to maintain Earthpoint for orbit campaign, JGO will collect observations communications, whereas JEO will be able to for 16 hours per day and downlink data for 8 use its HGA to maintain pointing for naviga- hours. tion tracking and telemetry downlink. For the JEO Europa Science phase, the data 3.4.2 Icy Moon Orbital Science acquisition strategy is designed to obtain the Due to power and data downlink restrictions highest-priority observations first and quickly. not all instruments can operate simultaneously Following a brief engineering assessment during orbital operations. Prioritized observa- period, data taking proceeds through 4 cam- tions and time-sharing of observational time paigns, beginning with the Global Framework are used lower the average power required campaign, then focusing on Regional Proc- during any orbit. To ensure that all scientific esses, then concentrating on Targeted Proc- goals can be achieved a combination of on- esses to address local-scale science questions board data processing, data compression, and and then performing Focused Science for sequential operation of instruments will be follow-up on discoveries made during the used to reduce the data volume required for earlier campaigns. Throughout the Europa downlink. With the anticipated onboard proc- Science phase, several instruments collect data

Subject to NASA/ESA approval. 16 NASA/ESA JOINT SUMMARY REPORT JANUARY 16, 2009 EUROPA JUPITER SYSTEM MISSION

continuously, both on the day and night sides rally. The decaying orbits will provide extraor- of Europa: Radio Science (RS) — gravity (RS, dinary opportunities for atmospheric, deep via the telecom subsystem, continuous for interior and surface measurements. Europa Campaigns 1 - 3 only), Thermal In- 3.4.5 Data Return strument (TI), Magnetometer (MAG), Laser Detailed operational scenarios, based on Altimeter (LA), and Particle and Plasma In- achieving the highest priority data first, ensure strument (PPI). The UltraViolet Spectrometer that the instruments perform the required (UVS) is operated for a few minutes each orbit measurements for the science goals to be to collect stellar occultation observations of fulfilled. A total of ~ 1.5 Tbits of data is re- selected UV source stars. turned from JGO and ~ 4.5 Tbits from JEO For the other remote sensing instruments, a through their prime missions. The potential 2-orbit repeating scenario is planned, which cumulative data return is double that of the permits power and data rate balancing. Even Cassini prime mission (2.8 Tbit) and is 3 or- orbits emphasize optical remote sensing by the ders of magnitude more than Galileo was able Wide Angle Camera (WAC), and the VIRIS to return. Though Galileo was able to contrib- spectrometer, while odd orbits emphasize data ute extraordinary scientific value, this in- collection by the Ice Penetrating Radar (IPR). creased data volume will be able to answer the The IPR and VIRIS typically operate in low- questions raised by Galileo. data-rate profiling modes, permitting a high degree of areal sampling across the globe, WAC 100 m given the limited downlink rate. These instru- ments also operate in higher data-rate targeted modes, obtaining higher resolution data of high-priority features. MAC JEO targeted observations are of two types; 10 m coordinated imaging targets and IPR full rate targets. The coordinated imaging targets col- lect nested observations among the optical remote sensing instruments (MAC, NAC and NAC VIRIS VIRIS), along with the profiling IPR mode, 1 m 25 m and the continuously operating TI and LA (Figure 3-4). IPR full rate targets (30 seconds, 30 Mb/s, with MAC context) will also be collected. Over 1900 targeted observations, of both types, are obtained during the Europa Science Phase. While targets are collected in IPR + TI + LA 10 km all campaigns, they support focused science goals including identification of candidate sites Figure 3-4: Nested JEO FOVs provide for for future landers. coordinated targeted observations (resolu- 3.4.3 Extended Mission tion/pixel indicated). Both orbiters have the additional capacity to 3.5 Planetary Protection support an extended icy moon orbiting mission if approved. It is expected that the functional- The JEO and JGO missions present very ity of the flight systems will decay as the different planetary protection challenges. radiation exposure increases and the perform- Specifically, due to the hypothesized resur- ance will degrade until, if left operational, a faceing methods, the likelihood of a spacecraft fatal failure occurs. fragment being transported to the liquid ocean is very different between Europa and Gany- 3.4.4 Decommissioning and Disposal Phase mede. The Decommissioning and Disposal Phase Current Planetary Protection policy will put the orbiters on a trajectory spiraling [NPR8020.12C 2005] specifies requirements toward their respective moons’ surface. This for Europa flyby, orbiter, or missions as phase can be planned or left to happen natu-

