Enterprise Architecture

1
NASA EXPLORATION STRATEGY ARCHITECTURE INDUSTRY
WORKSHOP
August 14-15, 2007
INDUSTRY FEEDBACK
2
Agenda

• Thank You
• Industry Participants
• Industry Representation (percentages)
• Enterprise Architecture
• Findings and Recommendations
• Lunar Architecture
• Lunar Science
• Lunar Lander
• Communications and Navigation
• Lunar Habitation
• Power and Power Storage
• In Situ Resource Utilization
• Lunar Rovers Pressurized and un-pressurized
• Next Actions/Go-Forward Plan

3
Thank You

• We realize that NASA Headquarters has no formal
  requirement to share its interim products with
  industry.
• We applaud you for choosing to do so.

4
Industry Participants

• Aerojet
• AIA
• ASRC Aerospace
• ATK
• Ball Aerospace Technology Corp.
• Boeing
• Dynamac Corporation
• Hamilton Sundstrand
• Honeywell
• IBM
• ILC Dover
• iPDA Mobile Technologies
• ITT

• Lockheed Martin
• National Space Society
• Northrop Grumman
• Orbital Sciences
• Pratt Whitney Rocketdyne
• Raytheon
• U.S. Chamber of Commerce
• United Space Alliance
• Whitney, Bradley Brown Inc.

5
Based on 22 participating companies
6
Industry Representation (Title)
Based on 76 participants
7
Lunar Exploration Enterprise

• Jamestown, not the Mayflower
• Transition from lunar exploration to Mars and
  beyond
• Commercially enabling
• Imperatives driven by objectives rather than cost
• Science leads the way, commerce takes over
• Exit ramps recommended for NASA participation
• Subsets include outposts, habitats, rovers,
  power, comm, ISRU
• More than flags and footprints build an
  enterprise and not a program
• Recommendation Early cross-cutting industry
  engagement critical to
• sustainability. Formation of a collaborative
  NASA-Industry-Commerce
• enterprise to further develop the Lunar
  Architecture.

Early cross-cutting industry engagement critical
to sustainability
8
Key Findings and Recommendations

• NASA has developed a solid departure point
  architecture, and this represents an ideal
  opportunity for NASA to engage U.S. industry.
• Cooperative efforts with industry offer
  additional resources and experience to mature
  architecture
• Industry interest in more insight to NASA
  thinking
• Strong Industry desire to engage and directly
  support NASA led efforts
• Industry preference to redirect discretionary
  funds from RFI inputs to direct support
• Industry support frees NASA resources to refine
  and expand requirements.
• Cooperative efforts could investigate options for
  standards, figures of merit, operations and
  implementation considerations.
• Recommend NASA include lower TRL systems and
  capabilities into architecture trade studies for
  lunar elements currently in development.
• Recommend continued interaction between ESMD and
  SMD for lunar mission objectives (eg Industry
  participation with the working group).

9
Lunar Architecture

• Overall The Architecture update represents good
  thinking and creative ideas. General feeling a
  more thorough review would alleviate many of the
  concerns and issues.
• Mission - Based on the variation in presented
  options, there is a concern a consistent mission
  objective does not drive architecture options.
• Requirements Strong industry interest to see
  the CARD requirements, and understand the
  relation to architecture options presented.
  Specific interest in requirement priorities for
  risk, reliability, operability and
  maintainability. Concerns some element volume
  and mass requirements are inconsistent with Ares
  I and V capabilities.
• Standards Unclear as what standards are being
  used for architecture development, and what
  levels standards have been developed and agreed
  upon. Multiple suggestions for metric standards,
  and the importance of modularity and
  connectivity.
• Figures of Merit The variety of concepts
  created confusion regarding the Figures of Merit
  used to develop and evaluate the current
  architectural elements.
• Concept of Operations This appears to be in a
  state of flux, with monolithic, modular and
  mobile options still under consideration.
  Concerns of architecture selection prior to
  CONOPS limiting desired capabilities or
  flexibility.

