A Review of RLEP Status and LRO
Pre-Selection Formulation Efforts
GSFC RLEP Office, Code 430
November 23, 2004
Edited for wide distribution 12-23-2004
http://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov
RLEP Review Topics
• Establishment of the RLEP Organization
• Evolution of the LRO mission concept
• Future mission studies and investigations
• Assessment of Appropriation scenarios
2
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 Summary
Low Appropriation Impact Discussion (removed)
3
RLEP Overview and
Introduction
POP 04-1 (FY06) Budget Submission
• RLEP Responded to POP-04-1 (FY06) Budget Request with model program
compliant 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
5
Mission Model Cost Validation
• Payload cost based on OSS planetary
investigation historical data (1kg = $1M)
– Cost boundary solidified by AO constraints
• Mission costs scoped parametrically
– Comparative assessment of recent missions
– Grassroots comparison to prior GSFC activities
• Preliminary cost quotes from KSC on ELV costs
• Cost Scope Analysis used to validate Discovery
class boundary condition for Program budget
profile
6
Mission Cost Scope Analysis
Lunar Launch Capacity
VEHICLE
TAURUS XL
DELTA 2
DELTA 4
ATLAS 5
ATLAS 5H or
DELTA 4H
30-40
80-100
140
165
DRY MASS to
LOW LUNAR
ORBIT (kg)
200
500-750
2300
3250
300
4500
ESTIMATED
COST ($M)
OBSERVATIONS
BUS (kg)
PAYLOAD (kg)
150-175
400
1300
1700
25-50
100-200
1000
1550
•
•
General Funding Allocation
MISSION COST ($M)
MISSION
ELEMENT
ELV
PAYLOAD
S/C
EVERYTHING
ELSE (ops, res,
etc.)
$200M MISSION
35
35
70
$400M MISSION
$800M MISSION
(Discovery class)
90
140
100
220
100
200
$1200M
MISSION
140
500
200
Launch vehicle mass
quantization forces lunar
program to choose either a
single large mission or
several moderate missions
as architecture profile
Modest mission cost
enables higher flight
frequency
–
–
–
60
110
240
360
More responsive & flexible
program
Greater potential for early
risk mitigation
Lower program risk per
mission
7
RLEP Organization
James Watzin, RLEP Program Manager
Robotic Lunar Exploration
Program Manager
J. Watzin
Date
Program
Director (HQ)
R. Vondrak
Deputy Program Manager
TBD
Program Business Manager
P. Campanella
EPO Specialist
TBD
100
Program Support
Manager
K. Opperhauser
Program Support
Specialist(s)
TBD
400
CM
Scheduling
A. Eaker
Program
DPM(s)/Resources
TBD
Program Financial
Manager(s)
W. Sluder
Program
Scientist (HQ)
T. Morgan
400
Procurement
Manager
TBD
System Assurance
Manager
R. Kolecki
Future Mission
Systems
J. Burt
Contracting
Officer
TBD
Safety Manager
TBD
Mission Flight
Engineer
M. Houghton
200
Parts Engineer
N. Vinmani
Program Resource
Analyst(s)
TBD
Materials Engineer
TBD
Avionics Systems
Engineer
P. Luers
500
300
400
DM
General Business
K. Yoder
MIS
Lunar Reconnaissance
Orbiter (LRO)
Project Manager
C. Tooley
400
400
LE 2
Mission 2
LE 3
Mission 3
LE 4
Mission 4
LE n
Payload Systems
Manager
A. Bartels 400
Operations
Manager
TBD
400
Launch Vehicle
Manager
T. Jones 400
Mission n
8
Recent In-House GSFC Spacecraft Systems
TRACE
Spartan 201
WIRE
DSCOVR
SAMPEX
FAST
SWAS
GSFC Has Unique In-House Capabilities for Rapid Mission Implementation
RLEP Team has done 7/10 most recent in-house missions
9
RLEP Reporting Structure
SMD
Dep AA/Programs
O. Figueroa
ESMD
Div Chief
Development
J. Nehman
GSFC
Center Director
ESMD
Div Chief Req’ts
M. Lembeck
GSFC
Dir Flt Programs
R. Obenschain
SMD
RLEP Prog Dir
R. Vondrak
ESMD
PM Robotic Lunar
J. Baker
ESMD
Robotics
Req’ts
SMD
Prog Exec
for LRO
GSFC
Exploration POC
K. Brown
SMD
RLEP Prog Scientist
J. Garvin
J. Trosper
GSFC
RLEP Program Mgr
J. Watzin
GSFC
LRO Project Mgr
C. Tooley
GSFC
Dep Ctr Dir
Chair GMC
C. Scolese
GSFC Project Management Experience
• GSFC has implemented 277 flight missions - 97% mission success rate
over the past 6 years
• GSFC has the largest in-house engineering and science capability within
the 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 other
NASA Center
• GSFC has provided infrastructure support for every manned space
mission
– Space Station, HST Servicing, Shuttle, Apollo, Gemini, Mercury, flight
dynamics, communication, data management
11
Project Procedures & Guidelines Flow Down
NPR 7120.5B NASA Program and Project Management Processes and Requirements
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
GPG-7120.1B
GPG-7120.4GPG-7120.5GPG-1280.1A
GPG-1060.2B
GPG-8700.4E
GPG-8700.6GPG-1410.2B
GPG-8700.1C
GPG-8700.2C
GPG-8700.3A
GPG-8700.5GPG-8070.4
GEVS-SE
PROGRAM AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT
RISK MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING
THE GSFC QUALITY MANUAL
MANAGEMENT REVIEW AND REPORTING FOR PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
INTEGRATED INDEPENDENT REVIEWS
Available at
ENGINEERING PEER REVIEWS
CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT
gdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/gdms/pls/frontdoor
DESIGN PLANNING AND INTERFACE MANAGEMENT
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
DESIGN VALIDATION
IN-HOUSE DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF SOFTWARE PRODUCTS
