DOCSLIB.ORG

2020 Smallsat Technology Partnerships

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2020 Smallsat Technology Partnerships National Aeronautics and SPACE TECHNOLOGY MISSION DIRECTORATE Space Administration SMALL SPACECRAFT TECHNOLOGY 2020 SmallSat Technology Partnerships University-NASA Collaborations to Advance Small Spacecraft for Future Missions Jim Cockrell Chief Technologist NASA STMD Small Spacecraft Technology Program 2020 Small Satellite Conference paper # SSC20-WKI-04 www.nasa.gov SST Program’s SmallSat Technology Partnerships • NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology (SST) program expands U.S. ability to execute unique missions through rapid development and demonstration of capabilities for small spacecraft applicable to exploration, science and the commercial space sector. Through targeted development and frequent in space testing, the program: • Enables execution of missions at much lower cost than previously possible. • Substantially reduces the time required for development of spacecraft. • Enables new mission architectures through the use of small spacecraft. • Expands the reach of small spacecraft to new destinations and challenging new environments. • Enables the augmentation of existing assets and future missions with supporting small spacecraft. • The SST program sponsors annual Smallsat Technology Partnerships (STP) • 2-year cooperative agreements between a university team and a NASA center to develop specific technologies for small spacecraft • Universities gain experience and recognition through hands-on NASA collaborations • NASA benefits from rapid, innovative academic processes yielding new technologies 2020 SmallSat Conference # SSC20-WKI-04 NASA SST Program SmallSat Technology Partnerships 2 Aggregate Investment for Five STP Partnership “Classes” • Investments: • Over $26,468,000 awarded 28 Universities in 19 States 8 NASA Centers • 8 of 10 NASA centers partnered • 28 universities in 19 states • 46 partnerships in 5 class years • Results: • 1 Intersatellite Network Planning/ Routing tool software open-sourced • 4 New Technology Reports / Patents • 13 flight demonstrations planned • 27+ conference presentations 2013 $6,500,000 17 awards; 13 Y2 option 2015 $3,590,150 8 awards; 8 Y2 option • 46+ papers published 2016 $4,676,693 8 awards; 8 Y2 option • 100+ students involved 2018 $5,802,500 8 awards; 8 Y2 option 2020 $5,900,000 9 awards. (assumes 2 yrs) • Many technology readiness levels (TRL) raised 2020 SmallSat Conference # SSC20-WKI-04 NASA SST Program SmallSat Technology Partnerships 3 STP 2013 2015 2016 2018 2020 2021 ClassSTP Technology Topics Communications Avionics / Command & Enhanced Power Instruments for Lunar Communications TBD Data Handling Generation and SmallSats including and Navigation Subsystem Storage Multiple SmallSats Network GN&C Communication Cross-linking Technologies That Smallsat Propulsion for TBD Subsystem Communications Enable Large Swarms Lunar Missions Systems of Small Spacecraft Propulsion Ground Data Systems Relative Technologies That Advanced Electrical TBD Navigation for Enable Deep Space Power and Thermal Multiple Small Small Spacecraft Management Spacecraft Missions Power Guidance Navigation & Instruments and Solicitation encourages Control / Attitude Sensors for Small grant extensions for Determination & Spacecraft Science suborbital, orbital Technology Topics Control Subsystem Missions flight demo Science Instrument Payloads Capabilities Advanced Power Subsystem Manufacturing Propulsion Subsystem Structures and Mechanisms Subsystem-Oriented System-Oriented Mission-Oriented Pivot to Lunar Missions Manufacturing LEO Deep Space, Multi-Spacecraft Exploration Infrastructure Instruments Instruments Instruments 2020 SmallSat Technology Partnership Solicitation • NASA plans to return humans to the Moon by 2024. SmallSat precursor missions will blaze the trail for lunar exploration: • Communication and navigation networks • Assembly and repair services • In-situ resource and habitat surveys • The 2020 STP sought proposers to identify: • A potential lunar mission that could