ROBOTIC SAMPLE RETURN MICRO-MISSION FROM THE LUNAR SOUTH POLE – HOW MICRO IS MICRO?
- Paper number
IAC-08.A3.2.B11
- Author
Prof. Alex Ellery, Carleton University, Canada
- Coauthor
Dr. Adam M. Baker, Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd., United Kingdom
- Coauthor
Mr. Robert C. Parkinson, University of London Aylesbury, United Kingdom
- Coauthor
Dr. Jim Clemmet, EADS Astrium Ltd., United Kingdom
- Coauthor
Dr. Ian Crawford, Birkbeck College London, United Kingdom
- Coauthor
Prof. Philip Stooke, University of Western Ontario, Canada
- Year
2008
- Abstract
Following from earlier studies to assess the feasibility of lunar sample return micro-missions to the Moon under the auspices of the Surrey Space Centre (SSC), it was concluded that the micro-mission concept is suited to lunar orbiting, penetrator and modest lander and sample return missions. In the case of the lunar sample return mission, it was concluded that a 500 kg launch mass was feasible but was limited to a grab-bag site [Ellery 2005]. For the purpose of returning samples of water-laden ice from the South Pole Aitken Basin which will require extensive exploratory forays, this was not an appropriate approach. In a subsequent study led by Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd (SSTL) for the UK’s Particle Physics & Astronomy Research Council (PPARC), it was concluded that lunar orbiting, penetrator and modest lander missions were the only micro-missions under consideration. However, return of lunar samples may be considered to be a high scientific priority as it provides for the deployment of laboratory instruments of far greater sophistication than in-situ instruments, eg. sample dating. In this paper, we examine the requirements of the surface element in order to achieve a lunar sample return mission recovering water-laden samples whilst retaining as much of the micro-mission philosophy as is feasible. In particular, we examine the impact of the surface and lander components on the overall mission design, and in particular, the initial launch mass. We examine in particular the criticality of both surface traverse and the requirement for subsurface access. We find that these aspects are particularly challenging due to the hostile terrain offered by the location and the limited sun availability. However, the implementation of a rover solution offers a flexible approach. This will require significant tractive capabilities over considerable distances. The primary question concerns power and it is deemed that the most robust solution is through the use of radioisotope photothermovoltaic conversion which also provides thermal heating. Furthermore, the necessity for in-situ analysis for sample selection provides a graceful degradation in mission success if the return element should not succeed. However, such a robotic mission will be essential to precede any human mission to the South Pole Aitken Basin and any notion of a permanent lunar base.
- Abstract document
- Manuscript document
(absent)