Human Exploration of Phobos Mike Gernhardt Phd. Nasa

Home , Andrew Abercromby, Bill Todd, NEEMO, Pascal Lee, Phobos (mythology), Steve Chappell

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Human Exploration of Phobos

Mike Gernhardt PhD. Nasa JSC Human Spaceflight Architecture Mars Moons Team

• Paul Abell • James Johnson • Dina Poncia • Andrew Abercromby • Dave Lee • David Reeves • Charles Allton • Pascal Lee • Mike Wright • Paul Bielski • Harry Litaker • Michelle Rucker • Dan Brit • Stan Love • Greg Schmidt • Steve Chappell • Mark Lupisella • Bill Todd • Bryan Cloyd • Dan Mazanek • Pat Troutman • David Coan • Natalie Mary • Ma Simon • Zack Crues • Fay McKinney • Larry Toups • Dan Dexter • Gabe Merrill • Mike Gernhardt • Nathan Moore • Bill Harris • Rob Mueller • A. Sco Howe • Tom Percy • Steve Hoffman • Tara Polsgrove • Sharon Jefferies • Jason Poffenberger Phobos/Deimos Human Missions

Human Architecture Team Task 7C: Mars Moons

Phobos 27x22x18 km Deimos 15x12x10 km Mars Moons - Introduction

• Mars’ moons are interesng scienfically and potenally offer engineering, operaonal, and public engagement benefits that could enhance subsequent mars surface operaons o Mars moons interesng in themselves and would also likely provide insights into the evoluon of Mars o Mulple scienfic benefits: 1) Moons of Mars, 2) possibly captured asteroids 3) likely contains Mars surface materials 4) likely collecon of materials from asteroid belt 5) near-zero latency tele-operaon of Mars surface assets o Potenally an affordable and producve first-step towards eventual Mars surface operaons • Provides significant radiaon protecon • Phobos and Deimos are both interesng exploraon desnaons o With current imagery, we know Phobos is interesng because of craters and fissures etc. It is also the driving transportaon case and therefore the focus of this study o We are formulang a precursor mission that would look at both moons Maximum Vercal Jump – 650 lb. Suited Crew (crew + suit + jetpack)

Maximum Vercal Jump w/ 2 m/s Take-Oﬀ Velocity 1000.0 666.7 500.0 350.9 1.2 0.0 Vercal Height (m)

Weight on Phobos lbf Crewmember in a Suit 0.3 SEV (6,000 kg) 7.7 Time of Flight Habitat (15,000 kg) 19.2 Moon 2.5 sec. Lander (50,000 kg) 63.9 Phobos 11.7 min. Deimos 22.2 min. Apollo 16 – John Young’s Jump Salute 5 Mars Moons Trade Tree Based on Campaign Team & Transportation Team Recommendations & Discussions

Pre-Staged Mars Moon Work- Destinations Transportation Assets Habitat systems

Phobos / Jetpacks Conjunction None Phobos Only Deimos Class Unpressurized Surface Mars Moon Excursion Habitat Direct to Static Vehicle Deimos Only Phobos Mars Moon Relocatable Pressurized Habitat Excursion Phobos + Earth ↔ Mars + PEV(s) Phobos Vehicle Deimos Transit Stack in HMO Parking Orbit SEV-class

L1 Mars Free-Return Lander Trajectory L4 / L5 Class Loitering Hab DRO Dual Hab

6 Radiation Exposure u Cumulave exposure calculated using Phase 1 methodology • i.e. Oltaris exposure esmates adjusted for occlusion of sky due to Mars and Phobos (incl. 10o crater rim for surface missions) u Total radiaon dose reduced by up to 34% for Phobos surface Hab

Updated Regions of Interest on Phobos

These are examples of areas of interest on Phobos for invesgaon: 9 11 1) Floor of Sckney Crater 2) Side wall of Sckney Crater 8 3) Far rim of Sckney Crater 10 4) Overturn of Sckney Crater and grooves 7 5) Overlap of yellow and 6 white units 1 4 6) Overlap of red and white units with grooves 5 2 3 7) Opposite rim of Sckney and start of grooves 8) Brown outlined unit and “mid-point” of grooves 9) “End point” of grooves Very likely in reality that some of these sites (i.e., inside Sckney crater) may have to be expanded to cover larger 10) “Young” fresh crater areas to obtain the desired science. 11) “Deep” groove structure

Phobos Exploration EVA Timeline Analysis

• For analysis purposes, ulize DRAFT science “regions” of interest defined by sciensts (1-11) 9 11 • Defined 1-km diameter “sites” in each region • Traverses would explore “sites” in each region by performing 8 acvies at 5 smaller “subsites” (~15 m radius) within each 10 “site” • Standard circuit at each “subsite” consists of a standard series of 7 6 tasks, e.g. 2 float samples, 1 soil, 1 core, 1 hammer chip, and an 1 4 instrument deploy task. • 11 near field survey ( 1km dia each) and 55 standard circuits 5 2 3 including drill deploys • 16 detailed EVA Timelines developed (i.e. standard circuit, near- field survey, drill deploy, etc.) for 4 different Ops Cons / work- system combinaons

H1 4 Standard Circuit 1 at Subsite 15 m F1 500 m 6 I Legend 5 • F = ﬂoat S1 SUBSITE C1 • H = hammer chip 3 • SITE 2 S = soil F2 • C = core • I = instr. deploy

Work-System Concepts

Jetpacks (+ Mobile Payload Carrier) Unpressurized Excursion Vehicle

Pressurized Excursion Vehicle

11 Low Energy Escapes from the Surface of Phobos

Dots along trajectories indicate 1 hour marks out to 6 hours. The dashed segments then extend out to 1 day.

