Distributed Instruments for Planetary Surface Science:
Scientific Opportunities and Technology Feasibility

Distributed instruments are a subset of sensor networks: that is, all distributed instruments are sensor networks, but not all sensor networks are distributed instruments. A sensor network is a collection of geographically distributed sensors (e.g., a set of weather stations). A distributed instrument builds on this concept by capturing, by design, the spatial and temporal correlation of the readings, acting as a unified set of components collectively addressing a specific science question. For a concrete example, a network of weather stations, each independently monitoring atmospheric pressure, is a sensor network but not necessarily a distributed instrument; in contrast, a network of weather stations set in carefully chosen locations and sampling atmospheric pressure at agreed-upon times to collectively detect atmospheric tides is a distributed instrument.

Not all distributed instruments are swarms. “Swarms” are loosely defined as a large number of autonomous agents that act based on local information in a way leading to a desired emerging behavior (Rahmani et al., 2018). Typically, individual agents are low-cost and not individually endowed with sophisticated capabilities.

In contrast, a distributed instrument can have as few as two sensing units; each sensing unit can act based on information from all other units, if necessary; and individual units are not necessarily low cost nor unsophisticated. Concretely, two networked seismometers collecting data to localize Mars temblors are a distributed instrument; in contrast, a hundred low-cost weather stations individually relaying independent measurements to Earth with no cross-calibration or synchronization are not a distributed instrument, as they are not designed to accurately capture spatial and temporal correlations.

Several decades of spacecraft study of the Martian atmosphere have revealed a complex global climate system that is, in many ways, more complex than Earth’s own. Despite the absence of liquid water or biosphere, the Martian surface environment is a complex interplay of several interrelated climate cycles. Even with ample prior effort invested in quantifying atmospheric circulation, composition and interaction with the surface, much remains poorly understood about the Martian atmosphere, reflecting several cost constraints and technological weaknesses in these prior efforts. In addition to the value of understanding the Martian atmosphere from a scientific perspective (Mars, for example, provides a comparative end member among terrestrial planetary climates in our Solar System), proper characterization of the global environment is essential for reducing risk to future spacecraft missions to the Red Planet. Entry, descent and landing on the Martian surface relies on knowledge of atmospheric density and wind profiles near the proposed landing site. Future efforts to enable even higher-precision landing will require a correspondingly better understanding of atmospheric behavior. Direct spacecraft observations (from orbit or the ground) provide only limited coverage, both temporal and spatial, of the Martian atmosphere. Filling in these gaps requires the use of numerical models that can simulate atmospheric behavior at all locations and times of day, but which are constrained by the limited availability of direct observations with which to validate the models. Specifically, these general circulation models rely on two orthogonal types of data sets to ensure they are able to simulate the Martian atmosphere in a reasonable fashion. Landed spacecraft generally provide high temporal resolution of atmospheric behavior, but only at a single site, so they have, inherently, very poor spatial coverage. Conversely, orbiting spacecraft can provide near-global coverage, but with limited temporal resolution (a typical polar-orbiting satellite in a Sun-synchronous orbit has only two overflights per day, each 12 hours apart). Together, these data sets provide a piecemeal overview of Martian planetary climate.

Some key outstanding questions about the Martian atmosphere are best addressed by more sophisticated observational approaches, such as joint surface-orbit measurements, or simultaneous observations at multiple locations across the planet. As an example of this growing need, characterization of the dynamical and thermal state of the lower atmosphere is identified as a higher priority investigation in the MEPAG Goals document (Banfield et al., 2020, Goal II, Investigation A1.1). The higher priority nature of this investigation is meant to indicate that existing measurements are insufficient to address the investigation, and are necessary to achieve the overarching MEPAG objective (“Characterize the…present-day climate of Mars”). Under this investigation is mentioned, specifically, the need to characterize larger-scale circulations such as the thermal tides. The behavior of the Martian thermal tides—global-scale oscillations in atmospheric properties—makes its study ideally suited for measurement by an instrument with wide global coverage.

The strong atmospheric tides in the Martian atmosphere (Figure 7) can yield daily changes of surface pressure of as much as 10% at a single location (Haberle et al., 2014). These tides, which vary on diurnal and sub-diurnal timescales, are strongly impacted by topography (Withers et al., 2003) and atmospheric dustiness (Wu et al., 2020), yet we have only a limited grasp of how they function on Mars, based largely on poor spatial and temporal coverage. Orbiting spacecraft capture the same long-period phases of the tide (the diurnal and semi-diurnal components), but provide little information about variability of the cycle over the course of a single day. Landed spacecraft can capture elements of the higher frequency tidal modes, but, absent multiple sensors on a global scale, they are not able to interpret the full range of motion that makes up the tidal oscillations.

