Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “mission objectives”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2008

Constellation Architecture Team-Lunar: Lunar Habitat Concepts

This paper will describe lunar habitat concepts that were defined as part of the Constellation Architecture Team-Lunar (CxAT-Lunar) in support of the Vision for Space Exploration. There are many challenges to designing lunar habitats such as mission objectives, launch packaging, lander capability, and risks. Surface habitats are required in support of sustaining human life to meet the mission objectives of lunar exploration, operations, and sustainability. Lunar surface operations consist of crew operations, mission operations, EVA operations, science operations, and logistics operations. Habitats are crewed pressurized vessels that include surface mission operations, science laboratories, living support capabilities, EVA support, logistics, and maintenance facilities. The challenge is to deliver, unload, and deploy self-contained habitats and laboratories to the lunar surface. The CxAT-Lunar surface campaign analysis focused on three primary trade sets of analysis. Trade set one (TS1) investigated sustaining a crew of four for six months with full outpost capability and the ability to perform long surface mission excursions using large mobility systems. Two basic habitat concepts of a hard metallic horizontal cylinder and a larger inflatable torus concept were investigated as options in response to the surface exploration architecture campaign analysis. Figure 1 and 2 depicts the notional outpost configurations for this trade set. Trade set two (TS2) investigated a mobile architecture approach with the campaign focused on early exploration using two small pressurized rovers and a mobile logistics support capability. This exploration concept will not be described in this paper. Trade set three (TS3) investigated delivery of a "core' habitation capability in support of an early outpost that would mature into the TS1 full outpost capability. Three core habitat concepts were defined for this campaign analysis. One with a four port core habitat, another with a 2 port core habitat, and the third investigated leveraging commonality of the lander ascent module and airlock pressure vessel hard shell. The paper will describe an overview of the various habitat concepts and their functionality. The Crew Operations area includes basic crew accommodations such as sleeping, eating, hygiene and stowage. The EVA Operations area includes additional EVA capability beyond the suit-port airlock function such as redundant airlock(s), suit maintenance, spares stowage, and suit stowage. The Logistics Operations area includes the enhanced accommodations for 180 days such as closed loop life support systems hardware, consumable stowage, spares stowage, interconnection to the other Hab units, and a common interface mechanism for future growth and mating to a pressurized rover. The Mission & Science Operations area includes enhanced outpost autonomy such as an IVA glove box, life support, and medical operations.

Toups, Larry↗
NASA NTRS2022

Ten Years of VIIRS On-Orbit Geolocation Calibration and Performance

The first innovative Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) sensor aboard the Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (SNPP) satellite has been in operation for 10 years since its launch on 28 October 2011. The second VIIRS sensor aboard the first Join Polar Satellite System (JPSS-1) satellite has been in operation for 4 years since its launch on 18 November 2017, which became NOAA-20. Well-geolocated and radiometrically calibrated Level-1 sensor data records (SDRs) from VIIRS are crucial to numerical weather prediction (NWP) and Level-2+ environmental data record (EDR) algorithms and products. The high quality of Level-2+ EDRs is a requirement for the continuity of NASA Earth science data records (ESDRs) and climate data records (CDRs), one of the two objectives of the SNPP mission and one of the three elements in the JPSS mission objective. The other objective of the SNPP mission is risk reduction for the follow-on JPSS missions. This paper summarizes the on-orbit geolocation calibration and validation (Cal/Val) activities for both VIIRS sensors onboard SNPP and NOAA-20 in the past 10 years. These activities include nominal geolocation Cal/Val activities, risk reduction activities, and improvements for the on-orbit VIIRS sensor operations. After these activities, sub-pixel geolocation accuracy is achieved. Nadir equivalent geolocation uncertainty is generally within 75 m (1-σ), or 20% imagery band pixels, in either the along-scan or along-track direction for both SNPP and NOAA-20 VIIRS sensors. The worst 16-day measured geolocation errors (radial, 3-σ) are 280 m and 267 m, respectively, in the latest SNPP and NOAA-20 VIIRS data collections, which are better than the required accuracy of 375 m (radial, 3-σ). The risk reduction activities also improved VIIRS builds for JPSS-3 and JPSS-4 satellites, and provide lessons learned for other VIIRS-like sensor builds.

