Post on 11-Jan-2016
NASA’s Gravitational-Wave Mission Concept Study
Robin Stebbins, Study ScientistNinth LISA Symposium
Paris, 22 May 2012
2
Outline• Goals• Elements of the study• Context of the study• Responses to the Request-For-Information (RFI)• Science performance analysis• Assessment of architectures• Risk• Cost
This document contains no ITAR-controlled information and is suitable for public release.
This document contains no ITAR-controlled information and is suitable for public release.
3
Goals of the Study• Develop mission concepts that will accomplish some
or all of the LISA science objectives at lower cost points.
• Explore how mission architecture choices impact science, cost and risk.
• Big Questions• Are there concepts at $300M, $600M or $1B?• What is the lowest cost GW mission?• Is there a game-changing technology that hasn't been
adequately considered?
This document contains no ITAR-controlled information and is suitable for public release.
4
Elements of the Study• Request for Information (RFI) – due Nov. 10th.• Core Team – ~25 GSFC, JPL & university scientists and
engineers critically reviewing RFI responses• Science task force – ~15 volunteer scientists evaluating
science performance of concepts• Community Science Team (CST) – 10 scientists, Rai Weiss,
Ned Wright co-chairs• Public workshop – December 20-21st • Concurrent engineering studies by JPL’s Team-X in March and
April• Final Report to NASA Headquarters – July 6th
• Presentation to the Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics (CAA) of the National Research Council (NRC)
This document contains no ITAR-controlled information and is suitable for public release.
5
Context of the Study – A Brief History of LISA• 1974 - A dinner conversation: Weiss, Bender, Misner
and Pound• 1985 – LAGOS Concept (Faller, Bender, Hall, Hils and
Vincent)• 1993 – LISAG - ESA M3 study: six S/C LISA & Sagittarius• 1997 - JPL Team-X Study: 3 S/C LISA • 2001-2015 - LISA Pathfinder and ST-7 DRS• 2001 – NASA/ESA project began• 2003 – TRIP Review• 2005 – GSFC AETD Review• 2007 – NRC BEPAC Review• 2009 – Astro2010 Review• 2011 – NASA/ESA partnership ended• 2011 – Next Generation Gravitational-Wave
Observatory (NGO) started• 2012 – ESA L1 downselect
This document contains no ITAR-controlled information and is suitable for public release.
6
Context of the Study – Activities in Europe• LISA Pathfinder• Demonstration of space-based GW
technology, in late stages of I&T• 2014 launch
• Technology development• Inertial sensor electronics, charge control• Optical system• Laser system• Pointing and point-ahead mechanisms
• NGO• Highly developed concept with extensive
science case and technical detail
7
Context of the Study in the U.S.• Next major mission in Astrophysics starts after 2018.• The Astrophysics Division anticipates that a “probe-
class” mission could be started ~2017.• The Division will not commit to a ‘large’ mission until
after Astro2020. ‘Commit’ means the Confirmation Review at the end of Phase B.
• A partnership with ESA seems highly likely. That would require:• Rebuilding a partnership• Reliably coordinating two agencies’ programs
8
RFI Responses
9
RFI Responses• 17 responses total• 12 for mission concepts, several with options• 3 for instrument concepts• 2 for technologies
• Four natural groups• No-drag-free concepts (2)• Geocentric orbits (4)• LISA-like (5)• Other (2)
10
What constitutes “LISA-like?”• Drag-free control• Free-falling test mass• Precision stationkeeping
• Continuous laser ranging• Heliocentric orbits• Constellation in stable equilateral triangle• No orbital maintenance
• Million-kilometer long arms• Laser frequency noise subtraction (TDI)• Emulate Michelson’s white-light fringe condition through
post-processing
11
No-Drag-Free Concepts
12
No-Drag-Free Concepts• Rely on either very long arms (50X LISA) or geometry
(100X reduction) to compensate for using the spacecraft as the test mass.