A suite of integrated sensors across a wide range of surface locations would enable a proper visualization of the global motions of the atmosphere, as the atmosphere is not a series of independent, isolated locations but, rather, a globally integrated unit. Because of the global nature of these desired investigations, they require instruments that are global in scale—for this reason, we envision a distribution of multiple sensors as necessary to address these questions. Rather than a suite of independent measurements, this distributed instrument should be seen as a single, global scale measurement obtained by multiple sensors operating simultaneously. This perspective is what distinguishes the present approach from prior efforts for obtaining global coverage. Similarly, the global condensation flow, a consequence of the annual CO₂ condensation/sublimation cycle on Mars, may be best observed through a suite of integrated sensors spanning the planet. Figure 8 illustrates the seasonal cycle of pressure as measured at the Viking Lander 1 and 2 sites. As  95% of the Martian atmosphere is CO₂, surface pressure is a good proxy for total atmospheric CO₂ abundance. The large seasonal variation of about 30% is a consequence of CO₂ condensation in the cold wintertime hemisphere, which pulls mass out of the atmosphere and onto the polar surface, followed by sublimation of these polar ice deposits back into the atmosphere during spring and summer. A careful look at Figure 8 reveals asynchronous timing between the local maxima/minima between the two curves. This is because the sublimated mass of CO₂ released from the polar cap does not instantaneously ‘flood’ the atmosphere but is, rather, distributed more slowly and in a non-uniform manner, affecting the two landing sites differently, and at different times (high frequency “spikes” are due to weather patterns, and are distinct from the seasonal behavior of the condensation cycle). As the spring/summer season progresses, the location of these sublimating deposits changes (Piqueux et al., 2015), as does the nature of this “condensation flow”. By capturing the evolution of the pressure cycle at multiple locations simultaneously using a distributed instrument, we can better understand the timing of condensation/sublimation activity and the polar cap composition as a function of season. This, too, is identified as a higher priority measurement in Mars science (Banfield et al., 2020, Goal II, Investigation A2.2). As noted in Banfield et al. (2020), “Due to poor local time coverage in existing observations (a result of sun-synchronous spacecraft orbits), existing observations have not been able to measure this [CO₂ sublimation] variability.” A globally distributed instrument could directly address this need.

There are three cycles that drive climate on Mars—the aforementioned carbon dioxide cycle, the water cycle (both as vapor and ice), and the dust cycle. Atop the main CO₂ cycle are seasonal variations in water vapor and water ice abundances in the atmosphere, both of which peak, generally, during the northern spring and summer seasons. A widespread belt of clouds, for example, forms in the tropical latitudes during late spring/early summer [Clancy et al. (1996); Figure 9]. During southern spring and summer, however, the Martian atmosphere is generally dustier than at other times of the year (Figure 10), though dust is ubiquitous in the Martian atmosphere. There is a strong relationship between atmospheric dust and water ice, as the former serves as condensation nuclei for the latter; hence, one cannot observe one cycle without considering the other. Because of both the temporal and spatial distinction between the “key” areas of the different cycles, observations need to be made across a wide spatial extent, and across multiple seasons, if not years. Global coverage of Mars with identical sensor packages as part of a distributed instrument would therefore be a valuable approach to providing this global coverage and achieving good temporal resolution. A strawman design for a distributed instrument might have on the order of 10 distinct sensor packages roughly covering all longitudes and latitudes (4 latitudes by 4 longitudes would provide quadrant-scale coverage and result in 16 sensors).

A threshold sensor package that would positively advance Mars atmospheric science would contain pressure and air temperature sensors, as well as sensors to measure wind, and column-integrated dust and water ice abundance. Augmentations to this basic package might also include a filtered imager or spectrometer to measure clouds and atmospheric opacity, as well as water vapor abundance. Sensors probing the surface could enable additional useful measurements of surface-atmosphere fluxes of water and temperature, and an understanding of soil composition. The basic package is largely comprised of high-TRL, low-cost instruments (pressure, temperature and wind sensors have all successfully flown to Mars, e.g., Gómez-Elvira et al. (2012); Spiga et al. (2018)), which is an enabling factor, in terms of cost and risk, for deploying multiple sensors across the planet. Adding additional components to the sensor package increases its overall scientific value, but at the price of greater expense or increases in SWaP and with lower technological readiness. Examples of such sensors are a Doppler lidar (for cloud/aerosol detection and wind; e.g., (Whiteway et al., 2008)) or sonic anemometer (for high-frequency wind measurements; e.g., Banfield et al. (2016)). While this study recognizes the potential value of such measurements, they may be of secondary value towards addressing global-scale atmospheric processes (versus local atmospheric behavior), for which a distributed instrument is ideally suited.

The proposed sensor package has a high TRL, greatly reducing the technical hurdles for development of a distributed instrument for global Martian climate and weather. Two key technical challenges of such an instrument, however, are cost-effective delivery to the planetary surface from orbit, and long-term survivability – i.e., the need to deploy multiple sensors across a planetary surface with lower per-sensor costs compared to current monolithic missions, and the requirement to ensure the sensors are able to collect data for months to years across a variety of landing sites, including especially inhospitable polar regions. These challenges are broadly common to all instrument concepts discussed in this section. For this reason, we defer their detailed discussion to Section 3.6.

Planetary surface seismology is one of the critical techniques for investigating the interior of various objects in the Solar System, and distributed seismology stands out as one of the prime examples of science that is enabled by distributed instruments. The field of seismology lends itself naturally to distributed measurements, since such measurements readily allow for the localization of the source of seismic activity, which is critical to answering questions about the interior structure of the body. The 2023-2032 Decadal Survey (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2022) explicitly calls for geophysical networks capturing seismic and magnetometer measurements on the Moon and Mars (Q3.3, Q5.1), and for seismic investigations (although not explicitly seismic networks) of Venus (Q3.4) and of rocky and icy worlds (Q5.6), with particular focus on Jupiter and Saturn satellites including Europa, Enceladus, and Titan (Q8.2).

