Introduction - a brief history - thoughts behind the program - walk through the agenda

1. Introduction - a brief history - thoughts behind the program - walk through the agenda Firouz Naderi Mars Program Manager

2. Mars Has Been a Favorite Target • The opportunity to go to Mars comes around every 26 months • Since 1964 US has gone to Mars on nine such opportunities often with more than one S/C • These missions have included several planetary “first ever” Pathfinder -1997 First Rover on Another Planet Viking -1975 First Lander on Another Planet Mariner 4 - 1964 First S/C to Flyby Another Planet and Send Back Images Mariner 9 - 1971 First Orbiter Around Another Planet

3. America’s Mars Missions • 4 Flybys: 3 successful; 1 failure • 8 Orbiters: 5 successful; 3 failures • 6 Landers: 5 successful; 1 failure • Total: • 13 successful; 5 failures (~70%) • Note — Mariners 3 and 8 had launch vehicle failures • Total does not include DS-2 probes on MPL 1. Mariner 3 – 11/64 Flyby Failed LV 2. Mariner 4 – 11/64 Flyby Successful 3. Mariner 6 – 2/69 Flyby Successful 4. Mariner 7 – 3/69 Flyby Successful 5. Mariner 8 – 5/71 Orbiter Failed LV 6. Mariner 9 – 5/71 Orbiter Successful 7. Viking 1 (O) – 8/75 Orbiter Successful 8. Viking 1 (L) – 8/75 Lander Successful 9. Viking 2 (O) – 9/75 Orbiter Successful 10. Viking 2 (L) – 9/75 Lander Successful 11.Mars Observer – 9/92 Orbiter Failed 12. MGS – 11/96 Orbiter Successful 13. Mars Pathfinder – 12/96 Lander Successful 14.MCO – 12/98 Orbiter Failed MPL – 1/99 Lander Failed Odyssey - 4/’01 Orbiter Successful Spirit -- 6/’03 Lander Successful Opportunity -- 7/’03 Lander Successful Since 1964, US has launched 18 Mars missions

4. The Road to Mars The Early Years • Mariner 4 (1964) became the first spacecraft to fly by Mars • Mariner 9 (1971) become the first spacecraft to orbit another planet • Viking (1976) sent two orbiter/lander pairs to Mars • Remarkable engineering/technological/scientific feat • ~$4B in today’s dollars • Aimed specifically at finding life • Lander instruments aimed at detecting living organisms • When none was found Mars Program was essentially shut down

5. The Road to Mars (cont.) The Revival • Mars Observer (1992) was NASA's next attempt to explore the red planet • Lost during its orbit insertion. • This significant loss was an important factor in NASA’s initiation of the "Faster, Better, Cheaper" (FBC) approach • In 1994, NASA announced the start of the Mars Surveyor Program • Called for launching an orbiter and a lander at each 26-month opportunity • Subsequently as a result of ALH84001 a Mars Sample Return mission was added to the program with samples of Martian rocks targeted for return to Earth by 2008

6. The Road to Mars (cont.) The Highs and Lows of Mars Surveyor Program The High—the 1996 opportunity • Mars Pathfinder Mission • ”the poster child” for FBC • Technological success, worldwide public engagement, good science • Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) • A remarkable science success • More data returned than all previous missions combined • Still going strong in its third extended mission The Low—the 1998 opportunity • Mars Climate Orbiter (MCO)—failed • Mars Polar Lander (MPL)—failed • Failures were, in parts, blamed on overaggressive application of FBC

7. The Road to Mars (cont.) • In the aftermath of the’98 mission failures, NASA Administrator chartered a senior independent team headed by Tom Young • To assess the root cause of the failures • Make recommendations to get the Program back on track • New management structure at Hq. and JPL • Garvin/Hubbard/Naderi join the team in early spring • Near-term charge — restructure the program • Target Fall 2001 budget submission • First order of business • Stand down on plans to launch Mars Sample Return mission • 2001 launch opportunity • Launch the Odyssey orbiter after rigorous review • Do not proceed with the lander • MER selected for 2003 • Roadmapping options for 2005, ’07, ’09 and ‘11 involved the community

8. Mars Program Restructuring Summer of 2000 • Broad Outreach and Data Gathering: • RFI to industry (~100 responses from ~40 companies) • Mars Exploration workshop at LPI for new concepts by individual researchers (~200 abstracts) • Concepts requested from NASA Centers (9 responded) • Call for concepts from International Community (7 responses) • Science Goals, and prioritization of Objectives and Investigations by science community (MEPAG) • Synthesis • Two synthesis retreats conducted with the Mars community to arrive at mission options • August 2000 retreat — 64 attendees • September finalization retreat — 18 attendees

9. Participants in August 2000 Mars Program Restructuring Retreat

10. Review of the Restructured Program-- Fall 2000 • Program Review and Roll out • Review with Tom Young Committee Oct. 10-11 • Briefing to Goldin • Discussions with OMB, OSTP • External reviews with advisory committees in Nov./Dec. • SSES, SSAC, NAC, COMPLEX