Subject to NASA/ESA approval. 17 NASA/ESA JOINT SUMMARY REPORT JANUARY 16, 2009 EUROPA JUPITER SYSTEM MISSION

follows: “Methods…including microbial re- The Departments of Defense and Energy as duction, shall be applied in order to reduce the well as industry have invested in technologies probability of inadvertent contamination of an and developments that directly benefit the Europan ocean to less than 1 × 10-4 per mis- current JEO concept. Industrial entities in sion.” Since the resurfacing rate of the surface Europe have been developing electronic com- of Europa is believed to be high, the probabil- ponents to withstand high radiation environ- ity that contamination of the ocean will occur ments as well. Though JGO’s lower expected if the spacecraft hits the surface is deemed to radiation dose allows many standard parts to be unity. It has been determined that it is infea- be used, if desired, more radiation-hardened sible to leave Europan orbit at the end of the parts have been developed by CERN, for use mission. This led to the conclusion that surface in the European market. Though new technol- impact at the end of the mission is the appro- ogy developments are not required, it will be priate technical and scientific approach. Ac- necessary to adapt current designs to perform cordingly, it is necessary to eliminate viable within the radiation environment and to meet microorganisms from the spacecraft before it the planetary protection requirements. This is impacts the surface. especially true for JEO where the predicted Planetary protection requirements for the radiation exposure over the life of the mission JEO mission will be met through: is about 3.5 times that expected for JGO. • Prelaunch sterilization to control bioburden Although current technologies are sufficient for those areas not sterilized in flight, and to perform a scientifically engaging mission to • In flight sterilization via radiation prior to Jupiter, Ganymede and Europa and meet all the Europa orbit insertion. science objectives, new technologies and The NASA Planetary Protection Officer has capabilities could enhance the mission if they indicated approval of this approach given that become available in a timeframe compatible the specific requirements for Europa can be with the mission development schedule. Ex- met [Conley 2006]. The JEO mission will be amples of such technologies and capabilities classified as category III under current include: Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Gen- COSPAR and NASA policy [COSPAR 2002]. erators (ASRGs), solar arrays, memory, ad- Ganymede is believed to be much less ac- vanced sensors, and DSN upgrades. tive geologically than Europa, greatly reducing JEO is compatible with use of either type of the probability that surface contamination will Radioisotope Power Source (RPS) (MMRTG, find its way to the sub-surface ocean. This ASRG, or a combination of both); however, a moon is currently classified as category II timely decision is needed as the design of the under COSPAR and ESA policy. Accordingly, flight system progresses to avoid costly even though JGO will impact that moon at changes and delays. The timing of the RPS mission end, standard processes for cleaning decision is not under the control of the JEO are acceptable and no sterilization is required. project. To mitigate this risk, the project will A Joint NESA-ESA Planetary Protection work closely with the Program Executive at Working Group has been established for the NASA Headquarters during the RPS Devel- Outer Planet missions and plans for meeting opment Program to ensure that requirements currently envisioned requirements have been are known and a final decision on RPS is made vetted by and have been agreed to by this prior to the completion of Phase A. Working Group. 3.7 Other Risk Areas and Their Mitigation 3.6 Technology Needs Radiation poses a unique technical chal- There are no new technologies required to lenge for EJSM due to the flight system spend- implement the EJSM mission as currently ing a significant time in the Jovian radiation envisioned. Major NASA investments have belts. The radiation dose level, transient noise been made over the past decade in the areas of and dose rate effects experienced by JEO will radiation-hardened components, development be unprecedented for long duration NASA of power source technology, launch vehicle missions. JPL has years of experience in de- qualification, and trajectory tour design tools. signing spacecraft with instruments that will operate in the Jupiter environment. To date

Subject to NASA/ESA approval. 18 NASA/ESA JOINT SUMMARY REPORT JANUARY 16, 2009 EUROPA JUPITER SYSTEM MISSION

there have been seven flybys of Jupiter by withstand the sterilization and radiation re- spacecraft ( and 11, and quirements is essential to risk mitigation. 2, , Cassini, and ) as well Both Radiation and Planetary Protection as the Galileo orbiter. Vital lessons learned risks might directly impact the cost and sched- from Galileo’s radiation related anomalies ule for both the spacecraft and instrument have been summarized in the Europa Explorer development. Early risk mitigation is crucial to Radiation Issue Report [JPL D-34103 April decreasing the cost risk associated with fixing 2006]. Mission designers will be able to as- issues found late in the design cycle. The Risk similate these lessons learnt as part of the risk Mitigation Plan for radiation and planetary mitigation strategies for the JEO mission. protection was developed and is currently Exposure to these large dose rates will pre- being executed. Specifics of the Risk Mitiga- sent challenges for the science instruments tion Plan and the assessment of sensors, detec- even with localized shielding. High radiation tors and other instrument components of the fluences create radiation noise that degrades model payload can be found in the documents the performance of detectors in science in- as listed in §8. struments and trackers. Extensive work Inherent in broad-science mission develop- was performed at JPL and APL in 2008 to ment is cost risk associated with the matura- characterize the potential impact on the types tion and stability of the science objectives of detectors that would be needed for the and mission concepts. Rigorous analysis over model payload; this work produced very en- the course of the study has resulted in a JEO couraging results. It was determined that a implementation design that balances science, combination of radiation-hardened components cost and technical considerations. The cost risk and shielding would be effective in ensuring associated with the JEO science and mission that instrument and engineering subsystems concept has been offset by the extensive mis- function correctly within this environment. sion studies performed by NASA over the past In 2008, NASA started executing a risk 12 years and these studies have increased the mitigation plan focused specifically on identi- confidence in the validity of the cost estimate. fying the highest impact areas and beginning to Mature and stable science objectives have fed mitigate risks in those areas. The extensive high-fidelity mission conceptual technical and work performed in 2008 by NASA provided operational designs culminating in the studies further confidence that parts, materials and performed in the past 3 years at JPL and APL sensors/detectors are available to perform the with only minor changes to the mission, space- JEO mission as conceived. Most of the 27 craft and operational designs. By exploring documents and presentations are intended for scientific and implementation aspects early and public release via the http://opfm.jpl.nasa.gov thoroughly, the mission concept has become website. The primary audience for this infor- stable and less vulnerable to costly changes mation is potential instrument providers to without considerable analysis by the science help mitigate design and operational risk asso- and project team and so is no longer a signifi- ciated with instruments proposed to the An- cant risk item. nouncement of Opportunity. For JGO, the radiation exposure is much 4.0 NASA AND ESA IMPLEMENTATION lower and the approach is to keep the levels RESPONSIBILITIES low enough to use standard parts and materi- 4.1 Mission Elements als. Most of the information produced in the ESA will be responsible for the design, de- NASA 2008 effort is applicable to designs for velopment and test of the JGO flight and JGO as well. ground elements. ESA will also procure the The Planetary Protection sterilization re- launch vehicle and launch services for JGO. quirement for the JEO mission element is also NASA will be responsible for the design, a risk area. As discussed earlier, all compo- development and test of the JEO flight and nents, electronics and materials must be steril- ground elements. NASA will also be responsi- ized prior to entering Europa orbit. Early ble for procuring the launch vehicle and all identification of parts and materials which can launch services including launch approval for

