IMARS History and Phase II Overview Presented to MEPAG 13 May 2014 L. May, NASA HQ NOTE ADDED BY JPL WEBMASTER: This content has not been approved or adopted.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
2013 Key Issues Review: Enabling Sustained Deep Space Exploration with a Broad Vision Congressional Visits Day Preparatory Briefing Teleconferences February.
Advertisements

Welcome to the 30 th MEPAG Meeting! February 24-25, 2015 Lisa Pratt, MEPAG Chair Murray Formation Slopes of Mt. Sharp Pahrump Hills Curiosity: MSSS / JPL.
Systems Engineering in a System of Systems Context
Lunar Advanced Science and Exploration Research: Partnership in Science and Exploration Michael J. Wargo, Sc.D. Chief Lunar Scientist for Exploration Systems.
Meeting Expectations Gary Jedlovec Purpose of review SPoRT Mission and Vision Role of Science Advisory Committee Charge to Committee members transitioning.
Small Projects & Tailoring Using the PPA 1:15 – 2:15 Teresa Kinley, OPHPR With Panelists: Susan Wilkin, NCCDPHP Andy Autry, NCBDDD Carol Waller, NCEH/ATSDR.
1 Briefing to the CAA on the Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF): Finding and Characterizing Earth-like Planets Zlatan Tsvetanov, NASA Program Scientist Charles.
Effective proposal writing Session I. Potential funding sources Government agencies (e.g. European Union Framework Program, U.S. National Science Foundation,
State of Kansas Statewide Financial Management System Pre-Implementation Project Steering Committee Meeting January 11, 2008.
Mars Program Update James L. Green Acting Director, Mars Exploration Program NASA Headquarters May 13, 2014 NOTE ADDED BY JPL WEBMASTER: This content has.
Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
NESCC Meeting March 28, Topics Accomplishments Since Last Meeting Program Management for NESCC Support to the NESCC Sponsor Committee Review and.
CEOS-CGMS Working Group on Climate John Bates, NOAA SIT-30 Agenda Item #11 Climate Monitoring, Research, and Services 30 th CEOS SIT Meeting CNES Headquarters,
Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes (AHELO): Update Deborah Roseveare Head, Skills beyond School Division Directorate for Education OECD 31.
Atlanta Public Schools Project Management Framework Proposed to the Atlanta Board of Education to Complete AdvancED/SACS “Required Actions” January 24,
Montana University System Allocation Model Redevelopment Retreat Report of Progress for Board of Regents November 16, 2005.
Training of Process Facilitators Training of Process Facilitators.
SSSC 02/18/2010 P. Marcum Science Utilization Policies SOFIA SCIENCE UTILIZATION POLICIES Pamela M. Marcum SOFIA Project Scientist SSSC Feb 19, 2010.
SMD Suborbital Science in the Planetary Science Division Philippe Crane Planetary Atmospheres Discipline Scientist LCANS Meeting 28 April 2007.
Mars 2020 Project Matt Wallace Deputy Project Manager August 3, 2015.
Getting Started Conservation Coaches Network New Coach Training.
HECSE Quality Indicators for Leadership Preparation.
NMP EO-1 TECHNOLOGY WORKSHOP Section 2 Meeting Objectives.
Project Kick-off Meeting Presented By: > > > > Office of the Chief Information Officer.
Mars in the Planetary Decadal Survey Steve Squyres Cornell University Chairman, Planetary Science Decadal Survey Steve Squyres Cornell University Chairman,
Workshop on Martian Phyllosilicates: Recorders of Aqueous Processes? MEPAG, March 4, 2009 J-Pierre Bibring IAS Orsay, France ias.fr NOTE ADDED.
Goals Document: Recent Updates and Future Plans MEPAG #26 4 October 2012 Vicky Hamilton, Chair NOTE ADDED BY JPL WEBMASTER: This.
MATT Report Feb. 20, Philip Christensen (Chair) Lars Borg (ND-SAG Co-Chair) Wendy Calvin (MSO SAG Chair) Mike Carr Dave Des Marais (ND-SAG Co-Chair)
STEP 4 Manage Delivery. Role of Project Manager At this stage, you as a project manager should clearly understand why you are doing this project. Also.
