Thomas GlavichMary White

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology.Copyright 2010 California Institute of Technology. Government sponsorship acknowledged.

Used with permission

The Moon Mineralogy Mapper is a Discovery Program Instrument of Opportunity, selected to fly on Chandrayaan-1, India’s first lunar spacecraft. The Project presented a variety of challenges ranging from ITAR issues to interface negotiation, to cultural differences in the working environment. The presentation will detail some of the more unusual challenges encountered in working with the Indian Space Research Organization, and in achieving a successful outcome for both NASA and India. The benefits of a flexible approach to requirements, interfaces and testing worked well for both parties.

We are going to discuss some of the experiences of the Moon Mineralogy Mapper Team in working with the Indian Space Research Organization’s First Mission to the Moon on Chandrayaan-1

The entire experience was one of the best and most enjoyable in our careers, and we would do it again tomorrow

M3 is a Discovery Program Instrument of Opportunity Visible to near infrared grating spectrometer (~430 to 3000

nm) Two imaging modes

Global (140 m / 10 nm) and Targeted (70 m / 20 to 40 nm) M3 flew on Chandrayaan-1

India’s first Lunar and Deep Space Mission M3 Implementation Timeline

Initial Funding was received in April 2005 Preliminary Design Review was held August 2005 Confirmation Review was held in February 2006 Critical Design Review was held in May 2006 Pre-Ship Review held in May 2007 Launch October 2008 Mission terminated August 2009

Global Mode image cube and selected radiance and apparent reflectance spectra from an M3 data set acquired on the 5 February 2009 that includes

the Apollo 15 landing site near Hadley Rille (26° 26' N, 3° 39' E).

• M3 Key Deliveries and Activities Engineering Model (Command and Data Interface

Electronics only) delivered and tested against a spacecraft simulator, November 2006

M3 delivery and preliminary integration to spacecraft, August 2007

Payload Operations Center Replica, July 2008 Final integration and check-out, August 2008

Mission Plan Nominal mission duration: Four optical periods over

the two year mission Actual observations were in two optical periods with more time per

observation than planned Instrument was held in Survival mode and transitioned

to Decontamination mode before each optical period

• India is a developing nation• The technical sophistication of the Indian Space

Research Organization is every bit the equal of NASA’s

• The capabilities of the ISRO Staff Engineers and technicians are equivalent to NASA Engineers

• Chandrayaan-1• India’s first mission beyond earth orbit• First mission involving multiple foreign contributions• Used India’s new Deep Space Network facility

24 degree FOVunobscured F/3.5TMA TelescopeSlit

Grating640 cross-trackMCT Detector430 to 3000 nm

Singlespherical mirror

OS Filter

M3 on the Chandrayaan-1 Spacecraft

Passive CoolerOptical Bench Assembly

Thermal ShieldInstrument Aperture

InstrumentElectronicsAssembly

M3 Instrument

Chandrayaan -1Spacecraft

PSLVLaunch System

Chandrayaan Launch System • Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV)

• 4 stage core, 6 strap-ons• First Launch: 1993• Launch Success: 8/9

• PSLV-XL (6 PSOM-XL improved stretched strap-ons) • 3 Qual Tests (1st 12/29/05 successful, 3rd Q

of 2006)• First use for RISAT• 3rd use for Chandrayaan

• 1304 kg in 240 km by 24,000 km GTO –like orbit• 503 kg Chandrayaan dry mass • 801 kg of propellants

Trans LunarInjection

Mid Course Correction

GTO

ETO

Lunar Transfer Trajectory

Initial Orbit ~ 1000 km

Lunar InsertionManoeuvre

Final Orbit 100 km Polar

ASTROSAT

Moon at Launch

To achieve 100 x 100 km Lunar Polar Orbit.PSLV to inject 1300 kg in GTO of 240 x 24000 km.Lunar Orbital mass of 523 kg with 2 year life time.

Scientific payload 55 kg.

