S 6 th h o I n r t t
e C r o n u a r t i s o e n
a o l n
P
E l a Overview of Past Venus Missions x Overview of Past Venus Missions n t r e e t m a r e and Potential Architectures for Future Missions y
E P n r o v b – architectures – issues – failures – i r e o
n W m o e r n k t s s h
T By o p e , c A h n t l
Dr. Tibor S. Balint o
Tibor S. Balint a l n o t g a i , Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology e G s e
Pasadena, CA o r g i a 0 6 / 2 2 1 0 - 2 0 2 8
Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 1 Overview
• Introduction S 6 th h o I n – Extreme environments & Science drivers r t t
e C r o n u a r t i s o e n
a • Typical Mission Architectures to Explore Venus o l n
P
E l a – Role of mission architectures x n t r e e t m – Mission elements & Architectures a r e y
E P n r o v b i r e o
n • Brief Overview of Venus Missions W m o e r n – Past missions k t s s h
T o p – Present missions & Missions under development e , c A h n t l o
– Future mission concepts a l n o t g a i , e G s e
• The Good, the Bad, & the Future o r g i – Lessons learned from past missions a – Challenges for future missions 0 6 / 2 2 1 0 - 2 0 2 • Conclusions 8
Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 2 Introduction A First Look at Venus S 6 th h o I n r t t
e C r o n u a r t i s o e n
a o l n
P
E l a x n t r e e t m a r e y
E P n r o v b i r e o
n W m o e r n k t s s h
T o p e , c A h n t l o a l n o t g a i , e G s e o r g i a 0 6 / 2 2 1 0 - 2 0 2 8
Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 3 Introduction Venus: World of Contrasts
Solar in
• Why is Venus so different S 6 th h o I n r t
from Earth? t
e C r o n u – What does the Venus a r t i s o e n
a greenhouse tell us about o l n
P
E
climate change? l a x n t r e e t
• Could be addressed with m
Atmosphere a r e y
probes & balloons at E P n r o various altitudes v b i r e o
n W m o e r n k t s
– How active is Venus? s
Climate h
T o p e , • Could be addressed with c A h n t l o orbiters & in-situ elements Crust a l n o t g a i , e G s e
– When and where did the o r g i water go? a • Could be addressed with 0 6
landers / 2 2 1 0 - 2 Core 0 2 Ref: M. Bullock, D. Senske, J. Kwok, Venus Flagship Study: 8 Exploring a World of Contrasts (Interim Briefing), NASA HQ, Ref: Image by E. Stofan & T. Balint May 9, 2008
Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 4 Introduction Science Drivers for Venus Exploration S 6 th h o I n r t t
e C r o n u a r t i s o e n
a o l n
P
E l a x n t r e e t m a r e y
E P n r o v b i r e o
n W m o e r n k t s s h
T o p e , c A h n t l o a l n o t g a i , e G s e o r g i a 0 6 / 2 2 1 0 - 2 0 2 8
Ref: VEXAG White Paper, 2007-2008 Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 5 Introduction The Extreme Environment of Venus
• Greenhouse effect results in VERY
HIGH SURFACE TEMPERATURES S 6 th h o I n r
• Average surface temperature: t t
e C r o ~ 460°C to 480°C n u a r t i s o
• Average pressure on the surface: e n
a o l n
~ 92 bars P
E l a x n t r e e t m • Cloud layer composed of aqueous a r e y
E sulfuric acid droplets at ~45 to ~70 P n r o v b km attitude i r e o
n W
• Venus atmosphere is mainly CO2 m o e r n (96.5%) and N2 (3.5%) with: k t s s h
T • small amounts of noble gases o p e , c A
(He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe) h n t l o a l
• small amount of reactive trace n o t g a i , gases (SO , H O, CO, OCS, H S, e 2 2 2 G s
HCl, SO, HF …) e o r g i a • Zonal winds: at 4 km altitude ~1 m/s;
at 55 km ~60 m/s; at 65 km ~95 m/s 0 6 / 2