APPLICATION AND MANAGEMENT OF GODDARD RULES FOR THE
GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL VERIFICATION SPECIFICATION FOR STS & ELV PAYLOADS, SUBSYSTEMS, AND
COMPONENTS
RLEP Program Plan
RLEP Mission Assurance Requirements
RLEP Risk Management Plan
RLEP Configuration Management Plan
RLEP Performance Monitoring Requirements
Project Specific Plans
Project Specific Plan
Project Specific Plan
Project Specific Plan
Project Specific Plan
Available in draft
12
RLEP Program Planning
• RLEP practices compliant with 7120.5 and
relevant 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 under
development
13
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
•
RLEP Surveillance Plan
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
ESMD
(Sole customer, Level 0 Requirements)
SMD
(Sponsor, Director, Level 1 Requirements)
GSFC RLEP
(Management, Implementation,
Level 2-4 requirements)
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
Outlines approach for surveillance of contractors and partners
Identifies strategy for oversight (and insight)
Defines roles and responsibilities (relative to assurance)
Defines audit process
14
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 implementation
documentation)
– 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
15
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 the
GSFC 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 its
missions
– Facilitates continuous, synergistic surveillance and insight of all project
issues
16
Cost Performance Assessment
• RLEP will implement a cost/performance assessment process on all
projects. At present, those processes are derived from prior GSFC practices
• RLEP plans to implement EVM for development contracts in accordance
with 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 not
been established NASA in-house EVM policies and standards are currently
being discussed and developed, led by NASA’s Chief Engineer’s office
• In the interim, the RLEP is exploring various EVM approaches that are
currently being developed at GSFC (e.g. Solar Dynamics Observatory and
HST Robotic Servicing and De-Orbit Mission) and will consult with ESMD
in order to determine the best approach for RLEP
17
RLEP Project Lifecycle Reviews
CR
MDR
CDR
SRR/
PDR
MCRR
Phase A
Preliminary
Analysis
Phase B
Definition
CDR:
CR:
DR:
FOR:
IIRT:
Formulation
Critical Design Review
Confirmation Review
Decommissioning Review
Flight Operations Review
Integrated Independent
Review Team
LRR:
Launch Readiness Review
MCRR: Mission Confirmation
Readiness Review
PER FOR PSR ORR
Phase C
Detailed
Design
Phase D
Development
DR
Phase E/F
Operations
& Disposal
Fabrication
& Integration
Approval
FRR LRR Launch
MRR
Engineering Peer Reviews
System Preliminary
Definition Design
Pre-Formulation
MOR
Environmental
Testing
Ship &
Launch preps
Implementation
MDR:
MOR:
MRR:
ORR:
PDR:
PER:
PSR:
SRR:
Mission Definition Review
Mission Operations Review
Mission Readiness Review
Operations Readiness
Review
Preliminary Design Review
Pre-Environmental Review
Pre-Ship Review
System Requirements
Review
HQ Reviews
(SMD, ESMD concurrence)
GSFC PMC Reviews
IIRT Reviews
(ESMD participation)
KSC Reviews, Launch
18
RLEP Project Review Processes
Center Director
Decisions
Principal Investigator,
Project Scientist
GPMC
Recommendations
Chief Engineer
OSSMA
Monthly Review
MSR and/or
PMC Meetings*
AETD Project
Monthly Review
Formal Launch
Decision Process
Pre-MSR
AETD Champ
Team Mtgs
IIRT*
Sys Assurance
and
Safety Reviews
Peer Reviews
S&MA-DRIVEN
PROCESS
Project
Reviews
Lower level
Programmatic Rvws
Technical Staff
PROJECT-DRIVEN
PROCESS(ES)
*ESMD participation expected
Div. Tech.
Status Reviews
In-process
Technical
Reviews
Peer Reviews
ENGINEERINGDRIVEN PROCESS
19
LRO Introduction
2008 Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO):
First Step in the Robotic Lunar Exploration Program
Robotic Lunar Exploration Program
•
•
Total mass of ~1000 kg will be launched by a
Delta-II class ELV into a direct lunar transfer
orbit; ~100 kg will be instrumentation
Primary mission of at least 1 year in circular polar
mapping orbit (nominal 50km altitude) with
various extended mission options
Solicited Measurement Investigations
•
Characterization and mitigation of lunar and
deep space radiation environments and their
impact on human-relatable biology
•
Assessment of sub-meter scale features at
potential landing sites
•
High resolution global geodetic grid and
topography
•
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 time
scales as short as hours
21
2008 LRO ORDT Process
• March 1-2 LPI Lunar Workshop provided valuable discussions of robotic lunar
exploration 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 Lunar
Knowledge
Workshop
(3/1-2/04)
LRO
ORDT
(3/3-4/04)
HQ reviews
(3/04)
ESRB
Approval
(3/04)
FBO
(3/30/04)
AA Approval of
LRO Measurement
Requirements
(5/24/04)
Announcement
Of Opportunity
(6/18/04)
22
LRO Development AO & PIP
•
The PIP (companion to AO) was the projects
1st product and contained the result of the
rapid formulation and definition effort.
