The Juno Mission to Jupiter A Pre-Launch Update

Rick Nybakken
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology
4800 Oak Grove Drive, M/S 321-360
Pasadena, CA, 91011
818-354-6672
nybakken@jpl.nasa.gov
AbstractJuno, the second mission within the New
Frontiers Program, is a Jupiter polar orbiter mission that
will return high-priority science data relevant to multiple
divisions within NASAs Science Mission Directorate.12
Juno is currently in system integration/test in Denver and
ships to Astrotech in Titusville, Florida in April 2011 to
conduct final checkout in preparation for integration with
the launch vehicle and subsequent launch in August 2011.

1. INTRODUCTION
The Juno Mission to Jupiter (Figure 1) will launch in
August 2011, perform two deep-space maneuvers
approximately 13 months after launch, perform an Earthgravity assist approximately 26 months after launch, and
achieve Jupiter orbit insertion (JOI) in 2016 after a five-year
journey (Figure 2). Junos scientific objectives remain
unchanged since the Juno baseline requirements were
established in 2008 (and covered in the 2009 paper) and to
meet these objectives, Juno is carrying nine instruments
with 29 instrument sensors distributed on the forward and
aft decks of the spacecraft. Eight of these are science
instruments and the ninth is a four-color camera being
flown for education/public outreach purposes. In addition to
the complexities involved in developing and delivering one
Education/Public Outreach (E/PO) and eight science
instruments, Juno is also the first solar powered mission to
Jupiter. To ensure that the mission will have adequate
power while in orbit around the gas giant, the team
completed extensive solar cell performance analysis, testing
and modeling to characterize the solar array performance
under low-intensity, low-temperature (LILT) conditions in
Jupiters radiation environment. Juno also completed
extensive analysis and test to quantify design changes
needed to allow both electronics and materials to perform as
required in Jupiters charged particle and magnetic field
environments. Some of the challenges involved in the above
are described later in this paper.

Figure 1 Juno looks deep inside Jupiter to unlock

the secrets of solar system formation.
This paper builds upon the Juno mission overview paper
published after the Project PDR (2009 IEEE Aerospace
Conference paper #1582 that provided an comprehensive
description of Junos science objectives, and the instrument
payload, spacecraft design including solar arrays, radiation
vault, stellar reference unit, and the mission/operations
design following arrival at Jupiter) and reviews Junos
current project status, provides a description of the Juno
mission through Jupiter arrival, summarizes mission and
spacecraft design changes that have occurred since the Juno
Project level PDR and discusses some of the technical and
management challenges that the Juno team has encountered
in keeping Juno successfully on track for launch in August.

A brief history of the project to date will be provided

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................1
2. HISTORY ............................................................................2
3. MISSION OVERVIEW & CHANGES SINCE PDR....................2
4. SPACECRAFT OVERVIEW & CHANGES SINCE PDR............3
6. TECHNICAL & MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES ...................7
7. CONCLUSION .....................................................................7
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ..........................................................8
BIOGRAPHY ..........................................................................8

1
2

978-1-4244-7351-9/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE.

IEEEAC paper #1179, Version 8, Updated January 12, 2011

Figure 2 Juno in orbit around Jupiter.

1

followed by brief descriptions of the Juno mission and

spacecraft. Then, the changes in the mission design will be
discussed followed by a discussion of spacecraft design
changes. Finally, a summary is included of some of the
more interesting technical and management challenges that
the Juno team has faced in keeping the project on track for
the August 2011 launch.

started ATLO (on schedule) on April 1, 2010 and has

subsequently integrated and tested most of the avionics and
instruments. As of January 2011, Juno is on track to start
system acoustic and thermal vacuum testing leading to the
Pre-Ship Review (PSR) in March 2011. In April 2011, Juno
will ship to the Astrotech (Titusville, FL) facility just
outside Kennedy Space Center (KSC) to begin final
integration activities leading to launch in August 2011. For
reference, the project Phase B/C/D schedule is shown in
Figure 3.