Subject to NASA/ESA approval. 19 NASA/ESA JOINT SUMMARY REPORT JANUARY 16, 2009 EUROPA JUPITER SYSTEM MISSION

the JEO Flight System. tion and archiving, and science operation 4.2 Science Instruments planning. The science instruments aboard JGO and The management effort will build upon the JEO will be solicited via a coordinated An- relationships developed during the current nouncement of Opportunity (AO) by NASA study phase and following the selection of the and ESA for PI-led investigations and for destination in February 2009 and involve close interdisciplinary scientist (IDS) investigations. coordination between NASA and ESA and European instruments will be provided by partners and contractors. Technical Assistance national agencies and institutes, while US Agreements authorizing Caltech/JPL and Johns instruments will be from NASA Centers, uni- Hopkins University/APL to undertake coopera- versities, industry, or other science organiza- tives studies and implementation activities tions. No pre-determined assignment for in- with ESA and other entities and individual strument delivery is anticipated (e.g, facility European scientists have now been approved instrument). U.S. instruments on JGO or Euro- by the U.S. State Department and will facilitate close working relationship on the studies and pean instruments on the JEO could be selected the project when it begins. either from the natural selection process or at the discretion of the decision makers for the 5.0 NASA-ESA INTERDEPENDENCIES best interests of the mission (e.g., to have the same instrument on both spacecraft or to have 5.1 Launch Capabilities access to a key technology on both spacecraft). There are no launch interdependencies be- tween the ESA JGO mission element and the 4.3 Science Teams NASA JEO mission element. The launch date All selected investigation leads will form of these two mission elements is currently the Project Science Group (PSG) that will be scheduled so that the time that the two flight co-chaired by the NASA and the ESA Project elements are operating together in the Jupiter Scientist. European scientists will be funded system is maximized. Neither mission element through their national agencies. Given the long is dependent on deliveries from the other in mission duration, it is anticipated that a second order to launch. Also, many launch windows (or more) solicitation will be prudent as the for both mission elements exist with excellent flight systems approach Jupiter to engage synergistic science. If JEO and JGO are scientists who will not be available when the launched in separate opportunities 1 to 3 years initial AO is released (not yet established in apart, none of the Europa- and Ganymede- their field). specific science is impacted and science com- 4.4 Flight Operations plementarities will be retained; however, sci- ESA will be responsible for operating JGO ence synergies dependent on simultaneous while NASA will be responsible for operating observations in the Jupiter system will be JEO. The international PSG will work directly impacted due to the reduced time that JGO and with NASA and ESA to coordinate the science JEO spend in Jupiter orbit together. The poten- operations performed by the two flight ele- tial impact could be mitigated by lengthening ments to optimize the science return. the tour portion of the first element to reach Jupiter. 4.5 Management Approach Management of EJSM will draw from ex- 5.2 Telecommunications perience in the coordination of orbital missions There are no telecommunications interde- at Mars (the ESA and the NASA pendencies between the ESA JGO mission Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter). Since JEO and element and the NASA JEO mission element. JGO will be developed separately and 5.3 Radioisotope Power Systems launched separately on NASA and ESA LVs, There are no dependencies between NASA the ESA and NASA management structures do and ESA for radioisotope power systems. The not need to be tightly coupled. However, there JEO flight system will use radioisotope power will be coordination in the areas of spacecraft and radioisotope heating units (RHUs): the communications, science data product produc- JGO uses solar power and does not use RHUs.

Subject to NASA/ESA approval. 20 NASA/ESA JOINT SUMMARY REPORT JANUARY 16, 2009 EUROPA JUPITER SYSTEM MISSION

6.0 COST AND SCHEDULE “NASA Space Flight Program and Project Both NASA and ESA have estimated the Requirements.” The estimates represent the costs for their deliverable portions of the full life cycle and conservatively assume that EJSM. The estimation methods used by each all engineering and assemblies and individual agency are specific to the mission concept instruments will be re-designed to mitigate development process within the agency. NASA radiation and planetary protection risks (no has extensively studied a mission to the Jupiter box heritage assumed). No offsets have been system and Europa for several years and is taken for potential domestic or foreign contri- able to provide a fairly high-fidelity cost esti- butions. The cost estimate is shown in detail in mate with element costs provided by the im- the NASA Jupiter Europa Orbiter Mission plementation organizations and reviewed by Final Report [JPL D-48279]. independent cost review boards. 6.2 ESA Costs The JGO cost estimate is classified, accord- The preliminary cost evaluation performed ing to the ESA Cost Engineering Chart of during the CDF study suggests that the cost of Services (Issue 3), as Class 4 of a Moderate the current configuration of the JGO will stay Complexity project, performed in a normal below the Cosmic Vision L-Class mission cost time frame. envelope of 650M€. This estimate includes JAXA is still evaluating whether a contribu- costs for the JGO spacecraft, the Ariane 5 tion to the EJSM mission will be a piggy-back launch, mission operations and science opera- spacecraft on JGO or its own independently tions. It excludes the cost for the scientific launched mission (part of a instruments that are provided by science insti- mission). No cost estimate is provided here. tutes in ESA member states and funded nation- 6.1 NASA Costs ally. The JEO Phase A through F lifecycle cost 6.3 High-Level Schedule estimate for the baseline mission concept is The development schedules for JEO and $3.8 B RY ($2.7 B (FY07)) including 37% JGO for the baseline 2020 launch are based on reserves. The floor mission concept is esti- the standard development approaches used by mated at $3.0 B RY ($2.1 B ((FY07)). NASA- NASA and ESA. The JEO schedule was devel- only versions are identical to the baseline and oped in accordance with NPR7120.5D with floor and thus have the same cost. These esti- specific considerations to reduce development mates include costs for the JEO spacecraft, risk associated with the challenging and time- science and instruments, Atlas V 551 launch consuming radiation and planetary protection vehicle, power source, ground system and design developments. This schedule is shown operations. The Project cost assumes it will be in Figure 6-1. There are no technical obstacles categorized as a Class A via NPR 8705.4, to supporting launch dates as early as 2018. “Risk Classification for NASA Payloads,” and as a Category 1 Project per NPR 7120.5D Calendar Year (20xx) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Φ A JOI EOI EOM Φ B VGA EGA-1 EGA-2 Φ C JEO Φ D Jupiter Interplanetary Europa F Φ B1 Φ Φ B2 JOI ΦF VGA EGA-1 EGA-2 Ganymede Φ C Callisto Φ D Jupiter JGO Interplanetary GOI EOM Figure 6-1: The concurrent but independent development of the JGO and JEO flight elements allow simultaneous Jupiter System science, enabling unprecedented observations of a single phenomenon from two different vantage points.

