Acta Astronautica

Acta Astronautica 106 (2015) 6389
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Acta Astronautica
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/actaastro
A lander mission to probe subglacial water on Saturn's moon

Enceladus for life$
Konstantinos Konstantinidis a,n, Claudio L. Flores Martinez b, Bernd Dachwald c,
Andreas Ohndorf d, Paul Dykta a, Pascal Bowitz a, Martin Rudolph a, Ilya Digel c,
Julia Kowalski c, Konstantin Voigt a, Roger Frstner a
a
Institute for Space Technology and Space Applications, Bundeswehr University Munich, Werner-Heisenberg-Weg 39, 85579 Neubiberg,
Bavaria, Germany
b
Centre for Organismal Studies,University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 234, 69120 Heidelberg, Baden-Wrttemberg, Germany
c
Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, FH Aachen University of Applied Sciences, Hohenstaufenallee 6, 52064 Aachen, Germany
d
Deutsches Zentrum fr Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V. (DLR), Oberpfaffenhoffen, Bavaria, Germany
a r t i c l e i n f o
abstract
Article history:
Received 20 December 2013
Received in revised form
16 September 2014
Accepted 20 September 2014
Available online 6 October 2014
The plumes discovered by the Cassini mission emanating from the south pole of Saturn's
moon Enceladus and the unique chemistry found in them have fueled speculations that
Enceladus may harbor life. The presumed aquiferous fractures from which the plumes
emanate would make a prime target in the search for extraterrestrial life and would be
more easily accessible than the moon's subglacial ocean.
A lander mission that is equipped with a subsurface maneuverable ice melting probe
will be most suitable to assess the existence of life on Enceladus. A lander would have to
land at a safe distance away from a plume source and melt its way to the inner wall of the
fracture to analyze the plume subsurface liquids before potential biosignatures are
degraded or destroyed by exposure to the vacuum of space. A possible approach for the
in situ detection of biosignatures in such samples can be based on the hypothesis of
universal evolutionary convergence, meaning that the independent and repeated emergence of life and certain adaptive traits is wide-spread throughout the cosmos. We thus
present a hypothetical evolutionary trajectory leading towards the emergence of methanogenic chemoautotrophic microorganisms as the baseline for putative biological complexity on Enceladus. To detect their presence, several instruments are proposed that may
be taken aboard a future subglacial melting probe.
The Enceladus Explorer (EnEx) project funded by the German Space Administration
(DLR), aims to develop a terrestrial navigation system for a subglacial research probe and
eventually test it under realistic conditions in Antarctica using the EnEx-IceMole, a novel
Keywords:
Enceladus
Lander
Melting probe
Astrobiology
Icy moons
Abbreviations: (N)EP, (Nuclear) Electric Propulsion; ACTC, Attitude Control Thruster Cluster; ASRG, Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator; AU,
Astronomical Unit; C&DH, Command and Data Handling; EnEx, Enceladus Explorer project; EOI, Enceladus Orbit Insertion; EOM, End of Mission; FY, Fiscal
Year; GHe, Helium gas; GN&C, Guidance, Navigation and Control; GPR, Ground Penetrating Radar; HDA, Hazard Detection and Avoidance; HGA, High Gain
Antenna; IMU, Inertial Measurement Unit; IPR, Ice Penetrating Radar; Isp, Specific Impulse; kWe, kilowatt electric; kWt, kilowatt thermal; LGA, Low Gain
Antenna; LIDAR, Light Detection and Ranging (LIght raDAR); LV, Launch Vehicle; MAG-L, Magnetometer-Lander; MCT, Minimal Convergent Trait; MEA,
Main Engine Assembly; MGA, Medium Gain Antenna; MLI, Multi-layer Insulation; MMRTG, Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator; NSF,
National Science Foundation; PCA, Pressure Control Assembly; PFCA, Propellant Flow Control Assembly; RC, Reconnaissance Camera; RENC, Enceladus Radii;
ROM, Rough Order of Magnitude; RPS, Radioisotope Power Source; RS, Saturn Radii; RTG, Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator; SEP, Solar Electric
Propulsion; SIS, Site Imaging System; SOI, Saturn Orbit Insertion; SPT, South-Polar Terrain; TBR, to be refined; TM, Thermal Mapper; TRL, Technology
Readiness Level
This paper was presented during the 64th IAC in Beijing.

n
Corresponding author. Tel.: 49 89 6004 3592.
E-mail address: k.konstantinidis@unibw.de (K. Konstantinidis).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2014.09.012
0094-5765/& 2014 IAA. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
64
K. Konstantinidis et al. / Acta Astronautica 106 (2015) 6389
maneuverable subsurface ice melting probe for clean sampling and in situ analysis of ice
and subglacial liquids. As part of the EnEx project, an initial concept study is foreseen for a
lander mission to Enceladus to deploy the IceMole near one of the active water plumes on
the moon's South-Polar Terrain, where it will search for signatures of life.
The general mission concept is to place the Lander at a safe distance from an active
plume. The IceMole would then be deployed to melt its way through the ice crust to an
aquiferous fracture at a depth of 100 m or more for an in situ examination for the presence
of microorganisms.
The driving requirement for the mission is the high energy demand by the IceMole to
melt through the cold Enceladan ices. This requirement is met by a nuclear reactor
providing 5 kW of electrical power. The nuclear reactor and the IceMole are placed on a
pallet lander platform. An Orbiter element is also foreseen, with the main function of
acting as a communications relay between Lander and Earth.
After launch, the Lander and Orbiter will perform the interplanetary transfer to Saturn
together, using the on-board nuclear reactor to power electric thrusters. After Saturn orbit
insertion, the Combined Spacecraft will continue using Nuclear Electric Propulsion to
reach the orbit of Enceladus. After orbit insertion at Enceladus, the Orbiter will perform a
detailed reconnaissance of the South-Polar Terrain. At the end of the reconnaissance
phase, the Lander will separate from the Orbiter and an autonomously guided landing
sequence will place it near one of the active vapor plumes. Once landed, the IceMole will
be deployed and start melting through the ice, while navigating around hazards and
towards a target subglacial aquiferous fracture.
An initial estimation of the mission's cost is given, as well as recommendations on the
further development of enabling technologies. The planetary protection challenges posed
by such a mission are also addressed.
& 2014 IAA. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Enceladus
1.1. General description
Analyses of Cassini measurements imply a subsurface
salt-water reservoir on Enceladus, where ice grains containing organic compounds escape via cryvolcanism from
warm fractures in the ice, known as Tiger Stripes, at
the moon's south pole.
Enceladus, only 504 km in diameter and once believed
too small to be active, has been found as one of the most
geologically dynamic objects in the Solar System [1]. Calculated from Enceladus' measured mass and density, models
assume a rocky core with a radius of E169 km (density
3 g/cm3) and a volatile crust with a thickness of E83 km
(density 1.01 g/cm3) [1]. Despite its small size, it has a wide
range of terrains, including old and young surfaces. The high
albedo of Enceladus results in a colder surface than most of
the other Saturnian satellites, with a calculated subsolar
temperature of 7573 K and an average temperature of
E51 K [2]. The spectrum of Enceladus shows that its surface
is almost completely dominated by H2O ice, with small
amounts of NH3 and tholins [3], except near its south pole.
At the south pole, the Cassini spacecraft has identified a
geologically active province, circumscribed by a chain of
folded ridges and troughs [4]. The terrain southward of this
boundary is distinguished by its albedo and color contrasts,
elevated temperatures, extreme geologic youth (possibly as
young as 5 105 years), and narrow tectonic rifts that
coincide with the hottest temperatures (145 K and more)
measured in the region [4,5]. Much ongoing research work
deals with the origin and explanation of this puzzling
thermal anomaly. The most prominent feature at the south
pole are four linear depressions, dubbed Tiger Stripes
because of their appearance in the infrared. Particularly in

this region, simple organic compounds and CO2 are found
(not as free CO2 ice, but rather complexed, probably with
water ice). This high abundance of complexed CO2 suggests
active replenishment, probably from ongoing geophysical
activity [6]. Multiple flybys of Cassini at Enceladus have
shown that plumes of H2O, including simple organic compounds [7], emanate via cryovolcanism from those warm
fractures at the Tiger Stripes (Fig. 1). Salt-rich ice particles are
found to dominate the total mass flux of ejected solids (more
than 99%) [8]. Analysis of the plume material strongly
implies that it originates from a body of liquid saltwater [8]
or even a global ocean [9] below its icy crust.
The unique chemistry found in the plume has fueled
speculations that Enceladus may harbor life [10,11], but
this question can probably not be resolved by the Cassini
mission. A lander mission that is equipped with a subsurface ice melting probe, however, might be able to answer
this question. Because it is considered too risky to land
close to the cracks from which the plumes emanate (see
Fig. 2), a Lander would have to land at a safe distance away
Fig. 1. Plumes spray water ice out from many locations along the Tiger
Stripes near the south pole of Enceladus. Image credit: NASA/JPL/Space
Science Institute.
Fig. 2. Rough terrain at Enceladus' south pole with boulders resting along
the tops of high frozen ridges (edited from the original raw image to
enhance detail). Image credits: NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute,
Universe Today.
from a crack and melt its way to the inner wall of a crack to
analyze the plume material in situ. This way, subsurface
liquids may be much easier to access. Nevertheless, such a
mission is still considered very challenging, given the
current state-of-the-art in space technology.
65
macroevolutionary change and an overall increase in biological complexity. The alternate perspective, which opposes
the dominating influence of contingency, is adopted by many
theorists of astrobiology on the basis of the pervasive
phenomenon of convergent evolution, the independent and
repeated emergence of similar adaptive traits in distantly
related lineages [1622]. This new paradigm proposes that
evolutionary processes can imaginably be extended beyond
Earth and it connects the onset of biological complexity to
the vast timescales of cosmological history, the differentiation of astrophysical objects and ultimately redefines it as a
subset within a vast phase space of universal complexity
[2325]. A new interdisciplinary branch of astrobiology is
exploring the hypothesis that genetically (as well as spatiotemporally) separated biological systems, for example on
Earth and Enceladus, could evolve functionally equivalent
adaptations by means of convergent evolution. In contrast to
the orthodox notion of contingency-driven evolution, the
novel hypothesis of cosmologically extended convergent
processes lends predictability to the astrobiological endeavor
[26]. Within the astrobiological landscape [27] or hyperspace [28] of biological complexity certain solutions of life
in dealing with environmental pressures are favored and
thus emerge in a convergent manner across planetary biospheres, much like dynamical systems are tending to evolve
towards physical attractors. Therefore, astrobiologists should
be able to constrain the nature of extraterrestrial life by
studying convergent evolution on Earth. Eventually the
insight gained through such an approach could be translated
into the evolutionarily informed design of biosignaturedetection instruments bound for in situ exploration of
astrobiological Solar System targets.
1.2. Emergence and evolution of putative life on Enceladus

1.2.1. Evolutionary astrobiology
One of the most intensely debated problems in evolutionary biology, aside from the enigma posed by the origin of
life itself, is the existence of universal laws governing the
emergence and subsequent evolution of biological complexity through natural selection [12,13]. While the force of
natural selection in driving adaptation of species to changing
environments is undisputed, most evolutionary biologists
freely admit that they can hardly give a comprehensive
account of the major transitions that occurred during the
history of life on Earth, such as, for instance, the bridging of
prebiotic, protocellular and cellular evolution, multiple endosymbiosis events in ancient microbes, the emergence of
eukaryotic and multicellular organisms and the sudden
appearance of complex body plans in the Cambrian. Yet,
astrobiologists are especially interested in understanding
these macroevolutionary shifts in biological complexity as a
more detailed picture thereof would shed light on the
possible existence or absence of analogous evolutionary
trajectories in extraterrestrial life. One influential school of
thought in evolutionary theorizing has stressed the role of
contingency in shaping extant phylogenetic diversity and
form [14,15]. This view of evolution contends that molecular
and morphological traits are essentially frozen accidents of
momentary ruling selective pressures and it is thereby
denying the presence of laws of nature which might structure
and
necessitate
the
emergence
of
life,
1.2.2. Origin, evolution and baseline complexity of life on

Enceladus
There is currently no consensus among evolutionaryand astrobiologists in regard to the exact mechanism that
led to the origin of life on Earth. Here we adopt a
hydrothermal system-centered view for the emergence
of life on Enceladus because such an environment is
commonly suggested as the most likely habitat for nascent
and extant biological activity on Enceladus [10,11,29].
Although there is a small chance that ejecta from early
Earth and Mars could have been transported to the outer
Solar System, potentially carrying with them biological
material capable of proliferating after arriving at Enceladus, an independent beginning of life appears more likely
in the light of the proposed concept of universal convergent evolution. Minimal Convergent Traits (MCTs) potentially found in life across different planetary habitats could
be represented by 1) molecular replication and inheritance, 2) cellularization via membrane systems and 3)
metabolic networks coupling energetically favorable biochemical reactions. At some point during the history of
Enceladus' putative biosphere, these supposed universally
convergent features of life are expected to coalesce into a
coherent biological entity, an organism, capable of undergoing vertical (Darwinian) evolution rather than remaining in a primordial and poorly understood evolutionary
mode that is dominated by horizontal gene transfer (HGT).
Early molecular replication systems on Earth were most
66
Table 1
Science-traceability matrix for in situ biosignature detection on Enceladus. Traceability is from science goal to science objectives to measurements to
detection methods.
Science goal
Science
objectives
In situ probing of an aquiferous Molecular

replication
fracture to search for
biosignatures
Measurements
Detection methods
Analyze water sample for presence of replicatory polynucleotides Antibody microarray/

sequencing
Nanopore-based
instruments
Cellularization
Analyze water sample for presence of cellular structures and

membrane material
Microscopy
Flow cytometry
Fatty acid markers
Mass spectrometry
Metabolic
networks
Analyze water sample for presence of expected metabolic

products (CH4)
Mass spectrometry
likely defined by such a protocellular stage of evolution