• Superrotating prograde jets in the 2 1 0 - 2 0 2 upper atmosphere 8 Ref: N.Yajima, N.Izutsu, H.Honda, K.Goto and T.Imamura (ISAS) N.Tomita and K.Akazawa (Musashi Institute of Technology Univ.) “Feasibility and Applicability of Ref: C. Wilson, U of Oxford, Personal communications Planetary Balloons,” Website: www.isas.ac.jp/home/ Sci_Bal/engplanetary.html Ref: V. Kerzhanovich et al., "Circulation of the Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only atmosphere from the surface to 100 km", Page 6 S 6 th h o I n r t t
e C r o n u a r t i s o e n
a o l n
P
E l a x n t r e e t m a r e y
E Typical Mission Architectures to Explore Venus P n r o v b i r e o
n W m o e r n k t s s h
T o p e , c A
– mission elements – architectures – trajectories – h n t l o a l n o t g a i , e G s e o r g i a 0 6 / 2 2 1 0 - 2 0 2 8
Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 7 Mission Architectures The Role of Mission Architectures
e.g., - mission class (flagship, NF, Discovery) e.g., - NRC Decadal Survey;
- mission cost cap - VEXAG goals & objectives S 6 th - SSE Roadmap; mission lineup - Project science team h o I n r
- international collaboration measurements & investigations t t
e C r o n u a r t i s o e n
a o l n
P Science E l a x n t r e e t m a r e y
E P n r o v b i r e o
n Programmatics Mission Architectures W m o e r n k t s s h
T o p e , c A h n t l o a l n o t g Technologies a i , e G s e o r g i e.g., - extreme environments technologies e.g., - single or multi-element architecture a - systems approaches: - single or dual launch tolerance, protection & hybrid systems
- mission elements (orbiter, flyby, 0
- atmospheric entry, descent, landing, balloon, lander, probe, plane) 6 / 2 2
balloon inflation - lifetime (hours, weeks, years) 1 0 - 2 - instrument technologies - telecom link (relay, Direct-to-Earth) 0 2 8
Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 8 Mission Architectures Potential Venus Mission Elements S 6 th h o I n r t t
e C r o n u a r t i s o e n
a o l n
P
E l a x n t r e e t m a r e y
E P n r o v b i r e o
n W m o e r n k t s s h
T o p e , c A h n t l o a l n o t g a i , e G s e o r g i a 0 6 / 2 2 1 0 - 2 0 2 8
Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 9 Mission Architectures Grouping of Typical Venus Mission Architectures
Earth-to-Venus Cruise
(~180 days) S 6 th h o I n Remote Sensing In-Situ r t t
e C r o n u a r t i
Short Lived s
Short Observation Long Observation Long Lived o e n
a o l n
P
Pioneer-Venus E l a Flyby S/C High altitude x n Orbiter type t r e e
balloon t m Descent Probe a r e (~60-65 km) y
E P n r o Venera type v b
Multi-Element i r e Lander Balloon to o
n
Architectures W m
Lower Clouds o e r n Venus In-Situ (~30-40 km) k t s
Orbiter + s
High Altitude h
T Multi-probes Explorer o p Balloon + e , c
(VISE) A Long Lived h
Micro-probes n t l o Seismic a
Lander l n o t
Sample Return g Network a i , e
Balloon Network G s
Venus Atmospheric Venus Mobile e o r
Sample Return Explorer g i Mission Class Floor: a Free Return Trajectory (VME) Small mission -Air mobility, or
Heritage Venus Surface 0 Medium mission - Surface rover 6 /
Sample Return 2 SSE Roadmap 2 1 0 Large mission - 2 recommended 0 2 8
Ref: Cutts, Balint, “Overview of typical mission architectures”, 3rd VEXAG meeting, Crystal City, VA, Jan.11-12, 2007
Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 10 S 6 th h o I n r t t
e C r o n u a r t i s o e n
a o l n
P
E l a x n t r e e t m a r e y
E Brief Overview of Venus Missions P n r o v b i r e o
n W m o e r n k t s s h
T o p e , c A
– past – present – future – h n t l o a l n o t g a i , e G s e o r g i a 0 6 / 2 2 1 0 - 2 0 2 8
Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 11 Past Missions Past: Russian Missions to Venus
• Between 1961 & 1984/(1985) Russia carried S 6 th out the most successful Venus exploration h o I n r t t