Expanding the scientific knowledge about the moon, upgrading India’s technological capability and providing challenging opportunities for planetary research for the younger generation

CHANDRAYAAN-1Mission Profile

ISRO Satellite Centre (ISAC)

Bangalore

Satish Dhawan Space CentreSriharikota

ISRO issued an Announcement of Opportunity for foreign instruments for the Chandrayaan-1 Mission

Principal Investigator Carle Pieters of Brown University teamed with JPL to propose the Moon Mineralogy Mapper

The instrument was funded as a Discovery Instrument of Opportunity

• India is on the Designated Country list• The Indian Space Program is closely tied to ISRO’s

military• Little to no separation between the Nuclear Weapons

Development activity and the Space Program• This was changing during the time that M3 was

going through its ITAR process• Initially ISRO refused to sign the ITAR agreements

The term “Technical Assistance” in the ITAR agreement was a major choking point for the Indian Government

They repeatedly pointed out that it was their spacecraft, and they were helping us, not the other way around

We had several lengthy discussion sessions with all levels of ISRO Management on ITAR and its implementation

M3 had a requirement to have a signed TAA prior to our confirmation review, and a confirmation date that was not changing

Schedule and budget constraints required that we make progress, even though the TAA was not yet in place M3 had been selected last – development schedule

was very constrained M3 team had been staffed and the taxi meter was

running Chandrayaan-1 schedule was firm Developed an “Assumed Requirements” document

Internal use only Contained key requirements Based on information obtained from ISRO, but not

verified to be current

The signing of the TAA and our participation in the Chandrayaan mission was directly tied to US-India government relations, and in particular the agreement on Nuclear Energy

The TAA was signed the day before a final deadline after repeated intercessions from the State Department and the US Embassy in New Delhi

ISRO ISAC did not usually develop an ICD between the spacecraft and each instrument Mechanical and electrical interface drawings were used but not a

written document as is common for NASA M3 team spent 1 week at ISRO ISAC (Bangalore)

Four days in conference room creating the document Ch-1 Project Director (PD), System Engineers, Subsystem

Leads M3 Project Manager, System Engineers, Subsystem Leads,

Export Compliance Officer, D&NF Program Management, two engineers from MSFC (could communicate more freely having an MOU in place, while M3 team did not yet have a TAA)

Fifth day, signed the ICD, with just a few TBD’s

Although both the Ch-1 and M3 teams spoke English, communication during telecons was challenging Acronyms and abbreviations, grammatical and vocabulary

differences Telecons started ~9pm for M3 team Some of M3 team called in from home, others at JPL

Pre-telecon email exchange of Agenda in Q& A format Typically two cycles by email prior to each telecon WebEx during telecon to assist with communication

Discussions were based on the existing Q&A, then clarifying information was typed in as it was discussed

Program management in general appears more diffuse in India than it is in the United States It’s certainly harder for us to understand who is in charge of

what, and who holds authority for decisions The ground data system was developed independently

of the spacecraft and instrument complement Coordination of the two appeared to us to be mostly informal

The Review process is very different from NASA Major project reviews consist of reports by subsystem review

chairs Test verification and validation processes are much less formal

and rigorous than NASA

Chandrayaan-1 project did not use Earned Value Scheduling was done with Excel and PowerPoint

The real schedule and all schedule control resided with the Project Director

Chandrayaan-1 project did not use schedule tracking software to manage critical path and near critical path items,

Their understanding of the critical path came from prior experience developing similar spacecraft

The day to day I&T schedule relied on key staff that held corporate knowledge gained from many previous projects

Late in development, schedule problems were solved by eliminating previously planned tests

21

CHANDRAYAAN-1 SCHEDULE (1-AUG-2004 to 31-AUG-2005)

SLN0 A C T I V I T Y A

04S O N D

04J 05

F M A M J J A 05

1 Configuration Finalisation

2 Configuration Review3 P/L Review4 Layout, FOV exercise 5 S/S & S/C level PDR6 S/C Configuration Doc

22

CHANDRAYAAN-1 SCHEDULE ( contd.)1-SEP-2005 to 30-SEPT-2006

SLN0 A C T I V I T Y S

05O N D

05J 06

F M A M J J A S 06

1 EID and matching

2 Harness fabrication3 P/Ls Eng/Ele Model Delivery4 Data handling Pkg 5 BMU Availability6 P/L I/F checks7 Structure & Thermal work8 Propulsion Integration9 Thermal work on RCS10 Electrical wiring11 Sensors availability12 Inertial Systems