12 Contingency Return Estimates

• Assume return to radiaon shelter required within 20 minutes (CxP requirement) – Green indicates < 20 mins • Esmates assume uniform Phobos gravitaonal eﬀects and neglect curvature of Phobos • Assumes 0.1 ms-2 max acceleraon / deceleraon

Never reach max allowable speed

13 PEV Options

• SEV-class vehicle with RCS Sled & Hopper

SEV + RCS • SEV-class vehicle with Sled + SEV/HAL- Hopper RCS sled only Derived SEV + RCS Sled • SEV-based taxi/lander

• MAV derived

MAV-Derived Taxi/ Lander MAV-Derived Taxi/Lander (vercal) (horizontal) PEV based EVA on Phobos

Zack Crues/ER7, Guy de Carufel/OSR, August 20, 2014 Dan Dexter/ER7 15

Common Cabin Approach with Standard Interfaces Expl. Atmos. Validation

HAL-Taxi-PEV-MAV-SPR

Standard Interface

ECLSS

Mars Transit Vehicle

Habitat

Dust Tolerance & Mitigation

EVA Systems

Core Cabin

Begin with cabin design for Mars surface and then work backwards to Mars moons, ARM, etc 17 Integrated Phobos Model u Combines the following data: • Copernicus esmates of Delta-V for DRO ↔ Surface and Surface ↔ Surface gross translaons (Dave Lee) • NExSys esmates of Delta-V for 5m to 500m surface translaons (Zack Crues, Dan Dexter & NExSys team) • Logiscs esmates (Kandyce Goodliff’s calculator) • Habitat esmates (Ma Simon, David Reeves) • Detailed EVA melines (Steve Chappell) • HMO ↔ Phobos service module esmates (based on data from Tara Polsgrove) • Idenfied regions of scienfic interest (Paul Abell) u Generates mission-level esmates and comparisons of 70+ figures of merit including system masses, logiscs, crew me, EVA me, EVA overhead, EVA producvity, and propellant

Human Spaceﬂight Architecture Team NASA Internal Use Only – Not for Distribuon 18 HAT Task 1x PEV 2x PEV 2x PEV 2x PEV Minimal Minimal Taxi 7C: (1 as Taxi) (1 as Taxi) (1 as Taxi) Taxi / Lander Moons of + + DRO Habitat Surface Hab Mars

+ Log Modules Mobile Hab

Crew/ Duraon 2 crew / 4 crew / 4 crew / 500 4 crew / 500 2 crew / 50 4 crew / 500 @ Phobos 50 days 50 days days [1000 d] days [1000 d] days days [1000 d] Pre-Staged to -PEV+RCS Sled -PEV + RCS sled -PEV + RCS Sled - Mobile Hab Nothing Nothing Phobos -Log. Modules -Habitat -Habitat (incl. prop) Pre-Staged 33,536 kg 31,893 - 37,383 32,000 kg - 11,021kg - Mass (kg) [45,246 kg] [40,509 - 46,098] [43,943kg] -Minimal Launched to -PEV Taxi+SM Taxi / Lander + -Minimal Taxi + -PEV Taxi + SM - PEV-Taxi + SM - PEV-Taxi + SM HMO -Log Modules SM SM -Log Modules Mass to HMO 35,703 kg 25,305 kg 25,305 kg 25,305 kg 24,303 kg 13,579 kg % Science Sites 100% 100% 100% [200%] 100% [200%] 20% 100% [200%] achieved Radiaon Dose 97% 97% 94-96% 66-80% 97% 66-80% vs. HMO-only RCS Sled, RCS Sled, Hab landing legs, Phobos-speciﬁc RCS Sled, Hab landing oponal oponal RCS Sled, - elements oponal Hopper legs Hopper Hopper oponal Hopper 19 Phobos Mission Mass (deltas to Mars Orbital Mission)

20 20 Cases 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, & 2.7

How Long to Complete “Reference Science Content”? (From Phase 1 analysis, 100% = Standard EVA task circuit completed at 11 regions x 5 sites per region)

Case 2.6 21 21 Phobos Hopper ATHLETE (6 Limbs)

MMSEV cabin

Pros: - Exisng technology - Footpads can be swapped for wheels or other ATHLETE-derived limbs implements for Mars surface use

ATHLETE-derived leg MEL (kg) qty Hip yaw 20.8 1 20.80 Hip pitch 24.4 1 24.40 Lower thigh 4.6 1 4.60 Knee pitch 16.4 1 16.40 Knee roll 13.8 1 13.80 Shin 1.8 1 1.80 Cons: Ankle pitch 11.2 1 11.20 - Landing strain on ATHLETE Ankle roll 13.6 1 13.60 Ratchet spring for FT sensor 10 1 10.00 joints Footpad cylinder 55 1 55.00 capturing landing energy Footpad sha 3.6 1 3.60 - Six limbs good for walking, Footpad spring 2 1 2.00 but maybe not necessary Footpad 23 1 23.00 Ball joint footpad with Avionics 43.3 1 43.33 for hopper passive spring for Total / leg 243.53 Total suspension system 6 1461.20 leveling Human Spaceﬂight Architecture Team NASA Internal Use Only – Not for Distribuon 23 Human Spaceﬂight Architecture Team NASA Internal Use Only – Not for Distribuon 24 Mars Moons Task Conceptual Design

• Conceptual design of a mobile surface habitat – Close on concept(s) for mobile Phobos surface habitat; consider cislunar, transit, and Mars surface commonality as much as possible – Include propulsion and legs for landing and for gross and local mobility once on surface

