Click for next page ( 89


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 88
Improving NASA's Technology for Space Science (Appendix D) Improving NASA's Technology for Space Science Appendix D Past Recommendations on Technology for Space Science ASEB: NASA'S SPACE RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM Five institutional recommendations were made in the ASEB's 1983 report, NASA's Space Research and Technology Program. They are given in Table D-1. In addition, 13 recommendations were made regarding the specific technologies to be pursued. These are given in Table D-2. Table D-1 REPORT MENU Institutional Recommendations from the ASEB Report. NASA's Space NOTICE Research and Technology Program MEMBERSHIP PREFACE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NASA should establish the level of resources (funds, manpower, and q CHAPTER 1 facilities) to be allocated to advanced space research and technology CHAPTER 2 development for the next decade and protect these resources from CHAPTER 3 the short-term requirements of NASA's major operational programs. CHAPTER 4 NASA should expand the charter of its space technology advisory q ACRONYMS committees, charging industry and university members with the BIOGRAPHIES responsibility of helping NASA to plan a technology program that is BIBLIOGRAPHY responsive to the needs of the broader space community and not just APPENDIX A to NASA's in-house needs. APPENDIX B NASA-DOD cooperation in space R&T should grow. q APPENDIX C NASA should develop centers of technological excellence. q APPENDIX D NASA should provide access to space for experimental purposes as q APPENDIX E a natural extension of national aerospace facilities. file:///C|/SSB_old_web/nasatechappendd.htm (1 of 16) [6/18/2004 11:41:02 AM]

OCR for page 88
Improving NASA's Technology for Space Science (Appendix D) Table D-2 Technological Recommendations from the ASEB R-goon. NASA's Space Research and Technology Program Reduce the cost of using space. q Advance on-orbit propulsion technology. q Enhance technology for large space structures. q Develop a database on materials properties in the space q environment. Reduce the time and costs involved in obtaining data from space in q usable formats. Enhance sensor capabilities. q Advance space communications technologies. q Improve the lifetime, reduce the weight, and increase the energy q storage capabilities of space power systems. Enhance the protection of systems from the space environment. q Improve the analytical foundations and engineering techniques for q advanced thermal control systems for spacecraft. Enhance the capabilities and autonomy of space navigation, q guidance, and control systems. Advance the technologies for the support of humans in space. q Improve the survivability, self-diagnostic, and self-correction q capabilities of spacecraft. PIONEERING THE SPACE FRONTIER Three years later, and after the implementation of many of the recommendations of the 1983 ASEB report, the Paine Commission report, Pioneering the Space Frontier, delivered a sweeping vision of the nation's future in space. The report recommended a major augmentation of NASA's technology base effort. These recommendations are given in Table D-3. file:///C|/SSB_old_web/nasatechappendd.htm (2 of 16) [6/18/2004 11:41:02 AM]

OCR for page 88
Improving NASA's Technology for Space Science (Appendix D) Table D-3 Recommendations of the Paine Commission Regarding the Technology Base The United States must substantially increase its investment in its space technology base. We recommend: A threefold growth in NASA's base technology budget to increase this item from two percent to six percent of NASA's total budget... We also recommend: Special emphasis on intelligent autonomous systems. We recommend demonstration projects in seven critical technologies: Flight research on aerospace plane propulsion and aerodynamics; q Advanced rocket vehicles; q Aerobraking for orbital transfer; q Long-duration closed-ecosystems (including water, air, and food); q Electric launch and propulsion systems; q Nuclear-electric space power; and q Space tethers and artificial gravity. q ASEB: SPACE TECHNOLOGY TO MEET FUTURE NEEDS After the Paine Commission report, NASA requested the ASEB to revisit its earlier recommendations and to examine them in light of the environment that existed after the National Commission on Space's efforts and in the aftermath of the loss of Challenger. This led to the second ASEB report, Space Technology to Meet Future Needs. The report recommended that no less than seven percent and as much as 10 percent of the NASA budget should be devoted to advanced technology R&D. The principal recommendations are given in Table D-4. file:///C|/SSB_old_web/nasatechappendd.htm (3 of 16) [6/18/2004 11:41:02 AM]