Seismic waves can be generated from tectonic and fluid flow processes, and their observations can not only tell us about the internal structure of the celestial body, but also shed light on internal dynamic processes. Ocean worlds with significant tidal deformations and bodies with ongoing seismic activity (e.g., plumes), such as Enceladus and Titan, are prime candidates for seismic exploration. Seismology can answer key questions about the thickness of Europa’s icy crust, localize the geothermal activity responsible for the plumes emanating from the vents on Enceladus, and study the intensity of active volcanoes on Venus. Some of the specific planetary science questions that can be explored with the help of distributed seismic instruments are:

• •

  3D seismic structure of any solid-body object in the Solar System;

• •

  Localization of seismic activity associated with plume processes on ocean worlds;

• •

  Measurement of the distribution of magma on Io;

• •

  Detection of ice subduction on Europa or other ocean worlds;

• •

  Measurement of surface tilt caused by tidal flexing;

• •

  Flooding of a region of interest with a large number of seismometers (a few hundred) to obtain a very dense map for active surveying, akin to how targeted regions are explored in the oil industry.

At least 3 seismometers (4 preferable) are needed to enable triangulation-based localization of seismic events. In terms of spatial distribution, if there is poor a priori knowledge of active regions, then distribution on a global scale would be the preferred option with the aim of discovery and exploration. A global distribution covering a wide range of longitudes and latitudes is also favorable for increasing localization accuracy. On the other hand, if there is good knowledge of active seismic locations from orbiter missions or other sources, then a tighter configuration might be more favorable. The efficacy of a regional network with moderate separation between individual sensors is yet to be analyzed in detail. Mocquet (1999) studied a global Mars network comprising four hubs, each of which contained a mini-network of four distributed seismometers. Global coverage using a single launch is hard to achieve for objects like Mars due to guidance and EDL challenges. However, a global seismic network becomes more feasible on smaller bodies like Enceladus, where each sensor node has to be imparted with relatively small amounts of $\Delta$V, and survive lower impact speeds.

The performance specifications for each individual sensor, such as sensitivity, noise figure, bandwidth, etc. have to be tuned for each target body. Recent advances have led to the development of miniaturized short-period seismometers such as the SEIS instrument flown on the Mars InSight mission (Banerdt et al., 2020). Other such instruments are also currently in development for the Lunar Geophysical Network (Shearer, 2011; Neal et al., 2019).

Magnetic induction of global electrically conductive layers results in a dipole field whose signal falls off as $1/R^{3}$. Therefore, it is ideal to be as close to the surface of the body as possible to measure the time-varying induced field, especially since some responses may have low amplitude. In addition, surface magnetometers provide continuous coverage, while orbiters may only be able to provide informative data when the spacecraft is within a certain altitude range (i.e., near periapsis). Since inversion methods require enough magnetic data to properly sample the body’s response to the variation of the inducing field, continuous coverage from the surface can lead to a more robust solution for determination of interior layers. A network of strategically placed magnetometers carrying out simultaneous measurements would be needed to build a global view of the body’s time-varying induced magnetic field.

It may also be possible for surface magnetometers to detect asymmetry in ice shells of ocean worlds. Recent literature has examined the differences in the induction response between a spherical ice shell and an asymmetrical ice shell (Styczinski & Harnett, 2021). Figure 11 shows variability in response for the case of Europa with a spherical (black line) and asymmetric (green line) ice shell for a surface location at the subjovian point. It can be seen that these differences are quite small and would require good sensitivity even at the surface location. Since the signal falls as $1/R^{3}$, it is doubtful that these differences would be measurable from orbit. A distributed network could possibly measure this by placing three surface magnetometers along each axis of a chosen coordinate system relative to the body’s center. Another prime target for such an investigation would be Enceladus, which has plumes located only at its southern pole. The current line of thought for this plume asymmetry is that the ice shell may be thinner near the south pole and thicker near the north pole. However, more analysis is required to understand how feasible an asymmetrical detection would be, and which planetary bodies may present an asymmetrical ice shell that could be detected through magnetometry.

A distributed magnetometry instrument would also provide additional scientific measurements. In addition to the induced magnetic field, the surface magnetometers would accurately sample both the spatial distribution and magnitude of crustal fields. While temporally coordinated measurements are not needed for mapping these time-invariant crustal fields, the multi-point measurements from geographically distributed sensors allows quick development of a more complete picture of the distribution of the remanent magnetic field on the planetary surface.

Magnetometers require modest power ($\sim 0.8$ W) and data rates ($\sim 30$ bps) (Villarreal et al., 2020), making them an instrument suitable for a distributed network. The optimum configuration of a distributed network on the surface will vary with the target’s environmental conditions and the type of magnetometry investigation. Crustal magnetism could be sensed by stationary, strategically placed magnetometers (similar to InSight’s) to compare different magnetized locations on the surface; this would allow for monitoring of how crustal fields interact with the solar wind and the ionosphere over time. However, networks of mobile platforms would likely be most ideal to sample and map a larger spatial range of crustal fields. A generic case for electromagnetic sounding could possibly consist of one spacecraft in orbit to directly measure the inducing field, and a small number (3 minimum) of magnetometers on the surface for greater spatial resolution at higher precision. Placement of the magnetometers on the surface may require a global distribution (such as near the poles and equator) to capture the induction response. However, detailed analysis is needed to identify preferable placements for networks on specific bodies.

A high-priority scientific goal identified in the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group Goals document (Banfield et al., 2020) is to “determine if Mars ever supported, or still supports, life” through surface and subsurface smart sensor systems that can define, for example, the origin and point sources of methane and help determine whether Mars is still active (e.g., heat energy generated by magma and tectonism) and contains groundwater reservoirs, all important factors for life as we know it.