be executed using Smallsats • A specific gap in SoA preventing mission accomplishment by Smallsats • A partnership effort (TRL 3 – 7) aimed at closing that technology gap • Proposals must be submitted to one of three technology topics: 1. Lunar Communications and Navigation Network 2. Smallsat Propulsion for Lunar Missions 3. Advanced Electrical Power Subsystem and Thermal Management Technology 2020 SmallSat Conference # SSC20-WKI-04 NASA SST Program SmallSat Technology Partnerships 5 2020 STP Partnerships Selected for Award • The very competitive selection process emphasized technical relevance and technical approach • Nine university partnerships were selected: Title University PI Name NASA NASA Co-I Name Center Flat Panel Phased Array Antennas with Two Simultaneous Steerable San Diego State University Satish Sharma GRC James A Nessel Beams utilizing 5G Ka-Band SiliCon RFICs for Tx/Rx CommuniCations between 6U Small Satellite and Lunar surfaCe, Gateway and Earth 3-D Printed Hybrid Propulsion Solutions for SmallSat Lunar Landing and Utah State University Stephen Whitmore MSFC George Taylor Story Sample Return A high-preCision Continuous-time PNT CompaCt module for the LunaNet University of California, Chee Wei Wong JPL Andrey B Matsko small spaCeCraft Los Angeles Variable SpeCifiC Impulse EleCtrospray Thrusters for Smallsat Propulsion University Of California, Manuel Gamero- JPL John K Ziemer Irvine Castano An Additively ManufaCtured Deployable Radiator with OsCillating Heat California State University, Yen Kuo JPL Benjamin Furst Pipes (AMDROHP) to Enable High Power Lunar CubeSats Los Angeles Deployable OPtiCal ReCeiver Aperture for Lunar CommuniCations and Arizona State University Daniel JaCobs JPL Jose E VelazCo Navigation On-Orbit Demonstration of SurfaCe Feature-Based Navigation and University Of Texas, Austin Brandon Jones JSC Christopher Timing D'Souza A Small Satellite Lunar CommuniCations and Navigation System University Of Colorado, Scott Palo JPL Courtney Duncan Boulder Lunar Missions Enabled by ChemiCal-EleCtrospray Propulsion University Of Illinois, Joshua Rovey GRC, Thomas Liu, Urbana-Champaign GSFC Khary Parker 1. Flat Panel Phased Array Antennas with Two Simultaneous Steerable Beams utilizing 5G Ka-Band Silicon RFICs for Tx/Rx Communications between 6U Small Satellite and Lunar surface, Gateway and Earth 2. 3-D Printed Hybrid Propulsion Solutions for SmallSat Lunar Landing and Sample Return 3. A high-precision continuous-time PNT compact module for the LunaNet small spacecraft Topic 1 Lunar Communications and Navigation Network: Technology Demonstration Mission 3. LunaNet PNT project objectives and deliverables 1. High-precision low-drift inertial sensing 2. High-precision low-drift clock LunaNet PNT Sensitivity / Bias Current TRL à • TRL maturation of the 4 Random walk 10 1,000 module Repeatability instabilit Completion TRL optomechanical clock (different state-of-art USO y optomechanical (m) Clock legend Velocity random Sensitivity = project),the 3 100 FlowN Inertialsensor 1/2 50.9 µg 3 à 5 day walk = 8.2µg/Hz 625 µg/Hz accelerometer, and a 10 tunneling 1 Not yet flown resonant Angle random walk Repeatability 0.0012 gyroscope @ 10 Gyroscope 1/2 7 à 7 piezoresistive GPS Cs = 0.3 °/hr/Hz = 0.015 °/hr ° /hr • Design of the compact, 2 optomechanical GLONASS Cs Deep space 2-way 10 tunneling error raNge precisioN (1m) ruggedized package optical GPS IIF Rb (w/ drift) Mercury SNR´Q product (short-time 2´10-15 1 à optical thermal ion instability)= 3´10-13/ t (1-day 7 9 for the PNT module 1 tunneling raNge clock instability) 10 optical GPS IIF Rb (w/o drift) • 1-day imprecision: resonant Overall trajectoryimprecision / 0.1 Galileo H-maser 2 meters or less (3s rms error) over 1-day trajectory < 2 m (3s) & ACES Cold Cs (lab) Real-time orbit determination bulk spring-mass time transfer < 1-ns 0 optomechanical 10 capacitive DSAC DSAC ACES Cold tunneling 0.01 ACES H-maser operating excitation frequency (Hz) frequency excitation operating (2nd (demo) NASA/SAO Accumulated Cs (goal) Real-time time-transfer imprecision sub-nanosecond over 1-day our sensor our