program among nations e C r o n u a r t i s o e Venera 3 stamp Venera 4 stamp n • Launched 29 missions to Venus: a o l n
P – Failed: 12 E l a x p n t
– Succeeded (fully or partially): 17 !! r e m e a t t m a s
r e y 5
E P a r n
• The program included r e o v n b i e r e o
– Venera-1 and Sputnik-7 probes (failed) V
n W – Venera orbiters, landers m o e
Venera 8 stamp r n k t – Cosmos landers and flybys (failed , s s s h
s T no on pa 20 a o osmos si na ion) o p p e m , c A a h
– Zond-1 lander (failed) t s n t
l o a 9
– Vega landers and balloons l n o a r t g a e i n , e G e s V e
• Achieved multiple firsts, e.g., o r Venera 11 g i
– First to reach Venus; entry; landing; longest a surface operation (127 minutes); surface pictures stamp (also in color); international Venus mission 0 p 6 / m 2 a 2 t 1 0 s -
2 0 Ref: Kolawa, Balint, Delcastillo, Mojarradi, “Instruments for Extreme 3 2 8 1
Environments”, IPPW-4, Short Course, Pasadena, CA, June 2006 a r
Ref: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/spacecraft_planetary_venus.html e n
Ref: Balint, “Summary of Russian Planetary Lander Missions”, JPL, 2002 e V Ref: images – various from the web Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 12 Past Missions Past: US Missions to Venus
• 1962 - Mariner 2 S 6 th h
– flew by Venus (12/14/62); o I n r t t
e – Verified high temperatures. C r o n u a r t i s o e n
a o l • 1974 - Mariner 10 to Mercury, n
P
E l a – flew by Venus (2/5/74); x n t r e e t m – Tracked global atmospheric circulation a r e y
with visible and violet imagery E P
P-V Carrier n r o v
w/ Probes b i r e o
n W • 1978 – Pioneer-Venus Orbiter m o e r n k t – radar mapped Venus (12/78) s s h
T o p • Pioneer-Venus Multiprobe e , c A h n t l
– dropped four probes through o a l n o t
Venusian clouds g a i , e G – Orbiter & probes launched separately s e o r g i a • 1989 - Magellan P-V Large Probe
– launched to Venus (5/4/89) 0 6 / 2
– arrived at Venus in 1990 2 1 0 - 2 0 2 – mapped 98% of the planet 8 Magellan – mission ended in 1994 Orbiter Mariner-10 Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Ref: Images – various from the web Page 13 Present Missions & Missions Under Development Present/Ongoing: VEX, VCO, Other Flybys
• ESA’s Venus Express (VEX) orbiter S 6 th h o
– Launched: November 9, 2005 I n r t t
e C r o – Mission ends: May 2009 (extended lifetime) n u a r t i s o e n
a o l n
P
• JAXA’s Venus Climate Orbiter (VCO) E l a VEX x n t r e – Planned launch: June 2010 e t m a r e y
– Mission lifetime: 2 years E P n r o v b i r e o
n W m
• APL’s MESSENGER (with Venus flybys) o e r n k t s s
– Launched: August 3, 2004 h
T o p e , c
– 2 Venus Flybys (10/24/2006 & 6/5/2007) A h n VCO t l o a l n
– Mission to Mercury o t g a i , e G s e o r
• APL’s Solar Probe g i (with Venus flybys) a
– Planned Launch: 2015 0 6 / 2 2 1
– 9 Venus Flybys 0 - 2 0 2 Solar Probe MESSENGER o M rc r 8
Ref: Images – various from the web Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 14 Future Mission Concepts Future: The Road Ahead for US Venus Missions
• Future Venus missions are expected to be science driven S 6 th h o I n r t
– with input from programmatics (e.g., cost cap) t
e C r o n u – and support through enabling or enhancing technologies a r t i s o e n
a o l n
P
E l a x n • NASA’s 2008 Venus Flagship study (ongoing): t r e e t m a r e – NASA appointed a Science & Technology Definition Team y
E P n r o v b
– STDT assessed science figure of merit i r e o
n W – Recommended a science driven mission architecture m o e r n k t s • Orbiter + 2 mid-cloud balloons + 2 short lived landers s h
