Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California Commercial Space Activities at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory Lt. Gen. Eugene Tattini (USAF, Ret.) Deputy Director Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology September 18, 2012 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Space Exploration Supported Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California by U.S. Government 24% Other Science Human exploration Aeronautics 28% 45% 3% National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology JPL History Pasadena, California 1936 1940s Today 1958 1950s 09/18/2012 3 National Aeronautics and Space Administration FY 12 JPL Population Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California Staff Composition by Job Classification and Academic Degree • Staff composition by job classification for • R&D staff distribution by academic 4823 employees (4743 FTEs) degree for 3453 employees Masters and R & D Professional 61% 33% R&D support Doctorate 2% 31% R&D management 8% Business management 5% Business support 6% No Degree 9% Business Bachelors 18% 27% 09/18/2012 4 National Aeronautics and Space Administration JPL’s mission for NASA is robotic Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California space exploration • Mars • Solar System • Exoplanets • Astrophysics • Earth Science • Interplanetary Network 09/18/2012 5 National Aeronautics and Space Administration 24 Spacecraft and 10 Instruments Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Across the Solar System and Beyond Pasadena, California GALEX ACRIMSAT Mars Odyssey Cassini CloudSat Spitzer Kepler Juno Aquarius GRACE Two Voyagers Dawn Opportunity EPOXI-Deep Impact GRAIL Wide-field Infrared Survey Mars Reconnaissance Jason 1 and Jason 2 Mars Science Laboratory Nuclear Spectroscopic Explorer (WISE) Orbiter Telescope Array (NuSTAR) Three Generations of Rovers 09/18/2012 7 Parachute Deployed MRO HiRISE camera 09/18/2012 8 Heatshield Jettisoned MSL MARDI camera 09/18/2012 9 CSI: Mars 09/18/2012 10 Saturn’s Storms Cassini Juno Arrival at Jupiter: July 2016 09/18/2012 12 Dawn Arrival at Vesta July 16, 2011 20 km 13 Where are the Voyagers Today? Distance from the Sun Round-trip Light Time Voyager 1 17.55 billion km (117.35 AU ) 32h 18m 16s Voyager 2 14.30 billion km (95.60 AU ) 26h 17m 46s 09/18/2012 14 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California AIRS – atmospheric temperature JASON – sea surface height GRACE – gravity QUIKSCAT – wind MISR - aerosols TES – trace gas MLS – ozone layer CLOUDSAT – water content Aquarius - sea surface salinity Multiple ways to look at a changing Earth Deep space exploration enabled by NASA’s Deep Space Network (DSN) Goldstone Canberra 09/18/2012 Madrid 16 National Aeronautics and Space Administration End-to-end capabilities needed Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California to implement missions Mars Rovers Project Formulation - Team X Mission Design Large Structures - SRTM Scientific Research Ion Engines Real Time Operations Environmental Integration and Spacecraft Development 09/18/2012 Test Test 17 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Every mission starts with a spark Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California Science A question An invention A mission concept Mission Architecture Technology Engineering 09/18/2012 18 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology …then the concept is developed Pasadena, California Trades Alternatives and Selections Comments Launch vehicle Atlas V Delta IV-Heavy Ares V Ares V considered acceptable only for sample return concepts launched post 2020. Cruise propulsion SEP + GAs Chemical + GAs Propulsive only Good performance from Chemical+Gravity Assists (GAs). SEP+GAs warrants further consideration, but new optimized trajectory search is needed. Capture into Saturn system Titan aerocapture Propulsive capture Uranus Aerogravity assist saves mass and also saves at Satellites (aerogravity assist) least several months in pumpdown . Pump-down mission design Enceladus/Titan Multiple moon GAs Multiple moon REP+GAs Other options found to be too high delta-V or GAs only only propulsively- flight time. Interior Interior leveraged GAs Magnetic Energetic Surface Surface Structure Atmosphere Structure Field PartARPSicles specific power higher, efficiency much Structure Composition RPS type MMRTG ARPS (advanced (Gravity Field) (Gravity Field) Stirling) higher (less Pu needed). Guidelines allowed ARPS as acceptable and available option for flagship studies. Orbiter implementation