sensor (pre- Gen) H-maser (oscillation mode) capacitive oscillation mode) -1 optical optical 10 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0.001 We will develop and demonstrate an engineering module of an 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 accelerometer and create a conceptual design for a state-of-the-art resolution (g/Hz1/2) Mass (kg) high-precision LunaNet PNT module in the technology demonstration mission. The inertial sensing is achieved with an integrated chip-scale • Chip-scale optomechanics inertial measurement at 8.2-µg/Hz1/2, RF readout optomechanical inertial sensor developed at UCLA paired with a • Compact mercury ion clock at 10-15 1-day stability, for space flight mission commercial space qualified gyroscope. The timing is achieved with an integrated high-performance mercury ion clock that has been developed at JPL. Compact Autonomous Navigation UCLA Mesoscopic Optics and Quantum Electronics Group • Inertial sensing: tight field • TRL maturation and packaging confinement for strong • State-of-the-art chip, inertial sensing – gyroscope optomechanical transduction and integration, engineering model for advanced PNT parametrically-driven oscillation. • Precision modular and environmental testing • Motional readout at the • Timing transfer and thermal noise metrology thermodynamical backaction limits • Clock: Ultrastable integrated JPL Frequency and Timing Advanced Instrument Development Group compact mercury ion clock • TRL maturation and packaging • Gyroscope: Integrated
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Deep Space 2: the Mars Microprobe Project and Beyond
    First International Conference on Mars Polar Science 3039.pdf DEEP SPACE 2: THE MARS MICROPROBE PROJECT AND BEYOND. S. E. Smrekar and S. A. Gavit, Mail Stop 183-501, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasa- dena CA 91109, USA ([email protected]). Mission Overview: The Mars Microprobe Proj- System Design, Technologies, and Instruments: ect, or Deep Space 2 (DS2), is the second of the New Telecommunications. The DS2 telecom system, Millennium Program planetary missions and is de- which is mounted on the aftbody electronics plate, signed to enable future space science network mis- relays data back to earth via the Mars Global Surveyor sions through flight validation of new technologies. A spacecraft which passes overhead approximately once secondary goal is the collection of meaningful science every 2 hours. The receiver and transmitter operate in data. Two micropenetrators will be deployed to carry the Ultraviolet Frequency Range (UHF) and data is out surface and subsurface science. returned at a rate of 7 Kbits/second. The penetrators are being carried as a piggyback Ultra-low-temperature lithium primary battery. payload on the Mars Polar Lander cruise ring and will One challenging aspect of the microprobe design is be launched in January of 1999. The Microprobe has the thermal environment. The batteries are likely to no active control, attitude determination, or propulsive stay no warmer than -78° C. A lithium-thionyl pri- systems. It is a single stage from separation until mary battery was developed to survive the extreme landing and will passively orient itself due to its aero- temperature, with a 6 to 14 V range and a 3-year shelf dynamic design (Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on the Loss of the Mars Polar Lander and Deep Space 2 Missions
    Report on the Loss of the Mars Polar Lander and Deep Space 2 Missions JPL Special Review Board 22 March 2000 JPL D-18709 REPORT ON THE LOSS OF MARS POLAR LANDER / DEEP SPACE 2 JPL SPECIAL REVIEW BOARD — SIGNATURE PAGE — Mars Polar Lander/Deep Space 2 Loss — JPL Special Review Board Report JPL D-18709 — page iii CONTENTS List of Tables........................................................................................................................................ vii List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................... vii Acronyms and Abbreviations.............................................................................................................. viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................... xi 1INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Mars Surveyor Program ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Loss of the Mars Climate Orbiter Mission ........................................................................................... 