AD1 High Level Requirements Final Issue 6

document title/ titre du document
IGH EVEL RCHITECTURE

EQUIREMENTS FOR
UROPEAN PACE
XPLORATION
prepared by/préparé par William Carey
reference/réference HME-HS/STU/RQ/BC/2007-05001
issue/édition 6
date of issue/date d’édition 12 April 2008
status/état Final
Document type/type de document RQ
Distribution/distribution HME-HS
a
ESTEC
Keplerlaan 1 - 2201 AZ Noordwijk - The Netherlands
Tel. +31 71 565 5404 - Fax +31 71 565 4499

High-Level Architecture Requirements for European Space Exploration
HME-HS/STU/RQ/BC/2007-05001
Final Issue 6
page ii
A P P R O V A L
Title High-Level Architecture Requirements for European Space issue

Exploration
titre issue
Author William Carey date 12 April 2008
auteur date
approved by Bernhard Hufenbach date 12 April 2008
approuvé by date
C H A N G E L O G
reason for change /raison du changement issue/issue date/date
First release 1 (Draft A) 1 February 2007
Second release 2 (Draft A) 12 June 2007
Third release 3 (Draft A) 18 July 2007
Fourth release 4 (Final) 17 August 2007
Fifth release 5 (Draft) 12 December

2007
Sixth release 6 (Final) 12 April 2008
Final Issue 6
page iii
C H A N G E R E C O R D
ISSUE: 6
reason for change/raison du changement page(s)/page(s) paragraph(s)/paragraph(s)
Minor editorial modifications to Introduction all -

chapter
Inclusion of new chapter on ESA Generic 7-9 All

Requirements (Chapter 2)
Updating of Generic Requirements and 10 - 12 All

Associated Objectives (Chapter 3)
Updating of Moon Requirements and Associated 13 - 19 All

Objectives (Chapter 5)
Updating of following sections following RID Section 1.2.1/ 2-3 All

review of complete document: Section 1.2.2/4
Section 1.3.1/6
Sections 2, 3, 5/9-27
Addition of requirements for LEO, NEOs, LPs Sections 6, 7 and 8 All

and Mars
Updating of following sections following RID Sections 1.5, 2.1, 4.2, 7.1, All
review of complete document: 7.3, 8.1, 8.3, 8.4
Final Issue 6
page iv
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................1
1.1 Purpose .............................................................................................................................1
1.2 Scope.................................................................................................................................1
1.2.1 Themes.......................................................................................................................2
1.2.2 Political Framework Scenarios....................................................................................4
1.2.3 Exploration Timescale ................................................................................................6
1.3 Applicable & Reference Documents ..................................................................................6
1.3.1 Applicable Documents ................................................................................................6
1.3.2 Reference Documents ................................................................................................6
1.3.3 References .................................................................................................................6
1.4 Definition of Terms.............................................................................................................6
1.5 Acronyms & Abbreviations.................................................................................................7
1.6 Document Structure ...........................................................................................................8
2 ESA GENERIC REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................9
2.1 Safety and Mission Success ..............................................................................................9
2.2 Planetary Protection.........................................................................................................11
2.3 Robustness......................................................................................................................11
2.4 Redundancy.....................................................................................................................12
2.5 European Assets .............................................................................................................13
2.6 Roadmap .........................................................................................................................13

Final Issue 6
page v
2.7 Cost .................................................................................................................................13
2.8 Stakeholder Management................................................................................................14
2.9 European Industry ...........................................................................................................14
2.10 Innovation ........................................................................................................................14
3 GENERIC REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................15
3.1 Associated Exploration Objectives...................................................................................19
4 LOW EARTH ORBIT..........................................................................................21
4.1 Robotic Orbital Operations...............................................................................................21
4.2 Human Orbital..................................................................................................................21
4.3 Robotic Surface ...............................................................................................................21
4.4 Human Surface................................................................................................................21
5 MOON ................................................................................................................22
5.1 Moon Generic ..................................................................................................................22
5.1.1 Associated Objectives ..............................................................................................22
5.2.1 Associated Exploration Objectives............................................................................24
5.3 Human Orbital Operations ...............................................................................................25
5.4 Robotic Surface Operations.............................................................................................25
5.5 Human Surface Operations .............................................................................................28
6 LIBRATION (LAGRANGE) POINTS ..................................................................30

Final Issue 6
page vi
7 NEAR EARTH OBJECTS ..................................................................................32
8 MARS .................................................................................................................35

Final Issue 6
page 1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
The document contains the high-level architectural requirements derived from European space exploration
objectives that will be used for the analysis and development of European Reference Architectures for
space exploration. The exploration objectives are referred to in the document for information, and to
facilitate traceability between the high-level architectural requirements and their associated exploration
objectives.
1.2 Scope
Issue 6 of the document now includes high-level architecture requirements for Libration (Lagrange) Points,
Near Earth Objects (NEOs) and Mars, in addition to the Moon. All of these requirements have been derived
from the exploration objectives coming from the stakeholder group communities consulted in the scenario
studies (i.e. scientific, economic/industrial and political respectively).
The document was a living document subject to change control, with planned updates as indicated in the
table below. All requirements were subject to critical review. Issue 6 is the final version of the document.
Planned Issue Planned Issue Release Date Expected Updates
Issue 2 12 June 2007 Insertion of draft requirements

from missing stakeholder groups
Issue 3 18 July 2007 Draft requirements for Moon

Architecture
Issue 4 17 August 2007 Finalised requirements for Moon

Architecture
Issue 5 13 December 2007 Draft requirements for Lagrange

Points, Near Earth Objects and
Mars Architecture
Issue 6 Early March 2008 Finalised requirements for

Lagrange Points, Near Earth
Objects and Mars Architecture
The document evaluates the European exploration objectives defined and elaborated in RD1 to assess
which objectives address the same destination, may be combined in terms of similar capability requirements
and/or which may be performed at the same time. The objectives are grouped initially with respect to
exploration target, i.e. where to go. From these grouped objectives, concrete and quantifiable stakeholder-
driven architecture requirements have then been derived. The document serves as starting point for the
analysis of possible European architectures for space exploration.
Final Issue 6
page 2
1.2.1 THEMES
The overarching exploration themes (as defined and discussed in detail in RD1) are:
• Scientific Themes:
1. “Life and its co-evolution with its planetary environment”: The origin and evolution of
life is very much dependent on the origin and evolution of the planetary system, in particular
the terrestrial planets. In addition, the reverse can be true i.e. life itself affects the evolution
of a planetary surface and atmosphere. This theme has the grand goal of understanding
not only both the origin and evolution of life and of the planetary system, but also the
interaction between the two.
2. “Astronomical observatories on the Moon”: To use the Moon to perform astronomical

observations that are either impossible or at best severely degraded from other platforms
(i.e. Earth or free-flyer).
3. “Life sciences”: This theme encompasses two sub-goals:

a. In order to enable human exploration, provisions must be made to maintain health
and to provide medical support. Still significant preparatory work is required today
in order to develop this core capability.
b. If human beings are involved in exploration missions, the outstanding opportunity to
increase general life science knowledge with more fundamental investigations will
have to be considered for any of the eventual targets.
• Economic Themes:
1. “Microgravity applied research”: Secure long term European access (including

acceptable costs and supporting resources) to micro-gravity facilities in order to develop
innovative techniques, technologies, and products (also to enable space exploration).
2. “Entrepreneurial activities”: Enable first the emergence of a space tourism industry in

Europe, and ensure later the sustainability of permanent tourism and media and
entertainment industry presence in space.
3. “Space services”: Offer opportunities for industry to provide elements to use the Moon
(and possibly NEOs) as source of natural resources and industrial components, use outer
space specific areas as safe haven and operational hub, position in-space infrastructures,
to support Space Exploration deployment and to make Space Exploration sustainable.
• Political Themes:
1. “European ambition”: Make the European Union appear in the world as a unified actor in
major undertakings of global value, associated with “great power” positioning. Demonstrate
increased European assertiveness on the international scene by conducting very visible
and ambitious space exploration and human spaceflight activities. Contribute to the drive of
Europe towards an independent strategic posture in foreign affairs and security matters,
including autonomous initiatives and leadership of major strategic operations.
2. “Lisbon agenda”: Leverage two of the main space exploration and human spaceflight
characteristics to support the goal of the EU Lisbon agenda, i.e. make Europe the most
Final Issue 6
page 3
competitive and the most dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2020 through
inspiration, education, research and innovation, and increase quality and quantity of
European science and technology.
a. Scientific and technical challenges of ambitious space missions, fostering the
innovation process in Europe
b. Space visibility and attraction to young Europeans, fostering the development of a
broader interest for science and technology at all levels of the education systems
and increasing the dynamism, the level of motivation and the personal interest of
European students and scientists
Bring more European students towards scientific and engineering studies and careers, and
prevent the vanishing of European scientific lifeblood and the “brain drain” towards the
USA. Increase and use, very exciting and “science and technology noble” space
exploration domains, as an impetus to provide new opportunities for research and
innovation. This approach will attract foreign high-skilled scientists and investors.
3. “Global partnership”: Increase the European diplomatic, economic and scientific

relationships through the development of new or historical partnerships with the USA and
emerging world powers, particularly the so-called BRIC nations: Brazil, Russia, India and
China. This goal includes contribution to:
c. The consolidation and deepening of a long-term fruitful strategic partnership with
the United States, in the framework of a balanced international cooperation.
d. The development of a multi-polar world taking fully into account the economic and
strategic rise of emerging international powers.
Final Issue 6
page 4
1.2.2 POLITICAL FRAMEWORK SCENARIOS

