9 management and schedule

ESOC will conduct the Mission Operations of the 3 elements (Planetary Orbiter (MPO),
Magnetospheric Orbiter (MMO) and Surface Element (MSE)) of the BepiColombo Mercury
Cornerstone Mission. Mission operations comprises:
Orbiter and lander operations, consisting of mission planning, orbiter and lander monitoring and
control, and all orbit and attitude determination and control.
Scientific payload operations, mainly consisting of the implementation of the observation
sequences, collection and data quality control of the science telemetry, and data disposition to the
PI teams.
ESOC will prepare a 'Ground Segment' that comprises all facilities, hardware, software and
documentation. Staff will be trained to conduct the mission as required for the chosen scenario. The
main difference between operations for the split- and single-launch scenarios concerns mostly the
cruise phase; the scientific operations in orbit around Mercury will also depend on the scenario.
Spacecraft Operations
Mission planning, spacecraft monitoring and control
The BepiColombo mission-planning concept will follow the methods of interplanetary mission
operations developed for ROSETTA, Mars Express and SMART 1. The electric propulsion cruise
operations concept will be derived from the experiences gained from SMART 1. In orbit spacecraft
operations will resemble in many aspects those of Mars Express. Operations of the surface element will
require new concepts.
Nominal spacecraft control will be 'off line'. Only one Ground Station (Perth) will be used both for
MPO and MMO. They will share the allocated station time if they are at Mercury at the same time.
MSE will be operated like a payload instrument via a relay on one of the orbiters.
The contacts between the Mission Operations Centre at ESOC and the spacecraft, will serve for
collecting science data and housekeeping telemetry, and for pre-programming the autonomous
operations functions of the spacecraft (up-link of master schedule). Anomalies will normally be
detected with a delay.
The health of the scientific instruments will be permanently monitored from the housekeeping
telemetry. Necessary control actions will be taken following the same procedures as for the
spacecraft sub-systems.
The telemetry data products received from the two orbiters and the lander will be made available
in near real time to the investigators via public networks. Commands received from the scientists
will be implemented.
Orbit and attitude determination and control
Orbit determination during all mission phases will use two-way range and coherent two-way
Doppler tracking data (one station during routine operations). Orbit determination includes the
calibration of all engines and thrusters (chemical and electric propulsion).
The thrust profile during cruise and manoeuvres near Mercury will be optimised to minimise
propellant consumption, taking into account all operational conditions.
The autonomous functions of the Attitude Control System on-board will be monitored and
calibrated (MPO and MMO).
The attitude pointing and manoeuvre profiles will be implemented as required by the payload.
Ground Segment Facilities
The ground facilities consist of:
The Ground Stations and the Communications Network (Hardware and Software),
The Mission Operations Centre (infrastructure, computer hardware),
The Flight Control System (mission control and flight dynamics software),
The spacecraft simulator,
The Data Disposition System.
The Mission Operations Centre (MOC), contains Mission and Flight control facilities except the
ground stations. It includes the interfaces for the provision of science telemetry to the users and
processing of commands from the users. The MOC is located at ESOC.
Ground stations and communications network
The 35 m ESA station at Perth (X/Ka-band) will be used for contact with the spacecraft during all
mission phases. The Perth station will be shared with other projects; 8 hours per day is required for the
two orbiters. During the first 10 days of the mission and during critical phases, the ESA 15 m station at
Kourou will be used in addition. The 15 m station at Villafranca will be available as a backup.
All ESA stations interface with the MOC at ESOC via the OPSNET communications network.
OPSNET is a closed Wide Area Network for data (tele-command, telemetry, tracking data, station
monitoring and control data) and voice.
The foreseen telemetry data rate from the spacecraft to the ground stations is 58 – 350 kb/s (average
150 kb/s) for MPO and 15 kb/s for MMO. All data will be transmitted in near real time from the
receiving ground station to the MOC and made available for access by the users.
Mission operations centre
The Mission Operations Centre (MOC) basically consists of the Main Control Room (MCR),
augmented by the Flight Dynamics Room (FDR), Dedicated Control Rooms (DCR's) and Project
Support Rooms (PSR's). During major mission events, the Launch, Early Orbit Phase (LEOP), the
Mercury approach and the capture phase, the MCR will be used for BepiColombo mission control.
During the prime science phase, when all elements of BepiColombo are in their final orbit (or
positions) and also during low activity periods in the transfer, the mission control will be conducted
from a Dedicated Control Room.
The MOC is equipped with workstations giving access to the computer systems used for operational
data processing. The MOC computer configuration for the BepiColombo mission will be derived from
existing structures. All computer systems in the MOC will be redundant with common access to data
storage facilities and peripherals. They will be connected by a Local Area Network (LAN) to allow
transfer of data at sufficient speed and to allow joint access to data files. The external connection to the
authority responsible for science data processing (PI team) and the resulting command input, uses
commercial/public networks.
The flight control system
A Flight Control System based on infrastructure developments, using a distributed hardware and
software architecture for all spacecraft monitoring and control activities, will support:
Mission Planning for the preparation of command time-lines based on inputs for experiment
Telemetry reception and analysis and distribution,
Tele-command processing,
Orbit and attitude determination and manoeuvre.
The spacecraft software simulators
The simulators will provide the same telemetry/telecommand interface with the flight control
system as during the operations of the two spacecraft and the surface element. It will simulate the
response of the spacecraft to its environment and to the telecommands.
