A Review of RLEP Status and LRO Pre-Selection

A Review of RLEP Status and LRO Pre-Selection Formulation Efforts GSFC RLEP Office, Code 430 November 23, 2004 Edited for wide distribution 12 -23 -2004 http: //lunar. gsfc. nasa. gov

RLEP Review Topics • Establishment of the RLEP Organization • Evolution of the LRO mission concept • Future mission studies and investigations • Assessment of Appropriation scenarios 2

RLEP/LRO Status Review Agenda RLEP Overview & Introduction – – – – Program Authorization Budget History POP Submission (removed) Organization Reporting Program Planning Cost Control Review Process – – – 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 – – – Architecture review (intent & purpose) Ongoing work RFI responses Next Steps Challenges LRO Introduction Future Mission Planning RLEP Summary Low Appropriation Impact Discussion (removed) 3

RLEP Overview and Introduction

POP 04 -1 (FY 06) Budget Submission • RLEP Responded to POP-04 -1 (FY 06) Budget Request with model program compliant to OSS guidelines – – Program Management approach Mission profile Program investment strategy Program EPO strategy – – – Discovery class ($400 M, phase A-E) scope Approximately annual launches starting 2008 4 year development cycles Held 25% reserve on development Assumed Delta II class launch • Mission model set an affordable and distributed risk profile • Program investment strategy – Enabling technology (10% of development) – Shared inventory pool • Program EPO strategy – OSS model of 1% annual program 5

Mission Model Cost Validation • Payload cost based on OSS planetary investigation historical data (1 kg = $1 M) – 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 6

Mission Cost Scope Analysis Lunar Launch Capacity OBSERVATIONS • • General Funding Allocation 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 7

RLEP Organization James Watzin, RLEP Program Manager Robotic Lunar Exploration Program Manager J. Watzin Date Program Director (HQ) R. Vondrak Deputy Program Manager TBD Program Business Manager P. Campanella EPO Specialist TBD 100 Program Support Manager K. Opperhauser Program Support Specialist(s) TBD 400 CM Scheduling A. Eaker Program DPM(s)/Resources TBD Program Financial Manager(s) W. Sluder Program Scientist (HQ) T. Morgan 400 Procurement Manager TBD System Assurance Manager R. Kolecki Future Mission Systems J. Burt Contracting Officer TBD Safety Manager TBD Mission Flight Engineer M. Houghton 200 Parts Engineer N. Vinmani Program Resource Analyst(s) TBD Materials Engineer TBD Avionics Systems Engineer P. Luers 500 300 400 DM General Business K. Yoder MIS Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) Project Manager C. Tooley 400 LE 2 Mission 2 LE 3 Mission 3 LE 4 Mission 4 LE n Payload Systems Manager A. Bartels 400 Operations Manager TBD 400 Launch Vehicle Manager T. Jones 400 Mission n 8

Recent In-House GSFC Spacecraft Systems TRACE Spartan 201 WIRE DSCOVR SAMPEX FAST SWAS GSFC Has Unique In-House Capabilities for Rapid Mission Implementation RLEP Team has done 7/10 most recent in-house missions 9

RLEP Reporting Structure SMD Dep AA/Programs O. Figueroa ESMD Div Chief Development J. Nehman GSFC Center Director ESMD Div Chief Req’ts M. Lembeck GSFC Dir Flt Programs R. Obenschain SMD RLEP Prog Dir R. Vondrak ESMD PM Robotic Lunar J. Baker ESMD Robotics Req’ts SMD Prog Exec for LRO GSFC Exploration POC K. Brown SMD RLEP Prog Scientist J. Garvin J. Trosper GSFC RLEP Program Mgr J. Watzin GSFC LRO Project Mgr C. Tooley GSFC Dep Ctr Dir Chair GMC C. Scolese

