1. MUPUS Operations Graz, 24/25-Oct 2013 MUPUS Team Meeting, Graz Oct 2013 G:\MUPUS\THC\PMMG

2. Rosetta Mission Overview

3. Mission timeline

4. Philae

5. Rosetta operations in 2014 Directly after FSS !

6. Important points for planning of SDL/FSS/LTS  Apr. 2014: PHC  Functionality of SBatt  Functionality of PBatt  Only „dead“ or „alive“  No information about actual capacity  Aug. 2014: Solar Array Test  Results allow accurate predictions for on comet phase  Positive -> LTS phase secured !

7. 7 LOWG#10, DLR Cologne 15/16th of January 2007 Philae hardware status  Philae primary battery  cells taken out of longterm cold storage at manufacturer SAFT  Discharge measurements show that capacity is still nominal  Battery model predicts behaviour very well (< 2%)  Philae motors tested after longterm cold storage at MPS  Several failures (incl. motor type required for Lander rotation)  Philae anchor pyros tested after longterm cold storage  Failed in vacuum !  Design problem ! (NEVER tested in vacuum before launch !)  Investigation ongoing at MPS trying to solve the problem

8. Details on ANC pyro failures

9. Pyro failure details cont.

10. Main MUPUS modes 1  TEM: measurement of all MUPUS temperature sensors (16 PEN sensors, 2 ANC-T, 4 TM-IR channels) in regular interval  THC: thermal properties measurement by active heating of 1-16 PEN sensors while measuring all temperature sensors in regular intervals  LONGTERM/(THC): macro-mode of TEM+THC, currently only used as thermal properties measurement with additional sampling before and after heating  MAPPER: measurement of 4 TM-IR sensors + 2 ANC-T  Used mainly before PEN deployment  TM can be configured not to switch-on if only ANC-T measurements shall be performed

11. Main MUPUS modes 2  ANCHOR: fast sampling of anchor acclerometers (ANC-M) at touchdown  ARM: release and deployment of boom  HAMMER: insertion of PEN into ground

12. PHC

14. 14 LOWG#10, DLR Cologne 15/16th of January 2007 14 LOWG#14 OU Milton Keynes 1-4th June 2010 MUPUS activities in PHC  28-Mar – 23-APR-2014  EEPROM check  EEPROM Refresh or s/w upload  Last chance to upload a new s/w patch (if wanted)  Standard inflight calibration  Test of modified MUPUS SDL operations  “time-stamped” ANC mode with interrupts enabled  Investigation of thermal disturbances of ANC-T signal  Due to self-heating by ANC-M and ANC electronics drift  Due to external heat wave generated by anchor mechanism heaters  Interference tests with all instruments foreseen for parallel operation during FSS and RF link

15. 15 LOWG#10, DLR Cologne 15/16th of January 2007 15 LOWG#12, DLR Cologne 18-20th of November 2008 PHC: ANC-T disturbances (PC#13)  Heating of anchor mechanism starts at t TD -11 min  T-rise after ANC mode start due to T-drift of ANC-EL and/or dissipation inside harpoons  ANC-EL permanently ON (+ 1.2 W)  T-decrease after shot due to T-drift of ANC-EL  Default operational mode, ANC-EL ON for 100 ms during sampling of ANC-T

16. 16 LOWG#10, DLR Cologne 15/16th of January 2007 16 LOWG#14 OU Milton Keynes 1-4th June 2010 ANC-T Signal disturbances  Self-heating by ANC-M and electronics drift  MAPPER mode in default configuration  Measures ANC-T and TM every 5 s for about 45 min (after warm-up)  ANC-El only ON for 50 ms required for sampling, then switched OFF again  After 1 h change configuration such that ANC-El + ANC-M permanently ON  Additional continuous 1.2 W dissipation in EBox  50 mW continuous dissipation inside harpoons  External heat wave due to TCU controlled anchor mechanism heaters  Anchor mechanisms are pre-heated before the shot  Duration of heating not yet fixed (11 min in simulated SDL test in PC#13)  Start with MAPPER mode in default configuration  At t=1:00 h switch Main TCU heater ON for 25 min  At t=1:46 h switch Redundant TCU heater ON for 25 min  Note: during SDL both heaters will work simultaneously !  Continue MAPPER mode measurements for further 2:30 h

17. MUPUS PHC interference tests  TxRx (RF link)MAPPER + TEM  PTOLEMYTEM  COSACTEM  SD2TEM  ROLISTEM  CONSERTTEM + THC

18. 18 LOWG#10, DLR Cologne 15/16th of January 2007 PHC: TM/RF interferences (PC#13)  Jump in thermopile brightness temperatures between 2 – 20 K when RF link established  2 other disturbances observed on thermopile channels  One order of magnitude smaller than RF link induced offset  ANC-T1 signal slightly disturbed by CONSERT operation (dT=0.2 K)  Interferences manifests as sudden offset jumps => (probably) can be corrected !