The definition of the European role in space exploration is ultimately a political decision. For supporting the
analysis process, three political framework scenarios have been developed representing differing levels of
European ambition:
1. Europe as a “Pragmatic Space Actor”: This scenario represents basically the current reality
within the European space programme. The European ambition in human spaceflight and
exploration is limited to immediately valuable scientific, technical or commercial activities, generally
within the framework of cooperative international programmes. European activities could focus on
robotic exploration. Its role for human spaceflight would be limited and may include the contribution
of some specific capabilities and services to global space exploration effort selected on the basis of
European heritage, overall innovation potential and international niches. The overall investments
over a 30 year programme would amount to ~ 5 % of what the United States intend to invest in this
domain.
2. Europe as an “Economic Space Power”: This scenario represents basically the current reality
within the overall European environment. Europe focuses on selected strategic priorities and
initiatives with a strong scientific and technological content and concentrates its activities in human
spaceflight on the provision of end-to-end services to the international community in domains which
are competitive or complementary to those of the other space powers. European activities could
include a strong robotic exploration programme addressing all destinations of interests including
Moon and Mars. Europe could participate to the development of new transportation capabilities for
crew and cargo to secure its sustained access to space at a more relevant level. In addition Europe
could contribute end-to-end capabilities and services to international space exploration activities
e.g. in the domains navigation/transportation, logistics, in-space services, energy/resource
management, surface exploration (e.g. drilling/surface mobility) building on European scientific and
technological core competences. The overall budget required would amount to ~ 10 % of what
NASA intents to invest over a 30 years time period (which would be similar to the ESA/NASA
investment ratio in the ISS Programme). This would require doubling of related budget over a 30
years time period with respect to what is currently projected.
3. Europe as a “Political Space Power”: This scenario represents basically a European ambition
which is shared at least by some European member states. Europe enlarges its strategic priorities
in space to include human spaceflight and exploration and controls access and operations in the
Earth-Moon-Mars space. European activities would include next to a strong European robotic
exploration programme with European-led missions, a strong participation to the development of
new capabilities to access space exploration destinations with crew and cargo compared to the
second scenario. The overall human spaceflight programme would be driven by the ambition to
implement a European-led post-ISS human spaceflight scenario fully integrated in the global space
exploration endeavor building on European scientific and technological core competences and
responding to European specific interests in space exploration. The overall budget required would
amount to ~ 15 % of what NASA intents to invest over a 30 years time period. This would require
tripling of related budget over a 30 years time period with respect to what is currently projected.
Final Issue 6
page 5
The following table summarises the relationship between the stakeholder themes and the political
framework scenarios:
Themes Europe as Pragmatic Europe as Economic Europe as Political

Space Actor Space Power Space Power
Ï Õ Õ
Life and its co-
evolution with its
planetary environment
Astronomical
observatories on the Õ Õ
Moon
Life sciences
Õ Õ Õ
Microgravity applied
research in space Õ Õ Õ
Entrepreneurial based
activities Õ Õ
Õ Ï Õ
Space services
Õ Ï
European ambition
Lisbon agenda
Õ Õ
Global partnership
Õ Õ
The smaller stars in the table indicate that the theme is relevant for the particular political framework
scenario, and the large star indicates those themes which are the main drivers for each scenario.
Final Issue 6
page 6
1.2.3 EXPLORATION TIMESCALE

Concerning the overall exploration timescale, the following dates are defined:
• Near term: 2009 – 2018;
• Medium term: 2019 – 2028;
• Long term: 2029 – 2038.
1.3 Applicable & Reference Documents
1.3.1 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS

1. ECSS-E-10-04-A Space Engineering – Space environment.
2. ESA-PSS-03-70 Human Factors.
3. ESA-ECSS-Q-40B Space Product Assurance – Safety.
4. ESA/PB-HME (2007) 5.
1.3.2 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

[RD1] European Space Exploration Objectives. Draft A, HME-HS/STU/RQ/WC/2007-03017. 17/07/2007.
1.3.3 REFERENCES
[R1] ESA Manned Spaceflight Human Factors Engineering Handbook [MS-ESA-HB-013].
[R2] ESA Planetary Protection Policy [ESA/PB-HME (2007) 5].

See also http://cosparhq.cnes.fr/Scistr/Pppolicy.htm.
1.4 Definition of Terms

Deep Drilling: For the purposes of this document, “deep drilling” is considered to be a
depth of greater than 10 m, and up to several tens of metres. 100 metres
and greater is defined as “Very Deep Drilling”. The distinction is clarified in
the text.
European: European refers to the ESA membership, which consist of the 17 current
Member States and Canada as an Associate Member.
Near Earth Object (NEO): An asteroid or comet whose orbit brings it in close proximity (perihelion
distance < 1.3 AU) to the orbit of the Earth, i.e. comes close to or crosses
the orbit of the Earth, and which could thus pose a collision danger. NEOs
are readily accessible from Earth and are important not only scientifically
but also potentially for commercial exploitation. Some near-Earth asteroids
Final Issue 6
page 7
can be reached with a much smaller change in velocity (Δv) than that
required to reach the Moon.
Innovation: The process of making improvements by introducing something new.
1.5 Acronyms & Abbreviations

ADn Applicable document n
BRIC Brazil, Russia, India, China.
CHON Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen
cm centimetre
CSTS Crew Space Transportation System
DRS Data Relay Satellite
EGR Esa General requirement
EML1 Earth-Moon Libration Point 1 (Note: Libration Point also known as Lagrange Point)
EML2 Earth-Moon Libration Point 1
ESA European Space Agency
EU European Union
GS Ground Station
HME Directorate of Human Spaceflight, Microgravity and Exploration
Programmes
HRSC High Resolution Stereo Camera
ISRU In-Situ Resource Utilisation
I/S In-Situ
ISS International Space Station
kg kilogramme
km kilometre
2
km square kilometre
kW kilowatt
LF Low Frequency
LEO Low Earth Orbit
LLO Low Lunar Orbit
LSS Lunar Surface Sortie
m metre
Mbit/s megabits per second
MER Mars Exploration Rover
MTFF Man Tended Free Flyer
mW milliwatt
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NEA Near Earth Asteroid
NEO Near Earth Object
P/L Payload
R&D Research & Development
RID Review Item Discrepancy
RDn Reference Document n
S&T Science & Technology
SEL2 Solar-Earth Libration Point 2 (Note: Libration Point also known as Lagrange Point)
SME Small Medium Enterprise
SR Sample Return
SSETI Student Space Exploration and Technology Initiative
Final Issue 6
page 8
TBC To be confirmed
TBD To be determined
TRL Technology Readiness Level
US United States
USA United States of America
UV Ultra Violet
W Watt
1.6 Document Structure

The top level structure of the five major chapters of this document is based on the “exploration targets” as
defined in RD1, i.e. Low Earth Orbit, Moon, Libration Points, Near Earth Objects and Mars.
Chapter 1: Introduction: This chapter summarises the purpose and scope of the High-Level Architecture
Requirements document, together with a listing of the relevant applicable and reference documents,
definition of terms, acronyms and abbreviations and document structure.
Chapters 2: This chapter contains generic requirements based on ESA internal guidelines and design
practices which are applicable to the architecture.
Chapters 3: Generic Requirements: This chapter contains those requirements which are applicable to the
architecture, but are not destination-specific, i.e. are not specific to the Moon, Mars, etc.
Chapters 4-8: Each of the five main chapters has the following internal structure:
• Architectural Requirements: The high-level architecture requirements derived from a preliminary

analysis of the exploration objectives are then listed and grouped according to the following
classification:
- Robotic orbital;
- Human orbital;
- Robotic surface;
- Human surface.
• Associated Objectives: The exploration objectives relevant to each requirement class are then listed.
Final Issue 6
page 9
2 ESA GENERIC REQUIREMENTS

This chapter contains generic high-level architecture requirements based on ESA internal guidelines and
design practices which are applicable to the architecture.
NOTE: The requirements are in bold text with additional explanations or guidelines in italics – the
italicised text is not part of the formal requirement, but is meant to clarify the requirement only.
2.1 Safety and Mission Success

The main aim here is to identify all possible safety hazards, to eliminate/control them to an acceptable level
during all mission phases.
EGR1 The architecture human mission design activities shall comply with ESA-PSS-03-70
Human Factors.
ESA-PSS-03-70 provides details concerning in particular maximum acceleration levels and

radiation exposure for humans.
EGR23 The architecture shall comply with ESA-ECSS-Q-40B Space Product Assurance - Safety.
EGR2 Survival modes shall be provided through all human missions’ phases.
Survival modes can be provided through the following capabilities (but not limited to): abort,
escape or use of safe haven, and rescue.
EGR3 The architecture shall separate crew and large cargo during ascent phases.
Note: Large cargo is to be understood in this instance as having a mass of more than 100 kg.
However, it is recognised that this is a somewhat arbitrary figure. The intention here is that the
requirement should not be interpreted literally, but as a general principle to be applied for the
ascent phases of missions.
EGR4 Space systems shall be designed so that no two failures result in human fatality or
permanent disability.
EGR5 Space systems shall not use emergency systems or emergency operations to satisfy the
two-failure tolerance requirements.
The main objective of a human-survival-centred design is for the system to withstand critical
system failure with appropriate redundancy and robust design. The need for survival modes
through emergency systems beyond this robust design (two-failure tolerant) is an
acknowledgement that the space system cannot always be designed to anticipate and withstand
all failure modes.
Final Issue 6
page 10
EGR6 The architecture shall preclude the risks of fatality or permanent disability for the general
public.
General Public: All humans not participating in the space flight activity who could be potentially
affected by the function or malfunction of the space system.
EGR7 The architecture shall increase the probability of mission success as much as possible
within the constraints of an affordable programme.
During the architecture integration process cost, safety and mission success probability estimates
will be provided and trade-offs will be made in an iterative scheme such as to guarantee the best
safety and mission success probability within a given cost budget.
EGR28 The space systems shall be Double Failure/Fault/Operator error tolerance to catastrophic
and critical events as defined on the ECSS-Q-40 Safety.
EGR29 The space systems shall be fail safe. The system shall remain in a safe condition when a
failure occurs or skip directly into another safe condition.
EGR30 In the event of an abort from lunar surface, return crew to the Earth’s surface shall take no
longer than 5 days, independent of orbital alignment.
EGR31 This requirement has been deleted.
EGR32 The design shall include crew protection against cabin atmosphere toxicity, contaminant
and hazardous substance concentrations which are potential toxic threats in the recycling
of breathable habitat atmospheres, water recycling systems, and solid waste handling and
recycling systems.
EGR33 A Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) shall be performed to calculate risk, perform
sensitivity analysis, and conduct trade studies for each of the architectures considered.
EGR34 The content of the Safety Data Package shall be in accordance with launcher authority
requirements. The Safety Data Package shall cover the complete space system, as well as
any Ground Support Equipment to be used at the launch site.
EGR35 The probability of loss of crew shall be less than 1/100.