Life, hydrothermal activity (releases related to the mixing of magma and water), and serpentinization of rocks all result in methane release on Earth (e.g., Formisano et al. (2004)). Also, methane clathrates release methane into the atmosphere once unlocked from the melting of ice sheets, lenses, and frozen ground (Prieto-Ballesteros et al., 2006). A key question to be addressed is which one of these phenomena (or perhaps all) contributed to the production of the detected methane on Mars?

On Earth, arrays of methane detectors have been in usage for decades. Recent advances include quantum optimal detectors for monitoring industrial gas leaks. Earth-based methane investigations include long-range, high-sensitivity, and high-speed quantitative imaging of the shape and concentration of particulates in gas plumes.

For planetary landers on Mars, methane detectors have been developed and deployed for both orbiting and roving spacecraft. Low concentrations (up to 10s ppb) of methane have been controversially detected in the modern Martian atmosphere through Earth-based telescopes (Mumma et al., 2004; Krasnopolsky et al., 2004), and by the Mars Express spacecraft (Formisano et al., 2004). Viking Landers 1 and 2 detected chloromethane at 15 ppb and .04-40 ppb, respectively [e.g., Klein et al. (1992)] by using chemical-reaction experiments. The Curiosity rover in Gale crater has recently identified variable methane concentrations up to 21 ppb, using the Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM) instrument (Webster et al., 2015), albeit in what appears to be transient releases. Smart quantum methane sensor systems provide the next step in the exploration and detection of methane sources.

Individual sensors only provide a point source detection, which makes it extremely challenging to pinpoint the spatial source of methane gas emissions; in contrast, deploying a sensor array would provide uniquely valuable data to understand the methane cycle on Mars.

Regional and global-scale methane plumes can be detected with orbiters and telescopic observations; once a region where emissions potentially originate from is identified, a small number of detectors, as part of a distributed network, can be deployed to pinpoint the origin of emission. If an orbiter is used to detect large plumes, a particularly attractive concept of operation would entail the orbiter performing remote observations and carrying a number of surface sensing units; once a plume is detected in a given region, the orbiter could deploy the sensing units to the surface in the region of interest to obtain an accurate localization. Regions of interest include fissures and possible serpentinization sites. For instance, four methane detectors comparable to Curiosity’s SAM Tunable Laser Spectrometer (TLS) (Mahaffy et al., 2012), positioned around the edge of Gale crater over a distance of tens to hundreds of kilometers, could potentially lead to location of a plume source originating from within the crater, such as the one observed by Curiosity in 2015 (Webster et al., 2015).

Localizing the source of a gas plume requires accurate knowledge of atmospheric circulation [Mischna et al. (2020) and Figure 12]. High-quality mesoscale models of planetary atmospheric circulation are available (Richardson et al., 2007); however, as discussed in Section 3.2, knowledge of ground-truth information is critical to the accuracy of these models. To this end, augmenting a trace gas detection distributed instrument with a large number of low-cost, high-TRL weather stations modeled after those flown on Curiosity, InSight, and Perseverance (Gómez-Elvira et al., 2012; Banfield et al., 2019; Rodriguez-Manfredi et al., 2021) distributed in the region of interest could greatly increase the accuracy of the distributed instrument, in addition to achieving many of the goals discussed in Section 3.2.

For many distributed instruments, basic sensor costs do not present a significant hurdle, nor do they offer technology development challenges; rather, there remain unresolved challenges concerning methods of deployment—how the sensor payloads are to be carried and deployed across the planet — and the carrier system by which the sensors are delivered. Despite the small nature of each individual sensor, costs associated with a “mothership” or payload carrier may increase mission costs for a dedicated mission. These concerns are especially relevant for instruments that require global distribution, e.g., those targeted to climate and magnetometry investigations. The requirement to deploy across a range of latitudes and longitudes presents non-trivial questions about how the sensors are to be released—whether during approach to the body of interest, or by an orbiting carrier. This uncertainty requires additional analysis, and the best solution may present additional costs to a notional stand-alone mission design. An alternative approach, deployment as a series of secondary, “ride-along” SmallSat payloads, also requires further study.

Individual elements, with low size, weight, and power (SWaP), must also manage potentially challenging environmental conditions; it is also necessary to ensure a sufficiently long lifetime for each sensor package. For all the science concepts of interest, multi-year investigations are highly desirable to maximize the likelihood of detecting events of interest and to capture seasonal or interannual variability. For instance, a strawman threshold mission investigating the Martian climate would last a minimum of one Mars year, so as to fully cover the three primary Martian climate cycles. Ideally, though, a mission lifetime of several Mars years is more desirable so as to capture as much of the interannual variability in the climate cycles as possible: while CO₂ and water cycles are mostly consistent year over year, the dust cycle is highly variable and unpredictable; e.g., Zurek & Martin (1993). Likewise, a mission to investigate seismic activity should perform monitoring over a long time horizon; for reference, InSight’s reference mission was baselined to last one Martian year (corresponding to approximately two Earth years), and was subsequently extended by an additional Martian year. Similarly, a distributed instrument designed to observe and localize trace gas plumes should last months to years, so as to increase the likelihood of observing and, critically, localizing a meaningful number of plumes. Survivability concerns are especially critical for instruments requiring global coverage, e.g., climate investigations. High latitude (polar) elements of the distributed instrument may experience extended periods of low temperature and darkness throughout the polar winter. This can, in part, be mitigated by deployment of sensors only to mid- or low latitudes, but to enable true global coverage, it is necessary to deploy elements to polar latitudes, and therefore to keep elements of these higher latitude payloads and their electronics warm and energized. This will impact payload design and SWaP of the payload.

