Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV):
Designing for High Heritage and Low Risk
Douglas Ross, James Russell, and Brian Sutter
Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company
MS S8110/P.O. Box 179
Denver, CO 80201
303-971-7417
douglas.g.ross@lmco.com
Abstract— The Mars Sample Return (MSR) campaign involves
three complementary spacecraft missions, one of which will
contain a Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV) to deliver the Martian
sample to orbit for subsequent retrieval and return to Earth.
MAV must deliver a 5-kg sample container containing up to
500 g of surface material to a 520 ± 60-km orbit while
satisfying all surface and mission requirements. Lockheed
Martin participated in a NASA-funded study to evaluate MAV
concept options with special attention on identifying
opportunities to obtain MAV system mass savings. Several
MAV architectures and subsystem elements were evaluated
during the past year at Lockheed Martin with the goal of
identifying potential enabling component technology options
for mass savings and achieving an overall MAV system mass
reduction. The study found that a high-heritage solution exists,
based on flight-proven technology with minimal development,
which can deliver a MAV below 300 kg. Given the importance
of the MSR mission and the current fiscal reality, it is crucial
to minimize overall landed mass and system complexity while
maintaining low risk; a two-stage solid-solid configuration
provides the lowest mass and risk, using high-heritage
elements.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................. 1
2. APPROACH ........................................................ 1
3. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ................................... 3
4. DISCUSSION ....................................................... 5
4. SUMMARY .........................................................5
REFERENCES......................................................... 5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................... 5
NOMENCLATURE ..................................................6
BIOGRAPHIES ........................................................ 6
1. INTRODUCTION
Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV) concepts have been the subject
of Mars Science Return architecture studies for more than
three decades [1]. During 2011, Lockheed Martin Space
Systems Company conducted a preliminary concept design
study of a MAV system that meets system requirements,
identifies technologies for development, and evaluates
support system options with mass as the primary figure of
merit. Under the funding and oversight of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Glenn
Research Center (GRC), this effort included interaction with
978-1-4577-0557-1/12/$26.00 ©2012 IEEE
1
the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and Marshall Space
Flight Center (MSFC). Following a systematic systems
engineering process, the MAV guideline requirements were
evaluated and used to identify candidate MAV
configurations and subsystem elements for subsequent trade
studies. End products of the study included updated MAV
system configuration concepts, heritage evaluation, and
options for further mass reduction. This paper summarizes
the resulting MAV system concepts and describes how
high-heritage elements were used within the overall goal of
identifying MAV system mass reduction opportunities.
2. APPROACH
The MAV study focused on designing a system to deliver a
Mars surface sample payload to a target Mars orbit. The
requirements for the MAV were given in the Mars Ascent
Vehicle Study Guidelines [2], which were developed by
NASA from the Mars Sample Return (MSR) Architecture
[3]. The MAV design team applied the requirements with
high-heritage Lockheed Martin processes, materials, and
technologies to develop a low-cost, high-heritage solution.
The team then evaluated less mature technology options to
reduce overall MAV system mass.
MSR Architecture
The Mars Sample Return mission will return a sample of
Martian soil to Earth. The architecture to return the sample
involves three sequential missions: A caching rover, a
lander with MAV and a fetch rover, and an Earth Return
Orbiter. The caching rover will be deployed by the first
mission to collect the soil sample from a region of interest.
The second mission will deliver the lander with MAV and
rover—the fetch rover will collect and deliver the 500-g
sample to the lander. The lander will package the sample
and install it into the MAV. The Earth Return Orbiter will
reach Mars orbit, coordinate the launch of MAV, and collect
the sample from Mars orbit. The orbiter will return to Earth
and will deploy the encapsulated payload on a separate
Earth reentry vehicle, which will be collected, and the
sample will be preserved for scientific study.
MAV and Support System Requirements
Based on the current Mars Sample Return architecture,
NASA developed requirements for the MAV and support
systems. This set of MAV system requirements provides
resource allocations to MAV and its necessary support
elements assuming characteristics of other elements of the
MSR architecture, several of which are not yet clearly
defined. The MAV support systems are the lander’s power
system (solar arrays and batteries), thermal cocoon, erection
mechanism, and sample handling system. The Mars Ascent
Vehicle Study Guidelines specified requirements for the
latest concept study, such as:
- Deliver a 5-kg sample to a 520 ± 60-km orbit;
- Maintain orbiting sample (OS) temperature below 20°C;
- Maintain launch readiness throughout a 30-day period;
- Abort launch upon command up to 30 seconds before
launch and return to a safe storage condition;
- Provide ascent telemetry for mishap investigation and to
aid in OS retrieval by the orbiter; and
- Ensure no credible single-point failure causes a loss of
mission.
First Phase Analysis
The focus of this first phase of the MAV study program was
to develop a preliminary conceptual MAV design that
satisfied requirements levied in the 2011 MAV Study
Guidelines document [2]. Primary objectives included MAV
system mass reduction (MAV and MAV support systems)
and identification of proposed areas for follow-on
technology maturation. Also important was the evaluation
of current heritage technology and design practices
applicable to the MAV system to assess the starting point
and enable identification of areas where technology
development could be necessary. The first-phase study
analyzed the system requirements, conducted trade studies
to evaluate the impacts of different candidate MAV and
system configurations, and identified technologies for
development if the technology provided a mass benefit.
potential risk item since additional analysis may
demonstrate that the item is not compatible with the
intended application. An example of non-quantified risk
mitigation would be a requirement to carry hardware for
critical event coverage. The hardware does little to improve
the probability of success for the immediate mission, but is
present to provide information in the event of mission
failure. This type of risk mitigation is an important
component of risk reduction on an overall program, while
not having much immediate benefit to the current mission.
Cost and schedule concerns are principal drivers on the
mission architecture, as they are overlaid on program
development and implementation. The key mitigation for
these concerns is to identify flight components with high
heritage in an application relevant to the mission of
consideration. Architectures that require components with
low Technology Readiness Level (TRL) values would be
considered even less attractive from a cost and schedule
standpoint, since the opportunity for cost growth and
schedule delays would be magnified.
The performance requirements levied on the system are
associated with target orbit altitudes and accuracies. Mass
targets were identified as goals, but hard-and-fast mass
allocations were not specified.
MAV Trade Studies— The mission/system engineering
trades for the MAV were initiated with detailed
configuration analysis of two potential MAV configurations
for a two-stage vehicle to orbit (Figure 1). The two
configurations were a first stage solid-rocket motor and a
second stage with solid or liquid propulsions. Trades studies
were considered for the MAV subsystems and support
systems. Trades investigated the impact of launch azimuth
and elevation variations, and potential mass impacts were