Final Issue 6
page 11
2.2 Planetary Protection

EGR8 The architecture shall enforce planetary protection requirements as defined in the ESA
Planetary Protection Policy [ESA/PB-HME (2007) 5].
2.3 Robustness
EGR9 European exploration missions, or international missions with a significant European
contribution, shall have at least one back-up launch system.
EGR10 All major European infrastructure assets shall be able, at least in a back-up scenario, to be
launched and delivered to their final location, with European transportation systems, or
transportation systems in which Europe has a significant stake such as, but not limited to,
design authority, components.
The above two requirements (EGR9, EGR10) reflect the ESA Launch Service Procurement Policy
that has been adopted at the ministerial council in 2005 (Chapter IV of ESA/C-M/CLXXXV/Res.3
(Final)). This policy shall apply to Exploration as far as possible. Major European infrastructure
assets are exploration architecture elements in which Europe has a leading role and that are
critical to continuous operations.
EGR11 The number of launch and proximity operations for a given mission shall be restricted
within practical limits.
A practical limit on the maximum number of launch and proximity operations shall be established
based on parameters such as (but not limited to): launch pad availability and recycle duration,
launcher reliability, rendezvous and docking systems reliability
EGR12 All systems shall be designed taking into account a margin policy function of their
maturity level. The following mass margin will be used at equipment level:
• 5% for fully developed equipments (TRL 8 to 9),
• 10% for equipments to be modified (TRL 5 to 7),
• 20% for equipments to be developed (TRL 1 to 4).
Furthermore a system margin of 20% shall be applied on dry mass and a 5% margin shall
be applied on all delta-Vs to be performed.
Final Issue 6
page 12
2.4 Redundancy
EGR13 The architecture shall ensure redundancy of safety critical architecture functions and
capabilities taking into account possible contributions from international partners.
EGR14 The architecture shall ensure redundancy of architecture functions and capabilities critical
for operations of the Exploration programme key infrastructures taking into account
possible contributions from international partners.
The particular functions or capabilities that necessitate redundancy are to be assessed later
depending on architecture configuration. An example of critical functions is provided and
highlighted in light blue for illustrative purpose on the chart hereafter.
Capabilities
Ground- Planetary
In Space Transportation
based Surface
Control Centres Habitation Telecommunication Crew Launchers
Test Facilities Mobility Navigation Cargo Launchers
Power provision & Crew and Cargo

Ground Tracking Remote Sensing Exploration
Management
Vechicles
Crew Training In-situ resource Space Weather Planetary Descent

Centres utilisation Forecasting Vehicles
Ground Based Logistic Support Planetary Ascent

Research Facilities/ Vehicle Servicing Vehicles
Services
Analogue Sites
Data Archiving and Food Production In-orbit Assembly Others

Distribution
Science/research Science/Research
Other equipment Equipment
Rendezvous and
Robotic Assistance
Docking
Drilling Other
Construction
EVA Support
Others
Final Issue 6
page 13
2.5 European Assets

EGR15 The architecture shall make use of European available competence, heritage, services and
planned Exploration projects.
2.6 Roadmap
EGR16 The architecture roadmap shall exploit mission opportunities for capability demonstration.
EGR17 The European architecture roadmap shall be coherent with the roadmaps of potential
international partners such as to allow cooperation.
2.7 Cost
EGR18 The architecture shall minimize the cost to benefits ratio over the programme life cycle
through innovative approaches.
EGR19 The European contributions shall not exceed the ESA budget limitation depending on the
scenario (Pragmatic, Economic, and Political) as defined in the following table.
Scenario Pragmatic Economic Political Space

Space Actor Space Power Power
(B€*) (B€*) (B€*)
2009-2018 1.25 2.75 4.25
2019-2028 4.75 8.25 13.00
2029-2038 5.50 9.25 13.75
Total 11.50 20.25 31.00
(*) - Including human European transportation capabilities (e.g. CSTS), European participation to Mars Sample Return
mission, European post-ISS human spaceflight scenario.
- Excluding operations and utilisation of ISS until 2020, implementation of ExoMars mission and NEXT mission,
launchers developments, communication infrastructure development, basic technology development, and national
activities.
Final Issue 6
page 14
2.8 Stakeholder Management

The following requirements aim at establishing a framework for the satisfaction of stakeholder objectives as
defined in [RD1]. The objective is to provide flexibility in meeting open objectives while focusing on clear
and precise objectives as much as possible.
EGR20 The architecture should reflect political objectives.
EGR21 The architecture should meet science objectives as much as possible.
EGR22 The architecture should create opportunities for private sector engagement.
2.9 European Industry

EGR24 The architecture shall improve the world-wide competitiveness of European industry by
maintaining and developing space technology.
EGR25 The architecture shall sustain industry exploration related capabilities that have already
been developed or are being developed.
EGR26 The architecture shall ensure a wide industrial participation especially concerning Small
and Medium Enterprises (SMEs).
2.10 Innovation
EGR27 The architecture shall propose innovative ways to reduce the mass to be lifted from Earth.
Final Issue 6
page 15
3 GENERIC REQUIREMENTS
This chapter contains those high-level architecture requirements which are applicable to the architecture,
but are not destination-specific, i.e. are not specific to the Moon, Mars, etc.
NOTE: that the associated exploration objectives are indicated in the square brackets immediately
following each requirement.
NOTE: The high-level architecture requirements are in bold text with additional explanations or
guidelines in italics – the italicised text is not part of the formal requirement, but is meant to clarify
the requirement only.
GR1 The architecture shall secure human access for Europe to exploration destinations of
European interest. [P1, P2]
This objective is both ambitious, and in the line of historical European strategy for autonomy in
space transportation. It was part of the Ariane 5/Hermes/MTFF strategy of the 1980s, and is in line
with the objectives of the recently initiated Crew Space Transportation System preparatory
programme in cooperation with Russia. Additionally, having astronauts on the Moon is a loud and
clear message of assertiveness for a country. It is the goal of the United States and probably of
China in the 2010s. European astronauts on the Moon would be the most visible expression of
European ambitions in space and in the world, particularly if Europe was playing a large role in the
human transportation system with contribution to an alternative to the US system, which would add
flexibility and robustness to international lunar efforts. Apart from lunar landing systems, such
contributions could include transportation nodes in EML1 or LLO, and stations in SEL2.
GR2 The architecture shall incorporate innovative technologies for sustaining human life in
space. [P7]
In spite of their long-time leadership in human spaceflight, the US have not focused on the
sustainability of life in space, when this issue will be at the core of future human deep-space
missions, including Moon settlements, distant outposts (Lagrange points, Moon and Mars orbits),
long duration flights to Mars and beyond. This situation opens fascinating opportunities for Europe,
which could take the international R&D lead on this very inspirational and challenging topic.
GR3 The architecture shall provide opportunities for the development of technologies for
protecting astronaut explorers and the planetary environment. [P8]
Preserving planetary surfaces environment is fast becoming a major concern in a global policy of
environment preservation and sustainable development. Planetary environment in this respect also
means protection of the Earth from contamination brought from space. Europe (e.g. COSPAR) has
a leading role in the definition and implementation of planetary protection guidelines.
GR4 The architecture shall exploit synergies between the Moon, NEO/LP and Mars architecture,
particularly with respect to the demonstration of key capabilities for human missions, where
beneficial to the overall programme. [P6]
Mars human missions are going to be the most visible and ambitious space activities of the
forthcoming decades, up to 2050, with Mars human missions probably beginning in the 2030s.
Stating firmly that Europe will play a leading role in this long-term undertaking and will engage early
in technological developments are ways to express European ambitions in space in the 21st
century, on a par with other great world powers. This preparation programme could include
Final Issue 6
page 16
precursor human missions in various places (EML1/L2, SEL2) and to Near Earth Asteroids (NEAs),
which would be interesting destinations by themselves.
GR5 The architecture shall provide opportunities for inclusion of small educational payloads.
[P10, E12]
The value of inspiration is well documented with respect to the massive increase in students taking
up science and engineering studies in the US following the Apollo Programme.
In order to “make Europe the top knowledge-based economy”, students are extremely important
because they are the tomorrow lifeblood of Europe, and the next innovators. Exploration policy
should therefore emphasize academia direct and active participation. The ISS programme already
allocates 1% of its resources to academia, in order to allow students to perform scientific research
on the ISS. The Exploration programme could implement a similar scheme.
Most educational payloads would be less than 10kg in mass and consume <10W of power with no
active thermal control requirements (provided that they are carefully integrated into the overall
spacecraft thermal design). No special mechanical or electrical/data interfaces -standard mounts
and connectors for power and telemetry/telecommand. An example of a past educational payload of
similar size can be seen in the following table for SSETI Express (SSETI – Student Space
Exploration and Technology Initiative):
Dimensions 560 x 560 x 900 (maximum envelope)
Mass 62 kg
Mass of payload 24 kg
Expected lifetime Minimum 2 months, extended mission until end of life
Attitude Determination System Sun-sensors and magnetometer
Attitude Control System Semi-passive magnetic stabilisation, plus a cold-gas

payload
On-board Data Transfer CAN. RS232
Telemetry
-UHF 437.250 MHz, 9.6 kb/s, AX 25
-S-Band 2401.84 MHz, 38.4 kb/s, AX25
Power Body mounted solar panels

