A Review of RLEP Status and LRO Pre-Selection Formulation ... · A Review of RLEP Status and LRO...

A Review of RLEP Status and LROPre-Selection Formulation Efforts

GSFC RLEP Office, Code 430

November 23, 2004Edited for wide distribution 12-23-2004

http://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov

2

RLEP Review Topics

• Establishment of the RLEP Organization

• Evolution of the LRO mission concept

• Future mission studies and investigations

• Assessment of Appropriation scenarios

3

RLEP/LRO Status Review Agenda

RLEP Overview & Introduction– Program Authorization– Budget History– POP Submission (removed)– Organization– Reporting– Program Planning– Cost Control– Review Process

LRO Introduction– Introduction– ORDT– AO & PIP– Pre-Selection LRO Activities– Instrument Procurement Strategy– LRO Technical Overview– Key Challenges– Launch Vehicle– Project Organization, Operation & Control– LRO Acquisition & Budget (removed)– Conclusion

Future Mission Planning– Architecture review (intent & purpose)– Ongoing work– RFI responses– Next Steps– Challenges

RLEP SummaryLow Appropriation Impact Discussion (removed)

RLEP Overview andIntroduction

5

POP 04-1 (FY06) Budget Submission

• RLEP Responded to POP-04-1 (FY06) Budget Request with model programcompliant to OSS guidelines

– Program Management approach– Mission profile– Program investment strategy– Program EPO strategy

• Mission model set an affordable and distributed risk profile– Discovery class ($400M, phase A-E) scope– Approximately annual launches starting 2008– 4 year development cycles– Held 25% reserve on development– Assumed Delta II class launch

• Program investment strategy– Enabling technology (10% of development)– Shared inventory pool

• Program EPO strategy– OSS model of 1% annual program

6

Mission Model Cost Validation

• Payload cost based on OSS planetaryinvestigation historical data (1kg = $1M)– Cost boundary solidified by AO constraints

• Mission costs scoped parametrically– Comparative assessment of recent missions– Grassroots comparison to prior GSFC activities

• Preliminary cost quotes from KSC on ELV costs• Cost Scope Analysis used to validate Discovery

class boundary condition for Program budgetprofile

7

Mission Cost Scope Analysis

VEHICLE ESTIMATED COST ($M)

DRY MASS to LOW LUNAR

ORBIT (kg)BUS (kg) PAYLOAD (kg)

TAURUS XL 30-40 200 150-175 25-50DELTA 2 80-100 500-750 400 100-200DELTA 4 140 2300 1300 1000ATLAS 5 165 3250 1700 1550ATLAS 5H or DELTA 4H 300 4500

MISSION ELEMENT

$200M MISSION$400M MISSION (Discovery class)

$800M MISSION$1200M

MISSIONELV 35 90 140 140PAYLOAD 35 100 220 500S/C 70 100 200 200EVERYTHING ELSE (ops, res, etc.) 60 110 240 360

MISSION COST ($M)

Lunar Launch Capacity

General Funding Allocation

OBSERVATIONS

• Launch vehicle massquantization forces lunarprogram to choose either asingle large mission orseveral moderate missionsas architecture profile

• Modest mission costenables higher flightfrequency

– More responsive &flexible program

– Greater potential for earlyrisk mitigation

– Lower program risk permission

8

RLEP Organization

LE n

Mission n

LE 4

Mission 4

LE 3

Mission 3

LE 2

Mission 2400

Robotic Lunar ExplorationProgram Manager

J. Watzin

Deputy Program ManagerTBD

Program Business ManagerP. Campanella

400

System AssuranceManagerR. Kolecki

Safety ManagerTBD

Future MissionSystems

J. Burt

Mission FlightEngineer

M. HoughtonParts Engineer

N. Vinmani

Materials EngineerTBD

Avionics SystemsEngineerP. Luers

ProgramDirector (HQ)

R. Vondrak

ProgramScientist (HQ)

T. Morgan

Lunar ReconnaissanceOrbiter (LRO)

Project ManagerC. Tooley

Program SupportManager

K. Opperhauser

Program SupportSpecialist(s)

TBD

ProgramDPM(s)/Resources

TBD

Program FinancialManager(s)W. Sluder

Program ResourceAnalyst(s)

TBD

ProcurementManager

TBD

ContractingOfficer

TBD

Payload SystemsManagerA. Bartels

OperationsManager

TBD

Launch VehicleManagerT. Jones

400

400

200

300500

400 400 400

EPO SpecialistTBD

CMSchedulingA. Eaker

DMGeneral BusinessK. YoderMIS

100

400

James Watzin, RLEP Program Manager Date

9

SAMPEX FAST SWAS

WIRETRACE DSCOVR

GSFC Has Unique In-House Capabilities for Rapid Mission ImplementationRLEP Team has done 7/10 most recent in-house missions

GSFC Has Unique In-House Capabilities for Rapid Mission ImplementationRLEP Team has done 7/10 most recent in-house missions

Recent In-House GSFC Spacecraft Systems

Spartan 201

SMDDep AA/ProgramsO. Figueroa

SMDDep AA/ProgramsO. Figueroa

ESMDDiv ChiefDevelopmentJ. Nehman

ESMDDiv ChiefDevelopmentJ. Nehman

ESMDPM Robotic LunarJ. Baker

ESMDPM Robotic LunarJ. Baker

ESMDDiv Chief Req’tsM. Lembeck

ESMDDiv Chief Req’tsM. Lembeck

GSFCDep Ctr DirChair GMCC. Scolese

GSFCDep Ctr DirChair GMCC. ScoleseGSFC

Dir Flt ProgramsR. Obenschain

GSFCDir Flt ProgramsR. Obenschain

SMDRLEP Prog ScientistJ. Garvin

SMDRLEP Prog ScientistJ. Garvin

GSFCLRO Project MgrC. Tooley

GSFCLRO Project MgrC. Tooley

GSFCRLEP Program MgrJ. Watzin

GSFCRLEP Program MgrJ. Watzin

SMDRLEP Prog DirR. Vondrak

SMDRLEP Prog DirR. Vondrak

GSFCCenter Director

GSFCCenter Director

ESMDRoboticsReq’ts

SMDProg Exec

for LRO

GSFCExploration POCK. Brown

GSFCExploration POCK. Brown

RLEP Reporting Structure

J. Trosper

11

GSFC Project Management Experience

• GSFC has implemented 277 flight missions - 97% mission success rateover the past 6 years

• GSFC has the largest in-house engineering and science capability withinthe Agency

• GSFC is the leader in space-based remote sensing of the Earth– 103 missions over the past 40 years– Responsible for Earth science data management (3.4 petabytes to date)

• GSFC has provided more planetary instrumentation than any otherNASA Center

• GSFC has provided infrastructure support for every manned spacemission

– Space Station, HST Servicing, Shuttle, Apollo, Gemini, Mercury, flightdynamics, communication, data management