1 1.2.1 Investigation of the MCO Loss .................................................................................................................. 1 1.2.2 Post-MCO Corrective Actions for Mars Polar Lander ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mars Program Independent Assessment Team Summary Report
    Mars Program Independent Assessment Team Summary Report March 14, 2000 Mars Climate Orbiter failed to achieve Mars orbit on September 23, 1999. On December 3, 1999, Mars Polar Lander and two Deep Space 2 microprobes failed. As a result, the NASA Administrator established the Mars Program Independent Assessment Team (MPIAT) with the following charter: Review and Analyze Successes and Failures of Recent Mars and Deep Space Missions − Mars Global Surveyor – Mars Climate Orbiter − Pathfinder – Mars Polar Lander − Deep Space 1 – Deep Space 2 Examine the Relationship Between and Among − NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) − California Institute of Technology (Caltech) − NASA Headquarters − Industry Partners Assess Effectiveness of Involvement of Scientists Identify Lessons Learned From Successes and Failures Review Revised Mars Surveyor Program to Assure Lessons Learned Are Utilized Oversee Mars Polar Lander and Deep Space 2 Failure Reviews Complete by March 15, 2000 In-depth reviews were conducted at NASA Headquarters, JPL, and Lockheed Martin Astronautics (LMA). Structured reviews, informal sessions with numerous Mars Program participants, and extensive debate and discussion within the MPIAT establish the basis for this report. The review process began on January 7, 2000, and concluded with a briefing to the NASA Administrator on March 14, 2000. This report represents the integrated views of the members of the MPIAT who are identified in the appendix. In total, three related reports have been produced: this report, a more detailed report titled “Mars Program Independent Assessment Team Report” (dated March 14, 2000), and the “Report on the Loss of the Mars Polar Lander and Deep Space 2 Missions” (dated March 22, 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • Dreaming of Mars Sample Return
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Dreaming of Mars Sample Return Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California Erik M. Conway October 2012 Solar System @ 50 2 – 11/13/2012 3 – 11/13/2012 4 – 11/13/2012 5 – 11/13/2012 Threads of this Story • Design and Engineering in support of science • Competition for funds within NASA • NASA’s dual self-image as – A scientific agency – The enabler of human expansion into the solar system 6 – 11/13/2012 Act I: Scientists and Sample Return, 1977-1989 7 – 11/13/2012 Act II: Sample Return in the Faster, Better, Cheaper Era 8 – 11/13/2012 9 – 11/13/2012 10 – 11/13/2012 11 – 11/13/2012 12 – 11/13/2012 13 – 11/13/2012 LANDED CONFIGURATION HGA MAV/MAV INSULATION UHF ANTENNA SSI LGA 2 REC & 2 TRANS SSOHOWN ROVER Y SOLAR ARRAY Z 2 PLCS X DRILL ENVELOPE INSTRUMENT DECK UPPER SURFACE RAMPS Report on the Loss of the Mars Polar Lander and Deep Space 2 Missions JPL Special Review Board 22 March 2000 JPL D-18709 15 – 11/13/2012 Ac t III The Bubble Team and Large Lander Studies 16 – 11/13/2012 Evolution from MSR Large Lander to Mars Smart Lander (circa early 2000) Mars Science Laboratory Mars 98 & MSR Mars Smart Lander Mars Expl. Rover Mars Science Lab. •EDL architecture given one last “fresh” look, focused on: •The failure of the M98 •Extensive evaluation of •MSL mission was delayed Cost Reduction lander mission during MSR’s many different EDL and to 2007 and then 2009, Performance Increase phase A, led to a change in Landing architectures resulting in more time to risk posture on landing suitable for MSR were develop technologies.