10
Lunar Architecture (Contd)

• Systems Engineering Integration Constellation
  necessitates an integrated design, but was not
  addressed in the presentation. Industry is
  interested in the level of systems engineering
  being applied at this point in the architecture
  definition and trades.
• Margin Little information presented on NASAs
  approach, ground rules assumptions for Margins
  to accommodate future unknowns and upgrades.
• Commonality Unsure of how or if near term
  system decisions on Orion and Ares are being
  evaluated for implementation into future
  architecture elements. Are common systems such
  as Life Support Systems, being included in trades
  among various concepts and between architecture
  elements?
• International Involvement There is a general
  confusion surrounding the roles for
  Internationals, different positions stated
  between Centers and HQ.
• Commercial Involvement Concerns regarding
  Commercial interests ability to absorb risk, and
  corresponding effect on critical path.
  Recommendations for a bare minimum capability
  approach to better identify potential commercial
  opportunities and market assessment. Is a
  architecture broken down by subsystems rather
  than integrated elements more conducive to
  commercial investment?
• ISS Utilization General support for ISS
  demonstrations, but this is more applicable to
  small capabilities and technologies generally
  worked by smaller companies. Cost of access to
  space is still viewed as prohibitive.

11
Lunar Science

• Major Themes
• Apparent gap between lunar science needs and the
  architecture to meet those needs. Are science
  requirements influencing the architecture?
• Industry would like to review LAT 2 ASAP to
  answer question about gaps in technology. Tools
  and technology levies on system need to be well
  understood.
• Science objectives appear to be focused on lunar
  archeology with little mention of conducting
  other types of science from the lunar surface.
• Robotic augmentation of human capabilities will
  enable early servicing of deployed systems.
• 43 locations in each of the basins could drive a
  tremendous sample return program. Set up
  navigation/precision location capability critical
  for cataloguing
• International participation is not clear to US
  industry.
• A strong link between Lunar and Mars science does
  not seem to exist.

12
Lunar Science (Contd)

• Significant Recommendations
• Show how lunar science requirements are being
  accommodated in the architecture.
• Define and disseminate potential lunar science
  activities goals and figures of merit.
• Science objectives need to be clearly understood
  to facilitate effective infrastructure
  development.
• Need clearer overall science messages to capture
  public interest.
• Prioritize science objectives in a phased fashion
  identifying various sciences of interest as a
  function of time.
• Consider Applied Science as well as Basic Science
  for its return of economic benefit to US industry
  (i.e.helium3).

13
Lunar Lander

• Major Themes and Recommendations
• Stationary (or non-self propelled) Lander
  recommended
• Mobility platforms on each landed payload adds
  unnecessary risk and cost
• Non-Mobility based platforms allow more efficient
  use of launch and landing space
• Separate pre-positioned vehicle(s) can be used to
  offload and setup outpost infrastructure
• Multiple outposts considered less risky compared
  to Winnebago
• Autonomous landing required with piloted override
  for crewed missions
• Separate un crewed cargo missions enable
  early/pre-positioned deployment of outpost
  infrastructure at less risk and lower overall
  cost
• 16 vs. 6 mTs per landing allows completion of
  outpost much sooner with fewer missions
• Fewer crewed missions will significantly reduce
  cost while reducing risk
• Demonstration of precision/safe autonomous
  landing techniques combined with placement of
  landing beacons prior to human missions reduces
  risk
• Early deployment of larger elements of outpost
  architecture allows for longer term crew stays
  much earlier than planned
• Robotic scouting missions necessary to drive down
  Constellation risk and maximize outpost
  effectiveness
• ISRU ground truth and landing site survey
  missions minimizes landing risk
• Statistically significant sampling (and returns)
  from various sites will insure selected outpost
  location is both productive and safe
• Use as lunar demonstrator for system test and
  check out in lunar environment