19. 19 LOWG#10, DLR Cologne 15/16th of January 2007 19 LOWG#14 OU Milton Keynes 1-4th June 2010 Before Landing  Pre-delivery calibration & Science  No MUPUS science  No operation  Lander delivery preparation  Only subsystems check  No instruments  In case of failure, what should be done ?  Time too short for investigations !

20. On comet phase planning  LCC (DLR, Cologne) is head for SDL planning  SONC (CNES, Toulouse) is head for FSS planning  Political issue, causes unnecessary problem  No clear separation between SDL and FSS  In fact not big difference since first block of FSS operations has to run fully autonomously (as SDL)  LTS is now supposed to start „immediately“ after end of FSS  As soon as SBatt recharged, estimate ~ 3 comet days

21. 21 LOWG#10, DLR Cologne 15/16th of January 2007 MUPUS SDL/FSS/LTS science goals Must be

22. SDL

23. 23 LOWG#10, DLR Cologne 15/16th of January 2007

24. 24 LOWG#10, DLR Cologne 15/16th of January 2007 24 LOWG#14 OU Milton Keynes 1-4th June 2010 Descent Scenario  Preferred: Nominal eject dV identical with emergency eject BUT: ESOC FDYN did not find possible trajectories (within constraints) !

25. 25 LOWG#10, DLR Cologne 15/16th of January 2007 25 LOWG#14 OU Milton Keynes 1-4th June 2010 Separation-Descent-Landing (SDL)  Baseline SDL sequence defined and tested at GRM campaign from Aug-Nov-2010  Not carved in stone but probably close to real SDL in many aspects  At that time 30 min descent was assumed  SDL trajectory still not fixed  But descent phase will be considerably longer (2.5 h – 6 h)  Update of MUPUS SDL procedure V2.0 done  Ejection strategy not yet fixed  Relative timeline now based on a number of “flight events”  Defined by CNES Fdyn (e.g “begin/end of touchdown window”, or “begin deep space in TM FOV”)  Requires another (slight) procedure update

26. FSS-2 Option 1

27. 27 LOWG#10, DLR Cologne 15/16th of January 2007 27 LOWG#14 OU Milton Keynes 1-4th June 2010 MUPUS Operations during SDL  TM inflight calibration during descent  ANC-M measurements at touchdown  Reliability of anchor firing uncertain !  (probably) BOTH anchors will be fired simultaneously  Loss of accelerometer data from at least one shot  ANC-T (+ TM ?) measurements after touchdown (FSS Block 1)

28. 28 LOWG#10, DLR Cologne 15/16th of January 2007 28 LOWG#14 OU Milton Keynes 1-4th June 2010 TM Inflight calibration  Switch-on (hours) before separation => TM ~ -80°C  Cools down until stabilized operation at ~ -100°C reached after 1-1.5 h while looking into deep space  Blackbody heating for 10 min @ T comet-in-FOV – 20 min  Continue with MAPPER mode

29. 29 LOWG#10, DLR Cologne 15/16th of January 2007 29 LOWG#14 OU Milton Keynes 1-4th June 2010 ANC-M measurements  MUPUS switch to ANCHOR mode at t TD – dt TD – 5 min  MAPPER mode finished but TM stays ON in standby  MUPUS waits for INT4 trigger  Upon detection start fast ANC-M sampling (48 kHz) using time- stamped anchor mode for ~ 300 ms  Record 1 or 2 shots (depends on final scenario)  At end of sampling measure ANC-T temperatures (T 0 )  Data stored in RAM pages until TC for transfer issued  Continue with MAPPER mode (ANC-T + TM)  TC already queued, starts immediately when ANCHOR ends  ANC-T diffusivity measurement  At t TD + 30 (-60 tbd) min: transfer data to CDMS in background (MAPPER mode continues)

