This presentation was part of the session : Short CoursesSixth International Planetary Probe Worksho

Balint, Tibor S.

English

Scholarly Materials And Research @ Georgia Tech

Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 16thInternational Planetary Probe Workshop, Atlanta, GeorgiaShort Course on Extreme Environments Technologies06/21-222008Overview of Past Venus Missions and Potential Architectures for Future Missions– architectures – issues – failures –ByDr. Tibor S. BalintJet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of TechnologyPasadena, CAPreliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 26thInternational Planetary Probe Workshop, Atlanta, GeorgiaShort Course on Extreme Environments Technologies06/21-222008Overview• Introduction– Extreme environments & Science drivers• Typical Mission Architectures to Explore Venus– Role of mission architectures– Mission elements & Architectures• Brief Overview of Venus Missions– Past missions– Present missions & Missions under development– Future mission concepts• The Good, the Bad, & the Future– Lessons learned from past missions– Challenges for future missions• ConclusionsPreliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 36thInternational Planetary Probe Workshop, Atlanta, GeorgiaShort Course on Extreme Environments Technologies06/21-222008IntroductionA First Look at VenusPreliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 46thInternational Planetary Probe Workshop, Atlanta, GeorgiaShort Course on Extreme Environments Technologies06/21-222008IntroductionVenus: World of Contrasts• Why is Venus so different from Earth?– What does the Venus greenhouse tell us about climate change?• Could be addressed with probes & balloons at various altitudes– How active is Venus?• Could be addressed with orbiters & in-situ elements– When and where did the water go?• Could be addressed with landersAtmosphereCoreClimateCrustSolar 'in*Ref: M. Bullock, D. Senske, J. Kwok, Venus Flagship Study: Exploring a World of Contrasts (Interim Briefing), NASA HQ, May 9, 2008 Ref: Image by E. Stofan & T. Balint Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 56thInternational Planetary Probe Workshop, Atlanta, GeorgiaShort Course on Extreme Environments Technologies06/21-222008IntroductionScience Drivers for Venus ExplorationRef: VEXAG White Paper, 2007-2008Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 66thInternational Planetary Probe Workshop, Atlanta, GeorgiaShort Course on Extreme Environments Technologies06/21-222008IntroductionThe Extreme Environment of Venus • Greenhouse effect results in VERY HIGH SURFACE TEMPERATURES• Average surface temperature: ~ 460°C to 480°C• Average pressure on the surface: ~ 92 bars• Cloud layer composed of aqueoussulfuric acid droplets at ~45 to ~70 km attitude• Venus atmosphere is mainly CO2(96.5%) and N2 (3.5%) with: • small amounts of noble gases (He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe)• small amount of reactive trace gases  (SO2, H2O, CO, OCS, H2S, HCl, SO, HF …)• Zonal winds: at 4 km altitude ~1 m/s; at 55 km ~60 m/s; at 65 km ~95 m/s• Superrotating prograde jets in the upper atmosphereRef: N.Yajima, N.Izutsu, H.Honda, K.Goto and T.Imamura (ISAS) N.Tomita and K.Akazawa (Musashi Institute of Technology Univ.) “Feasibility and Applicability of Planetary Balloons,” Website: www.isas.ac.jp/home/ Sci_Bal/engplanetary.htmlRef: C. Wilson, U of Oxford, Personal communicationsRef: V. Kerzhanovich et al., "Circulation of the atmosphere from the surface to 100 km",Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 76thInternational Planetary Probe Workshop, Atlanta, GeorgiaShort Course on Extreme Environments Technologies06/21-222008Typical Mission Architectures to Explore Venus– mission elements – architectures – trajectories –Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 86thInternational Planetary Probe Workshop, Atlanta, GeorgiaShort Course on Extreme Environments Technologies06/21-222008Mission ArchitecturesThe Role of Mission ArchitecturesScienceMission ArchitecturesProgrammaticsTechnologiese.g., - NRC Decadal Survey;- VEXAG goals & objectives- Project science team measurements & investigationse.g., - mission class (flagship, NF, Discovery)- mission cost cap- SSE Roadmap; mission lineup- international collaboratione.g., - extreme environments technologies- systems approaches: tolerance, protection & hybrid systems- atmospheric entry, descent, landing, balloon inflation- instrument technologiese.g., - single or multi-element architecture- single or dual launch- mission elements (orbiter, flyby,balloon, lander, probe, plane)- lifetime (hours, weeks, years)- telecom link (relay, Direct-to-Earth)Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 96thInternational Planetary Probe Workshop, Atlanta, GeorgiaShort Course on Extreme Environments Technologies06/21-222008Mission ArchitecturesPotential