Low-Cost Asteroid Precursor Mission

AIAA Foundation Student Design Competition 2015/16
                                 Undergraduate Team-Space Design

Low-Cost Asteroid Precursor Mission

Background

The U.S. has not explored beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO) with humans aboard spacecraft since
1972. However, NASA has exploration plans beyond LEO that include missions to cis-lunar
space, Near-Earth Asteroids (NEAs), the Martian moons, and eventually the surface of Mars.
The proposed Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) mission will identify, robotically capture and
redirect a small NEA or a multi-ton boulder from the surface a larger NEA to a stable orbit
around the moon, where astronauts will explore it in the 2020’s, returning to the Earth with
samples. ARM is the first step beyond LEO into the “Proving Ground” of cislunar space,
representing NASA’s efforts to develop essential deep-space capabilities (technologies, systems,
and operations) required to safely send humans progressively farther out into the solar system.

Through ARM, NASA will implement a number of key capabilities directly applicable for future
human and robotic exploration purposes, as well as provide many other broader benefits. These
capabilities include advanced solar electric propulsion, capture and control on non-cooperative
objects, rendezvous and docking systems, deep-space trajectory and navigation methods,
advanced extra-vehicular activity technologies, and sample collection and containment. The
robotic mission will also demonstrate basic asteroid deflection techniques that will inform future
planetary defense approaches and provide critical scientific information about NEAs, the
formation of our solar system, and possibly the origins of life on Earth. Finally, the ARM offers
important benefits to commercial and international partners, by providing critical operational
experience interacting with a large, low-gravity body, the collection of multiple tons of
potentially volatile/water-rich carbonaceous asteroidal material, and the opportunity to
demonstrate resource utilization methods. The return of many tons of carbonaceous material to
cislunar space would significantly accelerate the efforts of the fledgling asteroid mining industry,
which in turn will aid humanity’s expansion into the solar system by tapping the vast resources
available from asteroids.

As an integral part of a well-informed human exploration strategy, robotic precursor missions are
critical by providing detailed information on the destinations that would be encountered by
human missions as well as understanding of the technologies and capabilities that need to be
developed before a human mission is undertaken. This approach was utilized during the Apollo
program to reduce mission risk for the lunar missions of the late 1960’s and 1970’s.

A low-cost precursor mission would be an opportunity to contribute to lowering the risk of a
human exploration mission to a near-Earth asteroid. It would also provide useful science

knowledge that could determine the suitability of an asteroid as a potential candidate for
exploration and guide human exploration activities when astronauts arrive at the asteroid to
conduct their scientific experiments. This science knowledge could include things like asteroid
size, spin state, gravity fields, composition, mechanical and morphological properties including
surface features such as boulders and regolith.

Past robotic scientific systems have often been cost prohibitive and required significant, lengthy
development efforts. However, small satellite platforms (including cubesats) provide rapid,
functional capability at low-cost. This RFP examines utilizing a small satellite as a cost-effective
means to conduct a precursor mission for future human exploration as well as more extensive
robotic missions.

Design Requirements and Constraints

The project should:

   Select a smallsat concept and the basic science mission. Emphasis is to use simple and
    proven technologies for cost, reliability, and scalability consideration.
   Perform trade studies for a smallsat precursor mission at the architecture level. This includes
    vehicle architectures, launch vehicles, science instruments, selection of a target asteroid,
    orbital mechanics, spacecraft and other mission system-level trades. It is highly desirable to
    use technologies already demonstrated on previous programs or planned programs.
   Describe the planned science approach, including planned observations, science instruments,
    collection period, samplings and targets. Instruments could include impactors, drills,
    excavators, or other options that provide the desired science measurements.
   Select the communications and ground systems architecture for downlinking mission data to
    the ground.
   Design and define the mission operations, including launch, orbit transfer,
    arrival/landing/docking, stationkeeping, re-pointing and/or repositioning the smallsat, and
    other maneuvers deemed necessary for the science mission. The ground segment for
    operations shall be also defined.
   The mission concept is open to concepts that land/dock with the asteroid or that orbit or
    station-keep near the asteroid.
   The overall design solution should consider safety, reliability, affordability, operability.
   The cost for the mission should not exceed $100M US dollars, including launch vehicle or
    secondary payload launch opportunity.