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 11

Project Procedures & Guidelines Flow Down NPR 7120. 5 B NASA Program and Project Management Processes and Requirements • • • • GPG-7120. 1 B GPG-7120. 4 GPG-7120. 5 GPG-1280. 1 A GPG-1060. 2 B GPG-8700. 4 E GPG-8700. 6 GPG-1410. 2 B GPG-8700. 1 C GPG-8700. 2 C GPG-8700. 3 A GPG-8700. 5 GPG-8070. 4 GEVS-SE PROGRAM AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ENGINEERING THE GSFC QUALITY MANUAL MANAGEMENT REVIEW AND REPORTING FOR PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS INTEGRATED INDEPENDENT REVIEWS Available at ENGINEERING PEER REVIEWS CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT gdms. gsfc. nasa. gov/gdms/pls/frontdoor DESIGN PLANNING AND INTERFACE MANAGEMENT DESIGN DEVELOPMENT DESIGN VALIDATION IN-HOUSE DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF SOFTWARE PRODUCTS APPLICATION AND MANAGEMENT OF GODDARD RULES FOR THE GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL VERIFICATION SPECIFICATION FOR STS & ELV PAYLOADS, SUBSYSTEMS, AND COMPONENTS RLEP Program Plan RLEP Mission Assurance Requirements RLEP Risk Management Plan RLEP Configuration Management Plan RLEP Performance Monitoring Requirements Project Specific Plan Project Specific Plan Available in draft 12

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 13

RLEP Program Documents • RLEP Program Plan – – – Defines scope Defines organizational relationships Defines management approach Defines acquisition strategy Establishes top level budget and schedule expectations • SMD (Sponsor, Director, Level 1 Requirements) GSFC RLEP (Management, Implementation, Level 2 -4 requirements) RLEP Mission Assurance Requirements Document • ESMD (Sole customer, Level 0 Requirements) RLEP Surveillance Plan – – – – – 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 Outlines approach for surveillance of contractors and partners Identifies strategy for oversight (and insight) Defines roles and responsibilities (relative to assurance) Defines audit process 14

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 15

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 16

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. 3 A, “Earned Value Management” – > $70 M contract value = full EVM with the 5 -part Cost Performance Report (CPR) from the contractor – $25 -70 M = Modified EVM with a Modified CPR – < $25 M = 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 17

RLEP Project Lifecycle Reviews CR MDR CDR SRR/ PDR MCRR Phase A Preliminary Analysis Phase B Definition CDR: CR: DR: FOR: IIRT: Formulation Critical Design Review Confirmation Review Decommissioning Review Flight Operations Review Integrated Independent Review Team LRR: Launch Readiness Review MCRR: Mission Confirmation Readiness Review PER FOR PSR ORR Phase C Detailed Design Phase D Development DR Phase E/F Operations & Disposal Fabrication & Integration Approval FRR Launch MRR Engineering Peer Reviews System Preliminary Definition Design Pre-Formulation MOR Environmental Testing Ship & Launch preps Implementation MDR: MOR: MRR: ORR: PDR: PER: PSR: SRR: Mission Definition Review Mission Operations Review Mission Readiness Review Operations Readiness Review Preliminary Design Review Pre-Environmental Review Pre-Ship Review System Requirements Review HQ Reviews (SMD, ESMD concurrence) GSFC PMC Reviews IIRT Reviews (ESMD participation) KSC Reviews, Launch 18

RLEP Project Review Processes Center Director Decisions Principal Investigator, Project Scientist GPMC Recommendations Chief Engineer OSSMA Monthly Review MSR and/or PMC Meetings* AETD Project Monthly Review Formal Launch Decision Process Pre-MSR AETD Champ Team Mtgs IIRT* Project Reviews Div. Tech. Status Reviews Sys Assurance and Safety Reviews Lower level Programmatic Rvws In-process Technical Reviews Peer Reviews S&MA-DRIVEN PROCESS Technical Staff PROJECT-DRIVEN PROCESS(ES) *ESMD participation expected Peer Reviews ENGINEERINGDRIVEN PROCESS 19

LRO Introduction

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 50 km 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 21

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 resources LPI Lunar Knowledge Workshop (3/1 -2/04) LRO ORDT (3/3 -4/04) HQ reviews (3/04) ESRB Approval (3/04) FBO (3/30/04) AA Approval of LRO Measurement Requirements (5/24/04) Announcement Of Opportunity (6/18/04) 22

LRO Development AO & PIP • The PIP (companion to AO) was the projects 1 st 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/100 W 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, Power. PC Architecture, 200 -400 Gb SSR, CCSDS Mono or bi-propulsion (500 -700 kg fuel) 23

