Follow this link to skip to the main content
National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laborabory Jet Propulsion Laborabory California Institute of Technology JPL - Home Page JPL - Earth JPL - Solar System JPL - Stars & Galaxies JPL - Science & Technology
Technology Selection & Risk Assessment
START Home Red Block
Middle Red Block
Case Studies
white line
About Us
white line
Methodology
white line
Case Studies
white line
 NASA agency-level studies:
     START Lite
     Technology Development
     Assessing Future Missions
     Integrated Resource Allocation
white line
 Science (SMD)
     JPL Chief Technologist Analysis
     New Millennium Program

     Enabling Mars Missions:
       - Landing Site Selection
       - Selecting Technologies
       - Lander vs Rover
       - Autonomy
       - Hazard Avoidance
       - Predicting Technology Cost
       - Automated Design Tool

     Titan
     Europa

     Space Telescopes:
       - Tech Investment Tools
       - Earth Observatory at L2
white line
 Exploration (ESMD)

     Tech Prioritization for
Constellation


     Human-Robot Missions
       - Comparing Architectures

       - Task Scheduling
          - Allocating Tasks 1
          - Allocating Tasks 2

       - Lunar Mission Pilot
          - Human-Robot Polar Mission
          - Robotic Precursor Mission

       - Performance Improvements
       - System Architectures

     Autonomous Inspection
white line
 Aeronautics (ARMD)

     Capability Assessment
white line
white line
Publications & Proceedings
white line
News
white line
Sitemap
white line
START Europa Lander Study banner

Europa Lander Study

Which sets of technologies would provide the best science return at various budget levels?

The intriguing possibility that life-supporting conditions could exist in the ice-covered oceans of Europa makes that Jovian moon a significant priority in NASA's exploration of the solar system.

A mission to Europa to search for life would involve launching from Earth, cruising to Jupiter, achieving Europa orbit, site reconnaissance and selection, landing, deep penetration through ice, small autonomous submersibles navigating within the purported sea beneath the ice, and in-situ life detection.

Many advanced technologies not currently available would be required, including long-duration survivable systems (power, thermal, radiation), minimal-mass autonomous systems (systems-on-a-chip, autonomous safe precision landing), life detection (including preventing contamination of Europa by Earth organisms), and communication of science data from within the ocean to the ice surface, to the orbiter, and then to Earth.

We evaluated candidate technologies according to their risk, R&D costs, and probable science return, and used a decision tree methodology to rank them. The results appear in the table below, with the technologies that offer the most value per dollar listed at the top.

Europa Lander Technologies Considered & Their Metrics
Technology Metric
Deep Ice Penetration km
Excellent Life Detection kg
Extended Survivability years
Autonomous Hardware #dig ops/W-square cm
High Volume COMM kbs
Thermal Control System Hardware kg
Sub-sea Mobility kg
No Sub-sea Mobility  
Radiation Shielding kg
Multifunctional Structure  
Stirling Engine; Specific Power W/kg
Batteries W-hr/kg
AMTEC; Specific Power W/kg
Adv. Propulsion (SEP); Isp N/kg
Adv. Propulsion (Liquid); Specific Thrust N/kg
Segmented Thermoelectrics; Specific Power W/kg
System on a Chip #dig ops/W-square cm
High Data Rate COMM; BPS/W-gram



Technology Portfolio Options for Various Budget Levels

Budget is listed in the first column, and actual total cost of each set of technologies is in the second column. The third column indicates how much value a mission consisting of that technology set would provide out of a possible total of 100%. The fourth column shows how many orders of magnitude improvement over the current state-of-the-art is represented by each technology set.


Budget
($M)
Cost
($M)
(%) Gain of
Maximum
Factor Gain
Orders of
Magnitude
TECHNOLOGY PORTFOLIO
10 0 0 0 None
20 20 18.8 5.6 Extended Survivability
30 29 23.2 6.9 Autonomous Hardware; High Volume COMM
40 35 32.2 9.6 Deep Ice Penetration
50 49 42.3 12.6 Extended Survivability; Autonomous Hardware; High Volume COMM
60 55 51.3 15.3 Deep Ice Penetration; Extended Survivability
70 70 63.4 18.9 Deep Ice Penetration; Extended Survivability; Autonomous Hardware
80 81 65.8 19.6 Deep Ice Penetration; Extended Survivability; High Volume COMM; High Data Rate COMM
90 85 67.4 20.1 Deep Ice Penetration; Extended Survivability; Autonomous Hardware Thermal Control
100 96 77.8 23.2 Deep Ice Penetration; Extended Survivability; Autonomous Hardware; High Volume COMM; High Data Rate COMM
110 109 80.2 23.9 Deep Ice Penetration; Extended Survivability; Excellent Life Detection; High Volume COMM
120 121 83.7 24.93 Deep Ice Penetration; Extended Survivability; Excellent Life Detection; High Volume COMM; High Data Rate COMM
130 125 85.2 25.4 Deep Ice Penetration; Extended Survivability; Excellent Life Detection; Autonomous Hardware; Thermal Control
140 139 96.6 28.8 Deep Ice Penetration; Extended Survivability; Excellent Life Detection; Autonomous Hardware; High Volume COMM; Thermal Control
150 151 100 29.8 Deep Ice Penetration; Extended Survivability; Excellent Life Detection; Autonomous Hardware; High Volume COMM; Thermal Control; High Data Rate COMM

For more information, contact: Charles.R.Weisbin@jpl.nasa.gov

Or see the following:

  • "Decision Tree Assessment of Challenging Technologies for a Mission to Europa," (R. Manvi, W. Zimmerman, G. Rodriguez), Journal of Aerospace Engineering, July 2003, pages 1-8.


  About | Methodology | Case Studies | Publications & Proceedings | News | Sitemap | Home

PRIVACY / COPYRIGHT CONTACT INFORMATION CREDITS
USA GOV website - Your first click to the U.S. Government.   NASA Home Page   Primary START Contact: Charles R Weisbin
  Last Updated: May 19, 2009