    [Show full text]
  • Mars Exploration Camp Is to Excite Young Minds and Inspire Student Trainees Toward Future Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Pursuits
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Summer of Innovation Mars Exploration 4th – 9th grade www.nasa.gov Introduction The goal of the NASA Summer of Innovation Mars Exploration camp is to excite young minds and inspire student trainees toward future science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) pursuits. Raising trainee achievement in STEM pursuits begins by leading trainees on a journey of understanding through these highly engaging activities. The activities and experiences in this guide come from across NASAʼs vast collection of educational materials. This themed camp outline provides examples of one-day, two-day, and weeklong science and engineering programs. Each day contains 6-8 hours of activities totaling more than 35 hours of instructional time. The camp template will assist you in developing an appropriate learning progression focusing on the concepts necessary to engage in learning about Mars. The Mars Exploration camp provides an interactive set of learning experiences that center on the past, present, and future exploration of Mars. The activities scaffold to include cooperative learning, problem solving, critical thinking, and hands-on experiences. As each activity progresses, the conceptual challenges increase, offering trainees full immersion in the topics. Intended Learning Experiences Through the participation in these camps future scientists and engineers will have the opportunity to explore Mars. Student trainees gain learning experiences that help make scientific careers something they can envision
    [Show full text]
  • L02: Case Studies: the Mars Program
    University of Toronto Department of Computer Science University of Toronto Department of Computer Science Lecture 2: NASA JPL’s Mars Program Examples of Poor Engineering Mission Launch Date Arrival Date Outcome Viking I 20 Aug 1975 Landed 20 Jul 1976 Operated until 1982 Viking II 9 Sept 1975 Landed 3 Sept 1976 Operated until 1980 ➜ “Software Forensics” Case Studies: Mars Pathfinder Mars Observer 25 Sept 1992 Last contact: Contact lost just Mars Climate Observer 22 Aug 1993 before orbit insertion Mars Polar Lander Pathfinder 4 Dec 1996 Landed Operated until 27 Sept Deep Space 2 4 July 1997 1997 Global Surveyor 7 Nov 1996 Orbit attained Still operational ➜ Some conclusions 12 Sept 1997 e.g. Reliable software has very little to do with writing good programs Climate Orbiter 11 Dec 1998 Last contact: Contact lost just 23 Sept 1999 before orbit insertion e.g. Humans make mistakes, but good engineering practice catches them! Polar Lander 3 Jan 1999 Last contact: Contact lost before 3 Dec 1999 descent Deep Space 2 3 Jan 1999 Last contact: No data was ever 3 Dec 1999 retrieved Mars Odyssey 7 Apr 2001 Expected: October 24, 2001 © 2001, Steve Easterbrook 1 © 2001, Steve Easterbrook 2 University of Toronto Department of Computer Science University of Toronto Department of Computer Science Mars Pathfinder Remember these pictures? ➜ Mission Demonstrate new landing techniques parachute and airbags Take pictures Analyze soil samples Demonstrate mobile robot technology Sojourner ➜ Major success on all fronts Returned 2.3 billion bits of information
    [Show full text]
  • Mars Polar Lander JPL Report Part 5 (Pdf)
    8 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL DS2 FAILURE MODES This section provides a summary description of the DS2 potential failure modes considered by the Board. It also provides a high-level assessment of the plausibility of each of the failure modes based on the Board’s review of the relevant design, implementation, and test history, and what may be inferred from data obtained throughout the mission operations. References are made to Sections 9, which contains detailed descriptions of the failure modes summarized in this section, along with findings and Lessons Learned. Failure modes are divided into two groups: ! Failure Modes Affecting Both Probes ! Failure Modes Affecting a Single Probe The four DS2 potential failure modes identified by the Board as plausible are highlighted as FLAG 1, FLAG 2, FLAG 3, and FLAG 4. Figure 8-1 illustrates the DS2 entry, descent, and impact (EDI) sequence and shows potential failure modes. Mars Polar Lander/Deep Space 2 Loss — JPL Special Review Board Report JPL D-18709 — page 124 • Probes experience battery drain prior to entry, descent, and impact sequence • Probes separate prematurely • Probes fail to separate from cruise stage (flaw in separation system) • Aeroshells fail (design flaw) • MPL fails to separate from cruise stage • MPL overheating, skip-out, excessive down-track entry points • Probes skip out or land too far down track; can’t • Random part failure communicate with MGS • Undetected aeroshell handling damage • Probes bounce on impact • Probes encounter surface conditions that exceed design capabilities • Structural failure on impact • Electronic or battery failure on impact • Ionization breakdown in Mars atmosphere • DS2 UHF link fails • Probes land on their sides, interfering with antenna performance Figure 8-1.