2. HISTORY
Juno was selected in May 2005 as the 2nd mission in
NASAs New Frontiers Program within NASAs Science
Mission Directorate (SMD). Juno was originally scheduled
for a June 2009 launch opportunity but was subsequently
slipped to a July 2010 launch (upon selection) and,
ultimately, an August 2011 launch (within the 1st year
following selection) due to factors not specifically related to
Juno itself. This resulted in an extended Phase B period
(almost 3 years) that allowed the project to dedicate much
more effort to requirements and preliminary design
maturation, as well as to focus on key risk reduction
activities. As a result, Juno had a very successful
Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and obtained
authorization from NASA Headquarters to proceed into
Phase C effective September 1, 2008.

3. MISSION OVERVIEW & CHANGES SINCE PDR

This section will address the key characteristics of the Juno
launch, cruise and JOI mission design and a description of
all mission changes since the Juno PDR.
Juno launches in August 2011 on an Atlas V 551 (with a 5m
short payload fairing) with arrival at Jupiter after a 5-year
cruise (the mission trajectory is shown in Figure 4). Juno
uses an Earth Gravity Assist (EGA) trajectory (technically a
V-EGA 2+ trajectory) to reach Jupiter in 59 months.
Arrival at Jupiter in July 2016 is before the September 2016
solar conjunction with the Period Reduction Maneuver
(PRM) occurring after conjunction. It is pertinent to note
that all the science orbits, the de-orbit and Jupiter impact are
also completed before the next solar conjunction in October
2017.

Since the PDR, Juno has successfully completed the Critical

Design Review (CDR) and the System Integration Review
(SIR) and obtained authorization (soft gate) from NASA
Headquarters to proceed into Phase D (also known as
Assembly, Test, and Launch Operations - ATLO). Juno
2005

2006

FY05

2007

FY06

Phase B

FLIGHT
SYSTEM

F-L2 PSRD
8/30

Preliminary Design

Configuration Trades

1/21

7/6

Detailed Design

2/10

Design

Dev / Fab & Assy

SRU RFP

SRU Study Contract

SRU LL Procurement

Design

SRU PDRs

#1 AAC

5/13
Fab Material

#2

Vault Pnl to JPL

10/21 UVS
9/18 MAG
8/3 JEDI
7/20 JIRAM
7/20 JUNOCAM 6/2 MWR
PDDU 01/03/11
PIU 8/4/10 Done
Qual Battery 5/5/10 Done
Flight Battery 2/1/11

1/3

C&DH A

4/6

CME 6/14/10 Done

C&DH A(12/15/10)
C&DH B(10/29/10) Done

RFIS 4/6/10 Done

TLGA 7/30/10 Done
X-Band MGA 7/30/10 Done HGA 10/5/10 Done
LGAs 7/30/10 Done

LEGEND:

4/5
Vault
9/28
Struc to Prop

= PDR

= CDR
= Payload Del'y

Prop/Struc

= Funded Margin
= Critical Path

= Milestone
= Complete Milestone

10/8
SRU Elec/Optics

6/16
#3

#4

#4.1 #5

#5.1
10/8

#6

SOFTWARE FUNCTIONALITY
Rel 3.0 COMM & TELEMETRY
Rel 4.0 S/C, GNC
Rel 5.0 PAYLOADS
Rel 6.0 S/W ATPs

3/2

FSW Development FSW Builds

1st SCE Del Final SCE Del
3/4
STL

#1

#2

#2 #1
STL Cert

4/1

LAUNCH

ASSY, TEST &

LAUNCH OPS

MISSION SYSTEM

ATLO Start

3/11
Ops Cncpt
L3 K&D
3/22
4/27
Requirements

Ground Data System Engineering

10/5
P-L3

MDNav
MOS
3/24
7/14
F-L3/P-L4 MOS
3/24
7/14
F-L3 MD/NAV

9/3 JADE
10/18 WAVES

#2 C&DH B
10/20

3/5
SRU Assy & Test
IMU/SUN Procure

S/C Emulators (Plyd Dels)