An attractive concept of operations to overcome these limitations is for the sensors to take measurements at slow cadence and analyze the data through simple on-board detectors (e.g., pressure wave detectors for climate investigations, plume detectors for trace gas instruments, and seismic activity detectors for seismology); when a sensor detects an event of interest (e.g., a methane spike), all sensors in the distributed instrument switch to a high-rate mode to characterize its spatial and temporal evolution. Such a concept of operations requires development of both on-board autonomy technology to detect event of interest, and sensor-to-sensor communication protocols where an orbiter autonomously relays data between nodes.

A number of high-TRL, space-qualified solutions for on-board timekeeping are available, including chip-scale atomic clocks that provide extremely low drift over long periods of time; if the clocks of individual sensors must be kept synchronized to nanosecond-level accuracy, RF-based synchronization techniques can be used to synchronize the individual sensors’ oscillators, countering relative drift. Table 4.1.1.2 reports key performance parameters, SWaP, and TRL for a variety of representative timing and time synchronization solutions applicable to distributed instruments.

If the sensor is statically positioned by a larger vehicle whose location is well-known (e.g., it is placed by a rover’s robotic arm) its location can be accurately computed based on the location of the carrier vehicle. Conversely, if the sensors perform EDL independently or are delivered dynamically (e.g., they are ejected from a larger vehicle), two-way RF ranging can provide extremely accurate localization with respect to other sensors and to orbiters; and one-way Doppler-based ranging can provide less accurate estimations from a single orbiter without the need for a radio transponder. Visual odometry-based techniques and terrain-relative navigation are routinely used for localization of large assets, but they generally require comparatively high-SWaP sensors, which makes them less attractive for distributed instruments.

Table 4.1.2.4 reports key performance parameters, SWaP, and TRL for representative localization solutions, discussed in more detail next.

Figure 13 shows a typical communication architecture for communications from a surface asset to Earth, mediated by an orbiter. The surface asset is equipped with a UHF L-band radio and an omnidirectional antenna; an orbiter communicates with the surface asset through a directional antenna, and relays data to and from Earth with a high-gain X-band or K-band transceiver. L-band is typically used for surface-to-orbit communications because it offers favorable propagation characteristics through planetary atmospheres. The typical distance between the surface asset and the orbiter is in the order of hundreds of kilometers; however, standoffs of up to sixteen thousand kilometers have been demonstrated by Galileo’s entry probe on Jupiter, and the Cassini-Huygens probe on Titan.

The NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory has developed a number of high-performance, low-SWaP transponders for deep space applications,including the Iris X-band transponder flown on the MarCO CubeSats to Mars, the Universal Space Transponder (UST) family (Pugh et al., 2017), and the UST-Lite transponder (Kobayashi et al., 2023), which offers multi-band capabilities, high uplink and downlink rates, and very high sensitivity in a 3 kg, 2700 cm³ package.

Table 3 reports a comparison of key performance parameters of NASA-developed deep-space transponders. We refer the reader to Kobayashi (2018) for a detailed review of NASA-developed transponder technologies for SmallSats.

The SWaP of these radios is optimized for larger surface and orbital assets, and is amenable to further reductions; however, this has not proved necessary for current and planned NASA missions, where the radio system SWaP has not been a major bottleneck.

A number of low-power radios for SmallSats are available from commercial vendors. As a representative example, Vulcan Wireless (Vulcan Wireless Inc., 2020) and Rincon Research (Rincon Research, 2020) both provide software-defined radios with a mass of hundreds of grams and a volume of hundreds of cubic centimeters, designed to fit in the demanding SWaP envelope of CubeSats, with flight heritage in the low-Earth orbit environment. Vulcan Wireless’s radios have also been selected by NASA for development in support of the Artemis lunar exploration program (NASA, 2019).

Commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) radios for automotive-grade applications are attractive for highly miniaturized purposes, offering low power consumption in highly compact packages; however, COTS technologies in this class are generally optimized for low-range, high-bandwidth applications, requiring significant adaptations to perform well over the long standoff distances required in spaceflight.

A standout solution in this space is represented by the ICARUS system developed by Max Planck Institute for animal tracking (Max Planck Institute, 2015). ICARUS (shown in Figure 14) consists of a 5-gram unit equipped with a radio, a GPS payload, and a power system. Thousands of ICARUS units communicate with an orbiter, which can also address commands to individual radio units. To date, around five thousand ICARUS units have been demonstrated in the field, supported by an orbiting receiver hosted on the International Space Station (Max Planck Institute, 2024). Deployment of a SWaP-optimized, 1U receiver as part of a larger 16U CubeSat is planned for 2024 (Max Planck Institute, 2023). Each radio unit on the ground knows its location and the ephemerides of the orbiter, and only turns on when the orbiter is overhead; thanks to this aggressive power management, ICARUS sensors are able to last for multiple years in the field with no maintenance. Table 4 shows preliminary performance parameters for the ICARUS system.