before the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) of all
terrestrial life made the transition towards a cellular form
of organization [30]. How early life achieved this feat is not
known. Nonetheless, the directional shift in the flow of
genetic material marks the essential evolutionary step that
allowed for the subsequent increase in biological complexity of cellular life by means of natural selection. How, then,
could life conceivably emerge within hydrothermal systems on Enceladus in the first place? Life on Earth has
evolved in a manner suggestive of a minimum set of
prerequisites, which comprises liquid water, biogenic elements (C, H, N, O, P, S) and biologically usable energy (i.e.
transducible into chemical bonds for storage and later
usage in metabolic reactions). In regard to the most
pressing constraint for the onset of a potential biosphere
on Enceladus, namely available energy sources, recent
studies including theoretical work and on-going hydrothermal laboratory experimentation have emphasized the
importance of evolutionarily conserved molecular disequilibrium converting engines in the protometabolism of
early terrestrial life. This work is part of the Submarine
Hydrothermal Alkaline Spring Theory for the emergence
of life [31,32]. It posits that off-ridge alkaline hydrothermal
springs reacted with the slightly acidic, and metal and
CO2-rich Hadean Ocean. During this reaction, compounds
such as H2, CH4 and NH3, as well as calcium and traces of
acetate, molybdenum and tungsten were released by
progressing serpentinization of ultramafic rock, thereby
offering a sustained source of chemically transducible
energy for early biological systems. Employing an ancient
molecular apparatus resembling the ATP synthase complex commonly observed in extant life to harvest the free
energy contained in the resulting proton and redox gradients (H2 and CH4 acting as electron donors, CO2 as an
electron acceptor), these ancestral proto-life forms could
have been able to maintain and gradually increase
the complexity of their metabolic and replicator systems
[3033]. Such a scenario for the origin of life is not only
possible for the Hadean ocean on Earth, but also for
sustained liquid water reservoirs in contact with the
silicate core of Enceladus, which could contain portions
of ultramafic rock. Simulations have shown that
serpentinization-driven cracking of Enceladus' core could

occur to a depth of about 172 km, suggesting that emerging and sustained biological activity could be envisioned
not only at the water-rock interface but down into the core
itself [34]. Having evolved from ancestral life forms deriving from geochemical-disequilibrium-converting engines
into cellular organisms displaying MCTs, as described
above, microbial life on Enceladus would resemble the
methanogenic chemoautotrophs found at terrestrial
hydrothermal vents and seafloor sediment. These extremophilic microorganisms from the domain of the archaea
can perform their primary biosynthetic processes in the
absence of light by feeding off molecular hydrogen and
consuming CO2, thereby releasing CH4 as a metabolic
byproduct. Being evolutionarily ancient, extant species of
methanogens can be found at a number of terrestrial
analog environments possibly resembling putative habitats on Enceladus.
1.2.3. Instrument suite for biosignature detection
A first consideration for a possible suite of in situ instruments is based on the hypothesis of convergent evolution,
leading to the emergence of methanogen-like organisms on
Enceladus. Given the limited knowledge about the potential
microbial habitat in terms of prevailing environmental conditions, the assumption of convergence has been made to
constrain the vast landscape of biological complexity. A
science-traceability matrix for a set of envisioned instruments
can be found in Table 1. Aside from the goal of in situ probing
of an active aquiferous fracture for biosignatures, the resulting
objective is the detection of extant life that potentially
incorporates the previously mentioned MCTs, namely molecular replication, cellularization and metabolic networks.
Several of the proposed instruments are routinely used in
the (biological) exploration of extreme habitats on Earth such
as deep-sea hydrothermal vents and sediment, subglacial
lakes, and the continental subsurface [3540]. Due to volume
constraints, however, only a limited number of instruments
would be able to be integrated into an ice melting probe. In
terms of the science goal which is the in situ probing of an
aquiferous fracture to search for biosignatures, measurements relating to the molecular replication and cellularization
of putative life appear especially promising. Techniques for
isolating and characterizing replicatory polynucleotides, DNA

and RNA in the case of terrestrial biology, are highly specific
and often require basic knowledge about certain sequence
motifs. Furthermore, it is far from certain if polynucleotidebased replicatory macromolecules necessarily appear as a
universal link between chemical and biological evolution in
different planetary environments. However, it has been
recently suggested that a novel technique employing
nanopore-based instruments could circumvent these problems by potentially recognizing a vast set of different linear
and water-soluble biopolymers [107,108]. Such molecules
would most likely contain the genetic information of microbial life in the aqueous environment of Enceladus. Although
the detection of specifically terrestrial biopolymers is problematic during in situ exploration of Enceladus, an approach
based on multiplex antibody microarrays could target a large
variety of potentially biologically-derived molecules and identify these as bona fide signatures of life [42].
On Earth, there was likely a distinct emergence of cell
membranes in archaea, based on glycerol-ether lipids with
isoprenoid side-chains rather than glycerol-ester lipids composed of fatty acid tails as found in bacteria and eukarya
[43,44]. A number of other amphiphilic molecules could
potentially form spherical compartments, micelles, which
might function as confined spaces in which metabolic and
replicatory reactions could be coupled. Cellular organization
could thus be assessed and visualized using methods such as
microscopy and flow cytometry. Different chemical labeling
techniques, for example via fluorescence, would target a
variety of potential biomolecule classes and could even aid in
resolving subcellular structures that should be highly indicative of the underlying biological complexity responsible for
the origin of a given sample. Lipids have been suggested as
universal biomarkers for terrestrial and alien life forms and
certain lipid compositions in a sample, measured by a gas
chromatograph-mass spectrometer, would be highly indicative of a biological origin [41].
As already described above, biologically-produced
methane presents yet another convergent biosignature
that could be associated with the MCT of metabolic networks. A gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer would be
able to distinguish, via distinct isotope ratios resulting
from biological processing, between biogenic methane and
environmental sources such as hydrothermal systems.
Since the envisioned methanogens should be endogenous
to the subsurface ocean, it is questionable if they are
metabolically active after having been transported in the
water plumes to near-surface aquiferous fractures and if
biogenic methane could be detected in these locales.
Current biotechnology and routine procedures in laboratory experimentation employ desktop-scale platforms for
semi- or fully automated microscopy and flow cytometry
[4547]. These could imaginably be further miniaturized and
transformed into biosignature instrumentation for a subglacial melting probe that is bound for planetary exploration of
extreme environments on Earth and the icy moons of the
outer Solar System. Such in situ biosignature detection, for
example in the case of flow cytometry, requires a complex
automated workflow from environmental sampling, preparation of the samples, and analysis [48,49].
67
The exact design and calibration for the biological

experiments should be accompanied by ongoing theoretical and experimental work in the field of astrobiology
into the possible nature of extraterrestrial biomolecules, organismal organization and metabolic versatility.
An approach founded on convergent evolution is meant
to constrain but not to theoretically limit the potentialities
of evolution on planetary bodies apart from Earth. We
suggest that the chosen methodology can facilitate the
design and implementation of instruments aimed at
detecting biosignatures into future space missions. In
addition, it promotes the development of prototype technology that could be conceivably deployed in exploration
efforts on Earth.
1.3. The topography and environment of the south-polar
terrain of Enceladus
The South-Polar Terrain (SPT) is host to the plume
sources, the target of the mission. The most prominent
features characterizing the interior of the South-Polar
Terrain as mentioned above are the Tiger Stripe valleys,
which include 101 identified distinct vapor and ice jets
which form the plumes towering above Enceladus [50]
(Fig. 3). The term Tiger Stripe describes a V shaped
valley enclosed by two, nearly parallel ridges. These ridges
are about 100150 m high, while the valley is about 200
250 m deep. The total width of the formation is about 2
5 km. The South-Polar Terrain features 4 valleys (Damascus, Baghdad, Cairo and Alexandria Sulcus) separated from
each other by 35 km wide plains. As one moves closer to a
Tiger Stripe valley, the terrain rises with a relatively gentle
gradient to the summits of the ridges. The terrain texture
also changes from highly fractured to a more undulating
Fig. 3. Polar stereographic map of Enceladus' South-Polar Terrain (SPT)

showing the location of 100 plume sources. The circles are the 2
uncertainties [50]. (For interpretation of the references to color in this
figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
68
Table 2
Landing site selection traceability matrix.
Landing site selection criteria
Measurements
Instruments
Closeness to a plume source
Perform high resolution mapping
Hi-Res
Reconnaissance
Camera
Sublacial morphology
Assess aquiferous fracture morphology for landing

site selection purposes
Ice Penetrating Radar
Thermal emissions (higher plume activity means a greater likelihood Perform thermal mapping
of water nearer to surface)
Thermal mapper
Thermal emissions (higher melting efficiency in warmer ice)
Perform thermal mapping
Thermal mapper
Surface roughness
Estimate distribution of smaller features, surface

texture
Measure ice block abundance
Radar
Terrain morphology
Detect slopes, large features and other landing

hazards
one, covered with numerous icy blocks. Once over the

lateral ridges, the slope is initially steeper but changes to a
more moderate gradient the deeper one descends, with
unconsolidated material sliding from steeper down to
flatter sections, where material tends to accumulate. The
valley floor is expected to be very narrow, in the order of
50100 m [51], and interspersed with obstacles, such as
narrow ridges and elongated domes. An indicative picture
of the South-Polar Terrain at Enceladus can be seen in
Fig. 2.
Another important aspect is the texture of the surface
material in the South-Polar Terrain. It is mainly the fallout
from the plumes that modifies the texture: ice particles
tend to accumulate more near the plumes and less further
away. Studies have shown that nearer the plumes, particle
deposition rates can reach up to 0.5 mm/year, indicating a
deposit layer thickness of tens of meters if we assume that
the plumes have been active in the past million years [52].
Still, exposed icy crust can also be encountered, especially
on slopes on which less consolidated material has slid
downward.
The mechanical behavior of the fallout is also crucial to
the understanding of the surface texture. In a first
approach the fallout can be approximately treated as
super-fine snow, comprising grains of about 7.5 m outside the SPT, 40 m in the vicinity of the Tiger Stripes and
75 m inside the valleys, where larger particles tend to fall
nearer to the plumes [52]. Grains are expected to have lost
their crystalline shape due to collisions with the vent
walls, and have a roughly round shape. These microscopic
properties are translated to macroscopic properties of the
surface material, namely: increased force transmission
capacity due to the fine grain size, non-consolidated layers
of material and increased compressibility due to the low
gravity.
Cassini data indicate that the South-Polar Terrain is
warmer than would be expected if it were heated only by
sunlight. Moreover, the ice is warmer within the Tiger
Stripe fractures, with observed temperatures reaching up
to 157 K, significantly warmer than the expected 68 K for
this region of Enceladus [5].
Thermal mapper
Hi-Res
Reconnaissance
Camera
The radiation environment in the magnetosphere of

Saturn is not as severe as e.g. that of Jupiter. Moreover,
Enceladus sweeps up energetic particles along its orbit,
resulting in significant reduction in radiation levels in low
orbits around it and on the moon's surface [53]. The ices
of Enceladus also provide a reduction of orders of magnitude in radiation barely a few centimeters under the
surface [54].
1.4. Landing-site selection
A critical aspect for a lander mission to deploy a
subglacial melting probe near one of the plumes on
Enceladus is the choice of landing site. Based on Sections
1.2 and 1.3, we can derive the requirements such a landing
site must satisfy. First, it should be scientifically interesting, i.e. in this case close enough to an active plume source,
where the water in the aquiferous fracture is close enough
to the surface, and possessing other potentially scientifically interesting characteristics. In addition, the landing
site must satisfy certain landing safety criteria, such as the
absence of steep slopes, boulders and other hazards for a
lander. The instrumentation needed to assess these two
parameters is derived from the above two criteria. The
respective traceability matrix is given in Table 2.
2. The Enceladus explorer project (EnEx)
Since 2012 the joint research collaboration Enceladus
Explorer (EnEx) funded by the German Space Administration (DLR), investigates necessary technologies for a future
exploration of the Saturnian moon Enceladus. The goal is
the development of a terrestrial navigation system for a
subglacial research probe that fulfills the following
requirements: detection of liquid water in a body of ice
and measurement of the distance to a set target point;
continuous determination of the attitude and position in
ice relative to a surface station and to the target point;
detection of gaps and obstacles in the ice; autonomous
determination of the optimal route to the target point. The
EnEx consortium is led by FH Aachen University of Applied

Sciences and consists of eight partners, namely:
FH Aachen University of Applied Sciences, Germany

(Bernd Dachwald and team from the Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Gerhard Artmann and team from
the Institute of Bioengineering).
Bundeswehr University Munich, Germany (Bernd Eissfeller and team, Roger Frstner and team, both from the
Institute of Space Technology & Space Applications).
University of Bremen, Germany (Kerstin Schill and team
from the Cognitive Neuroinformatics Group of the
Faculty of Computer Science).
Braunschweig University of Technology, Germany (Peter
Hecker and team from the Institute of Flight Guidance).
RWTH Aachen University, Germany (Christopher Wiebusch and team from the Astroparticle Physics Group of
the Faculty of Physics).
University of Wuppertal, Germany (Klaus Helbing and
team from the Astroparticle Physics Group of the
Physics Department).
The developed navigation solution is integrated into a