12

Project Specific Plan

Project Procedures & Guidelines Flow Down

NPR 7120.5B NASA Program and Project Management Processes and Requirements

• GPG-7120.1B PROGRAM AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT• GPG-7120.4- RISK MANAGEMENT• GPG-7120.5- SYSTEMS ENGINEERING• GPG-1280.1A THE GSFC QUALITY MANUAL• GPG-1060.2B MANAGEMENT REVIEW AND REPORTING FOR PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS• GPG-8700.4E INTEGRATED INDEPENDENT REVIEWS• GPG-8700.6- ENGINEERING PEER REVIEWS• GPG-1410.2B CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT• GPG-8700.1C DESIGN PLANNING AND INTERFACE MANAGEMENT• GPG-8700.2C DESIGN DEVELOPMENT• GPG-8700.3A DESIGN VALIDATION• GPG-8700.5- IN-HOUSE DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF SOFTWARE PRODUCTS• GPG-8070.4 APPLICATION AND MANAGEMENT OF GODDARD RULES FOR THE • GEVS-SE GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL VERIFICATION SPECIFICATION FOR STS & ELV PAYLOADS, SUBSYSTEMS, AND

COMPONENTS

Project Specific PlanProject Specific PlanProject Specific PlanProject Specific Plans

RLEP Program Plan

RLEP Configuration Management Plan RLEP Performance Monitoring Requirements

RLEP Risk Management PlanRLEP Mission Assurance Requirements

Available atgdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/gdms/pls/frontdoor

Available in draft

13

RLEP Program Planning

• RLEP practices compliant with 7120.5 andrelevant GPGs– Draft Program Plan developed– Draft Program Mission Assurance Requirements

Document developed– Draft Program Surveillance Plan developed– Draft Risk Management Plan developed– Draft Program CM Plan developed– Baseline Program Cost Control Practices established

• Draft LRO specific plans also underdevelopment

14

RLEP Program Documents

• RLEP Program Plan– Defines scope– Defines organizational relationships– Defines management approach– Defines acquisition strategy– Establishes top level budget and schedule expectations

• RLEP Mission Assurance Requirements Document– Establishes Risk Classification– Outlines review program– Defines scope of FMEA/CIL, FTA, WCA, and PRA– Defines close loop problem reporting and corrective action system– Establishes quality assurance program– Defines system safety requirements

• RLEP Surveillance Plan– Outlines approach for surveillance of contractors and partners– Identifies strategy for oversight (and insight)– Defines roles and responsibilities (relative to assurance)– Defines audit process

ESMD(Sole customer, Level 0 Requirements)

SMD(Sponsor, Director, Level 1 Requirements)

GSFC RLEP(Management, Implementation,Level 2-4 requirements)

15

RLEP Program Documents

• RLEP Risk Management Plan– Derived from NPG 8000.4 and GPG 7120.4– Defines process and implementation throughout the mission life cycle– Defines documentation requirements– Specifies the tools (PRIMX online documentation system)– Reserves mission specific implementation details to be tailored in

Project Plans• RLEP Configuration Management Plan

– Defines purpose (controls Level 2-4 requirements and implementationdocumentation)

– Establishes process to be utilized– Defines roles and responsibilities

• RLEP Performance Monitoring Requirements– Defines the program cost control practices for the projects– Identifies the tools, metrics, analysis, and reporting baselines– Unique to RLEP but leverages GSFC institutional tools and processes

16

Program Budget Analysis and Control

• RLEP will continually assess program/project status– Monthly cost reporting will be required on all out-of-house contracts

and in-house development activities– Business and program/project management personnel will assess

status via:• Daily contacts and regular weekly meetings with hardware developers• Formal monthly contract cost/performance reports• Monthly (management, technical, cost, schedule) reviews• Monthly cost/schedule reporting tools

– Program/Project managers report on their programs/projects to theGSFC Program Management Council (GPMC) on a monthly basis

• More comprehensive review every quarter• NASA HQ typically participates in all reviews

• RLEP utilizes a common program business office to support all of itsmissions– Facilitates continuous, synergistic surveillance and insight of all project

issues

17

Cost Performance Assessment

• RLEP will implement a cost/performance assessment process on allprojects. At present, those processes are derived from prior GSFC practices

• RLEP plans to implement EVM for development contracts in accordancewith NPD 9501.3A, “Earned Value Management”

– > $70M contract value = full EVM with the 5-part Cost Performance Report (CPR)from the contractor

– $25-70M = Modified EVM with a Modified CPR– < $25M = no requirement

• For in-house development activities EVM policies and thresholds have notbeen established NASA in-house EVM policies and standards are currentlybeing discussed and developed, led by NASA’s Chief Engineer’s office

• In the interim, the RLEP is exploring various EVM approaches that arecurrently being developed at GSFC (e.g. Solar Dynamics Observatory andHST Robotic Servicing and De-Orbit Mission) and will consult with ESMDin order to determine the best approach for RLEP

18

RLEP Project Lifecycle Reviews

CDR: Critical Design ReviewCR: Confirmation ReviewDR: Decommissioning ReviewFOR: Flight Operations ReviewIIRT: Integrated Independent

Review TeamLRR: Launch Readiness ReviewMCRR: Mission Confirmation

Readiness Review

MDR: Mission Definition ReviewMOR: Mission Operations ReviewMRR: Mission Readiness ReviewORR: Operations Readiness

ReviewPDR: Preliminary Design ReviewPER: Pre-Environmental ReviewPSR: Pre-Ship ReviewSRR: System Requirements

Review

Formulation ImplementationApproval

Phase A Preliminary Analysis

Phase B Definition

Phase C DetailedDesign

Phase E/F Operations & Disposal

Preliminary Design

Fabrication & Integration

Environmental Testing

Ship & Launch preps

Phase D Development

System Definition

PERCDR FRR LaunchSRR/PDR

CR

MDR FOR DR PSRMOR

MCRR

LRRORR

Engineering Peer Reviews MRR

Pre-Formulation

HQ Reviews(SMD, ESMD concurrence)

IIRT Reviews(ESMD participation)

KSC Reviews, Launch

GSFC PMC Reviews

19

RLEP Project Review Processes

GPMC Recommendations

Peer Reviews

Sys Assurance and

Safety Reviews

IIRT*

Formal Launch Decision Process

OSSMA Monthly Review

Peer Reviews

In-process Technical Reviews

Div. Tech. Status Reviews

AETD Champ Team Mtgs

AETD Project Monthly ReviewMSR and/or

PMC Meetings*

Pre-MSR

Project Reviews

Lower levelProgrammatic Rvws

Technical Staff

Principal Investigator,Project Scientist

PROJECT-DRIVENPROCESS(ES)

S&MA-DRIVENPROCESS

ENGINEERING-DRIVEN PROCESS

Center DirectorDecisions

Chief Engineer

*ESMD participation expected

LRO Introduction

21

2008 Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO):First Step in the Robotic Lunar Exploration Program

• Total mass of ~1000 kg will be launched by aDelta-II class ELV into a direct lunar transfer orbit;~100 kg will be instrumentation

• Primary mission of at least 1 year in circular polarmapping orbit (nominal 50km altitude) withvarious extended mission options