In typical spaceflight applications, the communication topology is straightforward: surface assets communicate to an orbiter which, in turn, relays the information to Earth, and vice versa. In contrast, in distributed instruments, individual sensors may wish to communicate with each other to perform autonomy functions (discussed in Section 4.3), e.g., to trigger follow-on observations in response to an event of interest observed by a single sensing unit. The flight-proven delay- and disruption-tolerant networking (DTN) communication protocol (Burleigh et al., 2003) can be used to perform multi-point communications in an environment where individual sensors are unable to directly talk to each other, and an orbiter is only available sporadically.

Commanding a network of sensors to take coordinated, spatially separate recordings as one instrument will bring new operations challenges. We will explore two core challenges here.

First, returning the complete record of science data will likely be challenging or infeasible. Missions using distributed instruments are likely to collect significantly more data compared to monolithic missions, especially for applications such as seismometry. Additionally, the impending increase in crewed exploration to the Moon and Mars will further ration DSN availability (Deutsch et al., 2016). If a distributed instrument generates data faster than it can transmit – a likely scenario given these considerations – there must exist a way to intelligently distill that information to remain within bandwith limits.

Second, radio signals take on the order of minutes to hours to cross the interplanetary distances between Earth and planetary surfaces of interest, which imposes a serious hurdle if ground teams need to react quickly to time-varying phenomena. An Earth-in-the-loop communication cycle requires time to downlink information, analyze the data from the many sensor nodes, and uplink commands in response. Thus, if there is an event short enough to encroach upon this time window, the distributed instrument must react on its own, or risk missing scientifically valuable data.

On-board science autonomy – software capable of intelligently sampling, selecting, or prioritizing scientific data – is one tool capable of mitigating both bandwidth limitations and communications delays (Azari et al., 2020; Theiling et al., 2022) through knowledge compression, data prioritization and reactive observation of events of interest.

Science autonomy holds promise to empower scientific discovery by mitigating key limitations related to data bandwidth, adaptive sampling, and response times. However, it remains a relatively new technology that requires more development for some of the aforementioned scenarios. To achieve this vision, three key directions for future research are of interest. First, a tight collaboration is needed between the scientists who will consume the data from distributed instruments and the software team crafting the autonomous system to capture it. The best outcomes will occur when scientists are involved in the development of this technology as well as its operation during the mission. Creating the culture and tools to achieve this environment will require more research. Second, it is critical for autonomous systems to be explainable and transparent, in order to be worthy of the scientists’ trust (Mandrake et al., 2022). Such systems must convey information on how the system arrives at consequential decisions (e.g., why one data set was returned before another), and provides context around important data points (e.g., several minutes of background recordings before and after a large quake). Toward this goal, algorithmic complexity (e.g., black box vs. glass box models) must be evaluated to identify the appropriate tradeoff between performance and transparency. Finally, the autonomous system should fail gracefully. It’s infeasible to predict every situation an autonomous distributed instrument might encounter. Therefore, the system must have built in safety valves to permit manual overrides after undesirable autonomous decisions. The system should also include validation checks to recognize when it is operating outside normal conditions and then refrain from making decisions that could jeopardize the mission’s science return (e.g., detect if one sensor in an instrument suite is broken, to prevent the squandering of precious bandwidth on its tainted data).

Sensors can be deployed to the surface by independent landers, either carried by separate spacecraft or released by a single vehicle upon approach to the body of interest. Independent microlanders like Mars_DROP (Staehle et al., 2015) and the Small High Impact Energy Landing Device (SHIELD) (Barba et al., 2019b), and penetrators like Deep Space 2 (Smrekar et al., 1999) are well-suited for establishing a global network of sensors, enabling access to most latitudes and allowing individual sensors to be independently placed across a planetary surface.

Microlanders like SHIELD (Barba et al., 2019b) and Mars_DROP (Staehle et al., 2015) (Figure 18(a)) are each fitted with their own EDL package, and travel independently to their landing site.

Penetrators such as Deep Space 2 [Smrekar et al. (1999), Figure 18(b)] are typically carried by a single “carrier” spacecraft to the planetary target body. Ballistic penetrators detach from the carrier, plummet towards the surface without a parachute, and bury deep inside the planetary surface.

In a second family of approaches, a single “carrier” spacecraft protects all sensor assets during the bulk of Entry, Descent, and Landing (EDL) (or, in the case of airless bodies, Approach, Descent, and Landing, or ADL). The sensors are then deployed at much lower altitudes and velocities compared to independent landers. This approach can result in a reduction in the mass and volume allocated to EDL/ADL for individual sensors, increasing the overall science payload capability. However, the lower deployment altitude makes this approach more suited to regional and local sensor distributions, where the maximum distance between sensors is on the order of tens of kilometers (Bandyopadhyay et al., 2020).

Gliders and tensegrity landers/rovers can further increase the deployment range. For instance, the Prandl-M glider [Levine (2015), Figure 19(a)] is being designed for a Mars piggy-back mission at the NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center (AFRC); deployed at an altitude of $\approx 3.6$ km, it is designed to achieve a range of $\approx 30$ km thanks to a lift-to-drag ratio of $\approx 8$. Tensegrity landers, deployed during landing, can act as airbag substitutes for the sensors within and also provide mobility once on the surface. Several tensegrity landers have been developed to TRL 4-5, including the SUPERball v2 robot [Vespignani et al. (2018), Figure 19(b)] and the sphere-like tensegrity landers (Garanger et al., 2020; Rimoli, 2016). Placement forces depend on the payload and the configuration, but in general it would experience loads much lower (1 or 2 orders of magnitude lower) that in any traditional truss-based enclosure.

