Leonard.matthew
- 1. Building the Lunar Surface Systems Project Office Matt Leonard, PMP Dep Mgr, Lunar Surface Systems Project Office
- 3. Introduction • The Lunar Surface Systems Project Office was established in August of 2007 in the Constellation Program Office at JSC • Chris Culbert named Project Manager • Matt Leonard and Scott Vangen named Deputy Project Managers Mission Statement Develop a sustained human presence on the moon to promote exploration, science, commerce, and the United States' preeminence in space, and to serve as a stepping stone to future exploration of Mars and other destinations August 2008 3
- 4. Introduction (cont’d) • Since forming, the LSS Project Office has focused primarily on supporting the ongoing agency work to define a viable Lunar Architecture, the framework for defining how to return humans to the moon. • We have also provided a program level focus for ensuring that eventual Lunar surface activities are considered as the program progresses towards providing an Initial Capability for human transport. • We have helped define technology needs and priorities and continue to work closely with the Exploration Technology Development Program. August 2008 4
- 5. Architecture Background • The current round of Lunar Architecture work, CxAT_Lunar, will be the third recent cycle within NASA looking at ways to provide the capabilities identified in the Vision for Space Exploration and expands upon the outline defined by the Exploration Systems and Analysis Study (ESAS) • Since we have completed the Lunar Capability Concept Review (LCCR), we now have: • a consistent, compatible definition of the transportation system • estimates for the performance and cost of the transportation system • an assessment of the amount of risk associated with delivering the transportation system • at least one viable example of how that transportation system could be used to establish a full Outpost capability • Clear direction from the Agency mgmt team on options to review for outpost build up August 2008 5
- 6. Next Steps • After LCCR, the Surface Systems team will support the development of two sets of products • Join with potential International and Commercial partners to continue developing concepts and approaches for establishing the full Outpost capability (including defining what a ‘full’ Outpost is), leading to international agreements • Within Constellation, clarify NASA’s contributions to the early Outpost capability, consistent with budget projections August 2008 6
- 7. Lunar Surface Scenarios Families Scenario Description 1 Full Outpost Assembly from LCCR (Trade Set 1) 2 Mobility oriented Outpost from LCCR (Trade Set 2) 3 Habitation oriented Outpost from LCCR (Trade Set 3) 4 Rebuild of LCCR scenarios increasing crew flights to at least 2 per year 5 Nuclear power based scenarios – Use a fission reactor as the primary power source 6 Power beaming scenarios – Consider ways to beam power from orbit or surface to systems 7 Recyclable lander – Scenarios that make massive reuse of lander components to build up the Outpost and surface infrastructure 8 Extreme mobility – Scenarios that deploy Small Pressurized Rovers early and use them as primary habitation 9 Improving Lander offloading – Scenarios that support a lander configured to make unloading much less complex 10 Refuelable lander – Scenarios that support a lander designed for multiple flights to and from LLO 11 Mars Centric – Scenarios that optimize Mars exploration ties
- 8. Lunar Surface System Summary Click to start Movie (FSP) Printed: 3/11/2009 Page 8
- 9. Full Outpost Definition • The development of a full Lunar Outpost will proceed in conjunction with potential future partners, International and/or Commercial. This process will take time to define and is likely to have multiple components. • Multiple studies with different potential partners may be defined to assess ways for various partners to contribute to the architecture. LSS will participate in as many of these as we have resources to support. • A series of Commercial Broad Area Announcements (BAAs) may be developed to encourage industry activity while also targeting specific areas of need/interest. BAAs would be spread over time, dependent on availability of budget. • The Lunar Surface Systems Office will be responsible for providing both technical expertise and support of architecture assessments. • Resources for this support are built into the domain roles defined for the Planning Programming Budgeting Execution (PPBE) cycle. • Travel and staffing level are TBD. August 2008 9
- 10. Conceptual Full Lunar Outpost 10 kW Array (net) 10 kW Array (net) 2 kW Array (net) 2 kW Array (net) Logistics Logistics Pantry Pantry Habitation Habitation Power Support Unit (PSU) Element Habitation Habitation Power Support Unit (PSU) Element (( Supports // scavenges from Element Element Small Pressurized Supports scavenges from Small Pressurized crewed landers )) crewed landers Rover (SPR) Rover (SPR) PSU PSU (Facilitates SPR (Facilitates SPR docking & charging) docking & charging) Common Airlock Common Airlock With Lander With Lander ATHLETE ATHLETE ISRU Oxygen ISRU Oxygen Long-distance Long-distance Production Plant Production Plant Mobility System (2) Mobility System (2) Unpressurized Rover Unpressurized Rover Presentation date here Presenter/email/Org here 10