- Average 12 W
-Peak 20 W
Batteries Li Ion, 90 Wh
Propulsion 6l, 300 bar, Nitrogen cold gas
Camera ~100m/pixel, 1280*1024 pixels, CMOS
Power Bes 28V regulated
Thermal Control Passive

Final Issue 6
page 17
GR6 The architecture shall maximise the utilisation of innovation in advanced technologies for
planetary surface activities. [P11]
Exploration of planetary surfaces is the most visible and important activity in robotic and human
space missions. It requires mastering of very challenging technologies, which will attract the interest
of young scientists and engineers, and foster the European innovation process. Controlling these
technologies will also be a way to secure a major role in international programmes. Of particular
interest to science would be an accurate in-situ dating technique, as current high accuracy methods
require irradiation of the sample at a synchrotron or nuclear facility.
Miniaturisation and improved accuracy are key to science technology and stepwise improvements
are continually being made. Of particular interest to science would be an accurate in-situ dating
technique as current high accuracy methods require irradiation of the sample at a synchrotron or
nuclear facility (see also requirement R3d).
GR7 The architecture shall facilitate international cooperation. [P12]
Whatever role Europe chose to play in space exploration and human spaceflight, Europe can and
must be a very active promoter of “space multilateralism”, supporting in the international bodies
involved collaborative approaches of the “Systems of systems” kind, very different from the current
ISS integrated model (with a strong US leadership), giving each of the partners the possibility to
develop and operate its own systems in a flexible but interoperable global architecture.
GR8 The architecture shall provide opportunities for the participation of emerging space nations.
[P13]
Recent space nations like China and India are very proud of their new capabilities and want these
capabilities to be recognised by the more experienced space nations like the US, Russia and
Europe. Participating in their projects and offering them attractive opportunities to become part of
our own projects is a sure way to improve the relationships with these countries, and to favour the
diplomatic and economic exchanges with them. This approach could be extended to less
experienced countries, such as Brazil, who are eager to expose their students and engineers to
advanced visible technologies.
GR9 Secure long term European access to applied research facilities in the microgravity
environment (including assuring acceptable cost and supporting resources). [E1]
Europe already has a long history of fundamental and applied research on various low-gravity
platforms (e.g. drop towers, zero-g flights, sounding rockets, Shuttle, Foton, and the ISS). In order
to provide the already extensive research community with a stable perspective of future research
opportunities, it is necessary that the architectural design incorporates access to applied research
facilities, together with supporting resources, in a cost-efficient manner. (See “Science perspectives
for ESA’s Future Programme in Life and Physical Sciences in Space”, ESF-ESSC, 2005).
GR10 The architecture shall facilitate the emergence and sustainability of entrepreneurial
activities. [E2, E3]
In order to facilitate the introduction of entrepreneurial activities in Europe, the architectural design
should offer opportunities for commercial activities to develop and to achieve long-term
sustainability. Examples of such activities would be space tourism, media and entertainment,
sports/competitions, etc.
Final Issue 6
page 18
GR11 The architecture shall reduce dependency on supplies from Earth by utilisation of in-situ
resources. [E6]
The architectural design should attempt to ensure the optimum utilisation of in-situ resources,
especially with respect to:
• Transportation.
• Life support and sustainability.
• Construction.
• Energy management.
The gravity well of the Earth and the air-braking effect means that 96% of the energy required to get
to the Moon is required in order to go from the Earth’s surface to LEO. Consequently, for the
sustainable exploration of space, it is necessary to utilise as much as possible natural lunar
resources and their derivatives, i.e. water, propellants, etc.
GR12 The architecture shall facilitate the emergence and sustainability of commercial services.
[E7]
The architectural design should offer opportunities for the development of commercial activities in
areas such as:
• Communication and navigation;
• Cargo transport;
• Propellant and power supply;
• Life systems resources supply (e.g. oxygen, etc.),
• and others.
GR13 The architecture shall foresee human/robotic assembly and servicing operations on large
high-value space assets in outer space. [E9]
The architectural design should ensure capabilities for human/robotic assembly and servicing
operations on large high-value space assets in outer space. Such large space assets could include:
• Orbital infrastructures: e.g. manned and unmanned platforms for microgravity and life
science research, modules (to be assembled), fuel depots, platforms for tourism and media
activities;
• Next generation telescopes;
• Satellites and orbiters (e.g. for communication and navigation).
The assembly and service operations could take place e.g. LEO (e.g. ISS), LLO, EML1 and SEL2.
GR14 The architecture shall enable opportunities for the transfer or spin-off of innovative
technologies to non-space sectors. [E10, E11]
As one of the most innovative economic sectors, space has a high potential to provide beneficial
technology transfer and spin-offs of innovative technologies to non-space sectors.
GR15 The architecture shall provide opportunities for demonstrating MSR technologies. [P4]
The leadership in this very ambitious robotic mission would show the excellence of European space
projects management and technologies. It is considered as an obligatory precursor for later human
Final Issue 6
page 19
Mars missions. This mission would include different major sub-systems/vehicles, and is very well
adapted to a large-scale cooperation scheme.
GR16 The architecture shall provide opportunities for Europe to play a lead role in deep space
communications and navigation. [P9]
Space communication and navigation systems are crucial infrastructures elements for robotic an
human space exploration, which could leverage existing European capabilities (Galileo, commercial
telecommunication systems) and provide an additional source of innovation for European space
industry.
GR17 The architecture shall enable opportunities for education and cultural involvement in space
activities. [E12]
In the space age, the involvement of educational and cultural institutions in space activities is part of
society’s development. The architecture should therefore facilitate opportunities for such
involvement.
MGR1 The architecture shall ensure that Europe takes a lead role in those areas of lunar scientific
exploration which Europe has identified as priority areas. [P5]
The European priority areas as defined by the science stakeholder community are:
• Life and life factories, planetary geosciences, lunar observatories, life sciences.
The European science communities and agencies independently define their own scientific priorities
for the Moon and Mars, and engage in ambitious missions in the chosen areas, open to
international cooperation, but with a clear European leadership.
R2a The architecture shall enable opportunities for performing life sciences activities in
preparation for long-term space missions. [S35]
Preparatory life sciences activities are mandatory in order to prepare fully for long-term space
missions, especially for a human mission to Mars.
NOTE: This requirement has been moved from section 5.3.
3.1 Associated Exploration Objectives

Theme Exploration Objective
Life sciences S35 - To ensure human health and performance.
European P1 - Secure European astronauts presence in cis-lunar space and on the Moon.
Ambition
P2 - Secure autonomous human transport to outer space.
P4 – Lead International Mars Sample Return mission.
P5 - Lead international exploration missions of Moon and Mars in European scientific priority
areas.
Final Issue 6
page 20
Lisbon Agenda P6 – Prepare to be a major player in Mars missions.
P7 - Be the key innovator for sustaining human life in space.
P8 - Develop enabling technology for protecting the planetary environment.
P9 - Play a lead role in deep space communications and navigation.
P10 - Support academia exploration activities.
Global P11 - Be the key innovator for advanced technologies for planetary surface activities.
Partnership
P12 - Lead the international coordination process.
P13 - Support participation of emerging space nations in space exploration activities.
Microgravity E1- Secure long term European access to applied research facilities in microgravity (including
Applied assuring acceptable cost and supporting resources).
Research
Entrepreneurial E2 – Enable the emergence of a space tourism industry in Europe.

Activities
E3 – Ensure sustainability of permanent tourist, media and entertainment industry presence in
space.
Space Services E5 – DELETED – (now combined with E6).
E6 – Develop and implement production and processing capabilities related to space

resources utilisation (e.g. propellant production, green houses, power plants, industrial
component production).
E7 – Provide opportunities for commercial services.
E8 – DELETED – (now combined with E9).
E9 – Enable routine human/robotic assembly and servicing operations on large high value
space assets (e.g. ISS, space telescopes) in outer space.
E10 – Stimulate the beneficial and commercial uses or adaptations of space technologies for
non-space applications.
E11 – Encourage the creation of new start-up companies to exploit innovative technologies.
E12 – Enable the involvement of educational and cultural institutions in space activities.
Final Issue 6
page 21
4 LOW EARTH ORBIT

This chapter contains those high-level architecture requirements which are applicable to Low Earth Orbit.
4.1 Robotic Orbital Operations

No specific requirements for this section have been identified. However, chapter 3 contains generic
requirements which would be applicable to this section.
4.2 Human Orbital

R8a The architecture shall provide opportunities for regular flights of European astronauts to the
ISS (or similar LEO orbital infrastructure) beyond 2016.
In order to maintain a suitable qualified astronaut corps beyond 2016, it will be necessary to have
opportunities for European astronauts to have regular flight opportunities. The most suitable
destination in the short term is LEO. For future human exploration of the Moon and Mars, it is likely
that the required competences will be more operational than scientific, so activities other than
scientific research should be envisaged, and oriented towards learning skills as opposed to task
fulfillment.
R8b The architecture shall provide opportunities for performing research activities in LEO
beyond 2016.
NASA currently foresees to terminate its utilisation of the ISS by 2016, to then concentrate on
ARES/Orion and exploration of the Moon, with a proposed initial human landing on the lunar
surface around 2020-2022. Opportunities to extend the research utilisation of the ISS, and in
particular the Columbus Laboratory, beyond the year 2016, should be considered in the architecture
definition.
4.3 Robotic Surface

Not applicable for LEO.
4.4 Human Surface

Not applicable for LEO.
Final Issue 6
page 22
5 MOON
This chapter contains those high-level architecture requirements which are applicable to lunar architecture.
5.1 Moon Generic

MGR1 This requirement has been moved to the Generic Requirements chapter (i.e. Chapter 3).
MGR2 The architecture shall perform a mapping of lunar resources. [E4]
The gravity well of the Earth and the air-braking effect means that 96% of the energy required to get
to the Moon is required in order to go from the Earth’s surface to LEO. Consequently, for the
sustainable exploration of space, it is necessary to utilise as much as possible natural lunar
resources and their derivatives, i.e. water, propellants, etc.
MGR3 The architecture shall provide the capability to transport a medium cargo payload to any
location on the lunar surface. [P3]
Soft and precise landing of 2 tonne payloads in any lunar location would be extremely useful for
robotic and human missions. It could give Europe a significant role in lunar scientific and economic
studies at the international level, and demonstrate European capabilities in deep space automatic
transportation.
5.1.1 ASSOCIATED OBJECTIVES
Theme Objective
European Ambition P3 – Transport medium cargo payload to any place on the Moon.
Space Services E4 - Perform mapping of Moon resources.