Solicited Measurement Investigations• Characterization and mitigation of lunar and

deep space radiation environments and theirimpact on human-relatable biology

• Assessment of sub-meter scale features atpotential landing sites

• High resolution global geodetic grid andtopography

• Temperature mapping in polar shadowed regions• Imaging of the lunar surface in permanently

shadowed regions• Identification of any appreciable near-surface

water ice deposits in the polar cold traps• High spatial resolution hydrogen mapping and

assessment of ice• Characterization of the changing surface

illumination conditions in polar regions at timescales as short as hours

Robotic Lunar Exploration ProgramRobotic Lunar Exploration Program

22

2008 LRO ORDT Process

• March 1-2 LPI Lunar Workshop provided valuable discussions of robotic lunarexploration requirements before the ORDT plenary

• March 3-4 ORDT Plenary:– Overview presentation (Garvin, Taylor, Mackwell, Grunsfeld, and others)– Discussed the priority list of measurement sets to be acquired that came from

the workshop (March 1-2 at LPI)– Detailed rationale for each of the data sets including desired accuracy &

precision as well as current knowledge– Discussed example instruments for each desired measurement data set– Discussed instrument parameters, mass, power, cost (WAG) based on current

databases and CBE’s (existence proof)– Derived strawman payloads and discussed the feasibility of what could be done

for the current mission scope.– “Leveled” the results in light of major gaps as they applied to Exploration and

likely orbiter resources

LPI LunarKnowledgeWorkshop(3/1-2/04)

LROORDT

(3/3-4/04)

HQ reviews(3/04)

FBO(3/30/04)

ESRBApproval

(3/04)

AA Approval of LRO Measurement

Requirements (5/24/04)

AnnouncementOf Opportunity

(6/18/04)

23

LRO Development AO & PIP

• The PIP (companion to AO) was the projects1st product and contained the result of therapid formulation and definition effort.

• The PIP represents the synthesis of theenveloping mission requirement drawn fromthe ORDT process with the defined boundaryconditions for the mission. For the project itconstituted the initial baseline missionperformance specification.

• Key Elements:– Straw man mission scenario and spacecraft

design• Mission profile & orbit characteristics• Payload accommodation definition (mass, power,

data, thermal, etc)– Environment definitions & QA requirements– Mission operations concept– Management requirements (reporting, reviews,

accountabilities)– Deliverables– Cost considerations

LRO Development – PIP Strawman Orbiter

• One year primary mission in ~50 km polar orbit,possible extended mission in communicationrelay/south pole observing, low-maintenance orbit

• LRO Total Mass ~ 1000 kg/400 W• Launched on Delta II Class ELV• 100 kg/100W payload capacity• 3-axis stabilized pointed platform (~ 60 arc-sec or

better pointing)• Articulated solar arrays and Li-Ion battery• Spacecraft to provide thermal control services to

payload elements if req’d• Ka-band high rate downlink ( 100-300 Mbps, 900

Gb/day), S-band up/down low rate• Centralized MOC operates mission and flows level 0

data to PI’s, PI delivers high level data to PDS• Command & Data Handling : MIL-STD-1553, RS 422,

& High Speed Serial Service, PowerPC Architecture,200-400 Gb SSR, CCSDS

• Mono or bi-prop propulsion (500-700 kg fuel)

24

LRO Project Pre-Instrument Selection Activities

• Enveloping requirements during ORDT time frame allowed PIP development for AO, missionplanning and trade studies to begin.

• Spacecraft and GDS developers on-board working trades and evolving designs from the onset, abenefit of in-house implementation.

• RLEP Requirements and MRD concurrently evolved from ORDT and Mission Strawman, will bedefinitized and aligned when instruments are selected, baselined at PDR.

• Contingency planning for various RLEP budget appropriation outcomes also performed duringPre-Instrument Selection.

Derive Enveloping

Mission Requirements

Strawman Mission Design

into AO/PIP

• S/C Bus &Ground SystemDesign Trades

• Prelim MRD (430-RQMT-0000XX)

Instrument TMC

& Accommodation

Assessment

Draft RLEP Requirements

(ESMD-RQ-0014)

Preliminary Design

Review &

Categorize

Instrument Selection

11/31/2004

InstrumentContracts

LPI LunarKnowledgeWorkshop(3/1-2/04)

LROORDT

(3/3-4/04)

HQ reviews(3/04)

FBO(3/30/04)

ESRBApproval

(3/04)

AA Approval of LRO Measurement

Requirements (5/24/04)

AnnouncementOf Opportunity

(6/18/04

25

LRO Instrument Procurement Strategy

Rapid Start of Instrument Development is Essential

• Authorize pre-contract costs within two weeks of selection, enablingthe vendors to quickly start A/B effort

• Award contract for phase A/B and the bridge phase by January 1,2005 (effectively by Christmas) with an Advance Agreement forphase C/D/E

– Bridge phase is defined as a three month period of phase C/D effort,beginning at PDR/Confirmation, to provide project continuity whilephase C/D/E contract negotiation takes place

– The Advanced Agreement recognizes the authority established in theAO to contract for phase C/D/E

• Phase A/B report and phase C/D/E implementation and cost plansare due from vendors at PDR/Confirmation to ensure that phaseC/D/E is negotiated into the contract by the end of the three monthbridge phase

26

• LRO MissionDesign & Planningis ongoing.

• Baseline has beenestablished.

LRO Technical Overview- Mission

27

LRO Technical Overview - Spacecraft

Space Segment Conceptual Design

Example LRO Design Case w/FOVs

Preliminary System Block Diagram

SBC

BIC

LVPC

I/O

INST 1

INST

SSR

Main Avionics

CommS-Band

Ka-Band

High-GainAntenna

Omni Antennas

��

��Solar Array

Battery

PSE

EVD

EVD

OM

BM

SAM

Power & Switching Control

High-Rate

Low-Rate

ST(2)

IRW (4)

High-Speed Network

Low-SpeedNetwork

Cmd& H/K

CSS (6)

Servo Drive

IMU

SAD

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

PP

��

Propellant TankPropellant Tank��

PP

RRRR

NCNCPressurantTank

PPNCNC

Propulsion

Analog & Discretes

Subsystem Mass (kg) Orbit Average Power (W)

Instrument Payload 100 100Structure/Mechanisms 170 10Electrical 25 0Communication System 20 30GNC/ACS 50 85C&DH 15 40SSR 6 35Servo Drive 5 5Power System Electronics 13 35Solar Arrays 55 0Battery 35 0Thermal Control 40 60Propulsion (Dry) 50 55

Total: 584 455Propellant 610 0

Total: 1194Launch Vehicle Capability 1485Bus Power Required 600Mass Margin % 25%Power Margin % 32%

Allocations V1.0

LRO Flight Segment Mass & Power

28

• LRO Ground System and Mission Operations concepts are established

LRO Technical Overview – Ground System

29

LRO Key Challenges

• Framed by the anticipated instrument requirements and the cost and scheduleboundary conditions key areas have been identified that present fundamentalchallenges that must be planned for from the onset:

• RFI’s released to industry for alternative end-to-end concepts.• GSFC Space & Ground Networks group performing extensive tradestudies to identify cost effective options, considerable interest shown..• LRO communications engineers are embedded in NASA’s explorationarchitecture definition and requirements efforts – LRO’s requirementsworked in step with NASA Agency wide efforts..•Specific performance requirements will be dependent on theinstruments selected..