- 11. Lunar Outpost Surface Systems (TS1 - Inflatables)
- 12. NASA’s Core Contribution • As the full Outpost definition is being worked with the International and Commercial community, LSS intends to proceed with defining what NASA is capable of contributing to the early Outpost capability (the NASA Core). • Starting with the data from CxAT_Lunar options, develop a more detailed picture of what the NASA budget might allow as early contributions to the Outpost buildup • Most likely scenario would explore limited early habitation capability coupled with some mobility that can be added to as future partners are able to contribute • Need to complete enough rounds of design and analysis work on these concepts to firmly establish budgetary needs and requirements • This work will proceed in conjunction with broader architecture work to ensure compatibility • Goal is to be ready for a Mission Concept Review (MCR) type review in 2010 and an Systems Requirements Review (SRR) on NASA’s contribution to the early Outpost components by FY2012 • Dates are consistent with available CxPO budget and definition of full outpost capability with International/Commercial community August 2008 12
- 13. NASA Conceptual Core Contribution 28 April 08 Matt Leonard/ matthew.j.leonard@nasa.gov/ NASA 13
- 14. Lunar Surface System Summary Printed: 3/11/2009 Page 14
- 16. Mission Concept Review ♦ MCR is the next major milestone for the Lunar Surface Systems community ♦ Like most everything else LSS does, our MCR will have significant differences from a vehicle MCR • Role of partners, both commercial and international • Definition of what NASA is approving at the MCR • From a political & budgetary standpoint, will the agency be ready to make decisions about which surface elements we are committing to build? ♦ Establishing a Global Point of Departure, an architecture the international partners are ready to consider as a framework, is necessary before LSS can hold an MCR • NASA approval of that architecture could be considered an MCR based on the definition in 7120 • Global POD is targeted for June 2010 16
- 17. Partnerships • International • Commercial • Academia • Other U.S. Government Agencies Printed: 3/11/2009 Page 17
- 18. International Partner Background ♦ Meetings • International Space Exploration Coordination Group (ISECG) − Berlin, Germany – November 2007 − Montreal, Canada – July 2008 − Cocoa Beach, FL – November 2008 − Yokohama, Japan – March 2009 • ISECG Interface Standards Working Group (ISWG) − Bremen, Germany – September 2008 − Cocoa Beach, FL – October 2008 − Houston, TX – February 2009 − TBD Location – September 2009 − Quarterly meetings planned from this point forward • International Participants (At various meetings and forums) − NASA ‐ CNES ‐ KARI − ESA ‐ DLR ‐ RSA − JAXA ‐ BNSC ‐ ISRO − CSA ‐ ASI Printed: 3/11/2009 Page 18
- 19. ISECG ‐ ISWG: Lunar Architecture Workshops ♦ Objective: Involve international agencies in a discussion of lunar exploration scenarios and architectures in order to facilitate identification of interfaces benefiting from standardization and possible international contributions ♦ Discussion Strategy: • Common human mission objectives and resultant exploration scenarios − Outpost buildup and sortie missions to anywhere on the moon • Need for multilateral discussion of innovative ideas to physical elements that enable the scenarios • Multilateral assessment of interfaces that may benefit from standardization Printed: 3/11/2009 Page 19
- 20. International Partners ♦ The NASA position with the International Partners is that ALL design areas and scenarios are fully open for engagement and participation with the partners ♦ International Partner discussions have included the following subjects (not a comprehensive list): • In‐Situ Resource Utilization • Science Objectives & Opportunities • Political Objectives • Public Outreach NO commitments or agreements have been made at this point, and these discussions will certainly take time to mature Printed: 3/11/2009 Page 20
- 21. International Partners (Continued) ♦ International Space Agencies are showing strong interest in Cx / LSS partnership • Building on ISS Partnerships and Lessons Learned • Each nation is working with their government to determine specific levels of funding / commitment. • Current “goal” is to establish an International Partner Global Point of Departure in June 2010. • Export control regulations will pose a significant hurdle in meeting this deadline. International interest in Lunar Exploration is strong and growing Working toward establishing International Partnerships Printed: 3/11/2009 Page 21