OCR for page 88
Improving NASA's Technology for Space Science (Appendix D) Table D-4 Recommendations of the ASEB Report, Space Technology to Meet Future Needs Advanced propulsion q Materials and structures q - Advanced Earth-to-orbit engines - Advanced metallic materials - Reusable cryogenic orbital based on alloy synthesis transfer vehicles - "Hot" structures to counter reentry - High-performance orbital heating transfer systems for sending - "Trainable" control systems for humans to Mars large flexible structures - New spacecraft propulsion systems for solar system Information and control q exploration - Autonomous on-board computing Humans in space q systems - High-speed, low-error rate digital - Radiation protection transmission over long distances - Closed-cycle life support - Voice/video communications systems - Spaceborne tracking and data - Improved EVA equipment relay - Autonomous system and - Equipment monitoring technology robotic augmentations for - Ground data handling, storage, humans distribution, and analysis - Human factors research Advanced sensor technology q Autonomous systems and robotics q - Large aperture optical and quasi- - Lightweight, limber optical systems manipulators - Detection devices and systems - Advanced sensing and control - Cryogenic systems techniques - In-situ analysis and sample return - Teleoperators - Artificial intelligence and Supporting technologies q advanced information processing systems - Radiation insensitive computational systems Space power supplies q - High-precision attitude sensors and axis transfer systems - 100 Kw nuclear power source LEADERSHIP AND AMERICA'S FUTURE IN SPACE file:///C|/SSB_old_web/nasatechappendd.htm (4 of 16) [6/18/2004 11:41:02 AM]

OCR for page 88
Improving NASA's Technology for Space Science (Appendix D) After the loss of Challenger, and the Rogers Commission report describing its causes, and with the Paine Commission report in hand, NASA management asked Dr. Sally Ride to provide NASA's response and a perspective for the future. This led to the report, Leadership and America's Future in Space, that has largely formed the manner in which NASA's missions for the future are categorized. The report defines four bold initiatives: Mission to Planet Earth (Table D-5), Exploration of the Solar System (Table D-6), Outpost on the Moon (Table D-7), and Humans to Mars (Table D-8). Table D-5 Ride Report Statement of the Technology Requirements for the Mission to Planet Earth This initiative requires advances in technology to enhance observations, to handle and deliver the enormous quantities of data, and to ensure a long operating life. Sophisticated sensors and information systems must be designed and developed, and advances must be made in automation and robotics (whether platform servicing is performed by astronauts or robotic systems). To achieve its full scope, this initiative requires the operational support of Earth-to-orbit and space transportation systems to accommodate the launching of polar and geostationary platforms. Table D-6 Ride Report Statement of the Technology Requirements for the Exploration of the Solar System As it is defined, this initiative places a premium on advanced technology and enhanced launch capabilities to maximize the scientific return. It requires aerobraking technology for aerocapture and aeromaneuvering at Mars, and a high level of sophistication in automation, robotics, and sampling techniques. Advanced sampling methods are necessary to ensure that geologically and chemically varied and interesting samples are collected for analysis. The Solar System Exploration initiative significantly benefits from improved launch capability in terms of the science returned from both the Mars and the Cassini missions. The Space Shuttle is not required for any of the missions in the initiative. The file:///C|/SSB_old_web/nasatechappendd.htm (5 of 16) [6/18/2004 11:41:02 AM]

OCR for page 88
Improving NASA's Technology for Space Science (Appendix D) Space Station would not be needed until 1999, when an isolation module may be used to receive the Martian samples. Table D-7 Ride Report Statement of the Technology Requirements for the Outpost on the Moon This initiative envisions frequent trips to the Moon after the year 2000--trips that would require a significant investment in technology and in transportation and orbital facilities in the early 1990s. The critical technologies for this initiative are those which would make human presence on the Moon meaningful and productive. They include life- support system technologies to create a habitable outpost; automation and expert systems and surface power technologies to make the outpost functional and its inhabitants productive; and lunar mining and processing technologies to enable the prospecting for lunar resources. The transportation system must be capable of regularly transporting the elements of the lunar outpost, the fuel for the voyage, and the lunar crew to low-Earth orbit. The Space Station is an essential part of this initiative. As the lunar outpost evolves, the Space Station would become its operational hub in low-Earth orbit. Supplies, equipment, and propellants would be marshalled at the Station for transit to the Moon. It is, therefore, required that the Space Station evolve to include spaceport facilities. Table D-8 Ride Report Statement of the Technology Requirements for Humans to Mars A significant long-term commitment to developing several critical technologies and to establishing the substantial transportation capabilities and orbital facilities is essential to the success of the Mars initiative. The Mars expeditions require the development of a number of technologies, including aerobraking (which significantly reduces the amount of mass which must be lifted to low-Earth orbit), efficient interplanetary propulsion, automation and robotics, storage and transfer of cryogenics in space, fault- tolerant systems, and advanced medical technology. ...It is clear that a robust, efficient transportation system, including a heavy-lift launch vehicle, is required. file:///C|/SSB_old_web/nasatechappendd.htm (6 of 16) [6/18/2004 11:41:02 AM]

