DOCSLIB.ORG

Mars 2020 Science Definition Team Final Report July 1, 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mars 2020 Science Definition Team Final Report July 1, 2013 Report of the Mars 2020 Science Definition Team J.F. Mustard, chair; M. Adler, A. Allwood, D.S. Bass, D.W. Beaty, J.F. Bell III, W.B. Brinckerhoff, M. Carr, D.J. Des Marais, B. Drake, K.S. Edgett, J. Eigenbrode, L.T. Elkins-Tanton, J.A. Grant, S. M. Milkovich, D. Ming, C. Moore, S. Murchie, T.C. Onstott, S.W. Ruff, M.A. Sephton, A. Steele, A. Treiman July 1, 2013 Recommended bibliographic citation: Mustard, J.F., M. Adler, A. Allwood, D.S. Bass, D.W. Beaty, J.F. Bell III, W.B. Brinckerhoff, M. Carr, D.J. Des Marais, B. Drake, K.S. Edgett, J. Eigenbrode, L.T. Elkins-Tanton, J.A. Grant, S. M. Milkovich, D. Ming, C. Moore, S. Murchie, T.C. Onstott, S.W. Ruff, M.A. Sephton, A. Steele, A. Treiman (2013): Report of the Mars 2020 Science Definition Team, 154 pp., posted July, 2013, by the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group (MEPAG) at http://mepag.jpl.nasa.gov/reports/MEP/Mars_2020_SDT_Report_Final.pdf. or Mars 2020 SDT (2013), Committee members: Mustard, J.F. (chair), M. Adler, A. Allwood, D.S. Bass, D.W. Beaty, J.F. Bell III, W.B. Brinckerhoff, M. Carr, D.J. Des Marais, B. Drake, K.S. Edgett, J. Eigenbrode, L.T. Elkins-Tanton, J.A. Grant, S. M. Milkovich, D. Ming, C. Moore, S. Murchie, T.C. Onstott, S.W. Ruff, M.A. Sephton, A. Steele, A. Treiman: Report of the Mars 2020 Science Definition Team, 154 pp., posted July, 2013, by the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group (MEPAG) at http://mepag.jpl.nasa.gov/reports/MEP/Mars_2020_SDT_Report_Final.pdf. Inquiries regarding this report should be directed to Jack Mustard, SDT Chair ([email protected]), David Beaty, MED Chief Scientist ([email protected]), or Mitch Schulte, NASA SMD ([email protected]) This document has been cleared for public release by JPL Document Review, clearance number CL#13-2464 Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... 6 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 11 2.1 Introduction to the Mars 2020 Science Definition Team ....................................................... 11 2.2 The Overall Context of the Objectives (why are they important, why now?) ......................... 13 2.2.1 Explore an Astrobiologically Relevant Ancient Environment (Objective A). .......................... 13 2.2.2 Search for the Signs of Past Life (Objective B). ...................................................................... 14 2.2.3 Progress towards Mars Sample Return (Objective C). ........................................................... 14 2.2.4 Opportunities for HEOMD/STMD Contributed Participation (Objective D). .......................... 14 3 Technical Analysis of Mission Objectives ........................................................................ 16 3.1 Introduction to Key Concepts .............................................................................................. 16 3.2 Objective A: Explore an Astrobiologically Relevant Ancient Environment on Mars to Decipher its Geological Processes and History, Including the Assessment of Past Habitability ....................... 17 3.2.1 Scientific Foundation .............................................................................................................. 17 3.2.1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 17 3.2.1.2 Deciphering Geological Processes and History ............................................................................... 18 3.2.1.3 Assessment of Past Habitability ..................................................................................................... 20 3.2.2 Measurement Options and Priorities ..................................................................................... 22 3.2.2.1 Science Objectives Flow to Measurement Types ........................................................................... 22 3.2.2.2 Implementation Options for Objective A ....................................................................................... 25 3.2.2.3 Measurement descriptions. ........................................................................................................... 26 3.3 Objective B: Assess the Biosignature Potential Preservation Within the Selected Geological Environment and Search for Potential Biosignatures ..................................................................... 30 3.3.1 Scientific Foundation .............................................................................................................. 30 3.3.1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 30 3.3.1.2 Understanding Biosignatures and their Environmental Context on Earth ..................................... 32 3.3.1.3 Potential Martian Biosignatures In Their Environmental Context.................................................. 36 3.3.1.4 Organic Matter and Biosignatures.................................................................................................. 39 3.3.2 Measurement Options and Priorities ..................................................................................... 47 3.3.2.1 Threshold ........................................................................................................................................ 48 3.3.2.2 Baseline .......................................................................................................................................... 50 3.4 Objective C: Demonstrate Significant Technical Progress Towards the Future Return of Scientifically Selected, Well-Documented Samples to Earth ........................................................... 