1 / 26

Objectives

Robotic Precursor Architectures for Exploration Dr. Butler Hine Small Spacecraft Project Office NASA Ames Research Center Butler.P.Hine@nasa.gov. 1. Objectives.

twila
Télécharger la présentation

Objectives

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Robotic Precursor Architecturesfor ExplorationDr. Butler HineSmall Spacecraft Project OfficeNASA Ames Research CenterButler.P.Hine@nasa.gov 1

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. NASA’s Strategy Vision Strategy Architecture Requirements 7

  6. 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: • 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 • 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 8

  7. Architecture Development Flow FY 2 0 0 5 FY 2 0 0 6 FY 2 0 0 7 1 Q 0 5 2 Q 0 5 3 Q 0 5 4 Q 0 5 1 Q 0 6 2 Q 0 6 3 Q 0 6 4 Q 0 6 1 Q 0 7 2 Q 0 7 3 Q 0 7 4 Q 0 7 1 Q 0 8 E S A S LRAS A g e n c y Develop Robotic Arch Trade ESMD Human & Robotic Arch E S M D E x p l o r a t i o n E S M D R L E P - 2 T r a d e s R L E P R L E P R e q u i r e m e n t s T r a d e S t u d i e s L P R P A r c h i t e c t u r e D e v e l o p m e n t D e v e l o p S m a r t B u y e r D e s i g n s A c q . f o r 1 s t l a n d e r Key: Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) Lunar Robotics Architecture Study (LRAS) 9

  8. Comparison of Priorities & Objectives

  9. RLEP Architecture Studies

  10. Value Shots Architecture BY 2008 BY 2010 BY 2012 BY 2014 BY 2016 Launch 5: Resource Landing & Secondary PL • Launch 1:LRO & • LCROSS • 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 • LCROSS: • Impactor & Spacecraft • Near IR Spectrometer • Visible & IR Cameras • Launch 2: • Safe Landing & Secondary PL • Lander: • Precision Nav & Hazard Avoidance:with 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 • LSAM Flight Qual: Processor boards, Landing sensors, Valves & actuators • Resource Characterization:Filter- wheel camera, Remote spectrograph, LIBS • Launch 3: • Challenge Landing & Secondary PL • Lander: • Precision Nav & Hazard Avoidance:using LRO 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 • Launch 4: • Crowded Landing & Secondary PL • Lander: • Precision Nav & Hazard Avoidance:near another 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) • 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 Secondary Payload: TBD Secondary Payload: Comm Sat

  11. Test 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 CaLV PDR Core ATP Value Shots Architecture Launch 1: LRO & LCROSS Launch 2: Safe Landing Launch 3: Challenge Landing Launch 4: Crowded Landing Launch 5: Resource Landing 7th Human Landing Lunar Landing Test LSAM PDR CDR ATP 2016 - EELV 400 2016 – Resource Landing 350 2014 - EELV 2014 - Secondary Payload 300 2014 – Crowded Landing 250 2012 - EELV Cost, FY06$M 200 2012 - Secondary Payload 2012 – Challenge Landing 150 2010 - Delta II 100 2010 - Comm Relay 2010 – Safe Landing 50 2008 - EELV 0 2008 - LCROSS 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2008 - LRO Year Target Budget Covers all identified major needs for Constellation

  12. RLEP-2 Architecture Study

  13. uLander Concept

  14. Micro Lunar Express Lander Series • GOALS: • Achieve a robust robotic precursor program • Help sustain the Vision • Enable training of our systems engineers • Reduce costs to program • 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

  15. 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

  16. INITIAL COST ESTIMATES BASED ON >100 DOD, NASA PROJECTS SAMPEX FAST SWAS TRACE WIRE LP XSS-11 MSTI-1 MSTI-2 MSTI-3 LEAP EKV ACAT

  17. LRAS Architecture Study

  18. 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

More Related