Subject to NASA/ESA approval. 21 NASA/ESA JOINT SUMMARY REPORT JANUARY 16, 2009 EUROPA JUPITER SYSTEM MISSION

7.0 STUDY TEAM MEMBERS AND ROLES 7.3 ESA Study Team An international science and technical team The ESA effort was led by the study leader- was formed by NASA and ESA with the goal ship with the detailed technical aspects of the to develop a focused cost-effective Europa study largely being performed in the ESA Jupiter System Mission. The JJSDT and tech- Concurrent Design Facility (CDF) format. The nical team worked as a seamless integrated ESA Study Team membership is shown in unit to define a mission that fully responds to Table A-3 in Appendix A. The CDF Team took the Statement of Work and Ground Rules for the science, mission and payload requirements this study while at the same time assuring that documents provided by the JJSDT and Engi- the optimal balance between science cost and neering Team and developed the JGO concept risk was achieved. in a rapid, concurrent methodology utilized on 7.1 Joint Jupiter SDT Function and numerous ESA studies in the past. A total of Membership seven CDF Team sessions were used over the The international JJSDT, representing over course of two months. half-a-dozen countries, focused on the science 7.4 Other Study Support aspects while the study team focused on the Two other potential contributions to EJSM technical and programmatic aspects of the were reviewed by the JJSDT. Neither concept mission concept. The JJSDT membership is was accepted as a part of the baseline due to shown in Table A-1 in Appendix A. There was their lack of definition. Both could be re- extensive interaction between the science and considered in the future if desired. study members throughout the study ensuring JAXA continues to study potential ways to that the science goal and objectives were feasi- complement the NASA and ESA spacecraft by ble and realistic given the technical and pro- providing a third platform, the JMO. The grammatic constraints and approaches. Seven enhanced mission will offer a unique capability JJSDT meetings were held which included interactions with the study team. to perform 3-dimensional observations in the energetic center of the solar system. JMO will 7.2 NASA Study Team be launched as an additional payload with JGO NASA chartered JPL to lead a US study to or as a stand-alone launch. further define the 2007 Europa Explorer (EE) Interest was shown by the Russian Space mission concept while incorporating Jupiter Agency to provide a . Also, a System science, as defined in the 2007 Jupiter United Kingdom Consortium expressed inter- System Observer study. JPL was also chartered est in supplying a small penetrator. to refine the radiation risk reduction plan developed in 2007 and to begin executing the 8.0 GUIDE TO STUDY DOCUMENTATION plan. JPL enlisted APL to add additional exper- The international team from NASA and tise to this study. ESA has been building upon previous studies The NASA study team included personnel to configure a single mission concept which from JPL, Johns Hopkins University/Applied balances cost, risk and scientific value while Lab (JHU/APL), NASA and Ames responding to the science objectives of the Research Center (NASA ARC). The NASA Decadal Survey and Cosmic Vision Pro- Study Team membership is shown in Table gramme. The resulting Europa Jupiter System A-2 in Appendix A. JPL provided study leader- Mission is the culmination of over a decade of ship, task management, requirements defini- detailed conceptual studies resulting in two tion, system engineering, and mission system flight elements, JEO and JGO. The decoupling design (flight and ground). APL participated in of the design and delivery elements of the mission system engineering, requirements flight elements allows flexibility in all aspects analysis, project risk assessment, payload of mission development including study system engineering, project system integration documentation. An overview of the 2008 study and test and Phase E lessons learned. documentation and its immediate predecessors is shown in Figure 8-1.

Subject to NASA/ESA approval. 22 NASA/ESA JOINT SUMMARY REPORT JANUARY 16, 2009 EUROPA JUPITER SYSTEM MISSION

Figure 8-1: The 2008 NASA and ESA and studies are founded on extensive previous work and have produced detailed documentation to show the how the risk of designing for the challenging environment has been mitigated both by architecture and action, to ensure an executable mission concept which is scientifically engaging while maintaining significant cost and risk margins. 8.1 NASA Study Documentation the 2007 Jupiter System Observer [JPL D- 8.1.1 2007 OPFM Studies 38503]. The study of an orbital mission to Europa Neither of these studies included interna- started at NASA right after the arrival of Gali- tional participation and in fact both were con- leo in the Jupiter system. A synopsis of the ducted in parallel to ESA’s 2007 Cosmic Vi- NASA studies through 2007 is found in As- sion proposal cycle. sessment of Alternative Europa Mission Archi- The Europa Explorer concept was a very tectures [JPL 08-1]. In 2007, NASA initiated capable orbiter that conducted extensive Eu- Phase I studies of potential Outer Planet Flag- ropa science while in orbit at Europa. Jupiter ship missions to four icy satellite targets in- system science was not a Level 1 science cluding missions to Europa, the Jupiter system objective. The Jupiter System Observer con- and Ganymede. This breadth of study culmi- cept focused on Jupiter system science and nated last year in two reports: the 2007 Europa ultimately obtained orbit at Ganymede. Sci- Explorer Mission Concept [JPL D-34054] and ence, technical, and cost results from these