14
Lunar Lander (Contd)

• Backup Information/General Comments
• Mobility
• Having one mover seems more efficient than
  making everything mobile
• Lunar forklift can move things around rather than
  lots of self-propelled items
• Could add wheels after landing later if needed to
  move around
• Lander capacity
• Difficult to see that crewed Lander can take
  along significant cargo/habitats
• Seems to drive toward cargo-only missions in
  advance of crews
• Autonomous landing
• Cargo-only and robotic missions can reliably
  demonstrate this necessary capability prior to
  manned missions
• Landing aids pre-positioned with cargo and
  robotic missions combined with orbital assets can
  further add to mission safety
• System designs should be non-dependant on
  lighting conditions
• Demonstrations
• Landing demonstrations of various propulsion
  systems
• Not clear that demo concept (drop test) presented
  is of enough value
• Robotic precursor missions are required
• No need to demonstrate crane perceived to be
  low risk item

15
Communications/Navigation (CN)

• Major Themes
• Industry has a lot to offer and increased
  interactions with NASA would facilitate transfer
  of ideas and knowledge
• Commercial sources for Communication should be
  considered (a la DOD). Lunar navigation
  considered unique.
• Effective CN will depend on lunar architecture
  being well thought out
• Industry questions CN scalability and
  incorporation of new technologies
• Significant Recommendations
• Establish CN IPTs and workshops. NASA should
  consider shared or funded system engineering
  studies
• NASA should explore COTS-like opportunity for
  Lunar Communications
• CN expandability should be enabled for the
  enterprise mission

16
Lunar Habitation

• Overall Session very effective at exchanging
  information between NASA and Industry, a good
  starting point.
• If not already being utilized, NASA needs to
  review and incorporate ideas already generated at
  other forums such as the Symposium on Lunar
  Settlements held at Rutgers University 3-8 June
  2007.
• Concepts Monolithic, Modular, and Mobile each
  have merit depending upon the desired mission
  application. Strong application to sortie
  mission, but lack ties to accommodating extended
  mission durations.
• Preference voiced for a modular approach, to
  maximize future adaptation potential. Approach
  also supports continued production benefits.
• Habitation mobility concepts interesting, but
  unable to identify driving requirement to
  support.
• Large amount of scrap materials from landers and
  other single use items. Are there metrics
  developed to encourage dual use of these
  materials?
• Concerns regarding waste disposal.
• General agreement to preposition and check-out
  habitation elements prior to crew arrival.
• Strong industry support and interest to the
  analog demonstrations, questions on how this is
  being used to affect concepts.
• Recommendation to develop a bare minimum base
  model and understand the cost of additional
  functionality.
• Recommendation for a parametric study to
  ascertain concepts constrained by cost and
  schedule.

17
Power and Power Storage

• Observations
• Since power can be used to reduce cost in other
  systems it is not an independent variable. Thus
  the 25kW target raises more questions that it
  answers
• Benefits of excess power would enable things like
  power beaming.
• A sustainable power grid should be independent of
  the sources and load leveling.
• Design needs to allow for margin and evolving
  needs/technologies
• The environmental impacts of lunar activity
  exposed long lines of high voltage that may build
  up a charge and attract dust.
• Power is one area where there is a lot of
  commercial experience. Be open to input from
  non-aerospace entities.
• First power unit from NASA cannot preclude others
  in the future. Future power should be
  commercially available power.
• Solar versus Nuclear
• Solar is simpler, cost effective, and scalable.
  Significant advances (disruptive technology or
  not) would have terrestrial advances. Solar power
  would save the program from the political turmoil
  inherent in nuclear. Solar could involve the use
  of multiple power controllers and system
  redundancy.
• Nuclear would require solar backup
• There are long term nuclear benefits and it seems
  that this is a long term exploration requirement
  rather than a point solution. It this really a
  different project within Constellation rather
  than a part of the lunar program.