The BepiColombo spacecraft simulators will be based on ESOC's Software Infrastructure for
Modelling Satellites (SIMSat). SIMSat provides all the general purpose features, which are common to
all simulators developed at ESOC.
Before launch, the simulators will be used to test and validate the flight control system software, to
test and validate the flight operations procedures, both in nominal and in contingency situations; and to
train the operations personnel.
After launch, the simulators will be used to test and validate modifications to the control system
software and flight operations procedures, or new procedures developed to deal with anomalies and to
train new staff.
The data disposition facility
Following acquisition by the ground station, the data are transferred to the MOC at ESOC. There,
the telemetry data are sifted to retrieve all operations-related parameters necessary for mission
monitoring. Payload science and housekeeping data, as well as auxiliary data (orbit, attitude etc.) are
staged for packing and distribution at a Data Disposition Facility (DDF). Users of science data (i.e. the
PI teams) retrieve the data from the DDF through the data networks. Payload operations monitoring
will be implemented for mission safety and the Payload Operations Schedule (POS) executed; detailed
monitoring of the payload performance will be carried out by the PI teams.
For the sake of efficiency, the science operations concept for BepiColombo will be based to the
largest extent possible, on the experience gained with the Rosetta, Mars Express and SMART-1
Science operations include:
Preparation of long-term (Science Master Plan) and short-term payload operations plans resulting
in observation/command sequences of the scientific instruments, to be implemented by flight
control system,
Preparation of guidelines for science data archiving, supported by the PI teams, to create the
BepiColombo data archive (see also Section 8.3).
Science operations will be conducted by the Science Operations Team (SOT), under the
responsibility of the ESA Project Scientist, with strong support of the PI teams. The SOT will be
located at a dedicated Scientific Operation Centre during critical phases of the mission (commissioning,
planetary flybys, orbit insertion, landing, special campaigns). Co-location with the MOC of ESOC is
recommended. For routine operations (e.g. interplanetary cruise) the SOT will interface with the MOC
from its home institution.
Data exploitation is primarily the task of the PI teams, coordinated within the Science Working
Team (SWT) by the Project Scientist, as appropriate. However, recognising the multidisciplinary
aspects of the mission, a coordinated approach to ensure full data availability to multidisciplinary
studies is essential.
A two-fold approach is proposed. First, a quickly available set of survey data will be defined and
made public on the World Wide Web, in the form of Prime (or Key) Parameters from all instruments.
Second, data from all instruments will be calibrated and prepared by all PIs according to tested formats
for distribution and use in multidisciplinary studies. Pre-launch preparation of the data acquisition,
processing and distribution are essential pre-requisites to the successful implementation of this
approach during the mission; PI teams and the SWT need to devote adequate resources to this activity.
It is proposed that these requirements be part of the Announcement of Opportunity (Section 9.1) and
that the selected PIs provide a firm undertaking, backed by agreed schedules and resources allocations,
to fulfil their responsibilities for this aspect of the mission.
Archiving will be based on the data sets prepared for the multidisciplinary studies, with the agreed
and tested formats and access software. It is too early, at this stage, to specify the appropriate data
storage media for archiving. In any case, this task is considered explicitly to be responsibility of the PI
teams, although the location of the archived data may be agreed to be a central facility such as currently
exist in several of the ESA member states.
Imaging data belong to a different category. Nevertheless, a regular supply of images will be made
public on a timely basis on the WWW. It is expected that the PI maintains a complete and up-to-date
catalogue of images on line for multidisciplinary studies. Images acquired during the MSE landing site
search and survey and during the functional MSE phase, will be specially catalogued. A complete set of
imaging data will be made available to the MSE investigators.
Archiving of the imaging data is the responsibility of the Imaging PI who, however, will ensure that
the complete data set remains accessible after the end of the mission. As for the particles and fields
data, a central facility may be identified in one of the ESA member states that would be used to store
and maintain the image data set for later exploitation.
BepiColombo data rights are based on the established ESA "Rules concerning information and
data", as defined in ESA/C(89)95. First publication rights for data obtained by a PI investigation reside
with the PI team for six months from receipt of the original science telemetry and auxiliary orbit,
attitude and spacecraft status information. After this time, data will become available to the scientific
community at large.
The PI Teams will be required to share data with the Interdisciplinary Scientists (IDS) so as to
enhance the scientific return from the mission, in accordance with procedures to be agreed by the
BepiColombo Science Working Team (see Section 9.2).
The PI Teams will provide ESA with processed and useable data for Public Relations (PR) purposes
as soon as possible after their receipt. The PI Teams will also engage to support a PR Plan that will be
provided by ESA in due time.
The PI Teams will provide records of processed data with all relevant information on calibration
and instrument properties to the ESA Archive System. The data format shall be compatible with those
defined for the ESA Archive as well as with that of the Planetary Data System (PDS).
Scientific results from the missions will be published, in a timely manner, in appropriate scientific
and technical journals. Proper acknowledgement of the services provided by ESA will be made.
BepiColombo can have a great appeal to the general public, to the students of all levels (from high
school to university), due to its exploratory nature.
During the cruise phase the BepiColombo web page will show the evolution of the spacecraft orbits
in deep space; 3-D simulations of the cruise phase and of the spacecraft operations will also be made
available. Virtual reality simulations can also be implemented in interactive mode to allow the web site
surfer to play with the spacecraft. A simplified version of the spacecraft software simulator can also be
made available to students for learning sessions.