ATHLETE

? ARM-Derived

Fixed Legs Mobile Surface Hab Exploration Assumptions

H1 9 11 4 1 8 500 m 15 m F1 10 6 I 7 5 6 SITE S1 SUBSITE 1 C1 4 3 2 5 F2 2 3 Standard Circuit at Subsite Legend • F = ﬂoat • Assumes a mobile habitat / • H = hammer chip • S = soil vehicle that uses thrusters • C = core for gross reposioning • I = instr. deploy • Opons for thrusters and/ or “walking legs” to move to subsites within a site Surface Hab Descent Motor Cutoﬀ at Altude to Minimize Surface Plume Contaminaon • During descent, the Surface Hab can terminate propulsive thrusng at a maximum altude of 95 to 155 m to minimize surface plume contaminaon – Low gravity levels on Phobos allow acceptable touchdown velocies • Thrust vector during approach may be at an oblique angle to the surface, further minimizing contaminaon

Kinemac analysis of landing gear moon yields NExSyS simulaon of Free-Fall in Phobos gravity touchdown velocity limit of about 1.08 m/s yields max engine cutoﬀ altude of 95 to 155 m depending on locaon (~4.6 mins) Airlock (with 14.7 psi / 21% O2)

• Airlock: – ISLE Prebreathe Protocol: 3h 39 min – Airlock Egress: 5 min – Jetpack Donning & Checkout: ~15 min – Jetpack Doffing & Configuration for Recharge: ~15 min – Suit cleaning & verification: minimum 20 min – Airlock Ingress: 10 min Total Overhead: 4h 44 min • Work Efficiency Index: 1.37 (assumes 6.5 hr EVA) Suit Port (with Exploration Atmosphere):

• Suit Port Egress ♦ Suit Port Egress: 20 min • Don Suit: 8 min ♦ Jetpack Donning & Checkout: ~15 min • Close/lock hatch: 1 min • ♦ Jetpack Doffing & Config for Recharge: ~15 Mode to PRESS (6.0 PSI): 0.5 min • min Leak check in suit: 2 min • Purge: 2 min ♦ Suit Cleaning: 5 min • Mode to EVA (6 PSI): 0.5 min • Start prebreathe clock ♦ Suitport Ingress:10 min • Vesbule depress to 3.5 PSI: 1 min Total Overhead: 1h 5 min • Leak Check: 1 min • ♦ Work Efficiency Index: 6.0 Vesbule depress to 0 PSI: 1 min (assumes 6.5 hr EVA) • Release from Suit Port: 1 min

• Suit Port Ingress: • Engage Suit Port (red) • Vesbule press to 8.0 PSI • Leak Check 1 min • Vesbule-Cabin press equalizaon • Vesbule-Cabin-Suit equalizaon • Open PLSS lock • Open hatch (blue) • Close PLSS lock • Egress suit EVA Crew can work from PFR and/or BRT Reconfigurable booms increase radius of influence from surface habitat EVA Jetpacks increase range up to ~1 km at expense of worksite stabilizaon • NEEMO 20 will invesgate the concept of having a deployable structure on a Phobos Habitat. • This device would allow for translaon and body-stabilized acvies off a Phobos habitat providing access to a wide area to study from a single landing site on Phobos, which is a body with milligravity.

Page No. 33 Pre-decisional, For Internal Use Only LLT Sequence Summary

Approx. Approx. Duration Duration Latency w/ comm LLT Sequence w/ LOS Sensitivity relay (days) (days)

1. Landing Site Recon & Hazard Assessment 119 91 2

2. Offloading 18 7 3

3. Power Cable Deploy w/o trenching & burying 5 5 1

4. Power Cable Deploy with trenching & burying 138 53 4

5. O2 Production 2 2 2

6. MAV Fuel 3 1.5 2

TOTAL without burying power cable 147 107 *

TOTAL w burying power cable 280 155 ** * Indicates ~ 28% less me for LLT ops if connuous comm available – e.g. comm relay(s). ** Indicates cable burying me could be reduced almost by half if connuous comm is available.

Exisng melines provide on the order of 180 days in a 450day mission available for LLT

NASA Pre-Decisional – Internal Use Only – Do Not Distribute michael.r.wright@nasa.gov / [email protected] 34 RRM Coolant Valve Panel (CVP): ~100 hours, ~800 pages of procedures, ~10,000+ commands excluding video support. • Does not include MT/SSRMS/SPDM pre-setup or post relocaon. • Checked out 3 tools (SCT, MFT, WCT) • Using Mul Funcon Tool(MFT) released the 7 MFT adapter receptacle launch locks • Using the Wire Cung Tool(WCT) cut T-Valve wire and Ambient Cap wire • T-Valve removed using MFT and T-Valve Adapter • Ambient Cap removed using MFT and Ambient Cap Adapter • Plug manipulated using MFT and Plug Manipulator Adapter Refueling Ops: ~80 hours, ~600 pages, ~7,500 commands • Terary Cap safety wire cut and Safety Cap safety wire cut using WCT • Terary Cap removed using MFT and Terary Cap Adapter • Safety Cap removed using SCT • Plumb valve acquired and actuated using ENT • Refueling ops completed Evolvability of Phobos Systems from Cis-Lunar

Items evolvable from Cis-Lunar shown in green

Solar Electric Propulsion Deep Space Habitat Cryogenic Propulsion Orion + (SEP) (DSH) Stage(CPS) Service Module

Phobos Surface Phobos Exploraon Suit Ports w/ Habitat w/ Taxi (shown as Vehicle (PEV) (shown Exploraon Landing System HAL/PEV-derived) w/ RCS sled) Atmospheres Evolvability of Phobos Systems to Mars Surface