• Disturbances are solar radiation pressure variability, solar wind, interplanetary magnetic field
• Measure, model and correct for spurious forces (102 - 104 X)
• Displacement noise from motions of the spacecraft CG, owing to, say, thermoelastic effects
• Concerns about measuring solar wind and modeling/testing other disturbance (e.g., Pioneer effect)
13
Geocentric Concepts
14
Geocentric Concepts• Noise concerns
• Thermal environment: moving sub-Sun point, eclipses• Sun in the telescope• Varying Earth albedo
• Geosynchronous may have interesting modulation properties. (McWilliams’ talk Thursday afternoon)
• LAGRANGE/Conklin described by Buchman Tuesday afternoon.
• A big cost question: can you do this for a factor of 4 less by employing nanosat technology, lower reliability standards, standard bus, a different way of doing business, … a different business model?
15
LISA-like Concepts
16
LISA-like Concepts• How far can the LISA architecture be descoped?• No technical or performance issues• Science performance falls off much faster than cost • Found the bottom!
See Jeff Livas’s talk Tuesday afternoon in LISA-NGO Technology session.
17
Other Concepts
18
Other Concepts• The superconductor idea doesn’t work.• Atom Interferometry
• Atoms clouds as test masses• Atom interferometer as a phasemeter• See John Baker’s talk Thursday afternoon in Other Experiments and
Alternative Design session
• InSpRL• Most aggressive design concept• Invoked ‘superclocks’ and resonance• Seems to require a few orders of magnitude improvement in several
key performance parameters• Lacks enough definition to evaluate
• Yu concept doesn’t promise to be cheaper.• Digital Interferometry is interesting.
19
Science Performance Analysis
20
Science Performance• Volume of the Universe explored• Detection numbers for source populations (Massive
BHs, EMRIs, Galactic Binaries)• Discovery space• Parameter resolution
All work done by Neil Cornish and the Science Task Force. See Cornish talk, Friday morning.
21
Sensitivity Curves – All 15 Concepts
22
Massive Black Hole Horizons
23
Massive Black Hole Horizons – No-Drag-Free
24
Massive Black Hole Horizons – Geocentric
25
Massive Black Hole Horizons – Geosynchronous
26
Massive Black Hole Horizons – LISA-Like
27
Detection Rates – Large Seed Models (/yr)
28
Detection Rates – Small Seed Models (/yr)
29
EMRI Horizons
30
EMRI Detections
10 M⊙ compact object, eccentricity 0.5 at 2 yrs to plunge, spin 0.5 central BH, SNR=15
31
WD-WD Detection Numbers
32
Parameter Estimation – LISA-like Concepts
Similar detection numbers, but each descope x 3-10 loss in resolution
33
Architecture Choices
34
Architecture Choices – Mission Design• Heliocentric – fixed, drift-away, in-line,
L2/leading/trailing, 1 AU• Geocentric – OMEGA, geosync, L3/L4/L5, LEO• Compare delta-v, constellation stability, propellant,
thermal, modulation of science signal, comm
35
Architecture Choices – Inertial Reference• Proof mass – cubical, parallelepiped or spherical free-
falling, or torsion pendulum• Spacecraft center-of-gravity (aka no-drag-free) with
modeled corrections• Atom interferometry - atoms as proof masses, atoms
as secondary inertial reference• Payload as separated spacecraft
36
Architecture Choices – Measurement Strategies
• Laser interferometry with laser heterodyne phase comparison – free-space or digital interferometry
• Laser interferometry with atom interferometer phase comparison
• Laser and clock frequency noise correction – 3 spacecraft & TDI, or very much better phase reference (AI)
37
Implementation Strategies
38
Implementation Strategies
Parameter SGO Mid LAGRANGE OMEGAMass Margin 53% 53% 53%
Payload mass (kg), power (W) CBE 216.5 kg, 233 W 99.7 kg, 99.3 W Option 1: 64.3 kg, 80W; Option 2: 55 kg, 54W
Mass rack-up Science-craft type 1Science-craft type 2
Propulsion Module type 1 + PropPropulsion module type 2 + Prop
LV AdapterLaunch Mass Wet
717 kg (3) 661 + 139 (3) ?4553 kg
531 kg (2)586 kg (1)224 + 174 (2)591 + 114 (1) 32 kg3182 kg
147 kg (6) 374 + 465.5 (1) 28 kg2347 kg
Launch Vehicle Atlas V 551; 6075 kg
Atlas V 511; 3285 kg
Falcon 9 Block 2;2490 kg
39
RiskSGO-Mid/High LAGRANGE OMEGA
• These are a combination of Team-X and Core Team risks.• Risk rises rapidly with modest (<10%) cost reductions.• This assessment is not complete.
