Robotic Precursor Architectures for Exploration Dr. Butler Hine Small Spacecraft Project Office NASA Ames Research Center [email protected].
Download ReportTranscript Robotic Precursor Architectures for Exploration Dr. Butler Hine Small Spacecraft Project Office NASA Ames Research Center [email protected].
Robotic Precursor Architectures for Exploration Dr. Butler Hine Small Spacecraft Project Office NASA Ames Research Center [email protected] 1 Objectives • “The Administrator shall ensure that NASA carries out a balanced set of programs that shall include, at a minimum, programs in— . . . robotic missions to study the Moon. . .” (2005 NASA Authorization Act) – Mitigate risk – Support development of human architecture • Plan for a Robotic Precursor Architecture responsive to Constellation requirements – Flexible, evolutionary, adaptable, and frequent • Generate an agreed-upon forward plan • Create early visibility and accomplishments for the Exploration Vision 2 Introduction • We do not yet have firm requirements for Exploration (nor timing of those requirements) beyond LRO • 2005: Year of the Transportation Architecture • 2006: The year of the Mission Architecture – At a minimum, we know we need: • Good quality global map: – High-Resolution Imagery – Altimetry – Resource Distribution • Communication / navigation infrastructure • Surface Environmental Knowledge – Dust effects on humans and mechanisms – ISRU potential – Radiation environment • Beyond that depends on what we want to do on the moon – The results of the Exploration Strategy/Architecture will tell us that • Goal: Reduce risk, inform human missions, with both flexible and early visibility 3 Key Robotic Mission Drivers • • • • Focus on requirements rather than desires Launch vehicle availability and use Commonality and reusability of components Become smart buyers… know what is possible through internal point designs • Cost competition of robotics within exploration portfolio 4 NASA’s Strategy Vision Strategy Vision Leads to Strategy Architecture Commercial Lunar Objectives/Opportunities The Exploration Roadmap International Lunar Objectives/Opportunities ISS Research 05 06 Science Objectives/Opportunities 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 1st 1st Human Human CEV CEV Flight Flight NASA-led Human Lunar Missions Robotic Robotic Precursors Precursors Lunar Robotic Missions 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 7th 7th Human Human Lunar Lunar Landing Landing 21 22 23 24 25 Lunar Outpost Buildup Human Mars Missions Commercial Crew/Cargo for ISS Mars Robotic Missions Research and Technology Mars Development Space Space Shuttle Shuttle CEV CEV Development Development Requirements Crew Crew Launch Launch Development Development Lunar Lunar Lander Lander Development Development Lunar Lunar Heavy Heavy Launch Launch Development Development Earth Earth Departure Departure Stage Stage Development Development Surface Surface Systems Systems Development Development 7 Exploration Strategy Development- Synthesis Process • A workshop was held April 25-28 including invited international, science, governmental, commercial, and academic participants. They worked with NASA to begin developing the objectives for lunar exploration • From this and other upcoming forums, a Strategy Synthesis Team will produce an integrated global lunar exploration strategy that describes: • Themes - Major focal areas of lunar exploration • Objectives - Specific achievable task areas that support the defined themes • Strategy - Time phased strategy for accomplishing defined objectives with key milestones and decision points identified • A Lunar Architecture Team will develop a combined lunar robotic and human architecture. It will: • Include a range of surface reference missions that address Exploration strategy and objectives • Lead to requirements for lunar infrastructure • Include decision points/onramps for international, science and commercial participation • Interim products will be developed at regular intervals to provide draft versions of the strategy for review by the stakeholder community. • Participating agencies can use these opportunities to internally review the draft strategy within their agency • The final products will be include products for public consumption as internal programmatic use 8 Architecture Development Flow FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 1Q05 2Q05 3Q05 4Q05 1Q06 2Q06 3Q06 4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 Agency ESAS LRAS Develop Robotic Arch Trade ESMD ESMDExploration Human & ESMD RLEP Robotic Arch RLEP-2 Trades RLEP Requirements Trade Studies LPRP Architecture Development Develop Smart Buyer Designs Acq. for 1st lander Key: Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) Lunar Robotics Architecture Study (LRAS) 9 Comparison of Priorities & Objectives RLEP Architecture Studies Value Shots Architecture BY 2008 BY 2010 BY 2012 BY 2014 Launch 1: LRO & LCROSS Launch 2: Safe Landing & Secondary