Items not Mars-forward are shown in red

Solar Electric Propulsion Deep Space Habitat Cryogenic Propulsion Orion + (SEP) (DSH) Stage(CPS) Service Module

Phobos Surface Phobos Exploraon Suit Ports w/ Habitat w/ Taxi (shown as Vehicle (PEV) (shown Exploraon Landing System HAL/PEV-derived) w/ RCS sled) Atmospheres Systems Needed for Mars Surface (Systems needed for Phobos in Green)

Solar Electric Deep Space Habitat Cryogenic Propulsion Orion + SLS Propulsion (SEP) (DSH) Stage(CPS) Service Module HAL

Small Pressurized Suit Ports w/ Rover (SPR) Exploraon Aeroshell MAV Surface Habitat Lander Atmospheres

UPR ISRU Nuclear Logiscs Oﬄoading Exploraon Power Modules Power Cable Systems EVA Suits Roboc Rover Systems Affordability

• Phobos is a step in the direcon of Mars surface – Develops the transportaon and operaons infrastructure – All of the Phobos systems are Mars surface forward except phobos surface mobility systems • Assuming that SLS, Orion and exploraon suits are sunk costs, then Phobos requires: – 7 addional developments: SEP, DSH, CPS, SEV cabin (or equivalent), phobos mobility system, suit ports, hab landing gear ( probably from ARM) – Phobos draws heavily from the Cis Lunar ARM mission ( SEP, suit ports, microgravity geology, landing legs etc.) • Mars surface builds heavily on Phobos investment but requires: – 9 Mars surface specific developments in addion to the Phobos investments: aero shell, MAV, surface habitat, lander, SPR chassis/UPR, ISRU, nuclear power, offloading systems, power cable management system, roboc rover. – Many of these are expensive low TRL developments i.e. MAV, Lander, Aero shell, Nuclear power etc. • Within a Evolvable Mars Campaign that starts with ARM and Cislunar infrastructure, Phobos is viable human target that is a sensible and relavely affordable step to Mars surface. – provides meaningful science return – Enhances and possibly enables the Human Mars surface mission via low latency telerobocs

Robotic Precursor Mission to Phobos and Deimos

Robotic Precursor Missions for Phobos and Deimos

Stan Love,Paul Abell, Mike Gernhardt David Lee, Andrew Abercromby, Steve Chappell, Bill Harris, Scott Howe, and Brian Wilcox Robotic Precursor Mission to Phobos and Deimos Rationale

“A human mission to the Phobos/ Deimos surface would require a precursor mission that would land on one or both moons.”

-- Finding #2 of the Precursor Strategy Analysis Group Robotic Precursor Mission to Phobos and Deimos Objectives

1. Characterize the gravitational field ( for GNC, traverse planning, consumable estimates) 2. Identify regions of scientific interest and hazards 3. Characterize the soil mechanics for analysis of hopper efficiency and dust environment. 4. Identify and characterize any useful materials that could be used for in situ resource utilization. 5. To the extent possible incorporate assets that have residual value to the human mission Robotic Precursor Mission to Phobos and Deimos

Strategic Knowledge Gap Relevant Measurements (P-SAG, 2012) (Murchie et al, 2014)

A3-1. Orbital parculate environment • Parcle size-frequency and distribuon of dust belts

• Elemental composion, including C and H C1-1. Surface composion and potenal for • Mineral composion, including hydrous phases ISRU (C, H) • Global spectral imaging, or elemental abundance mapping, for geological context • Near-surface total dose and energy measurements C2-1. Charged parcle environment

• Overall mass and mass distribuons/concentraons from radio science C2-2. Gravitaonal ﬁelds • Global shape through stereo imaging and/or lidar measurements • Thickness and rock abundance from imaging and/or radar C2-3. Regolith geotechnical properes • Parcle size distribuon, μm to cm scale structure • Regolith mechanical properes experiment Robotic Precursor Mission to Phobos and Deimos Science Questions

1. What is the composition of both moons?

2. What are their origins? Are they related to Mars?

3. Are Phobos and Deimos related to each other? And if so how?

4. How have these bodies evolved over time?

5. What are the internal structures of Phobos and Deimos?

Robotic Precursor Mission to Phobos and Deimos Which Moon?

Phobos and Deimos are equally interesting from a science perspective. There's no compelling reason to prefer one or the other for close study.

Phobos offers more area (1500 km2) to explore, plus scientifically interesting linear grooves, some spectrally diverse terrains, and a large crater (Stickney).

Deimos is smaller (500 km2), but less well studied which increases its priority for reconnaissance.

Both moons have the potential to contain material from Mars in their regoliths.

Given only what we know to date, Phobos would be the preferred target from an exploration perspective. Note that with additional information on both moons, this situation could change. Robotic Precursor Mission to Phobos and Deimos Remote Sensing (Measurements made from orbit)

Radio science is needed to measure the moon's mass, mass distribution, and gravity field for trajectory planning. No dedicated instrument needed; these measurements come for "free" by analyzing the spacecraft's downlink signal.

A laser altimeter is needed to precisely measure the moon's shape and add range data that helps with radio science measurements. TRL 9, moderate power, low data rate.

A telescopic imaging camera is needed to map the entire moon at sub-meter resolution and photograph selected areas of interest at sub-centimeter resolution. TRL 9, moderate power, high data rate. Robotic Precursor Mission to Phobos and Deimos Remote Sensing (Continued)

A visible and near-infrared (0.4-3.0 µm) imaging spectrograph is needed to produce a global map of mineral composition variations at a resolution of tens of meters, and maps of selected areas of interest at meter resolution. TRL 9, moderate power, high data rate.

