RLEP Overview
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center
02 - 1
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center
02 - 2
Robotic Lunar Exploration
Identified Robotic Precursors and LRO
“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
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center
02 - 3
Robotic Lunar Exploration Program
Formed Early to Frame & Implement Robotic Precursor Missions
•
A program level systems approach to robotic exploration of the Moon intended to reduce cost and
risk for human exploration missions.
•
First mission launch in 2008, to be followed by approximately yearly missions
•
Managed and implemented by the Robotic Lunar Exploration Program in the Solar System Division
of OSS
–
–
Program implementation modeled after highly successful Mars Program
Program Implementation assigned to Goddard Space Flight Center (2/11/2004)
•
•
•
Received LRO Formulation Authorization (FAD) 5/20/2004
OSS designated $500K for RLEP start-up 3/2/2004
GSFC Center Director agreed to support a small team out of GSFC G&A
•
Requirements for RLEP missions determined by Exploration Systems Mission Directorate, in
cooperation with the Science Mission Directorate
•
Programmatic corner stones
–
Serve an Exploration driven theme
•
•
•
–
–
Explore what’s there - develop a comprehensive understanding of the geology, topography, resources, and composition of
the object to be explored
Assess the environment – determine the attributes of the environment as the relate to supporting or threatening human health
and safety
Enable sustainability – demonstrate the breakthrough technologies and practices necessary to support human presence
Frequent flight opportunities
“Discovery” class scale mission(s)
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center
02 - 4
GSFC Chosen to Lead RLEP
•
GSFC has extensive heritage in developing flight systems
– Implemented 277 flight missions - 97% mission success rate over the past 6 years
– Largest in-house engineering and science capability within the Agency
• RLEP Team has done 7/10 most recent in-house missions
– A leader in space-based remote sensing of the Earth
• 103 missions over the past 40 years
• Extensive science data management (3.4 petabytes to date)
– Provided more planetary instrumentation than any other NASA Center
– Provided flight dynamics support for all NASA Lunar missions
•
LRO In-House Rationale
– It is the fastest option, with the best assurance of meeting the Exploration objectives by
the 2008 launch readiness date, with the lowest risk and lowest cost reserves required
• Advanced concept work could begin immediately despite the fact that payload selection and
program budget were not yet established
– It is flexible and robust, in that any changes due to evolving Exploration requirements
could be accommodated without modification of contracts
• Fixed price procurement of SC bus difficult in environment where requirements are still in
evolution, particularly instrumentation specific support
– It establishes a strong Program office at GSFC that will be able to implement all the
necessary functions of the RLE program
• Will immediately cultivate strong Lunar Systems office
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center
02 - 5
RLEP Organization
Robotic Lunar Exploration
Program Manager
J. Watzin
Secretary - TBD
James Watzin, RLEP Program Manager
Date
Deputy Program Manager
TBD
Program Business Manager
P. Campanella
EPO Specialist
N. Neal
100
Program Support
Manager
K. Opperhauser
CM/DM
D. Yoder
Program
Scientist (HQ)
T. Morgan
400
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
Program
Director (HQ)
R. Vondrak
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
RLE 4
Mission 4
400
Ground Segment
Manager
R. Schweiss
400
Launch Vehicle
Manager
T. Jones
400
RLE n
Mission n
07/15/2005
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center
02 - 6
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 05-1
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
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center
Level 1 Req’ts
SRR
AMES
02 - 7
RLEP Mission Scope and Scale
•
Initial RLEP funding established scope and scale of the program
– OSS designated $500K for RLEP start-up 3/2/2004
– OSS defined 5 year preliminary program budget profile to guide program planning and
definition
•
• Starts at $70M in FY05
• Enables LRO mission launched in 2008
• “Discovery” class mission scope & scale
Initial mission cost modeling based on historical data
– Payload costs consistent with OSS planetary instrumentation historical data
– Non-payload mission costs parametrically consistent with past practices
• Comparative assessment of recent missions
• Grassroots comparison to prior GSFC activities
– 25% reserve on development effort is standard practice
– ELV cost estimates consistent with KSC database
1st Order Mission Profile (by approximate funding scope)
1/4
Payload
1/4
Flight system development
1/4
ELV
1/16
Operation
1/16
Management, Systems
Engineering, and Integration
1/8
Reserve
~$100M
~$100M
~$100M
~$25M
~$25M
~$50M
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center
02 - 8
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
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center
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)
02 - 9
How LRO Measurement Requirements Will Be Met
•
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
• Lidar (topo, 1 um reflectivity in polar regions at 25m scales)
Completes except for regolith
• IR (mid IR imaging at 300m scale)
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
•
–
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)
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
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center
02 - 10
LRO Programmatic Requirements Summary
• Program prescribed by Vision
• Schedule defined by Vision
• Scope, scale, and risk posture derived (by OSS and RLEP) from
Agency budget and Vision scope
• Mission concept and implementation strategy derived (by RLEP and
OSS)
• Mission measurements outlined by ORDT and definitized through
selection of AO proposals
• Level 1 requirements codified selected data products
LRO formulation was the historical evolution of the mission
requirements
The baselining of Level 1 requirements enables a structured and
disciplined path forward into development
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center
02 - 11