The outreach potential is huge; a "discover a new world with us" approach can be taken in order to
offer to the wide public a space exploration experience.
During the most spectacular phases of the mission (orbital insertion, surface element landing etc.) a
live show will be organised on the web, with the possibility of real time interaction, remote debate and
questions and answers sessions.
High quality images will be accessible to the public and the press in real time; 3-D maps of the
Mercury surface will allow virtual navigation of the planet on the web. The PIs can be requested to
open science chat lines on specific issues.
The approval of BepiColombo as Cornerstone 5 of Horizons 2000 in September/October 2000 is a
prerequisite to the technology development and design definition. Based on the provisional planning at
the time of writing, this will lead to the Phase B activity in mid 2002, in case of a 2008-2009 splitlaunch scenario (Section 9.3). During this phase, investigations would be selected following the issue
of an Announcement of Opportunity (AO) in mid 2001. The AO would call for instrument proposals
for the Magnetospheric Orbiter (MO) and the Surface element (MSE), which would be launched earlier
than the Planetary Orbiter (MPO) spacecraft. An AO for the MPO spacecraft would be issued about
one year later, in agreement with the MPO procurement schedule and launch date. However, should
both launches be planned for 2009, or a single-launch scenario be selected for 2009, the AO would then
call for instruments to be flown onboard MMO, MSE and MPO simultaneously. This AO would be
released in early to mid 2002. A period of 6 months would be allocated for the responses and the
evaluation process, thus leading to a payload selection in late 2001, and/or late 2002, depending on the
selected launch scenario. An AO for Interdisciplinary Scientists (IDSs) will also be planned.
Selection of the BepiColombo payload and IDSs will take place via the normal procedure, which
includes a scientific peer evaluation by the ESA scientific advisory bodies, a technical evaluation by
ESA Executive and the involved industries, and approval by the Science Programme Committee (SPC).
In the course of the proposals evaluation, a confidential briefing will be organised for the SPC
delegations in order to discuss issues related to payload funding.
A Science Management Plan will be submitted for approval to SPC.
A BepiColombo Science Working Team (SWT), comprising the Principal Investigators (PIs), and
the Interdisciplinary Scientists (IDSs) and chaired by the ESA Project Scientist, will be established to
support the project. The prime task of the SWT is to maximise the scientific return of the mission,
within the established resource boundaries.
For the sake of efficiency, the multidisciplinary aspect of this mission requires that different tasks
be distributed, from the start of the project, between several scientific subgroups of the SWT
coordinated by a member of the Project Scientist Team with expertise in the relevant fields. To
improve flexibility, these subgroups will often meet independently, and focus their activities on their
own topics of research (e.g. planetary, magnetospheric, surface and fundamental sciences). Individual
participations to the activities of several subgroups is of course possible and even recommended (e.g.
Interdisciplinary Scientists). The coordination between these subgroups will be insured through the
Project Scientist Team and during common or plenary SWT meetings.
It is envisaged that, following the nomination of the ESA Project Scientist, a small Project Scientist
Team consisting of 3-4 scientists, will be formed. Each team member will have specific tasks (e.g.
deputy project scientist for MPO, MMO etc.). The Project Scientist Team will also be responsible for
preparing the Science Operations (see Section 8.2).
The BepiColombo development philosophy, currently foreseen, but which may change depending
on the procurement approach eventually applied, is based on a Structural and Thermal Model (STM)
and an Electrical Qualification Model (EQM) to be built, in order to enable the development and
qualification of the structure, thermal and electrical subsystems. The ProtoFlight Model (PFM) of the
spacecraft will be the only model of flight standard, and will be fully built with Hi-Rel parts. For
standard off-the-shelf equipment, spare units will be made available. For units specially developed for
BepiColombo, a repair kit will be made available containing Hi-Rel parts, PCBs, mechanical parts etc.,
so that it will be possible to repair a flight unit at short notice on the launch pad. For some specific nonelectrical equipment, re-use of the EQM models as spares will be possible.
The development philosophy for the spacecraft will follow the procedures being applied currently
to the Mars Express mission, in which the payload interfaces are under the management of the
industrial contractor, who will agree schedules and deliverable items with each PI. It is expected that
each instrument provider will have to deliver an STM, an EQM and a PFM.
Whilst at the time of writing the final mission scenario and its implementaion are not yet defined,
provisional schedules are presented hereby for the two baseline scenarios identified in Section 6.6.3.
Split launch option
In case of a Soyuz-Fregat split launch in 2008-2009 (Figure 9.3-1), with both launches using the
lunar swing-by option, a Phase B for the first elements (MMO, MSE) will start in mid 2002, followed
by a Phase C/D which will start in mid 2003 and will last 45 months. A six-month schedule margin is
included between the end of Phase C/D and the start of the launch campaign. The launch campaign will
run for 3 months prior to the opening of each launch window. After a supplement to the Definition
Phase, to bring in the latest results of the technology development, a Phase B for the third element
(MPO) will start in late 2003, followed by a Phase C/D which will also last 45 months (yielding a 9month margin with respect to the second launch campaign) leading to the second launch in 2009.