A thermal infrared imager is desired to measure heat flow, thermal inertia, and grain size distributions at a resolution of tens of meters.TRL 9, low power, moderate data rate.

A gamma-ray and neutron detector is desired to measure atomic composition at a resolution of hundreds of meters. TRL 9, low power, low data rate.

A magnetometer and a Langmuir probe would be nice to map the magnetic properties and plasma field of the moon. TRL 9, low power, low data rate. Robotic Precursor Mission to Phobos and Deimos Remote Sensing (Continued)

A ground-penetrating radar would be nice to measure the depth of the regolith and to map the moon's internal structure. TRL 7, high power, high data rate. Robotic Precursor Mission to Phobos and Deimos In-Situ Investigations (Measurements made after landing)

A penetrometer is needed to measure the compressive strength of the regolith under loads of a few pounds. TRL 7, very low power, low data rate.

A motion-imagery camera is needed to observe the penetrometer tests, recording imagery before, during, and after contact. Its resolution should be less than 1 mm. TRL 9, low power, high data rate.

A dust-adhesion witness plate and camera are needed to characterize any dust raised by surface contact and thruster firings. This experiment could use the same camera as the penetrometer. TRL 9, low power, high data rate.

A microimager is needed to assess the sizes and shapes of dust particles, and thus their threat to human health. TRL 9, low power, moderate data rate. Robotic Precursor Mission to Phobos and Deimos In-Situ Investigations (Continued)

An alpha-proton-X-ray, X-ray fluorescence, Mössbauer, or Raman spectrometer is needed to precisely measure the atomic and mineral composition of surface materials. TRL 8-9, low to moderate power, low data rate.

A temperature probe would be nice to pinpoint the thermal properties of the regolith. TRL 9, very low power, very low data rate. Roboc Precursor Mission to Phobos and Deimos

DRAFT Technical Data for Notional Remote Sensing Instruments

Type Dimensions Mass Power Heritage (cm) (kg) (W)

Laser altimeter* 28x17x12 12.6 34 LOLA on LRO + 45x51x36 Telescopic imager* 70x26x27 16.4 9.3 LROC on LRO Vis-IR imaging spectrograph* 30x30x30 10.3 6.3 Ralph on New Horizons Thermal IR imager* 10x20x30 4.5 4.4 Alice on New Horizons Gamma-neutron detector* 46x46x44 26.3 13 LEND on LRO Magnetometer 10x10x20 3.3 2.3 SWAP on New Horizons Langmuir probe 5x10x20 1.5 2.5 PEPSSI on New Horizons Ground-penetrating radar 400x400x100 41.4 108 RADAR on Cassini

*Note that we should be able to leverage instruments from other small body missions such as Dawn, Hayabusa 1 & 2, and OSIRIS REx missions.

Human Spaceﬂight Architecture Team NASA Internal Use Only – Not for Distribuon 52 Roboc Precursor Mission to Phobos and Deimos

DRAFT Technical Data for Notional In Situ Instruments

Type Dimensions Mass Power Heritage (cm) (kg) (W)

Penetrometer 15x15x20 2.4 est. 1 Deep Space 2 Motion-imagery camera 10x10x10 est. 1 est. 5 MAHLI on MSL Dust-adhesion witness plate 1x20x20 est. 1 0 --- Micro-imager 10x10x10 est. 1 est. 5 MAHLI on MSL Alpha Particle X-ray detector 15x15x10 est. 1.5 est. 3 APXS on Mars Pathfinder Temperature probe est. 10x10x30 est. 3 est. 1 ---

MINERVA rover 12x12x10 0.6 2 Hayabusa 1 & 2 (MIcro/Nano Experimental Robot Vehicle for Asteroid) 3 CCD cameras, 6 thermometers, 6 photodiodes

MASCOT rover 29x20x28 10.8 20 Hayabusa 2 (Mobile Asteroid Surface Scout) MicroOmega – near-infrared imaging spectrometer/microscope MARA – radiometer MAG – magnetometer CAM – wide angle camera

Human Spaceﬂight Architecture Team NASA Internal Use Only – Not for Distribuon 53 Robotic Precursor Mission to Phobos and Deimos Orbiters or Landers?

Option 1. All-in-one spacecraft that surveys the moon from orbit, then touches down in one or more places for in-situ investigations.

Option 2. Separate orbiter and lander.

Option 3. Orbiter plus a number of small landers or hoppers.

Other possibilities?

Good question. miniATHLETE Hopper Auger Anchor Stowed

Solar cells (also on boom) 165W capacity total each side

Stereo cameras

Limb with auger anchor stowed

1.0m (39”) miniATHLETE Hopper Auger Anchor Deployed

Solar cells (also on boom)

Stereo cameras symmetrical

4 DOF leg with idencal motors, planetaries, and CSF20 harmonics miniATHLETE Hopper Stowed

Solar cells (also on boom) 165W capacity total each side

Stereo cameras

Limb stowed

1.0m (39”) miniATHLETE Hopper Deployed

Solar cells (also on boom)

Stereo cameras symmetrical

4 DOF leg with idencal motors, planetaries, and CSF20 harmonics miniATHLETE Hopper Deployed

Symmetrical limbs

Solar cells (also on boom)

Stereo cameras symmetrical

Hip-yaw

Thigh

Knee-roll

Spring mechanism

Foot pod Phobos Precursor Mission

• Precursor mission requires extensive HEO/SMD coordination during Project formulation Phase • Phobos operation duration to be based upon statistically acceptable data