research melting probe of the IceMole type, a melting
probe concept, which has been developed at FH Aachen
University of Applied Sciences since 2008. We will refer to
this integrated system as the EnEx-IceMole throughout
this paper1. It is validated and tested within field tests
conducted as part of an ongoing collaboration between
EnEx and MIDGE, an Antarctic exploration initiative
funded by the US National Science Foundation (NSF) [55].
In the context of the EnEx project, the Institute of Space
Technology & Space Applications (ISTA) of the Bundeswehr
University Munich is responsible for the overall mission
and system concept for a mission to land near a plume at
Enceladus and deploy the IceMole there. The mission
scenario for the extraterrestrial application of such a probe
should be studied, in order to determine the conditions for
the complete design and extraterrestrial operation of the
subglacial navigation system in detail.
2.1. The EnEx-IceMole: design and tests
Ice melting probes have been used since the 1960s for
terrestrial research in ice [56]. Those pure melting probes,
however, have two major drawbacks: they penetrate only
vertically downwards and it is difficult to (intentionally)
change their direction. In addition they cannot penetrate
dust/sand/grit layers. The EnEx-IceMole remedies these
drawbacks of traditional ice melting probes. Its design
is based on the novel concept of combined melting and
drilling (or more precisely screwing) with a hollow ice
screw as it is used in mountaineering and a melting
head at the tip of the probe (see Fig. 4). The screw assures
close-contact between the melting head and the ice, which
optimizes conductive heat transfer into ice and aids steering
in the desired direction.
1
Whereas we mean a yet to be built melting probe of the IceMole
type when referring to the IceMole.
69
The current IceMole bodies have the shape of a rectangular tube with a 15 cm 15 cm cross section. Their length
depends on the payload dimensions and the desired
maneuverability. The rectangular shape of the EnExIceMole provides support for the torque of the rotating
ice screw. The EnEx-IceMole can change melting direction
by differential heating of the melting head, which generates a torque (perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the
EnEx-IceMole) that forces the probe into a curve. Side wall
heaters support its curve-driving capability. The required
electric power for the melting head, the ice-screw motor,
as well as for the payloads and the other subsystems, is
generated by a surface generator and transmitted via a
three-conductor power cable. In future IceMole versions,
this cable can be uncoiled from the probe to overcome
refreezing of the melting channel, and for depths of several
hundred meters the cable can be packed into separate
cable containers, each containing tens of meters of length
of cable, that are attached to the back of the IceMole.
Communication and data transfer to the surface can be
performed via the power cable or via an Ethernet cable.
For navigation, the EnEx-IceMole is equiped with an
inertial measurement unit (IMU) and a magnetometer to
measure its attitude. A second (reference) magnetometer
is installed at the surface ground station. Together with the
advance of the ice screw, the attitude history from the IMU
and the magnetometer will then be used to calculate the
probe's position. Four ultrasonic phased arrays in the
melting head are designed to detect the targeted aquiferous fracture as well as potential obstacles in the ice. In
addition, acoustic pingers on the surface emit signals that
are received by four separate on-board detectors. They
allow for an independent determination of the probe's
position using the principle of trilateration. A multi-sensor
data fusion system combines raw data streams from the
navigation sensors to generate a consistent scenario and to
display it in a user-friendly format to support the decisionmaking process of the human probe operator on the
surface. In the future, this may serve as a basis for the
autonomous control of the probe. This system will also
include a module to optimize the probe's trajectory in the
ice with respect to parameters such as available resources,
time, and risk. The EnEx-IceMole is described in more
detail in [57] and its navigation system in [58].
Several field tests of the various IceMole versions since
2010 have been conducted on the Swiss Morteratsch and
Icelandic Hofsjkull glaciers. The tests have successfully
demonstrated horizontal, upward, and downward melting
capabilities and maneuverability, the stability and the
interoperability of the newly developed navigation subsystems as well as the clean access and sampling subsystem. The latest IceMole version (EnEx-IceMole, see
Fig. 4) was tested in NovemberDecember 2013 on the
Canada glacier in Antarctica (see Fig. 5). The EnEx project
will culminate in the Antarctic field season 2014/15 with
the deployment of the EnEx-IceMole at Blood Falls, a
unique glacial feature at the terminus of the Taylor Glacier
in the McMurdo Dry Valleys, Antarctica, where it will
cleanly collect samples for chemical and microbiological
analyses within a collaborative exploration mission
between EnEx and MIDGE (NSF funded) [55].
70
Fig. 4. Technical drawings of the current EnEx-IceMole design (top) and the EnEx-IceMole head (bottom) as tested on the Canada glacier, Antarctica
(NovemberDecember 2013) [59].
3. The current mission concept

3.1. Mission statement
As part of the EnEx project, a mission and operational
concept to deploy and operate the IceMole subglacial
probe near one of the plume sources on the surface of
Enceladus is being developed at the Institute for Space
Technology and Space Applications (ISTA) of the Bundeswehr University Munich. The objective of the mission
presented here is to deploy a Lander with an IceMole
probe at the surface of Enceladus. Because landing in close
vicinity to a water-bearing fracture is too risky, we propose
to land at a safe distance and use the maneuverable
IceMole probe to navigate to an aquiferous fracture at a
depth of 100 m or more below the surface. Once there, the
probe can sample and analyze the materials in the fracture. Navigating from the Lander to the targeted fracture
requires an elaborate navigation solution that can detect
the aquiferous fracture but also potential obstacles along
the way (e.g., dry fractures and mineral inclusions).
The mission concept study is a work in progress. Design
features are therefore not final and could change until the
final mission concept definition.
3.2. Mission architecture trades

In the following we focus on the driving architecture
elements for the mission. Decisions on these elements are
crucial, and will shape the subsequent design of the
system.
71
Fig. 5. Field testing of the IceMole by the FH Aachen operations team on

Canada Glacier, Antarctica during NovemberDecember 2013. Credit: FH
Aachen.
Fig. 6. Required heating power P as a function of melting velocity v,
without (solid lines) and with conductive losses (broken lines).
3.2.1. Power source

Due to the high energy demand by the IceMole, the
driving system element for the mission is the primary
power source.
As mentioned in Section 2.1, electricity from the power
source is converted to thermal power in the melting heads
on the IceMole, which in turn is conducted to the ice
melting or sublimating it, depending on the ambient
pressure. The pressure buildup between the melting head
and the ice can be regulated by the screw, which pulls the
head against the ice. Thus enough pressure is produced to
induce ice melting, which is an order of magnitude more
efficient than sublimation.
The typical shape of a melting probe is that of a
cylinder with length L and diameter D2 R. In a simple
energy balance approximation that neglects all losses, the
minimum power requirement P0 to a given melting
velocity v is given by:
P 0 Acp T Hv
3 1
where A R2 is the probe's cross-section, is the ice

density, and cp is the specific heat capacity of ice, T Tpc T
is the difference between the phase change temperature Tpc
of ice and the local ice temperature T (the phase change temperature is the melting temperature, Tm, or the sublimation
temperature, Ts, respectively), and H is the phase change
enthalpy.
Because the triple point of H2O is at a temperature of
273.16 K (0.01 1C) and a pressure of 6.1173 mbar, the operating mode of melting probes under vacuum conditions is
sublimation, unless the closing of the hole (by refreezing or
covering) raises the pressure in the hole above the triple
point pressure, which happens quite rapidly. We thus
assume in the following that the appropriate measures are
taken, so that the operating mode of the probe is melting.
To obtain a more accurate result, losses need to be
considered, most importantly the losses due to lateral
conduction into the ice. The lateral conduction losses have
been estimated by Aamot [60] for a cylindrical probe. The
resulting numerically problematic equation for the lateral
conduction losses can be approximated by:

P lc 932
Ws
Km3
U x0:726 vR2 T
3 2
where x is the value for L/(vR2) in s/m2.

Hence, the total power required by the probe to
penetrate the ice with a velocity v is given by:
P P 0 A; v; T P lc A; L; v; T
3 3
Fig. 6 shows the required heating power of a typical

melting probe (L 1 m, D 10 cm) as a function of melting
velocity for ice temperatures 50 K rTr270 K. The solid
lines represent the minimum power requirement according to Eq. 3-1, while the broken lines depict the total
power including losses according to Eq. 3-3.
In general, the melting efficiency (E P/P0) becomes
very small for melting velocities o1 m/h and very cold ice.
For example, in moderately cold 250-K Antarctic ice, the
efficiency drops below 50% for melting velocities o0.55 m/
h, while in extremely cold 150-K Enceladan ice, the
efficiency at this melting velocity is below 15%.
We can now estimate the power required by the
IceMole to melt through ice on the south pole of Enceladus, by making several assumptions. First, the ice temperature near the plumes is approximated at around 150 K
as discussed in Section 1.3. As mentioned above, the
IceMole is assumed to operate in the melting regime.
The IceMole is also approximated by a cylinder with a
length of 1 m and a radius of 10 cm, and its melting speed
is set to 1 m/h. From Fig. 6 we thus get an approximate
value for the required input electrical power of 5 kW.
For the stated melting speed, and assuming that the
IceMole will only be operated for 50% of the time, and also
that it will melt through 100 m of ice or more, the duration
of operation until it reaches its subglacial target is no less
than 9 days.
Power of this order of magnitude and for that duration
at large heliocentric distances where sunlight is not
intense enough for solar power generation, can only be
72
Fig. 7. Regime diagram showing the typical applicability of various

energy sources in the Saturn system (10 AU heliocentric) as a function
of power and duration. The yellow shaded area is an estimate of utility of
solar power at 10 AU, while the yellow dotted line is an estimate at 1 AU
for reference. Adapted from [61]. (For interpretation of the references to
color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this
article.)
provided using nuclear power sources, either radioactive

isotopes, or a space nuclear reactor (Fig. 7).
The principle of operation of space-based nuclear
power systems is converting heat from a radioactive heat
source to electricity. Radioisotope power sources (RPS)
using plutonium-238 as the heat source and dynamic
conversion methods such as Stirling converters are the
most efficient option, with a maximum achievable specific
power for this technology of up to 9 W/kg [62]. These high
performance Stirling RPSs would be an evolution of the
Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator (ASRG). However there are significant future Pu-238 availability issues:
although production is scheduled to be restarted in the US
around 2020 at the rate of 1 kg/year [63], supplies are still
expected to be limited and hard to obtain. In addition,
further development of the Advanced Stirling Radioisotope
Generator (ASRG) was recently canceled, which represents a
significant setback for this technology [64]. A similar evolved
ASRG design using Americium-241 as the heat source could
conceivably be used. This system would be somewhat more
complex than the Pu-238 ASRGs due to the existence of
pumped loops to conduct heat from the radioisotope heat
source to the Stirling converter rather than using simple
contact conduction. The maximum specific power of such a
power source is about 4 W/kg [65]. Am-241 is currently
selected as the European fuel/heat source baseline and
decision on the development of a full-scale production plant
in Sellafield, England will be made by 2015. The estimated
yearly production rate will be between 10 and 17 kg [66],
making it potentially much more readily available and
cheaper than Pu-238. However there are no plans for the
development of such a high performance Am-241 based
system, with the focus being instead on simpler systems
with smaller specific power, similar in design to the current
Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator
(MMRTG). A plausible limit for power production using RPSs
is considered to be around 2 kWe [67].
Using a nuclear reactor would circumvent the problem
of fuel availability. Space nuclear reactors have significant
heritage, however not for landed applications. Of the three
options, it is the most complex system. Heat is transferred
from the reactor core using heat pipes to compact
thermoelectric heat exchangers for power levels of up to

5 kWe or Stirling converters for power levels of up to
10 kWe [68]. A nuclear reactor would remain subcritical
during plausible launch failure scenarios. The specific
power of this kind of small nuclear reactors is between 3
and 7 W/kg [69].
High performance fuel cells were also considered as the
primary power source for the IceMole. However, due to
their low technological maturity and the uncertainty
concerning the IceMole operations duration on Enceladus
they were discounted. In case a nuclear reactor proves
unfeasible due to Planetary Protection concerns (Section
4), this option will have to be reinvestigated.
Due to the above, a small nuclear reactor is chosen as
the baseline for the mission. The resulting planetary
protection issues are addressed in Section 4.
3.2.2. Relay Orbiter element
One of the basic trades critical to the system architecture concerns whether to use two separate elements, an
Orbiter around Enceladus or Saturn to act as a relay and a
Lander (O L), or one single element, dubbed an Orbilander (OL) [70] communicating directly with Earth. The
configuration chosen in turn influences the communications architecture between Lander and Earth.
The OL option is clearly advantageous in terms of saved
cost, launch mass (no need for an extra functional Orbiter)
and reduced operational and systems complexity because
communication takes place directly from the Lander to Earth.
The deciding factor in this case, however, is that the most
probable location of the candidate landing spots is near the
bottom of one of the canyons that form the Tiger Stripes.
They are located at very low southern latitudes near the pole
and are characterized by rugged surrounding terrain (see
Fig. 2).
The above means that the Earth will be visible from the
Orbilander only in low elevation angles, and only during
Summer at the south pole of Enceladus (20252040) when
the Sun and the Earth are above the horizon, with the
associated high risk that the Earth will be hidden by local
terrain features, or that the antenna mobility will be compromised after landing on a large but survivable slope. Alternatively, we could limit our candidate landing sites to the ones
further away from the pole to try and circumvent this problem
(the northernmost plume source is at around 701 latitude,
Fig. 3). This, however, would impose unnecessary extra
constraints to the mission. Due the above reasons, the
separate Orbiter and Lander option is chosen for the mission.
3.2.3. Propulsion method and trajectories
The propulsion method used and the flown trajectories
up to Enceladus landing are interconnected, the latter
depending on the type of thrust used (high/chemical or
low/electric thrust) and the method used to capture in
orbit around Saturn. The options considered are:
All chemical propulsion (Chem):

The spacecraft will launch at an Earth escape trajectory
and will follow a gravity assisted interplanetary trajectory to Saturn, where an orbital insertion maneuver
using the chemical propulsion system will be performed. From the capture orbit, the spacecraft will start
a gravity assisted moon tour similar to the one proposed in the 2007 NASA GSFC Enceladus Flagship study
[71], to shave off enough orbital energy to reach the
orbit of Enceladus, and then capture in orbit around it.
All electric propulsion (EP):
The spacecraft will use the on-board small nuclear
reactor to power electric thrusters (Nuclear Electric
Propulsion or NEP). It will follow a gravity assisted
interplanetary trajectory, with intermediate low thrust
arcs, with a final thrust arc applied to capture around
Saturn. After Saturn capture, the spacecraft will perform a gravity assisted moon tour, while also performing low thrust maneuvers, to reach and capture in orbit
around Enceladus.
Electric propulsion using a chemical stage for Saturn
capture (EP Chem):
This option is similar to the all electric option above,
with the difference that no low thrust decelerating arc
is applied in the final leg before arriving to Saturn,
relying on a chemical stage for Saturn capture instead.
The moon tour is then performed using low thrust,
same as for the all electric option.
Chemical propulsion using an Aeroshell to perform
Aerocapture (ChemAero):
The spacecraft is launched and follows an interplanetary trajectory as described for the all chemical option.
Once at Saturn, an Aerocapture maneuver is performed
in the atmosphere of Titan. The spacecraft then reaches
a Titan Enceladus orbit, from which it begins a gravity
assisted moon tour as described above to reach and
capture around Enceladus.
Electric propulsion using an Aeroshell to perform
Aerocapture (EP Aero):
The spacecraft follows the interplanetary trajectory of
the EPChem option. The same Aerocapture maneuver
is performed as described for the Chem Aero option
above. EnEx then starts the gravity assisted moon tour
while also applying low thrust to reach Enceladus, as
described under the EP option.
Options involving direct landing after Saturn orbit

insertion are discounted as too demanding in propellant.
Also, in addition to Nuclear Electric Propulsion considered
73
above, conceivably a Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) stage

could be added to the spacecraft to power electric thrusters at higher energy levels and therefore significantly
reduce mission duration. Such a combined Solar-Nuclear
Electric Propulsion (SNEP) stage has been discussed e.g. in
[72]. However adding a SEP stage while there is already an
on-board nuclear reactor, albeit small, was considered
redundant and discounted as an option.
Options including chemical propulsion benefit from the
high flight heritage of this propulsion method and its low
relative operational and system complexity. Chemical propulsion involves drawbacks however, such as increased propellant mass due to its low specific impulse (Isp) and longer
mission duration due to the need for multiple planetary
flybys in the inner Solar System. Options involving electric
propulsion on the contrary have less flight heritage, particularly in the outer Solar System and are more complex
operationally and as systems. However they offer considerable mass savings and can shorten mission duration significantly. Aerocapture can potentially save significant
propellant mass as well because it eliminates the need for
a capture maneuver. However, since in this case the target
body lacks an atmosphere, the benefits of Aerocapture are
reduced.
Considering that the landed mass on Enceladus is going
to be high, we prefer solutions that minimize launch mass.
Since a relatively high-powered energy source is necessary
to power the IceMole anyway, it would be logical to use it
also to power electric thrusters. Since the interplanetary
transfer duration is already within reasonable limits (o 10
years) using only electric propulsion, there is no need for
the added mass and complexity of a chemical boost stage
for Saturn capture. Aerocapture would be best avoided
altogether, due to its low technological readiness and high
operational risk.
A purely electric thrust system powered by the onboard small nuclear reactor thus emerges as the preferred
solution.
3.2.4. Lander type