Final Issue 6
page 23

R1a The architecture shall place a scientific payload in LLO to investigate the lunar dust
environment. [S22, S24] – see note below in text
Observations and models suggest a dust atmosphere extending up to around 80 km altitude. This
dust may cause problems for lunar observatories and in addition, surface dust may effect
Exploration equipment and also possibly astronaut health.
The scientific objective here is to characterise the dust environment per se, together with a more
“practical” characterisation of the dust and its effect on exposed equipment and human surface
operations. It is important that the environment is observed prior to making any astronomical
observations from the lunar surface, and in any case before any long-term human presence is
established on the surface.
From the science perspective, the minimum observation should be at least 1 lunar day, medium 1
year and maximum around 5 years. These data would allow investigation of potential diurnal and
annual variations that may occur.
Continuous monitoring of the dust environment could also be considered, in order to determine the
effect on the dust environment from robotic and human surface operations, and of course vice
versa. In this case, the deployment of a scientific payload with a similar functionality on the lunar
surface could be implemented (e.g. a nethelometer). NOTE: Requirement R3e has been deleted
from section 5.4 – robotic surface operations.
One approach would be to use a relatively simple camera/telescope instrument to image scattered
sunlight from the dust particles in the atmosphere. The dust is anticipated to be in the 0.01 – 1
micron size range. Multiple wavelength and polarimetry capabilities would allow the mapping of
different size dust particles as a function of altitude.
Note: The scientific payload to measure the dust environment could be replaced or combined with
magnetometer measurements to investigate remnant magnetism on the lunar surface. Mapping of
lunar magnetism has been performed in the past (resolution of ~100 km), but the intention here
would be to map to ~10 km or better. The eventual aim would be to map 100% of the lunar surface.
R1b The architecture shall place a scientific payload in LLO to perform high resolution altimetry
of lunar craters. [S23]
The moon is practically saturated with craters of many sizes and types (these types fall into 6 broad
categories). This provides an opportunity to investigate this universal solar system process and
compare the results with theoretical models.
A high-resolution stereo camera could be used to perform the lunar crater altimetry, e.g. similar to
the Mars Express High Resolution Stereo Camera (HRSC), although a much simpler instrument
than the HSRC could be envisaged.
Significant extra scientific benefit may be achieved by the inclusion of a ground penetrating radar
instrument for global mapping of shallow sub-surface features, such as layered lava/regolith
structure (palaeoregolith), fracture bedrock (megaregolith), and identification of buried craters and
bedrock disruption below known craters.
Final Issue 6
page 24
The minimum number of craters that should be mapped is 1, medium 6, with an upper limit of 1000
or so.
5.2.1 ASSOCIATED EXPLORATION OBJECTIVES
Life and its Co-evolution S22 - Investigate the effects of lunar dust and the lunar dust environment.
with its Planetary
Environment:
AND
Astronomical
observatories on the
Moon:
Life and its Co-evolution S23 - Investigate cratering processes on the Moon.
with its Planetary
Environment: S24 - Investigate remnant magnetism in the lunar surface and magnetic anomalies.
Final Issue 6
page 25
5.3 Human Orbital Operations

5.4 Robotic Surface Operations

R3a The architecture shall place a scientific payload on the lunar surface to search for territes
(i.e. meteorites from the Earth). [S11]
On Earth geological samples are destroyed on large timescales removing any record of conditions
on the early Earth, however, material can be ejected from the Earth by impacts to land on the Moon
and be preserved. Calculations predict that each 100 km2 area of the moon should hold around 100
kg of territes within the top 1cm of material (i.e. predicted density is ~7 parts per million).
Territe material will need identifying amongst native lunar material. One potential method could
employ infrared spectroscopy to find hydrated minerals which are abundant in terrestrial rocks but
which are absent from the Moon. Here, sample identification could be performed using a
spectroscopic camera conceptually similar to the Cassini Visual and Infrared Mapping Spectrometer
to find any hydrated minerals in the lunar regolith, but the instrument could be much simpler than
the Cassini model. The imaging device would need to be tuned to the wavelength of interest – such
an instrument does not yet exist. The approach would be to scan the surface regolith to identify the
hydrated mineral, and then “scoop” up a small amount of the regolith containing the required
sample - although drilling could be required, it is much less likely. The camera would need to locate
the hydrate sample to an accuracy of ~mm.
Once identified, the preferred approach would be to return the sample to Earth for analysis. It is
estimated 150kg of regolith should contain approximately 1g of hydrated minerals, thus searching
through 3000kg of regolith material could in principle yield around 20g of hydrated minerals. Other
options for the analysis of the recovered material would be to: a) Place the isolated hydrated
samples in a “cache”, i.e. some kind of container, which could then be left in a known location when
“full” to be collected at a later time, or b) Perform in-situ analysis.
An analysis of 3000kg of regolith would be the target here, although an analysis of 400kg would be
acceptable. A minimum quantity would be 150kg.
The existence of the hydrated material is highly speculative, so there is no specific requirement
regarding the specific locations of where to search beyond “areas containing older surfaces”.
R3b The architecture shall place a scientific payload on the lunar surface to sample sites
identified as being of special geological interest. [S19]
Although the retrieved Apollo samples are extremely valuable, they encompass only a narrow range
of geological types. Sampling of other sites will offer a more complete coverage and the opportunity
to access “special” sites. For example, the Aitken Basin is an extremely large crater at the lunar
south pole where mantle material may have been excavated (this material is normally at km depth).
Additional interesting geological areas should be researched and investigated, e.g. areas of the
lunar far side and perpetually shadowed polar craters (which may harbour preserved cometary
material). These areas could be identified through mapping from lunar orbit.
Final Issue 6
page 26
Minimally at least 1 site should be sampled, with 3 being acceptable and 10 the optimum – note that
this means different sites, and not samples from the same site, i.e. multiple sites (which could be
widely dispersed). The preferred option here would be to return the collected samples to Earth,
although the same options as requirement R3a, i.e. “cache” and “in-situ”, could also be considered.
R3c The architecture shall deploy a scientific payload on the lunar surface to investigate the
lunar interior. [S20]
The internal structure of the moon is largely unknown and even the existence of a core is uncertain.
The main method of investigating deep within the Moon is by seismology, and although a series of
seismometers were deployed in the Apollo programme, they were neither widely spaced nor of long
duration.
Although some internal information may be determined by measuring the lunar gravity field by
gradiometry, this technique is currently far less sensitive than seismometry.
An example scenario would be the deployment of a number of seismometers (e.g. 10) over as large
an area as possible - separation of the seismic elements should be by at least 100’s of km. Existing
examples of seismometer masses are in the range 10-20kg, although recent designs indicate a
much smaller mass is possible.
The seismometer elements should have a minimum operational lifetime of at least 1 year, with 7-10
years providing the optimum scientific return. The minimum number of elements is clearly 1, with 4
being acceptable – the optimum science return could be gained through the deployment of 8
seismic elements.
R3d The architecture shall place a scientific payload on the lunar surface to collect crater
samples and lava flow samples for dating purposes. [S21]
Lunar crater dating is used throughout the inner Solar System to date all surfaces. However, the
calibration of the chronology curve relies on a relatively small number of points which are not widely
spaced in time. A larger age range is clearly needed. Accurate dating currently requires neutron
irradiation of the sample at a large radiation source (e.g. nuclear facility), so only sample return
techniques are currently used where high accuracy is required.
An optimum science return here would be 5 samples collected from different sites. The sites
themselves should either be very ”old” locations (i.e. >4.2 billion years) or reasonably “young”
locations. The minimum requirement would be 1 sample.
A “Scooping” of samples from the regolith material at these sites would be the best approach, as
“pebble-sized” material is best suited to the analysis technique. Drilling could also be considered.
The preferred approach here would be to return the samples to Earth for analysis, as currently no
in-situ dating techniques exist.
The minimum amount of material to be returned would be ~10g from each sample site.
R3e This requirement has been deleted (see requirement R1a in section 5.2).
Final Issue 6
page 27
R3f The architecture shall deploy a radiofrequency scientific payload on the far side of the lunar
surface. [S33]
The very low-frequency radio region (>10 m wavelength) cannot be observed from the Earth’s
surface (due to shielding and emission by the Earth’s ionosphere) and hence has never been
investigated. This wavelength region is expected to provide insight into a number of cosmological
phenomena, particularly the “dark ages” of the universe prior to the re-ionisation era where the
highly red-shifted 21 cm emission from neutral hydrogen would reveal the early structures that were
formed at this time.
An interferometric array of simple dipole detectors could be utilised to investigate this wavelength
region for the first time in history. The far side of the moon would make an ideal site for such an
array as it is shielded from terrestrial interference and a surface site does not require the advanced
formation-flying technology that would be needed for a similar space-based interferometer.
A preferred location would be around the equatorial region of the lunar far side. Distribution of the
individual dipole detectors is assumed to be robotic, with power/data connection cables to a central
hub (e.g. lander). The layout of the sensors should be in a “3-arm-spiral-Y” configuration. The
necessary data rate for such an array would be ~100 Mbits/s.
The dipole sensors would need to be distributed over an area of ~100 km2, with various concepts
for the number of sensors in each arm, ranging from ~10-100.
In order to test such a LF telescope concept, a possible approach could be to deploy (via a
dispenser system) ~100 or so dipole detectors into a crater shadow area (e.g. close to the lunar
south pole) over an area of ~km2.