•
The PIP represents the synthesis of the
enveloping mission requirement drawn from
the ORDT process with the defined boundary
conditions for the mission. For the project it
constituted the initial baseline mission
performance 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 communication
relay/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)
23
LRO Project Pre-Instrument Selection Activities
LPI Lunar
Knowledge
Workshop
(3/1-2/04)
LRO
ORDT
(3/3-4/04)
HQ reviews
(3/04)
Derive
Enveloping
Mission
Requirements
ESRB
Approval
(3/04)
FBO
(3/30/04)
Strawman
Mission
Design
into AO/PIP
AA Approval of
LRO Measurement
Requirements
(5/24/04)
Announcement
Of Opportunity
(6/18/04
• S/C Bus &
Ground System
Design Trades
• Prelim MRD
(430-RQMT-0000XX)
Review
&
Categorize
Instrument
TMC
&
Accommodation
Assessment
Instrument
Selection
11/31/2004
Instrument
Contracts
Preliminary
Design
Draft RLEP
Requirements
(ESMD-RQ-0014)
•
Enveloping requirements during ORDT time frame allowed PIP development for AO, mission
planning and trade studies to begin.
•
Spacecraft and GDS developers on-board working trades and evolving designs from the onset, a
benefit of in-house implementation.
•
RLEP Requirements and MRD concurrently evolved from ORDT and Mission Strawman, will be
definitized and aligned when instruments are selected, baselined at PDR.
•
Contingency planning for various RLEP budget appropriation outcomes also performed during
Pre-Instrument Selection.
24
LRO Instrument Procurement Strategy
Rapid Start of Instrument Development is Essential
• Authorize pre-contract costs within two weeks of selection, enabling
the 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 for
phase 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 while
phase C/D/E contract negotiation takes place
– The Advanced Agreement recognizes the authority established in the
AO to contract for phase C/D/E
• Phase A/B report and phase C/D/E implementation and cost plans
are due from vendors at PDR/Confirmation to ensure that phase
C/D/E is negotiated into the contract by the end of the three month
bridge phase
25
LRO Technical Overview- Mission
• LRO Mission
Design & Planning
is ongoing.
• Baseline has been
established.
26
LRO Technical Overview - Spacecraft
Space Segment Conceptual Design
LRO Flight Segment Mass & Power
Allocations V1.0
100
170
25
20
50
15
Orbit Average
Power (W)
100
10
0
30
85
40
SSR
6
35
Servo Drive
5
5
13
55
35
40
50
584
610
1194
1485
35
0
0
60
55
455
0
Subsystem
Example LRO Design Case w/FOVs
Omni Antennas
Low-Rate
S-Band
Comm
High-Gain
Antenna
High-Rate
SBC
INST 1
Ka-Band
BIC
High-Speed
Network
SSR
Analog &
Discretes
Servo Drive
I/O
Cmd& H/K
SAD
INST
SAM
LVPC
Low-Speed
Network
Main Avionics
Solar Array
PSE
NC
EVD
ST(2)
EVD
IRW (4)
CSS (6)
Battery
OM
Propulsion
IMU
Pressurant
Tank
BM
Power
& Switching Control
Preliminary System Block Diagram
NC
P
Instrument Payload
Structure/Mechanisms
Electrical
Communication System
GNC/ACS
C&DH
Power System Electronics
Solar Arrays
Battery
Thermal Control
Propulsion (Dry)
Total:
Propellant
Total:
R
R
P
Propellant Tank
P
Mass (kg)
Launch Vehicle Capability
Bus Power Required
Mass Margin %
Power Margin %
600
25%
32%
27
LRO Technical Overview – Ground System
• LRO Ground System and Mission Operations concepts are established
28
LRO Key Challenges
•
Framed by the anticipated instrument requirements and the cost and schedule
boundary conditions key areas have been identified that present fundamental
challenges that must be planned for from the onset:
Challenge
Mitigation & Planning
Schedule emphasis drives a need for a very
rapid preliminary design phase and start of
implementation
•AO written to solicit only mature instrument technologies
• Project preparing for quick contractual engagement of instrument
developers
• Spacecraft preliminary design started at onset of project using
enveloping requirements – poised to converge when instruments
selected.
Large on-board V requirement mean that
mass margin is critical during development –
every kg costs a kg in fuel.
• Spacecraft design trades driven by mass efficiency.
• Key objective during preliminary design phase is to increase mass
margin. Current mass margin is25%
– Goal is to step down to a 2925-9.5 from 2925H-9.5 launch
vehicle baseline.
•Follow-on missions will be enabled by LRO designs
High measurement data volume exceeds
current operational/available ground network
capability. LRO’s ability to fund new
capabilities makes the ground/space trade
communication trade critical.