50 3.4.1 Scientific Foundation .............................................................................................................. 50 3.4.1.1 Introduction: The Return of Samples to Earth ............................................................................... 50 3.4.1.2 What is “Significant Technical Progress”? ...................................................................................... 52 3.4.1.3 Attributes of a Returnable Cache ................................................................................................... 55 3.4.2 Measurement Options and Priorities ..................................................................................... 59 3.5 Objective D-1: Provide an Opportunity for Contributed HEOMD Participation, Compatible with the Science Payload and Within the Mission’s Payload Capacity ............................................ 59 3.5.1 Foundation ............................................................................................................................. 59 3.5.2 Measurement Options and Priorities ..................................................................................... 60 3.5.2.1 Prioritization Criteria for Candidate Payload Evaluation ................................................................ 61 3.5.2.2 ISRU ................................................................................................................................................ 63 3.5.2.3 MEDLI+ ........................................................................................................................................... 63 3.5.2.4 Surface Weather Station ................................................................................................................ 64 3.5.2.5 Biomarker Detector System ........................................................................................................... 64 3.5.2.6 Summary......................................................................................................................................... 65 3.6 Objective D-2: Provide an Opportunity for Contributed Space Technology Program (STP) Participation, Compatible with the Science Payload and Within the Mission’s Payload Capacity ..... 67 2 Mars 2020 Science Definition Team Final Report July 1, 2013 3.6.1 Foundation ............................................................................................................................. 67 3.6.2 Technology and Measurement Options and Priorities .......................................................... 68 3.6.2.1 Range Trigger (high priority) ........................................................................................................... 68 3.6.2.2 Terrain-Relative Navigation (high priority) ..................................................................................... 69 3.6.2.3 MEDLI (high priority) ...................................................................................................................... 70 3.6.2.4 MEDLI+Up (high priority) ................................................................................................................ 70 3.6.2.5 Terminal Hazard Avoidance (medium-high priority) ...................................................................... 71 3.6.2.6 Direct-to-Earth Optical Communication Terminal (medium priority) ............................................ 72 3.6.2.7 Proximity Optical Communication Terminal (low priority)............................................................. 72 3.6.2.8 Other Entry, Descent, and Landing Enhancements (low priority) .................................................. 73 3.6.2.9 Improved
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 20 Years Building Astrobiology
    ASTROBIOLOGY Volume 20, Number 9, 2020 Special Collection Articles Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/ast.2020.0804 Introduction—Centro de Astrobiologı´a: 20 Years Building Astrobiology Vı´ctor Parro,1 J. Miguel Mas-Hesse,1 Javier Gomez-Elvira,1,2 A´ lvaro Gime´nez,1 and Juan Pe´rez-Mercader3 The Origins example of life, and we do not know how it was generated. It would require a team of scientists with a truly scientific he Centro de AstroBiologı´a (CAB) was founded in and professional knowledge and understanding of the TNovember 1999 as a joint institute between the Spanish various components of the puzzle. National Research Council (CSIC) and the National Institute That team began to emerge in Madrid, with scientists for Aerospace Technologies (INTA). Located in Madrid working in galactic astrophysics, planetary science, evolu- (Spain), CAB became the first astrobiology organization outside tion of life and of viruses, origins-of-life chemistry, meta- the United States to be associated with the NASA Astrobiology bolic processes in biochemistry, evolution of planets, Institute (NAI)—formally becoming an associate member in bioinformatics, extremophiles, and physics, together with the year 2000. Astrobiology considers life as a natural conse- engineers to design and produce instrumentation. This group, quence of the evolution of the Universe, and CAB aims to study from a variety of universities and government research cen- the origin, evolution, distribution, and future of life in the ters, such as INTA (Instituto Nacional de Te´cnica Aero- Universe, from an integrative transdisciplinary approach. espacial) and CSIC (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones CAB’s foundation was the result of a profound interest Cientı´ficas), started informal discussions; and a passion for in applying the scientific method to life—in the sense of the subject of astrobiology began to burn.