LRO Project Pre-Instrument Selection Activities Derive Enveloping Mission Requirements Strawman Mission Design into AO/PIP • S/C Bus & Ground System Design Trades • Prelim MRD (430 -RQMT-0000 XX) Instrument TMC & Accommodation Assessment Preliminary Design Draft RLEP Requirements (ESMD-RQ-0014) • 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. 24

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 25

LRO Technical Overview- Mission • LRO Mission Design & Planning is ongoing. • Baseline has been established. 26

LRO Technical Overview - Spacecraft Space Segment Conceptual Design Example LRO Design Case w/FOVs Preliminary System Block Diagram 27

LRO Technical Overview – Ground System • LRO Ground System and Mission Operations concepts are established 28

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 & Planning Schedule 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 is 25% – Goal is to step down to a 2925 -9. 5 from 2925 H-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. . 29

LRO Launch Vehicle • LRO is planning for a launch on a Delta II class launch vehicle. Within that family there 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) (C 3 = -2 km 2/s 2) Cost Comment ($M) Delta 2920 -9. 5 2 Stage w/9 SRMs 725 76 est. Too small for LRO Delta 2925 -9. 5 3 Stage w/9 SRMs 1285 79 est. Offer modest cost savings if LRO mass can be kept low enough. Delta 2920 H-9. 5 2 Stage w/9 Heavy SRMs 910 85 est. Two stage fairing offers increased volume. Volume may be tradable for LRO complexity but mass is judged too challenging. Delta 2925 H-9. 5 3 Stage w/9 Heavy SRMs 1485 88. 6 est. Current baseline in POP-04 30

LRO Project Organization Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) Project Manger C. Tooley 400 Procurement Manager TBD Systems Assurance Manager R. Kolecki 200 Program Support Manager K. Opperhauser Safety Manager TBD Contracting Officer Julie Janus Program DPM(s)/Resources TBD Program Financial Manager(s) W. Sluder Program Support Specialist(s) K. Yoder Parts Engineer N. Virmani 400 Program Resource Analyst(s) TBD Materials Engineer TBD CM Scheduling 300 DM MIS Payload Systems Manager A. Bartels 400 LRO Chief Engineer T. Trenkle 500 Launch Vehicle Manager T. Jones General Business 400 Matrixed from Program Instrument Systems Engineer TBD 500 I&T Systems Engineer J. Baker Operations System Engineer 500 R. Saylor Communication J. Soloff Operations Systems Manger TBD 400 Mechanical G. Rosanova 500 C&DH Q. Nguyen 500 Instrument Manager(s) 500 TBD Electrical & Harness R. Kinder 500 Mechanisms Thermal TBD C. Baker 400/500 GN&C Systems E. Holmes 500 Propulsion C. Zakrzwski 500 GN&C Hardware J. Simspon 500 ACS Analysis J. Garrick 500 Flight Dynamics M. Beckman D. Folta 500 Power T. Spitzer Software M. Blau 500 31

Project Procedures & Guidelines Flow Down NPR 7120. 5 B NASA Program and Project Management Processes and Requirements • • • • GPG-7120. 1 GPG-7120. 4 GPG-7120. 5 GPG-1280. 1 GPG-1060. 2 GPG-8700. 4 GPG-8700. 6 GPG-1410. 2 GPG-8700. 1 GPG-8700. 2 GPG-8700. 3 GPG-8700. 5 GPG-8070. 4 • GEVS-SE PROGRAM AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ENGINEERING THE GSFC QUALITY MANUAL MANAGEMENT REVIEW AND REPORTING FOR PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS INTEGRATED INDEPENDENT REVIEWS ENGINEERING PEER REVIEWS CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT Available at DESIGN PLANNING AND INTERFACE MANAGEMENT gdms. gsfc. nasa. gov/gdms/pls/frontdoor DESIGN DEVELOPMENT DESIGN VALIDATION IN-HOUSE DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF SOFTWARE PRODUCTS APPLICATION AND MANAGEMENT OF GODDARD RULES FOR THE DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT, VERIFICATION AND OPERATION OF FLIGHT SYSTEMS GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL VERIFICATION SPECIFICATION FOR STS & ELV PAYLOADS, SUBSYSTEMS, AND COMPONENTS RLEP Program Plan RLEP Mission Assurance Requirements RLEP Risk Management Plan RLEP Configuration Management Plan RLEP Performance Monitoring Requirements LRO Project Plan LRO Performance Assurance Implementation Plans GSFC, Instrument Developers, Subsystem Contractors LRO Systems Engineering Management Plan LRO GSFC System Implementation Plans LRO Integration & Verification Plan LRO WBS LRO Integrated Ind. Review Plan LRO Mission Requirements Document LRO Mission Development Schedule LRO Risk Management Implementation Plan LRO Instrument Contracts Available in draft 32