OCR for page 88
Improving NASA's Technology for Space Science (Appendix D) SSB: SPACE SCIENCE IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY In 1988, the Space Science Board (which became the Space Studies Board in 1989) of the National Research Council delivered a seven-volume report, Space Science in the Twenty-First Century: Imperatives for the Decades 1995-2001. This report was the result of a four-year study involving over one hundred scientists. A summary of the findings of this study, and the technology needs associated with the recommended courses of action follows. Overview The Overview volume of the study includes a section on "Preconditions and infrastructure" that includes the following technology recommendations: Advanced programs for detector technology should be established and q nurtured. Computer facilities in the space program must be maintained at state-of- q the-art level, with regard to both hardware and software. There is a need for a sturdy, redundant system of acquiring access to q space. Solar and Space Physics The scientific objectives of solar and space physics will require missions to make in situ plasma measurements from near the surface of the Sun to the interstellar medium, remote sensing instruments for imaging, and active experiments for probing regions of the atmosphere and magnetosphere. The missions identified include: Solar Probe (perihelion distance 4 solar radii). q Solar Polar Orbiter (circular solar orbit at 1 AU perpendicular to the q ecliptic plane). Heliosynchronous Orbiter (25-day orbit at 30 solar radii). q Interstellar Probe (to reach 100 AU in 5-10 yrs; velocity of 50-100 q km/sec). High resolution solar telescopes (0.1 to 0.01 arcsec from UV to X-rays). q Magnetospheric imaging instruments (from platforms on the moon, L4, q L5, or L1). Active plasma physics experiments (interactions of plasmas with beams, q waves, dust, and gas). Global Current Mission (approx. 300 probes to measure the electric and q magnetic fields and electric currents). file:///C|/SSB_old_web/nasatechappendd.htm (7 of 16) [6/18/2004 11:41:02 AM]

OCR for page 88
Improving NASA's Technology for Space Science (Appendix D) Orbiters for Mars, Mercury, and Jupiter (aeronomy and magnetosphere q studies). The technology development needed to accomplish these programs includes: Low-thrust propulsion systems for Solar Probe, Solar Polar Orbiter, q Heliosynchronous Orbiter. Perihelion thruster for Interstellar Probe. q Thermal protection for Solar Probe, Interstellar Probe, Mercury Orbiter. q High-reflectivity multilayer coatings UV and X-ray mirrors for high- q resolution telescopes. Radiation resistant electronic components for Jupiter Orbiter. q Ultra-low-cost spacecraft for the Global Current Mission. q Lagrangtan platforms for magnetospheric imaging. q Dust protection techniques for Jupiter Orbiter. q Techniques and systems for active experiments including radar/lidar, dust q and gas injectors, tethered satellites, high-power wave and beam injectors. Fundamental Physics and Chemistry q Improved disturbance compensation systems for enhanced performance in a laser gravitational radiation observatory including both a reduction in disturbance level below l0-10/T2g/ Hz-spectral amplitude and extension of this performance for periods longer than 104s. q Frequency-stabilized single radial and longitudinal mode lasers of moderate power (100- to 1000-mW) for use in gravitational wave observations and optical interferometry. q The ability to transfer liquid helium in space in order to replenish dewars for low temperature experiments. q A spaceworthy hydrogen maser with a long-term stability of better than 10-15 for relativity experiments. The development of trapped ion clocks with stability of 10-17 to 10-18. Astronomy and Astrophysics A major new direction for astronomy will be the use of interferometers in space. The goal is to achieve microarcsecond resolution over a broad wavelength range (radio to ultraviolet). Technical needs include: Structural technology - the construction, measurement, and control of q large precision structures; the precision of control of pointing and momentum exchange; vibration minimization and decoupling; metrology file:///C|/SSB_old_web/nasatechappendd.htm (8 of 16) [6/18/2004 11:41:02 AM]