    [Show full text]
  • Meteorites on Mars Observed with the Mars Exploration Rovers C
    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 113, E06S22, doi:10.1029/2007JE002990, 2008 Meteorites on Mars observed with the Mars Exploration Rovers C. Schro¨der,1 D. S. Rodionov,2,3 T. J. McCoy,4 B. L. Jolliff,5 R. Gellert,6 L. R. Nittler,7 W. H. Farrand,8 J. R. Johnson,9 S. W. Ruff,10 J. W. Ashley,10 D. W. Mittlefehldt,1 K. E. Herkenhoff,9 I. Fleischer,2 A. F. C. Haldemann,11 G. Klingelho¨fer,2 D. W. Ming,1 R. V. Morris,1 P. A. de Souza Jr.,12 S. W. Squyres,13 C. Weitz,14 A. S. Yen,15 J. Zipfel,16 and T. Economou17 Received 14 August 2007; revised 9 November 2007; accepted 21 December 2007; published 18 April 2008. [1] Reduced weathering rates due to the lack of liquid water and significantly greater typical surface ages should result in a higher density of meteorites on the surface of Mars compared to Earth. Several meteorites were identified among the rocks investigated during Opportunity’s traverse across the sandy Meridiani plains. Heat Shield Rock is a IAB iron meteorite and has been officially recognized as ‘‘Meridiani Planum.’’ Barberton is olivine-rich and contains metallic Fe in the form of kamacite, suggesting a meteoritic origin. It is chemically most consistent with a mesosiderite silicate clast. Santa Catarina is a brecciated rock with a chemical and mineralogical composition similar to Barberton. Barberton, Santa Catarina, and cobbles adjacent to Santa Catarina may be part of a strewn field. Spirit observed two probable iron meteorites from its Winter Haven location in the Columbia Hills in Gusev Crater.
    [Show full text]
  • The Water on Mars Vanished. This Might Be Where It Went
    The water on Mars vanished. This might be where it went. timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/the-water-on-mars-vanished-this-might-be-where- it-went-/articleshow/81599751.cms NYT News Service | Mar 20, 2021, 10:32 IST Mars was once wet, with an ocean’s worth of water on its surface. Today, most of Mars is as dry as a desert except for ice deposits in its polar regions. Where did the rest of the water go? Some of it disappeared into space. Water molecules, pummeled by particles of solar wind, broke apart into hydrogen and oxygen atoms, and those, especially the lighter hydrogen atoms, sped out of the atmosphere, lost to outer space. A tall outcropping of rock, with layered deposits of sediments in the distance, marking a remnant of an ancient, long-vanished river delta in Jezero Crater, are pictured in this undated image taken by NASA's Mars rover Perseverance. (Reuters) But most of the water, a new study concludes, went down, sucked into the red planet’s rocks. And there it remains, trapped within minerals and salts. Indeed, as much as 99% of the water that once flowed on Mars could still be there, the researchers estimated in a paper published this week in the journal Science. Data from the past two decades of robotic missions to Mars, including NASA ’s Curiosity rover and the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, showed a wide distribution of what geologists call hydrated minerals. “It became very, very clear that it was common and not rare to find evidence of water alteration,” said Bethany Ehlmann, a professor of planetary science at the California Institute of Technology and one of the authors of the paper.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Aerothermodynamic Design of the Mars Science Laboratory Heatshield
    Aerothermodynamic Design of the Mars Science Laboratory Heatshield Karl T. Edquist∗ and Artem A. Dyakonovy NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, 23681 Michael J. Wrightz and Chun Y. Tangx NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California, 94035 Aerothermodynamic design environments are presented for the Mars Science Labora- tory entry capsule heatshield. The design conditions are based on Navier-Stokes flowfield simulations on shallow (maximum total heat load) and steep (maximum heat flux, shear stress, and pressure) entry trajectories from a 2009 launch. Boundary layer transition is expected prior to peak heat flux, a first for Mars entry, and the heatshield environments were defined for a fully-turbulent heat pulse. The effects of distributed surface roughness on turbulent heat flux and shear stress peaks are included using empirical correlations. Additional biases