- 22. Commercial and Industry Involvement ♦ Commercial Involvement • US Chamber of Commerce – Space Transportation Working Group − Identification of engineering interface standards that have long‐term applicability to the Lunar Surface Architecture • Selection of eleven companies (chosen from 46 applications) to independently develop 180‐day study contracts on topics relevant to Lunar Surface Systems. The selected organizations and topics are: − Alternative Packaging Options: Oceaneering Space Systems of Houston, TX − Avionics: Honeywell International, Inc. of Glendale, AZ − Energy Storage: ATK Space Systems of Brigham City, UT; Battelle Memorial Institute of Columbus, OH; and Hamilton‐Sundstrand of Canoga Park, CA. − Minimum Habitation Functions: Boeing of Huntington Beach, CA; and ILC of Frederica, DE. − Regolith Moving Methods: Astrobotic Technology Inc. of Pittsburgh, PA; and Honeybee Robotics of New York, NY. − Software: The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory of Cambridge, MA; and United Space Alliance of Houston, TX. Outstanding interactions with the Commercial side – More to follow Printed: 3/11/2009 Page 22
- 23. Academia Involvement ♦ Academia • Selection of one university (chosen from 7 applications) to independently develop a 180‐ day study contract on a topic relevant to lunar surface systems. The selected organization and topic is: − Minimum Habitation Functions: University of Maryland, College Park, MD • Massachusetts Institute of Technology − Independent Review of Lunar Surface Systems Architecture (Grant funded by ESMD/DIO) − Decision tree analysis, surface mobility options, hardware commonality assessments, etc. • Ralph Steckler Grant for Space Colonization and Technology Development − Proposals solicited from the 52 consortia of the National Space Grant College and Fellowship Program − The JSC Education Office is acting as the executor of the Grant − The LSS Office is assisting in identifying broad areas of interest, reviewing applications,and making recommendations on award selections Primarily science research objectives – Potential for more Printed: 3/11/2009 Page 23
- 24. US Government Agency Involvement ♦ Department of Energy • Fission Surface Power development – Reactor design • Radiation shielding analysis • Prototype hardware testing in FY09 Productive DoE interactions with potential for more ♦ Department of Defense • DoD Space Test Program (STP) Office invited to today’s meeting (initial contact) • STP primary interest is in science and payload flight opportunities • Technical R&D efforts with DoD are currently unexplored No DoD interactions yet – exploring possibilities Printed: 3/11/2009 Page 24
- 25. Lunar Surface System Summary ♦ International interest is strong, and we are working toward establishing partnerships ♦ Commercial interactions have been very successful and we expect more to follow ♦ Academia involvement has been focused on Science, but there is potential for more ♦ DoE Interactions have been productive, with work in progress ♦ DoD interactions require further exploration / development Printed: 3/11/2009 Page 25
- 26. Lunar Surface System Summary Click to start Movie (Mars) Printed: 3/11/2009 Page 26
- 27. Lunar Surface System Summary Printed: 3/11/2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c2jN0k0k68 Page 27
- 28. Back-Up 28 April 08 28
- 30. Lunar Surface Systems Organization Lunar Surface System Project Office 342806 Lunar Surface Culbert, Mgr System Project Leonard, Dep Mgr Office West , Admin 342806.01 342806.02 342806.03 342806.04 342806.06 342806.10 342806.11 Technology Project LSS Integration Safety & Mission Development & LSS Elements Test & Education & Management Assurance Strategic Verification Public Outreach Partnerships Mgmt & Admin 342806.02.01 Mgmt & Admin 342806.03.01 M&A 342806.04.01 Mgmt&Admin 342806.06.01 Mgmt & Admin Mgmt & Admin 342806.01.01 342806.10.01 Reqmts Def & Mgmt 342806.02.02 System Safety 342806.03.02 Habitat 342806.06.02 Verification Mgmt Business Mgmt 342806.01.02 Strategic Partnership 182360.10.02 342806.04.02 Prog Integ & Interface Mgmt Reliability, Maintainability, Integrated T&V CM/DM 342806.01.03 ETDP Integration Power 342806.06.03 342806.02.03 & Support (RMS) 342806.03.03 342806.10.03 342806.04.03 Risk Mgmt 342806.01.04 Integ Analysis 342806.02.04 Facilities 342806.10.04 HW QA 342806.03.04 Special Studies – Tech Avionics/SW Integ 342806.02.05 342806.04.04 Mobility 342806.06.04 Grnd Test Pathfinder HW IT Mgmt 342806.01.05 SW Safety & Assurance 342806.10.05 Systems Integ Mgmt 342806.02.06 342806.03.05 Special Studies 342806.01.06 Flight Test 342806.10.06 Comm/Nav 342806.06.05 Integ Schedule Mgmt. Flt & Grnd Ops Integ 342806.02.07 Special Projects/Studies 342806.01.07 342806.10.07 Specialty Engineering 342806.02.08 ISRU 342806.06.06 Poffenberger Surface System Assy, Integ & Prod Integ 342806.02.9 ECLSS 342806.06.07 Software 342806.06.08 Spexarth - * Naininger Active Toups Ambrose Stecklein Flanegan Sanders Future Park Bagdigian Lowry 342806.05 342806.07 342806.09 Science Science Ops Ops Ground Ground Integration Integration Integration Integration Ops Ops Gruener Eppler August 2008 30