The target of the mission is to land and deploy the
IceMole near a plume source that will most likely be
located on the floor of a Tiger Stripe valley. This would
require high landing accuracy and autonomous hazard
detection and avoidance (HDA). Due to the long distances
Table 3
Key mission architecture choices. The selected architecture elements are given in bold red letters.
74
Fig. 8. Preliminary design of the Combined Spacecraft, comprised of the Orbiter and Lander, before Lander separation.
and attendant signal delays involved, remote control of the

landing is not an option, and a high degree of landing
autonomy must be employed.
Ball et al. [73] categorize landers based on the velocity
at which the contact the target body and on their landing
accuracy: Pod landers can survive an initial landing
impact, which may send the vehicle rolling and/or bouncing across the surface, and then commence operations
having come to rest in whatever orientation is finally reached. Penetrators are bullet-shaped vehicles designed to
penetrate a surface at high velocity and emplace experiments at some depth. Legged landers use a system of legs
to cushion the landing and provide a stable platform for
surface operations.
Due to the above constraints of the mission concept
(high accuracy, soft landing, unknown terrain) the only
suitable lander type is the legged lander, and it is therefore
chosen as the baseline for the Lander.
3.2.5. Architecture overview

Table 3 handily summarizes the main mission architecture characteristics chosen for the mission.
3.3. System description

The combined Orbiter and Lander before separation
will be referred to as the Combined Spacecraft. The
configuration of the Combined Spacecraft is shown in
Fig. 8. This Combined Spacecraft will transfer to Enceladus
and communicate with Earth, with the Orbiter serving as
the propulsion module. It will also perform remote sensing
of potential landing sites during the landing site reconnaissance phase. After Lander separation, the main function of the Orbiter will be to relay data between lander
and Earth.
The nuclear reactor on the Lander provides power to
the electric propulsion system, while three MMRTGs
provide power to the rest of the Orbiter subsystems
throughout the mission lifetime. An extended fixed structure is used to put distance between the reactor and the
unshielded components of the Orbiter. Fig. 9 shows the
launch configuration for the Combined Spacecraft.
Fig. 9. Preliminary launch configuration of the Combined Spacecraft, within

a provisional launch vehicle fairing with dimensions of 5.4 17 m2 (Ariane
V fairing).
3.3.1. Orbiter
3.3.1.1. Instruments. Table 4 shows a list of the instruments
to be carried by the Orbiter, as derived from the landing site
selection traceability matrix (Table 2). All three instruments
75
Table 4
Reference instrument list for the Orbiter.
Instrument
Mass
(kg)
Power (W) (Max)
Data rate
Dimensions
Heritage
Recon camera (RC)

Ice Penetrating Radar
(IPR)
33.4
38
28 (acquisition)
13 (standby)
706 Mbps
2400 kbps (in flyby
phases)
Approx. 1.5 1 1 m3 envelope
MRO HiRise Camera [74]
16 m deployable long antenna
MRO SHARAD, RIME [75]
Approx. 50 50 50 cm3
envelope
Mars Odyssey THEMIS

[71]
Thermal Mapper (TM)
17.1
11
14
0.6 Mbits/s
Table 5
Component list for the communications subsystem [76].
Component
Antenna
HGA (incl. LGA-1)a
LGA-1
LGA-2
Transmission lines
Radio frequency subsystem
Deep Space Transponder (2 )
Command Detector Unit (2 )
Telemetry Control Unit
Ultra Stable Oscillator
35 W X-band TWTA (2 )a
Waveguide Transfer Switch (4 )
X-band diplexer (2 )
3 dB Hybrid coupler (1 )
Radio frequency instrument subsystem
35 W Ka-band TWTAa
S-band Transmitter
Ka-band Exciter
Ka-band Translator
Microwave Components
a
Mass (kg)
Power (W) (Max)
Dimensions (max. envelope)
100.6
3-m diam. reflector
8.0
0.7
7.3
1.8
10.8
1.5
3.4
0.1
10.2
5.1
3.0
53.7
18.8 3.0 11.5 cm3

12.7 12.7 1.8 cm3
21.1 19.4 15.3 cm3
19.4 10.2 12.8 cm3
16.7 18.4 41.8 cm3
8.2 4.3 10.5 cm3
49.4 9.4 8.9 cm3
4.9
2.7
2.4
3.5
0.1
33.7
41.3
3.1
8.0
0.5
12.5
6.4-cm diameter, 33.5-cm length (max)
passive
passive
41.8 42.5 17.8 cm3
Different from Cassini communications subsystem components, see text.
should be pointed towards the candidate landing site to be

sensed. The Ice Penetrating Radar can also sense the surface
by operating at a different frequency.
3.3.1.2. Communications. For communications between the
Orbiter and the Earth a system based on that of Cassini is
foreseen, as described in [76], with the modification that a
3-m diameter High Gain Antenna (HGA) is used instead of
the original 4-m one, in order to make sure that the
spacecraft can fit in the fairing. In order to retain the
original system gain, the X-Band and Ka-Band TWTAs
(Traveling-Wave-Tube Amplifier) are replaced with
higher power versions (see Table 5). The HGA
communicates at the X-Band. Two 6.4 cm 33.5 cm UHF
Low Gain Antennas (LGAs), one mounted on the HGA and
the other on the opposite side of the Orbiter, both with
wide fields-of-view, provide uniform coverage.
According to [76] this system is capable of transmitting
4 Gb in 9 h during high activity periods while in orbit in
the Saturn system, requiring the use of a 70-m receiving
station on Earth. This translates to a data rate of 130 kbps
(link margin of 3 dB), which we will consider a maximum
capability of our system.
A list of the subsystem components is shown in Table 5.
3.3.1.3. Command and data handling. During the mission

there are two sources of data that must be stored; before
Lander release the Reconnaissance Camera will take
images that will be stored and then downlinked over
time. After Lander release, the Orbiter will act as a relay
for the Lander data. As discussed in Section 3.4.3, the
Orbiter generates about 4 Gbit per pass over the SouthPolar Terrain. This data can be stored multiple times in a
large, redundant, solid-state data recorder (6.4 Gbit per
card) [74]. The data will then be transmitted back to Earth
as described in Section 3.3.1.2. Based on [74], a singlefault-tolerant RAD750 single-board computer is selected. It
provides greater than 6.4 Gbit of storage using multiple
Flash memories as stated above.
3.3.1.4. Structures and mechanisms. A hexagonal primary
structure is foreseen for the Orbiter body. During the
interplanetary flight and before Lander separation, the
Lander and Orbiter will be connected with an extended
hexagonal structure, so that the Orbiter is at a safe
distance from the radiation emmiting reactor.
For separation of the Lander mechanisms must be
included, that provide a safe separation, imparting enough
V so that no recontact occurs. To avoid the potential for
76
unstable dynamics of the Orbiter, the supporting long

structure might also need to be separated from the Orbiter
via the use of additional separation mechanisms identical
to the ones used for Lander separation, but with stricter
no-recontact requirements.
3.3.1.5. Power. Before Lander separation, the on-board reactor provides power only to the electric thrusters. The driving
operational phases for the Orbiter are the Reconnaissance
and Landed operations (data relay from the Lander) phases.
For these phases, a maximum of 80 W and 100 W is required respectively (Table 8 and Section 3.4.5 respectively). We
also allocate an additional maximum power requirement
of 100 W for C&DH, GN&C, and thermal control [74]. Therefore, three MMRTGs [77] providing total End-of-Life (EOL)
(after 15 years) power of 300 W are foreseen to fulfill all the
power needs for the Orbiter with significant margin. Such a
separate power system reduces complexity of interfaces and
adds robustness to the system.
3.3.1.6. Thermal. Excess heat from the on-board MMRTG
on-board the Orbiter or even from the reactor on the
Lander before separation can be used to heat Orbiter
subsystems to minimize electrical power consumption.
The temperature of the instruments, electronics and
propellant tanks is regulated with the help of louvers.
The entire Orbiter is covered with multi-layer insulation
(MLI). A radiator of 1 m with louvers is foreseen for the
Orbiter.
3.3.1.7. Propulsion. The combined Orbiter and Lander will
reach the orbit of Enceladus and capture in orbit around it
using Nuclear Electric Propulsion. Power from the reactor
is varied via a Power Processor Unit (PPU) to power the
Main Engine Assembly (MEA) comprising two NEXT
thrusters with a maximum input power of 5 kW. The
propellant is pressure-regulated to maintain constant
propellant mass flow. Attitude control is performed by
four Attitude Control Thruster Clusters (ACTC) with four
operational and four redundant thrusters each, fed with
propellant out of two hydrazine (N2H4) tanks mounted at
the sides of the Orbiter. Two more tanks contain the Xenon
propellant used for the NEP system.
3.3.1.8. Guidance, navigation and control (GN&C). The Orbiter's
GN&C system will have to serve both the combined Orbiter
and Lander prior to Lander separation, and the Orbiter during
the communications relay.
As mentioned in Section 3.3.1.7, there are four Attitude
Control Thruster Clusters. Three High Torque Reaction
Wheels are also included, mainly for fine pointing the
remote sensing instruments during the reconnaissance
phase. Redundant sun-sensors, Inertial Measurement
Units (IMUs) and star-trackers are included for navigation.
3.3.2. Lander
3.3.2.1. Configuration. A preliminary illustration of the
Lander as described below is shown in Fig. 10. The
configuration was based on the Mars Cryobot Lander
mission concept [78].
A major driver for the Lander's design and configuration is the intense radiation emitted from the reactor, also
during the interplanetary transfer phase. Sensitive electronics, such as the IceMole, instruments and Lander
avionics will be protected behind radiation shielding in
Radiation Protected Regions (Fig. 10). The Lander design
will need strenuous attention to radiation levels for
materials and equipment outside of these shielded platforms. The water ice environment on Enceladus is a
strong absorber of neutrons, thus mitigating radiation
dosage due to scattering. At this stage we have bookkept
an additional 500 kg for shielding. Detailed radiation
dose analysis and shielding sizing is currently ongoing
using the LANL MCNP tool [79].
3.3.2.2. Instruments. Table 6 shows a list of the IceMole
navigation auxiliary instruments to be carried by the
Lander, as derived from the IceMole navigation requirements (Section 2.1). A site imaging camera (Site Imaging
System, SIS) is included in the Lander instrument suite, for
landing site context imaging.
The SIS will be placed on a raised platform, to have an
unobstructed view of the surroundings. Because the
Lander will land deep within a Tiger Stripe valley, there
is the possibility that it will not be illuminated by the sun
at all. A floodlight must then be added next to the camera
to illuminate the immediate surroundings. The Ground
Penetrating Radar (GPR) dual parallel antennas will be
deployed extending from the side of the Lander. Radio
frequency Pingers aiding in IceMole navigation will need
to be deployed (Table 6).
3.3.2.3. Communications. The Lander will communicate
with Earth via the Orbiter that will function as a
communications relay. A pointable LGA is foreseen, that
tracks the Orbiter when it is above the local horizon and
transmits stored data to it. This is necessary instead of a fixed
zenith pointing antenna because the Orbiter will remain at
an orbit with inclination close to 601, and therefore will
remain close to the local horizon of the Lander on the SouthPolar Terrain. Achieving high data rates between the Lander
and the Orbiter is not hard, owing to the relatively small
distances involved. A UHF helical antenna with a length of
40 cm and a diameter of 3 cm can transmit close to 1.3 Mbps
(3 dB margin) to an identical antenna on the Lander over
375 km, the distance between the Orbiter and the Lander
when the former rises above the local horizon. The system
has a second LGA for redudancy.
3.3.2.4. Command and data handling (C&DH). Following
the approach of [74], a RAD750 single-board computer
was selected. Onboard data storage will accommodate
multiple copies of the Lander and IceMole science and
housekeeping data.
3.3.2.5. Structures & mechanisms. The Lander body is a
typical hexagonal pallet lander platform. Six lander legs
with incorporated crushable honeycomb for shock
attenuation are foreseen. The legs are crushable up to a
predefined height from the surface, to allow for the
necessary clearance to be maintained below the Lander.
77
Fig. 10. Preliminary design of the Lander.
Table 6
Reference instrument list for the Lander (IceMole navigation auxiliary instruments and Camera).
Instrument
Mass
(kg)
Power (W) Data rate

(Max)
Site Imaging System

(SIS)
Ground Penetrating
Radar (GPR)
Magnetometer
(MAG-L)
Pingers (4x)
2.8
1.2 Mbps
0.15
2400 kbps
2.2
1.8 kbps
1 (each,
TBR)
1 (each,
TBR)
Dimensions
Approx. 50 30 30 cm3 envelope, on gimballed

platform, 1.0-m mast
2 deployable antennas 2 m each
electronics: 13 10.4 8.6 cm3, sensor:
8 4.8 4.6 cm3, on 2 m deployable boom
10 cm diameter spheres (TBR)
On the bottom of the landing legs snow shoes will be

attached, that must be able to cope both with landing on
very soft snow and on hard and slippery ice. The snow
shoes must therefore have both sufficient surface area and
Heritage
MER Pancam [74]

JPL Rover
GPR [80]
MESSENGER MAG, Galileo MAG
EnEx Pinger development team,
personal communication
some sort of spikes to grip on any underlying icy surface.