High measurement data volume exceedscurrent operational/available ground networkcapability. LRO’s ability to fund newcapabilities makes the ground/space tradecommunication trade critical.

• Spacecraft design trades driven by mass efficiency.• Key objective during preliminary design phase is to increase massmargin. Current mass margin is25%

– Goal is to step down to a 2925-9.5 from 2925H-9.5 launchvehicle baseline.

•Follow-on missions will be enabled by LRO designs

Large on-board ∆V requirement mean thatmass margin is critical during development –every kg costs a kg in fuel.

•AO written to solicit only mature instrument technologies• Project preparing for quick contractual engagement of instrumentdevelopers• Spacecraft preliminary design started at onset of project usingenveloping requirements – poised to converge when instrumentsselected.

Schedule emphasis drives a need for a veryrapid preliminary design phase and start ofimplementation

Mitigation & PlanningChallenge

30

LRO Launch Vehicle

• LRO is planning for a launch on a Delta II class launch vehicle. Within that familythere are a range of capabilities.

• Launch vehicle will be acquired via NASA KSC Launch Vehicle Contract, finalspecification at LRO CDR. Draft IRD in work.

Two stage fairing offers increasedvolume. Volume may be tradable forLRO complexity but mass is judgedtoo challenging.

85est.9102 Stage w/9

Heavy SRMsDelta 2920H-9.5

Too small for LRO76est.7252 Stage w/9 SRMsDelta 2920-9.5

Current baseline in POP-0488.6est.14853 Stage w/9

Heavy SRMsDelta 2925H-9.5

Offer modest cost savings if LROmass can be kept low enough.

79est.12853 Stage w/9 SRMsDelta 2925-9.5

CommentCost($M)

P/L Capability (kg)(C3 = -2 km2/s2)

DescriptionLaunch Vehicle

31

LRO Project Organization


Project MangerC. Tooley


Project MangerC. Tooley

400

ProcurementManager

TBD

Contracting OfficerJulie Janus

ProcurementManager

TBD

Contracting OfficerJulie Janus

Systems AssuranceManagerR. Kolecki

Safety ManagerTBD

Parts EngineerN. Virmani


Systems AssuranceManagerR. Kolecki

Safety ManagerTBD

Parts EngineerN. Virmani



TBD



TBD


TBD



TBD


K. Opperhauser


K. Yoder


K. Opperhauser


K. Yoder

Operations SystemEngineerR. Saylor

Operations SystemEngineerR. Saylor

I&T SystemsEngineerJ. Baker

I&T SystemsEngineerJ. Baker

ThermalC. Baker

ThermalC. Baker



Operations SystemsManger

TBD

Operations SystemsManger

TBD



CommunicationJ. Soloff

CommunicationJ. Soloff Mechanical

G. Rosanova

MechanicalG. Rosanova C&DH

Q. Nguyen

C&DHQ. Nguyen Electrical &

HarnessR. Kinder

Electrical &HarnessR. Kinder

GN&CSystems

E. Holmes

GN&CSystems

E. Holmes

PropulsionC. Zakrzwski

PropulsionC. Zakrzwski GN&C

HardwareJ. Simspon

GN&CHardwareJ. Simspon

ACSAnalysisJ. Garrick

ACSAnalysisJ. Garrick

Flight DynamicsM. Beckman

D. Folta

Flight DynamicsM. Beckman

D. Folta

PowerT. Spitzer

PowerT. Spitzer Software

M. Blau

SoftwareM. Blau

400 400 400

400

500

500500500

200

300

CM

Scheduling

DM

MIS

500500500500 500 500 500

500

500

500 500

InstrumentManager(s)

TBD

InstrumentManager(s)

TBD 400/500

MechanismsTBD

MechanismsTBD 500

Matrixed from Program

LRO ChiefEngineerT. Trenkle

LRO ChiefEngineerT. Trenkle 500

InstrumentSystems Engineer

TBD

InstrumentSystems Engineer

TBD

General Business

32

Project Procedures & Guidelines Flow DownNPR 7120.5B NASA Program and Project Management Processes and Requirements

• GPG-7120.1 PROGRAM AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT• GPG-7120.4 RISK MANAGEMENT• GPG-7120.5 SYSTEMS ENGINEERING• GPG-1280.1 THE GSFC QUALITY MANUAL• GPG-1060.2 MANAGEMENT REVIEW AND REPORTING FOR PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS• GPG-8700.4 INTEGRATED INDEPENDENT REVIEWS• GPG-8700.6 ENGINEERING PEER REVIEWS• GPG-1410.2 CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT• GPG-8700.1 DESIGN PLANNING AND INTERFACE MANAGEMENT• GPG-8700.2 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT• GPG-8700.3 DESIGN VALIDATION• GPG-8700.5 IN-HOUSE DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF SOFTWARE PRODUCTS• GPG-8070.4 APPLICATION AND MANAGEMENT OF GODDARD RULES FOR THE DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT, VERIFICATION AND OPERATION OF FLIGHT SYSTEMS• GEVS-SE GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL VERIFICATION SPECIFICATION FOR STS & ELV PAYLOADS, SUBSYSTEMS, AND COMPONENTS

RLEP Program Plan

RLEP Configuration Management Plan RLEP Performance Monitoring Requirements

RLEP Risk Management PlanRLEP Mission Assurance Requirements

LRO Project Plan

LRO Risk Management Implementation Plan

LRO Systems Engineering Management Plan

LRO Integrated Ind. Review Plan

LRO Integration & Verification Plan

LROWBS

LRO Mission Requirements Document

LRO Performance Assurance Implementation Plans GSFC, Instrument Developers, Subsystem Contractors

LRO Instrument Contracts

LRO GSFCSystem Implementation Plans

Available atgdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/gdms/pls/frontdoor

Available in draft

LRO Mission Development Schedule

33

LRO System Implementation Plans (SIP)

• For instruments the contract is the vehicle for SOWs,requirements, and controls.

• For GSFC developed/supported elements the SIP is theintraorganization agreement defining:– SOW directly mapped from WBS– Requirements directly mapped from MRD– Schedule including identification of key milestones– Budget including linkage to key milestones– Reporting and tracking requirements– Signed by Lead Engineer, his/her discipline organization and

the project manager.– Reviewed periodically, revised if scope or requirements change

or if application of reserves is necessitated.