Subject to NASA/ESA approval. 23 NASA/ESA JOINT SUMMARY REPORT JANUARY 16, 2009 EUROPA JUPITER SYSTEM MISSION

studies were used as a stepping off point and bling technology requirements. Several of resource for the NASA portion of the 2008 these studies were focused on the Jupiter sys- EJSM Study. tem. 8.1.2 2008 Study Ground Rules and Statement of The main effort concentrated on the Jovian Work Minisat Explorer, to understand the challenges Upon completion of NASA’s 2007 OPFM of a remote sensing mission to Europa. The studies and their independent review, NASA study included two industrial studies, based on Headquarters elected to continue studying a solar powered and on radioisotope powered missions to two of those targets; Europa and spacecraft options as well as internal reviews the Jupiter System (hence EJSM) and Titan using the Agency’s CDF that resulted in further and the Saturn System (hence TSSM). In the evolution of the design. same time frame, NASA and ESA agreed that The Jupiter Entry Probe study, performed the 2008 studies will be done as a collaborative by a dedicated CDF team, was initiated to effort thereby integrating results from the 2007 investigate the critical technologies and issues NASA studies and ESA Cosmic Vision Pro- related to the design of a ballistic Jovian entry gramme selection. As a result, Ground Rules probe, with the aim of performing atmospheric and statement of work documents were devel- measurements during descent and to survive to oped and provided (as highlighted in Table an ambient up to 100 bar. 3-1) to further focus the Europa Jupiter System In the third study, the Jovian System Ex- Mission. The Ground Rules describe parame- plorer focuses on a cost-efficient and techno- ters and tasks constraining the OPFM studies; logically feasible mission architecture for a the Statement of Work provides additional multi-spacecraft exploration of the Jovian guidance on tasks and constraints unique to the magnetosphere and atmosphere, while provid- mission. ing a preliminary assessment of the logistics 8.1.3 2008 Mission Concept Study Report and enabling technology development. NASA Headquarters requirements to JPL 8.2.1 Laplace Proposal for Cosmic Vision 2015 – for execution of the 2008 JEO study are docu- 2025 mented in the form of a Statement of Work and In response to ESA’s call for mission pro- Ground Rules. The overarching approach was posals for the Cosmic Vision 2015 – 2025 to integrate the results of the two studies from Programme, which was issued in March 2007, 2007 (JSO and EE). The result of the mission the Laplace proposal was put forward by the concept development for the 2008 Jupiter scientific team. Following that submission, the Europa Orbiter Mission Concept can be found Laplace mission was selected for further study, described in: K. Clark, R. Greeley, and R. in collaboration with NASA, and the share of Pappalardo [2008], 2008 Jupiter Europa Or- responsibilities was agreed upon as presented biter Mission Study: Final Report, JPL in this report. D-48279. As a part of the 2008 NASA activity, 8.2.2 ESA CDF Report several documents related to risk mitigation for The ESA internal assessment of the Jupiter the radiation and planetary protection require- Ganymede Orbiter feasibility was carried out ments were released. A complete listing can be in May and June 2008 with the assistance of found in the 2008 JEO Final Report. ESA/ESTEC Concurrent Design Facility and 8.2 ESA Study Documentation ESA/ESOC for mission analysis and mission In 2003, ESA’s Science Payload & Ad- operations. The CDF consists of a temporary vanced Concepts Office started a combination team of about 25 engineers of all involved of activities to identify and to start the devel- disciplines and studied possible design options, opment of critical technologies that will be including high level trade-offs being able to required for future scientific missions. This converge on a preliminary optimized design. was done through studying several challenging This process allows identification of critical and scientifically relevant missions, which elements, and also highlighting of technology were not part of ESA's science program at the needs. A preliminary budget of the studied time, and focusing on the medium term ena- elements was provided. The CDF team performed a bottom up de-