Deployment during EDL/ADL is especially promising as as an infusion path for distributed instruments as secondary payloads. For instance, Martian rover missions typically carry multiple tungsten ballast masses (weighing $\approx$150 kg), which are released during EDL to change the center of gravity of the spacecraft. A proposed concept (Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 2014) suggests replacing some of these ballasts with deployable sensor modules which could be distributed over a region spanning tens of kilometers (Bandyopadhyay et al., 2020).

Finally, it is possible to also deploy the sensors directly from a rover or lander. For example, the Mars 2020 mission carried the IngenuityMars Helicopter, a small rotorcraft that demonstrated the ability for small aerial vehicles to traverse large distances. Miniaturized sensors (e.g., (Short & Van Buren, 2012)) could be deployed by a traditional rover or by small, light-weight robotic platforms such as PUFFER/CADRE (Karras et al., 2017). The key advantages of direct deployment are the high accuracy of sensor placement and the low dynamic load during deployment; however, the spatial extent and distribution of the sensor network is limited by the carrier vehicle’s range, which typically precludes large regional or global distributions.

Primary batteries are capable of providing electrical power to various loads, without the ability to recharge. Since they are not rechargeable, a wider range of electrode materials can be chosen relative to state-of-the-art secondary technologies, such as lithium-ion chemistries. All sensors can, in principle, be powered by high specific energy, non-rechargeable primary batteries, with the mission duration dictated by the specific energy of the batteries, the mass allocated for these batteries, and the average power of the loads. They are typically considered for missions lasting days to weeks, although longer missions with extended low power/quiescent periods could be considered, particularly with the availability of new high specific energy chemistries. Recent capacity vs. voltage data are shown for a range of battery types and chemistries, in Fig. 21 (Krause et al., 2018).

The high specific energy Li/CF_x chemistry in a D-cell format seen in Fig. 21 is a unique design with no flight heritage. This cell, which was developed by the Europa Lander Pre-Project Hand et al. (2022) offers a very high cell-level specific energy (>700 Wh/kg), and is ideal for low rate applications. D-sized cells now have a capacity approaching 20 Ah and a mass of $\approx$ 70 g each, and provide 2.6 V continuously under load. These cells typically deliver approximately 50 Wh of total energy each. Therefore, two cells in series can provide 1 W average electrical power at 5 V for $\approx$ 100 hours. In addition, these cells can produce a nearly constant amount of thermal energy during discharge, depending on the discharge rate, meaning $\approx$ 1 W_th is available for thermal management. One concern is the voltage delay, or drop in voltage, which is present at start-up, in particular, when operating at low temperatures. However, with proper thermal design, the heat generated during discharge can be retained in the battery pack to keep the cells sufficiently warm. In fact, heat generation is such an issue that terrestrial packs typically use a modified form, Li/CF_x-MnO₂, to reduce the amount of heat generation. Alternatively, if inherently low temperature operation ($-40^{\circ}$ C and below) is required and higher rate capabilities needed (>1 A), a liquid cathode chemistry such as Li/SO₂ or Li/ SOCl₂ can be used (Bugga & Brandon, 2020). These cell types have significant flight heritage. In fact, a modified version of the Li/SOCl₂ chemistry was developed for the DS-2 mission, for very low temperature operations. For high temperature Venus probes, batteries capable of operating at Venus surface temperatures ($+465^{\circ}$C) are being developed under the NASA HOTTech program (Bugga et al., 2020).

Several solar cell options exist for surface missions on the Moon and on Mars. Although solar cells can be used in larger orbiters and fly-by missions to Jupiter and even to the Ice Giants, use of solar cells for power generation in landers (and in particular in distributed instruments comprised of small sensors) is practically limited to the surface of Mars due to the much lower solar flux at Jupiter distances ($\leq 50$ W/m² depending on latitude and season vs. 1366 W/m² at Earth) and beyond. Spacecraft solar arrays are typically very large at these distance, in order to produce appreciable power levels. They would not be practical, for example, for small distributed sensors on planetary surfaces/moons such as Europa, Enceladus or Titan (with the latter’s atmospheric opacity introducing a further challenge to use of solar cells). State-of-the-art cells are represented by those on the Mars Helicopter, using inverted metamorphic multi-junction (IMM) type cells with an efficiency approaching 35% (beginning-of-life, $28^{\circ}$C and under the standard spectrum outside the Earth’s atmosphere or Air Mass 0 [AM0] conditions) (Sharps et al., 2017). Accumulation of dust degrades power output in the Mars environment. Due to the extreme temperatures and need for robust thermal management, application in lunar environments for small, long-duration probes is unlikely.

As seen with the proposed MESUR and MASER probes on Mars, small RTGs can be considered for use as both a heat and electrical power source. The RTG uses an arrangement of power-generating thermocouples, which generate a voltage across the temperature difference between the couple and space. The heat is provided by small amount of radioisotope “fuel” (typically Pu-238, although alternative fuels such as Sr-90 are under consideration). To fit in such small spaces, a fractional General Purpose Heat Source (GPHS) can be used, which produces $\approx$ 250 W of thermal energy from the decay of Pu-238 at the time of manufacture. Alternatively, the standard 1 W_th RHU can be used to generate mWs of power. These concepts are depicted in Fig. 22 (Schmidt et al., 2005).

A wide range of missions could be enabled by these small RTG systems. A summary of past studies is given in Fig. 23, below. RTGs in the <50 mW to 25 W range can be envisioned, using an RHU heat source (27-500 mW), a fractional GPHS (3-9 W) or a full GPHS (12.5-25 W). Another potential technology for consideration are beta-voltaic devices, which use a p-n junction to generate a voltage when exposed to a beta-emitter such as tritium (Revankar & Adams, 2014); however, to date, these devices have only demonstrated $<\mu$W power levels.