34

1.0 Project Management

7.0 Mission Operations

6.0 Launch System

5.0 Mission Operations & GDS Development

4.0 Payload3.0 Spacecraft2.0 Systems Engineering

1.3 Mission Scientist

1.4 Education & Outreach

2.1 Mission Systems

2.2 Payload Systems

2.3 Software IV&V

2.4 Integration & Test

2.6 Parts & Materials

2.5 Reliability

2.7 Contamination Control

2.8 Radiation

3.1 Structures

3.2 GimbalSystems

3.2 Deployable Systemes

3.4 Mechanical Analysis

3.5 Thermal

3.6 GN&C

3.8 Power

3.9 C&DH

3.10 Communication

4.1 Instrument 1

4.2 Instrument 2

4.3 Instrument 3

4.4 Instrument 4

5.1 Mission Operations Development

5.2 Ground Data Systems Development

6.1 Launch Vehicle 7.1 Mission Systems

7.2 Ground Station / Network Operations

7.3 Operations

LRO WBS

3.11 Flight Software

3.12 Electrical/ Harness

1.2 Business Management Staff

1.1 Project Management Staff

3.7 Propulsion

1.0 Project Management

7.0 Mission Operations

6.0 Launch System

5.0 Mission Operations & GDS Development

4.0 Payload3.0 Spacecraft2.0 Systems Engineering

1.3 Mission Scientist

1.4 Education & Outreach

2.1 Mission Systems

2.2 Payload Systems

2.3 Software IV&V

2.4 Integration & Test

2.6 Parts & Materials

2.5 Reliability

2.7 Contamination Control

2.8 Radiation

3.1 Structures

3.2 GimbalSystems

3.2 Deployable Systemes


3.5 Thermal

3.6 GN&C

3.8 Power

3.9 C&DH

3.10 Communication

4.1 Instrument 1

4.2 Instrument 2

4.3 Instrument 3

4.4 Instrument 4

5.1 Mission Operations Development

5.2 Ground Data Systems Development

6.1 Launch Vehicle 7.1 Mission Systems

7.2 Ground Station / Network Operations

7.3 Operations

LRO WBS



1.2 Business Management Staff

1.1 Project Management Staff

3.7 Propulsion

LRO WBS

• LRO WBS is defined and controlled to level 3 at project level.• Includes detailed SOW for each element• WBS element SOWs map directly into GSFC SIPs• Level 4 and lower defined and maintained at subsystem

level, with review/approval by project.• LRO WBS will be linked to instrument developer level 3

WBS

35

2.1.5 Mechanical Systems

2.1.6 GN&C Systems

3.1 Structures

3.2 Mechanisms/ Pointing Systems

3.3 Deployment Systems


3.5 Thermal

3.6 GN&C

3.8 Power

3.9 Command & Data Handling

3.1.1 Spacecraft Bus Structures

3.1.2 Propulsion Module Structure

3.1.3 Instrument Module Structure

3.10 Communication



3.2.1 Antenna Drive/Pointing System

3.2.2 Solar Array Drive/Pointing System

3.2.3 Actuator & Controls, Other

3.3.1 Release / Deployment Systems (SA & HGA)

3.5.1 Spacecraft Bus Thermal

3.5.2 Instrument Accommodation Thermal

3.5.3 Thermal Hardware

3.6.1 Flight Dynamics 3.6.2 ACS 3.6.3 GN&C Hardware

3.8.1 Power System 3.8.2 Solar Array 3.8.3 Batteries 3.8.4 Power System Electronics

3.9.1 C&DH –Processor, LVPC, H/K IO, BIC

3.9.2 SSR 3.9.3 Communication – Ka, S

3.9.4 Network –1553, SpaceWire

3.10.1Ka Band 3.10.2S Band 3.10.3Proximity Relay

3.11.1 FSW Management

3.11.2 Develeopment& Test Environments

3.11.3 FSW Subsystem Development

3.11.4 FSW Testing 3.11.5 Project H/W Subsystem Support

3.11.6 FSW Sustaining Engineering

3.12.1 Flight Harness 3.12.2 EGSE

3.3.2 Solar Array Substrates

3.3.3 High Gain Antenna Boom

3.4.1 Loads & Environment

3.4.2 Structural Analysis

3.4.3 Gimbals / Deployables Analysis

3.0 Spacecraft

3.7 Propulsion 3.7.1 Tanks 3.7.2 Thrusters 3.7.3 Other Components

3.10.4Antenna Systems

3.10.5Space Communication Infrastructure

3.8.5 Power GSE

3.1.4 Mechanical Ground Support Equipment

2.1.5 Mechanical Systems2.1.5 Mechanical Systems

2.1.6 GN&C Systems2.1.6 GN&C Systems

3.1 Structures

3.2 Mechanisms/ Pointing Systems

3.3 Deployment Systems


3.5 Thermal

3.6 GN&C

3.8 Power

3.9 Command & Data Handling

3.1.1 Spacecraft Bus Structures

3.1.2 Propulsion Module Structure

3.1.3 Instrument Module Structure

3.10 Communication



3.2.1 Antenna Drive/Pointing System

3.2.2 Solar Array Drive/Pointing System

3.2.3 Actuator & Controls, Other

3.3.1 Release / Deployment Systems (SA & HGA)

3.5.1 Spacecraft Bus Thermal

3.5.2 Instrument Accommodation Thermal

3.5.3 Thermal Hardware

3.6.1 Flight Dynamics 3.6.2 ACS 3.6.3 GN&C Hardware

3.8.1 Power System 3.8.2 Solar Array 3.8.3 Batteries 3.8.4 Power System Electronics

3.9.1 C&DH –Processor, LVPC, H/K IO, BIC

3.9.2 SSR 3.9.3 Communication – Ka, S

3.9.4 Network –1553, SpaceWire

3.10.1Ka Band 3.10.2S Band 3.10.3Proximity Relay

3.11.1 FSW Management

3.11.2 Develeopment& Test Environments

3.11.3 FSW Subsystem Development

3.11.4 FSW Testing 3.11.5 Project H/W Subsystem Support

3.11.6 FSW Sustaining Engineering

3.12.1 Flight Harness 3.12.2 EGSE

3.3.2 Solar Array Substrates

3.3.3 High Gain Antenna Boom

3.4.1 Loads & Environment

3.4.2 Structural Analysis

3.4.3 Gimbals / Deployables Analysis

3.0 Spacecraft

3.7 Propulsion 3.7.1 Tanks 3.7.2 Thrusters 3.7.3 Other Components

3.10.4Antenna Systems

3.10.5Space Communication Infrastructure

3.8.5 Power GSE

3.1.4 Mechanical Ground Support Equipment

LRO WBS

Example of level 3 WBS

36

LRO Schedule Control

• Controlled at project level

• Updated Monthly– Instrument schedules updated monthly via contract deliverable

schedule update with variances identified– GSFC elements reviewed/updated monthly with weekly insight

• Key milestones (subsystem, segment, & mission level)linked to integrated performance monitoring at theproject level.