T o p including an extended life element e , c A h n t l o – Assumed launch period: between 2020 and 2025 a l n o t g a i , e G s e o r
• Smaller missions could occur before that: g i a – New Frontiers-3 proposals could target a 2015+ launch date 0
– Discovery missions could target a 2013-15+ launch date 6 / 2 2 1 0 - 2 – There might be 2-3 competed opportunities before Venus Flagship 0 2 8
Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 15 Future Mission Concepts Future: Potential Venus Missions
• Orbiters – Discovery or New Frontiers class S 6 th – Single element architecture h o I n r t
– Lifetime: years t
e C r o n u a r t i • Balloons s o e n
– Discovery or NF class; NASA/ESA/JAXA a o l n
P
– 1 or 2 balloons; orbiter or flyby support E l a – Lifetime: weeks x n t r e e t m a r e • Landers and probes y
E P
– NF or Flagship class; NASA/Russia n r o v b i
– Lifetime: hours for passive cooling; r e o
weeks to months for active cooling n W m o e r n k t • Multi-element architectures s s h
T – Likely Flagship class o p e , c
– NASA Flagship Study 2008: A h n
• orbiter + 2 mid-balloons + 2 landers t l o a l
• Short lived landers with extended life element n o t g • Potential for future international collaboration a i , e G – Cosmic Vision EVE s • orbiter + high-balloon + mid-balloon + lander e o r
• ESA lead international collaboration proposal g i – Other concepts: a • Network with 4 landers over a year lifetime • Venus Mobile Explorer (SSE Roadmap recommended) with near surface metallic balloon and orbiter 0 6 / 2 2 1 0 - 2 • Venus Surface Sample Return 0
t 2 8 n i – Multi-element for delivery; descent; short lived lander; l a B
multi-stage ascent balloons; ascent vehicle; Venus Images . T
orbiter; and Earth return capsule y Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Ref: b Page 16 S 6 th h o I n r t t
e C r o n u a r t i s o e n
a o l n
P
E l a x n t r e e t m a r e y
E The Good, the Bad, & the Future P n r o v b i r e o
n W m o e r n k t s s h
T o p e , c A
– lessons learned – future challenges – considerations – h n t l o a l n o t g a i , e G s e o r g i a 0 6 / 2 2 1 0 - 2 0 2 8
Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 17 Lessons Learned Mission Architecture Philosophies
• Russian (Soviet) approach: S 6 th h o I n r t t
– Incremental development & learning, e C r o n u • through a full fledged program a r t i s o e n
a • while flying a large number of missions o l n
P
E l a • program continuation was independent x n t r e e t m
of public opinion a r e y
E P
– Launched in pairs, using n r o v b i r e • identically built s/c and lander/probe o
n W m
Ref: Venera-9 o e
• simple, cost effective, brute force approach r n k t s s h
T o p e , c A h n t l o
• US approach: a l n o t g a i , e
– Missions selected to diverse destinations G s e
based on science priorities o r g i • no dedicated Venus program exists a (e.g., compared to Mars exploration) 0 6 /
– Mitigating risk through 2 2 1 0 - 2 0 2 • ground based development and testing 8 • with low risk tolerance Ref: Pioneer-Venus 2 model (bus and probes)
Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 18 Lessons Learned Mission Impact of Multiple Elements & Lifetime
• Multi-element architectures: S 6 th h o I n r
Pioneer-Venus & Vega t t
e C r o n u – simultaneous in-situ exploration a r t i s o e n
– at multiple locations (synergy) a o l n
P
E l
– relatively simple, short lived elements a x n t r e e
(balloons, probes, landers, orbiters, t m a r e y
flybys) E P n r o v b – international collaboration (on Vega) i r e o
n W m o e r n k t s s
• Long lived orbiters: h
T o p e , c
Magellan & Venus Express A Ref: Vega mission depiction h n t l o a l