¨ Human mission design formulaon requires deﬁnive measurement of Maran / Phobos environment ¨ Connued Precursor operaons based upon Human mission design needs 3-Burn Sequence at Mars Arrival

Approach Direcon Plane Change and Raise Periapsis

Phobos’ Orbit

Phobos Orbit Inseron Mars Orbit Inseron (MOI) / Periapsis Earth-Phobos Transfer Opportunities: Optimized for Arrival 3-Burn Vs Optimized for TMI

ELV Injection Mass Capability as a Function of V- Infinity

Atlas V 551

Atlas V 431

Falcon 9 v1.1

Atlas V 401

Atlas V 501

Data from NASA Launch Services Program Launch Vehicle Performance Website. Example 3-Burn Sequence to Both Phobos and Deimos with Common Capture Maneuver (Burn 1) Results/Conclusion

• Performance requirements depend on which opportunities are selected • Very preliminary “All Opportunites” performance numbers might be roughly: – 4 km/s TMI V-infinity – 1.8 km/s Arrival 3-burn sequence – Should be taken as “ballpark” numbers • Current capability ELVs can inject over 4000 kg to 4 km/s V-infinity • Arrival 3-Burn sequence will require from 38% to 46% of initial vehicle mass in propellant – Assuming single stage and storable bipropellant or LOX/methane – A separate Capture stage or aerobraking may also be options • Sending probes to Phobos and Deimos on the same launch appears feasible from a trajectory standpoint. 3-burn sequences with common capture maneuvers have been modelled. National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Backup Surface Hab Descent Motor Cutoﬀ at Altude to Minimize Surface Plume Contaminaon • During descent, the Surface Hab can terminate propulsive thrusng at a maximum altude of 95 to 155 m to minimize surface plume contaminaon – Low gravity levels on Phobos allow acceptable touchdown velocies • Thrust vector during approach may be at an oblique angle to the surface, further minimizing contaminaon

Modular Phobos Habitat Trade Opons

Mahew Simon - LaRC

6/2/15 68 Modular Phobos Habitat Trade Opons u Monolithic Pre-deployed PEV u PEV + ECLSS Module + Phobos Surface Habitat Habitaon Module • 1 PEV (conngency EVA) and 2 • Water reclamaon, Habitation PEV (No EVA) cases ﬁltraon, and O2 Monolithic Habitat Generaon + access space Module(s) • 100, 250, 500, 500+500 day ~ 1 m3) + inﬂatable cases module or core module PEV ECLS structure derived module S PEV • EVA and suit maintenance from PEV • 100, 250, 500 day cases

PEV u Modular Phobos Surface Habitat: Core Module + Core Module Habitable Module +2 PEVs PEV u 2 Tuna Can Modular • Conngency EVA and no EVA cases Case (in work) < 20 T Half-Habitat • 100, 250, 500, 500+500 day • Aim for <20 ton chunks Habitation Module(s) cases • Maximize diameter use

for launch vehicle < 20 T Half-Habitat ulizaon

PEV PEV 69 Phobos Habitat Baseline Assumpons

BASELINE ASSUMPTIONS Structure and Mechanisms Power Metallic, cylindrical habitat: max 7.2 m diameter ~XX kWe end of life power provided by SEP 0.3 m for port extrusions, aachments, structure 120 V DC power management (92% efficient) Min.2.5 m barrel length for reasonable ceiling height PEVs provide own power ~25 m3/person habitable volume (BHP Expert Consensus 14) 3 Li-ion baeries (200 W-hr/kg) ~XX kW-hr storage Secondary structure 2.46 km/m2 of habitat surf area Environmental Control and Life Support Composite ringframes (~ 600 kg savings for 7.2 m diameter over metals) Scaled ISS level ECLSS (100% air, ~85% water) hardware for 380 days Launch integraon 2% of habitat gross mass 10% mass for advanced diagnoscs and maintainability Four 0.5 m diameter windows 30 days open loop conngency consumables 1 exterior hatch for airlock cases Crew Equipment & Accommodaons 2 docking mechanisms, 2 docking tunnels Standard suite for 180-360 day deep-space Atmospheric pressure = 101.3 kPa (14.7 psi) Assume freezer for missions longer than 1-year Avionics Crew items, sink (spigot), freezer, microwave, Provide CC&DH, GN&C, communicaons washer, dryer, 2 vacuums, laptop, trash compactor, Power sized using NASA-RM-4992 (fixed at 180 days) printer, hand tools, test equipment, ergometer, Thermal Control photography, exercise, treadmill External fluid loop using Ammonia Logiscs Internal fluid loop using 60% prop glycol/water Sized based upon ISS usage rates for N days + 30 days conngency Xx kW heat rejecon using ISS-type radiators Each PEV delivered with 1 week’s provisions 20 layers mul-layer insulaon Extra-Vehicular Acvity (EVA) Maintenance and Spares 600 kg 6 m3 internal airlock, 1.5m x 1 m dedicated EVA hatch Sized using Monte Carlo simulaon engine (EMAT) 2 person EVAs using shule-class internal airlock Reserves 2 spare per suit for every suit component Margin Growth Allowance: 20% of basic mass 1 EVA per 30 days (conngency) Project Manager’s Reserve: 10% of basic mass Ulizaon Protecon 500 kg (1.8 m3) unallocated science payload MMOD protecon 130 kg (2.34 m3) Valkyrie style IVA robot No addional radiaon protecon beyond logiscs 70 Monolithic Cases

