A report requested by the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group Mars Astrobiology Explorer- Cacher (MAX-C): A Potential Rover Mission for 2018 Final Report of the Mars Mid-Range Rover Science Analysis Group (MRR-SAG) October 14, 2009 Recommended bibliographic citation: MEPAG MRR-SAG (2009) Mars Astrobiology Explorer-Cacher: A potential rover mission for 2018, Final report from the Mid-Range Rover Science Analysis Group (MRR-SAG), 94 pp., posted November 10, 2009, by the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group (MEPAG) at http://mepag.jpl.nasa.gov/reports/. Or: Pratt, L.M., C. Allen, A.C. Allwood, A. Anbar, S.K. Atreya, D.W. Beaty, M.H. Carr, J.A. Crisp, D.J. Des Marais, J.A. Grant, D.P. Glavin, V.E. Hamilton, K. Herkenhoff, V. Hipkin, B. Sherwood Lollar, T.M. McCollom, A.S. McEwen, S.M. McLennan, R.E. Milliken, D.W. Ming, G.G. Ori, J. Parnell, F. Poulet, C.G. Salvo, F. Westall, C.W. Whetsel, and M.G. Wilson (2009) Mars Astrobiology Explorer-Cacher: A potential rover mission for 2018, Final report from the Mid-Range Rover Science Analysis Group (MRR-SAG), 94 pp., posted November 10, 2009, by the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group (MEPAG) at http://mepag.jpl.nasa.gov/reports/. Inquiries regarding this report should be directed to Lisa Pratt ([email protected]), David Beaty ([email protected]), or Joy Crisp ([email protected]). JPL Document Review Clearance CL#09-4589 1 Members: Lisa M. Pratt, Chair, Indiana University Carl Allen, NASA Johnson Space Center Abby Allwood, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology Ariel Anbar, Arizona State University Sushil Atreya, University of Michigan Mike Carr, U.S. Geological Survey, retired Dave DesMarais, NASA Ames Research Center John Grant, Smithsonian Institution Daniel Glavin, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Vicky Hamilton, Southwest Research Institute Ken Herkenhoff, U.S. Geological Survey Vicky Hipkin, Canadian Space Agency, Canada Barbara Sherwood Lollar, University of Toronto, Canada Tom McCollom, University of Colorado Alfred McEwen, University of Arizona Scott McLennan, State University of New York, Stony Brook Ralph Milliken, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology Doug Ming, NASA Johnson Space Flight Center Gian Gabrielle Ori, International Research School of Planetary Sciences, Italy John Parnell, University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom François Poulet, Université Paris-Sud, France Frances Westall, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, France ExOfficio Members: David Beaty, Mars Program Office, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology Joy Crisp, Mars Program Office, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology Chris Salvo, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology Charles Whetsel, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology Michael Wilson, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology Acknowledgements: We are grateful to these outside experts who assisted our team in answering questions: Fernando Abilleira, F. Scott Anderson, Paul Backes, Don Banfield, Luther Beegle, Rohit Bhartia, Jordana Blacksberg, Diana Blaney, Karen Buxbaum, Shane Byrne, John Eiler, Sabrina Feldman, Lori Fenton, Kathryn Fishbaugh, Marc Fries, Matt Golombek, Bob Haberle, Samad Hayati, Michael Hecht, Arthur (Lonne) Lane, Lucia Marinangeli, Richard Mattingly, Tim Michaels, Denis Moura, Zacos Mouroulis, Mike Mumma, Scot Rafkin, Carol Raymond, Glenn Sellar, Christophe Sotin, Rob Sullivan, Tim Swindle, Marguerite Syvertson, Ken Tanaka, Peter Thomas, Lawrence A. Wade, Ben Weiss, Richard Zurek, and the MEPAG Goals Committee. Some of this research was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. In the early parts of this study, the contributions of Hap McSween were important. Proposed Mars Astrobiology Explorer-Cacher (MAX-C) 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. 2-PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 4 2. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 6 3. SCIENTIFIC PRIORITIES FOR A POSSIBLE LATE DECADE ROVER MISSION ......................................................... 8 4. DEVELOPMENT OF A SPECTRUM OF POSSIBLE MISSION CONCEPTS .................................................................. 11 5. EVALUATION, PRIORITIZATION OF CANDIDATE MISSION CONCEPTS ............................................................... 13 6. STRATEGY TO ACHIEVE PRIMARY IN SITU OBJECTIVES..................................................................................... 17 7. RELATIONSHIP TO A POTENTIAL SAMPLE RETURN CAMPAIGN ......................................................................... 