OCR for page 88
Improving NASA's Technology for Space Science (Appendix D) for high-precision monitoring of structures. Optical technology - active systems, sensors, fiber optics, and image q reconstruction. Station keeping technology - precision position and attitude control, quiet q thrusters, orbital analysis, contamination control. Life Sciences The life sciences report is sub-divided into five sections: exobiology, global biology, space biology, space medicine, and CELSS. Exobiology Microchemical techniques for the identification of materials in individual q microfossils. Highly sensitive mass spectrometric techniques for the identification of q compounds and isotopes. RNA synthesizers, similar to those already available for the synthesis of q DNA. Laboratory simulators for use in studying the course of chemical q evolution. Collectors for cosmic dust particles. q Rover technology. q Technologies for the collection and handling of extraterrestrial samples. q Telescopes (such as HST, SIRTF, and LDR) for the study astronomical q objects for information about the origin of life. Global Biology Spectrometers in the visible and near-it with high spectral and spatial q resolution. Color imagers with high spatial resolution. q Laser fluorescence sensors for use in aircraft and spacecraft. q Synthetic aperture radar for spacecraft studies of surface water and plant q structure. Polarization photometers. q Space Biology The requirements for this subject concern instrumentation for the Space q Station, including: plant growth chambers, animal holding facilities, sensimotor experiments, centrifuge, an area of very low gravity (10-6g) for the growth of crystals of proteins and nucleic acids. Space Medicine file:///C|/SSB_old_web/nasatechappendd.htm (9 of 16) [6/18/2004 11:41:02 AM]

OCR for page 88
Improving NASA's Technology for Space Science (Appendix D) Noninvasive imaging techniques (e.g., echocardiographs, ultrasound q imagers, CAT scanners, NMR techniques). Physical monitoring and microchemical analysis techniques. q Instruments for studies of immunochemistry and antibodies (e.g., laser q cytofluorograph). CELSS Plant growth chamber. q Planetary Science Low-thrust propulsion for serious study of comets, asteroids, and the q outer solar system. Enhanced power sources for experiments. q Cheaper landing technology so that arrays of instruments can be q deployed on many bodies - including soft-landing technology, penetrators, rovers. Development of robotic or artificial intelligence technology so that q spacecraft can make independent decisions. Radiation-hardened and high-temperature electronics for missions to q Jupiter and Venus, respectively. On-orbit staging, assembly, and fueling for more ambitious missions, such q as Mars sample return. Other There are a number of other technology issues that have been raised that are not explicit in the "Twenty-First Century" report. These include: The need for adequate launch capability to send missions into deep q space without enduring very long trip times. Aerobraking technology. q New sensor technology for Earth science missions. q NASA CENTER SCIENCE ASSESSMENT REPORT In 1986, NASA created a team to assess the state-of-the-science activities in its centers. The team's findings were published in 1988 and are given below. file:///C|/SSB_old_web/nasatechappendd.htm (10 of 16) [6/18/2004 11:41:02 AM]

OCR for page 88
Improving NASA's Technology for Space Science (Appendix D) Technology-Related Recommendations of the NASA Center Science Assessment Team Interaction of Science & Technology The Team notes the importance and complexity of establishing and maintaining close interaction between science and science-related technology at NASA Centers. The Team recommends that scientists be added to the advisory committees of the Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology (OAST), and that technologists be added to the advisory committees of the Office of Space Science and Applications (OSSA). Similar recommendations are offered to the National Research Council's Space Science Board (SSB) and Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB). The Team also recommends the establishment of a NASA-wide Council on Science and Technology to exchange information on activities, needs, and interests in science-related advanced technology on a regular basis. Technology Planning & Development Technology planning for the long-term, for science missions and applications which are not yet approved programs and whose technical feasibility may not yet have been established, often requires estimates of user needs a decade or more before those programs reach the detailed design phase. The OAST planning process is initiated by systems studies of potential missions to evaluate feasibility and identify enabling technologies needed to ensure system success. A set of technology "driver missions" is developed by OAST in cooperation with user program offices (OSSA for science missions) and agreed to by the program offices (again, OSSA for science). These driver missions provide the basis for joint technology plans which lead to a set of action strategies, joint OAST/OSSA planning workshops or working groups to identify needs, and identification of research programs for inclusion in the OAST program. The Team found that the process does work. An example of a widely acclaimed successful collaboration between OAST and OSSA in advanced technology is the Sensor Working Group and the resulting sensor research program. The process is based on a multi-center, multi-office (OAST/OSSA) working group (with inter-agency and academic participation) that evaluates potential sensor research programs. By and large, the funded program is derived from their recommendations. Current sensor research and development is balanced between development of detectors, laser and tunable sources, submillimeter wave devices, and other sensors. The extent to which the process can accommodate the needs of the science program is dependent on the needs identified by the OSSA program managers and on the ability of the OAST budget to respond. OAST updates file:///C|/SSB_old_web/nasatechappendd.htm (11 of 16) [6/18/2004 11:41:02 AM]