Separate Invitations-to-Tender (ITTs) are assumed in this scenario for the two launches. However,
there are possible savings in exploiting synergies between common/similar elements in the two
launches (in terms of common procurement and assembly, e.g. on the two SEPMs and CPMs, and on
the avionics subsystems of both orbiters). The actual contents of each ITT shall therefore take into
account this possibility.
The 2008 launch needs an early start of the Definition Phase and of the AO, to be completed by the
end of 2001. This introduces some degree of risk, considering that technology development activities
will not start fully until the end of 2000, and may take up to 3 years, therefore overlapping the whole
Phase B of the MMO and MSE. Driving the 3-year technology development are the solar array
technology, the radiation-hardened miniaturised electronics, the X/Ka-band antenna reflector and RF
Single launch option
In the case of a single Ariane 5 launch in 2009 (Figure 9.3-2), the durations are similar, with a
single Phase C/D extended to 4 years to allow for the added complexity and workload of all mission
elements being developed in parallel. In this scenario, the latest start date for the Definition Phase
would be mid 2002 (no schedule margin assumed), which would allow practically all technology
development work to be completed before start of Phase B in late 2003.
Management and Schedule
Technology Development
Definition Phase
Payload AO (MMO, MSE)
EQM Manufacturing
EQM Testing
STM Manufacturing
STM Testing
PFM Avionics Manufacturing
PFM Structure Manufacturing
PFM Testing (SEPM, MMO, MSE)
PFM Testing (System)
Launch Campaign
Supplement to Definition Phase
Payload AO (MPO)
EQM Manufacturing
EQM Testing
STM Manufacturing
STM Testing
PFM Avionics Manufacturing
PFM Structure Manufacturing
PFM Testing (SEPM, MPO)
PFM Testing (System)
Launch Campaign
MPO: Mercury Planetary Orbiter, MMO: Mercury Magnetospheric Orbiter, MSE: Mercury Surface Element, SEPM: Solar Electric Propulsion
Launch dates: January 2008, August 2009
Figure 9.3-1: Provisional Schedule (2008-2009 split-launch option).
Technology Development
Definition Phase
Payload AO (MPO, MMO, MSE)
EQM Manufacturing
EQM Testing
STM Manufacturing
STM Testing
PFM Avionics Manufacturing
PFM Structure Manufacturing
PFM Testing (System)
Launch Campaign
MMO: Mercury Magnetospheric Orbiter, MSE: Mercury Surface Element, MPO: Mercury Planetary Orbiter, SEPM: Solar Electric Propulsion
Launch date: January 2009
Figure 9.3-2: Provisional Schedule (2009 single-launch option).
Other space agencies consider new missions to Mercury. NASA has recently selected
MESSENGER in the framework of its Discovery programme. This renewed worldwide interest
testifies to the importance of a concerted approach to the exploration of the innermost terrestrial planet.
Representatives of the MESSENTER and BepiColombo teams have met on 10 September 1999 and
have stated the similarities of their objectives. They recognized that the scientific breadth is
significantly greater, and the measurement requirements more demanding, for the larger and more
ambitious ESA Cornerstone mission. These enhancements are enabled by a larger launch vehicle,
larger budget, and fewer constraints on new technology insertion in the ESA cornerstone program
compared with those of the NASA Discovery Program.
There was general agreement among all participants that:
1. Each mission stands on its own as fully justified on a scientific basis.
2. At the same time, potential synergies between the two missions are significant and mutually
beneficial. Cooperation between the two mission teams would result in an overall return of
Mercury science that greatly exceeds the sum of the scientific returns from each mission without
such communication and cooperation.
3. Several specific areas of possible coordination were identified, including:
Simultaneous magnetospheric measurements. By using different orbits to separate spatial
from temporal effects, the internal planetary magnetic field can be more cleanly deconvolved
from fields produced by (external) magnetospheric current systems than with a single
spacecraft. Such measurements will also increase the scientific output of Mercury
magnetospheric studies and understanding of the associated physical processes and
dynamics. Simultaneous measurements will be possible if the time phasing of the two
missions is such that both are in operation in their respective Mercury orbits during an
overlapping time period.
Management and Schedule
(b) Timely identification of a landing site for the Cornerstone landing package. The global
surveys of Mercury made by MESSENGER over a variety of wavelengths prior to the
arrival of the ESA spacecraft will enable a landing site to be selected that minimizes landing
risk while maximizing the scientific return form such a site, including ground truth
comparisons with remote-sensing data from both missions.
Complementary measurements of surface features from phase angles that differ between the
two missions as a result of differing orbital geometries.
(d) Using MESSENGER as a "precursor" to the Mercury Cornerstone mission for imaging and
remote sensing measurements, enabling targeted observations at higher resolution than
global observations.
Cooperative use of ground stations (on a no exchange of funds basis) to increase the
scientific return from the MESSENGER mission.
Extension of the temporal baseline for fundamental physics measurements by using ranging
and other tracking data from both spacecraft.
The participants recommended that there be regular joint meetings to:
1. Maintain open communication for the purpose of optimizing the scientific return of both missions
and their implementation, and
2. Continue to identify and refine areas of possible coordination.
The participants further recommend that NASA and ESA establish a framework within which these
regular meetings will occur.
