1. MATT Report Feb. 20, 2008 1 Philip Christensen (Chair) Lars Borg (ND-SAG Co-Chair) Wendy Calvin (MSO SAG Chair) Mike Carr Dave Des Marais (ND-SAG Co-Chair) Francois Forget Noel Hinners Scott Murchie (MSS SAG Chair) Jack Mustard (MEPAG Chair) Lisa Pratt Mars Architecture Tiger Team (MATT) Chip Shearer (CAPTEM) Mike Smith (MSO SDT Chair) Steve Squyres Rich Zurek Dave Beaty Jan Chodas Richard Mattingly Lisa May (NASA HQ) Michael Meyer (NASA HQ) Membership

2. MATT Report Feb. 20, 2008 2 Background The OMB requested an architecture from NASA for the Mars Exploration Program for the next decade NASA chartered an assessment group to develop this architecture and provide an evaluation of the Mars Program relative to the SMD budget proposal submitted in the President’s 5-year budget plan Group consisted of 19 members of Mars science and engineering community, including the Chairs of MEPAG, the MEPAG Next Decade (ND), Mars Science Orbiter (MSO) and Mars Science Strategy (MSS) Science Analysis Groups, the MSO Science Definition Team, and CAPTEM Group met in Washington D.C. on Feb. 14-15, 2008 Mars Architecture Tiger Team Report

3. MATT Report Feb. 20, 2008 3 Key elements of this study included: 1.Assessment of the Mars Exploration Program architectures based on the President’s FY09 Budget release for 2009-2013 and SMD planning estimates for 2014-2020 2.Incorporation of the recommendations from the NRC Decadal Survey and the ND-SAG, MSS-SAG, and CAPTEM reports Options for 2016 from MSS-SAG Science priorities for collected samples from ND-SAG 3.The SMD stated desire for an MSR landed element no later than 2020 with a U.S. contribution to MSR of no more than $3.5B 4.Assessment of possible architectures relative to the stated science goals of the Mars Exploration Program 5.The assumption of significant international contribution Mars Architecture Tiger Team Report

4. MATT Report Feb. 20, 2008 4 Mars Architecture Tiger Team Report Past funding 2020

5. MATT Report Feb. 20, 2008 5 Mars Architecture Tiger Team Report Past funding 5-year plan 2020

6. MATT Report Feb. 20, 2008 6 Mars Architecture Tiger Team Report Past funding 5-year plan SMD Planning Budget 2020

7. MATT Report Feb. 20, 2008 7 Group looked at two types of architectures: 1)A science-driven architecture based on the SMD plan and the recommendations of the NRC Decadal Survey, the MEPAG Goals committees, and the MEPAG Science Analysis Groups over the past 5 years 2)Budget-driven architectures based on the recently released President’s 5-year budget (FY09-FY13). For the FY14-FY20 period the group considered 2 options: a)The current SMD Planning budget with a significant funding increase in FY17 through FY20 b)A flat funding profile that was based on the average of FY10-FY12 for FY14 through FY20 Mars Architecture Tiger Team Report

8. MATT Report Feb. 20, 2008 8 Mars Architecture Tiger Team Report 2a 2b

9. Architecture Assessment Summary Key points Given adequate funding the SMD plan can maintain the Mars Program and achieve its science goals With the SMD Budget plan MSR options have only Scout mission between MSL and MSR ≥11 year period between NASA Mars landings (2009 to ≥2020) A 4 year gap exists between flight elements of MSR Only 5 months of surface operations for MSR rover launched in 2022 CONCEPT

10. MATT Report Feb. 20, 2008 10 1.The Mars Architecture Tiger Team strongly endorses the Mars architecture as proposed by SMD that has a balanced scientific program and the launch of all MSR mission elements by 2020 2.However, the SMD planning budget, which includes the President’s 5-year decreasing budget, does not support this architecture even with the planned rapid increase in funding beginning in FY17 Estimated cost of this balanced architecture is ~$6B, including an estimated cost of an MSR mission with modest scientific goals of ~$4-5B; however total SMD funding for new missions through FY20 is ~$4B Phasing of SMD funding does not ramp up in time for a mission in 2016 nor for MSR launches in 2018 and 2020 3.The MSR mission would require a substantial international contribution above the $3.5B U.S. contribution currently planned Conclusions

11. MATT Report Feb. 20, 2008 11 4.The SMD planning budget through FY20, together with substantial international contribution could support MSR with some adjustment in phasing. However, the options would be: An MSR program with Scout in 2013 followed by the launch of the MSR mission elements in 2018 and 2022; or An architecture dedicated to the earliest launch of MSR, with no missions following MSL and the launch of the MSR mission elements in 2016 and 2020 5.If the projected reinstatement of the funding for Mars exploration to levels of $500-900M per year does not occur sometime after 2013, then MSR will not happen Projected funding levels in FY11-FY16 are ~$390M per year Level funding could support medium-sized missions launched every other opportunity (not flagships) Conclusions

12. MATT Report Feb. 20, 2008 12 6.A Mars architecture consisting of MSL followed by the launch of MSR elements in 2016 & 2020 (no Scout) or 2018 & 2022 (with Scout) would have a devastating effect on the Mars Program Lack of progress toward the four goals of planetary science set out by the NRC Decadal Survey Loss of scientific balance Loss of technical and scientific expertise as a result of the >11 year hiatus between landed missions of MSL and MSR Conclusions

13. MATT Report Feb. 20, 2008 13 7.In all planning exercises the Mars Program should remember that: Major technology development is required starting at least 5 years prior to the MSR development The existing assets at Mars have great capabilities that can be utilized to support future missions, including site characterization and certification, atmospheric characterization, and relay Conclusions

14. Architecture Assessment Summary Key points Given adequate funding the SMD plan can maintain the Mars Program and achieve its science goals With the SMD Budget plan MSR options have only Scout mission between MSL and MSR ≥11 year period between NASA Mars landings (2009 to ≥2020) A 4 year gap exists between flight elements of MSR Only 5 months of surface operations for MSR rover launched in 2022

15. MATT Report Feb. 20, 2008 15 Mars Architecture Tiger Team Report Past funding 5-year plan SMD Planning Budget 2020

16. MATT Report Feb. 20, 2008 16 Backup Mars Architecture Tiger Team Report

17. CONCEPT

18. MATT Report Feb. 20, 2008 18 Mars Architecture Tiger Team Report

19. MATT Report Feb. 20, 2008 19 Mars Architecture Tiger Team Report Past funding

20. MATT Report Feb. 20, 2008 20 Mars Architecture Tiger Team Report Past funding 5-year plan

21. MATT Report Feb. 20, 2008 21 Mars Architecture Tiger Team Report Proposed funding Past funding