OCR for page 88
Improving NASA's Technology for Space Science (Appendix D) annually in the set of RTOPs (Research and Technology Operating Plans) which commit funds to the current year of the long range plan. The OAST research program has a limited budget and a resultant inability to fund many of the programs recommended by the centers. The situation has been aggravated by reductions in advanced development budgets in OSSA. To alleviate this problem, NASA should provide budget support and flight priority for some flight demonstrations of selected advanced space technology activities. This will also help to bridge the technology transfer gap between OAST and OSSA (see below). As future science missions become more firmly defined and nearer to approval, OSSA funds likely candidates for advanced systems with a transfer of technology from the OAST device-level research. Unfortunately, over the last decade, funding in user programs for supporting research has diminished, causing increased demands on the OAST advanced research budget which could not be met. As a result of these budget pressures, the OAST program has become focused on a more limited set of goals. Furthermore, a gap seems to have developed between OAST's carrying out work on device-level technology and the Agency's ability to incorporate such technology into flight systems. The Team notes with approval that with renewed emphasis on strategic planning, agency-wide joint planning to identify advanced technology requirements for future missions is taking place. The Civil Space Technology Initiative which started in FY 1988 has an active involvement and shared management of its elements with user program offices. The Pathfinder technology program, proposed for FY 1989, has involved point planning with user groups, particularly in the areas associated with the development of technology to support long-duration missions with humans in space. The Team found that an excellent level of interaction and transfer of technology exists between the space science activities and those of the related advanced technology development organizations at each of the individual centers. This ability to call on the engineering expertise of the center in the conduct of the science activities is one of the unique strengths of the NASA centers and an important factor in the attractiveness to scientists of the environment for doing science at NASA. Impediments to Technology Transfer within NASA While technology transfer seems to take place within a given center, far less interaction occurs at the center-to-center level. Some positive actions include the Sensors Working Group and inter-center topical workshops. The Asilomar Workshops (1982, 1985, and September 1987) on the Large Deployable Reflector (LDR) brought together science and technology staff members to identify the enabling and enhancing technologies for the LDR mission and initiate plans for pursuing these technologies. Personal contacts also play a significant role at this level. file:///C|/SSB_old_web/nasatechappendd.htm (12 of 16) [6/18/2004 11:41:02 AM]

OCR for page 88
Improving NASA's Technology for Space Science (Appendix D) The Team noted that several potential impediments to effective technology transfer and a smooth flow of technology from development to use exist at the NASA Headquarters level. OAST concentrates on selected enabling and enhancing technologies for missions a decade or more in the future, while OSSA has nearer-term instrument and system needs. This difference in emphasis often results in a funding gap in the development of flight-qualified, state-of-the-art instruments, with neither office claiming responsibility for flight demonstrations of prototype hardware. A second possible shortcoming is that each office uses completely independent advisory groups. Thus, a technology program responsive to OAST's advisory structure may either not include, or include at a low priority, technologies that are needed to support the future science program. The Team encourages OSSA and OAST to coordinate programs and development of advanced technology with mutual reviews. REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE FUTURE OF THE U.S. SPACE PROGRAM The Advisory Committee on the Future of the U.S. Space Program, chaired by Norman Augustine, expressed concerns regarding the state of NASA's technology base and recommended a two- to three-times increase in the space technology budget. Table D-9 gives an excerpt of the report's findings. AMERICA AT THE THRESHOLD In 1990, the President requested Lt. Gen. Thomas Stafford (USAF, Ret.) to lead a group, "The Synthesis Group," to synthesize the inputs from as wide a sector as possible of approaches to the conduct of the Space Exploration Initiative (SEI). This group delivered its report, America at the Threshold in 1991. The report identified seven functional areas in which technology development was required to support the SEI. They are propulsion, power, extravehicular activity, life support, planetary surface systems, spacecraft, communications, control and navigation. Of these, life support systems require both enhanced scientific understanding and engineering development. Each contributes to space science and applications programs. Development on planetary surface systems likewise contributes to space science and applications programs. The remaining functional areas provide supporting technology that may also contribute to space science and applications, but in a more indirect sense. The Synthesis Group identified the development of partially closed environmental control and life support systems as a critical objective. They would employ recycled air and water. Their development is a pacing element in the SET and requires considerable antecedent scientific research. Planetary surface file:///C|/SSB_old_web/nasatechappendd.htm (13 of 16) [6/18/2004 11:41:02 AM]