Requirement Analysis— Following a systematic systems

engineering process, the study began with a review of the
baseline mission requirements and analysis of the top-level
MAV configurations to judge their ability to satisfy the
requirements. The primary requirements levied by MAV
can be allocated into four basic categories. These categories
are performance, risk, cost and schedule. The driving
requirements were identified. The requirements were then
used in the selection of the final configuration and to
identify mass savings opportunities associated with
requirement modification.

The risk requirements were divided into two subsections.

Quantified risk mitigation requirements were identified and
allocated as needed. Examples of quantified risk mitigation
requirements are mass and resource margin allocations. In
early design studies, larger resource margins are merited due
to the increased chance of key elements being overlooked or
over-optimistically allocated—so the study used the large Solid-Liquid Solid-Solid
mass margin given in the MAV Study Guidelines. Even use Figure 1. MAV Concept Configurations
of known hardware in an unfamiliar manner could be a
2
identified for mechanically-adjustable launch azimuth tables options. Early efforts focused on a solid first stage and a bi-
versus steering out the azimuth errors during early ascent. A propellant liquid second stage. Trajectory optimization
more exhaustive sensitivity analysis was conducted by Dux results indicated that a flight profile that allowed for a re-
et al. [4]. Finally, mass trades of the thermal enclosure and ignitable second stage provided for the lowest propellant
of the impact of the operations concept on the thermal mass solution. To meet this architecture, the liquid second
design were conducted. stage provided additional impulse immediately after the
solid stage 1 cutoff, followed by a long coast, and a short
Propulsion Subsystem Trades— Propulsion trades are
fundamental to the ultimate configuration of a Mars Ascent
Vehicle. For purposes of this study, propulsion was Table 1. Mass Summary for Solid-Solid and Solid-Liquid
considered as being either a fixed-impulse solid, or a MAV Concepts (kg)
variable-impulse liquid. Configurations using either option,
or a mixture of both options, were given preliminary Solid- Solid-
assessments and evaluated against each other using the Solid Liquid
requirements listed earlier as driving decision points.
Gross Lift Off Mass with
Staging options were considered as well, with single and
20% Contingency 254 306
multistage configurations evaluated as potential contenders.
Orbiting Sample 5 5
Finally, with liquid systems, the ability to restart the liquid
Propellant 176 221
stage presents additional opportunities for trajectory
Non-Prop 73 80
optimization.
Gross Lift Off Mass with
Within this trade space, certain characteristics relative to the 43% Contingency 299 358
performance of a specific propulsion technology are known Orbiting Sample 5 5
and can be parameterized to provide a rough estimate of the Propellant 207 257
applicability of a configuration to the specific task. In this Non-Prop 87 96
case, launching a mass from the surface of Mars implies a
high-thrust initial burn profile upon launch. The efficiency Stage 1 Current Best 28.4 28.7
of the stage carrying this impulse is of second-order Estimate – dry 24.9 25.3
concern. Achieving a high thrust level is reasonably Mechanical 3.4 3.4
straightforward using a solid system, and also has the Electrical
benefit of high mass efficiency. From this general
assessment of capabilities and requirements, a solid first Stage 2 Current Best 32.5 38.1
stage was selected as the initial study option. Estimate – dry 18.8 21.5
Mechanical 13.7 16.6
3. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS Electrical

