outpost optimizing science & exploration working group (osewg) · pm 3-ayh l k p14 30 e enab...

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Optimizing Science & Exploration Working Group

(OSEWG)

Briefing to the NAC Science Committee

July 9, 2008

Outpost

Marguerite Broadwell, OSEWG Co-Chair

Strategic Planning and Integration Manager

Exploration Systems Mission Directorate

2

Outline

•OSEWG Charter

•Snapshot - Lunar Architecture Development Process

•Major Activities and Plans

–Surface Science Scenarios

–Analogue Missions

–Lunar Data Integration

–Science Objectives

•Completed and Upcoming Milestones

3

OSEWG Charter

Updates to the Charter

• Co-Chairs: Marguerite Broadwell, ESMD; Gordon Johnston & Kelly Snook, SMD

• Includes all science (Added Materials, Physical and Life Sciences)

• Not just Outpost, includes sortie, orbiters…

• Liaison to LEAG for SMD and ESMD

• Formulated a Science Objectives Team

• Clarified scope, key interfaces and responsibilities

• Engaging the science and exploration communities (includes LEAG, CAPTEM,

and other forums)

How We Work

• OSEWG leadership meetings 1-2x / week

• OSEWG leadership reports to ESMD and SMD Deputy AAs bi-monthly

• Bi-weekly OSEWG plenary meetings

• Status reports from working groups and teams focused on:

– Analogue Missions

– Surface Science Scenarios

– Lunar Data Integration

– Science Objectives

• Cognizant of related activities (e.g., NASA Partnership Integration Committee,

SMD Lunar Program, LEAG, ILEWG)

4Time

Surface systemconcepts but no

final designs

Global Exploration Strategy Development – Themes and Objectives

Architecture Assessment (LAT1) Dec 06 – Outpost first at one of the Poles,elements critical to US

Detailed Design Concepts (LAT2) Aug 07 – Operations concepts,technology needs, element requirements

Lunar Capabilities Concept Review June 08 – Refinement ofconcepts in support of the transportation system

Lunar surface systems concept review

Lunar transportation system SRR

Lunar surface systems SRR

Lunar Surface System Element

SRRs

Prior to SRR, major architecture

concepts and assumptions must

be answered - Analog Missions

and Technology Field Tests are

ways to validate architecture

system and operational concepts

and assumptions – results from

analog mission and field tests are

provided back into the

architecture refinement process

Architecture Driven By A Strategy

Where We Have Been and Next Steps


Surface Science Scenarios

6

OSEWG Surface Science Scenario Working Group

Objectives:

• Construct Campaign-level (multi-mission) Science Scenarios, Lunar Surface

Science Scenarios for single missions, and Design Reference Science

Investigations that highlight scientific goals and objectives for examination by the

appropriate teams for planning the lunar surface missions, campaigns, and

architectures

• Use analysis of selected surface scenarios to drive concepts of operations and

requirements for the Constellation program and appropriate projects (e.g., Altair,

EVA, and Surface Systems Projects) or in SMD Programs (e.g., LASER, LSSO,

MMAMA, ASTEP) or missions (e.g., LADEE, ILN), and present requirements for

incorporation into the appropriate requirements documents

• Use analysis of selected surface scenarios to drive planning for analog studies

• Engage the science and exploration communities in discussion of surface

scenarios

7

OSEWG Surface Science Scenario Studies

Science activities could include:

• Emplacement of geophysical network (-PSS-2)

– Build on ILN work

– Include field testing in Analogs plan

• Planetary Protection instrumentation (-PPS-2, -PPS-4)

• Deployment of solar wind measurement and flux instrumentation (-HPS-4)

• Instruments and procedures to understand the in situ electro-magnetic and

charged-dust environment at a potential Outpost or other lunar site (-C-14)

• Astrophysics observatory activities (tied to Free-Space/Lunar Surface

Observatory Trade Study (-APS-2):

– Deployment and servicing capabilities

– Maintenance, refurbishment, and upgrade

– Potential to integrate with other Exploration operations

• Equipment for Planetary Protection analysis such as robotic sample collection &

sensitive, rapid assay methods using field-portable equipment (-PPS-2)

• Deployment of Earth observation assets near outpost or at remote, constant

Earth-view locations (-ESS-1, -ESS-2)

• Instrumentation concepts and activities identified through LSSO, ILN, NRC

studies, etc.

