A Review of RLEP Status and LRO Pre-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 and Introduction

5

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

6

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

7

Mission Cost Scope Analysis

VEHICLEESTIMATED 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 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

– More responsive & flexible program

– Greater potential for early risk mitigation

– Lower program risk per mission

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)/

ResourcesTBD

Program Financial

Manager(s)W. SluderProgram 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

DM

General 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 Implementation

RLEP Team has done 7/10 most recent in-house missions

GSFC Has Unique In-House Capabilities for Rapid Mission Implementation

RLEP 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 Chief DevelopmentJ. Nehman

ESMDDiv Chief DevelopmentJ. 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

ESMDRobotics Req’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 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

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 Plan

Project Specific Plan

Project Specific Plan

Project 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 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

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 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

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 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

17

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

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 ReviewsMRR

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 Review

MSR and/or PMC Meetings*

Pre-MSR

Project Reviews

Lower levelProgrammatic Rvws

Technical Staff

Principal Investigator, Project Scientist

PROJECT-DRIVEN PROCESS(ES)

S&MA-DRIVEN PROCESS

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 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

Robotic Lunar Exploration ProgramRobotic Lunar Exploration Program

22

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 resourcesLPI Lunar

KnowledgeWorkshop(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 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)

24

LRO Project Pre-Instrument Selection Activities

• 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.

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, 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

26

• LRO Mission Design & Planning is ongoing.

• Baseline has been established.

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

Comm

S-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

Pro

pu

lsio

n

Analog & Discretes

Subsystem Mass (kg)Orbit Average

Power (W)Instrument Payload 100 100Structure/Mechanisms 170 10Electrical 25 0Communication System 20 30

GNC/ACS 50 85C&DH 15 40

SSR 6 35

Servo Drive 5 5

Power 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 schedule boundary conditions key areas have been identified that present fundamental challenges that must be planned for from the onset:

Challenge Mitigation & PlanningSchedule 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..

30

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($M)

Comment

Delta 2920-9.52 Stage w/9 SRMs

72576 est.

Too small for LRO

Delta 2925-9.53 Stage w/9 SRMs

128579 est.

Offer modest cost savings if LRO mass can be kept low enough.

Delta 2920H-9.52 Stage w/9 Heavy SRMs

91085 est.

Two stage fairing offers increased volume. Volume may be tradable for LRO complexity but mass is judged too challenging.

Delta 2925H-9.53 Stage w/9 Heavy SRMs

148588.6 est.

Current baseline in POP-04

31

LRO Project Organization

Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO)

Project MangerC. Tooley

Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO)

Project MangerC. Tooley

400

Procurement Manager

TBD

Contracting OfficerJulie Janus

Procurement Manager

TBD

Contracting OfficerJulie Janus

Systems Assurance ManagerR. Kolecki

Safety ManagerTBD

Parts EngineerN. Virmani

Materials EngineerTBD

Systems Assurance ManagerR. Kolecki

Safety ManagerTBD

Parts EngineerN. Virmani

Materials EngineerTBD

Program DPM(s)/Resources

TBD

Program Financial Manager(s)W. Sluder

Program Resource Analyst(s)

TBD

Program DPM(s)/Resources

TBD

Program Financial Manager(s)W. Sluder

Program Resource Analyst(s)

TBD

Program Support Manager

K. Opperhauser

Program Support Specialist(s)

K. Yoder

Program Support Manager

K. Opperhauser

Program Support Specialist(s)

K. Yoder

Operations System EngineerR. Saylor

Operations System EngineerR. Saylor

I&T Systems EngineerJ. Baker

I&T Systems EngineerJ. Baker

ThermalC. Baker

ThermalC. Baker

Payload Systems ManagerA. Bartels

Payload Systems ManagerA. Bartels

Operations Systems Manger

TBD

Operations Systems Manger

TBD

Launch Vehicle ManagerT. Jones

Launch Vehicle ManagerT. Jones

CommunicationJ. Soloff

CommunicationJ. Soloff

MechanicalG. Rosanova

MechanicalG. Rosanova

C&DHQ. Nguyen

C&DHQ. Nguyen

Electrical & HarnessR. Kinder

Electrical & HarnessR. Kinder

GN&C Systems

E. Holmes

GN&C Systems

E. Holmes

PropulsionC. Zakrzwski

PropulsionC. Zakrzwski

GN&C HardwareJ. Simspon

GN&C HardwareJ. Simspon

ACS AnalysisJ. Garrick

ACS AnalysisJ. Garrick

Flight DynamicsM. Beckman

D. Folta

Flight DynamicsM. Beckman

D. Folta

PowerT. Spitzer

PowerT. Spitzer

SoftwareM. Blau

SoftwareM. Blau

400 400 400

400

500

500500500

200

300

CM

Scheduling

DM

MIS

500500500500 500 500 500

500

500

500500

Instrument Manager(s)