The Lander structure must be elevated enough above the
surface to avoid protruding features like boulders that
could damage the underside of the Lander, but also low
78
enough so that the center of mass of the Lander is

maintained low, thus avoiding a tip-over.
The IceMole deployment mechanism must deploy the
IceMole from its stowed position on the Lander and position
it above a patch of ice, suitable for the initiation of IceMole
operations. An evolution of the deployment mechanism
design currently used in the field testing campaigns of the
current EnEx-IceMole design is the current baseline.
Due to the high levels of radiation from the reactor,
Lander avionics, reactor electronics and instruments are
going to be placed on a fixed truss type mast at a height
of 4 m. On the top of that mast a radiation shield with a
weight of 100 kg will be placed, on which shield the platform for the electronics mentioned above will rest. The top
part of the mast will be connected to the sides of the Lander
with guy wires for stability. Before deployment the IceMole
is also shielded from radiation from the reactor.
Ice particles and water vapor ejected from the plumes
can also pose a hazard to sensitive surfaces, for example
the lens of a camera on the Lander could be damaged by
an ice particle or covered by a thin layer of ice, slowly
accumulating over time. This will require the shielding of
sensitive upwards facing surfaces, similar to that used for
protection against micrometeoroids.
3.3.2.6. Power. The chosen power source for the mission is
a small 5 kWe nuclear reactor. Several such small space
nuclear reactor designs exist (see e.g. [57]).
The currently baselined reactor is the Heatpipe Operated Mars Exploration Reactor (HOMER) [81]. This reactor
has been proposed for landed applications on Mars, both
on a pallet lander [78] and a rover [82].
The main component of the reactor is the core. Inside it,
thermal power is transmitted from the UO2 fuel rods to
heatpipes. The criticality of the reactor is controlled by
slidable control rods. The core is surrounded by a radial
neutron reflector. The heatpipes transfer heat to a Stirling
converter, where it is converted to electrical power. The
excess heat is radiated. Assuming a conversion efficiency of
20%, and for a required electric power output of 5 kWe, a
total of 25 kW of thermal power has to be produced by the
reactor. Excess heat that is not used for other purposes, e.g.
heating various components, is rejected via the radiator.
The total weight of the reactor is approximated at
800 kg [81].
Two redundant batteries are included on the Lander for
descent and landing, and deployment of the IceMole [78].
3.3.2.7. Thermal. The thermal system of the Lander will
maintain avionics, batteries, propellant and instruments
within their allowed temperature ranges, through all
phases of the mission. Excess heat from the nuclear
reactor can be used to heat components as needed.
The driver for the thermal system is the HOMER onboard nuclear reactor. Due to its high thermal load, the
sides of the reactor will be exposed to space. Excess heat
will be transferred to the fixed 4 m diameter radiator by
heat pipes and removed via the top side. [81] suggest that
HOMER is very robustly designed from a thermal point of
view, albeit for a 3 kWe power output. In case further
analysis shows that more intensive thermal control is
needed, additional changes to the design can be made,

like using pumped loops instead of heat pipes, adding
radiators on the sides of the mast, etc.
The propellant tanks could conceivably use heat
radiated from the reactor core to passively remain within
the required temperature limits. They will be individually
covered with MLI. Thermal control of instruments and
electronics in the IceMole after it has been inserted in the
ice can be managed locally, using e.g. the abundant
electrical power for electrical heating units.
A preliminary thermal distribution on the Lander is
shown in Fig. 11. The top of the mast and the IceMole before
deployment are kept within operational temperature ranges,
e.g. via heatpipes and proper use of MLI. Propellant tank
temperatures were not calculated, but will be in the future,
and measures will be taken to insulate them from heat given
off by the reactor. The effects of water vapor from the plume
on radiators and other components of the thermal control
subsystem will be looked into in the future as well.
3.3.2.8. Propulsion. The Lander propulsion system is a monopropellant system working on blowdown mode. The propellant used is hydrazine and it is divided among four
tanks: two tanks to feed the Main Engine Assembly (MEA)
and two to feed the Attitude Control Thruster Clusters
(ACTC). The MEA is mounted at the bottom of the Lander,
so that the thrust vector runs through the Lander's center of
gravity. Alternatively, each of the component thrusters of
the MEA can be divided among the thruster clusters, thus
freeing the bottom of the Lander and allowing for a larger
clearance between bottom of the Lander and hazardous
terrain features. The total thrust provided by the MEA is
estimated based on a thrust-to-weight ratio of 5. This gives
a total thrust requirement of 1200 N, which will be applied
by four 400 N thrusters. Each of the three ACTCs is placed
on a side of the Lander. Helium gas is used as the
pressurant, stored in the same tank as hydrazine and
separated by elastomeric diaphragms.
3.3.2.9. Guidance, navigation and control (GN&C). To
achieve the goal of autonomous safe pinpoint landing, a
landing Guidance, Navigation and Control system must be
employed, involving the necessary hardware (sensors,
actuators) and software (algorithms). The top level
architecture of the Lander GN&C is illustrated in Fig. 12.
The GN&C software comprises several parts. Concerning guidance there are two different types: primary
guidance and piloting guidance. The primary guidance
computes a trajectory for the landing craft and the piloting
guidance is a simplified guidance that chooses a landing
site and a trajectory or acceleration profile is computed for
each of them. These trajectories are compared in a decision
making process and if necessary a new landing site is
chosen by the piloting guidance. Both types of guidance
have different requirements. Furthermore both types need
information about the current state of the landing vehicle.
This information is provided by the navigation algorithm.
A Hazard Detection and Avoidance system is necessary to
determine a safe landing site, and in case of hazards
initiate avoidance maneuvers and retargeting.
79
Fig. 11. Thermal distribution on the Lander. Heat pipes are used to warm up areas of interest such as the top of the mast, to instrument operational
temperatures.
Fig. 12. Illustration of a top-level GN&C system architecture [83].
There is a large variety of algorithms for each of these

functions, thus extensive trade-offs had to be performed.
Regarding primary guidance, Convex guidance [84] was
selected. The algorithm is based on solving a Second Order
Cone Problem (SOCP) based on convex optimization and

shows advantages in its ability to handle constraints,
robustness, accuracy and fuel optimality. For piloting
guidance, D'Souza's guidance was chosen [85] that is based
80
Table 7
Reference instrument list for the Lander (Landing guidance, navigation and control instruments).
Instrument
Mass (kg)
Sun sensors (2 )
IMUs (2 )
HDA Lidar (2 )
TRN Camera
Total
0.1 (per unit)

4.4 (per unit)
3.7 (per unit)
3
19.4
Power (W) (Max)
Generated data
22
22
100 Mb (all GN&C instruments during landing, as per [88])
10
54
on minimizing a performance index that depends on the

weighted flight time and commanded acceleration. Advantages associated with it are fuel optimality, computational
efficiency and simplicity.
For navigation, the Vision Based Autonomous Relative
Navigation (VARN) algorithm is chosen [86]. The basic
principle of VARN is the observation of features/landmarks
using only a passive sensor and the combination of these
measurements with the estimation of the current attitude
of the spacecraft to deduce its position, using a Kalman
filter. It comes with advantages in regards to its ability to
handle constraints, robustness, and accuracy.
For HDA, the VB-CR-HDA algorithm was chosen [87],
which analyzes the terrain topography and detects slopes,
shadows and analyzes the textures using an image processing algorithm using a single optical camera.
The navigation sensors used by this system during the
various phases of landing include sun sensors, IMUs, LIDAR
for HDA and a hi-resolution camera for Terrain Relative
Navigation (TRN). A list of instruments used for landing
GN&C is given below. Control of the calculated trajectory and
attitude is then performed using the Lander's propulsion
system (Table 7).
3.3.3. IceMole
Within the scope of the EnEx project, the EnEx-IceMole
design is adapted to the subsurface investigation of terrestrial glaciers and ice shields as seen on Section 2.1
(15 15 200 cm3, 60 kg). A first miniaturized version of
the IceMole, called MarsMole (6 6 30 cm3, 5 kg) is currently built for tests under simulated Mars conditions. As is
evident from Section 3.2.1, the cross sectional area of the
IceMole version that would be deployed on Enceladus should
be minimized to reduce power requirements for the melting
head. On the other hand, reducing the size of the IceMole
would require significant miniaturization of the instruments
and electronics it must carry. A trade-off must thus be
performed between the two. As a current baseline we have
considered that an IceMole version with a size of
10 10 100 cm3 is a reasonable compromise.
The configuration of the IceMole to be landed on
Enceladus will be based on that of the EnEx-IceMole
(Fig. 4), considering the size and component modifications
described in this chapter.
3.3.3.1. Instruments. In Table 1, six methods that can be
conceivably used to detect biosignatures are listed:
antibody microarray/sequencing, nanopore-based devices,
microscopy, flow cytometry, fatty acid markers, and mass
spectrometry. The instruments associated with the MCTs of
molecular replication and cellularization should have the

highest potential for detection according to what is known
from terrestrial biology, as discussed in Section 1.2.3.
As also discussed in Section 1.2.3, the candidate instruments require significant effort for their miniaturization.
According to the results of that miniaturization effort, only
a certain limited number of these instruments will be able
to fit on an ice melting probe, due to the volume constraints stemming from the need to minimize the probe's
cross-section as mentioned above. Such miniaturization
efforts are not within the scope of the EnEx project. Due to
the development, volume, and mass uncertainties
described above, an exact downselection of instruments
cannot be given beyond the candidate instruments derived
in Section 1.2.3 and listed above. For the following calculations we will use data for the payload of the HADES ice
melting probe [88]. Engineering requirements are
expected to be in the same order of magnitude as for the
instruments eventually selected for a future IceMole version deployed on Enceladus.
3.3.3.2. Melting head, side heaters, and screw. The general

principle of melting and maneuvering through the ice using
melting head, side heaters and screw is as described in
Section 2.1 for the current version of the IceMole, the difference being the increased power input to the heating units.
3.3.3.3. Guidance, navigation and control (GN&C). Again,
the same principles apply for navigation under the ices
of Enceladus, as the ones for the current EnEx-IceMole
version (IMU, IceMole and surface magnetometer, dead
reckoning by measuring the screw turning).
3.3.3.4. Tether. The tether will serve a dual purpose:

transfer power from the nuclear reactor from the Lander
to the IceMole as well as data and commands between the
IceMole and the Lander. As also seen in Section 2.1, the
tether must comply with strict mechanical, thermal,
electrical and volume requirements. It must be able to
operate at the high voltages necessary for power
transmision through a cable of 100 m or more. It has to
be thin enough, so that the entire length of the cable can
be stowed in one or multiple possibly jetissonable
containers in the back of the IceMole, due to the melting
channel refreezing behind it. It must also minimize
thermal losses in the cold ice, to achieve maximum
power transmission and survive the mechanical stresses
it might encounter.
Fig. 13. Two-EGA transfer of the Combined Spacecraft to Saturn with low
V1 approach at Saturn. The inset illustrates the first leg of the trajectory
containing the two EGA maneuvers, with thick line arcs denoting lowthrust arcs [90] (grid of the inset shows 1 AU from center to edge). The
final transfer leg after the second EGA to Saturn is shown in green. Thrust
arcs for this leg take place after the final EGA and before Saturn capture
(not shown). The orbits of Earth and Saturn are shown. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred
to the web version of this article.)
81
Fig. 14. The trajectory of the spacecraft (green) from the original capture
orbit around Saturn, to a low energy Saturn orbit close to the orbit of
Enceladus (red). (For interpretation of the references to color in this
figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
3.3.3.5. Thermal. The IceMole must be able to maintain all

its electronics within their operating temperatures. This is
expected to pose no significant problem during nominal
operations; however problems might occur during nonnominal power outages. For this contingency it is
conceivable that on-board batteries can power local
heaters in critical areas.
3.4. Operations
3.4.1. Launch and interplanetary transfer
The low-thrust nuclear electric trajectories for the
entire transfer to Enceladus (Sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2)
where modeled using the InTrance software package
(Intelligent Trajectory Optimization using Neurocontroller
Evolution). InTrance combines evolutionary algorithms
with neuronal networks in order to find an optimal
strategy for a given optimization problem [89].
The mission will be launched directly on an interplanetary trajectory with a C3 of 0 km2/s2. An Earth gravity
assist (EGA) maneuver is performed one year after launch,
and a second EGA 2 years later. These two EGAs, in
conjunction with intermediate NEP thrust arcs will impart
an outgoing velocity of 8 km/s to the spacecraft for the
final leg of the transfer to Saturn. This final leg includes a
thrust arc during its final part to reduce the incoming
velocity at Saturn and enable capture. This final leg takes
8.7 years. The complete interplanetary transfer takes thus
14.55 years and is illustrated in Fig. 13.
Since the trajectory includes Earth gravity assists only, a
launch opportunity occurs every 1.04 years according to
the Earth Saturn synodic period.
Fig. 15. Reference stable orbit around Enceladus [91].
The gravity assists at Earth with an operating nuclear

reactor may be problematic. In the future the flyby altitudes
must be elaborated.
3.4.2. Moon tour

After Saturn orbit insertion, the moon tour phase will
be initiated, using low thrust propulsion (Fig. 14). The aim
of the moon tour will be for the Combined Spacecraft to
circularize its orbit close to that of Enceladus, and eventually capture around the moon. This will last 2.85 years.
82
3.4.3. Reconnaissance and Landing site selection