• Schedule reserve requirement: 1 month funded reserveper year minimum at the mission level.– Element reserves determined based on risk and criticality

37

LRO Schedule Control

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

11/23/04

LRO Mission Schedule

Task

LRO Mission Milestones

Mission Feasibility Definition

Payload Proposal Development

Payload Preliminary Design

System Definition

S/C &GDS/OPS Preliminary Design

Payload Design (Final)

Spacecraft Design (Final)

GDS/OPS Definition/ Design

Payload Fab/Assy/Test

S/C Fab/Assy/Bus Test

GDS/OPS DevelopmentImplemention & Test

Integration and Test

Launch Site Operations

Mission Operations

AO Sel.IAR IPDR

PDR

ConfirmationICDR

CDR

MORIPSR

PER

FOR/ORR

MRRPSR

LRR

LRO Launch

Network Acquisition

Payload complete (Final Delivery to I&T)

S/C complete (Final delivery to I&T)

GND Net Test Ready

Ship to KSC

LRO LAUNCH

AO Release

(1M Float)

S/C Bus

s/c subsys

GDS

s/c subsys

s/csubsys

Payload(1M Float)

(1M Float)

Ver. 0.2

(1M Float)

38

LRO Cost Control

• Monthly Reported Data– Instrument and Support Service Contractor Financial Management

Reports (NF 533) provide the following on a monthly basis:• Planned and actual cost incurred and hours worked for the current month• Planned and actual cost incurred and hours worked cumulative to date• Planned cost and hours for the balance of the contract effort to completion• Comparison of current contract estimate at completion versus the current

contract value

– GSFC direct charges allocated monthly and reported to project.

– GSFC indirect charges allocated monthly and reported to project.

– GSFC manpower tracking system monthly reports detail GSFCworkforce labor charges.

39

LRO Cost Control

• Reserves– LRO Project reserve level will be based on roll

up of element risk and criticalities. 25% ondevelopment has been used in planning

• Reserves tracked and released via formal process (example follows)

– Instrument contracted cost includes reservesidentified and controlled by developer.

40

LRO Cost Control

• Example ofReserve Account

& ApplicationControl

Element: STEREO ProjectWBS: 51-883-XX Incl. MO&DA: 30,839

PY FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY07 FY 08 FY 09 TOTALTOTAL RESERVE NOA: Jan. 2004 Replan (approved 2/04) 0 7,209 17,608 4,585 0 0 0 29,402TOTAL NOA: POP 04-1 (Excluding Launch, MO&DA, and Corp. G&A) 158,169 89,863 55,246 25,975 0 0 0 329,253

ENCUMBRANCES 0 3,258 (9,154) 4,619 0 0 0 (1,277)

STP Requested NOA Shift 11,828 (11,828) 0POP 04-1 Rephasing and Requirement Changes (8,071) 2,674 4,927 (470)Additional Parts Screening and Radiation Testing (SWAVES) (50) (50)Spacecraft (see separate reserve status for details) (449) (308) (757)

Incl. MO&DA: 29,562TOTAL RESERVE THROUGH ENCUMBRANCES 0 10,467 8,454 9,204 0 0 0 28,125

LIENS 0 (3,517) (2,757) (1,874) 0 0 0 (8,148)

Launch Service Mission Uniques (500) (500) (1,000)RF System Engr (Victor Sank) (15) 0 (15)QA Support for Inspection (131) (110) (241)NVR Analysis of Witness Samples or Swab Samples (Contamination) (38) 0 (38)Particle Fallout Plate Analysis (Contamination) (7) 0 (7)Witness Sample Antenna & Flight Boom Deployment (10) 0 (10)Parts Radiation Consultation (20) 0 (20)Contamination Testing at APL & NRL (100) 0 (100)Code 564 support of ACTEL progress assessment (50) 0 (50)Launch Site Clean Tent Requirement 0 (200) (200)DSN Upgrade (100) (100) (200)Corporate G&A (Guideline Below Re-plan) - believed to be a soft lien (544) (684) (1,228)

Spacecraft (974) (554) (311) (1,839)SECCHI (777) 607 (879) (1,049)IMPACT see separate reserve status for details** (16) (870) (886)PLASTIC (425) (400) (825)SWAVES (354) (86) (440)

Incl. MO&DA: 21,414TOTAL RESERVE THROUGH LIENS 0 6,950 5,697 7,330 0 0 0 19,977

**

RESERVE ON COST TO COMPLETE (CTC):TOTAL NOA REQUIREMENT* 329,253LESS ACTUAL COSTS THRU 5/04 (200,555)TOTAL CTC 128,698LESS REMAINING UNLIENED RESERVE (19,977)CTC (EXCLUDING RESERVE) 108,721% UNENCUMBERED RESERVE ON CTC 28.0%% UNLIENED RESERVE ON CTC 18.4%

19.75

*NOTE: Total Development NOA through launch plus 30 days (phase A-D); it excludes Launch Service,Mission Operations (phase E), and Corporate G&A.

** All instrument liens include funded scehdule slack to cover period between target delivery date and I&T need date; i.e. this is a worst case reserve status.

Current Development Reserve StatusFull Cost ($K)

Status as of: June 22, 2004

Months to Launch

}Jan. 04 Re-plan

327,661(161,518)166,143(28,402)137,741

21.5%20.6%

Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO)Request to Establish a Lien or Encumbrance on Reserve

WBS Element: ________________________________

GSFC or Contractor (List Contractor): _________________________

WBS Element and/or Subsystem of Contract: _________________________

Risk ID No.: _______________

Date of Request: _______________

CCR No.: _______________

Proposal No.: _______________

Mod No.: _______________

Amount of Lien/Encumbrance ($K)

Description of Requirement L or E FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 Total

0

EXAMPLE

EXAMPLE

41

LRO Technical Performance Metrics

– System Engineering tracks and trends technicalreserves

• Mass Reserve• Power Reserve• CPU Utilization & Memory reserve• Communication Link Margin• Propellant Reserve• Pointing & Jitter Budget Margins• Verification Tracking and Closure

– Payload Systems Manager tracks and trendsinstrument performance verifications/metrics.Parameters will be instrument specific.

42

LRO Risk Management

LRO Continuous Risk Management is conducted in accordance with RLEPCRMP implemented via the LRO RMIP.

• Risk Tracking Database– Tracked and maintained by LRO

systems group– RM Board chaired by project

manager– Going in risks identified during

mission formulation and SIPdevelopment

– Weekly insight/update at GSFCsubsystem level

– Monthly insight/updates atinstrument monthly statusreviews

– Top Risks List, includingmitigations, and Risk Matricesreported at MSR, detailedreporting at independent reviews

Risk Assessment

Observatory Mass Margin (STR010)M5

IMPACT HET/LET Detector Schedule (SEP005)M1

SECCHI HI FM Schedule (HI004)M2

Intense Early Operations (OPS003)M3

IMPACT SEP Development (SEP006)M4

Risk TitleApproach

Rank & Trend

Observatory Mass Margin (STR010)M5

IMPACT HET/LET Detector Schedule (SEP005)M1

SECCHI HI FM Schedule (HI004)M2

Intense Early Operations (OPS003)M3

IMPACT SEP Development (SEP006)M4

Risk TitleApproach

Rank & Trend

ApproachM – MitigateW – WatchA – AcceptR - Research*

��

��High��

��Med��

��Low

CriticalityDecreasing (Improving)Increasing (Worsening)UnchangedNew since last month

L x C Trend

5

4

3

2

1

1 2 3 4 5

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

LIKELIHOOD

CONSEQUENCES

2

4

5

1

3

5

5

4

3

2

1

1 2 3 4 5

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

LIKELIHOOD

CONSEQUENCES

2

4

5

1

3

5

•HI1-A FPA to be completed assembly in early June.•HI EQM successfully completed its vibration and door deployment tests. Optics and FPA assemblies post test operations and alignment were verified.•HI CFRP FM housing panels, baffles, and optical assemblies development were making good progress. Impact could be very serious if Solar-B takes more time than planned.