8

OSEWG Surface Science Scenario Studies

Sampling activities could include:

• Samples of many large impact basins and craters (-PSS-1)

• Sampling of time-stratigraphic layers in lunar regolith (-C-15)

• Automated documentation of samples, automatic astronaut 3-D position

determination, and interaction with robotic assist technologies (-C-12)

– Imaging, ranging, position determination and other aides to field exploration and

sample documentation (-PSS-4)

• Sample containment technologies, including back contamination (-PPS-3)

• Sample handling, storage and sorting

• Analytical capabilities in the field – efficient sample documentation and analysis

by astronauts on EVAs and by robotic field assistants (e.g., hand-held laser

Raman spectrometer, x-ray fluorescence spectrometer) (-PSS-4)

• Field Exploration Equipment development and systems integration for lunar

fieldwork (-PSS-4)

9

OSEWG Surface Science Scenario Working Group

Current Activities:

• Developing surface scenarios for individual lunar missions at different types of

lunar sites:

– Phase 1: Exploration on the order of 7 days and 10 km radial distance from a

landing site.

– Phase 2: Exploration on the order of 45 days and 100 km radial distance.

– Phase 3: Exploration on the order of 180 days and 1000 km distance.

• Developing overarching approach for metrics for evaluating likely scientific return

from lunar missions and campaigns as measured against NAC lunar science

objectives from Tempe Workshop as well as NRC SCEM Report Objectives

10

• Two groups of four scientists were tasked with Tsiolkovsky or Alphonsus craters

and asked to design an exploration plan driven by scientific rationale. The

exercise assumed a total of eight, two-man EVAs of eight hours, including the use

of two unpressurized rovers

• Results will be reported at NLSI Lunar Science Conference in July and folded into

approach for longer surface stay scenario planning and metric development

Tsiolkovsky Alphonsus

OSEWG SSSWG Conducted Phase 1 Workshop:

Planning Sorties at Tsiolkovsky and Alphonsus


Analogue Missions

12

Exploration

and Science

Themes and

Objectives

Exploration

Architecture

and Science

Systems and

Operations

Concept

Development

Agents

Site

Locations

Concept Validation

Test Plan

Systems and

Operations

Concept Field

Tests

U.S. Space

Policy

Strategic Analysis and

Architecture Concept

Development

Concept Validation

Test Plan

Development

Concept Testing and

Validation

Test Results

Agency Goals

Elements O perational K10, UPR, ATHLETE, Scarab SPR

2nd UPR, 2nd SPR, Mobile

Habitat, RPLM Mockup, Tri-ATHLETE

M ini-Pow er Unit

LCCR (Surface Systems) SRR

Ref # Validation Activity Categories Ref # Validation Q uestion When Q uestions answ ered Field Test Rationale6/1/2008

M oses Lake

Aug 2008

HM P

10/1/2008 (FY09)

TBD

11/2008

ISRU IPP

6/1/2009

TBD

6/1/2010

TBD

6/1/2011

TBD

Surface Operational Concepts Does lunar surface site survey architecture adequate for lunar

cam paign (architectural elem ents include: LRO , K-10, G oldstone,

International m issions such as SELENE, LEO , etc.)

aDoes site survey architecture capture and display sufficient data on

landing site (i.e., slope, bolder/crater resolution)2010

Need to capture realistic site data to incorporate

into sim ulation m odels to provide realism to

assessing potential landing sites

Landing Site Survey

- Rem otely drive Chariot/K10 to

perform topographic m apping and

identify possible future landing zones

Landing Site Survey




Landing Site Survey




Landing Site Survey




bDoes site survey architecture capture and display sufficient data on

outpost site (i.e., slope, bolder/crater resolution, lighting)2010



planning outpost layouts

Perform site survey with K10 robots,

- Test m ethod for gathering m apping

data.

- Test operations of rovers over tim e

delay

- Deliver survey data to LSO S for

sim ulation developm ent

Perform site survey with K10 robots,

- Test m ethod for gathering m apping

data.