30. 30 LOWG#10, DLR Cologne 15/16th of January 2007 30 LOWG#14 OU Milton Keynes 1-4th June 2010 ANC-T diffusivity (and TM) measurements  MAPPER mode with ANC-T and TM measurements continue during FSS Block 1 until switch-off at ~ t TD +10 h  Fulfills FSS-001 science goal  Thermal diffusivity at maximum depth  Ranked as “MUST BE”  Fulfills FSS-002 science goal  Surface thermal inertia  Non “MUST BE”

31. 31 LOWG#10, DLR Cologne 15/16th of January 2007 31 LOWG#14 OU Milton Keynes 1-4th June 2010 SDL problems / open points  According to J.F. Fronton (SONC) MUPUS SDL procedure is currently implemented as planned in LIOR RO-LMU-TP- 3361 V 2.0 (FSS-1 procedure)  TM measurements after touchdown violate the „ONLY MUST BEs“ shall be executed strategy (advocated by Lead Scientists)  Dependent on final descent time (energy consumption) cuts may be enforced  TM inflight calibration moved closer to separation and MUPUS OFF until ANCHOR mode start  No TM measurements after TD, instead MUPUS only occasionally ON, taking ANC-T sample and OFF again  Corresponding LIOR issued, 6 samples equal spaced on log time scale between 0.5 h and 12 h

32. 32 LOWG#10, DLR Cologne 15/16th of January 2007 MUPUS FSS Sequence: Basic ideas  PEN-T measurements on the balcony could be valuable for final calibration  T-profile along rod should be smooth  PEN-T measurements before insertion provide T 0 and can be used for independent diffusivity estimate  Measurement of „undisturbed“ temperature profile has priority  K unknown, time constants of hours possible => no PEN heating during largest part of procedure  Active thermal properties measurement at end of sequence  K unknown => use low power

33. 33 LOWG#10, DLR Cologne 15/16th of January 2007 MUPUS FSS Sequence: Preparation  Analysis of CIVA and other landing site data to select deployment site  Upload configuration data to Philae and MUPUS  Azimuth and height (def.=maximum = 196 mm)  Length of deployment (number of rotation counts)  Exclude regions  Lander rotation to desired azimuth and lift to maximum height

34. 34 LOWG#10, DLR Cologne 15/16th of January 2007 MUPUS FSS Sequence 1  S/W patches  OPCL patch (CDMS not prepared to use BRAM info)  5s delay patch (SONC request to reduce peak +12V current)  DS patch (retraction at 43 mm instead 87 mm)  Start TEM mode (1.5 h)  Including warm-up heating of estimated 45 min (uncertain)  Measure PEN T-profile while still on balcony for „calibration“ purposes  t=1:35, GEAR mode (deployment, ~ 15 min)  OPCL send when configured number of rotation counts reached  requires reliability of counter  No OPCL message after timeout => CDMS switches MUPUS OFF/ON and starts MAPPER mode (new !) THC TEM

35. 35 LOWG#10, DLR Cologne 15/16th of January 2007 MUPUS FSS Sequence 2  TEM mode (starts immediately after GEAR finished)  PEN T-profile, initial condition for diffusivity estimate  t=1:57 h, lower Lander to minimum height  No problem expected, even if PEN tip pressed onto ground  t=2:20 h, CIVA image (context only)  Requested, but currently NOT in SONC planning !  t=2:25 h, HAMMER mode (PEN insertion)  no temperature measurements during insertion  TEM mode (starts immediately after HAMMER finished)  Full rotation (allows diffusivity determination)  t=15:30 h, THC mode  heat all sensors simultaneously for 30 min with low power 0.5 W m -1  T=16 h, MUPUS OFF Extended by 30 min Due to update of LG + SESAME listening

36. Expected PEN temperature rise during THC  T after 30 minutes LHS-like heating with 0.5 W m -1  Change power ?  Change duration of heating ?