– Long duration exploration of Venus n o t g a i , yielded significant amount of e G s
scientific data e o r g i a • Trades between long lived single 0 6 / element vs. short lived multiple 2 2 1 0 - 2 0 2 elements (science, technology, cost) 8
Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Ref: Venus Express Page 19 Lessons Learned Failures on Past Russian Venus Missions
Missions Failures S 6
th th Sputnik-7 Stranded in Earth orbit: 4 stage failure (probably due to faulty timer) h o I n r t t
e
Venera-1 Missed Venus by 100,000 km: probably due to the overheating of a solar-direction sensor C r o n u a r Sputnik-19 Stranded in Earth orbit: escape stage failure t i s o e n
a Sputnik-20 Stranded in Earth orbit: escape stage failure o l n
P
E l a
Sputnik-21 Unsuccessful flyby mission: reason unknown x n t r e e t m Cosmos-21 Stranded in Earth orbit (unknown mission, possibly designated as a Venus flyby) a r e y
E Cosmos-27 Stranded in Earth orbit: likely due to escape stage failure P n r o v b i r e
Zond-1 Failed on its way to Venus o
n W m
Venera-2 Missed Venus by 24,000 km; s/c systems failed before reaching Venus; no data return o e r n k t s s
Venera-3 Communication system failed before any data return (but was the first to land on another planet) h
T o p e , Cosmos-96 Failed on Earth orbit: reason unknown c A h n t l o Cosmos-167 Failed on Earth orbit: reason unknown a l n o t g a i , Venera-7 Success, but weak signal. Lander may have bounced into its side, impacting antenna pointing e G s e
Cosmos-359 Failed on Earth orbit: reason unknown o r g i Cosmos-482 Stranded in Earth orbit: escape stage failure (was similar to Venera-8 design) a Venera-11 Success, but failed to return images. Lens cover didn’t separate after landing due to design fault 0 6
Venera-12 Success, but failed to return images. Lens cover didn’t separate after landing due to design fault / 2 2 1 0 - 2 Note: If the engine at Earth parking orbit misfired or the burn was not completed, the probes was left in Earth orbit and given a Cosmos designation. 0 2 8 Most Russian mission failures were due to propulsion system problems
Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 20 Lessons Learned Failures on Past US Venus In-situ Missions S 6 th h o I n r t t
• Pioneer-Venus probes: e C r o n u a r t i
– 12.5 km anomaly resulted in electrical failures s o e n
a o l n
– Cause investigated (workshop at NASA ARC) P
E l a x n t r e – Latest views point to supercritical CO ,which may have e t
2 m a r e y
E
dissolved the protective coating on electrical wires P n r o v b i r e – Components were tested in high-T/p Nitrogen o
n W m o e
• justified by the assumption that both N & CO are inert gases r n
2 k t s s h
T o p e , c A h n t l o • For future in-situ missions, testing in a relevant a l n o t g a i , e G
environment is critical s e o r – That is: testing in high temperature & pressure CO g i
2 a 0 6 / 2 2 1 0 - 2 0 2 8
Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 21 Future Considerations Science Synergies for the Proposed Flagship Architecture
• Deployment of in-situ elements:
– 2 landers + 2 balloons deployed at the same time S 6 th h o I n r t
– Probe descents to be targeted to go near balloon t
e C r o paths n u a r t i s o e n
a o l n
• Measurement synergies for atmospheric science P
E l a x n – 2 landers give vertical slices of the atmosphere during t r e e t m descent a r e y
E – 2 balloons give zonal and meridional slices roughly P n r o v b intersecting balloon paths i r e o
n W m o e r n k t s
• Science synergies between geochemistry and s h
T o p atmosphere e , c A h n – Simultaneous geochemical and mineralogical t l o a l n analysis o t g a i , e G