- Test operations of rovers over tim e

delay

- Deliver survey data to LSO S for

sim ulation developm ent

Perform site survey with robotic

system s


system s

c

Does site survey architecture capture and display sufficient data on

traverse paths (i.e., slope, bolder/crater resolution, regolith

properties, scientific interests)

2010



planning lunar surface exploration activities

Perform site survey with K10 robot-

K10 "Black" will be teleoperated as an

"advance scout" to: (1) verify

traversable routes for a crew rover and

(2) identify interesting science targets

for follow-up hum an activity. A ground

operations team at NASA Johnson will

rem otely operate the K10 robots

Perform site survey with K10 robot-

K10 "Black" will be teleoperated as an

"advance scout" to: (1) verify

traversable routes for a crew rover and

(2) identify interesting science targets

for follow-up hum an activity. A ground

operations team at NASA Johnson will

rem otely operate the K10 robots


system s


system s

dDoes site survey architecture capture and display sufficient data on

resources for oxygen production2010



planning resource extraction tests

Perform site survey with K10 robots Perform site survey with K10 robotsPerform site survey with robotic

system s


system s

Short and long distance/duration explorations

(mobility range and duration) What system com bination is optim um for short distance exploration

excursions (robotic rover, UPR, and/or SPR)?

a 1 UPR 2009Need field test due to required traverse range and

duration of tests

Perform day in the life tests that cover

at least 1km


at least 1km


at least 10km

b UPR and robotic rover 2009Need field test due to required traverses range

and duration of tests

Perform surface tests with UPR and

K10 rovers


K10 rovers


K10 rovers

c 2 UPRsNeed field test due to required traverse range and

duration of tests

d UPR and SPRNeed field test due to required traverse range and

duration of tests

e UPR, robotic rover and SPRNeed field test due to required traverse range and

duration of tests

f 1 SPR and robotic rover 2010Need field test due to required traverse range and

duration of tests

Perform 1 day in the life tests with SPR

and robotic rover that cover at least

10km

Perform 3-day in the life tests with SPR


100km

Perform 14 day in the life tests with

SPR and robotic rover that cover at

least 10km

g 2 SPRs Need field test due to required traverse range and

duration of tests

h 2 SPRs and robotic roverNeed field test due to required traverse range and

duration of tests

What system com bination is optim um for m edium distance exploration

excursions (robotic rover, UPR, SPR, and/or m obile habitat?

a UPR and SPR

b UPR, robotic rover and SPR

c 2 SPRs

d 2 SPRs and robotic rover

e 1 UPR and m obile habitat

f 1 UPR, 1 SPR and logistic carrier

h 1 SPR and logistic carrier

i 2 SPR and logistics carrier

j 1 UPR, 1 SPR and m obile habitat

k 1 SPR and m obile habitat

l 2 SPR and m obile habitat

What system com bination is optim um for long distance exploration

excursions (robotic rover, UPR, SPR, and/or m obile habitat?

a 2 UPR and m obile habitat

b 1 UPR, 1 SPR and m obile habitat

c 1 SPR and m obile habitat

d 2 SPR and m obile habitat

Does power architecture concept support lunar cam paign

aDoes recharging of lunar elem ents work in operational environm ent

for long duration m issions

UPR Recharge

- Return to base after perform ing

surface operations and dock UPR to

power and re-charge batteries

UPR Recharge




M ini- Power unit test during 14-day in

the life tests that covers at least 200km



b Does power architecture support long traverses 2011Need field test due to required traverse range in

realistic environm ents and duration of tests





Does com m unication and navigation architecture concept support

lunar cam paign

aDoes com m unications architecture concept work in operational

environm ent for long duration m issions (including 100s km traverses)2011

Need field test due to required traverse range and

duration of tests

Perform 3-day in the life tests that

covers at least 100km





bDoes navigation architecture concept work in operational

environm ent for long duration m issions (including 100s km traverses)2011


duration of tests







7 System Concepts / Technology Maturation

aCan UPR m eet expected perform ance, range, and reliability

requirem ents?

b traverse on varied surface terrain (slope, soil m echanics, etc.) 2010Need field test due to required traverse range and

duration of tests on varied surface terrain

1-2 km tests

- M easure traction and slip on various

soils

- M easure traction and slip on various

slopes

- Active suspension

1-10km testsPerform day in the life tests that covers

at least 30km in different terrain

c traverse during various lighting conditions 2010Need field test due to required traverse range and

duration of tests during various lighting conditions

1-2 km tests

- Test "night driving" control m odes1-10km tests

Perform day in the life tests that covers

at least 30km in different lighting

conditions

d operate 72 hours / cover 200km traverses on one charge 2010Need field test due to required traverse range in

realistic environm ent and duration of tests

1-2 km tests




1-10km tests 30km test

e enable EVAs of 8 hours covering 10km 2009Need field test due to required traverse range in


suit com patibility tests

- M easure driver com fort and

endurance

1-10km tests

f enable surface operations 2010Need field test due to required traverse range in