• RFI’s released to industry for alternative end-to-end concepts.
• GSFC Space & Ground Networks group performing extensive trade
studies to identify cost effective options, considerable interest shown..
• LRO communications engineers are embedded in NASA’s exploration
architecture definition and requirements efforts – LRO’s requirements
worked in step with NASA Agency wide efforts..
•Specific performance requirements will be dependent on the
instruments selected..
29
LRO Launch Vehicle
•
LRO is planning for a launch on a Delta II class launch vehicle. Within that family
there are a range of capabilities.
•
Launch vehicle will be acquired via NASA KSC Launch Vehicle Contract, final
specification at LRO CDR. Draft IRD in work.
Launch Vehicle
Description
P/L Capability (kg)
(C3 = -2 km2/s2)
Cost
Comment
($M)
Delta 2920-9.5
2 Stage w/9 SRMs
725
76
est.
Too small for LRO
Delta 2925-9.5
3 Stage w/9 SRMs
1285
79
est.
Offer modest cost savings if LRO
mass can be kept low enough.
Delta 2920H-9.5
2 Stage w/9
Heavy SRMs
910
85
est.
Two stage fairing offers increased
volume. Volume may be tradable for
LRO complexity but mass is judged
too challenging.
Delta 2925H-9.5
3 Stage w/9
Heavy SRMs
1485
88.6
est.
Current baseline in POP-04
30
LRO Project Organization
Lunar Reconnaissance
Orbiter (LRO)
Project Manger
C. Tooley
400
Procurement
Manager
TBD
Contracting Officer
Julie Janus
200
Systems Assurance
Manager
R. Kolecki
Program
DPM(s)/Resources
TBD
Program Support
Manager
K. Opperhauser
Safety Manager
TBD
Program Financial
Manager(s)
W. Sluder
Program Support
Specialist(s)
K. Yoder
Parts Engineer
N. Virmani
400
Program Resource
Analyst(s)
TBD
Materials Engineer
TBD
CM
300
Scheduling
DM
MIS
Payload Systems
Manager
A. Bartels
400
LRO Chief
Engineer
T. Trenkle
500
Launch Vehicle
Manager
T. Jones
General Business
400
Matrixed from Program
Instrument
Systems Engineer
TBD
500
500
I&T Systems
Engineer
J. Baker
Operations System
Engineer
R. Saylor 500
Communication
J. Soloff
Operations Systems
Manger
TBD
400
Mechanical
G. Rosanova
500
C&DH
Q. Nguyen
500
Instrument
Manager(s)
500
TBD
Electrical &
Harness
R. Kinder
500
GN&C
Systems
E. Holmes
Mechanisms
Thermal
TBD
C. Baker
400/500
Propulsion
C. Zakrzwski
500
500
500
GN&C
Hardware
J. Simspon
500
500
ACS
Analysis
J. Garrick
500
Flight Dynamics
M. Beckman
D. Folta
500
Power
T. Spitzer
Software
M. Blau
500
500
31
Project Procedures & Guidelines Flow Down
NPR 7120.5B NASA Program and Project Management Processes and Requirements
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
GPG-7120.1
GPG-7120.4
GPG-7120.5
GPG-1280.1
GPG-1060.2
GPG-8700.4
GPG-8700.6
GPG-1410.2
GPG-8700.1
GPG-8700.2
GPG-8700.3
GPG-8700.5
GPG-8070.4
•
GEVS-SE
PROGRAM AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT
RISK MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING
THE GSFC QUALITY MANUAL
MANAGEMENT REVIEW AND REPORTING FOR PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
INTEGRATED INDEPENDENT REVIEWS
ENGINEERING PEER REVIEWS
CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT
Available at
DESIGN PLANNING AND INTERFACE MANAGEMENT
gdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/gdms/pls/frontdoor
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
DESIGN VALIDATION
IN-HOUSE DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF SOFTWARE PRODUCTS
APPLICATION AND MANAGEMENT OF GODDARD RULES FOR THE DESIGN,
DEVELOPMENT, VERIFICATION AND OPERATION OF FLIGHT SYSTEMS
GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL VERIFICATION SPECIFICATION FOR STS & ELV PAYLOADS, SUBSYSTEMS, AND COMPONENTS
RLEP Program Plan
RLEP Mission Assurance Requirements
RLEP Risk Management Plan
RLEP Configuration Management Plan
RLEP Performance Monitoring Requirements
LRO Project Plan
LRO Performance Assurance
Implementation Plans
LRO Systems Engineering
Management Plan
GSFC, Instrument Developers,
Subsystem Contractors
LRO GSFC
System Implementation Plans
LRO Integration
& Verification Plan
LRO
WBS
LRO Integrated Ind.
Review Plan
LRO Mission
Requirements Document
LRO Mission Development Schedule
LRO Risk Management
Implementation Plan
LRO Instrument
Contracts
Available in draft
32
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 the
intraorganization 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.