Mitigate•Requesting Solar-B commit to their schedule of <1 month impact.•Continue biweekly telecons with UofBirm, and site visits ~ every 2 months.•HI FPA assembly activities will now be conducted by NRL/Swales to allow for HI resources and schedule relief.•Consider providing GSFC and/or NRL manpower to support the HI development and test at UofBirm.•HI could be delivered directly to APL, separately from the SCIP.

HI FM ScheduleIf the HI FPAs and the HI FM hardware, being developed at University of Birmingham, are delayed further, then the HI FM schedule will suffer resulting in late delivery to the spacecraft.The HI EQM is to be used for SCIP EMI/C tests at NRL to support the SCIP schedule, requiring temporary use of HI flight CEBs.Solar-B developed a composite panel problem which will take priority in the UofBirm composite shop for ~1 month.

2RF001

•Overtime approved for test engineer to complete leakage current tests.•Enough LET detectors are available. Spares are in test.•Enough HET detectors available for one HET flight unit.•All new detector mounts have been fabricated and sent to Micron for detector assembly.•H1, H3, L3 detectors arrived. Initial tests performed and new batch looks good.

Mitigate•Order additional H1, H3 and L3 detectors from a different crystal to compensate for the low yield.•Complete leakage current tests on the H3 detectors ASAP.•The plan is to change out detectors, if necessary after calibration, before environmental tests.

IMPACT HET/LET Detector ScheduleIf the HET detectors that are in test do not maintain schedule and the leakage current issue is not resolved then the yield may be low which will directly impact the delivery of the flight units.

1SEP005

Risk Statement StatusApproach & PlanRank

��

��H

��

��M

��

��LRisk Criticality

��

��M

��

��H EXAMPLE

43

– FMEA/CIL developed at blackbox level and additionally forkey critical components

– PRA performed for criticalscenarios

– System level qualitative FaultTree Analysis

– EEE part stress for all parts &circuits

– Event Tree and block levelreliability analysis based onpreliminary design already in-work, will guide developmentdecisions.

Risk Identification

Critical Functions & Subsystems

Risk Analysis Risk Prioritization

Risk Mitigation

Redundan

cy

Crit

ical

Item

s

Reliability Engineering and Management

LRO Risk Management

44

LRO Performance Monitoring

• LRO will monitor integrated performanceper RLEP Performance MonitoringRequirements.– Integrated tracking and reporting of Actual vs.

planned costs, scheduled performancemilestones, and reserve status.

45

PY TOTAL Oct 03 Nov 03 Dec 03 Jan 04 Feb 04 Mar 04 Apr 04 May 04 Jun 04 Jul 04 Aug 04 Sep 04

ESTIMATE AT COMPLETION 131,803.6 131,676.6 133,116.6 133,116.6 139,175.6 146,583.6 146,979.6 146,979.6 146,979.6 147,771.6 147,771.6 150,566.6 SLACK TO CONTRACT DELIVERY 65.5 52.0 56.0 60.0 57.0 57.0 53.5 50.0 40.0 38.5 38.5 43.0 CUM COST PLAN 78,893.5 83,354.4 87,490.9 92,243.7 96,749.3 90,228.7 97,720.0 103,674.8 107,790.7 111,279.8 113,986.8 116,510.3 118,933.1 CUM ACTUAL COSTS 75,904.2 78,988.1 82,981.1 86,306.0 89,098.9 92,320.8 96,337.5 99,954.4 103,165.3 106,198.3 109,808.3 113,425.0 ACT. COST + O/S ORDERS 17,881.0 87,844.1 90,876.1 93,016.7 95,690.3 98,808.9 102,985.0 106,565.0 109,660.0 112,421.0 116,144.0 119,897.0 - Cum Cost Variance (2,989.3) (4,366.3) (4,509.8) (5,937.7) (7,650.4) 2,092.1 (1,382.6) (3,720.4) (4,625.4) (5,081.5) (4,178.5) (3,085.3) % Cum Variance -4% -5% -5% -6% -8% 2% -1% -4% -4% -5% -4% -3% 0%

STEREO Spacecraft WBS SummaryPhase A-D

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

PY TOTAL Oct 03 Nov 03 Dec 03 Jan 04 Feb 04 Mar 04 Apr 04 May 04 Jun 04 Jul 04 Aug 04 Sep 04

$K

CUM COST PLAN CUM ACTUAL COSTS

Complete X Deck Panels2/25/04

VARIANCE EXPLANATION: Variance is mainly due to Outstanding Subcontractor Invoices. However, the following minor elements are exceptions:WBS 320 Power: Bonding of solar cells to substrate occurred at Emcore for the final 2 solar array panels. The other 6 are in various stages of wiring and fundctional tesing.WBS 360 RF Communications: Of the TWTAa, buyoff is completed for one and buyoff for the remaining two is scheduled for 9/28/04, afterwhich they will be shipped to APL and the invoices will be completed.WBS 380 Flight Software: ($389.5K)5.5 SM of Senior Upper Labor removed (approx. $181K) Addtionally there has been continuous underspending of labor hours due to staffing shortfall. 700 Pre-launch: ($532.5K) Underruns in labor and procurement. There has been no effect to work performance or schedule.

- Start Milestone

- Finish - Early Start- Late Finish

KEY

Complete Lots 1-3 Valve/REA Rework5/6/04

Complete Load & Stiffness Test of Primary Structure5/10/04

Deliver Primary Structure to Propulsion Vendor5/14/04

Complete Lots 1-3 REM Assy & Test6/8/04

S/N 001 Primary Structure/Propulsion Sys Avail7/23/04

S/N 002 Primary Structure/Propulsion Sys Avail8/10/04

Complete S/C A Core Subsystem I&T8/30/04

Complete S/C B Core Subsystem I&T9/22/04

3/26/04

5/17/04

5/21/04

5/28/04

6/04/04

8/24/04

9/3/04

10/27/04

11/9/04

Complete Fab Sep Sys9/15/03

12/4/04

10/17/04C&DH SW Build 16/20/03

10/17/04Comp 2nd Center Structure Fab8/5/03

11/11/04Comp Structure Panel Fab6/20/03

LRO Performance Monitoring

EXAMPLE

Integrated tracking and analysis will be done at subsystem,instrument, segment, and mission levels.

46

Conclusion

• LRO project and engineering team ready toengage selected instrument developers andbegin preliminary design.

• Proven GSFC systems in-place to operate andcontrol the project.

• Formal documentation maturing on anappropriate schedule.

• Technical challenges well understood.• Program/project organization prepared to

respond constructively to various budgetappropriation outcomes.