18
Power and Power Storage (Contd)

• Other solutions
• Be open to other non-nuclear solutions that can
  enable increased power for both fixed and mobile
  platforms. New advances in ISRU generated fuel
  cell systems can safely produce significant power
  for extended Lunar nights and robotic missions to
  shadowed regions.
• Recommendations
• Create standards for an extensible power system,
  including figures of merit.
• Define alternate concepts for energy storage
  (e.g. thermal energy, chemical,
  mechanical/flywheel, Stirling cycle storage, fuel
  cells).
• Determine what types of demonstrations are needed
  to validate power system concepts and
  technologies. Possibly to include demonstrations
  at McMurdo, analogous locations.
• Facilitate and enable commercial and
  international participation that enable diverse
  production and consumption patterns not just a
  point solution.

19
In-situ Resource Utilization (ISRU)

• Major Themes and Recommendations
• NASA encouraged to continue development of ISRU
  capabilities at a higher priority bases
• ISRU will provide critical enabling technologies
  that can drive down cost and extend mission
  duration
• Life support materials (oxygen, and water) can be
  generated instead of re-supplied from Earth
• Rocket fuel supplies generated from lunar
  materials
• Materials needed for fuel cell operation
• Solar power generation
• Recycling of materials and wastes
• Important stepping-stone technology required for
  Mars missions
• Long-term priority effort that must be developed
• Must demonstrate lunar ISRU systems to support
  Mars needs
• Regolith Material returned robotically and on
  first manned missions can provide for proper
  validation of ISRU processes critical to lunar
  outpost operation
• Exit strategy/commercialization important
  consideration
• Identify when lunar emphasis would be complete
  and switch to Mars focus
• Identify transfer to commercial ventures

20
In-situ Resource Utilization (Contd)

• Background/General Comments
• Importance of this work
• Enabling technology that requires lunar
  demonstration to add confidence to Mars work
• Chemistry is different, but the ISRU system
  concept is similar
• Development support
• Insufficient samples of lunar soil/rock available
  to develop system. Need robotic missions that
  return samples of regolith for proof of concepts,
  system development, etc.
• Must be recognized as a long-term project 10
  years with iterative milestones
• Commercialization
• If commercial enterprise is going to be a reality
  then ISRU is essential
• Off ramp to determine when ISRU should go
  commercial needs to be defined

21
Lunar Rovers

• Overall A great exchange of ideas, and evolved
  into a brainstorming session.
• Strong support for a pressurized rover based on
  crew protection, and minimal EVA durations.
• Minimize need for crews to perform EVA outside of
  protective environments. Rely on crew operation
  of mechanical arms to pick up and handle objects
  of interest.
• It appears science objectives will drive the need
  for mobility, have science requirements been
  included in the concept evaluation? (Power
  take-offs for digging, drilling) Recommendations
  for operations scenarios based on science needs.
• A multipurpose rover forklift, crane,
  transporter.
• Radiation hardening components vs. cost of
  regolith garages
• Has NASA looked into scavenging landers for lunar
  rover components?
• Some of the drive train concepts appear complex
  and susceptible to dust intrusion, have sparing
  and maintenance been factored into evaluation
  criteria?
• Have modular rovers been evaluated, (train
  analogy- drive train, power source, crew and
  supply transport elements)?
• General support for the EVA suit attachment to
  the rover, but could be improved with a dust
  cover compartment during transport, and suit back
  docking could prove a difficult task from a human
  factors perspective.
• Has NASA looked into jet packs for lunar
  transport?

22
Suggested Future Actions

• NASA and Industry informal agreement on the need
  for increased interaction.
• Identify forums to allow full Industry
  participation (one-stop shopping).
• Ex) Space Enterprise Council
• Badgeless / non-attributional meeting (s) between
  NASA and Industry to identify areas of
  cooperation and prioritization.
• Timing and topics
• Identify mechanisms to facilitate cooperative
  efforts (i.e. what can we afford to do?).
• On-going Technical Interchange Meetings
• NASA Industry IPTs
• CRADAs
• BAAs
• Other