Polar orbits around Enceladus that would be ideal for
remote sensing of the south-polar region are not long term
stable due to strong 3rd body effects from Saturn. Highly
inclined, long term stable orbits believed to be near the
maximum feasible inclination are presented in [91]. The
orbit chosen for the mission has altitudes ranging from
190 to 290 km, eccentricities ranging from 0.06 to 0.19,
and inclinations ranging from 551 to 641. It is depicted in
Fig. 15. The high altitudes compared to the body radius
makes both poles viewable (including the Tiger Stripes
near the southern pole) at near nadir pointing angles.
To achieve better observation angles, if needed, the Orbiter
can go to a polar orbit and remain there for no longer than
three days, but such a maneuver is not currently considered. The orbital period is about 6 h, allowing for four
south-polar passes per day. During those passes the
instruments can sense the surface and subsurface of one
or several candidate landing sites.
In detail, assuming that an orbit around Enceladus has a
period of approximately 6 h [91], we allocate 30 min per
orbit for the Orbiter to perform pointed instrument
observations of the area around one candidate landing
spot. The data collected and the maximum power usage by
each instrument is shown in Table 9. For the remaining 5 h
30 min of the orbit, the Orbiter is pointing to Earth,
transmitting the obtained data. According to the 130 Kbps
data rate given in Section 3.3.1.2, the 3.93 Gb of reconnaissance data obtained from an overflight of a candidate
landing spot can be transmitted over the next 2 orbital
periods, or 11 h 50 min with a margin of 30%. Eclipsing of
the spacecraft by Enceladus and Saturn is not expected to
greatly affect the link duration to Earth, due to the
relatively high altitude of the used orbit (close to 1 RENC).
The process of remote sensing a particular candidate
landing spot, and then forwarding the data to Earth over
two orbital periods is repeated for several of the initially
designated plume sources as shown in Fig. 3, completing
the reconnaissance after several days. In parallel to the this
process, a team of experts processes the downlinked data
in order to choose the optimal landing site based on
Table 8
Reference instrument data for the IceMole (Scientific in situ instruments).
Instrument
IceMole scientific
instrument suite
Mass
(kg)
Power (W)
(Max)
Data volume
(Mb)
38
147
scientific interest and landing safety characteristics (see

Section 1.4). Once this is completed for the initially
designated candidate landing spots, the procedure can be
repeated for newly discovered areas of interest or repeat
observations as needed. This operation phase is thus
expected to last up to a few months.
3.4.4. Landing
The driving requirements for landing accuracy are the
width of the canyon floor, at around 100 m as discussed in
Section 1.3, and the desire to minimize the length of the tether
connecting the IceMole to the Lander for power and communications purposes (Section 3.3.3.4). Landing too close to the
plume source should also be avoided, to minimize planetary
protection related concerns (see Section 4). Taking these
considerations into account, the target landing area should
be a circle with a radius smaller than 50 m. Such a landing
accuracy is categorized as pinpoint landing (see e.g. [74]).
Once the landing site selection has been performed, the
landing sequence can be initiated: the Lander separates
from the Orbiter and performs a deorbit maneuver to
target the South-Polar Terrain. The GN&C landing subsystem described in Section 3.3.2.9 is designed to achieve a
pinpoint landing. The landing operational sequence was
based on that of the ESA Lunar Lander mission [93]. The
landing sequences of other icy moon landing missions
with similar accuracy requirements were taken into
account [71,74].
After separation from the Orbiter, the Lander performs a
burn to simultaneously lower its periapsis to 5 km above
the south pole and raise the inclination of its orbit from 601
to 901. The Lander then coasts to periapsis, where it starts a
second burn to dump most of its excess velocity. Once the
Lander has achieved a sufficiently reduced velocity the
engines begin to throttle down and the targeted descent
phase begins. During this phase the HDA is active. If the
designated landing spot proves unsuitable, retargeting can
take place and a new landing spot within the Lander's reach
selected. Once the Lander is above the landing site with no
horizontal velocity and a vertical attitude at an altitude of
1020 m, it shuts it engines and slowly free-falls to a soft
landing on the surface.
3.4.5. IceMole operations
After Lander touchdown a first 3D subglacial map is
generated via sensing the relevant area of operation using
the Ground Penetrating Radar to identify the position of
possible hazards and targets. The IceMole is deployed and
starts melting. For the first stage of melting, pressure may
Table 9
Data volume generated, and maximum power usage during a pass over the South-Polar Terrain during the Reconnaissance phase.
Instrument
Data volume
(Gb)
Power (W)
(Max)
Comment
Reconnaissance Camera (RC)

Radar/Ice Penetrating Radar
(IPR)
2.4
1
38
28
Data rate from Table 4 for 15 min. operational duration

Source for data volume: [92]
0.53
14
Source for data volume: data rate from Tables 4 for 15 min. operational
duration
3.93
80
Thermal Mapper (TM)

Total
Table 10
Data generation per Lander instrument and the IceMole during a six hour
period.
Instrument
Data
(Mb)
Comment
Site Imaging System

(SIS)
Ground Penetrating
Radar (GPR)
Magnetometer
(MAG-L)
IceMole Science Instr.
Total
78
1 pic per hour, at 13 Mb

uncompressed [95]
Same value as for orbital IPR
(overestimation)
1024
38
17.64
1140
83
have to be applied on the IceMole, so that the screw can be

better attached to the snow/ice and the ice is melted instead
of sublimated. The IceMole is sensing for hazards and
targets throughout its operation using the phased arrays
at its nose. The resolution of the subglacial maps generated
after landing is locally refined in front of the IceMole with
these measurements, and detailed 3D maps are generated
for visualization for the benefit of ground operators. All the
while the Lander magnetometer performs IceMole navigation relevant measurements. Commands are uploaded from
the ground, e.g. about specific points the IceMole has to
reach, and the IceMole navigates autonomously to these
points. If an unexpected obstacle or target is found, the
Table 11
V budget for the Combined Spacecraft.
Combined Spacecraft V budget
Phase
Earth escape to second EGA
Basic
V
(m/s)
Margin
(%)
3000 5
Second EGA to Saturn capture 17,000

Spiral down to Enceladus orbit
7950
Enceladus capture
190
Enceladus Reconnaissance
25
a
Orbit Maintenance (0.5 yr)
25
Enceladus Reconnaissance
Orbit to Disposala
Total for Combined Spacecraft
Nominal
V (m/s)
3240
5
5
5
100
17,850
8347.5
199.5
50
Comment
Approximate value for first two legs of EESGA trajectory from [90], including 35 m/s to
account for preparation and correction for each gravity assist maneuver.
50 m/s per year [102] for a duration of 6 months
26.2
29,637
Note: V margins are according to current ESA recommendations [103].

a
Will be performed by attitude control thrusters, and thus not included in V total for Combined Spacecraft, but taken into account for mass budget.
Table 12
V budget for the Lander.
Lander V budget
Event
Basic V (m/s)
Margin (%)
Nominal V (m/s)
Comment
Separation from Orbiter

Deorbit burn to south pole
Null impact velocity
Hazard avoidance
Total for Lander
0
150
246
90
0
5
5
100
0
157.5
258.3
180
595.8
V will be provided by separation mechanism

[71]
[71]
[71]
Note: V margins are according to current ESA recommendations [103].
Table 13
Master Equipment List for the IceMole.
IceMole Master Equipment List
Element
Basic
Mass (kg)
Maturity
Margin (%)
Nominal
Mass (kg)
Comment
Bus & Subsystems (incl. tether) 15.0
20
18.0
Instruments
Deployment mechanism
IceMole Deployment
Mechanism total mass
20
20
7.2
6.0
31.2
Rough extrapolation between current EnEx-IceMole version (60 kg) and

MarsMole (see Section 3.3.3) (5 kg)
Approximation, based on HADES instruments [88]
Rough approximation.
6.0
5.0
Note: All maturity margins are according to current ESA recommendations [103]: 5% for Off-The-Shelf items, 10% for Off-The-Shelf items requiring
minor modifications and 20% for new designed/developed items, or items requiring major modifications or re-design.
84
Table 14
Master Equipment List for the Lander.
Lander Master Equipment List
Element
Power
HOMER
Batteries (2 ) (for EDL
and deployment)
Structures
Shielding
Communications
C&DH box
Thermal
GN&C
Sun Sensors (2 )
IMUs (2 )
HDA LIDAR (2 )
TRN Camera
Instruments
SIS
GPR
MAG-L
Pingers (4 )
Propulsion and AOCS
GHe tank
PCA
N2H4 tank (4 )
PFCA
MEA (4 400 N
thrusters)
ACTC (4 8 4 N
thrusters)
Harness
System level margin
(20%)
IceMole Total Mass
Lander total dry mass
Propellant mass
Residual prop. mass
Lander total wet mass
Basic Maturity
Mass (kg) Margin (%)
Nominal
Mass (kg)
800.0 NA
800.0
73.0 10
80.3
Comment
5 kW reactor from [81]. Entire system incl. radiator, electronics, component

shielding etc., 20% margin included in basic mass
[78]
35.0
500.0
33.0
17.0
2.0
10
NA
10
10
10
38.5
500.0
36.3
18.7
2.2
0.2
8.8
7.4
3.0
10
10
10
10
0.2
9.7
8.1
3.3
Table
Table
Table
Table
7
7
7
7
2.8
0.25
2.2
4.0
61.0
7.0
20.0
34.0
20.0
7.4
5
20
5
10
2.9
0.3
2.3
4.4
Table
Table
Table
Table
6
6
6
6
10
10
10
10
10
7.7
22.0
37.4
22.0
8.2
Astrium OST 31/1 tank

Engineering approximation
Aerojet MR-104A/C thruster
10.6 10
11.6
Aerojet MR-111C thruster
82.4
329.5
31.2
2059.2
654.5
13.1
2713.7
MSL-derived pallet lander, based on [78]

Allocated to shield radiation shadow cones
[78]
[78]
[78]
5% of nom. dry mass, as per ESA margins

20% of nom. dry mass as system level margin (ESA margins)
Table 13
Hydrazine, Isp of 220 s, V according to Table 12
2% of propellant mass, as per ESA margins
IceMole enters a mode with reduced melting velocity in

order for the new information to be processed on the
ground, and new commands to be uploaded. Communications to Earth are performed through the Orbiter, which is
still on its original stable 200 km, 601 inclination orbit.
According to rough estimates, and assuming a conservative 451 elevation constraint to visibility between the
Orbiter and the Lander to account for the fact that the
landing spot will be within a Tiger Stripe canyon, surrounded by the rough terrain features typical on Enceladus, the Orbiter will be visible to the Lander for about
30 min per orbit. Table 10 shows the data generated by the
Lander, including the IceMole during 6 h. This translates to
a data rate to the Orbiter of 665 kbps. As can be seen in
Section 3.3.2.3, the Lander communications system satisfies this requirement with significant margin.
Power usage on the Orbiter for the communications
subsystem during data downlink is 100 W [94], considering
the modifications to the communication subsystem
described in Section 3.3.1.2. Once the IceMole reaches its
designated target aquiferous fracture and performs the
required measurements, the primary mission is considered

successful, and an extended or secondary mission phase may
be initiated. After mission completion, the End-of-Mission
and disposal phase begins. The reactor is shut down. The
entire IceMole, including the cable connecting it to the
Lander are to be sufficiently sterilized before launch, so that
they can be left in the ice. The Orbiter is deorbited and
crashes on the ancient cratered plains (see Section 4).
4. Planetary protection
The South-Polar Terrain of Enceladus presents a
restricting area from a planetary protection (PP) perspective. Active venting from fissures in the ice may lead
directly downward into a liquid water environment and
cracks at the surface may stay open to a few kilometers depth. Other parts of the surface of Enceladus, like
the cratered plains, are more geologically ancient and
therefore less sensitive. Such regions can thus be considered for disposal of system elements, e.g. the Orbiter as
described in Section 3.4.5.
85
Table 15
Master Equipment List for the Orbiter.
Orbiter Master Equipment List
Element
Structures
Main structure
Extended fixed structure
Instruments
RC
IPR
TM
Communications
C&DH
GN&C
Thermal
Power
MMRTG (3 )
Power subsystem
Propulsion
NEP
Launcher adapter
Harness
System level margin (20%)
Basic
Mass (kg)
Maturity
Margin (%)
270.0
600.0
20
20
324.0
720.0
[74]
Rough approximation for a 10 m hollow Al
tube
33.4
17.1
11.0
180.0
6.0
80.0
64.0
5
20
5
5
5
20
20
35.1
20.5
11.6
189.0
6.3
96.0
76.8
Table 4
Table 4
Table 4
Cassini Comms System [76]
[74]
[74]
[104]
135.0
42.0
5
10
141.75
46.2
[77]
[74]
300.0
20
360.0
[104], scaled for larger Xenon tanks, incl.

AOCS thruster system
155.0
162.8
102.5
438.0
Total Orbiter dry mass
Nominal
Mass (kg)
2737.4
Propellant mass for Orbiter orbit maintenance around

Enceladus, using Orbiter AOCS thrusters
Total orbiter wet mass
93.0
Comment
5% of dry mass, as per ESA margins

20% of nom. dry mass as system level
margin (ESA margins)
incl. 20% of nom. dry mass as system level
margin (ESA margins)
V based on Table 11
2830.5
Table 16
Total launch mass for the Combined Spacecraft.
Element
Nominal Mass (kg)
Comment
Total carrier dry mass (Lander wet Orbiter wet)