Discussions with Japanese scientists and ISAS managers have also taken place in the framework of
the yearly meeting of the Inter Agency Consultative Group (IACG) about a possible involvement of
Japan in BepiColombo. A strong interest in the exploration of Mercury in Japan is evidenced by the
fact that a mission to Mercury is considered in the ISAS mid-term planning. After BepiColombo has
been selected as CS5, intense negotiations will be initiated in order to include a possible major
contribution of ISAS in our mission.
Alenia, Mercury Cornerstone system and technology study, Executive Summary, ESA contract
12559/97/NL/MS, 1999.
Ashby N., Bender P.L., Wahr J.W., Gravitational physics tests from ranging to a small Mercury
relativity satellite, unpublished report, Department of Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder,
Ball A.J., Solomon J.C. and Zarnecki J.C., A Compton backscatter densitometer for the RoLand comet
lander-design concept and Monte Carlo simulations, Planet. Space Sci., 44(3), 283-293, 1996.
Ball A.J., Measuring physical properties at the surface of a comet nucleus, Ph.D. thesis, University of
Kent, 1997.
Balogh A. (Coordinator), Mercury Orbiter, a mission proposal to ESA to be considered as a candidate
for the M3 mission, 1993.
Bassner H., Mercury electric propulsion subsystem, Dornier Technical Note MER-DSS-TN-003, Issue
2, April 1999.
Beckmann K., Eight years of in-orbit experience with the Helios solar probe thermal control
subsystem, in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Environmental and Thermal Systems
for Space Vehicles, Toulouse, ESA SP-200, 1983.
Bender P.L., Ashby N., Vincent M.A. and Wahr J.M., Conceptual design for a Mercury relativity
satellite, Adv. Space Res., 9, 113, 1989.
Bender P.L., Ashby N., Ciufolini I. and Iess L., Mercury relativity orbiter mission, presented at the
First ESA Conference on Fundamental Physics and Enabling Technologies, El Escorial, Spain,
Bertotti B., Comoretto G. and Iess L.,Doppler tracking of interplanetary spacecraft with multifrequency
link, Astron. Astrophys., 269, 608, 1993.
Bertrand, R., van Winnendael M. and Rieder R., Nanokhod microrover for scientific missions to Mars,
IAF-99-Q.3.07, 50th International Astronautical Congress, 4-8 Oct 1999, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, 1999.
Briccarello M., Mercury Magnetospheric Orbiter thermal analysis report, Alenia Technical Note SDTN-AI-0664, 2000.
Brückner J. and Masarik J., Planetary gamma-ray spectroscopy of the surface of Mercury, Planet.
Space Sci., 45, 39-48, 1997.
Burnage S., Mercury Lander final report, Hunting Engineering Ltd Technical Note, 2000.
Campesato R. and Flores C., Mercury orbiter study consultancy on GaAs solar cells, ENEL Test
Report SRI-PDM-LPI-98-3, 1998.
Clark P. E., Trombka J. I., Remote X-ray fluorescence experiments for future mission to Mercury.
Planetary Space Sci., 45(1), 57-65, 1997
Colombo G, Rotational period of the planet Mercury, Nature, 208, 575, 1965.
Colombo G., Cassini's second and third laws, Astron. J., 71, 891, 1966.
Colombo G. and Shapiro I.I., The rotation of the planet Mercury, 145, 296, 1966.
Connerney J.E.P. and Ness N.F., Mercury's magnetic field and interior, in Mercury, F. Vilas, C.R.
Chapman and M.S. Matthews (Eds.), The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 494, 1988.
Conzelmann V. and Spohn T., New thermal evolution models suggesting a hot, partially molten
Mercurian interior. B. Am. Astr. Soc., 31, 1102, 1999.
Coste P., Mobile penetrometer ground tests. Proc. 5th ESA Workshop on Advanced Space
Technologies for Robotics and Automation (ASTRA 98), ESTEC WPP-154, ESTEC, Noordwijk,
The Netherlands, 1-3 December, 1998.
Damour T. and Nordtvedt K., General Relativity as a cosmological attractor of scalar tensor theories,
Phys. Rev. Lett., 70, 2217, 1993a.
Damour T. and Nordtvedt K., Tensor-scalar cosmological models and their relaxation toward general
relativity, Phys. Rev., D48, 3436, 1993b.
Dickey J.O., Bender P.L., Faller J.E., Newhall XX, Ricklefs R.L., Ries J.G., Shelus P.J., Weillet C.,
Whipple A.L., Wiant J.R., Williams J.G. and Yoder C.F., Lunar laser ranging: a continuing legacy
of the Apollo program., Science, 265, 482-490, 1994.
Divós F., Szegedi S. and Raics P., Local densitometry of wood by gamma back-scattering, Holz als
Roh- und Werkstoff, 54(4), 279-281, 1996.
Eichelberger H. U., Kömle N. I. and Kargl G., Breadboard design and test results for the MUPUS
ANC-M experiment. ÖAW-IWF 100 (RO-MUP-IWF-ANC-PR-003), 1998.
ESA, Presentation of assessment study results, European Space Agency, SPC(94)9, 1994.
ESA, Horizons 2000 implementation, European Space Agency, SPC(96)12, 1996.
ESA, Mercury Cornerstone, Interim report, ESA/PF/1462.97/GR, 1997.
ESA, Colombo, the ESA Mercury cornerstone, Executive summary, SCI(99)2, 1999.
ESA, Mercury Surface Element assessment study report, ESTEC CDF-05, 2000.