Target Orbit: Requirement and Trades
Initial consideration of the orbit insertion requirements and
comparison of these requirements with previous study
results led to an early preliminary qualitative assessment of
the ability of various propulsion modes to deliver the
orbiting sample within the intended altitude and inclination
ranges. In qualitative terms, a liquid stage will generally be
able to deliver an orbiting sample to a final orbit with
greater accuracy than a solid stage. This is primarily due to
the ability of a liquid stage to measure performance
dispersions and adjust its flight profile to compensate. A
solid stage can provide a similar capability to refine the final
orbit accuracy with additional hardware, which was not
included in previous solid-solid MAV configurations. The
tighter orbit altitude and inclinations for this study were
beyond the capabilities of previous solid-solid MAV
configurations. For this reason, an effort to investigate
liquid solutions for final orbit delivery was initiated.
Propulsion Analysis
With the solid-liquid system as a focus of initial activities,
trajectory optimization efforts to minimize initial wet launch
mass were conducted encompassing a variety of trajectory
3
circularization burn. Detailed systems level analysis began
to uncover a mass impact not related to ΔV as the system
matured. The effect of the long coast added mass to the
power system for mono-propellant and bi-propellant second
stages, and effectively negated any mass benefit from the
trajectory optimization. As burn duration was constrained,
the impulse required of the second stage system was
reduced. The associated fixed-hardware mass to support a
bi-propellant system began to overcome propellant
efficiency advantages in the flight system for smaller
impulses. A minimal hardware approach was found to be a
solid first stage with a blowdown mono-propellant second
stage. Table 1 provides a mass summary for the two MAV
concepts with two different mass contingency options.
Support System Analysis
The MAV interfaces with the erection mechanism, thermal
enclosure, and other lander systems. Several trades were
performed on the support system to establish a highly-
reliable, high-heritage, low life-cycle cost, and low system
mass solution.
Integrated Thermal Design— The MAV thermal design
incorporates conductive heat transfer from the MAV to the
thermal enclosure. The heat transfer from the MAV to the
thermal enclosure is dominated by the conduction through
carbon dioxide (CO2) gas. This stagnant CO2 gas is one of
the insulators between the MAV and environment, and the
performance depends on the gas temperature. To maintain
stagnant conditions, the thermal design prevents forced and
free convection. Forced convection is controlled by
encapsulating the MAV in the thermal enclosure and filling
(a)
enclosure penetrations with material. During sample
transfer, the enclosure lid is open, and circumferential
partitions are used to isolate the sample transfer gap area
from the rest of the gap volume. Free convection is
controlled by sizing the gap to maintain a Rayleigh number
< 1,700 for the worst-case combination of pressure (3.2
Torr), temperature (4°C), and delta temperature (20°C)
when horizontal. Two thermal cases were analyzed for the
MAV. The first case maintained the MAV at a cold
temperature then warmed it to a launch-ready temperature;
the second case maintained the MAV at the launch-ready
temperature. Warming the MAV created a 15% greater
energy demand (and appeared to drive power system sizing)
as compared to maintaining the launch-ready condition over
30 days. The lowest mass solution will be to eliminate
“warming” and to maintain the MAV at the launch-ready
temperature.

