NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center RLEP Overview

NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center

NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center Robotic Lunar Exploration Identified 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

NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center Robotic Lunar Exploration Program Formed Early to Frame & Implement Robotic Precursor Missions A program level systems approach to robotic exploration of the Moon intended to reduce cost and risk for human exploration missions. First mission launch in 2008, to be followed by approximately yearly missions Managed and implemented by the Robotic Lunar Exploration Program in the Solar System Division of OSS –Program implementation modeled after highly successful Mars Program –Program Implementation assigned to Goddard Space Flight Center (2/11/2004) Received LRO Formulation Authorization (FAD) 5/20/2004 OSS designated $500K for RLEP start-up 3/2/2004 GSFC Center Director agreed to support a small team out of GSFC G&A Requirements for RLEP missions determined by Exploration Systems Mission Directorate, in cooperation with the Science Mission Directorate Programmatic corner stones –Serve an Exploration driven theme Explore what’s there - develop a comprehensive understanding of the geology, topography, resources, and composition of the object to be explored Assess the environment – determine the attributes of the environment as the relate to supporting or threatening human health and safety Enable sustainability – demonstrate the breakthrough technologies and practices necessary to support human presence –Frequent flight opportunities –“Discovery” class scale mission(s)

NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center GSFC Chosen to Lead RLEP GSFC has extensive heritage in developing flight systems –Implemented 277 flight missions - 97% mission success rate over the past 6 years –Largest in-house engineering and science capability within the Agency RLEP Team has done 7/10 most recent in-house missions –A leader in space-based remote sensing of the Earth 103 missions over the past 40 years Extensive science data management (3.4 petabytes to date) –Provided more planetary instrumentation than any other NASA Center –Provided flight dynamics support for all NASA Lunar missions LRO In-House Rationale –It is the fastest option, with the best assurance of meeting the Exploration objectives by the 2008 launch readiness date, with the lowest risk and lowest cost reserves required Advanced concept work could begin immediately despite the fact that payload selection and program budget were not yet established –It is flexible and robust, in that any changes due to evolving Exploration requirements could be accommodated without modification of contracts Fixed price procurement of SC bus difficult in environment where requirements are still in evolution, particularly instrumentation specific support –It establishes a strong Program office at GSFC that will be able to implement all the necessary functions of the RLE program Will immediately cultivate strong Lunar Systems office

NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center RLEP Organization RLE n Mission n RLE 4 Mission 4 RLE 3 Mission 3 RLE 2 Mission Robotic Lunar Exploration Program Manager J. Watzin Secretary - TBD Deputy Program Manager TBD Program Business Manager P. Campanella 400 System Assurance Manager R. Kolecki Safety Manager D. Bogart Future Mission Systems J. Burt Mission Flight Engineer M. Houghton Manufacturing Engineer N. Virmani Materials Engineer P. Joy Avionics Systems Engineer P. Luers Program Director (HQ) R. Vondrak Program Scientist (HQ) T. Morgan Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) Project Manager C. Tooley Program Support Manager K. Opperhauser Program Support Manager K. Opperhauser Program DPM/Resources TBD Program Financial Manager W. Sluder Procurement Manager TBD Contracting Officer J. Janus Payload Systems Manager A. Bartels Payload Systems Manager A. Bartels Ground Segment Manager R. Schweiss Ground Segment Manager R. Schweiss Launch Vehicle Manager T. Jones Launch Vehicle Manager T. Jones EPO Specialist N. Neal EPO Specialist N. Neal CM/DM D. Yoder Scheduling A. Eaker General Business P. Gregory K. Yoder MIS A. Hess J. Brill James Watzin, RLEP Program Manager Date 07/15/2005 RM Coordinator A. Rad Resource Analysts TBD Mission Business Mgr. J. Smith

NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center 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 2005 Executed Rapid Combined Phase A/B Conducted Limited Preliminary Project Planning & Mission Trades Established Scope, Scale & Risk Posture Vision RLEPGSFCOSS ORDT AO Level 1 Req’ts SRR AMES established atby AO Proposals Program Review AO Selection ESMD Objectives LRO PM & SE $500K $40M -$13M $12M $500K $300K POP 05-1 submitted SMD PIP

NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center 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 1 st 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 ~$25M ~$50M BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center 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 ( 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, Gb SSR, CCSDS Mono or bi-prop propulsion ( kg fuel)

NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center 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 K) → 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 ( 100 km 2 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)

NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center 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