Life and its Co-evolution S11 - Hunt for “territes”, i.e. Earth meteorites, expected to have landed on the Moon
with its Planetary
Environment: S19 - Sample important geological sites such as the Aitken Basin on the lunar surface.
S20 - Investigate the lunar interior.
S21 - Date lunar craters and lava flows to improve chronology.
Astronomical S33 - Investigate the low-frequency radio region (>10m wavelength) of the
observatories on the electromagnetic spectrum through establishment of a LF radio telescope on the lunar
Moon: surface (far side).
Final Issue 6
page 28
5.5 Human Surface Operations

R4a The architecture shall provide the capability for very deep-drilling (i.e. ~ 100’s of metres
depth) to collect palaeoregolith samples. [S12]
As consecutive eruption events have occurred, fresh lava flows have been bombarded forming
regolith which has been buried by further flows. This repeated process has created layers of buried
regolith, known as palaeoregolith, which record conditions from the time-interval when they were
exposed on the surface. As the Moon has no atmosphere, the regolith is exposed to the space
environment and provides an effective trap for solar emissions and cosmic rays. In addition, like the
surface regolith, palaeoregolith is expected to contain territes. These layers of palaeoregolith
therefore record parameters of prime importance to the understanding of the habitability of Earth
and other terrestrial planets. The thickness of the “soft” palaeoregolith layers are anticipated to be
~10’s of centimeters, “sandwiched” between ~ 1-10 metres of “hard” lava.
Palaeoregolith is likely to be found below much of the surface of the Moon, but specific sites for
easiest access still require identification, perhaps by a survey from orbit using ground penetrating
radar, e.g. precursor survey to look for interesting areas - some suitable areas are known already,
e.g. Oceanus Procellarum.
The general principle is that the deeper the drilling, the older the material, and the optimum science
return here would be obtained from a drilling depth of ~200m. Current technology drilling (e.g. as
demonstrated by ExoMars) is ~2m. The amount of material to be analysed would be ~10g from
each sample site.
The preferred approach would be to return the samples to earth for analysis, however, as very
deep-drilling will very likely involve human presence, the analysis could be performed in a suitably
equipped laboratory at an existing lunar base or outpost.
R4b The architecture shall provide the capability for deep-drilling (i.e. ~ 10 metres depth) to
collect samples from the lunar bedrock, and to perform heat flux measurements. [S25, S26]
All current lunar samples are regolith material which has been distributed across the moon. Bedrock
samples are required to allow investigation of geological context. The depth of regolith covering
bedrock can vary across the lunar surface and is a function of local topography and age. However,
most bedrock is expected to lie at depths of 2 to 20 m. A precursor survey using ground penetrating
radar may be appropriate to identify easily accessible samples.
Currently all samples returned to Earth are from the Moon’s near side and tend to be from sites
close to the rims of Mare basins. It is important to increase the diversity of sites explored and
sampled.
Although there may exist known sites of bedrock, e.g. in crater bottoms (e.g. the centre of the
Copernicus, Aitken Basin craters), highlands and mare, the identification of bedrock sites would
benefit from a robotic orbital survey e.g. using ground penetrating radar. Note that some of these
sites would be relevant to other scientific objectives.
The optimum science return would be obtained with samples from 20-25 different sites. The amount
of material to be analysed would be ~10g from each sample site.
Heat flux through the moons surface is an important parameter for investigating and understanding
the Moon’s history. So far the measurement has only been made with low accuracy in regolith
Final Issue 6
page 29
material at two sites by the Apollo missions. Apollo astronauts were only able to measure the
temperature gradient down to a depth of ~ 1 m so deeper measurements would improve the
accuracy. Measurement at a depth of ~10m would be acceptable, but ~25m would be preferred.
The optimum science return is obtained in this case through a single accurate one-off measurement
at each of ~20 different sites.
R4c This requirement has been deleted (see requirement R3f in section 5.4).
R4d The architecture shall support the establishment of a high-energy cosmic ray telescope
facility on the lunar surface. [S34]
This wavelength region cannot be observed from the Earth’s surface (due to the Earth’s
magnetosphere) and requires large area telescopes that would be relatively simple to construct on
the lunar surface. Possibility to utilise lunar regolith material in the construction. Will enable
unprecedented astronomy of completely unknown phenomena.
• Assembly utilises regolith material.
• Location on lunar surface is not critical.
R4e This requirement has been deleted.
R4f The architecture shall support scientific geological fieldwork for collection and analysis of
samples.
The science return from sample identification, collection and analysis would be significantly
enhanced by human intervention, specifically by a geologist.
Life and its Co-evolution S12 - Investigate the lunar palaeoregolith.

with its Planetary
Environment: S25 - Sample bedrock material expected to be around 10m depth on the Moon.
S26 - Measure heat flux through lunar bedrock.
Astronomical S34 - Investigate the high-energy cosmic ray wavelength region of the electromagnetic
observatories on the spectrum through the establishment of a high-energy cosmic ray telescope on the
Moon: lunar surface.
Final Issue 6
page 30
6 LIBRATION (LAGRANGE) POINTS

This chapter contains those high-level architecture requirements which are applicable to Libration Point
architecture.

R5a The architecture shall place a scientific payload at a Libration (Lagrange) Point to
investigate the dust environment. [S3]
Elemental abundances will give an estimate of the elemental rate of delivery onto the terrestrial
planets. Isotopic ratios will allow comparison with inclusions in comets and asteroids/ meteorites.
Studies of interstellar dust will allow us to investigate the source of material that created the solar
system. Studies of cometary and asteroidal dust will give us an understanding of the parent bodies
and how dust is modified in interplanetary space. Interstellar dust has been considered as a
suitable reaction site for production of complex organic molecules such as amino acids but these
organics so far remain undetected. Chemical analysis of cometary/asteroidal dust will allow us to
identify processes occurring on the dust since leaving their parent bodies. As seen above relating
the dust to a source i.e. either cometary, asteroidal or interstellar is very important. This may be
achieved by a combination of velocity vector measurements and chemical or isotopic comparison
with parent bodies.
The scientific measurements would be carried out in-situ. Known orientation of detector instrument
is important, as is capability to change the orientation. The area-time product is important here.
Could also combine the real-time detection with an Aerogel collector, which could be subsequently
retrieved by human/robotic activity and returned to earth for ground-based analysis.
Related missions: Dune Express. See also Cassini CDA.
Life and its Co-evolution S3 - Determine inorganic and organic chemical abundances, CHON isotope ratios, and
with its Planetary source(s) (i.e. cometary, asteroidal or interstellar) of any dust at the Libration Points.
Environment:
Final Issue 6
page 31

R5b The architecture shall provide the capability to perform human-assisted servicing of large
telescope assemblies located at a libration point.
One of the most effective demonstrations of the capability of humans to perform complex repair
tasks in space was the Hubble Repair Mission carried out in 1993. Another, but more recent event
involved the repair of a significantly damaged solar array on the ISS. Lagrangian points represent
excellent places to place space-based telescopes, so the capability to perform human-assisted
assembly, maintenance and/or repair of such high-value resources would be highly beneficial.

Not applicable for Libration Points.

Not applicable for Libration Points.
Final Issue 6
page 32
7 NEAR EARTH OBJECTS

This chapter contains those high-level architecture requirements which are applicable to Near Earth Objects
architecture.

R8a The architecture shall deliver a scientific payload to orbit the NEO to perform high-resolution
altimetry.
An orbital robotic mission is likely to be integrated with or precede a surface mission, in order to
obtain high-resolution topographic information to assist the selection of a suitable landing location,
prior to the initiation of the robotic surface operations.


R6a The architecture shall deliver a scientific payload to a NEO surface to perform surface and
sub-surface sample analysis and return the samples to Earth. [S1, S2]
A NEO is normally considered to be asteroidal in nature. However, such objects can also be extinct
comets, i.e. comets that are no longer active.
Asteroid-like NEO: Current meteorite samples provide high accuracy data. To give improved
science, sample return rather than in-situ analysis will be required. Complex organics such as
amino acids have been found in meteorites and an extensive investigation into organics on
asteroids would allow friable material that would not otherwise survive atmospheric entry to be
studied.
Because of the effect of UV radiation the sample should be from at least a few centimetres into a
solid particle. The continuous turnover of material on an asteroid means that a soil sample from a
few centimetres depth would not suffice due to the exposure to solar UV which ensures the likely
destruction of any organic material. However, as the effects of space weathering from cosmic ray
and micrometeorite bombardment are also very important, surface samples would also be required
in order to evaluate the effects of space weathering.
Final Issue 6
page 33
High precision isotope ratios and measurement of fractionation will help determine the history and
source of organic and mineral components of the asteroid.
Surface samples collected should be at least “pebble-sized”, and sub-surface samples should be
retrieved from at least 1m below the surface.
At least samples from 1 C-type asteroid should be collected; but samples from each of the main
types (C, S, X, Q and D) would allow comparison between the different types. It should be noted
that The X-type may be broken down further into E, M and P sub-types, where P and D are good
candidates for extinct comets.
A minimum of 0.5kg from each asteroid type should be returned to Earth. It is important however, to
collect a number of “pebble-sized” grains from both the surface and sub-surface.
The improved science from a NEO sample return relative to meteorite studies, arises from a
combination of a precise knowledge of the parent body, and the characterised sample location on
the parent body. The improved science relative to in-situ analysis arises from the greater
capabilities of terrestrial laboratories and the on-going benefit of curated samples that can be
revisited with new techniques not available at the time of the mission.
Cometary-like NEO: H2O, CO, CO2, CH4, H2CO, CH3OH, CS2, NH3 were found to be the most
common molecules on Comet P/Halley [ref]. Measurements on another cometary body will help to
further constrain chemical processes on comets. Current spectral identification of organics is limited
to simple species. Complex organics are expected to exist especially in a surface crust. These
organics should be identified and compared with a deeper sample to understand the chemical
processes occurring on the comet. Identification of isotope ratios will give further clues to processes
occurring on the comet, and provide insight into the relationship between terrestrial and cometary
water. Bulk C, H, O and N measurements will help our understanding of chemical processes on a
comet, and also support investigations of the sources of these elements on terrestrial bodies.
Comets are anticipated to possess a “crust”. In order to investigate the formation of organics in the
crust, drilling to a depth of at least 5m is required. In-situ analysis of volatile material is needed in
addition to sample return of the drilled sample (~0.5kg). Samples should be returned from at least 1
and preferably 3 NEOs.
1 sampling site per NEO visited would be satisfactory – capability to take samples at say up to 3
different locations on the surface would be welcomed however, with at least one surface and one
sub-surface sample from each location, i.e. ~250g surface and 250g sub-surface.
Note: It is assumed here that a “Touch-and-Go” approach such as used by the Japanese Hayabusa
mission is not used.
Possible targets could be:

• 101955 (1999 RQ36) which has a low delta-v (6.1 km/s). This is a primitive asteroid (may
be B or C type). Candidate target for NASA OSIRIS Discovery mission.
• 2000 AE205 – a low delta-v S type (3.9 km/s).
R6b The architecture shall foresee the mapping of NEO resources in view of potential
exploitation through future ISRU activities. [E5, E6]
ISRU activities have potential to play an important role in sustained long-term space exploration.
The knowledge about possible resources on NEOs is essential for the development of future space
exploration architectures. However, the most interesting objects from an ISRU point of view may not
Final Issue 6
page 34
be the most interesting from a scientific viewpoint, so the target list of preferred objects may differ in
each case.
A global mapping should be carried out to identify elements of interest for propellant production
(e.g. H, O2), life support (O2) and feedstock (SI, Al, Fe, etc.). Such elements should exist in all of the
NEO classes, so for the purposes of this document, there is no a priori preferred type of NEO to be
targeted.
Life and its Co-evolution S1 - Determine inorganic and organic chemical abundances, CHON abundances and
with its Planetary isotope ratios in cometary material.
Environment:
S2 - Determine inorganic and organic chemical abundances, mineral composition and
CHON isotope ratios in asteroidal material.
E5 - Perform scalable demonstrations of key capabilities related to space resources

utilization (e.g. propellant production, green houses, power plants, industrial
component production)
E6 - Implement full scale production and processing capabilities related to space

resources utilization (e.g. propellant production, green houses, power plants, industrial
component production)

Final Issue 6
page 35
8 MARS
This chapter contains those high-level architecture requirements which are applicable to Martian
architecture.

R7q The architecture shall place a scientific payload in orbit around Mars to perform a global
topographical and chemical mapping.
In order to assist in the selection of suitable landing sites for a Mars Sample Return mission, it is
extremely important to carry out orbital measurements to survey the surface of Mars both
topographically and chemically. Note: The ground-truth of chemical mapping from orbit shows a
poor correlation with what is interpreted from orbital measurements.
R7a The architecture shall place a scientific payload in orbit around Mars to investigate the
distribution of atmospheric methane. [S14]
It is thought that the lifetime of methane on Mars is such that it should be well-mixed in the
atmosphere. However, some measurements indicate otherwise. As a biologically significant
molecule the methane distribution on Mars may require significant further investigation, as the
methane could have a biological origin, but could equally well be of non-biological origin. The
required in-situ measurement sensitivity should be better than 10 ppbv (parts per billion by volume)
– this is the level reported by the Mars Express Planetary Fourier Spectrometer (PFS). The
measurement should be made over at least one Martian season (to observe any possible seasonal
variations), and it should occur prior to any human presence, i.e. as soon as possible, but certainly
before any human landing. A 100% coverage of the Martian atmospheric volume is preferable, with
10% being a minimum. The atmospheric volume = the annular volume of the atmosphere between
the surface of Mars and its upper limit (~105 km).
R7b The architecture shall place a scientific payload in orbit around Mars to perform a mapping
of the Martian sub-surface permafrost layer. [S10]
It is now well established that water ice exists on Mars on or below the surface. This permafrost
needs examining to find out how extensive and deep it is and hence how much water it holds. This
cold subsurface layer may preserve evidence of past life.
Area mapped: 10, 50, 100%. A ground-penetrating radar would be a suitable instrument for this
purpose. Note: This requirement is already addressed by the Mars Express (MARSIS) and MRO
(SHARAD) missions, but this requirement relates to an instrument(s) that would measure to a
greater depth of sounding, have a higher vertical resolution and larger horizontal foot-print.
Final Issue 6
page 36
Life and its Co-evolution S14 - Investigate methane distribution in the Martian atmosphere.
with its Planetary
Environment: S10 – Map the subsurface permafrost layer distribution of Mars.


R7c The architecture shall place a scientific payload on the Martian surface to investigate its
chemical/mineralogical characteristics, including high precision C, H, O, N, S, P isotope
measurements. [S4, S5]
CHONSP = Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Sulphur, Phosphorus
Although a large range of observations and measurements are required to completely determine
the conditions which lead to the production of any specific rock sample, e.g. rock structure, texture
and composition, the measurement of isotopic variations in rock samples can assist in the
determination of conditions when the rocks were produced. From all of these measurements one
can derive conclusions about potential habitability.
An atmospheric measurement would provide an appropriate baseline for comparison. A
measurement of carbon in a number of sources (e.g. atmosphere, carbonates, etc.) would allow the
carbon cycle to be recreated and investigated to search for evidence of life.
Atmospheric isotopic measurements provide information on the degree of atmospheric loss over
time, this does not mean that the loss rate can be monitored, but that the total loss over geological
time may be assessed through the measurement of various isotope ratios.
The process of photosynthesis on Earth results in carbon isotope fractionation between inorganic
and different organic reservoirs. Although it is not considered likely, it should be investigated if the
photosynthesis process has or is occurring on Mars. It is considered unlikely because it took ~1
billion years to appear on Earth, where conditions were far more clement than on Mars. With the
very early degradation of surface environmental conditions on Mars, any life forms would have
retreated to the subsurface early (~ 4.2- 4.0 Ga), which would not have left sufficient time for
photosynthesis to evolve. However, carbon isotope measurements could confirm this latter
scenario.
Ground-based atmospheric methane measurements are required in order to identify and monitor
sources and provide a ground-truth for orbital measurements. This would involve measurements of
Final Issue 6
page 37
methane isotopic composition and concentration versus time (i.e. multi-site measurements).
Chemical and mineral investigations of the Martian surface help to further constrain Mars' history
including dating when the surface was habitable.
Number of discrete sources from which carbon isotope measurements are required: 3, 9, 30.
Sources should include at least 1 atmospheric, 1 soil/rock and 1 water (if located) measurement.
Hence the requirement here is for 3 sources at each of 1, 3, or 10 sites. Also, observations of the
rock structure and texture (good close -up imager/microscope) as well as geochemical
measurements to obtain information about the mineralogy and elemental compositions of the rocks.
In-situ measurement could be made, although as in all scientific objectives relating to the search for
life, sample return would be the preferred option. Amount of sample return ~0.5 kg.
Drilling is not necessarily required, as surface samples would be suitable for some scientific
analyses. Samples from the sub-surface would be required for organics and un-weathered material.
The atmospheric samples could be taken at any location. The methane sampling however, would
be used to identify any possible local “hotspots” to determine the source location and origin.
Possible sampling sites would be similar to those being considered for the ExoMars and MSL
missions.
Related missions: GAP on Beagle-2. Also, ExoMars, Mars Express, SAM (on MSL) and Phoenix.
R7d The architecture shall provide the capability for drilling beneath the surface to search for
organic material. [S6]
Exposure to Martian UV and an as yet unidentified oxidant, has extremely detrimental effects on
organic molecules. A subsurface search may reveal evidence for organics which are no longer
observable on the surface.
In-situ measurement - sample return is not required in this case, but could be an option for samples
that exhibit a positive result. The in-situ/sample return option would be highly dependent on the
sensitivity of the instruments. As an example, the amount of biogenic organic carbon related to past
life in Mars analogue rocks on Earth is generally about 0.01-0.03 %. If the analytic instruments
could not equal or better this sensitivity, then sample return would be the preferred option.
Another option for the interesting samples would be to place them in a “cache” for later retrieval.
Amount of sample return ~ 0.5kg. Number of sites sampled should be 1, 2, 5.
Drilling to a minimum of 2m and a maximum of ~100m is required to collect sub-surface samples.