25 8. CONSENSUS MISSION VISION ............................................................................................................................... 33 9. CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO LANDING SITE SELECTION ............................................................................... 35 10. SOME ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO THE CONSENSUS MISSION VISION ................................ 42 11. REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................... 47 12. APPENDIX A. MRR-SAG CHARTER AND PROCESS ............................................................................................ 61 13. APPENDIX B. MISSION CONCEPTS EVALUATED .................................................................................................. 64 14. APPENDIX C. POSSIBLE AUGMENTATION PACKAGES ......................................................................................... 85 15. APPENDIX D. SOME NOTES ABOUT POSSIBLE WAYS TO REDUCE THE MASS OF THE ROVER ........................... 90 16. APPENDIX E. PLANETARY PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS FOR FUTURE MISSIONS THAT CACHE SAMPLES FOR POTENTIAL RETURN TO EARTH.......................................................................................................................... 92 17. APPENDIX F. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................. 93 Proposed Mars Astrobiology Explorer-Cacher (MAX-C) 3 1. 2-PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report documents the work of the Mid-Range Rover Science Advisory Group (MRR-SAG), which was assigned to formulate a concept for a potential rover mission that could be launched to Mars in 2018. Based on programmatic and engineering considerations as of April, 2009, our deliberations assumed that the potential mission would use the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) sky-crane landing system, would include a single solar-powered rover, would have a targeting accuracy of ~ 7 km (semi-major axis landing ellipse), would have a mobility range of at least 10 km, and would have a lifetime on the martian surface of at least one Earth year. An additional key consideration, given recently declining budgets and cost growth issues with MSL, is that the proposed rover must have lower cost and cost risk than those of MSL—this is an essential consideration for Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group (MEPAG). The MRR-SAG was asked to formulate a mission concept that would address two general objectives: (1) conduct high-priority in situ science and (2) make concrete steps towards the potential return of samples to Earth. The proposed means of achieving these two goals while balancing the trade-offs between them are described here in detail. We propose the name Mars Astrobiology Explorer-Cacher (MAX-C) to reflect the dual purpose of this potential 2018 rover mission. A key conclusion is that the capabilities needed to carry out compelling, breakthrough science at the martian surface are the same as those needed to select samples for potential sample return, and to document their context. This leads to a common rover concept with the following attributes: Mast- or body-mounted instruments capable of establishing local geologic context and identifying targets for close-up investigation. This could consist of an optical camera and an instrument to remotely determine mineralogy. Documentation of the field context of the landing site would include mapping outcrops and other accessible rocks, characterization of mineralogy and geochemistry, and interpretation of paleoenvironments. A tool to produce a flat abraded surface on rock samples. A set of arm-mounted instruments capable of interrogating the abraded surfaces by creating co-registered 2-D maps of visual texture, major element geochemistry, mineralogy, and organic geochemistry. This information would be used to understand the diversity of the samples at the landing site, to formulate hypotheses for the origin of that diversity, and to seek candidate signs of past life preserved in the geologic record. This information could also be used to select an outstanding set of rock core samples for potential return to Earth. A rock core acquisition, encapsulation, and caching system of the standards specified by MEPAG Next Decade Science Analysis Group (ND-SAG) (2008). This cache would be left in a position (either on the ground or on the rover) where it could be recovered by a future potential sample return mission. We propose the following summary primary scientific