ESTEC Mercury Orbiter assessment study, ESA SCI(94)3, May, 1994
Evans, H. D. R., Mercury orbiter radiation environment, ESTEC/TOS-EMA/he/99-143, Issue 1
Revision 0 - 15/11/99, 1999.
Fuligni F. and Iafolla V., Measurement of small forces in the physics of gravitation and geophysics, Il
Nuovo Cimento, 20C(5), 619-628, 1997.
Fuligni F., Iafolla V., Milyukov V. and Nozzoli S., Experimental gravitation and geophysics, Il Nuovo
Cimento, 20C(5), 637-642, 1997.
Goettel K. A., Present bounds on the bulk composition of Mercury: implications for planetary
formation processes, in Mercury, F. Villas, C. R. Chapman and M. S. Matthews (Eds.), University
of Arizona Press, Tucson, 692-708, 1988.
Grard R., Laakso H. and Pulkkinen T.I., The role of photoemission in the coupling of the Mercury
surface and ionosphere, Planet. Space Sci., 47, 1459-1463, 1999.
Grasset O. and Parmentier E. M., Thermal convection in a volumetrically heated, infinite Prandtl
number fluid with strongly temperature-dependent viscosity: Implications for planetary thermal
evolution, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 18,171-18,181, 1998.
Gregorczyk W., Jancewicz B. and Marczewski W., Titanium thin film thermometric sensors on
multilayered Kapton foil substrate for the experiment MUPUS of the ESA cometary mission
Rosetta. XXIII IMAPS Poland Conference, Kolobrzeg, 21-23 Sept., 1999.
Gromov V.V., Misckevich A. V., Yudkin E. N., Kochan H., Coste P. and Re E., The mobile
penetrometer, a "mole" for sub-surface soil investigation, in: Proc. 7th European Space Mechanisms
& Tribology Symposium, ESTEC, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, ESA, SP-410, 151-156, 1-3
October, 1997.
Harmon J. K., Mercury radar studies and lunar comparisons, Adv. Space Res., 19, 1487-1496, 1997.
Hechler M., Mercury orbiter mission analysis: on mission opportunities with chemical and solar
electric propulsion, MAS Working paper #389, 1996.
Iafolla V., Lorenzini E.C., Milyukov V. and Nozzoli S., Gizero: new facility for gravitational
experiments in free fall, Gravitation & Cosmology, 3(2-10), 151-160, 1997.
Iafolla V., Nozzoli S., Lorenzini E.C. and Milyukov V., Methodology and instrumentation for testing
the weak equivalence principle in stratospheric free fall, Review of Scientific Instruments, 69(12),
4146-4151, 1998.
Iafolla V., Nozzoli S. and Mandiello A., High sensitive accelerometer for fundamental physics in
space, 2nd Joint Meeting of the International Gravity Commission and the International Geoid
Commission, Trieste, 7-12 Sept., 1998.
Iess L., Giampieri G., Anderson J.D. and Bertotti B., Doppler measurement of the solar gravitational
deflection, Class. Quantum Grav., 16, 1487, 1999.
Ip W.-H., The sodium exosphere and magnetosphere of Mercury, Geophys. Res. Lett., 13(5), 423–426,
Kahl G., Mercury operations and autonomy, Dornier Technical Note MER-DSS-TN-005, Issue 2,
Kargl G., Macher W., Kömle N. I., Thiel M., Rohe C. and Ball A.J., Accelerometry measurements
using the Rosetta lander's anchoring harpoon: experimental set-up, data reduction and signal
analysis, submitted to Planet. Space Sci., 2000.
Keil, W., Mercury radiation impact and effect minimisation approach, Dornier MER-DSS-TN-001,
Issue 1 – 7/6/99, 1999.
Killen R.M. and Ip W.-H., The surface-bounded atmospheres of Mercury and the Moon, Rev.
Geophys., 37(3), 361-406, 1999.
Koenen M., Brückner J., Körfer M., Taylor I. and Wänke H., Radiation damage in large-volume N- and
P-type high-purity Germanium detectors irradiated by 1.5 GeV protons, IEEE Transactions on
Nuclear Science, 42(4), 653-658, 1995.
Kömle N.I., Ball A.J., Kargl G., Stöcker J., Thiel M., Jolly H.S., Dziruni M. and Zarnecki J.C., Using
the anchoring device of a comet lander to determine surface mechanical properties, Planet. Space
Sci., 45(12), 1515-1538, 1997.
Kömle N.I., Ball A.J., Kargl G., Keller T., Macher W., Thiel M., Stöcker J. and Rohe C., Impact
penetrometry on a comet nucleus- interpretation of laboratory data using penetration models,
submitted to Planet. Space Sci., 2000.
Langevin Y., Chemical and solar electric propulsion options for a Mercury cornerstone mission, IAF99-A.2.04, 50th Congress of the International Astronautical Federation, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, 4-8 Oct., 1999.
La Roche G., Mercury solar array, Dornier Technical Note MER-DSS-TN-004, Issue 2, 1999.
Martella P., Mercury cornerstone GNC/AOCS, Alenia Technical Note SD-TN-AI-0601, Issue 2, 1999.