The drilling sites should be prioritized to target phyllosilicate concentrations, e.g. those identified by
the OMEGA experiment on Mars Express. Other targets could be carbonates, sulphates,
evaporates or maybe even ancient volcanic deposits.
Related missions: ExoMars, Beagle-2. See also MSL and Phoenix.
R7e The architecture shall place a scientific payload on the Martian surface to search for traces
of past life. [S7]
Controversial possible microfossils have been found in a Martian meteorite. Searching for further
samples with a known geological context may help to understand these features as either biological
Final Issue 6
page 38
or abiological formations. Any rover would however, require sophisticated capabilities to search,
identify, extract and analyse promising samples for return to Earth.
In-situ measurement and/or sample return. The amount of material returned should be ~ 0.5kg
minimum. Number of sites sampled should be 1, 2, 5.
R7f The architecture shall place a scientific payload on the Martian surface to date Mars’
habitable periods. [S8]
Water is seen to be essential for life, and determining eras on Mars when water was abundant will
have a significant effect on our understanding of possible past habitability.
The optimum here would be sample return although less accurate dating could be performed in-
situ. Number of samples: 1, 2, 5 (must be from appropriate “wet sites”). Drilling is not required. For
sample return, amount ~ 0.5kg.
R7g The architecture shall place a scientific payload on the Martian surface to perform biomarker
detection. [S13]
Detection of molecules of irrefutable biological origin would be an extremely important experiment.
Suitable locations on the Martian surface would be locations of present or past habitability, i.e.
where there is evidence for the presence (past or present) of liquid water. The detection itself would
be in-situ and the samples should be retrieved at least from the permafrost layer. The deeper the
samples are extracted from the better, with the minimum being 2m (the depth to which ExoMars is
designed to drill). The search for biological indicators should be carried out prior to human
presence, i.e. as soon as possible, but certainly before any human landing.
Ideally, the samples should be preserved/cached for return to Earth for further analysis in the case
of “positive” results.
The ExoMars Life Marker Chip (LMC) is planned to sample at 2m depth – this is an antibody-based
instrument with very high specificity to detect “life” reliably. LMC is not a stand-alone instrument, but
is part of a suite of life-detection equipment.
R7h The architecture shall place a scientific payload on the Martian surface to search for extant
life (microbes) below the Martian surface. [S16]
Terrestrial microbes are fairly easy to observe using a high-powered microscope. Similar searches
could be performed using in-situ Martian samples. However, there is some concern that if Martian
life were so primitive that it resembled viruses more than prokaryotes, which are not so readily
visible, this would likely require a high resolution transmission electron microscope in order for them
to be observed. Unless such an instrument could be utilised on the surface of Mars, sample return
would be the preferred option.
Number of sites sampled: 1, 3, 10. The depth from which the samples are retrieved should be at
least 2m. This activity should be carried out prior to human presence.
This activity should be carried out prior to human presence, and if a positive result is found, may in
fact preclude a human presence due to the requirement to avoid cross-contamination of biospheres
In the case of a positive result, the sample(s) should be cached for subsequent sample return.
Final Issue 6
page 39
R7i The architecture shall place a scientific payload on the Martian surface to determine if liquid
water still exists on or below the surface, and search for deep deposits of ice and water.
[S17]
Geothermal heating of permafrost could cause significant melting, or high salt concentrations
between ice crystals, could allow liquid water to persist within the permafrost. This could form sites
conducive to biological activity.
Recently discovered “caves” could maintain sufficiently high humidity, allowing for the potential for
water, although other locations such as gullies in crater walls, geothermal hotspots or young fluvial
deposits.
The mapping of the permafrost (e.g. using ground-penetrating radar) should be completed prior to
this activity, in order to provide guidance on suitable sites. No sample return required in this case,
as the objective is to find water.
Deep drilling would normally be necessary here, although the exploration of “caves” would be an
alternative.
Number of sites: 1, 3, 10. (Between 10 – 100m depth, including polar regions).
R7j The architecture shall place a scientific payload on the Martian surface to investigate the
Martian interior. [S27]
No seismology studies have been attempted so far on Mars, and the precise nature of its interior
remains to be investigated.
Number of seismometers: 1, 4, 8. The seismometers should function for a minimum of 1 year, and
up to a maximum of 10 years. (Note: Earth years). Ideally, the seismometers should be distributed
in a tetrahedral arrangement around Mars.
Related missions: The Netlander mission (eventually cancelled) involved a distributed network of
seismometers.
R7k The architecture shall place a scientific payload on the Martian surface to locate and survey
stratified rock outcrops in order to investigate the geologic and past water histories of Mars.
[S29]
Exposed stratified rock faces are important in tracing Mars' geological history, including the history
of water. Analysis of exposed stratified outcrops has been successfully implemented in 2 locations
by the NASA MER Rovers. More locations are required to begin to create a global picture. The
most promising stratified rocks are sedimentary (as opposed to igneous), and may be distinguished
through IR mapping.
The number of sites studied: 1, 3, 10.
Ideally, the location and survey should be carried out automatically. Meeting this scientific objective
is likely to contribute to some of the other Mars science objectives, i.e. S5, S7, S8 and S13.
In-situ and/or sample return. For sample return, ~ 0.5kg.
Related missions: MSL, ExoMars, MER.
R7l The architecture shall foresee the mapping of Mars resources in view of potential
exploitation through future ISRU activities. [E4]
ISRU activities have potential to play an important role in sustained long-term space exploration.
The knowledge about possible resources on Mars is essential for the development of future space
exploration architectures.
Final Issue 6
page 40
R7m The architecture shall provide the opportunity to place an educational payload on the
Martian surface. [E12]
The immediate exploration of Mars will have significant inspirational influence on the younger
generation.
R7n The architecture shall provide opportunities for the integration of commercial services. [E7]
Commercial services can be, e.g. communication/navigation systems or infrastructures, cargo
transport, propellant supply, power supply, life systems resources supply.

Life and its Co-evolution S4 - Measure CHONSP isotopes on Mars.

with its Planetary
Environment: S5 - Determine chemical and mineral content on Mars.
S6 - Search for organics below the Martian surface.
S7 - Search for traces of past life on the Martian surface.
S8 - Determine dates for Mars’ habitable periods.
S13 - Perform biomarker detection on the Martian surface.
S16 - Perform microscopic studies on the Martian surface.
S17 - Determine if liquid water still exists on the Martian surface.
S27 - Perform geophysics/seismology on the Martian surface.
S28 - Perform surface/near-surface search for past/present life on the Martian surface.
S29 - Locate and survey stratified rock outcrops on the Martian surface.
Space Services E4 - Perform mapping of Moon resources.
E7 - Provide opportunities for commercial services.
E12 - Enable the involvement of educational and cultural institutions in space activities.
Final Issue 6
page 41
R7o The architecture shall support scientific geological fieldwork for collection and analysis of
samples. [S31]
Manned exploration of Mars by a geologist would provide a wealth of detail unattainable by robotic
missions. Note: This requirement also addresses many of the requirements already mentioned in
the robotic surface operations. Relevant requirements here are: R7c – R7k.
R7p The architecture shall provide the capability for advanced in-situ scientific analysis on the
surface of Mars.
The capability to carry out sophisticated in-situ scientific analysis on Mars would greatly assist the
long-term geological investigations of its origin and evolution.
NOTE: As a general guideline, the architecture should minimise any possible “boneyard” of discarded
elements to reduce impact on the Martian environment.
S31 - Perform exploration and geological field studies on the Martian surface.

AD1 High Level Requirements Final Issue 6

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

AD1 High Level Requirements Final Issue 6

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

document title/ titre du document

IGH EVEL RCHITECTURE

prepared by/préparé par William Carey

date of issue/date d’édition 12 April 2008

Document type/type de document RQ

Tel. +31 71 565 5404 - Fax +31 71 565 4499

Title High-Level Architecture Requirements for European Space issue

Author William Carey date 12 April 2008

approved by Bernhard Hufenbach date 12 April 2008

reason for change /raison du changement issue/issue date/date

First release 1 (Draft A) 1 February 2007

Second release 2 (Draft A) 12 June 2007

Third release 3 (Draft A) 18 July 2007

Fourth release 4 (Final) 17 August 2007

Fifth release 5 (Draft) 12 December

reason for change/raison du changement page(s)/page(s) paragraph(s)/paragraph(s)

Minor editorial modifications to Introduction all -

Inclusion of new chapter on ESA Generic 7-9 All

Updating of Generic Requirements and 10 - 12 All

Updating of Moon Requirements and Associated 13 - 19 All

Updating of following sections following RID Section 1.2.1/ 2-3 All

Addition of requirements for LEO, NEOs, LPs Sections 6, 7 and 8 All

1.1 Purpose .............................................................................................................................1

1.2.2 Political Framework Scenarios....................................................................................4

1.2.3 Exploration Timescale ................................................................................................6

1.3 Applicable & Reference Documents ..................................................................................6

1.3.1 Applicable Documents ................................................................................................6

1.3.2 Reference Documents ................................................................................................6

1.3.3 References .................................................................................................................6

1.4 Definition of Terms.............................................................................................................6

1.5 Acronyms & Abbreviations.................................................................................................7

1.6 Document Structure ...........................................................................................................8

2 ESA GENERIC REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................9

2.1 Safety and Mission Success ..............................................................................................9

2.2 Planetary Protection.........................................................................................................11

2.5 European Assets .............................................................................................................13

2.6 Roadmap .........................................................................................................................13

2.7 Cost .................................................................................................................................13

2.8 Stakeholder Management................................................................................................14

2.9 European Industry ...........................................................................................................14

2.10 Innovation ........................................................................................................................14

3 GENERIC REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................15

3.1 Associated Exploration Objectives...................................................................................19

4 LOW EARTH ORBIT..........................................................................................21

4.1 Robotic Orbital Operations...............................................................................................21

4.2 Human Orbital..................................................................................................................21

4.3 Robotic Surface ...............................................................................................................21

4.4 Human Surface................................................................................................................21

5.1 Moon Generic ..................................................................................................................22

5.1.1 Associated Objectives ..............................................................................................22

5.2 Robotic Orbital Operations...............................................................................................23

5.2.1 Associated Exploration Objectives............................................................................24

5.3 Human Orbital Operations ...............................................................................................25

5.4 Robotic Surface Operations.............................................................................................25

5.4.1 Associated Exploration Objectives............................................................................27

5.5 Human Surface Operations .............................................................................................28

5.5.1 Associated Exploration Objectives............................................................................29

6 LIBRATION (LAGRANGE) POINTS ..................................................................30

6.1 Robotic Orbital Operations...............................................................................................30

6.1.1 Associated Exploration Objectives............................................................................30

6.2 Human Orbital Operations ...............................................................................................31

6.3 Robotic Surface Operations.............................................................................................31

6.4 Human Surface Operations .............................................................................................31