– Spatial and temporal atmospheric gas analysis s e
• Two disparate locations at the same time o r g i a • Science synergies between geology and 0
geochemistry 6 / 2 2 1 0
– Landings on tessera and volcanic plains - 2 0 2 • for comparative geology and geochemistry 8 Ref: M. Bullock, D. Senske, J. Kwok, Venus Flagship Study: Exploring a World of Contrasts (Interim Briefing), NASA HQ, May 9, 2008 Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 22 Future Considerations Technologies
• Technologies could play a significant
role to S 6 th h o I n – enable or enhance future Venus r t t
e C
missions r o n u a r t i s o e n
a • Mission and technology impact would o l n
P
E
increase l a x n t r e
– for near surface descent, e t m a r e – combined with longer lifetime y
E P n r o v b i r e • Technology and science trades vary o
n W m
and should be assessed between o e r n k t s
– short lived multi-element platforms s h
T and o p e , c A – long lived single near surface h n t l o a
missions l n o t g a i , e G s
• E.g., short lived near surface missions e o r g
– may not require active cooling i a – may require technology development for 0 6 /
• pressure & temperature mitigation; 2 2 1 0 sample acquisition & handling; - 2 0 2 and others 8 • Instruments technologies
Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Ref: Images – various from the web Page 23 Future Considerations International Collaboration
• Multi-element architectures lend S 6 th h o I n r t
themselves to international collaboration t
e C r o n u a r • It was recommended in t i s o e n
a o l – ESA’s Cosmic Vision EVE proposal (2007) n
P
E l a x n t
– NASA’s 2008 Venus Flagship Study (ongoing) r e e t m a r e y
E P n r o v b i r
• Timing for international collaboration: e o
n W m o
– NASA’s Venus Flagship targets 2020-2025 e r n k t s s h
T o p e , c A h
– ESA's Cosmic Vision EVE will be re-proposed n t l o a l n o t g a i , e G s
– JAXA’s mid-cloud balloon is tentatively e o r g i
proposed for EVE, might be ready in 2016+ a 0 6 /
– The Venera-D lander by Roscosmos was 2 2 1 0 - 2 0 2 proposed for EVE, and the work is ongoing 8
Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 24 S 6 th h o I n r t t
e C r o n u a r t i s o e n
a o l n
P
E l a x n t r e e t m a r e y
E Conclusions P n r o v b i r e o
n W m o e r n k t s s h
T o p e , c A h n t l o a l n o t g a i , e G s e o r g i a 0 6 / 2 2 1 0 - 2 0 2 8
Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 25 Conclusions
• Venus exploration is expected to continue the tradition of S 6 th h o I n highly successful past missions r t t
e C r o n u – such future missions will be science driven, a r t i s o e n
a – in the framework of programmatics, mission architectures and o l n
P
E l
technologies a x n t r e e t m a r e y
E P n r o
• Mission architecture trades between short lived multi-element v b i r e o
n
missions and long-lived in-situ missions should be carefully W m o e r n evaluated against the best science return k t s s h
T o p e , c A h n t l o a l n • Technologies could significantly enable or enhance potential o t g a i , e G
future missions s e o r
– Testing in relevant environments is critical for future technologies g i a 0 6 /
• International collaboration will likely play a significant role to 2 2 1 0 - 2 0 2 maximize science return 8
Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 26 S 6 th h o I n r t t
e C r o n u a r t i s o e n
a o l n
P
E l a x n t r e e t m a r e y
E P n r o v b i r e The End o
n W m o e r n k t s s h
T o p e , c A h n t l o a l n o t g a i , e G s e o r g i a 0 6 / 2 2 1 0 - 2 0 2 8
Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 27