MS PR
10/13
Trade Studies

9/28

PP Pre-Launch Rpt (F)

Procure Tanks, Main Engine & REMs

Prop/Struc Integ

3/17

IRAD Board & Box SW

TESTBEDS

Test

GIF CMIC #0

FLIGHT SOFTWARE

PDDU
Flt Box

PIU Flt Box

7/21

ATU #1

2/17

Preliminary Design/LL Proc

Deep Space
Maneuver

Fabricate & Test

3/5

PROPULSION

9/9

9/4

Assembly & Test

2/25

MECHANICAL &
STRUCTURES

GN&C

1/26

Preliminary Design/LL Proc

(thru 10/2018)

LRR
8/4 PLAR
FRR
7/7 10/4

LSR p2
10/21

PDDU ATU
Assy & Test
C&DH EDU#1
FT Wing

EDU Dev
2/4

Phase E

PSR
3/22

JOISR

2/26

2/11

FY12

EPDT Plan (F)

Fabrication

Solar Cell Testing/LL Proc

CCA IRAD Dev/EGSE Cap Dev

SDST Proc

ERR

Detail Design

Design/Procurements

TELECOM

(16 mths)

KDP-D
4/1

3/4

4/20
FS/LV ICD (F)

2/19

C&DH

Phase D
SIR

2012

FY11

Refer to Payload Schedule for Details

Requirements/Trades/Analysis & Risk Reduction

POWER

(20 mths)

CDR

V&V Plan (F)

Requirements & Preliminary Design

2011

FY10

Phase C

IBR
KDP-C
2/3
7/15 8/5

PDR/NAR
5/12

P-L2 PSRD
5/1

2010

FY09
CR

PMSR
5/21

BL-L2 PSRD
1/19

SYSTEM ENG Requirements

2009

FY08

(33 mths)

CRR
10/24

PAYLOAD

2008

FY07

ATP
11/28

Junos launch period is 22 days (opening on 8-5-11 and

closing on 8-26-11) and it has been optimized not only to

MDNav
2/19

#3
GDS SW Development

F-L4
#3.1

MOS
9/15
#4 ATLO
7/27 Del
3.2

SS I&T Pld Env Test

Training
#5 #5.1#5.2

Figure 3 Juno Phase B/C/D Project Schedule.

2

Sys

8/5

Launch Ops

Launch Period (8/5-8/26)

6/7

#6 Launch Del # 6.1

ORR
#6.2

Two DSMs are planned 13 months after launch to establish

the coarse targeting for the Earth Flyby (EFB). Of the
thirteen TCMs planned, the DSMs are the only ones with a
significant deterministic component. A side benefit of the
DSMs is that they are also used as rehearsals for the JOI
main engine (ME) burn including use of the toroidal low
gain antenna (TLGA), communication tones, and dual 70-m
DSN station coverage.
The EFB occurs 26 months after launch and it not only
provides the critical gravity assist but also introduces an
opportunity for a rehearsal of a Microwave Radiometer
(MWR) orbit and perijove science pass. The MWR
receivers however will not be operating due to concerns
about potential damage from Earth based transmissions.
Operational scenarios for the other instruments are being
examined subject to temperature constraints for electronics
inside the vault as well as overall power constraints. Both
the Earth and the Moon are candidate observational targets
during the EFB and approach period.
JOI, the 2nd critical event of the mission, occurs 59 months
after launch (the 1st critical event of the mission), and is
executed via a ME burn of approximately 30 minutes
duration. Communications coverage is via tones using the
TLGA due to burn vector constraints. This burn, performed
with Juno spun up to 5 rpm, allows the spacecraft to be
captured into a 107 day capture orbit about Jupiter and
establishes the orbital geometry for Junos science orbits.
This long capture orbit provided a substantial V savings
(compared to a direct JOI entry into an 11-day orbit) and
creates an opportunity to gain valuable early orbital
operations experience for both the spacecraft and the
instruments. To decrease the orbital period to that needed
for the science orbits, a PRM burn of 37 minutes is planned
to establish the 10.9725 day science orbit duration that
creates the specific perigee timing to coincide with the
Goldstone DSN passes (critical because of the Ka-Band
coverage needed for the gravity science passes).

