RLEP Overview
James G. Watzin
GSFC/Code 430 (RLEP)
August 16-17, 2005
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center
Section Number - 1
LRO Identified in Exploration Vision
“Starting no later than 2008, initiate a series of robotic
missions to the Moon to prepare for and support future
human exploration activities”
- Space Exploration Policy Directive (NPSD31),
January 2004
Rationale
–
–
–
–
Environmental characterization for safe access
Global topography and targeted mapping for site selection and safety
Resource prospecting and assessment of In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU)
possibilities
Technology “proving ground” to enable human exploration
LRO SRR - RLEP
2
Robotic Lunar Exploration Program
- A Historical Context •
•
GSFC RLEP office established several weeks after announcement of Exploration Vision
RLEP directed to implement LRO “In-House”
–
The fastest option, with the best assurance of meeting the Exploration objectives by the 2008
launch readiness date, with the lowest risk and the lowest cost reserves required
•
–
•
•
Flexible and robust, in that any changes due to the evolving nature of Exploration could be
accommodated without modification of contracts
LRO mission objectives, scope and development strategy quickly outlined by RLEP and
OSS, with guidance from the ORDT, for Code T
–
–
–
•
Advanced (unfunded) concept work could begin immediately despite the fact that the payload and
program budget were not yet established
Identified LRO as “Discovery” class mission
Led to joint AA (codes T, S, U, M) approval of Mission Objectives (2 months)
Enabled rapid development and release of AO (4 months)
Skeletal staff further defined LRO mission until AO selections and funding received one
year later
Subsequent maturation of Exploration (and resultant series of reorganizations) brings us
to the current construct
–
Program Director (OSS → SMD → ESMD), Program Management (GSFC → ARC), LRO
(GSFC)
LRO SRR - RLEP
4
RLEP Organization
Robotic Lunar Exploration
Program Manager
J. Watzin
Secretary - TBD
James Watzin, RLEP Program Manager
Date
Program
Director (HQ)
R. Vondrak
Deputy Program Manager
TBD
Program
Scientist (HQ)
T. Morgan
Program Business Manager
P. Campanella
EPO Specialist
N. Neal
100
Program Support
Manager
K. Opperhauser
Program
DPM/Resources
TBD
Procurement
Manager
TBD
System Assurance
Manager
R. Kolecki
Future Mission
Systems
J. Burt
Program Financial
Manager
W. Sluder
Contracting
Officer
J. Janus
Safety Manager
D. Bogart
Mission Flight
Engineer
M. Houghton
400
General Business
P. Gregory
K. Yoder
Scheduling
A. Eaker
CM/DM
D. Yoder
400
400
200
Manufacturing
Engineer
N. Virmani
Mission Business Mgr.
J. Smith
Materials Engineer
P. Joy
Resource Analysts
TBD
Avionics Systems
Engineer
P. Luers
500
RM Coordinator
A. Rad
MIS
A. Hess
J. Brill
300
Lunar Reconnaissance
Orbiter (LRO)
Project Manager
C. Tooley
400
400
RLE 2
Mission 2
RLE 3
Mission 3
Payload Systems
Manager
A. Bartels
400
RLE 4
Mission 4
Ground Segment
Manager
R. Schweiss
400
Launch Vehicle
Manager
T. Jones
400
RLE n
Mission n
07/15/2005
LRO SRR - RLEP
5
Path to LRO SRR
Established
Scope, Scale
& Risk
Posture
February 2004
Conducted Limited
Preliminary Project Planning
& Mission Trades
RLEP
established at
LRO PM & SE
OSS
$500K
PIP
POP 04-1
submitted
AO
$500K
July 2004
August 2004
by
Objectives
April 2004
May 2004
GSFC
ORDT
March 2004
June 2004
Executed Rapid
Combined Phase
A/B
Vision
SMD
AO Proposals
$300K
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
Program Review
December 2004
AO Selection
January 2005
February 2005
$40M
March 2005
-$13M
April 2005
May 2005
$12M
June 2005
ESMD
July 2005
August 2005
Level 1 Req’ts
SRR
LRO SRR - RLEP
POP 05-1
submitted
AMES
6
LRO Development AO & PIP
•
The PIP (companion to AO) was the project’s 1st
product and contained the result of the rapid
formulation and definition effort.
•
The PIP represents the synthesis of the
enveloping mission requirements 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 SRR - RLEP
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)
7
How LRO Measurement Objectives Will Be Met by the
Selected Instrumentation
•
Specific measurement sets solicited on the basis of the objectives stated in LRO AO:
–
Characterization of deep space radiation in lunar orbit, including neutron albedo (> 10 MeV): biological effects
and properties of shielding materials
•
•
NS (neutron albedo beyond 10 MeV, globally) → partially addresses (neutrons only)
Rad (Tissue Equiv. GCR response) → partially addresses (GCR uncertainty)
–
Geodetic lunar topography (at landing-site relevant scales)
–
High spatial resolution hydrogen mapping of the lunar surface
•
•
Lidar (10-25 m scales in polar regions; 10 m along track globally) → Completes (definitive)
NS (5-20km scale H mapping globally, 5kmin polar regions) → Completes (best achievable)
–
Temperature mapping of the Moon’s polar shadowed regions
–
Landform-scale imaging of lunar surfaces in permanently shadowed regions
•
•
•
•
•
–
Completes (except for regolith
characterization [3D])
NS (5km scale h mapping in upper meter at 100 ppm sensitivity) → Completes (@ 5km scale)
Lidar (via reflectivity at 10m scales) → Partially addresses (depends on sampling)
Assessment of meter or small-scale features to facilitate safety analysis for potential lunar landing sites
•
–
Lidar (topo, 1 um reflectivity in polar regions at 25m scales)
IR (mid IR imaging at 300m scale)
Imaging (near UV imaging at 400m scale)
NS (“imaging” H at ~5km scales)
Identification of putative deposits of appreciable near-surface water ice in lunar polar cold traps
•
•
–
IR (300m scale at ~3K from 40-300K) → Completes
Imaging (<50 cm/pixel GSD across > 100 km2 areas) → Completes
Characterization of the Moon’s polar region illumination environment at relevant temporal scales (i.e., typically
that of hours)
•
•
Imaging (100m scale UV-VIS-NIR images per orbit) → Completes (with Lidar 3D context)
Lidar (via topography and reflectivity) → Completes at 10’s m scales in 3D, with IR
Expected data products are captured as the LRO Level 1 Requirements
LRO SRR - RLEP
8
Evolution of the LRO Programmatic Requirements
•
•
•
•
•
•
Program prescribed by the Vision
Schedule defined by the Vision
Scope and scale derived (by OSS and RLEP) from original budget guidelines
and schedule
Mission concept and implementation strategy derived (by RLEP and OSS) for
code T
Mission measurements outlined by ORDT and definitized through the
selection of AO proposals
Level 1 requirements codified selected data products
The LRO development is the living history of the evolution of its’ mission
requirements
The baselining of Level 1 requirements enables a structured and disciplined
path forward into development
LRO SRR - RLEP
9