Subject to NASA/ESA approval. 24 NASA/ESA JOINT SUMMARY REPORT JANUARY 16, 2009 EUROPA JUPITER SYSTEM MISSION

sign of the orbiter. A final report from that 8. The Risk Mitigation Plan: Radiation and effort was delivered. Planetary Protection has been reviewed by 8.2.3 ESA Assessment Report technical experts at APL and JPL. The conclusions of the CDF Report were 9. Finally, the overall concept study report taken as input to this assessment report. The was reviewed by both JPL and APL man- main elements that were studied in the CDF agement prior to submission to NASA for activity were used for this report. However the independent review. baseline choice of final mission parameters and instruments has changed slightly since the 9.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS completion of the CDF study and the descrip- The Europa Jupiter System Mission (EJSM) tion of the new baseline is included in this concept represents the culmination of recent report. NASA and ESA efforts to define a mission to 8.3 Study Review Process the Jupiter system that will represent a major Elements of the JEO study report have been scientific step beyond the Galileo mission. In reviewed extensively by independent sets of 2007, NASA performed mission concept stud- discipline specialists and by APL/JPL man- ies focused on four icy moon targets including agement as follows: two in the Jupiter system - Europa and Gany- 1. The team has gained the support of the mede. Also in 2007, ESA put forth its Cosmic NASA PPO for the PP approach concept Vision 2015 – 2025 call for mission concepts [Conley 2006] which was re-iterated in which resulted in selection of the Laplace 2008. concept for a mission to the Jupiter system. In February 2008, NASA and ESA Study teams 2. The Science Goals and Objectives were began working very closely to integrate subjected to a review at various science NASA’s Europa Explorer and ESA’s Laplace meetings by independent planetary scien- concept as EJSM under the guidance of a Joint tists. Jupiter Science Definition Team. This Joint 3. The Science Goals and Objectives and the Summary Report describes the principal fea- mission concept were presented at the Outer tures of EJSM. More detailed documentation Planets Assessment Group (OPAG) meeting for in-depth study of EJSM is described and in April and November 2008. referenced in Section 8. 4. The mission concept and approach was EJSM will conduct a comprehensive explo- subjected to two NASA HQ interim reviews ration of the Jupiter system while also per- in April and June of 2008. forming focused science related to formulated 5. Subsystems were subjected to focused hypotheses. internal reviews by JPL and APL personnel • Investigates the emergence of habitable for technical validity including detailed worlds around gas giants by intensively ex- comparison and contrasting with other ploring two icy worlds with global oceans - flight proven subsystems. Europa and Ganymede. 6. The mission concept, measurement re- • Leverages synergistic NASA/ESA re- quirements, planning payload, science op- sources, reduces risk, and ensures technical erational scenario, risk mitigation plans and readiness. overall approach was presented to the broad • Ensures programmatic flexibility with science and technical community through independent and frequent launch opportuni- the conduct of an Instrument Workshop in ties. June of 2008 and various conferences, sym- • Enables dramatic increases in scientific posiums, and workshops to communicate knowledge by using the latest technology, results and solicit external feedback. focused instruments and tailored trajecto- 7. The mission implementation has been ries. reviewed by technical, management, and • Engages scientists from the full range of cost review boards and line management disciplines – Geology, organizations internal to JPL and APL. , Atmospheres, Astrobiology, Chemistry, and Magnetospheres.

Subject to NASA/ESA approval. 25 NASA/ESA JOINT SUMMARY REPORT JANUARY 16, 2009 EUROPA JUPITER SYSTEM MISSION

The baseline architecture for EJSM consists of two primary elements operating in the Jovian system at or close to the same time: the NASA-led Jupiter Europa Orbiter (JEO), and the ESA-led Jupiter Ganymede Orbiter (JGO). JEO and JGO are two free-flying flight ele- ments with unique yet synergistic science objectives. JEO and JGO execute intricately choreographed and coordinated exploration of the Jupiter System with numerous flybys of Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto before they are inserted into orbit of Europa and Gany- mede. The scientific return is resilient to changes in the launch date of either JEO or JGO. Each flight system carries specifically selected and complementary instruments to monitor time-varying phenomena such as Io’s volcanoes and Jupiter’s Red Spot, map the intricate interrelationship of Jupiter’s magneto- sphere with that of Ganymede and to probe beneath the ice shells of Europa and Gany- mede. Both JEO and JGO flight system designs are based on already proven functionality of deep space orbiters. No new technologies are needed for JEO or JGO although significant engineering developments are required for JEO (radiation designs) and JGO. Current risk mitigation activities are under way to ensure that the radiation designs are implemented with the lowest risk approach. The robust baseline mission concepts include generous mass and power margins. In addition to the JEO baseline mission concept described herein, NASA requested that a NASA only mission and floor mission con- cepts (with the prioritized descopes from the baseline) be developed. For JEO, due to the independence of the launches, the NASA-only mission is identical to the JEO baseline con- cept. EJSM is a robust mission concept which will revolutionize scientific knowledge of Europa, Ganymede and the Jupiter system. Both scientifically and technically mature, it is ready to be initiated now.

Subject to NASA/ESA approval. 26 NASA/ESA JOINT SUMMARY REPORT JANUARY 16, 2009 EUROPA JUPITER SYSTEM MISSION

APPENDIX A. STUDY TEAM MEMBERS Table A-1: The Joint Jupiter Science Definition Team draws from over half-a-dozen different countries and 3 continents. The international team worked in an integrated fashion to form the theme, goals, and objectives for EJSM. In addition, the JJSDT gathered input from two dedicated community science forums and 18 invited talks. Name Affiliation Expertise US JJSDT Membership —Co-Chair Arizona State University Europa Bob Pappalardo – Study Scientist Jet Propulsion Laboratory Europa and Jupiter System Anbar Arizona State University Astrobiology Bruce Bills Goddard Space Flight Center Geophysics Diana Blaney Jet Propulsion Laboratory Composition Don Blankenship University of Radar/Geophysics Phil Christensen Arizona State University Composition Brad Dalton Jet Propulsion Laboratory Composition University of Washington Astrobiology Leigh Fletcher Jet Propulsion Laboratory Jupiter Atmosphere Rick Greenberg Geophysics Kevin Hand Jet Propulsion Laboratory Astrobiology Amanda Hendrix Jet Propulsion Laboratory Satellites Krishan Khurana University of California Los Angeles Fields & Particles Tom McCord Bear Fight Center Composition Melissa McGrath Marshall Space Flight Center Satellites Bill Moore University of California Los Angeles Geophysics Jeff Moore Ames Research Center Geology Francis Nimmo University of California Santa Cruz Geophysics Chris Paranicas John Hopkins University — Applied Physics Lab Fields & Particles Louise Prockter John Hopkins University — Applied Physics Lab Geology Jerry Schubert University of California Los Angeles Jupiter David Senske Jet Propulsion Laboratory Satellites Adam Showman University of Arizona Jupiter Mark Showalter SETI Institute Rings Mitch Sogin Marine Biological Laboratory Astrobiology John Spencer South West Research Institute Satellites Hunter Waite South West Research Institute Fields & Particles European JJSDT Membership Jean-Pierre Lebreton — Co-Chair European Space Agency Plasma Physics Michel Blanc — Lead-Scientist École Polytechnique Magnetospheres Olga Prieto-Ballasteros INTA Astrobiology Lorenzo Bruzzone University of Trento Radar/Geophysics Imperial College Fields & Particles Pierre Drossart Observatory Jupiter Olivier Grasset University of Nantes Geology Hauke Huβman German Aerospace Centre (DLR) Geophysics Norbert Krupp Max Planck Institute Fields & Particles Frank Sohl German Aerospace Centre (DLR) Geophysics Paolo Tortora University of Bologna Radio Science Federico Tosi Institute of Physics of Interplanetary Space Origins Ingo Mueller-Wodarg Imperial College Fields & Particles Peter Wurz University of Bern Origins