VIIRS↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Adopting an Objectives-Driven Assurance Case Approach for Achieving Space Flight Mission Planetary Protection Objectives

Traditionally, NASA has utilized prescriptive technical and process requirements to ensure safety and mission assurance performance objectives for space flight missions are achieved. While prescriptive re-quirements may be easier to communicate and manage throughout the systems engineering process, the highly-constrained nature of prescriptive requirements can limit the ability to take advantage of cost-saving opportunities and offer limited ability to explore other options or alternative designs, processes, and methods. It can also be difficult to develop prescriptive requirements for objectives that are prob-abilistic in nature or that cannot be satisfied by direct verification. In contrast, the development of an assurance case allows for a compelling, comprehensible, and valid argument to be developed with support-ing evidence that shows safety and mission assurance objectives have been satisfied. Analogous to how patent applications are constructed for inventions, an assurance case has a high-level claim of meeting a safety and mission assurance objective, followed by a more specific set of sub-claims and technical evidence which supports the claims. The objectives-driven assurance case approach allows for a better understand-ing and exploration of the trade space, more flexibility to balance trades, and the ability to realize and implement technical and process innovations for resource, time, and cost savings. The assurance case is a living case that evolves over the entire program life cycle. Recently, NASA’s Office of Planetary Pro-tection (OPP) has adopted the assurance case approach as an acceptable methodology for demonstrating avoidance of contamination of target solar system bodies explored by NASA space flight missions. This methodology has been incorporated into NASA’s new technical standard for planetary protection and is currently being utilized by the Mars Sample Return campaign for safe sample containment during sample return. This presentation will explore the development and implementation of an assurance case approach in the context of planetary protection, the shift from prescriptive requirements and the ongoing culture change in the technical community, and the support and guidance from NASA’s OPP in adopting the assurance case approach for achieving planetary protection objectives on NASA’s space flight missions.

Elaine Seasly↗
NASA NTRS2006

Robotic Lunar Exploration

This presentation describes current Lunar Exploration plans and objectives. It begins with specific statements from the President s vision for U.S. Space Exploration which pertain to robotic lunar missions. An outline of missions objectives is provided, along with a high-level schedule of events through the year 2025. Focus is then given to the Lunar Robotic and Precursor Program (LPRP) to describe objectives and goals. Recent developments in the Program are explained - specifically, the renaming of the RLEP program to "LPRP" and the movement of the program office to MSFC. A brief summary of the synergy expected between the robotic and crewed missions, with the LSAM descent stage Project is given. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission, with its co-manifested Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS), is then described with an overview of the payloads and mission objectives. Finally, information is given about the expected future of the LPRP program and Exploration and the development of a compressive Lunar Exploration Architecture.

Echols, Raymond↗
NASA NTRS2000

Applying Technology Ranking and Systems Engineering in Advanced Life Support

According to the Advanced Life Support (ALS) Program Plan, the Systems Modeling and Analysis Project (SMAP) has two important tasks: 1) prioritizing investments in ALS Research and Technology Development (R&TD), and 2) guiding the evolution of ALS systems. Investments could be prioritized simply by independently ranking different technologies, but we should also consider a technology's impact on system design. Guiding future ALS systems will require SMAP to consider many aspects of systems engineering. R&TD investments can be prioritized using familiar methods for ranking technology. The first step is gathering data on technology performance, safety, readiness level, and cost. Then the technologies are ranked using metrics or by decision analysis using net present economic value. The R&TD portfolio can be optimized to provide the maximum expected payoff in the face of uncertain future events. But more is needed. The optimum ALS system can not be designed simply by selecting the best technology for each predefined subsystem. Incorporating a new technology, such as food plants, can change the specifications of other subsystems, such as air regeneration. Systems must be designed top-down starting from system objectives, not bottom-up from selected technologies. The familiar top-down systems engineering process includes defining mission objectives, mission design, system specification, technology analysis, preliminary design, and detail design. Technology selection is only one part of systems analysis and engineering, and it is strongly related to the subsystem definitions. ALS systems should be designed using top-down systems engineering. R&TD technology selection should consider how the technology affects ALS system design. Technology ranking is useful but it is only a small part of systems engineering.