"...as we leave the Moon at Taurus-Littrow, we leave as we came and, God willing, as we shall return, with peace and hope for all mankind.“

MET 170:41:00 Gene Cernan

Future Mission Planning

48

RLEP Architecture Scope

• RLEP missions address important Explorationquestions– As the questions change, so do the missions– Inherently iterative process

• Many notional missions possible within thearchitectural framework

2008 2020

Site Selection: • Develop detailed terrain and hazard maps at relevant scales• Characterize lighting & thermal characteristics• Identify potential resources• Refine gravity models to support auto-navigation

Life Sciences: • Investigate radiation effects & mitigation strategies for living systems in support ofhuman surface exploration

• Characterize micrometeorite environment and neutron environment

Resources: • Identify, validate, and determine resource character and abundances• Experiment with and validate ISRU approaches

Technology Maturation: • Support fly-offs of candidate Constellation systemtechnologies

• Demonstrate performance of critical Constellationsystems

Infrastructure Emplacement: • Communication systems• Navigation systems• Power systems

49

Enabling the Progression of ExplorationEarly Missions Notional Architecture

2015

2013

2011

2009

2014

2012

2010

2008

Block II CEV – Human Flight

Block II CEV - CDR

Block II CEV - PDR

Can necessary infrastructure beforward based?

What must be done to enableroutine access to the Moon?

How bad is the radiationenvironment for humans? How canwe land at the Poles? Are therepotential resources (ice)?

Can the radiationenvironmental effects bemitigated? Validation of ice asa resource. Biological effects?

How can performance of CEVcritical elements be rapidly &inexpensively demonstrated?

Can local resourcesbe utilized and how so?

Communication & NavigationStation and laboratory

Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter

Constellation CandidateTechnology Demonstration

Rugged Lander – Resources &Biological Effects Probe

Landed ISRUDemonstration Lab

Gravity Mapper and OrbitalLanding Site Reconnaissance

Deliver & operate supportinginfrastructure as needed

Must we return biologicalExperiments to fully mitigateissues?Robotic Biosentinel Returnbefore humans?

50

Mission #1LRO

Remote Sensing Orbiter

Launch 2008, Delta II class ELV, 1000 kg/1 year mission

• Characterize radiation environment, biologicalimpacts, and high resolution global selenodetic grid

• Assess resources and environments of the Moon’spolar regions

• Human-scale resolution of the Moon’s surface• Global, geodetic topography to enable landings

anywhere• Potential extended mission as comm. relay

RLEP Strawman Mission Set

Mission #4Constellation Candidate Technology

Demonstration1st Exploration fly off mission1st landing and return mission

Launch 2011, Delta IV/Atlas V Class, 5000 kg

• CEV motor test• Precision landing• Rendezvous & docking experiment• Bio-sentinel landing and return (to Earth)• Dust management experiments

Mission #2Resource & Bio-Test Probes

1st use of general-purpose probes & delivery system

Launch 2009, Taurus class ELV, 400 kg/up to 1 year

• Provide resource ground truth &characterization (i.e., of water ice)

• Emplace bio-sentinel on surface to improveradiation effects/mitigation data

Mission #3Gravity Mapper & Orbital Landing Site

Reconnaissance2nd delivery of general purpose probes

Launch 2010, Delta II class ELV, 1200 kg/1 year mission

• Far-side Gravity mapping w/subsat• Detailed landing site characterization from low

orbit• Emplace advanced bio-sentinel on surface• Potential for global regolith survey• Potential extended mission as comm. relay

Mission #5Malapert Mountain Communications &

Navigation Relay1st infrastructure emplacement mission

Launch 2012+, Delta II class ELV, 1200 kg/10 year life

• Operational Communication relay station– Potential for major commercial role in

lunar operations• Operational Navigation station

Mission #6Landed ISRU Development Systems

2nd Exploration test bed mission

Launch 2013+, Delta IV/Atlas V Class, 5000 kg

• Drilling technology• Ice handling, processing, O2 extraction• Habitat material feasibility• Long-lived life sciences sentinels?• In situ mass spectrometry for history of

water/ice

51

Ongoing Architecture Definition

• RLEP is currently focused on better definition of first surface probe– Critical objectives of water/ice validation and radiation/biology experiment

• RLEP tasked external community for input through RFI process, yielding 52responses

– Advanced Technology for Space Platform Architectures• 16 responses from a broad range of subsystem technologies. Many of these technologies we were

previously aware of, however we will be requesting more information in 5 areas: flight routertechnology, Lithium Sulfur batteries, light weight solar array technology, MEMS gyro, thin film powersupply technologies

– Ground System and Mission Operations• 14 responses showed industry interest and a capability to support Lunar missions. The responses

here were expected, well within the state of the practice. (No callbacks for additional information)– Radiation /Biology Surface demonstrations

• 9 responses in this area. Many had experience working with NASA previously and a few newcomersthat may require more questioning. (Call backs for more information in 2 areas: lab on a chip and animplantable radiation dosimeter)

– Water Ice Validation (WIV) Concepts• 13 responses produced a number of innovative approaches to WIV. These included some mature

technologies for probes derived from defense industry technologies. (Call backs for information inmilitary technologies related to high energy impacts, military space vehicles and navigation systems)

52

Examples of Potential Probe Architectures

Investigating super microtechnologies propulsion systemstaging, rendezvous and docking.Highly innovative somewhat morerisky ultra simple short lived low cost,very small mass solution. Uniquecustom design not mature at this time.

Investigating propulsion systemsavailable for decent andhard/medium landing systems aswell as instrumentation solutionswith help of RFI’s fromindustry/academia.

Hard landers/penetrators muchless mature: Investigating currentmilitary hardened devices whichwould need different payloadaccommodations and navigationalenhancements.

Soft landed rover systems maturein most areas; Investigatingcryogenic capability upgrades anddrilling system

Sampling probes gather verysmall samples from many sitesand return them to an orbiting labon the mother ship. Increases labinstrument mass. Labs andprobes from different missionscan interact. Increased failurerobustness. Communicatedirectly from mother ship.Technically less mature.

Probes deployed from anorbiting mother ship can coverthe globe, live for short times incold craters, and relay data to themother ship.

Mortar type probes deployedfrom central lander or descentcraft can cover a larger area andperform short livedinvestigations of dark cratersbefore freezing, using centralcraft as a data relay. Can usekinetic energy for depthpenetration.

Rovers require larger LVcapability to provide detailedinvestigation of a localized area.Not well suited to dark crateroperations at 50 deg K. Travelsomewhat limited by sunlight.Needs drill for depth penetration.

Lunar Samplers“Super Flies”

Lunar Probes“Flies”

Lunar Mortar“Spider”

Lunar Rover“Beetle”

53

RLEP Architecture Key Challenges

• Establishing potential and relevance in non-traditional areas– Diversity of Exploration content has huge span of

needs and possibilities which robotics could facilitate

• Crafting synergy across a diverse range ofmission implementers

• Maintaining affordability

• Balancing risk and responsiveness

RLEP Summary

55

RLEP Summary

• Program maturation proceedingexceptionally well, despite lack of $appropriation

• LRO Project poised for quick startpending receipt of funding

A Review of RLEP Status and LRO Pre-Selection Formulation ... · A Review of RLEP Status and LRO...

Documents

Transcript of A Review of RLEP Status and LRO Pre-Selection Formulation ... · A Review of RLEP Status and LRO...