37. 37 LOWG#10, DLR Cologne 15/16th of January 2007 V7.3 Deployment method 1  Default deployment/insertion scenario unchanged to earlier (SRC) s/w versions  Control parameters configurable  GEAR mode  Assumes that configuration parameters (min. Height, excluded azimuthal regions) have been uploaded before.  Reads position of Landing Gear from LG BRAM  Checks if lander in allowed position (Azimuth, Height, Tilt) for deployment  Calls ARM if conditions fulfilled, otherwise stops  Succesfully tested with PHILAE GRM !  ARM mode  Assumes Lander in correct position  Release of launch locks by burning dyneema strings  Deployment to configured length  Ins.#Puls=x306 (774), ~ 1 m from balcony (conversion ?)  Speed also configurable, with defaults ~ few minutes  Additional adjustments possible using “reserve” ARM mode

38. 38 LOWG#10, DLR Cologne 15/16th of January 2007 V7.3 Deployment method 2  HAMMER mode (insertion and retraction of boom)  Control parameters configurable  Default insertion sequence  4-strokes  Reference measurement of DS  Starts with lowest hammer energy  4 energy levels available  Analyze insertion progress from repeated DS measurements  below threshold => increase energy level  At ~80% insertion depth: burn DS locks and retract boom  Stop insertion when either:  Configured maximum depth is reached  Configured maximum number of hammer strokes made

39. 39 LOWG#10, DLR Cologne 15/16th of January 2007 Most critical operation: Deployment  Technical note RO-LMU-TN-3390 distributed to LCC, SONC and MUPUS team in July  Due to request from SONC during PI-Meeting for risk analysis  Definition of selection criteria for deployment location  Failure modes analysis  Has anybody looked at it ?  Meeting with LCC in September 2013  Splinter meeting at LOWG with LCC, SONC, CIVA

40. 40 LOWG#10, DLR Cologne 15/16th of January 2007 Operational criteria for deployment location  Lander leg direction forbidden  No obstacle in deployment path  No deep „hole“ at deployment location  CIVA images shall be available for deployment location  => only 60° sector facing balcony with CIVA-St Lowest LG position Highest LG Position White=dead zone

41. FSS-SYSTN  Given at LOWG-16 by K. Geurts (LCC)  Understanding of LCC of MUPUS deployment

42. Which information will be available and when ?  ROLIS descent images of the landing site  CIVA panorama images  First set taken immediately after landing (available after ~ 2h)  New: second set taken at about 13 hours after landing  Redundancy  Taken at a different local time => additional valuable information  Note that first set is probably at morning => long shadows  Derived products ?  Need for obstacle map at landing site identified by LCC  ROLIS has no manpower  Digital Terrain Model (of 60° CIVA St sector)  JK raised this issue during LOWG splinter with SONC + CIVA  P. Eng (CIVA): might be technically feasible in several h

43. Obstacle in deployment path  Deployment will stop when PEN hits the obstacle  Motor tries to push until timeout (30 min) or motor failure  May damage PEN or DS  Locks the Lander at least for FSS  Possible s/w solution  Check deployment speed continously by rotation counter  If N rot < N crit in tbd interval (e.g. 5 s) then STOP  Relies fully on rotation counter !  Opinions ? V = 1.5 rot/s (1000 Hz)

44. Very hard layer  MUPUS encounters very hard (> 6 MPa) layer before depth for boom retraction is reached  Issue raised by LCC  No further penetration  MUPUS finishes HAMMER mode when max. number of strokes performed and continues with TEM mode  No retraction performed => Lander locked (during FSS)  Possible countermeasures  Use „Reserve Retraction“ command  Patch s/w such that retraction is performed in any case before HAMMER is finished  Can maybe be solved by „volatile“ patch (TC writing RAM)

45. DS failure during HAMMER  DS failed during FS-Acceptance Test after 200 4-strokes with EL=2 and 190 4-strokes with EL=3 (EL=0,1,2,3)  Strange PENEL error after recent joint insertion test with SESAME and PEN-FS at GRM  If red tag jointer closed (structural GND=electrical GND) PENEL readings invalid  Error occured after transport back to DLR, last functional test at GRM was ok  Failure => full scale reading  HAMMER will not stop until maximum number of strokes at highest EL is performed (config 200)  Risk for PENEL  What happens if surface is very soft ?  s/w change ?  STOP on DS failure ?