Perform representative surface

operational tests

- Rem otely drive UPR from base to

crewed lander

- Crew m ount UPR and drive to it base;

- 4 crew in EVA suits transferred 1 km

(sim ulating transfer from lander to hab)

- Crew on UPR drives to sites of

scientific interest (inform ed by science

backroom team )

- K10 deploys from UPR and perform s

statistical science survey operations

- Crew perform s surface operations

activities concept (day-in-the-life on

the m oon) testing

- Crew drives UPR to base

- Regolith m anipulation (bulldozing)

perform representative science testsPerform day in the life tests that covers

at least 30km

g enable science surface operations 2010Need field test due to required traverse range in


Perform representative science tests

- Test a geologic survey during EVA

- Test EVA tim eline and gather

baseline UPR data

- Test suit m ounting/dism ounting and

identify tool placem ents

perform representative science testsPerform day in the life tests that covers

at least 30km

hprovide visibility for driving and exploration (both with astronaut on

board, teleoperated from lunar surface and teleoperated from Earth)2010

Need field test due to required traverse range in


1-2 km tests

- Com pare EVA, teleoperation and

rem ote driving data

- Rem ote operations of m obile system

under lunar tim e-delays


at least 30km

i Can UPR be recharged in the harsh environm ent? 2010Need field test due to required traverse range in


Recharge batteries rem otely





at least 30km

j 5 year life 2011Need field test due to required traverse range in

realistic environm ent and duration of testslog com bine 75 hours of testing log com bine 120 hours of testing log com bine 200 hours of testing log 12 m onths testing log 24 m onths testing

Can SPR m eet expected perform ance, range, and reliability

requirem ents?







a traverse on varied surface terrain (slope, soil m echanics, etc.) 2011Need field test due to required traverse range in








b traverse during various lighting conditions 2011Need field test due to required traverse range in








c operate 72 hours / cover 200km traverses on one charge 2011Need field test due to required traverse range in

realistic environm ent and duration of tests4 hours 8 hours 24 hours 72 hours

d enable 30 day excursions 2011Need field test due to required traverse range in

realistic environm ent and duration of tests3-day m ission







e enable science surface operations 2011Need field test due to required traverse range in

realistic environm ent and duration of testsperform representative science tests







fprovide visibility for driving and exploration (both with astronaut on

board, teleoperated from lunar surface and teleoperated from Earth)2011

Need field test due to required traverse range in

realistic environm ent and duration of testsperform representative visibility tests







g Can SPR be recharged in the harsh environm ent? 2011Need field test due to required traverse range in








h 5 year life 2011Need field test due to required traverse range in

realistic environm ent and duration of testslog com bine 100 hours of testing log com bine 200 hours of testing log 12 m onths testing log 24 m onths testing

1

2010

2011

2011Need field test due to required traverse range and

duration of tests

Need field test to drive rovers long distance for

environm ental effects and teleoperated to recharge

fro the power-grid.

N/A N/A

N/A

Note: Actual configurations to be tested will be downselected depending on previous test results and analysis



Note: Actual configurations to be tested will be downselected depending on previous test results and analysis

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



10kmUp to 200kms / 3 – 30 day missions

Greater than 300kms / Greater than 30 day

missions or multiple sortie missions


duration of tests



10km









Unpressurized Rover (UPR)

Small Pressurized Rover (SPR)

Site Survey

Power architecture

Surface communication and navigation

architecture

Up to 10km / 3 – 14 day missions 2

3

4

5

6

8

9

Architecture

Concept

Validation

Matrix

Technology

Development

Analog Mission and Field Test Demonstration

Development Process

13

• Crew scheduling and timelines

• In-situ measurements

• On site Lab analysis– How to perform sample triage– Rock garden concepts

• Data communications / information flow– 250mbs in current architecture– Science backroom operations / sample

collection methods / impacts to traverseplans

– Voice communications– Live time video from surface to mission

control– Static images– Overlay of data on GIS

Lunar Surface Science –

Examples of operational concepts to address during field

tests

• Planning activities– Traverse objectives– Level of fidelity needed for surface attributes– Level of scripting of traverses

• Observations– Diversity of geology– Complexity and scale– Site context– Imaging requirements (panoramic camera,

microscopic camera, Lidar, suit mounted,robotic mounted, hand held, etc.)

