rlep overview

02 - 1NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center

RLEP Overview


Robotic Lunar ExplorationIdentified Robotic Precursors and LRO

Rationale– Environmental characterization for safe access– Global topography and targeted mapping for site selection and safety– Resource prospecting and assessment of In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU)

possibilities– Technology “proving ground” to enable human exploration

“Starting no later than 2008, initiate a series of robotic missions to the Moon to prepare for and support future human exploration activities”

- Space Exploration Policy Directive (NPSD31), January 2004


Robotic Lunar Exploration ProgramFormed Early to Frame & Implement Robotic Precursor Missions

• A program level systems approach to robotic exploration of the Moon intended to reduce cost and risk for human exploration missions.

• First mission launch in 2008, to be followed by approximately yearly missions

• Managed and implemented by the Robotic Lunar Exploration Program in the Solar System Division of OSS

– Program implementation modeled after highly successful Mars Program– Program Implementation assigned to Goddard Space Flight Center (2/11/2004)

• Received LRO Formulation Authorization (FAD) 5/20/2004• OSS designated $500K for RLEP start-up 3/2/2004• GSFC Center Director agreed to support a small team out of GSFC G&A

• Requirements for RLEP missions determined by Exploration Systems Mission Directorate, in cooperation with the Science Mission Directorate

• Programmatic corner stones– Serve an Exploration driven theme

• Explore what’s there - develop a comprehensive understanding of the geology, topography, resources, and composition of the object to be explored

• Assess the environment – determine the attributes of the environment as the relate to supporting or threatening human health and safety

• Enable sustainability – demonstrate the breakthrough technologies and practices necessary to support human presence– Frequent flight opportunities– “Discovery” class scale mission(s)


GSFC Chosen to Lead RLEP

• GSFC has extensive heritage in developing flight systems– Implemented 277 flight missions - 97% mission success rate over the past 6 years– Largest in-house engineering and science capability within the Agency

• RLEP Team has done 7/10 most recent in-house missions– A leader in space-based remote sensing of the Earth

• 103 missions over the past 40 years• Extensive science data management (3.4 petabytes to date)

– Provided more planetary instrumentation than any other NASA Center– Provided flight dynamics support for all NASA Lunar missions

• LRO In-House Rationale– It is the fastest option, with the best assurance of meeting the Exploration objectives by

the 2008 launch readiness date, with the lowest risk and lowest cost reserves required• Advanced concept work could begin immediately despite the fact that payload selection and

program budget were not yet established– It is flexible and robust, in that any changes due to evolving Exploration requirements

could be accommodated without modification of contracts• Fixed price procurement of SC bus difficult in environment where requirements are still in

evolution, particularly instrumentation specific support– It establishes a strong Program office at GSFC that will be able to implement all the

necessary functions of the RLE program• Will immediately cultivate strong Lunar Systems office


RLEP Organization

RLE n

Mission n

RLE 4

Mission 4

RLE 3

Mission 3

RLE 2

Mission 2400

Robotic Lunar ExplorationProgram Manager

J. WatzinSecretary - TBD

Deputy Program ManagerTBD

Program Business ManagerP. Campanella

400

System AssuranceManagerR. Kolecki

Safety ManagerD. Bogart

Future MissionSystems

J. Burt

Mission FlightEngineer

M. HoughtonManufacturing

EngineerN. Virmani

Materials EngineerP. Joy

Avionics SystemsEngineerP. Luers

ProgramDirector (HQ)

R. Vondrak

ProgramScientist (HQ)

T. Morgan

Lunar ReconnaissanceOrbiter (LRO)