PEVs Opon Mass, kg Volume, m3 Diameter, m Length, m Monolithic, 100, Conngency EVA* 19,820 137.7 7.20 4.13 Monolithic, 250, Conngency EVA 22,942 152.2 7.20 4.49 1 Monolithic, 500, Conngency EVA 28,261 176.9 7.20 5.09 Monolithic, 500+500, Conngency EVA 36,877 220.2 7.20 6.16 Monolithic, 100, No EVA* 16,817 120.8 6.90 3.95 Monolithic, 250, No EVA 20,084 135.3 7.20 4.07 2 Monolithic, 500, No EVA 25,393 160.0 7.20 4.68 Monolithic, 500+500, No EVA 34,009 203.4 7.20 5.74 25-28T for 500 day Monolithic

* Overall 100 day estimates are likely overly conservative • Partially Closed ECLSS may be non-optimal for mission durations under 6 months in length. • Spares mass, may be greatly conservative for 100 days using regression • Maintenance mass conservatively held at 250 days value • Habitable volume maintained at long duration level since functionality hasn’t really changed 71 Core + Habitable Cases New Assumpons

u Funconality Split: Core Module Habitable Module

• ECLSS and ﬂuid storage • ECLSS (distribuon) • Thermal • Thermal • Power (PMAD and storage) • Power (PMAD) • Galley • Meeng areas • Hygiene • Crew Quarters • Avionics • Exercise • Medical • Ulizaon • Spares

• EVA u Core Module: • Add docking mechanism and docking tunnel to baseline assumpons (3 and 2) (1 acve ~350 kg, 1 passive~120 kg) • No crew quarters • Supports Habitaon/Logiscs module in baery power • ECLSS supports both core and habitaon modules • Independent thermal rejecon system • Avionics power sized using NASA-RM-4992 (ﬁxed at 180 days) u Habitable Module: • 2 docking mechanisms (all passive), 2 docking tunnels, 1 external hatches without docking mechanism if EVA is included) • Removed all avionics since a second set is included in spares esmates on Core module (revisit assumpon and locaon of avionics later) • Removed Baeries • Storage for all logiscs and spares • Leveraged PEVs for crew quarters (only if PEV is located below habitat) 72 • Independent thermal rejecon system Modular Core + Habitable Modules Cases (2 PEV)

EVA Strategy Opon Mass, kg Volume, m3 Diameter, m Length, m Core Module, 100 days, Conngency EVA* 8,048 41.8 4.42 3.18 Habitable Module, 100 days, Conngency EVA* 13,661 87.7 6.04 3.69 Core Module, 250 days, Conngency EVA 8,889 43.3 4.49 3.20 Conngency Habitable Module, 250 days, Conngency EVA 16,262 101.1 6.41 3.80 EVA Core Module, 500 days, Conngency EVA 9,663 44.6 4.55 3.22 Habitable Module, 500 days, Conngency EVA 21,220 124.8 6.99 3.98 Core Module, 500+500 days, Conngency EVA 9,802 44.6 4.55 3.22 Habitable Module, 500+500 days, Conngency EVA 29,796 168.2 7.20 4.88 Core Module, 100 days, No EVA* 8,025 41.8 4.42 3.18 Habitable Module, 100 days, No EVA* 11,275 81.7 5.87 3.63 Core Module, 250 days, No EVA 8,866 43.3 4.49 3.20 Habitable Module, 250 days, No EVA 13,959 95.1 6.25 3.75 No EVA Core Module, 500 days, No EVA 9,639 44.6 4.55 3.22 Habitable Module, 500 days, No EVA 18,918 118.8 6.85 3.94 Core Module, 500+500 days, No EVA 9,779 44.6 4.55 3.22 Habitable Module, 500+500 days, No EVA 27,564 162.1 7.20 4.73 28-31T for 500 day Core + Habitation Module

u Funconality Split: ECLSS Module PEV Habitable Module

• Parally Closed Loop • Parally closed CO2 Removal • Avionics Water • Fire Detecon, Suppression • ECLSS (distribuon) • O2 Generaon • Thermal • Thermal • Water and O2 storage • Power (PMAD and Storage) • Power (PMAD and Storage) • Thermal including • Hygiene • Meeng areas minimal air circulaon • Crew Quarters • Exercise • Power (PMAD) • EVA and Suit Maintenance • Medical u ECLSS Module • Ulizaon • Spares • 1 docking mechanism/suitport • 1m3 habitable volume • ECLSS supports both PEVs and habitaon modules • Independent thermal rejecon system • Assumes no Sabaer system available u Habitaon/Logiscs Module: • 2 docking mechanisms (all passive), 2 docking tunnels, • Included Avionics since PEV avionics will probably be insuﬃcient for stack control and comm • Added Baeries • Storage for all logiscs and spares • Leveraged PEVs for crew quarters (only if PEV is located below habitat) • Independent thermal rejecon system 74 ECLSS Module + Habitable Module Cases (2 PEV)

Opon Mass, kg Volume, m3 Diameter, m Length, m ECLSS Module, 100 day, No EVA 3,863 7.2 3.54 1.10 Habitable Module, 100 day, No EVA 13,640 114.2 6.74 3.90 ECLSS Module, 250 day, No EVA 4,611 8.7 3.77 1.18 Habitable Module, 250 day, No EVA 16,235 127.6 7.05 4.00 ECLSS Module, 500 day, No EVA 5,261 10.0 3.94 1.23 Habitable Module, 500 day, No EVA 20,996 151.3 7.20 4.47

26T for 500 day Habitation Module + ECLSS Module

* Assumes CO2 Removal contingency backups and resupply masses are carried by PEV (Spares are carried by Habitable Module) * ECLSS Module + 2 PEVs + Habitable module are required for full habitation capability (functionality semi-tradeable at shorter duration) * Overall 100 day estimates are likely overly conservative • Partially Closed ECLSS may be non-optimal for mission durations under 6 months in length. • Spares mass, may be greatly conservative for 100 days using regression • Maintenance mass conservatively held at 250 days value • Habitable volume maintained at long duration level since functionality hasn’t really changed