Deliverables

This project will require a multi-disciplinary team of students. Traditional aerospace engineering
disciplines such as structures, propulsion, flight mechanics, orbital mechanics, thermal, electric
power, attitude control, communications, sensors, environmental control, and system design
optimization will be involved. In addition, economics and schedule will play a major role in
determining design viability. Teams will make significant design decisions regarding the
configuration and characteristics of their preferred system. Choices must be justified based both
on technical and economic grounds with a view to the commercial extensibility of any capability
being developed.

The following is a list of information to be included in the final report. Students are free,
however, to arrange the information in as clear and logical a way as they wish.

1) Requirements Definition – should include the mission requirements and design requirements
for the smallsat precursor at the mission, system and subsystem level.

2) Trade Studies – should include the trade studies for the precursor mission architecture,
selection of the target asteroid, and mission operations.

3) Design Integration and Operation – should discuss how the trades selected in section 2 are
integrated into a complete package. This section should discuss design of all subsystems:
structures, mechanisms, thermal, attitude control, telemetry, tracking, and command, electric
power, propulsion, optical payload and sensors, interface with the launch vehicle, and mission
concept of operations. This section will also include both the electrical and mechanical interfaces
in the design, and show the complete mechanical design of the satellite. A mass and power
budget should be included, broken down by subsystem, with appropriate margins. The ground
system proposed for operation shall also be included. A summary table should be prepared
showing all mass, power and other resource requirements for all flight elements/subsystems with
appropriate PDR-level margins.

4) Cost Estimate – a top level cost estimate covering the life cycle for all cost elements should be
included. A Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) should be prepared to capture each cost element
including all flight hardware, ground systems, test facilities, and others. Estimates should cover
design, development, manufacture, assembly, integration and test, launch operations and
checkout, in-space operations, and disposal/decommissioning. Use of existing/commercial off-
the-shelf hardware is strongly encouraged. A summary table should be prepared showing costs
for all WBS elements distributed across the various project life cycle phases.

5) Summary and References. A concise, 5 page summary of the full report should be included
and clearly marked as the summary. References should be included at the end. A compliance
matrix listing the page numbers in the report where each these 5 sections, as well as the items
identified under the “project should” section can be found, is mandatory.

Supporting Data

Technical questions can be directed to Mark Andraschko (mark.r.andraschko@nasa.gov) or
William Tomek (william.g.tomek@nasa.gov).

References

Brophy, J. R., et al., “Asteroid Retrieval Feasibility Study,” Keck Institute for Space Studies
Report, April 2012.

Strange, N., et al., “Overview of Mission Design for NASA Asteroid Redirect Robotic Mission
Concept,” 33rd International Electric Propulsion Conference, The George Washington
University, Washington, D.C., October 2013.

Mazanek, D. D., Brophy, J. R., and Merrill, R. G., “Asteroid Retrieval Mission Concept –
Trailblazing Our Future in Space and Helping to Protect Us from Earth Impactors,” 3rd IAA
Planetary Defense Conference, Flagstaff, AZ April 2013.

McDonald, M. A., et al., “Extensibility of Human Asteroid Mission to Mars and Other
Destinations,” AIAA SpaceOps 2014 13th International Conference on Space Operations, May
2014.

Mazanek, D. D., et al., “Asteroid Redirect Robotic Mission: Robotic Boulder Capture Option
Overview,” AIAA SPACE 2014, August 2014.

Reeves, D.M., Naasz, B.J., Wright, C.A., Pini, A.J., “Proximity Operations for the Robotic
Boulder Capture Option for the Asteroid Redirect Mission,” AIAA SPACE 2014, August 2014.

Belbin, S. P., and Merrill, R. G., Boulder Capture System Design Options for the Asteroid
Robotic Redirect Mission Alternate Approach Trade Study,” AIAA SPACE 2014, August 2014.