Figure 4 Junos EGA Trajectory for August 2011

Launch.
maximize the injected mass into the Jupiter science orbits,
but also to provide enough contingency days for the deep
space maneuvers (DSM) throughout the launch period. The
launch window ranges from 30 to 90 minutes throughout
the launch period. Juno is also performing a study to
determine conditions under which the launch period might
be lengthened 2-3 days (a critical consideration for a
planetary launch).
Ground station coverage during launch is provided
primarily by the Deep Space Network (DSN) station at
Canberra with additional coverage by European Space
Agency (ESA) antennas at Perth and New Norcia in western
Australia. Prior to separation, the communications system is
set to standby and the spacecraft is spun up to 1.4 rpm.
Following separation (SEP) from the launch vehicle, the
solar arrays are deployed at SEP + 3.5 minutes. This timing
provides a good balance between telemetry acquisition
priorities and staying well within solar array deployment
torque margins that were established in ground thermal test.
The deployments of the three solar array wings are
staggered by 1 second with nominal deployment for all
three wings complete within 2 minutes. Instrument low
voltage checkouts are scheduled to begin after the first
trajectory correction maneuver (TCM) nominally at L+20
days while instrument high voltage checkouts occur after
L+90 days.

Orbits 1-2 contain orbital trim maneuvers (OTM), a PRM

clean-up maneuver and final instrument checkouts to ensure
readiness for the upcoming science orbits. Orbits 3-33 are
the science orbits and are broken up into five MWR orbits
(orbits 3 and 5 through 8), 25 Gravity Science orbits and 1
spare science orbit. Orbit 34 contains the final maneuver of
the mission a de-orbit burn which ultimately sends Juno
into Jupiter for planetary protection purposes.
Key mission design changes since PDR are listed in Table
1. The rationale and benefits of each change are included.

4. SPACECRAFT OVERVIEW & CHANGES SINCE

PDR

This section will review how key aspects of the spacecraft

design have changed since PDR. A summary of these
changes is listed in Table 2 and specifics associated with
3

Table 1. Juno Mission Design Changes Since PDR

vault and solar array design changes are further discussed

below. Figure 5 contains a rendering of Juno in the
cruise/science configuration while Figure 6 illustrates each
of Junos 9 instruments and their location on the spacecraft.

(unshielded) solar cell cover glass.

Solar Array Design Changes
The three solar array wings have been enlarged since PDR
with the surface area now approximately 60 m2 (50 m2
active). The re-sizing (with associated mass impacts) was
necessary because of updates in the power model from the
2008 cell radiation/LILT test cycle, maturation of loss
factors used in the power model, finalization of the
string/circuit designs for each array, and the decision at
CDR to include an additional 9% margin (above required
design margins) in the power model to account for any
changes that might occur due to the 2009-2010 cell
radiation/LILT test cycle and measurements from the flight
panels themselves (all now completed). The arrays, which
contain a total of over 18,000 cells, will produce > 400W
end-of-mission at Jupiter (where the sun intensity is
approximately 8% of that received at Mars and 4% of that
received at Earth).