33
LRO WBS
LRO WBS
1.0 Project
Management
2.0 Systems
Engineering
3.0 Spacecraft
4.0 Payload
5.0 Mission
Operations &
GDS
Development
6.0 Launch
System
7.0 Mission
Operations
1.1 Project
Management Staff
2.1 Mission
Systems
3.1 Structures
4.1 Instrument 1
5.1 Mission
Operations
Development
6.1 Launch Vehicle
7.1 Mission Systems
1.2 Business
Management Staff
2.2 Payload
Systems
3.2 Gimbal
Systems
4.2 Instrument 2
5.2 Ground Data
Systems
Development
3.2 Deployable
Systemes
1.3 Mission Scientist
2.3 Software IV&V
4.3 Instrument 3
3.4 Mechanical
Analysis
1.4 Education &
Outreach
2.4 Integration &
Test
2.5 Reliability
3.5 Thermal
7.2 Ground Station /
Network
Operations
7.3 Operations
4.4 Instrument 4
3.6 GN&C
3.7 Propulsion
2.7 Contamination
Control
3.9 C&DH
•
•
•
•
2.8 Radiation
3.10 Communication
•
2.6 Parts &
Materials
3.8 Power
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
3.11 Flight
Software
3.12 Electrical/
Harness
34
LRO WBS
Example of level 3 WBS
3.0 Spacecraft
3.1 Structures
3.1.1 Spacecraft Bus
Structures
3.1.2 Propulsion
Module
Structure
3.1.3 Instrument
Module
Structure
3.2 Mechanisms/
Pointing Systems
3.2.1 Antenna
Drive/Pointing
System
3.2.2 Solar Array
Drive/Pointing
System
3.2.3 Actuator &
Controls, Other
3.3 Deployment
Systems
3.3.1 Release /
Deployment Systems
(SA & HGA)
3.4 Mechanical
Analysis
3.4.1 Loads &
Environment
3.4.2 Structural
Analysis
3.5 Thermal
3.5.1 Spacecraft Bus
Thermal
3.5.2 Instrument
Accommodation Thermal
3.1.4 Mechanical
Ground Support
Equipment
3.3.3 High Gain
Antenna Boom
3.3.2 Solar Array
Substrates
3.4.3 Gimbals /
Deployables Analysis
3.5.3 Thermal
Hardware
2.1.5 Mechanical Systems
2.1.6 GN&C Systems
3.6 GN&C
3.6.1 Flight Dynamics
3.6.2 ACS
3.6.3 GN&C Hardware
3.7 Propulsion
3.7.1 Tanks
3.7.2 Thrusters
3.7.3 Other Components
3.8 Power
3.8.1 Power System
3.8.2 Solar Array
3.8.3 Batteries
3.8.4 Power System
Electronics
3.9 Command &
Data Handling
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 Communication
3.10.1Ka Band
3.10.2S Band
3.10.3Proximity Relay
3.10.4Antenna
Systems
3.10.5Space
Communication
Infrastructure
3.11 Flight Software
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
3.12 Electrical/
Harness
3.12.1 Flight Harness
3.12.2 EGSE
3.8.5 Power GSE
3.11.6 FSW
Sustaining
Engineering
35
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 the
project level.
• Schedule reserve requirement: 1 month funded reserve
per year minimum at the mission level.
– Element reserves determined based on risk and criticality
36
LRO Schedule Control
LRO Mission Schedule
Ver. 0.2
11/23/04
2004
Task
Q2
Q3
2005
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
2006
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
2007
Q4
Q1
Confirm ation
LRO Mission Milestones
AO Release
IAR
IPDR
AO Sel.
Q2
Q3
MOR
ICDR
PDR
2008
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q4
FOR/ORR
PER
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
LRO Launch
IPSR
CDR
2009
Q3
MRR
PSR
LRR
Mission Feasibility Definition
Payload Proposal
Development
Payload Preliminary Design
System Definition
S/C &GDS/OPS Preliminary
Design
Payload Design (Final)
(1M Float)
Spacecraft Design (Final)
Network Acquisition
GDS/OPS Definition/ Design
Payload Fab/Assy/Test
Payload com plete (Final Delivery to I&T)
S/C Fab/Assy/Bus Test
S/C com plete (Final delivery to I&T)
GND Net Test Ready
GDS/OPS Development
Implemention & Test
s/c
s/c
Pay load
subsy s subsy s
Integration and Test
Ship to KSC
S/C Bus
Launch Site Operations
(1M Float)
GDS
s/c
(1M Float)
subsy s
(1M Float)
LRO LAUNCH
Mission Operations
37
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 GSFC
workforce labor charges.
38
LRO Cost Control
• Reserves
– LRO Project reserve level will be based on roll
up of element risk and criticalities. 25% on
development has been used in planning
• Reserves tracked and released via formal process
(example follows)
– Instrument contracted cost includes reserves
identified and controlled by developer.