46. 46 LOWG#10, DLR Cologne 15/16th of January 2007 End of insertion criterion  DS value V < V max =37 V ref / 890 + Ins.DepthOff  Ins.DepthOff same for FM and FS ?  Different R (FM~5.1 kOhms, FS~4.4 kOhms)  Ins.DepthOff=336 (FM default)  Value too low for RM  Ins.DepthOff=592 => complete insertion without margin !  Not 100% safe  Introduce additional stop criterion:  V < V Retract and no progress in last 10 strokes

47. 47 LOWG#10, DLR Cologne 15/16th of January 2007 FSS questions (operational)  Shall we go for new s/w version with updated ARM and HAMMER ?  Retract boom in any case  Introduce additional stop criterion for insertion if:  DS broken  Insertion „nearly“ finished and no further progress  Stop deployment of boom if deployment speed less than critical value  Shall we perform an analysis about MUPUS deployment in case of anchor failure ? (if yes, who ?)

48. SONC FSS Sequences Planning  First „semi-realistic“ sequence FSS-1 released for testing at GRM in Mar 2013  Actitvities organized in 3 Blocks  MUPUS in 2nd Block together with COSAC, PTOLEMY, and SESAME  Parts of this sequence tested at GRM (with MUPUS participation)  Updates/changes required for different reasons => FSS-2 (not yet finalized, different options studied)  3 options worked out

49. FSS-1 No MUPUS !

50. MUPUS results basically ok

51. SONC FSS-2 planning assumptions  2,5 h descent (~ 100 Wh)  For 6 h descent (maybe) ~ 100 Wh additional lost during SDL  PBatt capacity 1360 Wh  Assumes 10% degradation in flight (nominal ~ 1500 Wh)  SAFT tests indicate better performance  Only PBatt power available  Assumes Solar Generator dead  Nominally SG should deliver another 300 Wh during FSS  Dependent on landing site !

52. FSS-2 Option 1 CIVA 2nd image cannot be used for deployment location selection, PBatt=1615 Wh too high ! GO/NOGO

53. Option 2 (1/2 ONE scenario !) PBatt (nominal) empty ~ 2h before end of MUPUS activies, no active THC in FSS !

54. FSS-2 Option 3 (energetically optimized) 1526 Wh total, PBatt ~ 5% left when MUPUS finished

55. FSS-2 Option 4 (more optimizations) 1488 Wh total, PBatt ~ 5% at end of MUPUS

56. MUPUS FSS planning  Surprisingly little discussion at LOWG, no decisions  Main topic to discuss at Philae telecon initiated by Lead Scientists on 31-OCT  LS prefer Option 4  Energetically more efficient  Risk (for Lander) reduced  Bit strange when SD2 remains in 2nd Block  What do we want ?

57. Pros and Cons (MUPUS)  Option 1 or 2 Pros:  Go/Nogo gives maximum flexibility  GO -> sequence for sure fully executed  Cons:  NOGO -> shift to last block, risk that sequence not fully executed  Option 3 or 4  Pros:  Considerably higher probability that derived products available  Obstacle maps  DTM  Cons:  Some risk that PBatt empty before sequence finished  BUT: no indication for degradation  Solar power should provide additional margin

58. Expected solar power

59. LTS operations  Start directly after FSS  SBatt (usable) capacity ~ 87 Wh  Solar power / comet day ~ 60 -120 Wh  Recharge time between 1.5d - 6d  Example: MUPUS FSS sequence ~ 95 Wh  Planning cycle 2 w  Shorter during first cycles directly after FSS

60. MUPUS LTS planning  First days: contingency  Sequences generally similar to FSS: TEM + THC  Adapt heating power  Low k: shorten TEM, increase duration of THC  High k: repeat FSS sequence (without deployment)  Additional HAMMER if needed or as service for SESAME  TM „mapping“ mode using rotation of Lander

61. Backup slides

62. 62 LOWG#10, DLR Cologne 15/16th of January 2007 ARM details  Starts with burning of launch locks  Motor starts with low speed (f 0 =200 Hz)  Highest torque  Timing controlled by software  Multitasking disabled, to guarantee (nearly) equidistant control clock  Interrupts still enabled => occasional jitter (few to 20 µs) possible (same as an SRC software)  PENEL kepth (requires squarewave interrupt)  PENEL heater switch in arbitrary position (cooldown danger !)  5 rotations made => ramp like speedup to final speed  Deloyment with final speed until configured number of rotation counts (length) reached  Default 2400 Hz => 3.5 min for deployment  New recommendation 1000 Hz => 9 min for deployment  No problem, but f1 < 500 Hz  Counter failure => deployment to full length + no OPCL => MUPUS OFF

63. 63 LOWG#10, DLR Cologne 15/16th of January 2007 PEN Insertion Efficiency