A Review of RLEP Status and LRO Pre-Selection Formulation Efforts

1. 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

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 Summary Low Appropriation Impact Discussion (removed)

4. 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 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 Lunar Launch Capacity General Funding Allocation

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

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

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

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 Procedures & Guidelines Flow Down RLEP Program Plan RLEP Mission Assurance Requirements RLEP Risk Management Plan RLEP Configuration Management Plan RLEP Performance Monitoring 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 NPR 7120.5B NASA Program and Project Management Processes and Requirements Available at gdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/gdms/pls/frontdoor Project Specific Plans Project Specific Plan Project Specific Plan Project Specific Plan Project Specific Plan 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. CDR: Critical Design Review CR: Confirmation Review DR: Decommissioning Review FOR: Flight Operations Review IIRT: Integrated Independent Review Team LRR: Launch Readiness Review MCRR: Mission Confirmation Readiness Review MDR: Mission Definition Review MOR: Mission Operations Review MRR: Mission Readiness Review ORR: Operations Readiness Review PDR: Preliminary Design Review PER: Pre-Environmental Review PSR: Pre-Ship Review SRR: System Requirements Review RLEP Project Lifecycle Reviews FRR LRR HQ Reviews(SMD, ESMD concurrence) GSFC PMC Reviews IIRT Reviews(ESMD participation) KSC Reviews, Launch CR PSR ORR MOR D R MDR CDR PE FOR Launch R SRR/PDR MRR Engineering Peer Reviews MCRR Phase D Phase E/F Phase A Phase B Phase C Development Preliminary Definition Detailed Design Operations Analysis & Disposal Fabrication Environmental Ship & System Preliminary & Integration Testing Launch preps Definition Design Approval Implementation Pre-Formulation Formulation

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

20. 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

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 resources Announcement Of Opportunity (6/18/04) AA Approval of LRO Measurement Requirements (5/24/04) 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)

23. 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) LRO Development AO & PIP

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 definitizedand aligned when instruments are selected, baselined at PDR. • Contingency planning for various RLEP budget appropriation outcomes also performed during Pre-Instrument Selection. • S/C Bus & • Ground System • Design Trades • Prelim MRD • (430-RQMT-0000XX) Instrument TMC & Accommodation Assessment Preliminary Design Strawman Mission Design into AO/PIP Derive Enveloping Mission Requirements Draft RLEP Requirements (ESMD-RQ-0014)

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

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

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

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:

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.

31. LRO Project Organization Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) Project MangerC. Tooley 400 Procurement ManagerTBD Contracting OfficerJulie Janus Systems Assurance ManagerR. Kolecki Safety ManagerTBD Parts EngineerN. Virmani Materials EngineerTBD Program DPM(s)/ResourcesTBD Program Financial Manager(s)W. Sluder Program Resource Analyst(s)TBD Program Support ManagerK. Opperhauser Program Support Specialist(s)K. Yoder 200 400 CM Scheduling 300 DM MIS Payload Systems ManagerA. Bartels Operations Systems MangerTBD Launch Vehicle ManagerT. Jones General Business Matrixed from Program 400 400 400 Instrument Systems EngineerTBD LRO Chief EngineerT. Trenkle 500 500 I&T Systems EngineerJ. Baker Instrument Manager(s)TBD MechanismsTBD ThermalC. Baker Operations System EngineerR. Saylor 500 500 500 500 400/500 CommunicationJ. Soloff MechanicalG. Rosanova C&DHQ. Nguyen Electrical & HarnessR. Kinder GN&C SystemsE. Holmes PropulsionC. Zakrzwski GN&C HardwareJ. Simspon ACS AnalysisJ. Garrick Flight DynamicsM. BeckmanD. Folta PowerT. Spitzer SoftwareM. Blau 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

32. Project Procedures & Guidelines Flow Down RLEP Program Plan RLEP Mission Assurance Requirements RLEP Risk Management Plan RLEP Configuration Management Plan RLEP Performance Monitoring 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 NPR 7120.5B NASA Program and Project Management Processes and Requirements Available at gdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/gdms/pls/frontdoor LRO Project Plan LRO Systems Engineering Management Plan LRO Integrated Ind. Review Plan LRO Risk Management Implementation Plan LRO Performance Assurance Implementation Plans GSFC, Instrument Developers, Subsystem Contractors LRO WBS LRO Integration & Verification Plan LRO Mission Requirements Document LRO GSFC System Implementation Plans LRO Instrument Contracts LRO Mission Development Schedule Available in draft

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. 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. 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

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 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 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 LRO Risk Management EXAMPLE

43. 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 in-work, will guide development decisions.

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. LRO Performance Monitoring Integrated tracking and analysis will be done at subsystem, instrument, segment, and mission levels. EXAMPLE

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

47. Future Mission Planning

48. RLEP Architecture Scope 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 2008 2020 • 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

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

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 #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 Reconnaissance 2nd 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 #4 Constellation Candidate Technology Demonstration 1st Exploration fly off mission 1st 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 #5 Malapert Mountain Communications & Navigation Relay 1st 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