– Level of fidelity– People (on UPR and SPR)– Robotic scouting

• What is the optimal methodology to performgeological sampling at lunar sites?

– Pictures, Documentation, Acquisitionmethods, Rock Samples, Rake samples,Trenching samples, Regolith (soil) samples,Drive Tube Samples, Drill Core Sample,Rock Core Sample Labeling, Packaging

– Storage (on rover)

14

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Lunar

Surface

Systems

SRR

Oct 2008

1. What mobility

systems (UPR or

SPR) should be used

for exploration short

distances from

outpost?

2. What mobility

systems (SPR, SPR

w/mobile logistics

carrier) should be

used for 1-3 day

exploration missions

(up to 10kms)?

3. Does Suit port

concept enable work

for extended

missions?

4. Do systems

adequately support

science activity

objectives?

5. Can oxygen be

extracted from local

soils to be used by

outpost (Nov)?

June (TBR) 2009

1. What mobility

systems should be

used for 3-14 day


traversing up to

50kms (systems

include: 2 SPRs, 2

SPRs w/mobile

logistics carrier, 2

SPRs and 1 UPR)?

2. What should be the

operational

relationships

between humans,

robotics and science

backroom to

optimize

performance, cost

and risk?

3. Does Suit port

concept enable work

for extended

missions?

4. Do systems

adequately support

science activity

objectives?

June (TBR) 2010

1. What mobility

systems should be

used for14 - 30 day


traversing up to

100kms (systems

include: 2 SPRs, SPR

w/mobile logistics

carrier, 2 SPRs and 1

UPR, 2 SPRs and

Mobile Hab)?


operational

relationships between

humans, robotics and

science backroom to

optimize performance,

cost and risk?

3. Does Suit port concept

enable work for

extended missions?

4. Do systems

adequately support

science activity

objectives?

June (TBR) 2011

1. What mobility

systems should be

used for30 day


traversing up to

200kms (systems

include: 2 SPRs, SPR

w/mobile logistics

carrier, 2 SPRs and 1

UPR, 2 SPRs and

Mobile Hab)?


operational

relationships between

humans, robotics and

science backroom to

optimize

performance, cost

and risk?

3. Does Suit port concept

enable work for

extended missions?

4. Do systems

adequately support

science activity

objectives?

Exploration Architecture Concept Validation Plan

Using Analog Field Tests

15

Lunar Exploration

Architecture

Integrated

Analog

Implementation Plan

Dec June July Aug Oct Nov

NASA

Antarctic

Habitat

Engineering

and Science

Operations

Tests

Unpressurized

and

Pressurized

Rover Tests

ISRUHaughton Mars Project (HMP)

Science Operational Concepts

Tested

2007 2008 2009

ESMD Analog Mission and Field Test

FY08 Implementation Plans

16

ESMD Integrated Field Test, Moses Lake

Washington, June 2008

A Record Setting Field Test:

• 7 Centers, 2 Directorates + 1 Univ. in the field

• Ground supervision of 3 robots (including

incorporation of time delays)

• 8 Robotic systems at site

• >200 Hrs of experimentation

• >50 Kilometers driven

• >5km of night ops

• Most data collected (timelines, GPS…)

• Most alignment to architecture

• Most public participating at site

• Most integration of Lunar Science

• Lessons learned to be folded into HMP and October

analog mission and field test activities

17

Moses Lake Field Testing of Science Operations

Tasks:• Identify visualization and science operation methods using the Apollo site survey baseline procedures and

existing technologies for a science backroom Science Backroom:

• Use robotic rover to “high grade” a site: identify, triage, and prioritize science targets for follow-up human activity

• Obtain performance metrics of the ground control architecture’s ability to effectively support science backroomoperations

• Timeline baseline surface operations (i.e., sampling, tagging, etc.)

Results:• Current technologies and operational practices do not support real time science operations directed by the

backroom. To perform a successful science operation, the science team has to coordinate and develop goodpre-test science activity task planning.