Enceladus Orbiter Low-Energy High-Energy Enceladus Multiple- Enceladus Multiple- Lg. Circ. Vertical Release of Flyby (Saturn Flyby (Saturn Sm. Conv. Structure Internal Heat or Orbiter) Orbiter) Lander/Probe implementation Fly-Through Rough Landers Soft Landers Orbi-Landers Priority placed on having in-situ measurements Probes and from surface. Impactors Fly-By Number of landers None One Three (regional Five (larger-scale distribution) distribution and/or redundancy) Lander lifetime/duration Short-lived (~2 Long-lived (~1 year Polar Orbiter weeks on primary on RPS) battery or fuel cell) Lander mobility type Stationary Locally mobile (~10 Regionally mobile Globally mobile Considered propulsive "hopper" type concepts km) (~100 km) for soft landers. Equatorial Orbiter Acceptable and evaluated in this Atm. Probe Mass Comparison SummaryLegend: - Launchstudy Mass and Sub-Elements Enceladus orbiter with Enceladusmultiple orbiter Acceptable but not orbiter Saturn energy High Enceladus orbiter with Enceladusmultiple orbiter alone Enceladus orbiter a becoming Enceladus orbiter orbiter Saturn energy Low Enceladus orbiter with Enceladussingle orbiter orbiter Saturn energy Low Relative Goal Science ValueRelative Low energy Saturn orbiter orbiter Saturn energy Low short lived landers B landers long-lived C D lander long-lived E lander long-lived F (flybys) alone G (flybys) alone H (flybys) with a single long-lived lander I (flybys) with multiple short-lived landers Cassini evaluated in this A Lander 8000 Science Goals, Enceladus Mission Science Assessment - 0-10, 10 best study Unacceptable1. What is the heat source, whatDelta IV-Heavydrives the C3=16 plume km^2/s^2 10 6 7 4 5 5 2 1 3 6 1 7000 6,000 Free-Flying Instruments 6000 2. What is the plume production rate, and does it vary 8 8 9 8 9 9 7 3 8 7 3 3. What are the effects of the plume on the structure and 5,000 5000 composition of Enceladus? Atlas 551 C3=16 km^2/s^2 5 8 9 6 7 7 4 3 5 8 2 One man’s concept is 4. What are the interaction effects of the plume on the 4000 Saturnian system 3 7 7 7 6 6 8 7 8 7 7 Lander(s) 4,000 Mass (kg) Mass 3000 5. Does the composition and/or existenceOrbiter of the plume give us clues to the origin and evolution of the solarAerocapture system System 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 5 7 7 3 2000 3,000 TMC 6. Does the plume source environment provideCruise/Prop the Stage conditions necessary (or sufficient) to sustain biotic or pre- $FY06M another’s doodle… 1000 biotic chemistry 5 8 8 6 7 8 6 5 7 8 3 7. Are other similar bodies (Dione, Tethys, Rhea) also 2,000 0 active, and if not, why not? 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 8 8 5 A B C D E F G H I Value by Architecture, summed 52 55 45 49 50 42 31 46 51 24 Value by Architecture, weighted, summed, normalized 0.461,0000.493 0.393 0.439 0.446 0.353 0.246 0.393 0.449 0.187 - Option A Option B Option C Option D Option E Option F Option G Option H Option I 09/18/2012 19 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Concept Maturity Level Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California Helps Benchmark Before MDR/PMSR Preliminary Trade Space Implementation Cocktail Napkin Baseline Concept Baseline CML 1 CML 2 CML 3 CML 4 CML 5 CML 6 CML 7 CML 8 TRL 6 Initial Feasibility Integrated Concept Point Design Integrated Baseline 09/18/2012 20 National Aeronautics and Space Administration JPL submits an average of 730 formal Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California proposals, large and small, per year Flight Instruments (Partner-managed) Missions (Partner-managed) Flight Instruments (JPL-managed) Missions (JPL-managed) Education & Public Outreach Technology (Non-instrument) Technology (Instrument) Science Research & Analysis Mission Extensions Non-NASA (FY09-FY11 data) 09/18/2012 21 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology NAC Questions for the Centers Pasadena, California How is the Agency’s commercial space strategy message being perceived at the Center? What is the Center doing to promote it? • What are the Center’s plans for transitioning from the Shuttle and Constellation programs to the new Agency direction that includes commercial space, and how are those plans progressing? • How is the Center addressing excess capacity issues? Do you have any concerns or issues with transitioning to the Agency’s commercial space strategy? 09/18/2012 22 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology JPL Commercial Interfaces Pasadena, California DIRECTOR C. Elachi ENGINEERING & DEPUTY DIR. E. Tattini BUSINESS OPERATIONS SCIENCE DIRECTORATE ASSOC.