Merrill, R. G., Qu, M., Vavrina, M., Englander, J., and Jones, C., “Interplanetary Trajectory
Design for the Asteroid Robotic Redirect Mission Alternative Approach Trade Study,”
AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, August 2014.

Rules and Guidelines

I. General Rules

1. All undergraduate AIAA branches or at-large Student Members are eligible and encouraged to participate.

2. Teams will be groups of not more than ten AIAA or or at-large Student Members per entry.

3. The report in Adobe PDF format must be submitted online to AIAA Student Programs. Total size of the file(s)
cannot exceed 60 MB, which must also fit on 50 pages when printed. The file title should include the team name and
university. A “Signature” page must be included in the report and indicate all participants, including faculty
and project advisors, along with their AIAA member numbers. Designs that are submitted must be the work of
the students, but guidance may come from the Faculty/Project Advisor and should be accurately acknowledged.
Graduate student participation in any form is prohibited.

4. Design projects that are used as part of an organized classroom requirement are eligible and encouraged for
competition.

5. More than one design may be submitted from students at any one school.

6. If a design group withdraws their project from the competition, the team chairman must notify AIAA
Headquarters immediately!

7. The prizes shall be: First place-$500; Second place-$250; Third place-$125 (US dollars). Certificates will be
presented to the winning design teams for display at their university and a certificate will also be presented to each
team member and the faculty/project advisor.

II. Copyright

All submissions to the competition shall be the original work of the team members.

Any submission that does not contain a copyright notice shall become the property of AIAA. A team desiring to
maintain copyright ownership may so indicate on the signature page but nevertheless, by submitting a proposal,
grants an irrevocable license to AIAA to copy, display, publish, and distribute the work and to use it for all of
AIAA’s current and future print and electronic uses (e.g. “Copyright © 20__ by _____. Published by the American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.).

Any submission purporting to limit or deny AIAA licensure (or copyright) will not be eligible for prizes.

III. Schedule & Activity Sequences

Significant activities, dates, and addresses for submission of proposal and related materials are as follows:

A. Letter of Intent – March 14, 2016
B. Receipt of Proposal – May 16, 2016
C. Winners Announced-August 2016

IV. Proposal Requirements

The technical proposal is the most important criterion in the award of a contract. It should be specific and complete.
While it is realized that all of the technical factors cannot be included in advance, the following should be included
and keyed accordingly:

1.   Demonstrate a thorough understanding of the Request for Proposal (RFP) requirements.

2.   Describe the proposed technical approaches to comply with each of the requirements specified in the RFP,
     including phasing of tasks. Legibility, clarity, and completeness of the technical approach are primary factors in
     evaluation of the proposals.

3.   Particular emphasis should be directed at identification of critical, technical problem areas. Descriptions,
     sketches, drawings, systems analysis, method of attack, and discussions of new techniques should be presented
     in sufficient detail to permit engineering evaluation of the proposal. Exceptions to proposed technical
     requirements should be identified and explained.

4.   Include tradeoff studies performed to arrive at the final design.

5.   Provide a description of automated design tools used to develop the design.

V. Basis for Judging

1.   Technical Content (35 points)
     This concerns the correctness of theory, validity of reasoning used, apparent understanding and grasp of the
     subject, etc. Are all major factors considered and a reasonably accurate evaluation of these factors presented?

2.   Organization and Presentation (20 points)
     The description of the design as an instrument of communication is a strong factor on judging. Organization of
     written design, clarity, and inclusion of pertinent information are major factors.

3.   Originality (20 points)
     The design proposal should avoid standard textbook information, and should show independence of thinking or
     a fresh approach to the project. Does the method and treatment of the problem show imagination? Does the
     approach show an adaptation or creation of automated design tools?

4.  Practical Application and Feasibility (25 points)
         The proposal should present conclusions or recommendations that are feasible and practical, and not
merely lead the evaluators into further difficult or insolvable problems.