Jones, Harry↗
NASA NTRS2010

In-Flight Operation of the Dawn Ion Propulsion System: Status at One Year from the Vesta Rendezvous

The Dawn mission, part of NASA's Discovery Program, has as its goal the scientific exploration of the two most massive main-belt asteroids, Vesta and Ceres. The Dawn spacecraft was launched from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station on September 27, 2007 on a Delta-II 7925H-9.5 (Delta-II Heavy) rocket that placed the 1218 kg spacecraft into an Earth-escape trajectory. On-board the spacecraft is an ion propulsion system (IPS) developed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory which will provide most of the delta V needed for heliocentric transfer to Vesta, orbit capture at Vesta, transfer among Vesta science orbits, departure and escape from Vesta, heliocentric transfer to Ceres, orbit capture at Ceres, and transfer among Ceres science orbits. The Dawn ion thruster [I thought we only called it a thruster. Both terms are used in the paper, but I think a replacement of every occurrence of "engine" with "thruster" would be clearer.] design is based on the design validated on NASA's Deep Space 1 (DS1) mission. However, because of the very substantial (11 km/s) delta V requirements for this mission Dawn requires two engines to complete its mission objectives. The power processor units (PPU), digital control and interface units (DCIU) slice boards and the xenon control assembly (XCA) are derivatives of the components used on DS1. The DCIUs and thrust gimbal assemblies (TGA) were developed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The spacecraft was provided by Orbital Sciences Corporation, Sterling, Virginia, and the mission is managed by and operated from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Dawn partnered with Germany, Italy and Los Alamos National Laboratory for the science instruments. The mission is led by the principal investigator, Dr. Christopher Russell, from the University of California, Los Angeles. The first 80 days after launch were dedicated to the initial checkout of the spacecraft followed by cruise to Mars. Cruise thrusting leading to a Mars gravity assist began on December 17, 2007 and was successfully concluded as planned on October 31, 2008. During this time period the Dawn IPS was operated mostly at full power for approximately 6500 hours, consumed 71.7 kg of xenon and delivered approximately 1.8 km/s of delta V to the spacecraft. The thrusting to Mars was followed by a coasting period of approximately 3.5 months that included a Mars flyby in February of 2009. The Mars flyby provided a gravity assist (MGA) for a plane change and approximately 1 km/s of heliocentric energy increase and is the only part of the mission following launch in which a needed velocity change is not accomplished by the IPS. During the coast period IPS was operated for a trajectory correction maneuver and for engineering tests but was not operated for primary propulsion. Closest approach to Mars occurred as planned on February 17, 2009 and was followed by another coasting period of just under 4 months in duration. During this last coasting phase IPS was operated only for routine maintenance activities and for system engineering tests. Deterministic thrusting for heliocentric transfer to Vesta resumed on June 8, 2009. Since resumption of cruise to Vesta IPS has been operated at throttled power levels, most of the time at full power, and with a duty cycle of approximately 93%, leading to an arrival at Vesta in July of 2011 and arrival at Ceres in February 2015. This paper provides an overview of Dawn's mission objectives and the results of Dawn IPS mission operations through one year from the spacecraft's rendezvous with Vesta.