and uncertainties are based on computational model comparisons with experimental data and sensitivity studies. The peak design conditions are 197 W=cm2 for heat flux, 471 P a for shear stress, 0.371 Earth atm for pressure, and 5477 J=cm2 for total heat load. Time-varying conditions at fixed heatshield locations were generated for thermal protection system analysis and flight instrumentation development. Finally, the aerother- modynamic effects of delaying launch until 2011 are previewed. Nomenclature 1 2 2 A reference area, 4 πD (m ) CD drag coefficient, D=q1A D aeroshell diameter (m) 2 Dim multi-component diffusion coefficient (m =s) ci species mass fraction H total enthalpy
    [Show full text]
  • Aerocapture FS-Pdf.Indd
    NASA Facts National Aeronautics and Space Administration Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, Alabama 35812 FS-2004-09-127-MSFC July 2004 Aerocapture Technology NASA technologists are working to develop ways to place robotic space vehicles into long-duration, scientific orbits around distant Solar System destinations without the need for the heavy, on-board fuel loads that have historically inhibited vehicle performance, mission dura- tion and available mass for science payloads. Aerocapture -- a flight maneuver that inserts a space- craft into its proper orbit once it arrives at a planet -- is part of a unique family of “aeroassist” technologies under consideration to achieve these goals and enable robust science missions to any planetary body with an appreciable atmosphere. Aerocapture technology is just one of many propulsion technologies being developed by NASA technologists and their partners in industry and academia, led by NASA’s In-Space Propulsion Technology Office at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala. The Center implements the In-Space Propulsion Technolo- gies Program on behalf of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate in Washington. Aerocapture uses a planet’s or moon’s atmosphere to accomplish a quick, near-propellantless orbit capture to place a space vehicle in its proper orbit. The atmo- sphere is used as a brake to slow down a spacecraft, transferring the energy associated with the vehicle’s high speed into thermal energy. Aerocapture entering Mars Orbit. The aerocapture maneuver starts with an approach trajectory into the atmosphere of the target body. The dense atmosphere creates friction, slowing the craft and placing it into an elliptical orbit -- an oval shaped orbit.
    [Show full text]
  • Educator's Guide
    EDUCATOR’S GUIDE ABOUT THE FILM Dear Educator, “ROVING MARS”is an exciting adventure that This movie details the development of Spirit and follows the journey of NASA’s Mars Exploration Opportunity from their assembly through their Rovers through the eyes of scientists and engineers fantastic discoveries, discoveries that have set the at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Steve Squyres, pace for a whole new era of Mars exploration: from the lead science investigator from Cornell University. the search for habitats to the search for past or present Their collective dream of Mars exploration came life… and maybe even to human exploration one day. true when two rovers landed on Mars and began Having lasted many times longer than their original their scientific quest to understand whether Mars plan of 90 Martian days (sols), Spirit and Opportunity ever could have been a habitat for life. have confirmed that water persisted on Mars, and Since the 1960s, when humans began sending the that a Martian habitat for life is a possibility. While first tentative interplanetary probes out into the solar they continue their studies, what lies ahead are system, two-thirds of all missions to Mars have NASA missions that not only “follow the water” on failed. The technical challenges are tremendous: Mars, but also “follow the carbon,” a building block building robots that can withstand the tremendous of life. In the next decade, precision landers and shaking of launch; six months in the deep cold of rovers may even search for evidence of life itself, space; a hurtling descent through the atmosphere either signs of past microbial life in the rock record (going from 10,000 miles per hour to 0 in only six or signs of past or present life where reserves of minutes!); bouncing as high as a three-story building water ice lie beneath the Martian surface today.