39
LRO Cost Control
Current Development Reserve Status
Full Cost ($K)
Status as of: June 22, 2004
Element: STEREO Project
WBS:
51-883-XX
Incl. MO&DA:
PY
TOTAL RESERVE NOA: Jan. 2004 Replan (approved 2/04)
TOTAL NOA: POP 04-1 (Excluding Launch, MO&DA, and Corp. G&A)
FY 04
30,839
TOTAL
0
0
29,402
0
0
0
329,253
0
3,258
(9,154)
4,619
0
0
0
(1,277)
(11,828)
2,674
4,927
11,828
(8,071)
(50)
(449)
0
0
Launch Service Mission Uniques
RF System Engr (Victor Sank)
QA Support for Inspection
NVR Analysis of Witness Samples or Swab Samples (Contamination)
Particle Fallout Plate Analysis (Contamination)
Witness Sample Antenna & Flight Boom Deployment
Parts Radiation Consultation
Contamination Testing at APL & NRL
Code 564 support of ACTEL progress assessment
Launch Site Clean Tent Requirement
DSN Upgrade
Corporate G&A (Guideline Below Re-plan) - believed to be a soft lien
see separate reserve status for details**
TOTAL RESERVE THROUGH LIENS
0
329,253
(200,555)
128,698
(19,977)
108,721
28.0%
18.4%
FY 09
0
25,975
LIENS
RESERVE ON COST TO COMPLETE (CTC):
TOTAL NOA REQUIREMENT*
LESS ACTUAL COSTS THRU 5/04
TOTAL CTC
LESS REMAINING UNLIENED RESERVE
CTC (EXCLUDING RESERVE)
% UNENCUMBERED RESERVE ON CTC
% UNLIENED RESERVE ON CTC
19.75
Months to Launch
FY 08
4,585
55,246
TOTAL RESERVE THROUGH ENCUMBRANCES
}
FY07
17,608
STP Requested NOA Shift
POP 04-1 Rephasing and Requirement Changes
Additional Parts Screening and Radiation Testing (SWAVES)
Spacecraft (see separate reserve status for details)
• Example of
Reserve Account
& Application
Control
FY 06
7,209
89,863
ENCUMBRANCES
Spacecraft
SECCHI
IMPACT
PLASTIC
SWAVES
FY 05
0
158,169
8,454
9,204
0
Incl. MO&DA:
0
0
(3,517)
(2,757)
(1,874)
0
0
(500)
(15)
(131)
(38)
(7)
(10)
(20)
(100)
(50)
0
(100)
(500)
0
(110)
0
0
0
0
0
0
(200)
(100)
(544)
(974)
(777)
(16)
(425)
(354)
(554)
607
(870)
(400)
(86)
10,467
6,950
0
(470)
(50)
(757)
29,562
28,125
(308)
5,697
0
(8,148)
(1,000)
(15)
(241)
(38)
(7)
(10)
(20)
(100)
(50)
(200)
(200)
(1,228)
(684)
(311)
(879)
7,330
(1,839)
(1,049)
(886)
(825)
(440)
21,414
19,977
**
Incl. MO&DA:
0
0
0
Jan. 04 Re-plan
327,661
(161,518)
166,143
(28,402)
137,741
21.5%
20.6%
*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.
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
40
LRO Technical Performance Metrics
– System Engineering tracks and trends technical
reserves
• 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 trends
instrument performance verifications/metrics.
Parameters will be instrument specific.
41
LRO Risk Management
LRO Continuous Risk Management is conducted in accordance with RLEP
CRMP implemented via the LRO RMIP.
Risk Assessment
– Tracked and maintained by LRO
systems group
– RM Board chaired by project
manager
– Going in risks identified during
mission formulation and SIP
development
– Weekly insight/update at GSFC
subsystem level
– Monthly insight/updates at
instrument monthly status
reviews
– Top Risks List, including
mitigations, and Risk Matrices
reported at MSR, detailed
reporting at independent reviews
5
L
I 4
K
E
L 3
I
H
O 2
O
D
1
Rank &
Trend
2
1

M
IMPACT HET/LET Detector
Schedule (SEP005)
2

M
SECCHI HI FM Schedule
(HI004)
3

M
Intense Early Operations
(OPS003)
4

M
IMPACT SEP Development
(SEP006)
5

• Risk Tracking Database
Appr
oach
M
Observatory Mass Margin
(STR010)
Risk Title
4
3
5
5
1
2
1
3
4
5
CONSEQUENCES
Criticality
High
Med
Low
Rank
1
SEP005
H
2
RF001
M
L x C Trend



*
Decreasing (Improving)
Increasing (Worsening)
Unchanged
New since last month
Approach
M – Mitigate
W – Watch
A – Accept
R - Research
Risk Statement
Approach & Plan
Status
IMPACT HET/LET Detector
Schedule
If 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.
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.
•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.
HI FM Schedule
If 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.
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.
•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.
Risk Criticality
H
M
L
42
LRO Risk Management
Reliability Engineering and Management
Risk Identification
FMEA/CIL developed at black
box level and additionally for
key critical components
–
PRA performed for critical
scenarios
–
System level qualitative Fault
Tree Analysis
–
EEE part stress for all parts &
circuits
–
Event Tree and block level
reliability analysis based on
preliminary design already inwork, will guide development
decisions.
Critical
Functions &
Subsystems
cy
an
d
un
ed
R
Risk Analysis
Critical Items
–
Risk Mitigation
Risk Prioritization
43
LRO Performance Monitoring
• LRO will monitor integrated performance
per RLEP Performance Monitoring
Requirements.
– Integrated tracking and reporting of Actual
vs. planned costs, scheduled performance
milestones, and reserve status.
44
LRO Performance Monitoring
Integrated tracking and analysis will be done at subsystem,
instrument, segment, and mission levels.