40
Cost
• Team-X is very conservative.• Cost estimates range from $1.2B to 2.1B.• Per science year costs
• SGO-hi $450M/yr • SGO-mid/Lagrange ~$800-900/yr• Omega ~$1,300M/yr
• Important cost drivers• Non-recurring costs (NRE) and recurring costs (RE) are
important.• Design validation• Serial vs parallel construction of multiple units (~$150M/yr)
41
Summary• The CST prefers SGO-Mid (3 arms, LISA-like, 1 Mkm, drift-away).• Big Questions
• We found no concepts at $300M, $600M or $1B.• The lowest cost GW mission is ~$1.4B (±0.2).• We found no game-changing technology that hasn't been adequately
considered.
• Heliocentric is a better choice than geocentric.• Three dual-string spacecraft appear to be more robust than six
single-string spacecraft.• No-drag-free achieves only modest savings while incurring
substantial risk. [Cost model is uncertain.]• Three arms has lower risk and mediating cost factors relative to
two arms.
42
Backup Slides
43
Feedstock• Whitepapers (17x~15 pages = 235)• Workshop Presentations (~20 x 30 charts = 600)• Core Team Work (~200 pages)• Team-X input
• Presentations (4 x ~60 charts = 240)• Master Equipment Lists• Functional Interface Diagrams• CAD files• Orbit analyses
• Team-X output• Viewgraphs (~3 x 280 = 840)• Team-X reports (~3 x 10-20 = 45)
• CST Work (~50 pages)• Total: north of 2230 pages
44
Mission Design Review 1/2 Feature SGO-Mid Lagrange Omega
1. Trajectory Phase DV [174, 153, 200] m/s Stack ~ 120 m/s to L2[SC1, 3]: [460, 300]
[206, 328, 450] + 4 m/svs. 3210 m/s if 3 PMs
Significance: Prop module size(s), Total mass, Launch vehicle
2. Trajectory Phase Dt 17 months 27 months 12 months (vs. ~ 7 )
Significance: Cost/complexity of trajectory phase operations (FDF & Ops)
3. Lunar Flybys Used No Yes No
Significance: Cost/complexity/risk of trajectory phase operations (FDF & Ops)
4. Mission Phase Dt 2 yr / extendable 2 yr / not extendable 1 yr / extendable
Significance: Cost of science operations, Amount of science, Constellation Stability
5. Const. Stability DL/L, Da, Dn, (Dg||,
Dg+)
±0.007, ±0.6, ±1.5 Mhz, ±(0.008, 1.0) mrad
±0.1, ±0.12, ±94 Mhz, ±(0.8, 0.32) mrad
±0.025, ±2.2, ±60 Mhz, ±(0.17, 0.15) mrad
Significance: Cost of additional mechanisms and electronics
6. Mission Phase DV No Yes (SC2) No
Significance: Cost/sophistication of mN-thruster system (~ 10 m/s/yr)
45
Mission Design Review 2/2 Feature SGO-Mid Lagrange Omega
7. Distance to Earth / HGA, ISC req?
24 to 55 106 km /HGA
[21, 1.5, 21]106 kmHGA/LGA, ISC/LGA
0.6106 km LGA
Significance: Cost/complexity of communications; ISC = inter-spacecraft comm.
8. GeoEcliptic Orbit No No Yes
Significance: (a) Sun direction variation (thermal stability) (b) Sun in telescope aperture (thermal, optical interference) (c) Earth eclipses (thermal, science interruptions)
Feature SGO-Mid Lagrange Omega
9. Launch Vehicle C3 +0.27 (km/s)2 -0.3 (km/s)2 -0.05 (km/s)2
Significance: Launch vehicle selection
10. Single Prop Option No (?) Yes (but not necessary) Yes (but not necessary)
Significance: Input to possible trade for single prop module cost savings (?)
11. “FDF” Ops Cost $ 18 M $ 27 M $ 23 M (? if 3 PMs)
Cost Drivers: Trajectory and mission phase durations, trajectory complexity