Teams for First Round - 483/788D

Save this PDF as:

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Teams for First Round - 483/788D"


1 Teams for First Round - 483/788D Team 1: Joseph Breeden Dakoda Darlington Michael Darok Alexander Murugesan Victoria Plank Cemre Sahinci Team 2: Juliette Abbonizio Alexander Adams Nicholas Bartolotta Connor Meyers Tiffany Ramcharan Benjamin Williams Team 3: William Bruno Carlos Callejón Hierro Benjamin Conway Jooneon Kim Theodore Kuiper Kevin Orantes Team 4: Blake Halpin William Hewlett Mohamed Khaial David Kittner Sean Marlin Jacob Saki Team 5: Tanner Chastain David London Sarah Schwenger Nicholas Stamatakis Julia Tepper Gregorio Zimmerman Team 9: Thomas Bain Aniket Goel Bryan Hoskins Michael Schwab Sean Zalewski Team 6: Bonny Allu Shoaib Arif Harrison Bartlett Jonah Drenning Manuel Lacarra Eric Romano Team 10: Conor Casey Adam Eldemire Nicholas Gabsa Aniruddha Perumalla Jonathan Van Eck 1 Team 7: Braeden Callis Arnold Chonai Adrian Danao-Schroeder Lorenzo Narducci Sashank Sadula Team 11: Joseph Kelly Paul Lathrop Michael Rennie William Sharpe John Venincasa Team 12(G): James Armstrong Erik Holum Shikha Redhal Joshua Shaffer Team 8: John Ajamian Ray Garatsa Sarah Garner Sarah Onimus Isaac Roberts Team 13(G): Daniel Diazdelcastillo Conor O Bryan Shiv Patel Krupesh Prajapati

2 Lecture #02 August 30, 2018 Background of Systems Engineering NASA program planning phases Scheduled milestones Requirements document Work breakdown structure Technology readiness levels Project management tools Design reference missions and CONOPS Earned value management Risk tracking David L. Akin - All rights reserved

3 NASA Themes for RASC-AL 2019 Gateway Logistics as a Science Platform Gateway-Based Cislunar Tug Gateway-Based Human Lunar Surface Access Gateway Uncrewed Utilization & Operations 3

4 Gateway Logistics as a Science Platform NASA s Gateway depends on resupply of consumables and spares through the launch of multiple logistics modules. These modules may spend up to 200 days in transit from launch to arrival at the Gateway, and are assumed to enter into a heliocentric disposal orbit. During transit, the logistics module is responsible for maintaining its payload; however, there are opportunities for the module to also host science payloads. These payloads can perform valuable science that takes advantage of a platform with existing power, communications, and attitude control capabilities. These capabilities could also be utilized in the disposal orbit. This theme challenges teams to propose use cases for the logistics module as a science platform. Teams should review the science objectives, targeted observables, and measurables from the National Academy of Sciences Decadal Surveys in Earth Science, Planetary Science, Astrophysics, and/or Heliophysics. Teams should identify measurements that could be retrieved using the capabilities of the logistics module. Teams should also identify potential instrument concepts that could be supported by the logistics module to perform the desired science. The logistics module is constrained to a total mass of 6,000 kg (including 2,500 kg of logistics mass). From that logistics mass, up to 500 kg are available to be used for instrument and support systems (e.g. data storage and processing, expanded communications capabilities). In addition, the logistics module will possess approximately 1 kw of solar array capability; of this, 250 W are available to be used for instrument and support systems. Science payloads may be located on either the external or internal parts of the logistics module; however, the internal pressurized volume of the module cannot be opened to deploy any part of the science payload or support systems. Logistics modules will begin flying to the Gateway in Teams should describe the concept of operations for their science payload, from launch to arrival at the Gateway, as well as any relevant operations after the logistics module leaves the Gateway. Teams should identify the science that will be performed and why it was selected. Teams should describe how their science payload fits within the provided capabilities of the logistics module. Teams should identify what new technical capabilities are required to enable their science payload, keeping in mind the 2024 operational date of the logistics module and NASA s human exploration strategic principle of fiscal realism. It is recommended that teams draw on a variety of expertise for this team, including both engineering and science disciplines. 4

5 Gateway-based Cislunar Tug As a hub for cis-lunar activity, the Gateway provides a destination where payloads can be aggregated. Commercial launch vehicles are capable of delivering greater than 10,000 kg to the Gateway, while payloads that are co-manifested with Orion aboard the SLS can reach 9,000 kg. One broad application for the Gateway is to serve as the point-of-origin for payloads to be transferred to low Lunar orbit or other destinations in cis-lunar space. This theme challenges teams to design a reusable cis-lunar tug to transport payloads between the Gateway and low Lunar orbit. The tug should be reusable and refuelable at the Gateway. It should be capable of transporting non-crewed payloads, to include lunar sample return payloads, other science platforms, landers, and commercial assets. The tug should be capable of being launched either on a single commercial launch vehicle, or comanifested on a single flight of the SLS. It should be refuelable from supplies delivered via commercial launch vehicles to the Gateway. It should have the capability to perform one-way transfers of payloads either from Gateway to low Lunar orbit, or from low Lunar orbit to Gateway; in either mode, it should be capable of returning itself to Gateway for refueling. The tug should be ready to begin operations in Teams should describe the concept of operations for their tug, from initial deployment, to payload transfer modes, including identifying capabilities to transfer payloads to other destinations besides low-lunar orbit (e.g. Lagrange points). Teams should describe the design of the tug, including mass, power, geometry, and necessary technical capability developments, keeping in mind the tug s 2025 operational date and NASA s human exploration strategic principle of fiscal realism. Teams should also identify relevant use cases for the tug, and the frequency with which the tug can support those use cases. Teams should describe the concept of operations for refueling the tug, and determine the likely lifetime of the system prior to needing replacement. 5