NEP Xenon propellant mass
Total Combined Spacecraft wet mass/Launch mass
5544.2
5866.0
11410.2
Isp 4190 s, V based on Table 11
To determine the planetary protection measures for the

mission, we follow a binary hierarchical decision-making
framework, as shown in [96]. This method is preferred to the
more familiar ColemanSagan equation due to the uncertain
and/or unknowable factors included in the latter. Since
Enceladus is known as a potentially habitable icy moon, it
only remains to determine the risk of contamination posed
by each mission element (Orbiter, Lander, IceMole), and the
necessary measures to alleviate that risk within the acceptable probability of 10 4. The Orbiter can come in contact
with sensitive regions of Enceladus only during non-nominal
contingencies. It is assumed that this risk can be minimized
sufficiently. Thus clean room assembly is required for the
Orbiter, but no further measures for bioload reduction. The
Lander will come in direct contact with a sensitive area of
the surface of Enceladus. It will therefore have to comply to
stringent Viking-level PP requirements.
The aim to land a nuclear reactor on an icy moon poses

significant planetary protection challenges for the mission.
Planetary protection rules concerning nuclear power sources
on celestial bodies are not clear. One of the UN Space
Principles resolutions deals with such questions in some
detail (UN Nuclear Principles 1992). While the Principles
cover the disposal of such devices when they have accomplished their function in Earth orbiting satellites (Pr. 3), they
are silent as to the disposal of nuclear devices on or after use
on celestial bodies [97]. It is safe to assume however that
such rules will dictate that no radioactive material should be
intentionally introduced under the ice and impose strict
limits on the chances of such material coming in contact
with the ocean on Enceladus. Even after successful completion of the mission, it remains to be investigated what threat
the nuclear reactor poses in the timescales of the various
geological or other processes on the South-Polar Terrain, that
86
could eventually cause the reactor to come in contact with

the subglacial ocean.
The IceMole will come in direct contact with a putative
biosphere on Enceladus. It will therefore have to undergo
even more thorough bioload reduction. The IceMole probe
and its instrumentation will be cleaned following assembly using a combination of methods developed by the
Aachen based group, adapted from methods developed by
NASA and ESA scientists for planetary spacecraft hardware
[98100]. All components of the probe instrumentation
will be decontaminated for chemical and biological reduction using both physical and chemical treatments depending on the material properties and size of the component
part. In brief, physical methods will include (a) dry heat up
to 250 1C, for bulky heat-resistant parts; (b) steam (121 1C)
for heat and water-resistant components; (c) hermicidal
UV radiation (260 nm) for all UV-resistant and unshadowed parts. Chemical disinfectants will include (a) detergent alkaline mixture Extran; (b) alcohol mixture
Bacillol; (c) hydrogen peroxide (5%); (d) hypochlorous
acid, for stainless steel parts), and (e) ozone. For each
component, at least two decontamination methods will be
applied, based on effective bioload reduction [101].
5. Technical budgets
Tables 11 and 12 give approximate V values for the
Combined Spacecraft and the Lander. Tables 1315, give
the Master Equipment List for each mission element, and
Table 16 gives the total launch mass.
The total launch mass is quite high, and indeed higher
than the capabilities of any current launcher to place on an
interplanetary trajectory. The main issue will be to reduce
the launch mass via an optimized low-thrust trajectory. This
will have to include the design of a low thrust moon tour, a
low thrust trajectory performing multiple gravity assist
maneuvers at the moons of Saturn that lie between Titan
and Enceladus. This, however, is an exceptionally difficult
task. The required mission analysis software is very restricted
and in addition its proper use requires expert supervision.
Thus the optimization of the NEP trajectory is left for a later
stage. It is thus expected that once such a trajectory is
modeled, and the reduction in V afforded by the moon
gravity assists taken into account, the propellant mass
estimation will be significantly reduced. According to NEP
trajectories to Saturn given in [90], it does not seem
unreasonable to expect a total mission V of 20 km/s or
lower. In this case, the total launch mass would drop to
approx. 8 t, within the capabilities of current launchers for
placement on an interplanetary trajectory.
Other steps will also be taken to optimize mass during
further design of the system. This will include e.g. a more
detailed assessment of the radiation effects of the nuclear
reactor, to reduce the mass allocated for shielding against
these effects.
It is expected that after these steps are taken, the
launch mass will be much closer to the capabilities of
current heavy launchers.
6. Mission cost estimation

To get a first estimate for the mission cost during this
early stage of design, we used a rapid cost assessment
parametric methodology developed and validated at JPL
[105]. The method assigns cost points to each mission
element according to its complexity or the capability with
which it is associated. The cost points are then summed up
and the total points are converted to actual cost figures.
Using this method, the rough-order-of-magnitude total
mission cost was estimated at 3 Billion (FY13). This
approximate estimate was confirmed by a preliminary
bottom-up cost estimation. The authors of this method
warn however that it tends to underestimate mission costs
larger than those of Cassini (2.2 Billion, FY13), so the
mission costs could turn out to be somewhat higher.
7. Technology development
Critical enabling technologies for the mission include
high power density power sources, autonomous landing
and hazard avoidance systems and techniques, and,
furthermore, autonomous navigation systems and methods for melting probes. The latter is under active development by the EnEx consortium, while there are
promising developments in a European context for autonomous landing systems development (e.g. [93])
An additional significant area of development is the
miniaturization effort for suitable IceMole GN&C and
science instrumentation. Although such an effort is not
within the scope of the EnEx project, a future version of
the IceMole could serve as a testbed for such instruments
on Earth. This would demonstrate the technological readiness of miniaturized ice melting probe GN&C instrumentation and advanced biosignature detection systems for
the eventual mission use in space and the planetary
environment of Enceladus.
Nuclear Electric Propulsion is another area where
technological development is necessary. Even though it is
expected to be similar in many aspects to solar electric
propulsion, that already has significant flight experience, it
has not been yet operated in space.
A heavy launcher such as the Space Launch System
(SLS) under development in the United States, would be
beneficial to the mission, increasing launch mass margins
and decreasing the transfer time significantly.
8. Summary and conclusions
The IceMole technology is a viable approach for clean
sampling and analysis of ice and extraterrestrial subglacial
environments. Within the Enceladus Explorer (EnEx) project, an advanced probe is currently under development,
which will culminate with a field test in the McMurdo dry
valleys in Antarctica. A lander mission to probe subglacial
aquiferous fractures on Enceladus was shown to be feasible using near term technologies.
Considering recent observations of plumes on the south
pole of Europa [106], a shift of scientific interest towards
icy moon exploration is anticipated. It is clear that with
minimum modification, the mission concept of deploying

the IceMole near one of the water plumes could also be
applied there.
Acknowledgments
The Enceladus Explorer (EnEx) project is based on an
idea and initiative of the German Space Administration
(DLR). It is funded by resolution of the German Parliament
under project number 50 NA 1206. The mission concept
study presented in this paper is also funded in the context
of the EnEx project. Field tests in Antarctica are carried out
within the scope of the MIDGE project, funded by the US
National Science Foundation under Grants ANT-1144178
and ANT-1144192.
This paper benefited from work by the entire Enceladus
Explorer collaboration.
References
[1] J.S. Kargel, Enceladus: cosmic gymnast, volatile miniworld, Science
311 (2006) 13891391, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1124495.
[2] D.P. Cruikshank, T.C. Owen, C.D. Ore, T.R. Geballe, T.L. Roush,
C. de Bergh, et al., A spectroscopic study of the surfaces of Saturn's
large satellites: H2O ice, tholins, and minor constituents, Icarus 175
(2005) 268283.
[3] A.R. Hendrix, The ultraviolet reflectance of Enceladus, Icarus 206
(2010) 608617.
[4] C.C. Porco, P. Helfenstein, P.C. Thomas, A.P. Ingersoll, J. Wisdom, R. West,
et al., Cassini observes the active south pole of Enceladus, Science 311
(2006) 13931401, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1123013.
[5] J.R. Spencer, J.C. Pearl, M. Segura, F.M. Flasar, A. Mamoutkine,
P. Romani, et al., Cassini encounters Enceladus: background and
the discovery of a south polar hot spot, Science 311 (2006)
14011405, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1121661.
[6] R.H. Brown, R.N. Clark, B.J. Buratti, D.P. Cruikshank, J.W. Barnes, R.
M.E. Mastrapa, et al., Composition and physical properties of
Enceladus' surface, Science 311 (2006) 14251428, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1126/science.1121031.
[7] J.H. Waite Jr., W.S. Lewis, B.A. Magee, J.I. Lunine, W.B. McKinnon, C.
R. Glein, et al., Liquid water on Enceladus from observations of
ammonia and 40Ar in the plume, Nature 460 (2009) 487490, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature08153.
[8] F. Postberg, J. Schmidt, J. Hillier, S. Kempf, R. Srama, A salt-water
reservoir as the source of a compositionally stratified plume on
Enceladus, Nature 474 (2011) 620622, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/
nature10175.
[9] D.A. Patthoff, S. a. Kattenhorn, A fracture history on Enceladus
provides evidence for a global ocean, Geophys. Res. Lett. 38 (2011)
L18201, http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011GL048387.
[10] C.P. McKay, C.C. Porco, T. Altheide, W.L. Davis, T. a Kral, The possible
origin and persistence of life on Enceladus and detection of
biomarkers in the plume, Astrobiology 8 (2008) 909919, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1089/ast.2008.0265.
[11] C.D. Parkinson, M.-C. Liang, Y.L. Yung, J.L. Kirschivnk, Habitability of
enceladus: planetary conditions for life, Orig. Life Evol. Biosph. 38
(2008) 355369, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11084-008-9135-4.
[12] J. Chela-Flores, Testing the universality of biology: a review, Int. J.
Astrobiol. 6 (2007) 241, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1473550407003795.
[13] J. Chela-Flores, From systems chemistry to systems astrobiology:
life in the universe as an emergent phenomenon, Int. J. Astrobiol.
12 (2012) 816, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1473550412000262.
[14] S.J. Gould, Wonderful Life, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1502-3931.1990.
tb01787.x.
[15] J. Monod, Chance and Necessity: an Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology, Knopf, New York, 1971.
[16] J. Chela-Flores, Testing evolutionary convergence on Europa, Int. J.
Astrobiol. 2 (2003) 307312, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1473550403001708.
[17] J.N. Gardner, The selfish biocosm, Complexity 5 (2000) 3445.
87
[18] J.N. Gardner, Biocosm: the New Scientific Theory of Evolution:

Intelligent Life is the Architect of the Universe, Inner Ocean,
Makawao, Maui, HI, 2003.
[19] S.C. Morris, Evolutionary convergence, Curr. Biol. 16 (2006)
R826R827, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2006.08.077.
[20] S.C. Morris, Aliens at home? EMBO Rep. 11 (2010) 563, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1038/embor.2010.101.
[21] J.M. Smart, Evo Devo Universe? a framework for speculations on
cosmic culture, in: S.J. Dick, M.L. Lupisella (Eds.), Cosmos & Culture:
Cultural. Evolution in a Cosmic Context, Govt Printing Office, Wash.,
D.C, 2009, pp. 201295.
[22] C. Vidal, Introduction to the Special Issue on the Evolution and
Development of the Universe, Found. Sci. 15 (2010) 9599.
[23] E.J. Chaisson, A unifying concept for astrobiology, Int. J. Astrobiol. 2
(2003) 91101.
[24] S.J. Dick, Cosmic evolution: the context for astrobiology and its
cultural implications, Int. J. Astrobiol. 11 (2012) 203216, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1017/S1473550412000110.
[25] C. Vidal, The Beginning and the End: The Meaning of Life in a
Cosmological Perspective, .
[26] S.C. Morris, Evolution: like any other science it is predictable,
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 365 (2010) 133145, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0154.
[27] M.M. irkovi, B. Vukoti, Astrobiological landscape: a platform for
the neo-Copernican synthesis? Int. J. Astrobiol. 12 (2012) 8793,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1473550412000456.
[28] S.C. Morris, The navigation of biological hyperspace, Int. J. Astrobiol. 2
(2003) 149152, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1473550403001460.
[29] J.R. Spencer, F. Nimmo, Enceladus: an active ice world in the saturn
system, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 41 (2013) 693717, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1146/annurev-earth-050212-124025.
[30] C.R. Woese, A new biology for a new century, Microbiol. Mol. Biol.
Rev. 68 (2004) 173186, http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.68.2.173186.2004.
[31] W. Martin, J. Baross, D. Kelley, M.J. Russell, Hydrothermal vents and
the origin of life, Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 6 (2008) 805814, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro1991.
[32] M.J. Russell, A.J. Hall, W. Martin, Serpentinization as a source of
energy at the origin of life, Geobiology 8 (2010) 355371, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4669.2010.00249.x.
[33] M.J. Russell, W. Nitschke, E. Branscomb, The inevitable journey to
being, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 368 (2013) 119, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0254.
[34] S. Vance, J. Harnmeijer, J. Kimura, H. Hussmann, B. Demartin,
J.M. Brown, Hydrothermal systems in small ocean planets, Astrobiology
7 (2007) 9871005, http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/ast.2007.0075.
[35] C. Vincent, M. Descloitres, S. Garambois, A. Legchenko, H. Guyard,
A. Gilbert, Detection of a subglacial lake in Glacier de Tte Rousse
(Mont Blanc area, France), J. Glaciol. 58 (2012) 866878, http://dx.
doi.org/10.3189/2012JoG11J179.
[36] H.C. Ver Eecke, D.A. Butterfield, J.A. Huber, M.D. Lilley, E.J. Olson,
K.K. Roe, et al., Hydrogen-limited growth of hyperthermophilic methanogens at deep-sea hydrothermal vents, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109
(2012) 1367413679, http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1206632109.
[37] C.R. German, Hydrothermal exploration and astrobiology: oases for
life in distant oceans? Int. J. Astrobiol. 3 (2004) 8195, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1017/S1473550404002009.
[38] D.P. Connelly, J.T. Copley, B.J. Murton, K. Stansfield, P.A. Tyler,
C.R. German, et al., Hydrothermal vent fields and chemosynthetic biota
on the world's deepest seafloor spreading centre, Nat. Commun. 3
(2012) 620.
[39] A.E. Murray, F. Kenig, C.H. Fritsen, C.P. McKay, K.M. Cawley,
R. Edwards, et al., Microbial life at 13 1C in the brine of an icesealed Antarctic lake, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109 (2012)
2062620631, http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1208607109.
[40] Y. Blanco, O. Prieto-Ballesteros, M.J. Gmez, M. Moreno-Paz, M. GarcaVilladangos, J. a Rodrguez-Manfredi, et al., Prokaryotic communities
and operating metabolisms in the surface and the permafrost of
Deception Island (Antarctica), Environ. Microbiol. 14 (2012)
24952510, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2012.02767.x.
[41] C. Georgiou, D. Deamer, Lipids as universal biomarkers of extraterrestrial life, Astrobiology 14 (2014) 541549, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1089/ast.2013.1134.
[42] V. Parro, G. de Diego-Castilla, J. Rodrguez-Manfredi, L. Rivas,
Y. Blanco-Lpez, E. Sebastin, et al., SOLID3: a multiplex antibody
microarray-based optical sensor instrument for in situ life detection in planetary exploration, Astrobiology 11 (2011) 1528, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1089/ast.2010.0501.
88
[43] E. V Koonin, The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution, Biol. Direct 2 (2007) 21, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1186/1745-6150-2-21.
[44] W. Martin, M.J. Russell, On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the
evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells,
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 358 (2003) 5983, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2002.1183. (discussion 8385).
[45] EVOSs FL Auto Cell Imaging System.
[46] EVOS FL Auto Innovative Automated Fluorescence Microscopy.
[47] Attunes NxT Acoustic Focusing Cytometer.
[48] N. Aghaeepour, G. Finak, H. Hoos, T.R. Mosmann, R. Brinkman,
R. Gottardo, et al., Critical assessment of automated flow cytometry
data analysis techniques, Nat. Methods 10 (2013) 228238, http:
//dx.doi.org/
10.1038/nmeth.2365.
[49] M. Fero, K. Pogliano, Automated quantitative live cell fluorescence
microscopy, Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2 (2010) a000455,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a000455.
[50] C. Porco, D. DiNino, F. Nimmo, How the Geysers, Tidal stresses, and
thermal emission across the South Polar Terrain of Enceladus are
related, Astron. J. 148 (2014) 4569, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/00046256/148/3/45. (http://stacks.iop.org/1538-3881/148/i=3/a=45).
[51] B. Giese, P. Helfenstein, P.C. Thomas, A.P. Ingersoll, J. Perry,
G. Neukum, et al., The morphology of an active zone near
Enceladus' south pole and implications (EGU2010-11085), .
[52] S. Kempf, U. Beckmann, J. Schmidt, How the Enceladus dust plume
feeds Saturn's E ring, Icarus 206 (2010) 446457, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.icarus.2009.09.016.
[53] G.H. Jones, E. Roussos, N. Krupp, C. Paranicas, J. Woch, a Lagg, et al.,
Enceladus' varying imprint on the magnetosphere of Saturn, Science
311 (2006) 14121415, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1121011.
[54] C. Paranicas, Europa's Radiation Environment and Its Effects on the
Surface, Europa, 2004, 529544.
[55] NSF Award Abstract Web-page: MIDGE: Minimally Invasive Direct
Glacial Exploration of Biogeochemistry, Hydrology and Glaciology
of Blood Falls, McMurdo Dry Valleys.
[56] S. Ulamec, J. Biele, O. Funke, M. Engelhardt, Access to glacial and
subglacial environments in the Solar System by melting probe
technology, Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 6 (2006) 7194, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11157-006-9108-x.
[57] B. Dachwald, J. Mikucki, S. Tulaczyk, I. Digel, C. Espe, M. Feldmann, et al.,
IceMole: a maneuverable probe for clean in situ analysis and sampling
of subsurface ice and subglacial aquatic ecosystems, Ann. Glaciol. 55
(2014) 1422, http://dx.doi.org/10.3189/2014AoG65A004.
[58] H. Niedermeier, J. Clemens, J. Kowalski, S. Macht, D. Heinen,
R. Hoffmann, et al., Navigation system for a research ice probe for
Antarctic glaciers, in: Proceedings of the. IEEE/ION PLANS, (2014)
959975.
[59] J. Kowalski, B. Dachwald, Solar system subsurface ice exploration in
the future of Astrobiology, (2013).
[60] H.W.C. Aamot, Instrumented probes for deep glacial investigations,
J. Glaciol. 7 (1968) 321328.
[61] P. McClure, David Poston, Design and Testing of Small Nuclear
Reactors for Defense and Space Applications, Invited Talk to ANS
Trinity Section, September 20th, 2013, Santa Fe, NM, (n.d.).
[62] G.R. Schmidt, M.G. Houts, Radioisotope-based nuclear power
strategy for exploration systems development, Jet Propuls. (2006)
334339.
[63] J.L. Green, NASA's Planetary Science Program Overview, Presentation to VEXAG, (2013).
[64] V. Kane, The ASRG cancellation in context, Blog Planet. Soc. (2013).
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/guest-blogs/van-kane/
20131208-the-asrg-cancellation-in-context.html.
[65] P.C. Schmitz, L.B. Penswick, R.K. Shaltens, Lunar Surface Stirling
Power Systems Using Am-241, in: Proceedings of the 7th International Energy Conversion Engineering Conference (IECEC 2009),
Denver, CO; United States, 2009.
[66] T.P. Tinsley, Design requirements for a plant to produce 241Am
suitable for use in an European RTG, in: Proceedings of the Nuclear
and Emerging Technologies for Space, 2012.
[67] R.M. Ambrosi, Development and testing of Americium-241 radioisotope thermoelectric generator, in: Proceedings of the Nuclear
and Emerging Technologies for Space Conference, 2012.
[68] L. Mason, J. Casani, J. Elliott, J.-P. Fleurial, D. MacPherson, A Small
Fission Power System for NASA Planetary Science Missions, in:
Proceedings of the Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space,
2011.
[69] V. Badescu (Ed.), Mars: Prospective Energy and Material Resources,