availability13 HILS14 Panels & Thermal work15 GC System readiness

23

AIT SCHEDULE - INTEGRATION TO LAUNCH (11 MONTHS)1-OCT-2006 to 1-SEPT-2007

SLN0

A C T I V I T Y DAYS

O N D J F M A M J J A S O N

1 Bus system Integration 30

2 Bus system open mode IST

30

3 P/L Integration 27

4 P/L IST

5 Harness anchoring, X-ray, connector potting, preparation for closure of panels, quick IST

20 15 5

6 Assembly of all panels 05

7 ASSEMBLED IST, TH-VAC Preparation, Antennae to AIT

15

8 TH. VAC TEST, SA to AIT

21

9 Post TH VAC 25

10 DYNAMIC TESTS 14

11 Pre-shipment IST 10

12 ** CUSHION ** 30

13 SHIPMENT 02

14 SP-1 phase 30

15 Fuel filling phase 08

16 Launch Opportunity / pre-laun

18

Spacecraft Development Team Most (nearly all) team members have worked together

for many missions Know their routines Don’t require as much formal planning

Incremental hardware changes from one mission to the next Spacecraft Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) Deep Space Network

Sometimes not clear who was responsible for what Job titles might be the same as for JPL, but

responsibilities could be different This was most confusing in the realm of systems

engineering, quality assurance, contamination control

Ch-1 procedures did not carry all detail Multiple activities would be carried in one block Blocks were not numbered A repeated procedure would be done without

reprinting; with new data recorded to the side

Resources that are commonly available at NASA are sometimes of limited availability at ISRO – due to cost and security Paper, printers, copiers Internet access Cell phones Laptops Email – large file size and access from anywhere

M3 team was ultra cautious about everything Two people in Bangalore from the start of spacecraft

I&T until 10 weeks post launch QA person attended nearly all mechanical and

electrical integration activity 24/7 coverage from launch through 10 weeks

M3 thermal engineer was the first to notice anomalous condition while in transit to the moon

M3 with Protection

and Handling

Device

M3 Pre-Ship Portrait

M3

H/K TMScience TM

Chandrayaan-1

IDSN Ground StationAPL Ground StationJPL Ground Station

ISSDC, Bangalore MOS @ JPL

H/K TMScience Telemetry

SCC, Bangalore

M3-relevant S/C TMS/C Navigation (PVAT) data

H/K TM

IGDS @ JPL

Science TMS/C Navigation data

PDS @ JPLL1B Products

M3 Archive (L0 + L1B Products)

Science Team (various sites)

L1B, L2Products

M3 Archive(L2 Products)

L1B, L2 Products

ISRO

JPL

M3 Science Team

L1B, L2Products

L2 Products

L1B,L2 Products

interactive validation

M3-related raw Telemetry

M3 Data Products

Successful Orbit Acquisition Reports

M3 team generated a draft Operations ICD No response from Chandrayaan-1 team

M3 generated an Operations Understanding document, unilaterally

Pre-launch rehearsals were minimal Not sure if this is typical

Relied on person-to-person interface for all M3 operations First in person, later by phone, eventually per a script

Priority for instrument operations was uncertain and unstable

Instrument operations were very simple Few commands Reasonably failsafe as far as operator error Stationed people in Bangalore for the duration of

spacecraft I&T M3 Instrument Operator sat next to the spacecraft

operator for commissioning, and was on phone for early operations period

Protection and Handling Device Involvement by Principal Investigator with the

spacecraft Project Director Insisted on a high quality nitrogen purge

ISRO wanted NASA DSN support Increased the opportunities for M3 to downlink

JPL Navigation support raised the JPL presence at ISRO

More thermal margin Field of view of the passive cooler Though the instrument was sensitive to thermal

input on the Passive Cooler; it became a “solar collector” and had potential to overheat the focal plane

Paid more attention to the planned spacecraft level test flow, as it is different than ours

Additional visit to ISRO for mechanical and thermal interface clarification same time the electrical EM was delivered

• From the perspectives of ISRO and the M3 Science team, this mission was a great success

• Major discoveries• M3 has generated lots of data

• Chandrayaan-1 and M3 Discoveries have been reported in scientific journals as well as popular media

From Science, 23 October 2009, cover. Reprinted with permission from AAAS.

• We received an enormous amount of help from too many people to mention. In particular we would like to acknowledge,

• Science Mission Directorate• Tony Carro and the entire SMD staff

• NASA Office of External Affairs• Discovery and New Frontiers Program Office

• Steve McClard• JPL Office of Export Compliance• JPL Management• M3 Team