Venus Mission ElementsPreliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 106thInternational Planetary Probe Workshop, Atlanta, GeorgiaShort Course on Extreme Environments Technologies06/21-222008Mission ArchitecturesGrouping of Typical Venus Mission ArchitecturesEarth-to-Venus Cruise(~180 days)Remote Sensing In-SituMulti-Element ArchitecturesShort Observation Long ObservationOrbiterVenus Surface Sample ReturnOrbiter + Multi-probesHigh Altitude Balloon +Micro-probesShort Lived Long LivedPioneer-Venus type Descent ProbeVenus In-Situ Explorer (VISE)Venera type LanderHigh altitude balloon(~60-65 km)Balloon to Lower Clouds(~30-40 km)Venus Mobile Explorer (VME)-Air mobility, or- Surface roverSeismic NetworkBalloon NetworkLong Lived LanderFlyby S/CMission Class Floor:Small missionMedium missionLarge missionSample ReturnVenus Atmospheric Sample ReturnFree Return TrajectoryHeritageSSE Roadmap  recommendedRef: Cutts, Balint, “Overview of typical mission architectures”, 3rd VEXAG meeting, Crystal City, VA, Jan.11-12, 2007Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 116thInternational Planetary Probe Workshop, Atlanta, GeorgiaShort Course on Extreme Environments Technologies06/21-222008Brief Overview of Venus Missions– past – present – future –Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 126thInternational Planetary Probe Workshop, Atlanta, GeorgiaShort Course on Extreme Environments Technologies06/21-222008Past MissionsPast: Russian Missions to Venus• Between 1961 & 1984/(1985) Russia carried out the most successful Venus exploration program among nations• Launched 29 missions to Venus:– Failed: 12– Succeeded (fully or partially): 17 !!• The program included – Venera-1 and Sputnik-7 probes (failed)– Venera orbiters, landers– Cosmos landers and flybys (failed , s,, no-, on pa/, 20 a2o3- 4osmos *,si/na-ion)– Zond-1 lander (failed)– Vega landers and balloons• Achieved multiple firsts, e.g., – First to reach Venus; entry; landing; longest surface operation (127 minutes); surface pictures (also in color); international Venus missionVenera 3 stamp Venera 4 stampV en er a5  s ta mpVenera 8 stampV en er a9  s ta mp sVenera 11 stampV en er a1 3 st ampRef: Kolawa, Balint, Delcastillo, Mojarradi, “Instruments for Extreme Environments”, IPPW-4, Short Course, Pasadena, CA, June 2006Ref: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/spacecraft_planetary_venus.htmlRef: Balint, “Summary of Russian Planetary Lander Missions”, JPL, 2002Ref: images – various from the webPreliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 136thInternational Planetary Probe Workshop, Atlanta, GeorgiaShort Course on Extreme Environments Technologies06/21-222008Past MissionsPast: US Missions to Venus• 1962 - Mariner 2 – flew by Venus (12/14/62); – Verified high temperatures.• 1974 - Mariner 10 to Mercury, – flew by Venus (2/5/74);– Tracked global atmospheric circulation with visible and violet imagery• 1978 – Pioneer-Venus Orbiter– radar mapped Venus (12/78)• Pioneer-Venus Multiprobe– dropped four probes through Venusian clouds– Orbiter & probes launched separately• 1989 - Magellan– launched to Venus (5/4/89) – arrived at Venus in 1990 – mapped 98% of the planet – mission ended in 1994P-V Large ProbeMagellanOrbiterP-V Carrierw/ ProbesMariner-10Ref: Images – various from the webPreliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 146thInternational Planetary Probe Workshop, Atlanta, GeorgiaShort Course on Extreme Environments Technologies06/21-222008Present Missions & Missions Under DevelopmentPresent/Ongoing: VEX, VCO, Other Flybys• ESA’s Venus Express (VEX) orbiter– Launched: November 9, 2005– Mission ends: May 2009 (extended lifetime) • JAXA’s Venus Climate Orbiter (VCO)– Planned launch: June 2010– Mission lifetime: 2 years• APL’s MESSENGER (with Venus flybys)– Launched: August 3, 2004– 2 Venus Flybys (10/24/2006 & 6/5/2007)– Mission to Mercury• APL’s Solar Probe(with Venus flybys)– Planned Launch: 2015– 9 Venus FlybysVEXMESSENGER 6-o M,rc3r9:VCORef: Images – various from the webSolar ProbePreliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 156thInternational Planetary Probe Workshop, Atlanta, GeorgiaShort Course on Extreme Environments Technologies06/21-222008Future Mission ConceptsFuture: The Road Ahead for US Venus Missions• Future Venus missions are expected to be science driven– with input from programmatics (e.g., cost cap)– and support through enabling or enhancing technologies • NASA’s 2008 Venus Flagship study (ongoing):– NASA appointed a Science & Technology Definition Team– STDT assessed science figure of merit– Recommended a science driven mission architecture• Orbiter + 2 mid-cloud balloons + 2 short lived landersincluding an extended life element– Assumed launch period: between 2020 and 2025• Smaller missions could occur before that:– New Frontiers-3 proposals could target a 2015+ launch date– Discovery missions