• Exercises of this kind benefit from having at least one trained geologist among the crew to more fully exploit thesignificance of a site’s geologic history and potential. Additionally, without a trained geologist among the crew,the back room is not exercised properly.

• It is difficult for a field observer to keep up with the extensive imagery and other information being analyzed andinterpreted by many individuals manning the science back room.

Forward Work:• Complete collection, synthesis, and documentation of lessons-learned (in preparation for Oct field tests).

• Ensure site characterization data is available early enough to perform proper pre-mission planning (i.e.,identifying sites of interest, laying out traverse paths, etc.).

• Identify exploration teams (including 2-3 geologists) that will be used over the next several years to validateoperational concepts

• Incorporate the current visualization tools in the science backroom operations.


Lunar Data Integration

19

Lunar Data Integration Activities & Plans

Scientific Input to Landing Sites and Operational Decisions:

• The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC) project of LRO has developed

a target planning system to solicit, prioritize, and plan on-orbit operations to

acquire exploration and science targets.

• Science targets will be solicited from the science community by the LROC project

coordinated through the LRO project science office. A workshop will be planned

to consolidate and prioritize the targets.

• The LPRP Lunar Mapping and Modeling Project (LMMP) is working with

Constellation to identify required characteristics of exploration targets, i.e.

geometry, landing hazard assessment, slopes, lighting, etc.

– This information will inform the development of the LMMP and be

used as screening criteria for the selection and prioritization of potential landing sites.

• An OSEWG/LMMP sponsored LRO/LROC targeting workshop with Constellation

will be held in October to integrate science and exploration targeting needs.

20


Integration of Orbital Data Sets:

• The LPRP Lunar Mapping and Modeling Project is tasked to ensure that LRO datasets will be geodetically controlled and co-registered based on a control networkderived from the LRO/LOLA data.

– Exploration-relevant data will be geodetically controlled and co-registered.

– SMD will geodetically control and co-register science data.– All LRO data will be available in the Planetary Data System

• LPRP has chartered the Lunar Geodesy and Cartography Working Group(modeled after the Mars Geodesy/Cartography Working Group)

– Chartered in late 2007 for coordination of lunar cartographic standards andconstants

– Chaired by Brent Archinal (USGS)– Membership from ESMD, SMD, external, international space agencies and lunar

missions– Will report results and findings to the IAU/IAG Working Group on Cartographic

Coordinates and Rotational Elements


Science Objectives

22

OSEWG Science Objective Team (SOT)

•Team: Interdisciplinary, NASA civil servant scientists

•Objectives:

–Conduct systematic science reviews of existing EARD and CARD–Review output of other OSEWG working groups (Analogues and

Surface Science Scenarios) to ensure consistency with EARD andCARD

–Begin generating and defining new science objectives not yetidentified.

–Facilitate definition of science objectives in terms of threshold andobjectives to facilitate architecture trade assessments

–Assess urgency of resolving uncertainty of science objectivesbased on when architecture development team needs theinformation.

–Propose recommended approach(es) to OSEWG leadership forprioritizing and further defining science objectives.

23

OSEWG Science Objective Team (SOT)

Current Activity:

• Interdisciplinary science review of EARD and CARD for impacton science, identifying requirements as one of the following:

–requirement is conducive and adequate for science

–requirement could require additional study or trades for science

–requirement is inadequate or will prevent science

•OSEWG will use SOT results to:

–Submit request for assessment by Constellation

–Propose a change to current EARD and/or CARD

–Commission external studies or workshops to address yellow and

red flagged issues (e.g. LEAG, MEPAG, CAPTEM, NRC, etc.)


Completed and Upcoming Milestones

25

!June 25-27, 2007: OSEWG/LEAG Workshop

Architecture Issues Associated with Sampling

!March-June 2008: OSEWG Reorganized

"Surface Science Scenarios WG (Terms of Reference Approved, April 20, 2008)

"Analogue Missions (Shared ESMD & SMD coordination)

"Lunar Data Integration (ESMD provides outbriefs)

"Science Objectives Team (SMD provides outbriefs)

!May 12, 2008: Revised OSEWG Charter approved by ESMD and SMD DAA’s

!June 2-12, 2008: Mission Analogues Field Test, Short Distance Mobility Test,

Moses Lake, WA

!June 11-12, 2008: OSEWG Surface Science Scenarios Phase I Workshop @ LSI,Houston, TX