TBD

Instrument Manager(s)

TBD 400/500

MechanismsTBD

MechanismsTBD

500

Matrixed from Program

LRO Chief EngineerT. Trenkle

LRO Chief EngineerT. Trenkle 500

Instrument Systems Engineer

TBD

Instrument Systems Engineer

TBD

General Business

32

Project Procedures & Guidelines Flow Down

NPR 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

LRO WBS

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 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.

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

3.4 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

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

3.4 Mechanical Analysis

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

3.11 Flight Software

3.12 Electrical/ Harness

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

3.4 Mechanical Analysis

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

3.11 Flight Software

3.12 Electrical/ Harness

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 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

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

Confirmation

ICDR

CDR

MOR

IPSR

PER

FOR/ORR

MRR

PSR

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 GSFC workforce labor charges.

39

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.

40

LRO Cost Control

• Example of Reserve Account

& Application Control

Element: STEREO Project

WBS: 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: 21,414

TOTAL 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 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.

42

LRO Risk Management

LRO Continuous Risk Management is conducted in accordance with RLEP CRMP 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 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

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

Criticality

Decreasing (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 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 in-work, will guide development decisions.

Risk Identification

Critical Functions & Subsystems

Risk Analysis Risk Prioritization

Risk Mitigation

Redundan

cy

Cri

tica

l Ite

ms

Reliability Engineering and Management

LRO Risk Management

44

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.

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%

Status as of: August 31, 2004 Rebaselined effective 02/1/04 Replan Value: Slack at Replan: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

MONTHLY COST PLAN 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 2,422.8

MONTHLY ACTUAL COST 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

Monthly Cost Variance (2,989.3) (1,377.0) (143.5) (1,427.9) (1,712.7) 9,742.5 (3,474.6) (2,337.8) (905.1) (456.0) 903.0 1,093.2

% Monthly Variance -4% -31% -3% -30% -38% -149% -46% -39% -22% -13% 33% 43% 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.

PHASE C/D SPACECRAFT CONTRACT

100 - PROGRAM MANAGEMENT & ADMINISTRATION

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

$K

#REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF!

- 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 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

Future Mission Planning

48

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

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 of human 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 system technologies• Demonstrate performance of critical Constellation systems

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 be forward based?

What must be done to enable routine access to the Moon?

How bad is the radiation environment for humans? How can we land at the Poles? Are there potential resources (ice)?

Can the radiation environmental effects be mitigated? Validation of ice as a resource. Biological effects?

How can performance of CEV critical elements be rapidly & inexpensively demonstrated?

Can local resourcesbe utilized and how so?

Communication & Navigation Station and laboratory

Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter

Constellation Candidate Technology Demonstration

Rugged Lander – Resources & Biological Effects Probe

Landed ISRU Demonstration Lab

Gravity Mapper and Orbital Landing Site Reconnaissance

Deliver & operate supporting infrastructure as

needed

Must we return biological Experiments to fully mitigate issues?Robotic Biosentinel Return before humans?

50

Mission #1 LRO

Remote Sensing Orbiter

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

• 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

RLEP Strawman Mission Set

Mission #4 Constellation 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 #2 Resource & 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 improve radiation effects/mitigation data

Mission #3 Gravity 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 #5 Malapert 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 #6 Landed 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 52 responses

– 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 router technology, Lithium Sulfur batteries, light weight solar array technology, MEMS gyro, thin film power supply 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

newcomers that may require more questioning. (Call backs for more information in 2 areas: lab on a chip and an implantable 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 in military technologies related to high energy impacts, military space vehicles and navigation systems)

52

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.

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 of mission implementers

• Maintaining affordability

• Balancing risk and responsiveness

RLEP Summary

55

RLEP Summary

• Program maturation proceeding exceptionally well, despite lack of $ appropriation

• LRO Project poised for quick start pending receipt of funding