could target a 2013-15+ launch date– There might be 2-3 competed opportunities before Venus FlagshipPreliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 166thInternational Planetary Probe Workshop, Atlanta, GeorgiaShort Course on Extreme Environments Technologies06/21-222008Future Mission ConceptsFuture: Potential Venus Missions• Orbiters – Discovery or New Frontiers class– Single element architecture– Lifetime: years• Balloons– Discovery or NF class; NASA/ESA/JAXA– 1 or 2 balloons; orbiter or flyby support– Lifetime: weeks• Landers and probes– NF or Flagship class; NASA/Russia– Lifetime: hours for passive cooling; weeks to months for active cooling• Multi-element architectures– Likely Flagship class– NASA Flagship Study 2008:• orbiter + 2 mid-balloons + 2 landers• Short lived landers with extended life element• Potential for future international collaboration– Cosmic Vision EVE • orbiter + high-balloon + mid-balloon + lander• ESA lead international collaboration proposal– Other concepts:• Network with 4 landers over a year lifetime• Venus Mobile Explorer (SSE Roadmap recommended) with near surface metallic balloon and orbiter• Venus Surface Sample Return– Multi-element for delivery; descent; short lived lander; multi-stage ascent balloons; ascent vehicle; Venus orbiter; and Earth return capsuleRe f:  Ima ge s b y T.  Ba li nt  Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 176thInternational Planetary Probe Workshop, Atlanta, GeorgiaShort Course on Extreme Environments Technologies06/21-222008The Good, the Bad, & the Future– lessons learned – future challenges – considerations –Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 186thInternational Planetary Probe Workshop, Atlanta, GeorgiaShort Course on Extreme Environments Technologies06/21-222008Lessons LearnedMission Architecture Philosophies• Russian (Soviet) approach:– Incremental development & learning,• through a full fledged program• while flying a large number of missions• program continuation was independent of public opinion– Launched in pairs, using • identically built s/c and lander/probe• simple, cost effective, brute force approach• US approach:– Missions selected to diverse destinations based on science priorities• no dedicated Venus program exists (e.g., compared to Mars exploration)– Mitigating risk through • ground based development and testing• with low risk toleranceRef: Venera-9Ref: Pioneer-Venus 2 model (bus and probes)Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 196thInternational Planetary Probe Workshop, Atlanta, GeorgiaShort Course on Extreme Environments Technologies06/21-222008Lessons LearnedMission Impact of Multiple Elements & Lifetime• Multi-element architectures:Pioneer-Venus & Vega– simultaneous in-situ exploration – at multiple locations (synergy)– relatively simple, short lived elements (balloons, probes, landers, orbiters, flybys)– international collaboration (on Vega) • Long lived orbiters:Magellan & Venus Express– Long duration exploration of Venus yielded significant amount of scientific data• Trades between long lived single element vs. short lived multiple elements (science, technology, cost)Ref: Vega mission depictionRef: Venus ExpressPreliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 206thInternational Planetary Probe Workshop, Atlanta, GeorgiaShort Course on Extreme Environments Technologies06/21-222008Lessons LearnedFailures on Past Russian Venus MissionsSuccess, but failed to return images. Lens cover didn’t separate after landing due to design fault Venera-12Stranded in Earth orbit: likely due to escape stage failureCosmos-27Success, but failed to return images. Lens cover didn’t separate after landing due to design fault Venera-11Stranded in Earth orbit: escape stage failure (was similar to Venera-8 design)Cosmos-482Failed on Earth orbit: reason unknownCosmos-359Success, but weak signal. Lander may have bounced into its side, impacting antenna pointingVenera-7Failed on Earth orbit: reason unknownCosmos-167Failed on Earth orbit: reason unknownCosmos-96Communication system failed before any data return (but was the first to land on another planet)Venera-3Missed Venus by 24,000 km; s/c systems failed before reaching Venus; no data returnVenera-2Failed on its way to VenusZond-1Stranded in Earth orbit (unknown mission, possibly designated as a Venus flyby)Cosmos-21Unsuccessful flyby mission: reason unknownSputnik-21Stranded in Earth orbit: escape stage failureSputnik-20Stranded in Earth orbit: escape stage failureSputnik-19Missed Venus by 100,000 km: probably due to the overheating of a solar-direction sensorVenera-1Stranded in Earth orbit: 4th stage failure (probably due to faulty timer)Sputnik-7FailuresMissionsNote: If the engine at Earth parking orbit misfired or the burn was not completed, the probes was left in Earth orbit and given a Cosmos designation. Most Russian mission failures were