STEREO Spacecraft WBS Summary
Phase A-D
140,000
KEY
- Start Milestone
120,000
- Finish
Complete S/C B Core Subsystem I&T
9/22/04
- Early Start
- Late Finish
100,000
11/9/04
Complete S/C A Core Subsystem I&T
8/30/04
10/27/04
$K
80,000
C&DH SW Build 1
6/20/03
S/N 002 Primary Structure/Propulsion Sys Avail
8/10/04
10/17/04
S/N 001 Primary Structure/Propulsion Sys Avail
7/23/04
60,000
Complete Fab Sep Sys
9/15/03
Complete Lots 1-3 REM Assy & Test
6/8/04
12/4/04
10/17/04
Comp 2nd Center Structure Fab
8/5/03
Complete X Deck Panels
2/25/04
0
Oct 03
Nov 03
Dec 03
Jan 04
ESTIMATE AT COMPLETION
SLACK TO CONTRACT DELIVERY
CUM COST PLAN
CUM ACTUAL COSTS
ACT. COST + O/S ORDERS
Cum Cost Variance
% Cum Variance
131,803.6
78,893.5
75,904.2
17,881.0
(2,989.3)
-4%
Oct 03
131,676.6
65.5
83,354.4
78,988.1
87,844.1
(4,366.3)
-5%
Nov 03
133,116.6
52.0
87,490.9
82,981.1
90,876.1
(4,509.8)
-5%
Dec 03
Feb 04
133,116.6
56.0
92,243.7
86,306.0
93,016.7
(5,937.7)
-6%
Jan 04
139,175.6
60.0
96,749.3
89,098.9
5/17/04
3/26/04
Mar 04
Apr 04
CUM COST PLAN
PY TOTAL
5/21/04
Complete Lots 1-3 Valve/REA Rework
5/6/04
11/11/04
Comp Structure Panel Fab
6/20/03
5/28/04
Complete Load & Stiffness Test of Primary Structure
5/10/04
20,000
8/24/04
6/04/04
Deliver Primary Structure to Propulsion Vendor
5/14/04
40,000
PY TOTAL
9/3/04
Feb 04
146,583.6
57.0
90,228.7
92,320.8
95,690.3
(7,650.4)
-8%
98,808.9
2,092.1
2%
May 04
Jun 04
Jul 04
Aug 04
Sep 04
CUM ACTUAL COSTS
Mar 04
Apr 04
May 04
Jun 04
Jul 04
Aug 04
146,979.6
57.0
97,720.0
96,337.5
146,979.6
53.5
103,674.8
99,954.4
146,979.6
50.0
107,790.7
103,165.3
147,771.6
40.0
111,279.8
106,198.3
147,771.6
38.5
113,986.8
109,808.3
150,566.6
38.5
116,510.3
113,425.0
102,985.0
(1,382.6)
-1%
106,565.0
(3,720.4)
-4%
109,660.0
(4,625.4)
-4%
112,421.0
(5,081.5)
-5%
116,144.0
(4,178.5)
-4%
119,897.0
(3,085.3)
-3%
Sep 04
43.0
118,933.1
0%
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.
Status as of: August 31, 2004
Rebaselined effective 02/1/04
PY TOTAL
Oct 03
Nov 03
Replan Value:
Dec 03
Jan 04
Feb 04
Slack at Replan:
Mar 04
Apr 04
May 04
Jun 04
Jul 04
Aug 04
Sep 04
1
1
1
MONTHLY COST PLAN
1
1
78,893.5
4,460.9
4,136.5
4,752.8
4,505.6
(6,520.5)
7,491.3
5,954.8
4,115.9
3,489.1
2,707.0
2,523.5
75,904.2
3,083.9
3,993.0
3,324.9
2,792.9
3,221.9
4,016.7
3,617.0
3,210.8
3,033.1
3,610.0
3,616.7
1
0
0
MONTHLY ACTUAL COST
0
0
0
0
2,422.8
45
Conclusion
• LRO project and engineering team ready to
engage selected instrument developers and
begin preliminary design.
• Proven GSFC systems in-place to operate and
control the project.
• Formal documentation maturing on an
appropriate schedule.
• Technical challenges well understood.
• Program/project organization prepared to
respond constructively to various budget
appropriation 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
46
Future Mission Planning
RLEP Architecture Scope
• RLEP missions address important Exploration
questions
– As the questions change, so do the missions
– Inherently iterative process
• Many notional missions possible within the
architectural framework
Site Selection:
•
•
•
•
Life Sciences:
• Investigate radiation effects & mitigation strategies for living systems in support of
human surface exploration
• Characterize micrometeorite environment and neutron environment
Develop detailed terrain and hazard maps at relevant scales
Characterize lighting & thermal characteristics
Identify potential resources
Refine gravity models to support auto-navigation
Resources:
• Identify, validate, and determine resource character and abundances
• Experiment with and validate ISRU approaches
Technology Maturation:
• Support fly-offs of candidate Constellation system
technologies
• Demonstrate performance of critical Constellation
systems
Infrastructure Emplacement:
2008
• Communication systems
• Navigation systems
• Power systems
2020
48
Enabling the Progression of Exploration
Early Missions Notional Architecture
2015
Deliver & operate supporting
infrastructure as needed
2014
Can local resources
be utilized and how so?