OCR for page 88
Improving NASA's Technology for Space Science (Appendix D) technology is required for robotic orbiter and surface precursors, as well as for rover systems. Table D-10 lists the principal technological requirements identified by the Synthesis Group. Table D-9 Technology Findings of the Augustine Committee Technology Base Next to talented people and a culture of excellence, the most important underpinning of the civil space program is its technology base. This base comprises the effort to develop key building blocks such as engines, computers, materials, and the like that enable significant new missions to be successfully undertaken. Unfortunately, this building block effort does not always compete favorably with the missions themselves in contending for funds and skilled personnel. Often, fundamental development programs are less glamorous, less visible, have no organized constituency, and generally are comprised of a number of small- and medium-size projects. Nonetheless, the consequences of neglecting the technology base are very measurable indeed, not only impacting America's competitiveness but inducing major projects to be undertaken without a sufficient technological foundation in place. When problems are subsequently encountered, these projects must be restructured, usually accompanied by an increase in cost. The result is that major pursuits, with large work forces that cannot afford to be held in abeyance, siphon money from smaller research projects or from the technology base itself, and the whole cycle starts anew. It seems clear that our technology base, including its supporting facilities, must be revitalized and afforded priority commensurate with its importance if major new projects are to be pursued on a realistic basis in the decades ahead. Recommendation 8: That NASA, in concert with the Office of Management and Budget and appropriate Congressional committees, establish an augmented and reasonably stable share of NASA's total budget that is allocated to advanced technology development. A two- to three-fold enhancement of the current modest budget seems not unreasonable. In addition, we recommend that an agency-wide technology plan be developed with inputs from the Associate Administrators responsible for the major development programs, and that NASA utilize an expert, outside review process, managed from headquarters, to assist in the allocation of technology funds. On a related issue, the Committee is particularly concerned over the low priority that has been given to the development of the life support technologies, and to the fundamental medical aspects of long duration space file:///C|/SSB_old_web/nasatechappendd.htm (14 of 16) [6/18/2004 11:41:02 AM]

OCR for page 88
Improving NASA's Technology for Space Science (Appendix D) flight by humans. Table D-10 Technology Recommendations of the Synthesis Group Relating to Planetary Surface Systems Robotic Orbiter and Surface Precursors Advanced imaging detectors, including improved charge-coupled q device arrays and datahandling subsystems Compact multispectral imaging radar and Lidar for surface and q subsurface characteristics Compact chemical analysis instrumentation, including gamma and x- q ray spectrometers and imaging spectrometers Telerobotics and telepresence, including control architectures and q supervised telerobotics, data handling, storage and virtual reality techniques Small spacecraft with gross masses less than 500 kg, including q orbital "prospectors" and surface penetrators Autonomous systems to enhance Mars operation q Rover Systems Efficient regenerative fuel cells (1 Kw-hr/kg) with compact insulated q cryogenic storage tanks Compact, specialized life support systems for short (two- to three-day q traverses) duration, and portable radiation protection features Crew supported telerobotic surface driving systems and telerobotic q extension systems with dexterous robotic manipulators Compact deployable photovoltaic arrays (200 W/kg or better) q file:///C|/SSB_old_web/nasatechappendd.htm (15 of 16) [6/18/2004 11:41:02 AM]