Subject to NASA/ESA approval. 27 NASA/ESA JOINT SUMMARY REPORT JANUARY 16, 2009 EUROPA JUPITER SYSTEM MISSION

Name Affiliation Expertise Japan JJSDT Membership Masaki Fujimoto Institute of Space and Astronautical Science / Fields & Particles Japan Agency Takeshi Takashima Institute of Space and Astronautical Science / Fields & Particles Japan Space Exploration Agency Sho Sasaki National Astronomical Observatory of Japan Satellites Yasumasa Kasaba Tohoku University Fields & Particles Yukihiro Takahashi Tohoku University Jupiter

Table A-2: The integrated NASA technical team draws from organizations with deep-space mission experience as well as a wealth of experience in radiation design to define the NASA-led element of EJSM: JEO. The focus of this year’s NASA effort was the JEO conceptual designs and risk reduction related to radiation and planetary protection. Member Affiliation Expertise Ronald Greeley – Co-Chair Arizona State University Europa Bob Pappalardo – Study Scientist Jet Propulsion Laboratory Europa and Jupiter System Karla Clark – NASA Study Lead Jet Propulsion Laboratory Project Management and Systems Engineering Tom Magner John Hopkins University — Applied Physics Lab Project Management Arden Accord Jet Propulsion Laboratory Assembly, Test and Launch Operations Jim Alexander Jet Propulsion Laboratory Attitude and Articulation Control Subsystem Heidi Becker Jet Propulsion Laboratory Sensor Design Matthew Bennett Jet Propulsion Laboratory Software Ed Blazejewski Jet Propulsion Laboratory Sensor Radiation Effects John Boldt John Hopkins University — Applied Physics Lab Payload Engineering Paul Bowerman Jet Propulsion Laboratory Circuit Reliability Kate Coburn Jet Propulsion Laboratory Enterprise Support, Secretarial Hugo Darlington John Hopkins University — Applied Physics Lab Narrow-Angle Camera Instrumentation Taher Daud Jet Propulsion Laboratory Avionics Ken Donahue – Student Jet Propulsion Laboratory — Massachusetts Systems Engineering Institute of Technology Paul Doronila Jet Propulsion Laboratory Visualization Mohamed Elghefari Jet Propulsion Laboratory Cost Nayla Fernandez Jet Propulsion Laboratory Electronic Parts Sarah Ferraro - Student Jet Propulsion Laboratory — Harvey Mudd College System Engineering Bill Folkner Jet Propulsion Laboratory Radio Science Instrumentation Marc Foote Jet Propulsion Laboratory Thermal Instrumentation Henry Garrett Jet Propulsion Laboratory Jupiter Environments Dan Goods Jet Propulsion Laboratory Artist Paula Grunthaner Jet Propulsion Laboratory Instrument Workshop, Sensors and Detectors Dave Hansen Jet Propulsion Laboratory Telecommunications Ted Hartka John Hopkins University — Applied Physics Lab Mechanical, Structure, and Mechanisms Ken Hibbard John Hopkins University — Applied Physics Lab Systems Engineering Mark Holdridge John Hopkins University — Applied Physics Lab Operations Denise Hollert Jet Propulsion Laboratory Structures and Mechanisms Kevin Hussey Jet Propulsion Laboratory Visualization Steve Jaskulek John Hopkins University — Applied Physics Lab Particle and Plasma Instrumentation Allan Johnston Jet Propulsion Laboratory Electronic Parts Ed Jorgenson Jet Propulsion Laboratory Cost Insoo Jun Jet Propulsion Laboratory Radiation Environments and Shielding Richard Key Jet Propulsion Laboratory Systems Engineering