!June 18-20, 2008: Lunar Capability Concept Review (LCCR) – Altair and Ares VTransportation Systems @ JSC, Houston, TX

!June 23-24, 2008: NAC Planetary Science Subcommittee @ GSFC, Greenbelt, MD

!July 3, 2008: OSEWG/LEAG ’07 Workshop Draft Report to participants/LEAG forcomment

!July 9, 2008: NAC Science Committee @ GRC, Cleveland, OH

Color Code: Field Test or Launch

Report or Task

Meeting or Event

Completed Events / Milestones

26

# July 13-20, 2008: Committee on Space Research (COSPAR), Montreal, Canada

"International Data Standards (Sponsored by International Planetary DataAlliance)

# July 16-17, 2008: Analogue Field Test Meeting - Lessons Learned from June Field

Test, and Forward Planning for October Field Test @ JSC, Houston, TX

# July 18-mid August, 2008: Haughton-Mars Project (HMP) Field Deployment,

Devon Island, Canada

# July 20-23, 2008: NASA LSI Lunar Conference @ ARC, San Francisco, CA"Outbrief of OSEWG SSSWG Phase 1 Workshop Results

"Interim Report of the LEAG Roadmap

# Late July (TBD), 2008: OSEWG Face-to-Face Workshop on Science Review ofEARD & CARD @ NASA HQ, Washington, D.C.

"Due date for initial review/comments on EARD & CARD is mid-July

# September 2008 (TBD): Analogue Field Test Meeting - Lessons Learned from

2008 Haughton-Mars Project (HMP) Field Deployment, and Forward Planning for

October Field Test @ TBD

# September 9-11, 2008: American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)

Space 2008 Conference, San Diego, CA

Upcoming Events / Milestones Color Code: Field Test or Launch

Report or Task

Meeting or Event

27

# October 2008 (TBD): OSEWG/LPRP Lunar Site Selection Integration Workshop

(Science Priorities & Landing Characterization Needs), Location TBD

# October 10-15, 2008: 40th Annual Meeting of the AAS Division for Planetary

Sciences, Ithaca, NY

# October 16, 2008: NASA Advisory Committee (NAC) @ ARC, San Francisco, CA

# October 20-31, 2008: Mission Analogues Field Test, TBD site, AZ

# October 28-31, 2008: LEAG/ILEWG Meeting @ KSC, Cape Canaveral, FL

" Final Outbrief of the LEAG Roadmap

# November 2008: ISRU Analog Field Test, Hawaii

# November 2008 (TBD): OSEWG/LEAG Workshop #2 @ JPL, Long Beach, CA

# November 24, 2008: LRO/LCROSS LaunchLRO/LCROSS Launch no earlier than 11/24/2008 @KSC/CCAFS, Cape Canaveral, FL

# December 15-19, 2008: American Geophysical Union (AGU), San Francisco, CA

# January 4-8, 2009, American Astronomical Society (AAS), Long Beach, CA

Color Code: Field Test or Launch

Report or Task

Meeting or Event

Upcoming Events / Milestones

28

OSEWG/LEAG Workshop #2:

Architecture Considerations Associated with Sampling

• Goal: Define trade spaces for explicit studies by CAPTEM, LEAG, MEPAG, etc.

• Date & Location: Targeting November 2008 in vicinity of JPL, co-sponsored and organized byJPL

• Plans (Draft): 2 full days of discussion using results of first workshop as starting point and eachdiscussion group answering key questions formulated in one focus area:

– Traverse planning and traversing• key questions: navigation and communications requirements, science impacts on rover and space

suit systems– Sample selection, documentation, and transport

• key questions: real time information requirements, optimizing science for small return mass, in situinstrumentation and measurements, duplicate sampling requirements

– Sample storage and high-grading• key questions: sample handling facility requirements - preserving sample integrity, preventing

contamination, maximizing science return– Surface laboratory analysis

• key questions: instrumentation, mass trades, sample integrity, preventing contamination– Curation

• key questions: constraints imposed on samples as they are returned– Training and human health/performance

• key questions: optimizing science with adequate training in science and technology integration infield a priori