Evaluating New Candidate Landing Sites on Mars: Current orbital assets have set the new standard for data required for identifying and qualifying new Mars.
1 Rita Sambruna Lia LaPiana NASA HQ NASA HQ The Science Definition Team for the astrophysics-focused use(s) of the Telescope Assets.
SE&I Pre-Proposal Meeting GSFC - JPL Systems Engineering Management Colleen McGraw.
Status Report on ILC Project in Japan Seiichi SHIMASAKI Director, Office for Particle and Nuclear Research Promotion June 19, 2015.
Slide: 1 CEOS SIT Technical Workshop |Caltech, Pasadena, California, USA| September 2013 CEOS Work Plan Section 6.1 G Dyke CEOS ad hoc Working Group.
ST5 PDR June 19-20, 2001 NMP 2-1 EW M ILLENNIUM P ROGRA NNMM Program Overview Dr. Christopher Stevens Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of.
CIWQS Review Phase II: Evaluation and Final Recommendations March 14, 2008.
LISA News from ESA O. Jennrich LISA Project Scientist.
Goals for this Meeting: Day 1 Day 2 Update the community on progress in the exploration of Mars, including NASA and the European Space Agency (missions.
Office of Space Flight Spaceport and Range Technology Development Initiative Al Sofge NASA Headquarters May 15, 2001.
NSDI Strategic Plan Update National Geospatial Advisory Committee Meeting December 11, 2013.
1 Future Circular Collider Study Preparatory Collaboration Board Meeting September 2014 R-D Heuer Global Future Circular Collider (FCC) Study Goals and.
1 PDS MC Requirements Process March 29, 2007 (v2).
July 29, MEPAG Goals Committee Update Jeffrey R. Johnson Chair, MEPAG Goals Committee USGS Astrogeology Science Center Flagstaff,
MEPAG Meeting October 4, 2012 Monrovia, CA Dave Des Marais, MEPAG Chair NOTE ADDED BY JPL WEBMASTER: This content has not been approved or adopted by,
SRR and PDR Charter & Review Team Linda Pacini (GSFC) Review Chair.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration February 27, 2013 Defining Potential HEOMD Instruments for Mars 2020 A Work in Progress... NOTE ADDED BY.
U.S. Department of Agriculture eGovernment Program Smart Choice Pre-Select Phase Transition September 2002.
MEPAG: Action Items, Forward Planning Jack Mustard, MEPAG Chair MRO HiRISE / U. Arizona / JPL / NASA NOTE ADDED BY JPL WEBMASTER: This document was prepared.
1 An Overview of Process and Procedures for Health IT Collaboration GSA Office of Citizen Services and Communications Intergovernmental Solutions Division.
GEO Work Programme 2016 WGISS#40 HARWELL (UKSA) 28 SEP - 02 OCT 2015 MIRKO ALBANI, ESA.
Jim Bell Cornell University The Planetary Society July 30, 2009 Mars Exploration : Rationale and Principles for a Strategic Program Preliminary.
MEPAG Meeting February 27, 2013 web meeting David Des Marais, MEPAG Chair NOTE ADDED BY JPL WEBMASTER: This content has not been approved or adopted by,
IV&V Facility 7/28/20041 IV&V in NASA Pre-Solicitation Conference/ Industry Day NASA IV&V FACILITY July 28, 2004.
Planetary Science Decadal Survey David H. Smith Space Studies Board, National Research Council Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group Arlington,
CIÊNCIA July 2010 Lisboa © ESA. CIÊNCIA July 2010 Lisboa © ESA Slide # 2 1. The European Space Agency 2. Impact in Portugal 3. Future 0.
AUDIT STAFF TRAINING WORKSHOP 13 TH – 14 TH NOVEMBER 2014, HILTON HOTEL NAIROBI AUDIT PLANNING 1.
National Goals and Objectives
Dutchess Community College Middle States Self-Study 2015
SOAR Observatory Strategic Planning Initial Concept Presentation
Department of Political Science & Sociology North South University
Identify the Risk of Not Doing BA
Overview – Guide to Developing Safety Improvement Plan
Overview – Guide to Developing Safety Improvement Plan
Systems Engineering Management
Systems Engineering for Mission-Driven Modeling
Title (do not change font or font size for any of the chart elements)
Employee engagement Delivery guide
General Discussion Conclusions:
Visions and Voyages: The Planetary Decadal Survey
Preliminary Project Execution Plan
Presentation transcript:

iMARS History and Phase II Overview Presented to MEPAG 13 May 2014 L. May, NASA HQ NOTE ADDED BY JPL WEBMASTER: This content has not been approved or adopted by, NASA, JPL, or the California Institute of Technology. This document is being made available for information purposes only, and any views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of NASA, JPL, or the California Institute of Technology.

iMARS History: 2007–2008

3 iMARS* Charter Produce a plan for an internationalized MSR “The overarching goal of this activity is to identify how international cooperation might enable sample return from Mars, document the existing state-of-knowledge on return of samples from Mars, develop international mission architecture options, identify technology development milestones to accomplish a multi-national mission, and determine potential collaboration opportunities within the architecture and technology options and requirements, and current Mars sample return mission schedule estimates of interested nations. The activity will also identify specific national interests and opportunities for cooperation in the planning, design, and implementation of mission-elements that contribute to sample return. The Working Group’s final product(s) is expected to be a potential plan for an internationally sponsored and executed Mars sample return mission.” From the iMARS Terms of Reference (source: IMEWG) *International Mars Architecture for the Return of Samples Original iMARS activity in 2007–2008

4 Summary of Primary Conclusions (1 of 2) 1.The first MSR mission would make a significant contribution to many fundamental scientific questions. Scientific return would depend on the character, diversity, and quality of the samples returned. 2.Critical technologies would need new development Require substantial effort in the short/medium terms to reach a correct maturity level in the early phases of the project. 3.Planetary protection challenges for an MSR mission would be beyond those encountered for one-way Mars missions. There would be some significant technological planetary protection challenges, including aseptic sample transfer, redundant containment of the flight system, and biohazard assessment after the samples return to Earth. 4.Implementation of planetary protection and contamination control requirements for the end-to-end mission system is critical

5 Summary of Primary Conclusions (2 of 2) 5.Existing launch capabilities in NASA and ESA would be sufficient Two launch vehicles would be mandatory Other systems in development, especially for ExoMars and MSL, could be used for MSR 6.MSR could be divided into separate elements to be considered for funding by different international entities “Who does what?” is not something iMARS could resolve on its own 7.With adequate resources and responsive decision making, the first MSR mission could be started in ~ 2013 (phase B start) –Would launch around 2020 –Receiving a sample back on Earth ~3 years later

IMSI and Virtual Labs iMARS conclusion: selection of samples and allocation of them when returned should be the job of an international group of scientists –iMARS called it the International MSR Science Institute Further, handling samples under containment and preventing contamination would require specially trained scientist/technicians –Not everyone with an excellent science investigation would be able to handle the samples –Science back rooms at the SRF(s) –Virtual presence from remote back rooms would enable broader science access Also need to develop secure sample transport to qualifed containment facilities –“Stuck in the SRF” Further definition of this concept was to be part of Phase II 6

Since iMARS Phase I… 7

Current International Environment Successful Curiosity landing and science operations Three orbiters and two rovers operating on the surface of Mars –MAVEN and MOM to follow this fall ESA/Roscosmos making progress towards EXMTGO, EDM and ExoMars rover –NASA contribution of Electra UHF radios and MOMA-MS NASA’s 2020 rover in formulation –Payload proposals being evaluated Budgets even more constrained, but… 8 Still a strong desire and intent to retain MSR as the primary goal of multinational Mars efforts

iMARS Phase II

Objectives for iMARS Phase II Address outstanding science collaboration and management issues identified in Phase I –Revisit the concept of IMSI –Assuming science under containment, how would sample science be managed? Update the potential plan for a fully international Mars Sample Return –Assuming M2020 may or may not be the first element of MSR –Identify technology advances and update interests 10

11 iMARS Phase II Organization Steering Committee –IMEWG Chair (NASA) + ESA and Russia Two subteams –Science: On-Earth Science and Facilities –Engineering Planetary Protection Officers as ex officio members Steering Committee May (IMEWG Chair) De Groot Zelenyi iMARS Co-Chairs Smith and Haltigin (Science) Mugnuolo and Lange (Engineering) Science Team Engineering Team PPOs

iMARS Phase II Science Team Objectives Develop the framework of a future sample science management plan Ensure the international science management structure(s) proposed for future sample return would facilitate participation by a varied research community –Participation and access to samples must be based on a fair and transparent set of principles –Issue of containment and release from containment comes up frequently—“stuck in containment” Define an International Mars Science Institute (IMSI) –Would this be a physical or virtual institute or a combination? –What would be its role(s) and what would the management/administrative structure(s) be like? –What if/any interaction with other aspects of science and sample ma nagement should there be, i.e. sample receiving facility(ies) and curatorial facility(ies). An important role of the iMARS is to ensure positive engagement with our colleagues in the engineering and scientific communities. We welcome comments and discussion!

Engineering Team Objectives Architectural Update of Mission Descriptions The engineering team will: –Document the existing state-of-knowledge –Update previously developed international mission architecture options –Update iMARS potential plan for international cooperation enabling sample return from Mars –Identify technology-development milestones to accomplish a multinational mission or series of missions –Update descriptions of previously determined potential collaboration opportunities within the architecture and technology options and requirements. The activity will also update previously identified specific national/agency interests and opportunities for cooperation in the planning, design, and implementation of mission elements that contribute to sample return. 13

Schedule Kick off March 2014 Interim briefing to IMEWG Sept 2014 Final report and briefing to IMEWG March