McCord T. B. and Clark R.N., The Mercury soil: presence of Fe 2+, J. Geophys. Res., 84, 7664-7668,
Melosh H.J. and McKinnon W. B., The tectonics of Mercury, in Mercury: F. Vilas, C. R. Chapman and
M. S. Matthews (Eds.), Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson, 374-400, 1988.
Micro-RoSA, Micro-rover for scientific applications, ESA Contract No. 12052/96/NL/JG(SC).
Mizutani H., Lunar interior exploration by Japanese lunar penetrator mission, LUNAR-A., J. Phys.
Earth, 43(5), 657-670, 1995.
Mounzer Z., Jehn R., Khan M., Landgraf M., Pellon J.-L., Yanez A. and Vasile M., Mercury
cornerstone mission analysis: orbit evolution, communication and lander options, ESOC MAS
Working Paper #425, Mar., 2000.
Nadalini, R., Experimental analysis of the "mole" penetrometer and definition of related subsystems,
Diploma Thesis Politecnico di Milano and DLR, 1999.
Ness N.F., Behannon K.W., Lepping R.P. and Whang Y.C., Observations of Mercury’s magnetic field,
Icarus, 28, 479-488, 1976.
Ogilvie K.W., Scudder J.D., Vasyliunas V.M., Hartle R.E., and Siscoe G.L., Observation at the Planet
Mercury by the Plasma Electron Experiment: Mariner 10, J. Geophys. Res., 82(13), 1807-1824,
Peale S. J., Rotational dynamics of Mercury and the state of its core, in Mercury, F. Vilas, C.R.
Chapman and M.S. Matthews (Eds.), Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson, 461-493,1988.
Racca G., Mercury orbiter mission with solar electric propulsion, ESA/PF/1440.97/GR, 1997.
Rapetti D., Mercury orbiter thermal mathematical model description and analysis report, Alenia
Technical Note SD-TN-AI-0600, Issue 2, 1999.
Re E., Ylikorpi T., Kochan H. and Gromov V.V., SSA/DT - Small sample acquisition system /
distribution tool, Final Report, ESTEC Contract No. 11485/95/NL/PP(SC), 1998.
Reasenberg R.D. et al., Viking relativity experiment: verification of signal retardation by solar gravity,
Astrophys. J. Lett., 234, L219, 1979.
Rieder R., Economou T., Wänke H., Turkevich A., Crisp J., Brückner J., Dreibus G. and McSween Jr.
H. Y., The chemical composition of martian soil and rocks returned by the mobile alpha proton Xray spectrometer: preliminary results from the X-ray mode, Science, 278, 1771-1774, 1997.
Sanso F., Albertella A., Bianco G., Della Torre A., Fermi M., Iafolla V., Nozzoli S., Lenti A.,
Migliaccio F., Milani A. and Rossi A., Sage: an Italian project of satellite accelerometry, towards an
Integrated Global Geodetic Observing System (IGGOS) Munich, Germany, 5-9 Oct., 1998.
Santovincenzo A., -ray spectrometer detector cooling, ESTEC Internal Note TOS-MCT/27/27/AS,
Santovincenzo A., Mercury thermal model and landing site selection, ESTEC/TOS-MCT/2811/AS,
ESTEC Internal Technical Note, 2000.
Schubert G., Ross M.N., Stevenson D.J. and Spohn T., Mercury's thermal history and the generation of
its magnetic field, in Mercury, F. Vilas, C.R. Chapman and M.S. Matthews (Eds.), Univ. of Arizona
Press, Tucson, 429-460, 1988.
Spohn T., Mantle differentiation and thermal evolution of Mars, Mercury, and Venus, Icarus, 90, 222236, 1991.
Spohn T., Konrad W., Breuer D., Ziethe R., The longevity of lunar volcanism: implications of thermal
evolution calculations with 2D and 3D mantle convection models, Icarus, in press, 2000.
Sprague A. L., Kozlowski R.W.H., Witteborn F. C., Cruikshank D. P. and Wooden D. H., Mercury:
evidence for anorthosite and basalt from mid-infrared (7.3 -13.5 m) spectroscopy, Icarus, 109, 156167, 1994.
Sprague A. L., Nash D. B., Witteborn F. C. and Cruikshank D. P., Mercury's feldspar connection midIR measurements suggest plagioclase, Adv. Space Res., 19, 1507-1510, 1997.
Stevenson D. J., Mercury’s magnetic field: A thermoelectric dynamo?, Earth Planet. Sci Lett., 82, 114120, 1987
Stevenson D.J., Spohn T. and Schubert G., Magnetism and thermal evolution of the terrestrial planets,
Icarus, 54, 466-489, 1983.
Surkov Yu.A., Exploration of terrestrial planets from spacecraft. 2 nd ed., Wiley-Praxis, Chichester,
Vilas, F., Mercury: absence of crystalline Fe2+ in the regolith, Icarus, 64, 133-138, 1985.
Vilas F., Surface composition of Mercury from reflectance spectrometry, in Mercury, F. Vilas, C. R.
Chapman and M. S. Matthews (Eds.), Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson, 59-76, 1988.
Vilas F., Chapman C.R. and Matthews M.S. (Eds.), Mercury, The University of Arizona Press, Tucson,
Vincent M.A. and Bender P.L., Orbit determination and gravitational field accuracy for a Mercury
transponder satellite, J. Geophys. Res., 95, 21357, 1990.
Wasson J. T., The building stones of the planets, in Mercury, F. Vilas, C. R. Chapman and M. S.
Matthews (Eds.), Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson, 622-650, 1988.