Garner, Charles E.↗
NASA NTRS2009

In-Flight Operation of the Dawn Ion Propulsion System Through Start of the Vesta Cruise Phase

The Dawn mission, part of NASA's Discovery Program, has as its goal the scientific exploration of the two most massive main-belt asteroids, Vesta and Ceres. The Dawn spacecraft was launched from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station on September 27, 2007 on a Delta-II 7925H-9.5 (Delta-II Heavy) rocket that placed the 1218 kg spacecraft into an Earth-escape trajectory. On-board the spacecraft is an ion propulsion system (IPS) which will provide most of the delta V needed for heliocentric transfer to Vesta, orbit capture at Vesta, transfer to Vesta science orbits, departure and escape from Vesta, heliocentric transfer to Ceres, orbit capture at Ceres, and transfer to Ceres science orbits. The Dawn ion design is based on the design validated on NASA's Deep Space 1 (DS1) mission. However, because of the very substantial (11 km/s) delta V requirements for this mission Dawn requires two engines to complete its mission objectives. The power processor units (PPU), digital control and interface units (DCIU) slice boards and the xenon control assembly (XCA) are derivatives of the components used on DS1. The DCIUs and thrust gimbal assemblies (TGA) were developed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The spacecraft was provided by Orbital Sciences Corporation, Sterling, Virginia, and the mission is managed by and operated from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Dawn partnered with Germany, Italy and Los Alamos National Laboratory for the science instruments. The mission is led by the principal investigator, Dr. Christopher Russell, from the University of California, Los Angeles. The first 80 days after launch were dedicated to the initial checkout of the spacecraft followed by cruise to Mars. Cruise thrusting leading to a Mars gravity assist began on December 17, 2007 and was successfully concluded as planned on October 31, 2008. During this time period the Dawn IPS was operated mostly at full power for approximately 6500 hours, consumed 71.7 kg of xenon and delivered approximately 1.8 km/s of delta V to the spacecraft. The thrusting to Mars was followed by a coasting period of approximately 3.5 months that included a Mars flyby in February of 2009. The Mars flyby provided a gravity assist (MGA) for a plane change and approximately 1 km/s of heliocentric energy increase and is the only part of the mission following launch in which a needed velocity change is not accomplished by the IPS. During the coast period IPS was operated for a trajectory correction maneuver and for engineering tests but was not operated for primary propulsion. Closest approach to Mars occurred as planned on February 17, 2009 and was followed by another coasting period of just under 4 months in duration. During this last coasting phase IPS was operated only for routine maintenance activities and for system engineering tests. Deterministic thrusting for heliocentric transfer to Vesta resumed on June 8, 2009. IPS will be operated for over two years at throttled power levels leading to arrival at Vesta in September of 2011 and arrival at Ceres in February 2015. This paper provides an overview of Dawn's mission objectives and the results of Dawn IPS mission operations through the start of deterministic thrusting to Vesta.

Garner, Charles E.↗
NASA NTRS2014

Space Launch System Upper Stage Technology Assessment

The Space Launch System (SLS) is envisioned as a heavy-lift vehicle that will provide the foundation for future beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO) exploration missions. Previous studies have been performed to determine the optimal configuration for the SLS and the applicability of commercial off-the-shelf in-space stages for Earth departure. Currently NASA is analyzing the concept of a Dual Use Upper Stage (DUUS) that will provide LEO insertion and Earth departure burns. This paper will explore candidate in-space stages based on the DUUS design for a wide range of beyond LEO missions. Mission payloads will range from small robotic systems up to human systems with deep space habitats and landers. Mission destinations will include cislunar space, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Given these wide-ranging mission objectives, a vehicle-sizing tool has been developed to determine the size of an Earth departure stage based on the mission objectives. The tool calculates masses for all the major subsystems of the vehicle including propellant loads, avionics, power, engines, main propulsion system components, tanks, pressurization system and gases, primary structural elements, and secondary structural elements. The tool uses an iterative sizing algorithm to determine the resulting mass of the stage. Any input into one of the subsystem sizing routines or the mission parameters can be treated as a parametric sweep or as a distribution for use in Monte Carlo analysis. Taking these factors together allows for multi-variable, coupled analysis runs. To increase confidence in the tool, the results have been verified against two point-of-departure designs of the DUUS. The tool has also been verified against Apollo moon mission elements and other manned space systems. This paper will focus on trading key propulsion technologies including chemical, Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP), and Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP). All of the key performance inputs and relationships will be presented and discussed in light of the various missions. For each mission there are several trajectory options and each will be discussed in terms of delta-v required and transit duration. Each propulsion system will be modeled, sized, and judged based on their applicability to the whole range of beyond LEO missions. Criteria for scoring will include the resulting dry mass of the stage, resulting propellant required, time to destination, and an assessment of key enabling technologies. In addition to the larger metrics, this paper will present the results of several coupled sensitivity studies. The ultimate goals of these tools and studies are to provide NASA with the most mass-, technology-, and cost-effective in-space stage for its future exploration missions.