    [Show full text]
  • NUCLEAR SAFETY LAUNCH APPROVAL: MULTI-MISSION LESSONS LEARNED Yale Chang the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
    ANS NETS 2018 – Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space Las Vegas, NV, February 26 – March 1, 2018, on CD-ROM, American Nuclear Society, LaGrange Park, IL (2018) NUCLEAR SAFETY LAUNCH APPROVAL: MULTI-MISSION LESSONS LEARNED Yale Chang The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, 11100 Johns Hopkins Rd, Laurel, MD 20723 240-228-5724; [email protected] Launching a NASA radioisotope power system (RPS) trajectory to Saturn used a Venus-Venus-Earth-Jupiter mission requires compliance with two Federal mandates: Gravity Assist (VVEJGA) maneuver, where the Earth the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) Gravity Assist (EGA) flyby was the primary nuclear safety and launch approval (LA), as directed by Presidential focus of NASA, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the Directive/National Security Council Memorandum 25. Cassini Interagency Nuclear Safety Review Panel Nuclear safety launch approval lessons learned from (INSRP), and the public alike. A solid propellant fire test multiple NASA RPS missions, one Russian RPS mission, campaign addressed the MPF finding and led in part to two non-RPS launch accidents, and several solid the retrofit solid propellant breakup systems (BUSs) propellant fire test campaigns since 1996 are shown to designed and carried by MER-A and MER-B spacecraft have contributed to an ever-growing body of knowledge. and the deployment of plutonium detectors in the launch The launch accidents can be viewed as “unplanned area for PNH. The PNH mission decreased the calendar experiments” that provided real-world data. Lessons length of the NEPA/LA processes to less than 4 years by learned from the nuclear safety launch approval effort of incorporating lessons learned from previous missions and each mission or launch accident, and how they were tests in its spacecraft and mission designs and their applied to improve the NEPA/LA processes and nuclear NEPA/LA processes.
    [Show full text]
  • Concepts and Approaches for Mars Exploration1
    June 24, 2012 Concepts and Approaches for Mars Exploration1 ‐ Report of a Workshop at LPI, June 12‐14, 2012 – Stephen Mackwell2 (LPI) Michael Amato (NASA Goddard), Bobby Braun (Georgia Institute of Technology), Steve Clifford (LPI), John Connolly (NASA Johnson), Marcello Coradini (ESA), Bethany Ehlmann (Caltech), Vicky Hamilton (SwRI), John Karcz (NASA Ames), Chris McKay (NASA Ames), Michael Meyer (NASA HQ), Brian Mulac (NASA Marshall), Doug Stetson (SSECG), Dale Thomas (NASA Marshall), and Jorge Vago (ESA) Executive Summary Recent deep cuts in the budget for Mars exploration at NASA necessitate a reconsideration of the Mars robotic exploration program within NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD), especially in light of overlapping requirements with future planning for human missions to the Mars environment. As part of that reconsideration, a workshop on “Concepts and Approaches for Mars Exploration” was held at the USRA Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston, TX, on June 12‐14, 2012. Details of the meeting, including abstracts, video recordings of all sessions, and plenary presentations, can be found at http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/marsconcepts2012/. Participation in the workshop included scientists, engineers, and graduate students from academia, NASA Centers, Federal Laboratories, industry, and international partner organizations. Attendance was limited to 185 participants in order to facilitate open discussion of the critical issues for Mars exploration in the coming decades. As 390 abstracts were submitted by individuals interested in participating in the workshop, the Workshop Planning Team carefully selected a subset of the abstracts for presentation based on their appropriateness to the workshop goals, and ensuring that a broad diverse suite of concepts and ideas was presented.