11. Missions as They Were in Fall of 2000

12. Key Changes Since Fall of 2000 • In Fall of 2001 MSL was moved from 2007 to 2009 so as to allow • Make available funds to address needs by MER • Agency desire to incorporate nuclear power source • Long life, latitude independence, rejuvenate nuclear space application • Allow more time between MRO and MSL to take full advantage of MRO mapping • Allow more time for critical analytical instruments to mature • International participation did not pan out • Italian participation in Mars 2007 Telesat rescinded • A U.S. only Mars telesat (MTO) replaced it in 2009 • Partnership with French on MSR did not happen • MSR as currently envisioned entails both lander and orbiter provided by NASA

13. Mars Exploration Missions

14. Mars Program: An Interconnected Set Of Missions 2009 Orbiter 2007 CNES Orbiter Atmosphere Monitoring for Aerobreaking ‘96 MGS Aerobraking Aerobraking 2001 Odyssey 2009 MTO Rendezvous & Capture Regional Imaging Landing Site Options 2005 MRO Com Relay 2013 MSR Com Relay Com Relay Com Relay Com Relay 2003 MER Landing Site Selection EDL System Mobility In Situ Science 2009 Smart Laboratory In Situ Science ‘96 Mars Pathfinder MAV, Sample Containment EDL System Mars Scouts 14 Technology Pipeline

15. Paving the Road to Mars Sample Return MRO • Optical Navigation • Site Survey • Com. Relay MTO MSR MTO • Autonomous Rendezvous • Com. Relay MSL MSL • Guided Entry • Precision Landing • Potential Caching SOM SOM-L • Pinpoint Landing MTP • Mars Ascend Vehicle • Planetary Protection

16. A Thought Process • Science Objectives of the Mars Exploration Program • Search for possible extinct or extant life • Understand Mars as a Planet • Climate • Geology • Characterize the environment for potential human exploration • In recent years search for life has become the focal point • It can be decomposed into 2 questions • Did Mars ever have conditions necessary for emergence of life? • If so, did life ever emerge on Mars? • Where to look? • Once zeroed in on a site how to look for life?

17. Where to Look? • Mars is a large planet (as much land surface as the Earth) and our resources are limited. Where on Mars should we look for an answer? • Look in areas with High Habitability Potential • Areas that have several elements considered necessary for life • Key • Water — where it might have been and, where it might be now • Complex carbon chemistry

18. A Thought Process How to Look • Once you have identified target areas with high habitability potential howdo you look for life • Look for the Organisms directly • Structure? • Chemical biosignatures? • Life effects on environment e.g methane • Life residues e.g complex carbon molecules • Others? • How Would you go about it? • Robotic In-situ? • Sample Return? • Humans?

19. Elements of a Program • Orbital reconnaissance • Macroscopic exploration • Global context • Compass for the landed explorers • Landed explorers, • Microscopic follow through • Ground truth for orbiters observations • Sample return • More accurate analysis in Earth laboratories

20. A Thought ProcessHow to Structure a Program • Linear/step by step/systematic • Does one worry about the stamina/attention span/patience of the public and resource providers if the process takes too long? • Forget about the bunt single; Swing for the fences • How many strikes are you allowed? • A hybrid approach? • How do you structure a program that walks (runs?) through these steps?

21. Identifying Areas with High Potential for Habitability Orbital Reconnaissance Next Decade MGS MRO Odyssey AFL Deep Drill This Decade Follow up In-situ Investigation (and Ground Truth) MSR Phoenix MSL MER

22. Connection to Human Exploration? Question: • Has the announcement of the new vision for space exploration changed the objectives of robotic Mars exploration program? • Has it changed the implementation strategy — pace? Order? • How do you couple the science driven robotic program with the emerging human program? • What are the elements of each program that can be leveraged against the assets of the other? • How do you feed forward science/technology/engineering • Between robotic and human missions • What will scale? • What requires technological paradigm shift?

23. An Example of Evolving Technology Space Mirror Technology 250 300 200 Areal Density - kg/m2 100 35 15 5-1 1980 2010 2000 1990 AMSD Objective LTSI Objective

24. ScalabilityLander Mass at Mars Atmospheric Entry MSR/MSL are here • Human missions will require landed masses in the tens of tons Reference Point 6 crew, 60 days 500 x 33,572 km 82,800 kg 90 – 100 mt 70 - 80 mt Lander + Aerobrake Mass (tons) 50 - 60 mt Number of Crew + Days on Mars Surface Mars Circular Staging Orbit Altitude (km) Courtesy: J. Geffre/JSC

25. What You Will and Not Hear Today Advanced Program Integration Office (APIO) Mars Human & Robotic Roadmap Lunar Roadmap Launch Vehicle Roadmap  Mars Robotic Roadmap Mars Human Roadmap  Past Studies  Potential Bridges