Figures 7 and 8 are photos showing the partially integrated

Juno spacecraft bus and solar array wing #1 (with the
magnetometer instrument boom) in assembly.
Vault Design Changes
Several detailed radiation models were run taking maximum
advantage of the shielding provided by adjacent boxes in
the vault and more refined models of the spacecraft
structure this allowed the thickness of the vault walls to be
individually optimized for the required radiation shielding
while realizing some helpful mass reductions (vault mass
was reduced from approximately 180 kg at PDR to 157 kg).
Also, the vault wall material was changed to titanium (from
tantalum face-sheet over honeycomb core) to improve
manufacturability and simplify any last minute design
changes as the detailed design was completed. Electronics
in the vault are exposed to total ionizing dose (TID) levels
of 25 krads vs. as much as 300 krads on the upper deck
(behind 100 mils of aluminum) or 50 Mrads on the

Table 2. Key Spacecraft Design Changes made since PDR

Figure 5 Rendering of Juno Spacecraft During Cruise

Figure 6 Juno Science and E/PO Instrument Suite

5

Figure 7 Juno Spacecraft Bus in Assembly in Denver

Figure 8 Solar Array Wing 1 (with Magnetometer Boom) during Assembly in Denver
6

management problems encountered on Juno. The projects

approach to mitigate is discussed for each challenge listed
and the projects assessment is listed for each major
challenge and/or problem encountered. Many of the key
challenges received a lot of focused and consistent
technical/management attention from the beginning of the
project and this had a significant effect on the outcome. For
instance, the stellar reference unit (SRU) was clearly
identified as the top risk in the Juno Phase Concept Study
Report (March 2005) and although it was listed as a Project
Manager (PM) top concern at the PDR, it was not at the
Project CDR due to the effectiveness of the mitigation
activities. However, despite significant attention from the
project (and the extended Phase B), some of the issues
commonly seen on flight projects also were encountered on
Juno (i.e. late avionics and instrument deliveries).

6. TECHNICAL & MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES

In this section, the projects experience with a number of
technical and management challenges is discussed. Many of
these were identified early on Juno as shown by one of the
early lists of challenges presented during Phase B in 2007.
-

First use of solar power at Jupiter

6-year mission life, with one year operations at
Jupiter
- Radiation environment
- Magnetics cleanliness requirements
- Electronics vault
- Electromagnetic Interference/Electromagnetic
Compatibility (EMI/EMC) environment
- Large number of payload instruments
- High random vibration environment due to Launch
Vehicle (LV) acoustics
- Stellar Reference Units that will meet mission
needs
- Command and data handling (C&DH) subsystem
modifications
- Maintaining as much spacecraft and instrument
inheritance as possible
- Large and widely dispersed project teams
- Project execution within cost constraints
Tables 3 and 4 list some of the key technical and

7. CONCLUSION
The Juno mission has successfully progressed through the
critical design phase, has completed flight system
integration, and is preparing for system level acoustic and
thermal vacuum testing. In April 2011, Juno will ship from
the flight system integrator (Lockheed Martin-Denver) to
the Cape to complete final preparations for launch in
August 2011. The history of the project since the Project
PDR is briefly described including a list of spacecraft and

Table 3 List of Key Technical Challenges and Problems Encountered on the Juno Project

Table 4 List of Key Management Challenges and Problems Encountered on the Juno Project

mission design updates. In addition, the projects experience

with key technical and management challenges/problems
encountered is described.

BIOGRAPHY
Rick Nybakken is the Deputy Project
Manager for the Juno mission at NASAs
Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in
Pasadena, California. He has worked on
Juno since February 2006 when Juno was
still scheduled for a 2010 launch.

Having successfully dealt with many anticipated (as well as

unexpected) challenges, the project is on track for launch
from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in August 2011.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Prior to this position, Mr. Nybakken has

served JPL in numerous capacities
including Deputy Manager of JPLs Mission Assurance
Division, Technical Manager for the Mars Reconnaissance
Orbiter Flight System Contract, Task Manager for
Advanced Transponder Development, Project Element
Manager for the SeaWinds Electronics Subsystem, Project
Element Manager for the QuikScat Radar Electronics
Subsystem, and Technical Manager for the Cassini Antenna
Subsystem.

This research was carried out at the Jet Propulsion

Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a
contract with the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.

Mr. Nybakken received his B.S degree from California

Polytechnic State University. He has been awarded the
NASA Exceptional Achievement Medal for his work on
QuikScat and received numerous NASA Group Achievement
Awards.