Springer, 2009.
[70] T.R. Spilker, R.C. Moeller, C.S. Borden, W.D. Smythe, R.E. LockJ.O.
Elliott, et al., Analysis of architectures for the scientific exploration
of Enceladus, in: Proceedings of the IEEE Aerospace Conference
(2009) 116. 10.1109/AERO.2009.4839317.
[71] A.I. Razzaghi, Ed., Enceladus Flagship Mission Concept Study, NASA
Goddard Space Flight Center, 2007.
[72] H.W. Loeb, Ed., Joint study Group Report on Advanced interplanetary missions using Nuclear Electric Propulsion, 1995.
[73] A. Ball, J. Garry, R. Lorenz, V. Kerzhanovich, Planetary Landers and
Entry Probes, Cambridge University Press, 2009.
[74] (Europa Lander Mission, NASA JPL), 2012.
[75] L. Bruzzone, J.J. Plaut, G. Alberti, D.D. Blankenship, F. Bovolo, B.A.
Campbell, et al., RIME: radar for icy moon exploration, in: Proceedings of the European Planetary Science Congress, 2013.
[76] J. Taylor, L. Sakamoto, C.-J. Wong, DESCANSO Design and Performance Summary Series, Article 3, Cassini Orbiter/Huygens Probe
Telecommunications, 2002.
[77] D. Woerner, V. Moreno, L. Jones, R. Zimmerman, E. Wood, The Mars
Science Laboratory (MSL) MMRTG In-Flight: A Power Update, in:
Proceedings of the Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space,
Albuquerque, NM, 2013.
[78] J.O. Elliott, R.J. Lipinski, D.I. Poston, Mission Concept for a Nuclear
Reactor-Powered Mars Cryobot Lander, 2003.
[79] A General Monte Carlo N-Particle (MCNP) Transport Code.
[80] S.S. Kim, S.R. Carnes, C.T. Ulmer, Miniature Ground Penetrating
Radar (GPR) for martian exploration: interrogating the shallow
subsurface of Mars from the surface, Concepts and Approaches for
Mars Exploration, , 2012.
[81] D. I. Poston, The Heatpipe Operated Mars Exploration Reactor
(HOMER), 2000.
[82] J. Elliott, R.J. Lipinski, D.I. Poston, Design Concept for a Nuclear
Reactor-Powered Mars Rover.
[83] I. Gerth, E. Mooij, Guidance for autonomous precision landing on
atmosphereless bodies, in: Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance,
Navigation, and Control Conference, National Harbor, Maryland,
2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/6.2014-0088.
[84] B. Akmee, L. Blackmore, Lossless convexification of a class of
non-convex optimal control problems for linear systems, in:
Proceedings of the American Control Conference (ACC), (2010).
[85] C. D'Souza, An optimal guidance law for planetary landing, in:
Proceedings of the AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference
Exhibition, 1997.
[86] S. Li, Computer vision based autonomous navigation for pin-point
landing robotic spacecraft on asteroids, Intelligent Robotics and
Applications, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2008.
[87] P. Rogata, E. Di Sotto, F. Cmara, A. Caramagno, J.M. Rebordo,
B. Correia, et al., Design and performance assessment of hazard
avoidance techniques for vision-based landing, Acta Astronaut. 61
(2007) 6377, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2007.01.030.
[88] T. Bttcher, L. Huber, L. Le Corre, J. Leitner, D. McCarthy, R. Nilsson,
et al., The HADES mission concept astrobiological survey of
Jupiter's icy moon Europa, Int. J. Astrobiol. 8 (2009) 321, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1017/S147355040999022X.
[89] B. Dachwald, Low-thrust trajectory optimization and interplanetary mission analysis using evolutionary neurocontrol, (2004).
[90] S. Kemble, Interplanetary Mission Analysis and DesignSpringer,
2006.
[91] R.P. Russell, M. Lara, On the design of an Enceladus science orbit,
Acta Astronaut. 65 (2009) 2739, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
actaastro.2009.01.021.
[92] D. Senske, L. Prockter, B. Cooke, R. Pappalardo, Europa Summer
Study Report to the Outer Planets Assessment Group, (2013).
[93] J. Delaune, D. De Rosa, S. Hobbs, Guidance and control system
design for lunar descent and landing, in: Proceedings of the AIAA
Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference (2010) 110. 10.2514/
6.2010-8028.
[94] (Chapter 8) Vehicle of Discovery, in: L.J. Spilker (Ed.), Passage to a
Ringed World: The CassiniHuygens Mission to Saturn and Titan,
NASA JPL, 1997.
[95] E. Mooij, (Ed.), METOPE, Mission to Enceladus for Terrain, Ocean,
and Plume Exploration, Design Synthesis Exercise Final Report, TU
Delft, 2009.
[96] Assessment of Planetary Protection Requirements for Spacecraft
Missions to Icy Solar System Bodies, 2012.
[97] M. Hofmann, P. Rettberg, M. Williamson, Eds., IAA Cosmic Study:
Protecting the Environment of Celestial Bodies, 2010.
[98] ESA planetary protection requirements, ESSB-ST-U-001, 2012.
[99] K. Venkateswaran, S. Chung, J. Allton, R. Kern, Evaluation of various

cleaning methods to remove bacillus spores from spacecraft hardware materials, Astrobiology 4 (2004) 377390, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1089/ast.2004.4.377.
[100] J. Eigenbrode, L.G. Benning, J. Maule, N. Wainwright, A. Steele, H.E.
F. Amundsen, A field-based cleaning protocol for sampling devices
used in life-detection studies, Astrobiology 9 (2009) 455465,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/ast.2008.0275.
[101] T.C. Penna, P.G. Mazzola, A.M. Silva Martins, The efficacy of
chemical agents in cleaning and disinfection programs, BMC Infect.
Dis. 1 (2001) 16, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-1-16.
[102] J. Spencer, (Ed), Mission Concept Study: Planetary Science Decadal
Survey, Enceladus, Orbiter, 2010.
[103] Margin philosophy for science assessment studies, SRE-PA/
2011.097/, 2011.
89
[104] S.R. Oleson, M.L. Mcguire, J. Dankanich, A. Colozza, P. Schmitz, O.

Khan, et al., Kuiper Belt Object Orbiter Using Advanced Radioisotope Power Sources and Electric Propulsion, (2011).
[105] C. Peterson, J. Cutts, T. Balint, J.B. Hall, Rapid cost assessment of
space mission concepts through application of complexity-based
cost indices, in: Proceedings of the IEEE Aerospace Conference
(2008). 10.1109/AERO.2008.4526689.
[106] L. Roth, J. Saur, K.D. Retherford, D.F. Strobel, P.D. Feldman, M. a McGrath,
et al., Transient water vapor at Europa's south pole, Science 343 (2014)
171174, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1247051.
[107] S.A. Benner, Understanding nucleic acids using synthetic chemistry, Acc. Chem. Res. 37 (2004) 784797.
[108] F. Rezzonico, Nanopore-based instruments as biosensors for future
planetary missions, Astrobiology 4 (2014) 344351, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1089/ast.2013.1120.

Acta Astronautica

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Acta Astronautica

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Acta Astronautica 106 (2015) 6389

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

A lander mission to probe subglacial water on Saturn's moon

This paper was presented during the 64th IAC in Beijing.

K. Konstantinidis et al. / Acta Astronautica 106 (2015) 6389

because of their appearance in the infrared. Particularly in

K. Konstantinidis et al. / Acta Astronautica 106 (2015) 6389

1.2. Emergence and evolution of putative life on Enceladus

1.2.2. Origin, evolution and baseline complexity of life on

K. Konstantinidis et al. / Acta Astronautica 106 (2015) 6389

In situ probing of an aquiferous Molecular

Analyze water sample for presence of replicatory polynucleotides Antibody microarray/

Analyze water sample for presence of cellular structures and

Analyze water sample for presence of expected metabolic

likely defined by such a protocellular stage of evolution

serpentinization-driven cracking of Enceladus' core could

K. Konstantinidis et al. / Acta Astronautica 106 (2015) 6389

isolating and characterizing replicatory polynucleotides, DNA

The exact design and calibration for the biological

Fig. 3. Polar stereographic map of Enceladus' South-Polar Terrain (SPT)

K. Konstantinidis et al. / Acta Astronautica 106 (2015) 6389

Closeness to a plume source

Perform high resolution mapping

Assess aquiferous fracture morphology for landing

Ice Penetrating Radar

Thermal emissions (higher melting efficiency in warmer ice)

Perform thermal mapping

Estimate distribution of smaller features, surface

Detect slopes, large features and other landing

one, covered with numerous icy blocks. Once over the

The radiation environment in the magnetosphere of

K. Konstantinidis et al. / Acta Astronautica 106 (2015) 6389

EnEx consortium is led by FH Aachen University of Applied

FH Aachen University of Applied Sciences, Germany

The developed navigation solution is integrated into a

K. Konstantinidis et al. / Acta Astronautica 106 (2015) 6389

3. The current mission concept

3.2. Mission architecture trades

K. Konstantinidis et al. / Acta Astronautica 106 (2015) 6389

Fig. 5. Field testing of the IceMole by the FH Aachen operations team on

3.2.1. Power source

where A R2 is the probe's cross-section, is the ice

conduction losses can be approximated by:

where x is the value for L/(vR2) in s/m2.

Fig. 6 shows the required heating power of a typical

K. Konstantinidis et al. / Acta Astronautica 106 (2015) 6389

Fig. 7. Regime diagram showing the typical applicability of various

provided using nuclear power sources, either radioactive

thermoelectric heat exchangers for power levels of up to

All chemical propulsion (Chem):

K. Konstantinidis et al. / Acta Astronautica 106 (2015) 6389

Options involving direct landing after Saturn orbit

above, conceivably a Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) stage

3.2.4. Lander type

K. Konstantinidis et al. / Acta Astronautica 106 (2015) 6389

and attendant signal delays involved, remote control of the

3.2.5. Architecture overview

3.3. System description

Fig. 9. Preliminary launch configuration of the Combined Spacecraft, within

K. Konstantinidis et al. / Acta Astronautica 106 (2015) 6389

Power (W) (Max)

Recon camera (RC)

Approx. 1.5 1 1 m3 envelope