Landed ISRU
Demonstration Lab
How can performance of CEV
critical elements be rapidly &
inexpensively demonstrated?
Constellation Candidate
Technology Demonstration
Can the radiation
environmental effects be
mitigated? Validation of ice as
a resource. Biological effects?
Rugged Lander – Resources &
Biological Effects Probe
Block II CEV – Human Flight
2013
Can necessary infrastructure be
forward based?
2012
2011
Must we return biological
Experiments to fully mitigate
issues?
Robotic Biosentinel Return
before humans?
Communication & Navigation
Station and laboratory
Block II CEV - CDR
What must be done to enable
routine access to the Moon?
Block II CEV - PDR
2010
2009
2008
Gravity Mapper and Orbital
Landing Site Reconnaissance
How bad is the radiation
environment for humans? How can
we land at the Poles? Are there
potential resources (ice)?
Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter
49
RLEP Strawman Mission Set
Mission #1
LRO
Mission #2
Remote Sensing Orbiter
1st use of general-purpose probes & delivery system
Launch 2008, Delta II class ELV, 1000 kg/1 year mission
Launch 2009, Taurus class ELV, 400 kg/up to 1 year
•
•
•
•
•
Characterize radiation environment, biological
impacts, and high resolution global selenodetic grid
Assess resources and environments of the Moon’s
polar regions
Human-scale resolution of the Moon’s surface
Global, geodetic topography to enable landings
anywhere
Potential extended mission as comm. relay
Mission #4
Constellation Candidate Technology
Demonstration
1st
Exploration fly off mission
1st landing and return mission
• Provide resource ground truth &
characterization (i.e., of water ice)
• Emplace bio-sentinel on surface to improve
radiation effects/mitigation data
CEV motor test
Precision landing
Rendezvous & docking experiment
Bio-sentinel landing and return (to Earth)
Dust management experiments
Gravity Mapper & Orbital Landing Site
Reconnaissance
2nd 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 #5
Mission #6
Malapert Mountain Communications &
Navigation Relay
1st
Landed ISRU Development Systems
2nd Exploration test bed mission
infrastructure emplacement mission
Launch 2012+, Delta II class ELV, 1200 kg/10 year life
Launch 2011, Delta IV/Atlas V Class, 5000 kg
•
•
•
•
•
Mission #3
Resource & Bio-Test Probes
• Operational Communication relay station
– Potential for major commercial role in
lunar operations
• Operational Navigation station
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
50
Ongoing Architecture Definition
•
RLEP is currently focused on better definition of first surface probe
•
RLEP tasked external community for input through RFI process, yielding 52
responses
–
Critical objectives of water/ice validation and radiation/biology experiment
–
Advanced Technology for Space Platform Architectures
–
Ground System and Mission Operations
–
Radiation /Biology Surface demonstrations
–
Water Ice Validation (WIV) Concepts
• 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 router
technology, Lithium Sulfur batteries, light weight solar array technology, MEMS gyro, thin film power
supply technologies
• 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)
• 9 responses in this area. Many had experience working with NASA previously and a few newcomers
that may require more questioning. (Call backs for more information in 2 areas: lab on a chip and an
implantable radiation dosimeter)
• 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 in
military technologies related to high energy impacts, military space vehicles and navigation systems)
51
Examples of Potential Probe Architectures
Lunar Rover
“Beetle”
Lunar Mortar
“Spider”
Lunar Probes
“Flies”
Lunar Samplers
“Super Flies”
Rovers require larger LV
capability to provide detailed
investigation of a localized area.
Not well suited to dark crater
operations at 50 deg K. Travel
somewhat limited by sunlight.
Needs drill for depth penetration.
Mortar type probes deployed
from central lander or descent
craft can cover a larger area and
perform short lived
investigations of dark craters
before freezing, using central
craft as a data relay. Can use
kinetic energy for depth
penetration.
Probes deployed from an
orbiting mother ship can cover
the globe, live for short times in
cold craters, and relay data to the
mother ship.
Sampling probes gather very
small samples from many sites
and return them to an orbiting lab
on the mother ship. Increases lab
instrument mass. Labs and
probes from different missions
can interact. Increased failure
robustness. Communicate
directly from mother ship.
Technically less mature.
Soft landed rover systems mature
in most areas; Investigating
cryogenic capability upgrades and
drilling system
Hard landers/penetrators much
less mature: Investigating current
military hardened devices which
would need different payload
accommodations and navigational
enhancements.
Investigating propulsion systems
available for decent and
hard/medium landing systems as
well as instrumentation solutions
with help of RFI’s from
industry/academia.
Investigating super micro
technologies propulsion system
staging, rendezvous and docking.
Highly innovative somewhat more
risky ultra simple short lived low
cost, very small mass solution.
Unique custom design not mature at
this time.
52
RLEP Architecture Key Challenges
• Establishing potential and relevance in nontraditional areas
– Diversity of Exploration content has huge span of
needs and possibilities which robotics could facilitate
• Crafting synergy across a diverse range of
mission implementers
• Maintaining affordability
• Balancing risk and responsiveness
53
RLEP Summary
RLEP Summary
• Program maturation proceeding
exceptionally well, despite lack of $
appropriation
• LRO Project poised for quick start
pending receipt of funding
55