Thermal Enclosure and Erection Mechanism— In the 2001

(b)
Figure 2. MAV Concepts – (a) Stowed and (b) Launch
Ready. (a) The stowed configuration illustrates the MAV
with thermal enclosure and tie-down points. (b) The
launch ready position shows the tie-down points on the
lander deck, and the MAV is stationed at an angle from
the lander deck. The thermal enclosure has fallen away
and is not shown for clarity.
MAV study, the MAV was stowed in a horizontal
enclosure, raised out of the structure, and then launched.
The study guidelines for the 2018 MSR mission introduced
new requirements for abort and launch period. The new
requirement for a 30-day launch period yields a different
MAV-lander architecture. A “restowable” version of the
2001 MAV enclosure was considered but not selected due to
the higher system mass. A launch tube was not selected due
to the higher system mass and cost impacts. A releasable
thermal enclosure was selected as the lowest-mass, highest-
reliability, and lowest-life cycle cost option (Figure 2).
Payload Analysis
The critical requirement for the payload (orbiting sample) is
to maintain the temperature below 20°C upon transfer to the
MAV through Earth return. After sample transfer, the
thermal enclosure design provides a separate zone that
maintains the payload-to-MAV interface. The fairing with
thermal protection material will protect the payload from
aeroheating during ascent. Upon deployment to the target

Table 2. Support System (Thermal Enclosure and Erection Mechanism) Trade

Enclosure Type Description Advantages Disadvantages

Restowable MAV raises/ - Restowable in case of - Electric drive motor for erector and
lowers 30 times abort enclosure
- Easy to analyze & test - Heater power while unstowed
- Complex operations and mechanisms
Releasable Enclosure - Lightest mass with simple - Analysis/testing of deployment
releases at mechanisms - Additional separation event
< T-30 seconds - Testable on Earth with
EDU
Launch Tube MAV launches - Single erection - Mass of a launch tube
from within - Launch when ready - Expensive to conduct testing in relevant
tube environment (high altitude launch)