    [Show full text]
  • Mars Exploration Rovers: 4 Years on Mars
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20080047431 2019-10-28T16:17:34+00:00Z Mars Exploration Rovers: 4 Years on Mars Geoffrey A. Landis This January, the Mars Exploration Rovers "Spirit" and "Opportunity" are starting their fifth year of exploring the surface of Mars, well over ten times their nominal 90-day design lifetime. This lecture discusses the Mars Exploration Rovers, presents the current mission status for the extended mission, some of the most results from the mission and how it is affecting our current view of Mars, and briefly presents the plans for the coming NASA missions to the surface of Mars and concepts for exploration with robots and humans into the next decade, and beyond. Four Years on Mars: the Mars Exploration Rovers Geoffrey A. Landis NASA John Glenn Research Center http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis Presentation at MIT Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, January 18, 2008 Exploration - Landis Mars viewed from the Hubble Space Telescope Exploration - Landis Views of Mars in the early 20th century Lowell 1908 Sciaparelli 1888 Burroughs 1912 (cover painting by Frazetta) Tales of Outer Space ed. Donald A. Wollheim, Ace D-73, 1954 (From Winchell Chung's web page projectrho.com) Exploration - Landis Past Missions to Mars: first close up images of Mars from Mariner 4 Mariner 4 discovered Mars was a barren, moon-like desert Exploration - Landis Viking 1976 Signs of past water on Mars? orbiter Photo from orbit by the 1976 Viking orbiter Exploration - Landis Pathfinder and Sojourner Rover: a solar-powered mission
    [Show full text]
  • Bethany L. Ehlmann California Institute of Technology 1200 E. California Blvd. MC 150-21 Pasadena, CA 91125 USA Ehlmann@Caltech
    Bethany L. Ehlmann California Institute of Technology [email protected] 1200 E. California Blvd. Caltech office: +1 626.395.6720 MC 150-21 JPL office: +1 818.354.2027 Pasadena, CA 91125 USA Fax: +1 626.568.0935 EDUCATION Ph.D., 2010; Sc. M., 2008, Brown University, Geological Sciences (advisor, J. Mustard) M.Sc. by research, 2007, University of Oxford, Geography (Geomorphology; advisor, H. Viles) M.Sc. with distinction, 2005, Univ. of Oxford, Environ. Change & Management (advisor, J. Boardman) A.B. summa cum laude, 2004, Washington University in St. Louis (advisor, R. Arvidson) Majors: Earth & Planetary Sciences, Environmental Studies; Minor: Mathematics International Baccalaureate Diploma, Rickards High School, Tallahassee, Florida, 2000 Additional Training: Nordic/NASA Summer School: Water, Ice and the Origin of Life in the Universe, Iceland, 2009 Vatican Observatory Summer School in Astronomy &Astrophysics, Castel Gandolfo, Italy, 2005 Rainforest to Reef Program: Marine Geology, Coastal Sedimentology, James Cook Univ., Australia, 2004 School for International Training, Development and Conservation Program, Panamá, Sept-Dec 2002 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Professor of Planetary Science, Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Assistant Professor 2011-2017, Professor 2017-present; Associate Director, Keck Institute for Space Studies 2018-present Research Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, 2011-2020 Lunar Trailblazer, Principal Investigator, 2019-present MaMISS
    [Show full text]
  • Space Biology Research and Biosensor Technologies: Past, Present, and Future †
    biosensors Perspective Space Biology Research and Biosensor Technologies: Past, Present, and Future † Ada Kanapskyte 1,2, Elizabeth M. Hawkins 1,3,4, Lauren C. Liddell 5,6, Shilpa R. Bhardwaj 5,7, Diana Gentry 5 and Sergio R. Santa Maria 5,8,* 1 Space Life Sciences Training Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA; [email protected] (A.K.); [email protected] (E.M.H.) 2 Biomedical Engineering Department, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA 3 KBR Wyle, Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA 4 Mammoth Biosciences, Inc., South San Francisco, CA 94080, USA 5 NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA; [email protected] (L.C.L.); [email protected] (S.R.B.); [email protected] (D.G.) 6 Logyx, LLC, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA 7 The Bionetics Corporation, Yorktown, VA 23693, USA 8 COSMIAC Research Institute, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-650-604-1411 † Presented at the 1st International Electronic Conference on Biosensors, 2–17 November 2020; Available online: https://iecb2020.sciforum.net/. Abstract: In light of future missions beyond low Earth orbit (LEO) and the potential establishment of bases on the Moon and Mars, the effects of the deep space environment on biology need to be examined in order to develop protective countermeasures. Although many biological experiments have been performed in space since the 1960s, most have occurred in LEO and for only short periods of time. These LEO missions have studied many biological phenomena in a variety of model organisms, and have utilized a broad range of technologies.
    [Show full text]