Project ManagerC. Tooley

Program SupportManager

K. Opperhauser

Program SupportManager

K. Opperhauser

ProgramDPM/Resources

TBD

Program FinancialManagerW. Sluder

ProcurementManager

TBD

ContractingOfficerJ. Janus

Payload SystemsManagerA. Bartels

Payload SystemsManagerA. Bartels

Ground SegmentManager

R. Schweiss

Ground SegmentManager

R. Schweiss

Launch Vehicle

ManagerT. Jones

Launch Vehicle

ManagerT. Jones

400

400 200

300

500

400 400 400

EPO SpecialistN. Neal

EPO SpecialistN. Neal

CM/DMD. Yoder

SchedulingA. Eaker

General BusinessP. GregoryK. Yoder

MISA. HessJ. Brill

100

400

James Watzin, RLEP Program Manager Date

07/15/2005

RM CoordinatorA. Rad

Resource AnalystsTBD

Mission Business Mgr.J. Smith


Path to LRO SRR

February 2004

March 2004

April 2004

May 2004

June 2004

July 2004

August 2004

September 2004

October 2004

November 2004

December 2004

January 2005

February 2005

March 2005

April 2005

May 2005

June 2005

July 2005

August 2005Execu

ted R

apid

C

om

bin

ed

Phase

A/B

Conduct

ed L

imit

ed

Pre

limin

ary

Pro

ject

Pla

nnin

g &

Mis

sion

Tra

des

Est

ablis

hed

Sco

pe,

Sca

le &

Ris

k Post

ure

Vision RLEP GSFC OSS

ORDT

AO

Level 1 Req’ts

SRRAMES

established at by

AO Proposals

Program Review

AO Selection

ESMD

ObjectivesLRO PM & SE

$500K

$40M

-$13M

$12M

$500K

$300K

POP 05-1 submitted

SMD

PIP


RLEP Mission Scope and Scale

• Initial RLEP funding established scope and scale of the program– OSS designated $500K for RLEP start-up 3/2/2004– OSS defined 5 year preliminary program budget profile to guide program planning and

definition• Starts at $70M in FY05• Enables LRO mission launched in 2008• “Discovery” class mission scope & scale

• Initial mission cost modeling based on historical data– Payload costs consistent with OSS planetary instrumentation historical data – Non-payload mission costs parametrically consistent with past practices

• Comparative assessment of recent missions• Grassroots comparison to prior GSFC activities

– 25% reserve on development effort is standard practice– ELV cost estimates consistent with KSC database

1st Order Mission Profile (by approximate funding scope)

1/4 Payload

1/4 Flight system development

1/4 ELV

1/16 Operation

1/16 Management, Systems

Engineering, and Integration

1/8 Reserve

~$100M ~$100M ~$100M ~$25M ~$25M ~$50M

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS


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)


How LRO Measurement Requirements Will Be Met

• Specific measurement sets solicited on the basis of the objectives stated in LRO AO:– Characterization of deep space radiation in lunar orbit, including neutron albedo (> 10 MeV): biological effects

and properties of shielding materials• NS (neutron albedo beyond 10 MeV, globally) → partially addresses (neutrons only)• Rad (Tissue Equiv. GCR response) → partially addresses (GCR uncertainty)

– Geodetic lunar topography (at landing-site relevant scales)• Lidar (10-25 m scales in polar regions; 10 m along track globally) → Completes (definitive)

– High spatial resolution hydrogen mapping of the lunar surface• NS (5-20km scale H mapping globally, 5kmin polar regions) → Completes (best achievable)

– Temperature mapping of the Moon’s polar shadowed regions• IR (300m scale at ~3K from 40-300K) → Completes

– Landform-scale imaging of lunar surfaces in permanently shadowed regions• Lidar (topo, 1 um reflectivity in polar regions at 25m scales)• IR (mid IR imaging at 300m scale)• Imaging (near UV imaging at 400m scale)• NS (“imaging” H at ~5km scales)

– Identification of putative deposits of appreciable near-surface water ice in lunar polar cold traps• NS (5km scale h mapping in upper meter at 100 ppm sensitivity) → Completes (@ 5km scale)• Lidar (via reflectivity at 10m scales) → Partially addresses (depends on sampling)

– Assessment of meter or small-scale features to facilitate safety analysis for potential lunar landing sites• Imaging (<50 cm/pixel GSD across > 100 km2 areas)

– Characterization of the Moon’s polar region illumination environment at relevant temporal scales (i.e., typically that of hours)

• Imaging (100m scale UV-VIS-NIR images per orbit) → Completes (with Lidar 3D context)• Lidar (via topography and reflectivity) → Completes at 10’s m scales in 3D, with IR

Completes except for regolith characterization (3D)


LRO Programmatic Requirements Summary

• Program prescribed by Vision• Schedule defined by Vision• Scope, scale, and risk posture derived (by OSS and RLEP) from

Agency budget and Vision scope• Mission concept and implementation strategy derived (by RLEP and

OSS)• Mission measurements outlined by ORDT and definitized through

selection of AO proposals• Level 1 requirements codified selected data products

LRO formulation was the historical evolution of the mission requirements

The baselining of Level 1 requirements enables a structured and disciplined path forward into development

rlep overview

Documents