4
orbit, the payload will maintain a temperature range well
below the 20°C, even under worst-case conditions for
coating and spin rate.
4. DISCUSSION
The study developed and evaluated MAV system concepts
to meet system requirements with lowest mass. Heritage
hardware and proven methods were applied where feasible
and when mass impacts were minimal to reduce overall
MAV system risk. The lowest mass MAV system consists
of a two-stage MAV with a solid propellant first stage and
the following support systems: releasable thermal enclosure
and single erection mechanism. A MAV with 20%
contingency with a solid or liquid (monopropellant) second
stage is 256 kg or 306 kg, respectively. A low-mass MAV
system is achievable with existing technologies.
MAV System Requirements
Performance requirements focused on the propulsion system
to deliver the payload and the maximum temperature limit
on the payload. Performance requirements were most easily
satisfied with the application of a liquid second stage, and
the choice of monopropellant has the additional benefit of
higher predictability over a bipropellant liquid stage.
Uncertainties in mixture ratio and the performance
variability require some attention to be paid to these
uncertainties. The monopropellant system has no mixture
ratio concerns, so the system has lower uncertainties in the
performance of the flight hardware. The MAV architecture
concepts maintain the orbiting sample payload below its
20°C temperature limit from sample transfer to the MAV
through release for orbital capture.
Risk requirements were carried in the two aforementioned
categories. Unallocated mass margin was carried on the
flight hardware. The simplicity of the propulsion system, the
well-known performance and off-the-shelf components, and
Lockheed Martin’s extensive and applicable recent history
in designing and flying similar systems, reduces the
uncertainty that might otherwise force the system to
exceedingly large mass margin values. Additionally, with a
powered avionics set providing control of the liquid system,
the inclusion of a radio beacon to provide critical-event
coverage was not outside the capability of the nominal
system.
Cost and schedule concerns were mitigated with the
selection of the solid-monopropellant MAV system by
providing a path forward with high-heritage flight
components. The individual components by and large have
been flight demonstrated on Mars. Not requiring an
extensive development program minimizes the risk of cost
or schedule growth.
Several assumptions were made during the course of the
study to narrow the field of trade options and help identify
applicable heritage options. Key assumptions included: One
day between abort and next launch opportunity, a day- or
5
night-time launch, and support system resources are
managed by the lander. As the MSR architecture matures
and external MAV elements are better defined, some of
these may need to be revisited, particularly if doing so
allows use of lower-cost existing-heritage elements within
the MAV system and MSR designs.
Technology Development
The study identified technologies for development to
minimize system mass. A releasable thermal enclosure
provides a low mass alternate to other proposed enclosure
options. Other technology development items could include
an integrated avionics chassis, transmit only option for the
MAV, and re-ignitable second stage solid rocket motor.
Further options could be considered to lower system mass
with relaxation of requirements, such as the orbital, ascent
telemetry and no credible single-point failure requirements.
4. SUMMARY
A high-heritage solution exists, based on flight-proven
technology with minimal development, which can deliver a
MAV below 300 kg. A two-stage solid-solid configuration
continues to be the lowest mass MAV option using high-
heritage elements. A 30% reduction in Gross Lift Off Mass
(GLOM) may be possible through development of enabling
and enhancing technologies. Obtaining substantial
additional MAV System mass reduction may require review
and relaxation of some current MAV requirements, such as
the requirements related to orbital injection, ascent
telemetry and no credible single-point failures. MAV
support systems can use simple flight-proven technologies
as long as external MAV element development does not
drive more restrictive interface requirements. Lander, rover
and MAV interfaces should be developed with a focus on
achieving the right functional balance and ensuring
simplicity can be retained.
REFERENCES
[1] Sutter, B.S. and M.S. McGee, “Mars Sample Return:
The Design of Low-Risk Architectures,” 2002 IEEE
Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT, March 2002.
[2] Mattingly, R.L., C. Whetsel, and D. Anderson, “Mars
Sample Return MAV Study Guidelines,” Mar 1, 2011.
[3] Mattingly, R.L. and L. May, “Mars Sample Return as a
Campaign,” 2011 IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big
Sky, MT, March 2011.
[4] Dux, I.J., J.A. Huwaldt, R.S. McKamey, and J.W.
Dankanich, “Mars Ascent Vehicle Gross Lift-Off Mass
Sensitivities for Robotic Mars Sample Return,” IEEEAC
paper #1079, ver. 4, Jan 16, 2011.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work described in this paper was performed under
contract NNC11CA06C with the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) Glenn Research Center. The
authors wish to acknowledge the support of our study
colleagues Jake Williams and Craig Moore from Alliant
Techsystems, Inc. (ATK), and Carl Guernsey from the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory on this project. BIOGRAPHIES
Douglas Ross received a B.S. in
Aerospace Engineering from the
United States Military Academy,
NOMENCLATURE West Point in 1992 and an M.S. in
CBE = Current Best Estimate Telecommunications from the
CO2 = carbon dioxide University of Denver in 2003. He
d = day has been with Lockheed Martin for
ΔV = delta V 15 years on the Atlas rocket
GLOM = Gross Lift Off Mass program, human spaceflight
GRC = Glenn Research Center missions and a variety of civil and
hr = hour military spacecraft programs. He currently works on
JPL = Jet Propulsion Laboratory planetary science missions and advanced mission studies.
kg = kilogram Prior to Lockheed Martin he served in the U.S. Army in
km = kilometer the Corps of Engineers.
MAV = Mars Ascent Vehicle James F. Russell received a B.S. in
MSFC = Marshall Space Flight Center Bioresource Engineering from
MSR = Mars Sample Return Rutgers, the State University of
NASA = National Aeronautics and Space New Jersey in 1997, an M.S. in
Administration Chemical and Biochemical
OS = orbiting sample Engineering from Rutgers, the State
s = second University of New Jersey in 1999,
TRL = Technology Readiness Level and a Ph.D. in Aerospace
Engineering Sciences from the
University of Colorado in 2005. He
works for Lockheed Martin on planetary science and
human spaceflight missions. Prior to Lockheed Martin, he
designed, tested and operated payloads on Space Shuttle
and International Space Station and worked on advanced
Environmental Control and Life Support systems. He is a
AIAA member and actively contributes to the AIAA Life
Sciences and Systems Technical Committee.

Brian Sutter received a B.S. in

Aerospace Engineering from the
University of Michigan in
1983. Brian has performed a wide
variety of mission analysis,
conceptual design and
interplanetary studies during his 27
year career at Lockheed Martin.
His past responsibilities include
Titan Inertial Upper Stage
guidance system development validation, trajectory
optimization on the Titan rocket program, Mars sample
return rendezvous analysis, and mission design lead on
multiple successful NASA New Frontiers, Discovery, and
Mars Scout mission studies.