    [Show full text]
  • Mer Landing.Qxd
    NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Mars Exploration Rover Landings Press Kit January 2004 Media Contacts Donald Savage Policy/Program Management 202/358-1547 Headquarters [email protected] Washington, D.C. Guy Webster Mars Exploration Rover Mission 818/354-5011 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, [email protected] Pasadena, Calif. David Brand Science Payload 607/255-3651 Cornell University, [email protected] Ithaca, N.Y. Contents General Release …………………………………………………………..................................…… 3 Media Services Information ……………………………………….........................................…..... 5 Quick Facts ………………………………………………………................................……………… 6 Mars at a Glance ……………………………………………………….................................………. 7 Historical Mars Missions ………………………………………………….....................................… 8 Mars: The Water Trail ………………………………………………………………….................…… 9 Where We've Been and Where We're Going …………………………………................ 14 Science Investigations .............................................................................................................. 17 Landing Sites ............................................................................................................................. 23 Mission Overview ……………...………………………………………..............................………. 28 Spacecraft ................................................................................................................................. 38 Program/Project Management …………………………………………….................................…
    [Show full text]
  • Successes and Failures of Recent Mars Exploration
    Successes and Failures of Recent Mars Exploration Paul Withers [email protected] Boston University’s Center for Space Physics 2004.02.13 Bill Waller’s undergrad seminar class at Tufts University Aims of this talk • Describe the past decade of Mars exploration • Describe how half of attempted missions failed • Describe how NASA responded to failures in short and long term • Discuss lessons learned • Not an overview of Mars science Sequence of Missions • Mars Observer (1992) failure • Mars 96 (1996) [Russia] failure • Mars Pathfinder (1996) success • Mars Global Surveyor (1996) success • Nozomi (1998) [Japan] failure • Mars Climate Orbiter (1998) failure • Mars Polar Lander (1999) failure • Deep Space 2 (1999) (2 small probes) failure (x2) • 2001 Mars Odyssey (2001) success • Mars Express (2003) [ESA] success (?) • Beagle 2 (2003) [ESA/UK] failure • Mars Exploration Rovers Spirit and Opportunity (2003) success (x2) (?) • 12 years, 14 spacecraft, 8 failures, 3 successes, 3 probable successes Mars Observer (1992) Scientific Aims of Mars Observer • Global topo and gravity map • Measure magnetic field • Elemental makeup of surface • 2m-pixel images of surface • Mineralogical map of surface • Study atmospheric circulation • $980 mission, first US mission to Mars since Viking in 1976. Failure of Mars Observer • Plan: Pressurize fuel tank a few days before Mars Orbit Insertion • Plan: Turn transmitter off during pressurization to protect its components from shock, turn on again after pressurization complete • Reality: No further transmissions received after start of pressurization, complete loss of mission. • Failure Analysis: A fuel line ruptured during pressurization and the corrosive fuel disabled the spacecraft. Some parts were designed assuming pressurization after launch, not many months after launch.