due to propulsion system problemsPreliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 216thInternational Planetary Probe Workshop, Atlanta, GeorgiaShort Course on Extreme Environments Technologies06/21-222008Lessons LearnedFailures on Past US Venus In-situ Missions• Pioneer-Venus probes: – 12.5 km anomaly resulted in electrical failures– Cause investigated (workshop at NASA ARC) – Latest views point to supercritical CO2 ,which may have dissolved the protective coating on electrical wires– Components were tested in high-T/p Nitrogen • justified by the assumption that both N & CO2 are inert gases• For future in-situ missions, testing in a relevant environment is critical– That is: testing in high temperature & pressure CO2Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 226thInternational Planetary Probe Workshop, Atlanta, GeorgiaShort Course on Extreme Environments Technologies06/21-222008Future ConsiderationsScience Synergies for the Proposed Flagship Architecture• Deployment of in-situ elements:– 2 landers + 2 balloons deployed at the same time  – Probe descents to be targeted to go near balloon paths  • Measurement synergies for atmospheric science – 2 landers give vertical slices of the atmosphere during descent – 2 balloons give zonal and meridional slices roughly intersecting balloon paths• Science synergies between geochemistry and atmosphere– Simultaneous geochemical and mineralogical analysis – Spatial and temporal atmospheric gas analysis • Two disparate locations at the same time• Science synergies between geology and geochemistry– Landings on tessera and volcanic plains • for comparative geology and geochemistryRef: M. Bullock, D. Senske, J. Kwok, Venus Flagship Study: Exploring a World of Contrasts (Interim Briefing), NASA HQ, May 9, 2008Preliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 236thInternational Planetary Probe Workshop, Atlanta, GeorgiaShort Course on Extreme Environments Technologies06/21-222008Future ConsiderationsTechnologies• Technologies could play a significant role to– enable or enhance future Venus missions• Mission and technology impact would increase– for near surface descent,  – combined with longer lifetime• Technology and science trades vary and should be assessed between – short lived multi-element platforms and – long lived single near surface missions• E.g., short lived near surface missions– may not require active cooling– may require technology development for• pressure & temperature mitigation; sample acquisition & handling; and others• Instruments technologiesRef: Images – various from the webPreliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 246thInternational Planetary Probe Workshop, Atlanta, GeorgiaShort Course on Extreme Environments Technologies06/21-222008Future ConsiderationsInternational Collaboration• Multi-element architectures lend themselves to international collaboration• It was recommended in – ESA’s Cosmic Vision EVE proposal (2007)– NASA’s 2008 Venus Flagship Study (ongoing)• Timing for international collaboration: – NASA’s Venus Flagship targets 2020-2025– ESA's Cosmic Vision EVE will be re-proposed  – JAXA’s mid-cloud balloon is tentatively proposed for EVE, might be ready in 2016+– The Venera-D lander by Roscosmos was proposed for EVE, and the work is ongoingPreliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 256thInternational Planetary Probe Workshop, Atlanta, GeorgiaShort Course on Extreme Environments Technologies06/21-222008ConclusionsPreliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 266thInternational Planetary Probe Workshop, Atlanta, GeorgiaShort Course on Extreme Environments Technologies06/21-222008Conclusions• Venus exploration is expected to continue the  tradition of highly successful past missions– such future missions will be science driven, – in the framework of programmatics, mission architectures and technologies• Mission architecture trades between short lived multi-element missions and long-lived in-situ missions should be carefully evaluated against the best science return• Technologies could significantly enable or enhance potential future missions– Testing in relevant environments is critical for future technologies• International collaboration will likely play a significant role to maximize science returnPreliminary - For Discussion Purposes Only Page 276thInternational Planetary Probe Workshop, Atlanta, GeorgiaShort Course on Extreme Environments Technologies06/21-222008The End

Overview of Past Venus Missions and Potential Architectures for Future Missions - Architectures - Issues - Failures

https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/1853/26422/1/143-238-1-PB.pdf

Overview of Past Venus Missions and Potential Architectures for Future Missions - Architectures - Issues - Failures

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Scholarly Materials And Research @ Georgia Tech