Holladay, Jon↗
NASA NTRS2014

Calculation of Operations Efficiency Factors for Mars Surface Missions

The duration of a mission--and subsequently, the minimum spacecraft lifetime--is a key component in designing the capabilities of a spacecraft during mission formulation. However, determining the duration is not simply a function of how long it will take the spacecraft to execute the activities needed to achieve mission objectives. Instead, the effects of the interaction between the spacecraft and ground operators must also be taken into account. This paper describes a method, using "operations efficiency factors", to account for these effects for Mars surface missions. Typically, this level of analysis has not been performed until much later in the mission development cycle, and has not been able to influence mission or spacecraft design. Further, the notion of moving to sustainable operations during Prime Mission--and the effect that change would have on operations productivity and mission objective choices--has not been encountered until the most recent rover missions (MSL, the (now-cancelled) joint NASA-ESA 2018 Mars rover, and the proposed rover for Mars 2020). Since MSL had a single control center and sun-synchronous relay assets (like MER), estimates of productivity derived from MER prime and extended missions were used. However, Mars 2018's anticipated complexity (there would have been control centers in California and Italy, and a non-sun-synchronous relay asset) required the development of an explicit model of operations efficiency that could handle these complexities. In the case of the proposed Mars 2018 mission, the model was employed to assess the mission return of competing operations concepts, and as an input to component lifetime requirements. In this paper we provide examples of how to calculate the operations efficiency factor for a given operational configuration, and how to apply the factors to surface mission scenarios. This model can be applied to future missions to enable early effective trades between operations design, science mission planning, and spacecraft design.

Laubach, Sharon↗
NASA NTRS2012

A Briefing on Metrics and Risks for Autonomous Decision-Making in Aerospace Applications

Significant technology advances will enable future aerospace systems to safely and reliably make decisions autonomously, or without human interaction. The decision-making may result in actions that enable an aircraft or spacecraft in an off-nominal state or with slightly degraded components to achieve mission performance and safety goals while reducing or avoiding damage to the aircraft or spacecraft. Some key technology enablers for autonomous decision-making include: a continuous state awareness through the maturation of the prognostics health management field, novel sensor development, and the considerable gains made in computation power and data processing bandwidth versus system size. Sophisticated algorithms and physics based models coupled with these technological advances allow reliable assessment of a system, subsystem, or components. Decisions that balance mission objectives and constraints with remaining useful life predictions can be made autonomously to maintain safety requirements, optimal performance, and ensure mission objectives. This autonomous approach to decision-making will come with new risks and benefits, some of which will be examined in this paper. To start, an account of previous work to categorize or quantify autonomy in aerospace systems will be presented. In addition, a survey of perceived risks in autonomous decision-making in the context of piloted aircraft and remotely piloted or completely autonomous unmanned autonomous systems (UAS) will be presented based on interviews that were conducted with individuals from industry, academia, and government.

Frost, Susan↗
NASA NTRS1974

Skylab extravehicular activity

The use of extravehicular activity (EVA) techniques during the Skylab program for accomplishing major mission objectives and major and minor repair work outside the Skylab workshop is discussed. There were ten EVA periods during Skylab that lasted 82.5 man-hr. Accomplishments included those planned before the mission; but, more important, the Skylab mission was saved by EVA. The life-giving solar wing was erected during the first manned Skylab mission, and the permanent solar shield was erected during the second manned Skylab mission. In addition, 18 extra mission objectives and 13 in-flight repair tasks were accomplished through EVA during the Skylab missions.