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. 33

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 34

LRO WBS Example of level 3 WBS 35

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 36

LRO Schedule Control 37

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. 38

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. 39

LRO Cost Control LE P • Example of Reserve Account & Application Control AM X E LE P AM X E 40

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. 41

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 E L P M A X E 42

LRO Risk Management Reliability Engineering and Management – 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 inwork, will guide development decisions. 43

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. 44

LRO Performance Monitoring Integrated tracking and analysis will be done at subsystem, instrument, segment, and mission levels. M A X E L P E 45

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 46

Future Mission Planning

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 Site Selection: • • Life Sciences: • Investigate radiation effects & mitigation strategies for living systems in support of human surface exploration • Characterize micrometeorite environment and neutron environment Develop detailed terrain and hazard maps at relevant scales Characterize lighting & thermal characteristics Identify potential resources Refine gravity models to support auto-navigation 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: 2008 • Communication systems • Navigation systems • Power systems 2020 48

Enabling the Progression of Exploration Early Missions Notional Architecture 2015 Deliver & operate supporting infrastructure as needed 2014 Can local resources be utilized and how so? Landed ISRU Demonstration Lab How can performance of CEV critical elements be rapidly & inexpensively demonstrated? Constellation Candidate Technology Demonstration Can the radiation environmental effects be mitigated? Validation of ice as a resource. Biological effects? Rugged Lander – Resources & Biological Effects Probe Block II CEV – Human Flight 2013 Can necessary infrastructure be forward based? 2012 2011 Must we return biological Experiments to fully mitigate issues? Robotic Biosentinel Return before humans? Communication & Navigation Station and laboratory Block II CEV - CDR What must be done to enable routine access to the Moon? Block II CEV - PDR 2010 2009 2008 Gravity Mapper and Orbital Landing Site Reconnaissance How bad is the radiation environment for humans? How can we land at the Poles? Are there potential resources (ice)? Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter 49

RLEP Strawman Mission Set Mission #1 LRO Mission #2 Mission #3 Resource & Bio-Test Probes Remote Sensing Orbiter 1 st use of general-purpose probes & delivery system Launch 2008, Delta II class ELV, 1000 kg/1 year mission Gravity Mapper & Orbital Landing Site Reconnaissance Launch 2009, Taurus class ELV, 400 kg/up to 1 year • Characterize radiation environment, biological • Provide resource ground truth & • Assess resources and environments of the Moon’s • Emplace bio-sentinel on surface to improve impacts, and high resolution global selenodetic grid polar regions • Human-scale resolution of the Moon’s surface • Global, geodetic topography to enable landings characterization (i. e. , of water ice) radiation effects/mitigation data anywhere Mission #4 1 st Exploration fly off mission 1 st 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 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 Constellation Candidate Technology Demonstration 2 nd delivery of general purpose probes Mission #5 Mission #6 Malapert Mountain Communications & Navigation Relay 1 st Landed ISRU Development Systems 2 nd Exploration test bed mission 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 Launch 2013+, Delta IV/Atlas V Class, 5000 kg • • • Drilling technology Ice handling, processing, O 2 extraction Habitat material feasibility Long-lived life sciences sentinels? In situ mass spectrometry for history of water/ice 50

Ongoing Architecture Definition • RLEP is currently focused on better definition of first surface probe • RLEP tasked external community for input through RFI process, yielding 52 responses – Critical objectives of water/ice validation and radiation/biology experiment – Advanced Technology for Space Platform Architectures – Ground System and Mission Operations – Radiation /Biology Surface demonstrations – Water Ice Validation (WIV) Concepts • 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 • 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) • 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) • 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) 51

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. 52

RLEP Architecture Key Challenges • Establishing potential and relevance in nontraditional 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 53

RLEP Summary

RLEP Summary • Program maturation proceeding exceptionally well, despite lack of $ appropriation • LRO Project poised for quick start pending receipt of funding 55