29

- BACKUP -

30

Flight Plan

FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16

Ares I / Orion Launches

Program Integration

T-NowAres I-X

Phase C

Phase D

= 0% Complete

Phase A/B

Pre Phase A

= 100% Complete

Level I Level II-C Level II-N Level III

SCaN

PDR 1SRR CDR SDR

PPAR PAR (NET)

Ares I-Y

Orion 1 Orion 3 Orion 5

Orion 6

Orion 7

Orion 8

Initial Operational Capability

Orion 2 Orion 4

Full Operational Capability

Projects

Ground

Operations

DDT&E

Processing

Processing

GORRCDR (U/R)

HW Need

for Ares I-X

H/W Need

for Ares I-Y

SRR

Orion 1

Need

SDR

Orion 3

Need

Orion 2

Need

Orion 4

Need

Mission Operations

ORRSRR

Ops

DDT&E

Operations

2 3

PDR CDR

MCC Ready - Orion 1

SDR

4

Production Production

DelAres I-Y 2 3

DelOrion 1 4

Orion

SRR SDR PDR

DDT&E

CDR (U/R) DCR

Ares ISRR PDR

2 3Del

Ares I-YDel

Orion 1Production

DelAres I-X

CDRDDT&E

Production Production

DCR

4

SDR

EVA (Suit 1 Config)SRR SARCDRPDRSDR

Production

Del Orion 2 3 4

DDT&E

Production

PDR 2

Suit IDR

Forward Work to complete PMR ’08 ScheduleSRR

PDR

SAR

Published: 6/4/08

Constellation Program Summary ScheduleInitial Capability ContentPMR ’08 Baseline – As of 04/30/08

31

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

Flight Plan

Program Integration

Ares I / Orion Launches

Mission

Operations

Ares V / Altair Launches

PDR (U/R) CDR (U/R)

SCaN

Altair 1 Altair 2MCC Ready for Ares V-Y

SRR SDR PDR

AltairSRR PDR CDR

ORRCDR

Ares V-Y

Altair 2Altair 1

14 16 18

A3

Human Lunar Return

Orion 9 10 11 12 20

A4

Projects

Ground OperationsCDR

Del Orion 15Del Orion 13Orion

Production

Del Orion 15Del Orion 13

Ares I

Production

PDR ORDProject ATP

Ares VCDRPDRSRRProject ATP

Del Altair 2Del Ares V-Y Del Altair 1Production

Del Altair 2Del Altair 1Production

EVA

(Suit 2 Config)

CDR SARPDRSDR

Orion 13 Del

DDT&E

Production

DDT&E

Production

DDT&E

Production

DDT&E

Ops

Production

Project ATP DCR

Production

13 15 17 19

Altair 1/Orion 13 Processing

Altair 2/Orion 15 Processing

Ares V-Y Processing

Processing

DCR

Orion 15

Del

Phase C

Phase D

= 0% Complete

Phase A/B

Pre Phase A

= 100% Complete

Level I Level II-C Level II-N Level III

SDR (U/R)

SRR SDRMCR

SDR

SRR (U/R)

Published: 6/4/08

Operations

Forward Work to complete PMR ’08 Schedule

Constellation Program Summary Schedule

Lunar Capability ContentPMR ‘08 Baseline – As of 04/30/08

32


• General coordinates issues addressed:

– Have affirmed IAU Working Group on Cartographic Coordinates and Rotational Elements

(and LRO Data Working Group) recommended use of the mean Earth/polar axis (ME)

coordinate system for the Moon for creation of cartographic products

– Recommended use of the JPL DE 421 ephemeris to specify the initial lunar body-fixed

frame in the principal axes system, with associated Euler angles, to define a ME frame

– Informal current gravity model recommendation of using LP155P, A. Konopliv et al.’s

update to their published LP150Q – formal recommendation later after new models appear

– Working jointly with LRO Data Working Group to maintain Lunar Coordinates White Paper

• Have reviewed Constellation coordinate standards

• Planned:

• Developing recommendations or a standard for creating lunar mosaics and global map

products

• Developing recommendations for assessing lunar digital elevation models

• Planning web site for distributing information and recommendations on lunar mapping

standards and conventions

• Meeting presentations @ COSPAR and NLSI conference

• Serving as forum for announcing new lunar data products (e.g. ephemeris, Lunar

Orbiter mosaic)

outpost optimizing science & exploration working group (osewg) · pm 3-ayh l k p14 30 e enab...

Documents