    [Show full text]
  • Fuelling the Future of Mobility: Moon-Produced Space Propellants
    May 2021 Fuelling the future of mobility: Moon-produced space propellants Go Beyond The forthcoming decade is expected to witness a wave of missions to the Moon and Mars, and fuel supply is a major challenge to make these travels economically sustainable. The difference in the required energy to launch from Earth and from the Moon is causing people to reconsider refuelling point positions (e.g. NHRO, Near Halo Rectilinear Orbit) and contemplate using space-produced propellants. A whole production and transport value chain would have to be established on the Moon. Initial investments are sizeable (~$7B) but an economic oportunity for space propellants should exist if launch costs from Earth do not fall too much below current SpaceX standards. Capex optimization and increased scale should further improve the competitiveness of space propellants. Positive outcomes for ’terrestrial‘ applications are also expected to be significant. Fuelling the future of mobility: Moon-produced space propellants The Case for Moon-Produced Propellants The next decade is expected to witness After 2024, NASA expects to set up a a boom in Lunar and Mars exploration. base camp on the moon (’Artemis Base Space-exploration- After the space race of the 60s, there has Camp’) to be a long-term foothold for lunar been an unprecedented resurgence of exploration, as well as a Moon-orbiting driven technologies unmanned Lunar and Mars missions since station (’Gateway’) on the NHRO (Near the end of the 90s, as well as the spread Rectilinear Halo Orbit) being a site for also have very of space programs to various countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Mars Science Laboratory Landing
    PRESS KIT/JULY 2012 Mars Science Laboratory Landing Media Contacts Dwayne Brown NASA’s Mars 202-358-1726 Steve Cole Program 202-358-0918 Headquarters [email protected] Washington [email protected] Guy Webster Mars Science Laboratory 818-354-5011 D.C. Agle Mission 818-393-9011 Jet Propulsion Laboratory [email protected] Pasadena, Calif. [email protected] Science Payload Investigations Alpha Particle X-ray Spectrometer: Ruth Ann Chicoine, Canadian Space Agency, Saint-Hubert, Québec, Canada; 450-926-4451; [email protected] Chemistry and Camera: James Rickman, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, N.M.; 505-665-9203; [email protected] Chemistry and Mineralogy: Rachel Hoover, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.; 650-604-0643; [email protected] Dynamic Albedo of Neutrons: Igor Mitrofanov, Space Research Institute, Moscow, Russia; 011-7-495-333-3489; [email protected] Mars Descent Imager, Mars Hand Lens Imager, Mast Camera: Michael Ravine, Malin Space Science Systems, San Diego; 858-552-2650 extension 591; [email protected] Radiation Assessment Detector: Donald Hassler, Southwest Research Institute; Boulder, Colo.; 303-546-0683; [email protected] Rover Environmental Monitoring Station: Luis Cuesta, Centro de Astrobiología, Madrid, Spain; 011-34-620-265557; [email protected] Sample Analysis at Mars: Nancy Neal Jones, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.; 301-286-0039; [email protected] Engineering Investigation MSL Entry, Descent and Landing Instrument Suite: Kathy Barnstorff, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va.; 757-864-9886; [email protected] Contents Media Services Information.
    [Show full text]
  • Mars Insight Landing Press Kit
    Introduction National Aeronautics and Space Administration Mars InSight Landing Press Kit NOVEMBER 2018 www.nasa.gov 1 Table of Contents Introduction 3 Media Services 6 Quick Facts: Landing Facts 11 Quick Facts: Mars at a Glance 15 Mission: Overview 17 Mission: Spacecraft 29 Mission: Science 40 Mission: Landing Site 54 Program & Project Management 56 Appendix: Mars Cube One Tech Demo 58 Appendix: Gallery 62 Appendix: Science Objectives, Quantified 64 Appendix: Historical Mars Missions 65 Appendix: NASA’s Discovery Program 67 2 Introduction Mars InSight Landing Press Kit Introduction NASA’s next mission to Mars -- InSight -- is expected to land on the Red Planet on Nov. 26, 2018. InSight is a mission to Mars, but it is also more than a Mars mission. It will help scientists understand the formation and early evolution of all rocky planets, including Earth. In addition to InSight, a technology demonstration called Mars Cube One (MarCO) is flying separately to the Red Planet. It will test a new kind of data relay from another InSight will help us learn about the formation of Mars -- as well planet for the first time, though InSight’s success is not as all rocky planets. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech dependent on MarCO. Five Things to Know About Landing 1. Landing on Mars is difficult Only about 40 percent of the missions ever sent to Mars -- by any space agency -- have been successful. The U.S. is the only nation whose missions have survived a Mars landing. The thin atmosphere -- just 1 percent of Earth’s -- means that there’s little friction to slow down a spacecraft.
    [Show full text]