Schultz, D. C.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Toxicological approach to setting spacecraft maximum allowable concentrations for carbon monoxide

The Spacecraft Maximum Allowable Concentrations (SMACs) are exposure limits for airborne chemicals used by NASA in spacecraft. The aim of these SMACs is to protect the spacecrew against adverse health effects and performance decrements that would interfere with mission objectives. Because of the 1 and 24 hr SMACs are set for contingencies, minor reversible toxic effects that do not affect mission objectives are acceptable. The 7, 30, or 180 day SMACs are aimed at nominal operations, so they are established at levels that would not cause noncarcinogenic toxic effects and more than one case of tumor per 1000 exposed individuals over the background. The process used to set the SMACs for carbon monoxide (CO) is described to illustrate the approach used by NASA. After the toxicological literature on CO was reviewed, the data were summarized and separated into acute, subchronic, and chronic toxicity data. CO's toxicity depends on the formation of carboxyhemoglobin (COHb) in the blood, reducing the blood's oxygen carrying capacity. The initial task was to estimate the COHb levels that would not produce toxic effects in the brain and heart.

Wong, K. L.↗
NASA NTRS1977

STRATCOM-8 scientific objectives and mission orginization

Stratospheric photochemistry was studied, with emphasis on the Ozone-NOx-ultraviolet flux interactions, but also including members of the chlorine, water vapor, and carbon-containing families. Secondary objectives include: (1) study of the balloon environment, (2) comparison of independent measurements of ozone and of NO, (3) development of new sensor systems; and (4) some measurements for exploratory purposes. Most, but not all, systems and instruments performed as planned, and it is believed that data are available to achieve most of the planned scientific and engineering objectives. The emphasis on photochemistry in the 35 to 40 km region is greater than anticipated, and observations are more complete for sunset than for sunrise. The planned instruments and a summary of the flight operations is discussed partly for the mutual information of those participating and partly for the wider scientific community.

Reed, E. I.↗
NASA NTRS2004

Communicating Medical Needs to Non-Medical Managers

Differences in communication styles and languages between groups often lead to miscommunication, confusion, and/or frustration. Engineers, computer specialists, clinicians, and managers often utilize the English language in very different ways, with different groups using the same words to represent different concepts ("complaint" is a typical example). In addition, medical issues are often perceived as "off-nominal" and not "primary mission tasks" by managers, which can cause them to assign lower priorities to medical training time and resources. Knowledge bases differ due to variations in training and skill sets, and the goals (both immediate and long-term) of the communicators may also vary, with managers being primarily concerned with overall mission objectives, while clinicians focus on individual or group health issues. Furthermore, true communication is only possible when clinicians possess a deep understanding of mission requirements as well as the ability to communicate medical requirements on a priority basis using risk assessment, added value, and cost benefit analysis. These understandable differences may contribute to difficulties in expressing concerns and ideas in an efficient manner, particularly in projects, such as the space program or many military operations, where these varied groups must collaborate, and where the final decisions must be made by fully informed mission commanders. Methods: Three scenario-based approaches were developed utilizing decision trees and problem based learning, to help define and integrate these concepts. Results: Use of these techniques by NASA and military personnel will be presented. Discussion: To enhance communication, particularly of medical needs, one must identify the concerns and motivating factors for the other groups; for example, members of management may focus on financial concerns, a desire for risk mitigation, public perceptions, mission objectives, etc. Training clinicians to frame issues in these terms may lead to better understanding of the medical concerns by other groups.