75 Comparison of Habitaon Opons (excluding PEV masses)

45000

40000

35000

30000

25000

20000 Mass(kg)

excluding PEVs 15000

10000

5000

0 100 days 250 days 500 days 500 + 500 days Monolithic (1 PEV) 19820 22942 28261 36877 Monolithic (2 PEVs) 16817 20084 25393 34009 Core + Habitaon (2 PEVs) 21709 25151 30883 39598 Habitaon Mod. + ECLSS Mod. (2 PEVs) 17503 20846 26257

Human Spaceﬂight Architecture Team NASA Internal Use Only – Not for Distribuon 76 Comparison of Habitaon Opons (including PEV masses)

60000

50000

40000

30000 Mass(kg)

including PEVs 20000

10000

0 100 days 250 days 500 days 500 + 500 days Monolithic (1 PEV) 26320 29442 34761 43377 Monolithic (2 PEVs) 29817 33084 38393 47009 Core + Habitaon (2 PEVs) 34709 38151 43883 52598 Habitaon Mod. + ECLSS Mod. (2 PEVs) 30503 33846 39257

Human Spaceﬂight Architecture Team NASA Internal Use Only – Not for Distribuon 77 Pre-Deployed Mass Comparison of Habitaon Opons (including Pre-Deployed PEV masses)

50000

45000

40000

35000

30000

25000

20000

15000 Pre-Deployed Mass(kg) 10000

1 PEV pre-staged 5000 with these cases 0 100 days 250 days 500 days 500 + 500 days Monolithic (1 PEV) 19820 22942 28261 36877 Monolithic (2 PEVs) 23317 26584 31893 40509 Core + Habitaon (2 PEVs) 28209 31651 37383 46098 Habitaon Mod. + ECLSS Mod. (2 PEVs) 24003 27346 32757

Human Spaceflight Architecture Team NASA Internal Use Only – Not for Distribuon 78 Habitaon Findings u Monolithic habitats are most mass efficient: • 25T for Monolithic (500 days, No EVA) • 26T for ECLSS Module + Habitaon Module - Largely closes ECLSS for whichever vehicle it is aached to - Flexibility to add capability aer inial simpler semi-closed ECLSS for shorter duraon missions - Saves ~5lb water/p/day à does not pay for itself unl > 250-400 day missions • 28T for Core Module + Habitaon Module: gives opons for mission appropriate sizing - Does not opmize launch packaging u Minimizing core results in very small module which doesn’t fully ulize diameter of launch vehicle or provide a similar size as other modules in the architecture • Future Work: Trade a fixed volume, 2-module case which allocates funconality to arrive at roughly equal Core and Habitable Module masses and sizes (2 Tuna Cans) u ECLSS Module esmates are approximate but appear comparable to Monolithic opons • Should not introduce significant operaonal complexity but will add some weight vs. fully- integrang with other ECLSS • Benefit to decoupling logiscs from habitaon, parcularly if habitat is to be resupplied and/or mission duraons are variable or uncertain • Future work: Refine mass and volume esmates, packaging, interfaces, and further evaluate architectural, engineering, and operaonal implicaons including possibility of dual ECLSS modules

Human Spaceﬂight Architecture Team NASA Internal Use Only – Not for Distribuon 79 Habitaon Findings u With 27T Mars surface lander, smaller sizes provide opons for landing systems on Mars with mobility u For Mars surface ops, if hab is not mobile, presents challenges for docking with PEVs / crew transfer • Need mobile oﬀ-loading capability u For steady-state Mars campaign, logiscs resupply will be required, which may warrant an appropriately sized logiscs module vs. sizing habs to incorporate 500 days of logiscs • Volume esmates suggest possible commonality between ECLSS module, logiscs module, rover cabin, lander cabin, MAV cabin, airlock, crew taxi cabin u Could start a surface campaign with smaller, lower mass hab modules for shorter duraons, then later deliver ECLSS module(s) and logiscs module(s) to enable extended duraons and increased redundancy

Human Spaceﬂight Architecture Team NASA Internal Use Only – Not for Distribuon 80 Straw Man Habitaon Framework for Discussion u Mars Transit Hab: • Hab module ~100m3 (oponal ECLSS module) • Logiscs module(s) as needed • Habitable Airlock (HAL); used for supplemental habitaon and conngency EVA during transit phases (and also used at Phobos, as described below) u Phobos Hab: • Hab module (same design as Mars Transit Hab module) • Logiscs module(s) as needed (same design as Mars Transit Hab, oponal ECLSS module) • HAL-Taxi from Mars Transit vehicle used with Service Module as crew taxi between HMO and Phobos - Can use HAL-taxi as habitable airlock for Phobos habitat - Opon to include suitports and RCS sled to enable use as PEV for Phobos exploraon u Mars Surface: • Hab module (same design as above) • Logiscs modules (same design) arrive with crew, right-sized for mission duraon • ECLSS module(s) would make hab modules smaller and provide mass margin for mobility elements on early shorter duraon missions, if desired • HAL-derived Pressurized Rovers

Human Spaceﬂight Architecture Team NASA Internal Use Only – Not for Distribuon 81 Exploration Assumptions & Concept Options

• Combinaon of a mobile surface habitat with jetpacks and tethers to extend exploraon range • Could be combined with other opons (i.e. triangle booms) to provide further capability • Microspine and other anchoring technology for stabilizaon away from habitat

JPL Microspine Anchoring Technology