Williams D.J., Roelof E.C. and Mitchell D.G., Global magnetospheric imaging, Rev. Geophys., 30(3),
183–208, 1992.
Wänke H. and Dreibus G., Chemical composition and accretion history of terrestrial planets, Phil.
Trans. R. Soc. London, A325, 545-557, 1988.
Wurz P., Neutral particle detection, in The outer Heliosphere - Beyond the Planets, K. Schärer (Ed.),
Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft, in press, 2000.
Yen C.L., Ballistic Mercury orbiter mission via Venus gravity assist, Jour. Astronautical Sciences, 37,
417-432, 1989.
AOCS Interface Unit
UV spectrometer
Attitude Measurement Error
Announcement of Opportunity
Attitude and Orbit Control System
Attitude and Orbit Control System
Antenna Pointing Mechanism
Application Specific Integrated Circuit
Astronomical Unit
Alpha X-ray Spectrometer
Beginning Of Mission
Binary Phase Shift Key
Center of Gravity
Controller Area Network
Compact Computer Core
Charged Coupled Device
Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems
Command and Data Management System
Command and Data Management Unit
Carbon Fibre Compound
Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastics
Descent Camera for a Lander on Mercury
Surface Camera for a Lander on Mercury
Coronal Mass Ejection
Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor
Cold Plasma Anayser
Cold Plasma Detector
Central Payload Interface Unit
Chemical Propulsion Module
Central Processing Unit
Cornerstone number 5
duty cycle
Dedicated Control Room
Data Disposition Facility
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt
Depth Of Discharge
Degree Of Freedom
Deep Space Network
Dornier Satellitensysteme
Energy per bit divided by Noise power density (digital SNR)
Error Detection And Correction
Electron Electrostatic Analyser
Effective Isotropic Radiated Power
Engineering Model
Electro Magnetic Cleanliness
Energetic Plasma Detector
Electrical Power System
Electrical Qualification Model
European Space Agency
European Space Operations Centre
Flight Dynamics Room
Field Emission Electric Propulsion
Field of View
Field Of View
Gallium Arsenide
Galactic Cosmic Ray
Galactic Cosmic Ray
Guidance Navigation and Control
General Relativity
General Support Technology Programme
Geostationary Transfer Orbit
High Boost Mode
Hunting Engineering Ltd.
High Gain Antenna
Highly Integrated Control and Data System
Halley Multicolour Camera
High Power Amplifier
High Temperature
Initial Acquisition Mode
Institut d'Astrophysique Spatiale
InterDisciplinary Scientist
Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
Imager for Mars Pathfinder
Infrared Mapping Spectrometer
Ion Mass Spectrometer
Inertial Measurement Unit
Specific Impulse
Invitation To Tender
Latching Current Limiter
Launch and Early Orbit Phase
Low Gain Antenna
Laser Interferometer Space Antenna
Local Vertical Local Horizontal
Mission Control Centre
Multi Chip Module - Horizontal
Multi Chip Module - Vertical
Main Control Room
Mole Deployment Device
Mercury Cornerstone
Mercury Gamma-ray Spectrometer
Mercury Horizon Sensor
Multi Layer Insulation
Mercury Magnetospheric Orbiter
Mercury Neutron Spectrometer
Mission Operation Centre
Mercury Planetary Orbiter
Maximum Power Point Tracker
Mercury Surface Element
Mercury X-ray Spectrometer
Narrow Angle Camera
Normal Operative Mode
Orbit Correction Mode
Optical Head
Open System Interconnect
Optical Solar Reflector
Printed Circuit Board
Power Control and Distribution Unit
Peripheral Component Interface
Power Conditioning Unit
Power Distribution Unit
ProtoFlight Unit
Principal Invesitgator
Payload Operations Schedule
Parameterized Post-Newtonian
Project Support Room
Power Sub-System
Rate Damping Mode
Earth Radius
Radio Frequency
Radiofrequency Ion Thruster
Ring Laser Gyro
Mercury radius
Relative Pointing Error
Radio and Plasma Wave - Electric field
Radio and Plasma Wave - Magnetic field
Remote Terminal Unit
Solar Array
Stellar Autonomous Attitude Determination System
Solar Array Drive Mechanism
Safe Acquisition Mode
Sun Acquisition Sensor
Spinning spacecraft Camera
Single Event Effect
Solar Electric Propulsion
Solar Electric Propulsion Module
Single Event Upset
Software Infrastructure for Modelling Satellites
Safe Mercury Mode
Signal to Noise Ratio
Signal to Noise Ratio
Silicon On Insulator
Science Operations Plan
Silicon On Sapphire
Science Operations Team
Science Programme Committee
Stationary Plasma thruster
Second Surface Mirror
Solid State Mass Memory
Solid State Power Amplifier
Structural and Thermal Model
Science Working Team
To Be Confirmed
Time Delay and Integration
Topographic Orbiting Lidar
Technical Research Programme
Ultra High Frequency
Virtual Channel Access
Virtual Channel Multiplexer
VHSIC (Very High Speed Integrated Circuits) Hardware Description
Visual Monitoring Camera
Wide Angle Camera
Wheel Off-loading Mode
World Wide Web
X-ray Multi Mirror
Chapter 8
Related flashcards
X86 architecture

22 Cards

Computer science

29 Cards


43 Cards

Create flashcards