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
Mars Level 2 Banner

Selecting Technologies for Mars Missions

What are the optimal combinations of Mars exploration missions that can be developed within certain technology R&D budgets?

Mars program goals include discovering whether life ever arose there, determining the planet's climate history and the evolution of its surface and interior, and preparing for human missions. We began our study by developing concepts for missions to accomplish these goals during the timeframe of 2009-2020. They are summarized in the table below.

Table 1. Mars Mission Candidates
Mission Name Description
Polar Layer Deposit Rover Rover mission to characterize polar regions with in-situ sampling
Volcanology Rover Rover mission to characterize volcanic region with in-situ sampling
Rover/Lander Rover to characterize landing site with in-situ sampling
Wildcat Lander Lander with 30m depth drilling system
Sabertooth Lander Lander with 1000m depth drilling system
Synthetic Aperture Radar Orbiter Orbiter sounding for surface science experiments and mapping
Magnetometer Orbiter Orbiter for magnetometer and gravity instrument science
Imaging/Atmospheric Sounding Orbiter Next generation remote sensing orbiter (Imaging and atmospheric sounding)
Surface Science Orbiter Orbiter for large-scale (area) surface science
MSR Sample Lander Sample return with a Mars ascent vehicle
Scout Mission Low-cost opportunity mission

Next, we developed quantitative capability requirements to enable the potential missions, and identified the technology development efforts required to enable those capabilities, taking note of their funding levels, probabilities of success, and the alternate technologies available for use if the new technology cannot be successfully developed.

We picked three levels of technology investment for a 12-year period: $25 million per year, $50 million per year, and $75 million per year, and used an optimization program to determine which sets of technology would yield the best science return at each funding level. The results appear in Table 2.

Table 2. Mars Technology Portfolio Results for Three Investment Levels Showing Feasible Technologies and Missions Enabled
Technology Investment Technology Portfolio Missions Enabled
$25M Per Year
  • On-orbit science
  • Telcom network & navigation
  • Multi-mission survivability, orbiters
  • Magnetometer orbiter
  • Synthetic Aperture Radar orbiter
  • Imaging/Atmospheric Sounding orbiter
  • Surface Science orbiter
$50M Per Year
  • Precision landing
  • Impact attenuation
  • Hazard avoidance
  • On-orbit science
  • Forward planetary protection
  • Sample characterization, surface
  • Sub-surface access
  • Mobility
  • Sample handling, contamination
  • Back planetary protection
  • Telecom network, navigation
  • Mars Orbit Rendezvous
  • Multimission survivability
  • Scout technology
Minimum number of missions:

  • Mars Smart Lander
  • Mars Sample Return
  • Scout mission

Maximum number of missionsa:

  • Volcanology Rover
  • Mars Smart Lander
  • Magnetometer orbiter
  • Polar Layer Deposit Lander/Rover
  • Wildcat Lander
  • Sabertooth Lander
  • Scout mission

a Excludes On-orbit science, back planetary protection, Mars orbit rendezvous, and multi-mission survivability

$75M Per Year
  • Precision landing
  • Impact attenuation
  • Hazard avoidance
  • On-orbit science
  • Forward planetary protection
  • Sample characterization, surface
  • Sub-surface access
  • Mobility
  • Sample handling, contamination
  • Back planetary protection
  • Telecom network, navigation
  • Mars Orbit Rendezvous
  • Multimission survivability
  • Scouts
  • Volcanology Rover
  • Mars Smart Lander
  • Magnetometer orbiter
  • Synthetic Aperture Radar orbiter
  • Imaging/Atmospheric Sounding orbiter
  • Surface Science orbiter
  • Polar Layer Deposit Lander/Rover
  • Mars Sample Return
  • Wildcat Lander
  • Sabertooth Lander
  • Scout mission

The table presents two alternate choices at the $50 million per year level. For that budget, one can either develop three missions (Mars Smart Lander, Mars Sample Return, and Scout Mission) expected to result in the maximum amount of science, or a greater number of missions that would provide more diverse technology development but have less potential for science return.

Note that for this study, budgets were not permitted to exceed the budget cap in any given year, even if the cumulative budget over the course of 12 years would have been maintained. Also, only the costs of developing technology were considered, not the costs of the missions. In a subsequent study, still being completed, the expenditure schedule is more flexible and mission costs are included.

For more information, contact: Jeffrey.H.Smith@jpl.nasa.gov

Or see the following:

  • "Reaching Mars: Multi-Criteria R&D Portfolio Selection for Mars Exploration Technology Planning," (J.H. Smith, B. Dolgin, and Charles Weisbin), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Western Decision Sciences Institute, Marriott Resort and Beach Club, Lihue, Hawaii, April 15-19, 2003.

  • "Building a Pathway to Mars: Technology Investment for Science Return," (J. H. Smith, J. Wertz, and C. Weisbin), Journal of Space Mission Architecture (JSMA), Issue 3, page 101, September 2003 [see also JPL Publication No. 03-15, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA].

  • "Identifying Technology Investments for Future Space Missions," (J. P. Chase, A. Elfes, W. P. Lincoln, R. P. Shishko, and G. Rodriguez), Proceedings of the AIAA Space 2003 Conference, Long Beach, CA, November 2003.


  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