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