Bacal, Kira↗
NASA NTRS1999

STS-93 Crew Interview: Michel Tognini

This NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) video release presents a one-on-one interview with Mission Specialist 3, Michel Tognini (Col., French Air Force and Centre Nacional Etudes Spatiales (CNES) Astronaut). Subjects discussed include early influences that made Michel want to be a pilot and astronaut, his experience as a French military pilot and his flying history. Also discussed were French participation in building the International Space Station (ISS), the STS-93 primary mission objective, X-ray observation using the Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility (AXAF), and failure scenarios associated with AXAF deployment. The STS-93 mission objective was to deploy the Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility (AXAF), later renamed the Chandra X-Ray Observatory in honor of the late Indian-American Nobel Laureate Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1966

MSFC Flight Mission Directive Apollo-Saturn 205 Mission

The purpose of this directive is to provide, under one cover, coordinated direction for the AS-205 Space Vehicle Flight. Within this document, mission objectives are specified, vehicle configuration is described and referenced, flight trajectories, data acquisition requirements, instrumentation requirements, and detailed documentation requirements necessary to meet launch vehicle mission objectives are defined and/or referenced.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2020

Electromagnetic Compatibility Test and Analysis Campaign of NASA's Mars 2020 Rover

NASA's Mars 2020 Rover—with a launch window opening July 2020, and landing expected February 2021—has mission objectives to look for evidence of habitability, seek biosignatures of past life, collect and cache samples for possible future return to Earth, and prepare for future human missions. The Rover platform is similar to the previous Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) “Curiosity” rover that landed in 2012 but contains a new suite of scientific instruments and upgrades to existing functionality. The scientific payload includes a trio of chemical analysis tools (PIXL, SHERLOC, SuperCam), a ground penetrating radar (RIMFAX), an upgraded weather station (MEDA), upgraded high resolution camera (MastCam-Z), and an oxygen-producing experiment (MOXIE). These changes—along with new efficiency goals to operate more Rover subsystems concurrently and thus collect more science—presented new electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) challenges. In this paper, we will describe the campaign to ensure Mars 2020 mission success from an electromagnetic environment perspective: 1) confirming existing MSL heritage subsystems and EMC requirements were compatible with the new Mars 2020 mission objectives, 2) engaging with engineers and scientists early in the project to identify and evaluate risks before hardware assembly and performing ambitious risk reduction tests, 3) undertaking a comprehensive subsystem qualification test program based on tailored MIL-STD-461F requirements, occasionally leading to redesign, 4) synthesizing the data collected to perform detailed analyses toward the goal of making risk-informed decisions at a system level. The spacecraft has successfully completed all three planned system level tests, demonstrating self-compatibility with minimal impact to operations from electromagnetic interference in all mission phases.

Gonzales, Edward C↗
NASA NTRS2020

Mars 2020: Mission, Science Objectives and Build

If all goes according to plan, in February 2021, NASA will land the Mars 2020 Rover on the surface of Mars. Mars 2020 is the latest in a series of unmanned Martian robotic rover missions that are part of NASA’s Mars Exploration Program, a long-term effort of robotic exploration of the planet. The mission seeks to address high-priority goals for Mars exploration, including answering questions about the potential for past life on Mars. Mars 2020 will look for evidence of habitable conditions on Mars in the ancient past, as well as look for signs of past microbial life itself. The mission also seeks to understanding the geological history and evolution of the planet, and to prepare for future robotic and human exploration. The Mars 2020 spacecraft and rover borrow heavily from the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) mission and Curiosity rover which landed on Mars in 2012. This reliance on proven technology helps reduce mission risk and cost. Mars 2020 does contain new technology, including a drill for coring samples from Martian rock and soil and a Sample Caching System for gathering, storing and preserving samples for possible future return to Earth. In this paper, we will review the primary goals of the Mars 2020 Mission and look at the reasons for choosing Jezero Crater as the landing site. We will discuss the design and build of the Mars 2020 Spacecraft system and its similarities and differences with Mars Science Laboratory and the Curiosity Rover. We will also review the Mars 2020 Scientific Instrument Suite and their goals. Finally, we will review the Return Sample Contamination Control requirements and the design choices that were made to facilitate meeting these requirements.

Soares, Carlos E.↗