To support peak power requirements, or to provide power during nighttime for solar-powered missions, some form of energy storage is needed. Typical space-rated options include lithium-ion batteries and supercapacitors (Bugga & Brandon, 2020). Small cylindrical lithium-ion cells suitable for use in small probes and manufactured by companies such as Sony, Panasonic and LG Chem have been used for the last 20 years in space, going back to the first use in the PROBA small satellite mission (European Space Agency). These cells typically require no cell balancing electronics, and offer 3.5 Ah of capacity at up to 4.1 V. Cells are typically rated for use to about -20^∘C, although cells customized with low temperature electrolytes can operate to -40^∘C or below. Supercapacitors rely on energy storage at the electrochemical double-layer between an electrolyte and a high surface area carbon material. These devices are also known as electrical double-layer capacitors (or EDLCs). The advantages of this technology include very high specific power (>10 kW/kg), very long cycle life (10⁶ cycles) and very wide temperature operation (typically rated between -40 and 60^∘C). The high specific power results from the very low internal resistance of these devices. Testing of actual devices at JPL has indicated EDLCs can operate to -50^∘C, and prototype devices with modified electrolytes have been constructed and tested for operation down to -80^∘C. The major disadvantage is the low specific energy (5 Wh/kg) relative to traditional battery technologies. They are ideal when short bursts of energy are needed, for example, in communications. A very low power draw sensor with periodic high pulse conditions would be an ideal use case for pairing a supercapacitor with a long-life source such as a small RTG. This configuration could support operations to very low temperatures with reduced thermal management requirements, and would feature a very long life (with no concerns over life-limiting mechanisms associated with lithium plating in lithium-ion batteries charged at low temperatures). For applications where greater energy is required, hybrid battery/supercapacitor modules may still be advantageous (Bugga & Brandon, 2020). This allows the battery to provide a constant source of energy, with the supercapacitor providing pulse power. This allows the battery to be sized smaller, with the battery being buffered from any high current pulses (thus extending life time of the energy storage element).

Apart from a limited subset of missions to the Martian surface, future deep space sensor networks are likely to require some type of primary battery power source, or, alternatively, a radioisotope-based power source producing power in the <1 to 10 W range. The MASER mission concept study offers a scoping of requirements for a power system for a small distributed sensor node. The instrument package for this Mars probe featured pressure/temperature sensors (2.6 mW) generating 10 bps of data and a seismometer (65 mW) generating 30 bps. These values included margin, and assumed that the sensors would be continuously on. In addition, an optical monitor (26 mW) generating 1.6 bps data and a wind sensor (325 mW) generating 24 bps were included, both operating at an approximate duty cycle of 8%. The telecommunication capability required by the data generated was assumed to be about 5 Mbit/day. The transmitter was assumed to require 3.3 W, at a duty cycle of 1.4%, with the electronics requiring 65 mW of continuous electrical power. This resulted in a power draw of approximately 200 mW continuous, and an energy requirement of about 4 Wh/day.

The power bus was assumed to operate at 5 V. The design assumed the use of six 40 mW_e RHU RTGs, generating a total of 240 mW_e. The balance of 1 W thermal from each RHU could be used for thermal management (along with use of aerogel insulation assumed at 0.016 W/m.K). To provide the peak power needed for data transmission, four 2.7 V, 650 F supercapacitor cells were included, with two in series to support the 5 V bus and two more in parallel to increase capacity of the energy storage element. A generalized block diagram for a small power source is depicted in Fig. 24, along with a summary of power source options (Table 7).

Passive solutions involve the use of:

1. 1.

   Thermal coatings to change the emissivity of the radiative surfaces;

2. 2.

   Manufacturing materials chosen smartly, keeping in mind their thermal properties;

3. 3.

   Multi-layer insulation (MLI) blankets for thermal isolation. In the presence of an atmosphere, the layers can be thermally shorted; in this case, hydrogel-based solutions can be used for thermal isolation;

4. 4.

   Heat straps for effective transfer of heat across components.

Other solutions such as heat pipes don’t tend to work very well in the presence of gravity, and are less relevant at the length scales typical of miniaturized sensor packages. Batteries tend to be the most thermally sensitive sub-system in many applications; hence, the goal is often to locate the battery so as to maximize the transfer of heat generated by the electronics to the battery module. Additional thermal constraints could be imposed by the specific sensors and their operational temperature range.

As far as active solutions are concerned, heating pads and coils can be employed in the design of the system. This essentially turns the thermal problem into a power problem: the question of how long the temperature of the system can be kept within the desired range becomes a question about how much electrical power is available. One solution for a resource-constrained system is to have short bursts of activity when the module is brought up to its operating temperature, and then put into a cold sleep mode for the remaining period to save energy resources.

RHUs that contain a small amount of Pu-238 as a source of heat have been used on space missions in the past; however, these tend to be expensive and are challenging in terms of planetary protection, safety concerns and other procedural burdens that they impose on the system.

To summarize, the challenges associated with the thermal management on distributed instruments can be solved using a combination of existing mature techniques and by designing a smart, resource-aware concept of operations. The thermal management solutions devised for the Mars Helicopter (Cappucci et al., 2018) serve as a good example of how thermal control can be achieved on miniaturized systems in a small form factor.