PL Launch 3: Challenge Landing & Secondary PL Launch 4: Crowded Landing & Secondary PL LRO: •Topographical map •Orbital site imaging of land form scale & landing scale •Identification of H20 & other volatiles sources •Radiation albedo at polar regions •Thermal environment •Regolith characterization •Gravitational map Lander: Lander: Lander: • Precision Nav & Hazard Avoidance: with • Precision Nav & Hazard Avoidance: using LRO • Precision Nav & Hazard Avoidance: near another LCROSS: •Impactor & Spacecraft •Near IR Spectrometer •Visible & IR Cameras pre-RLEP maps/data • Standard Measurement Package: Cameras, Environmental (therm/rad), System Engineering data, including mechanical performance degradation • Dust Experiments: Surface reactivity & passivation; Physical, Electrostatic, Magnetic, Chemical, & Combustion properties; Sealing pressure vehicles; Filtration effectiveness data (e.g. poles) • Standard Measurement Package • Dust Experiments: Same as Lander 1- as backup if Lander 1 fails, to new location if Lander 1 succeeds- small changes to measurements • Resource Characterization: Same as Lander 1 object (e.g. previous lander) • Standard Measurement Package • Dust Mitigation Techniques: Repel, clean, filter • Radiation Shielding Techniques: regolith • Biological Effects: Cell Experiments • Resource Characterization: Sample & analyze regolith (may require mobility) • LSAM Flight Qual: Processor boards, Landing sensors, Valves & actuators • Resource Characterization: Filterwheel camera, Remote spectrograph, LIBS Secondary Payload: Comm Sat BY 2016 Launch 5: Resource Landing & Secondary PL Secondary Payload: TBD Lander: • Precision Nav & Hazard Avoidance: Resource location driven • Standard Measurement Package • Resource Characterization for ISRU: Sample & cook • Mobility Demonstration • Prototype ISRU Production Secondary Payload: TBD Secondary Payload: TBD Value Shots Architecture Launch 1: LRO & LCROSS 2006 Launch 2: Safe Landing 2008 Launch 3: Challenge Landing 2010 Launch 4: Crowded Landing 2012 Launch 5: Resource Landing 2014 2016 2018 Test CaLV PDR Core ATP Lunar Landing Test LSAM PDR ATP CDR Cost, FY06$M 2016 - EELV 400 2016 – Resource Landing 350 2014 - EELV 2014 - Secondary Payload 300 2014 – Crowded Landing 250 2012 - EELV 2012 - Secondary Payload 200 2012 – Challenge Landing 150 2010 - Delta II 100 2010 - Comm Relay 50 2010 – Safe Landing 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Year 2008 - EELV 2008 - LCROSS 2008 - LRO Target Budget Covers all identified major needs for Constellation 7th Human Landing RLEP-2 Architecture Study uLander Concept Micro Lunar Express Lander Series GOALS: o Achieve a robust robotic precursor program o Help sustain the Vision o Enable training of our systems engineers o Reduce costs to program o Answer critical questions for Constellation OBJECTIVE: Initiate a series of small Lunar lander missions beginning by 2008 with a budget of $100M per mission including launch vehicle. APPROACH: Short Schedule, Incremental Development, Aggressive Testing Leverage Existing Designs to Minimize Risk uLander Mission Approach - $100M total cost • • Current capabilities support two nearly identical designs: – 130 Kg Lander (four tanks) on a Minotaur V • 50 Kg science payload to surface, 200 Watts – 65 Kg Lander (two tanks) on a Falcon 1 • 10 Kg science payload to surface, 133 Watts Design built by national KKV, Small/Micro/NanoSat Experts – Heavily leverages DoD investments: the components are real, they do the job, and we know how much they cost and weigh • First Lander: equatorial mission with 10 kg payload – – Payloads of 1-5 kg with high priority goals Other payloads based on already identified requirements and NASA Objectives • Second Lander co-developed to maximize capability – 50 kg of payload with several instruments up to 25 Kg INITIAL COST ESTIMATES BASED ON >100 DOD, NASA PROJECTS SAMPEX Mission Lander 1 Lander 2 Lander 3 Lander 4 Lander 5 Lander 6 Lander 7 Total by FY XSS-11 FAST FY06 $10.0 $10.0 MSTI-1 SWAS FY07 $51.8 $10.0 $61.8 MSTI-2 TRACE FY08 $38.2 $51.8 $10.0 $100.0 MSTI-3 WIRE FY09 $38.2 $51.8 $10.0 $100.0 FY10 $38.2 $51.8 $10.0 $100.0 LEAP FY11 $38.2 $51.8 $10.0 $100.0 ACAT LP FY12 $38.2 $51.8 $10.0 $100.0 EKV LRAS Architecture Study Lunar Robotic Forward Plan • Recent Lunar Robotic Architecture Studies show a range of possibilities: – RLEP architecture studies met known requirements within a $250M - $400M per mission budget – RLEP 2 studies provided a range of possible lander designs from $400M to $1.6B – addressing a range of measurement objectives – uLander Express concept studies showed that heavy leveraging from DoD investments could result in capability-driven lander designs for $100M per mission – LRAS results demonstrated viable architectures meeting known requirements, with missions ranging from $300M to $1.7B per mission • Use ESAS, LRAS, and the Exploration Strategy Workshop and follow-on studies to create optimal integrated human and robotic architecture 6