Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) have been and will be enabling or significantly enhancing for many missions, including several concepts identified in the 2011 Planetary Science Decadal Survey. Some mission planners and science investigators might have concerns about possible impacts from RPS-induced conditions upon the scientific capabilities of their mission concepts. To alleviate these concerns, this paper looks at existing and potential future RPS designs, and examines their potential radiation, thermal, vibration, electromagnetic interference (EMI), and magnetic fields impacts on representative science instruments and science measurements. Radiation impacts from RPS on science instruments are of potential concern for instruments with optical detectors and instruments with high-voltage electronics. The two main areas of concern are noise effects on the instrument measurements, and long-term effects of instrument damage. While RPS by their nature will contribute to total radiation dose, their addition for most missions should be relatively small. For example, the gamma dose rate from one Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (MMRTG) would be an order of magnitude lower than the environmental dose rate at Mars, and would have a correspondingly lower contribution to instrument noise and to any permanent damage to payload sensors. Increasing the number of General Purpose Heat Source (GPHS) modules used in an RPS would be expected to increase the generated radiation proportionally; however, the effect of more GPHS modules is mitigated from a strictly linear relationship by self-shielding effects. The radiation field of an RPS is anisotropic due to the deviation of the modules from a point-source-geometry. For particularly sensitive instruments the total radiation dose could be mitigated with separation or application of spot shielding. Though a new, higher-power RPS could generate more heat per unit than current designs, thermal impact to the flight system could be mitigated with shading and pointing if required by the mission. Alternatively, excess heat could prove beneficial in providing needed heat to spacecraft components and instruments in some thermal environments. Vibration for a new higher-power Stirling Radioisotope Generator (SRG) would be expected to be similar to the recent Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator (ASRG) design. While vibration should be low, it must be considered and addressed during spacecraft and instrument design. EMI and magnetic fields for new RPS concepts are expected to be low as for the current RPS, but must be considered and addressed if the mission includes sensitive instruments such as magnetometers. The assessment conducted for this paper focused on orbiter instrument payloads for two representative mission concepts- a Titan Saturn System Mission (TSSM) and a Uranus Orbiter and Probe (UOP)-since both of these Decadal Survey concepts would include many diverse instruments on board. Quick-look design studies using notional new RPS concepts were carried out for these two mission concepts, and their specific instrument packages were analyzed for their interactions with new RPS designs. The original Decadal Survey TSSM and UOP concepts did not have complete instrument performance requirements so typical measurement requirements were used where needed. Then, the general RPS environments were evaluated for impacts to various types of instruments. This paper describes how the potential impacts of the RPS on science instruments and measurements were assessed, which impacts were addressed, proposed mitigation strategies against those impacts, and provides an overview of future work.

RPS↗

NASA NTRS2016

Radioisotope Power Systems: Science Instrument Sensitivities to Radioisotope Power System Environment

No abstract available

Bairstow, Brian↗

NASA NTRS2015

Radioisotope Power Systems Reference Book for Mission Designers and Planners

The RPS Program's Program Planning and Assessment (PPA) Office commissioned the Mission Analysis team to develop the Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) Reference Book for Mission Planners and Designers to define a baseline of RPS technology capabilities with specific emphasis on performance parameters and technology readiness. The main objective of this book is to provide RPS technology information that could be utilized by future mission concept studies and concurrent engineering practices. A progress summary from the major branches of RPS technology research provides mission analysis teams with a vital tool for assessing the RPS trade space, and provides concurrent engineering centers with a consistent set of guidelines for RPS performance characteristics. This book will be iterated when substantial new information becomes available to ensure continued relevance, serving as one of the cornerstone products of the RPS PPA Office. This book updates the original 2011 internal document, using data from the relevant publicly released RPS technology references and consultations with RPS technologists. Each performance parameter and RPS product subsection has been reviewed and cleared by at least one subject matter representative. A virtual workshop was held to reach consensus on the scope and contents of the book, and the definitions and assumptions that should be used. The subject matter experts then reviewed and updated the appropriate sections of the book. The RPS Mission Analysis Team then performed further updates and crosschecked the book for consistency. Finally, a second virtual workshop was held to ensure all subject matter experts and stakeholders concurred on the contents.

Lee, Young↗

NASA NTRS2014

Enabling Future Low-Cost Small Mission Concepts

A SmallSat using a small Radioisotope Power System for deep space destinations could potentially fit into a Discovery class mission cost cap and perform significant science with a timely return of data. Only applicable when the Discovery 12 guidelines were applied. Commonality of hardware and science instruments among identical spacecraft enabled to meet the Discovery Class mission cost cap. Multiple spacecraft shared the costs of the Launch Approval Engineering Process. Assumed a secondary science instrument was contributed. Small RPS could provide small spacecraft with a relatively high power (approx. 60 We) option for missions to deep space destinations (> 10 AU) with multiple science instruments. Study of Centaur mission demonstrated the ability to achieve New Frontiers level science. Multiple spacecraft possible with small RPS, allowing for multiple targets, science from multiple platforms, and/or redundancy.

Lee, Young↗

NASA NTRS2013

Automating Stowage Operations for the International Space Station

No abstract available

International Space Station↗

NASA NTRS2013

Automating Stowage Operations for the International Space Station

A challenge for any proposed mission is to demonstrate convincingly that the proposed systems will in fact deliver the science promised. Funding agencies and mission design personnel are becoming ever more skeptical of the abstractions that form the basis of the current state of the practice with respect to approximating science return. To address this, we have been using automated planning and scheduling technology to provide actual coverage campaigns that provide better predictive performance with respect to science return for a given mission design and set of mission objectives given implementation uncertainties. Specifically, we have applied an adaptation of ASPEN and SPICE to the Eagle-Eye domain that demonstrates the performance of the mission design with respect to coverage of science imaging targets that address climate change and disaster response. Eagle-Eye is an Earth-imaging telescope that has been proposed to fly aboard the International Space Station (ISS).

box packing↗

NASA NTRS2007

Integrated Human-Robotic Missions to the Moon and Mars: Mission Operations Design Implications

For most of the history of space exploration, human and robotic programs have been independent, and have responded to distinct requirements. The NASA Vision for Space Exploration calls for the return of humans to the Moon, and the eventual human exploration of Mars; the complexity of this range of missions will require an unprecedented use of automation and robotics in support of human crews. The challenges of human Mars missions, including roundtrip communications time delays of 6 to 40 minutes, interplanetary transit times of many months, and the need to manage lifecycle costs, will require the evolution of a new mission operations paradigm far less dependent on real-time monitoring and response by an Earthbound operations team. Robotic systems and automation will augment human capability, increase human safety by providing means to perform many tasks without requiring immediate human presence, and enable the transfer of traditional mission control tasks from the ground to crews. Developing and validating the new paradigm and its associated infrastructure may place requirements on operations design for nearer-term lunar missions. The authors, representing both the human and robotic mission operations communities, assess human lunar and Mars mission challenges, and consider how human-robot operations may be integrated to enable efficient joint operations, with the eventual emergence of a unified exploration operations culture.

human robotic missions↗