Subject to NASA/ESA approval. 28 NASA/ESA JOINT SUMMARY REPORT JANUARY 16, 2009 EUROPA JUPITER SYSTEM MISSION

Member Affiliation Expertise James Kinnison John Hopkins University — Applied Physics Lab Systems Engineering — Risk Assessment Ken Klaasen Jet Propulsion Laboratory Instruments Kevin Kloster – Student Jet Propulsion Laboratory — Purdue University Trajectory Design Kevin Lane Jet Propulsion Laboratory Visualization Sima Lisman Jet Propulsion Laboratory Attitude and Articulation Control Subsystem Rob Lock Jet Propulsion Laboratory Mission Planning and Operational Scenarios Jan Ludwinski Jet Propulsion Laboratory Mission Design Carolina Maldonado Jet Propulsion Laboratory Command and Data Handling Bill McClintock Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics UV Spectrometer Instrumentation Steve McClure Jet Propulsion Laboratory Electronic Parts Peter Meakin Jet Propulsion Laboratory Attitude, Articulation and Control Joe Means University of California Los Angeles Magnetometer Instrumentation Anthony Mittskus Jet Propulsion Laboratory Telecommunications Robert Miyaki Jet Propulsion Laboratory Thermal Control Ricardo Mondoza Jet Propulsion Laboratory Telecommunications Ted Moshir Jet Propulsion Laboratory System Modeling Dave Muliere Jet Propulsion Laboratory VIS-IR Spectrometer Instrumentation Barry Nakazono Jet Propulsion Laboratory Propulsion Pablo Narvaez Jet Propulsion Laboratory EMI/EMc/Magnetics Joe Neelon Jet Propulsion Laboratory Operational Scenarios Bill Nesmith Jet Propulsion Laboratory ASRG/RPS Matt Noble John Hopkins University — Applied Physics Lab Camera Package Instrumentation Brian Okerlund Jet Propulsion Laboratory Configuration Joon Park Jet Propulsion Laboratory Artist Anastassios Petropoulos Jet Propulsion Laboratory Trajectory Design Nick Pinkine John Hopkins University — Applied Physics Lab Operations Lessons Learned Bob Rasmussen Jet Propulsion Laboratory Systems Engineering Ed Reynolds John Hopkins University — Applied Physics Lab Project Management David Roth John Hopkins University — Applied Physics Lab Radiation Effects Ian Ruiz Jet Propulsion Laboratory Command and Data Handling Ali Safaeinili Jet Propulsion Laboratory Ice Penetrating Radar Instrumentation Karen Sampley Jet Propulsion Laboratory Enterprise Support, Secretarial Paul Schmitz Glenn Research Center ASRG/RPS Calina Seybold Jet Propulsion Laboratory Command and Data Handling Mike Shafto Ames Research Center Operations Eddy Shalom Jet Propulsion Laboratory Avionics Richard Shaltens Glenn Research Center ASRG/RPS Doug Sheldon Jet Propulsion Laboratory ASICs and FPGAs Jon Sims Jet Propulsion Laboratory Trajectory Design Dave Smith NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Laser Altimeter Instrumentation Andy Spry Jet Propulsion Laboratory Planetary Protection Karl Strauss Jet Propulsion Laboratory Solid State Memory Erick Sturm Jet Propulsion Laboratory Systems Engineering Grace Tan-Wang Jet Propulsion Laboratory Systems Engineering Steve Thibault John Hopkins University — Applied Physics Lab Integration and Test Valerie Thomas Jet Propulsion Laboratory Mission Assurance Paul Timmerman Jet Propulsion Laboratory Power Dogan Timucin Ames Research Center Radiation Circuit Modeling Violet Tissot Jet Propulsion Laboratory Schedules Ramona Tung Jet Propulsion Laboratory Telecommunications Steve Vance Jet Propulsion Laboratory Science

Subject to NASA/ESA approval. 29 NASA/ESA JOINT SUMMARY REPORT JANUARY 16, 2009 EUROPA JUPITER SYSTEM MISSION

Member Affiliation Expertise Tracy Van Houten Jet Propulsion Laboratory Systems Engineering Corby Waste Jet Propulsion Laboratory Artist Kevin Weaver Ames Research Center Radiation Circuit Modeling Greg Welz Jet Propulsion Laboratory Operations Lawrence Wilfarth John Hopkins University — Applied Physics Lab Cost Ed Wong Jet Propulsion Laboratory Attitude and Articulation Control Subsystem Peter Wurz University of Bern Ion & Neutral Mass Spectrometer Instrumentation Tsun-Yee Yan Jet Propulsion Laboratory Radiation Effort Management and System Model Chen-Wan Yen Jet Propulsion Laboratory Trajectory Design Mary Young Jet Propulsion Laboratory Documentation

Table A-3: The ESA technical team utilized the broad experience base of the Concurrent Design Facility to rapidly digest the science, payload and mission requirements to arrive at a conceptual design for JGO which met the needs of the JJSDT. Member Affiliation Expertise Anamarija Stankov — ESA Study Manager European Space Agency Project Management and Systems Engineering Peter Falkner European Space Agency Project Management and Systems Engineering Arno Wielders — Study Payload Manager European Space Agency Payload Management Robin Biesbroek — Concurrent Design Facility Study Lead European Space Agency System Engineering and Mission Analysis Massimo Bertinelli European Space Agency Communications Torsten Bieler European Space Agency Cost Arnaud Boutonnet European Space Agency Mission Analysis Andrew Caldwell European Space Agency Systems Engineering Marco Chiappone European Space Agency Risk Giovanni Chirulli European Space Agency Thermal Systems Antonio G. De Luca European Space Agency Power Paolo De Pascale European Space Agency Mission Analysis Don De Wilde European Space Agency Configuration/Structure Jean-Francois Dufour European Space Agency Data Handling Domenico Giunta European Space Agency Communications Borja Gutierrez European Space Agency Simulation Naomi A. Murdoch European Space Agency Instruments Sandra Oberhollenzer European Space Agency Propulsion Massimo Palladino European Space Agency Mechanisms Ulrike Ragnit European Space Agency Programmatics Ilaria Roma European Space Agency Systems Engineering Jens Romstedt European Space Agency Planetary Protection Giovanni Santin European Space Agency Radiation John Sorenson European Space Agency Radiation Keith Stephenson European Space Agency Power Rainer Timm European Space Agency Ground System and Operations Thomas Voirin European Space Agency Guidance, Navigation and Control

Note the document numbers for the Joint Summary Report delivered to NASA and ESA Headquarters on 11/15/2008: JPL D-48440 and ESA-SRE(2008)1.

Subject to NASA/ESA approval. 30