6 Gateway-based Human Lunar Surface Access The Gateway is being built to enable sustained human missions beyond Low-Earth Orbit (LEO). NASA plans to use the Gateway to enable human access to the surface of the Moon and eventually to support human missions to the Mars system. The Gateway will operate in a Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit (NRHO) about the Moon. This orbit can facilitate human access to the lunar surface given the propulsive performance limitations of the Orion crew vehicle currently under development, while minimizing station-keeping requirements for the Gateway. RASC-AL respondents are challenged to come up with concepts for crewed lunar surface access and a campaign that allows repeated surface missions to establish a research station at or near one of the Moon s poles. The architecture should leverage current NASA capability investments, as well as existing or anticipated (near-term) commercial and international launch vehicles, in space propulsion capabilities, and lunar surface systems. Architectures cannot be dependent on lunar-derived in-situ resources at the beginning, but should be capable of evolving into an architecture that could leverage some lunar developed propellants if/when they become available. Primary Constraints: Crew is delivered from Earth to the Gateway via NASA s Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion Crew returns to Earth from Gateway via Orion A reusable ascent/descent cabin/vehicle is based at the Gateway, where it is resupplied and refueled between lunar missions The lander must accommodate two mission modes (near polar location at a minimum): 6 days on the surface with 2 crew and 500 kg of cargo no pre-deployed support infrastructure 2 days on the surface with 4 crew and 100 kg of cargo longer stays enabled by pre-deployed infrastructure (rovers, habitats, etc.) Both above mission modes must also accommodate the crew during their transit to and from the lunar surface Initial architecture and program model that is not dead-ended and facilitates evolution from initial capability to a model that leverages commercial services in order to reduce costs for sustained crew access to the lunar surface. Open for trade: Distribution, number, location, and staging of propulsive elements (single stage, braking stages, descent modules, ascent modules, etc.) Types of propellant and propulsion systems Propellant resupply strategy (anticipated launch vehicles, depots, etc.) System procurement mechanisms Evolution path of NASA and commercial capabilities Considerations: Impact of elements on the Gateway (controllability, power, thermal, etc.) Number of SLS launches (ideal would be one per human lunar mission once the reusable ascent/descent vehicle is delivered to the Gateway with the remaining launches provided by commercial or international partners) Technology readiness and cost to support a crewed lunar mission from the Gateway in

7 Gateway Uncrewed Utilization & Operations The Gateway is envisioned as a small lunar orbiting outpost designed to support four visiting crewmembers about once/year (for 30 days) with construction beginning in The Gateway is likely to include two habitation/utilization elements and an airlock during the latter stages. When the crew is not present, the Gateway will be used to continue experiments or technology demonstrations designed to improve Gateway performance and/or prepare for designs necessary to support Mars missions. There are concepts for returning lunar and Mars samples to the Gateway for transfer to Earth by the SLS/Orion systems and potentially refueling small lunar landers for reuse. NASA also hopes to provide the Gateway as a platform for commercial or international entities seeking achievement of their own goals, outside of NASA s needs, including periodic occupancy by their own astronauts. The Gateway will include an external robotic arm for inspections, berthing and external experiment management. Uncrewed logistics flights are expected to provide crew/gateway resources and utilization payloads (about 1-2 per year) and the external arm may be employed to exchange externally-mounted Gateway experiments from similar logistics vehicle locations to avoid exposure from internal Gateway contaminants or due to experiment size. NASA, international and domestic partners will design, build and deliver elements of the Gateway, much of which will conform to interoperability standards now in development with those same communities. Contingency EVA by crewmembers is possible, but not expected for regular operations the plan is to mainly rely on the robotic arm. While the majority of science experiments are expected to be externally mounted, the internal experiments are likely to be human research in nature as well as technology experiments. Dormancy of crew-related systems and environmental controls is likely with the Gateway, while robotic interaction with crew is possible or perhaps desired during crewed operations. Crew presence will drive the design of a number of interfaces, yet automation and remote control from Earth will be used for the majority of the Gateway lifetime. Automation capabilities are likely necessary for troubleshooting Gateway systems and experiment operations during non-crewed periods, including automated fault detection, diagnosis and response. Proposals for robotic activities include a smaller internal 'walking' arm, with associated mounting fixtures or rails within the Gateway for mobility. The internal arm is sized to pass through the science airlock to support external activities such as repair of the external arm. Logistics flights are currently packaged to allow offloading by crew with free volumes for crew access, automated approaches might have advantages. Given the Gateway s need for automation for continuous operations when the Gateway is uncrewed (~11 months/year), opportunities exist to optimize the internal designs for crew interaction, robotic interaction, science/payload experiment packaging, standardized experiment interfaces and overall logistics systems for both when the crew is at the Gateway and in uncrewed mode. This would also demonstrate methodologies and technologies directly applicable for the longer duration Mars missions and missions and surface operations envisioned to precede the delivery of crews to Mars or possibly the surface of the Moon. RASCAL respondents are asked to come up with utilization scenarios and systems concepts addressing those scenarios for the 11 month uncrewed Gateway period. These scenarios should address automated logistics management, critical fault detection and maintenance, supportable science, technology demonstration and commercial applications in the absence of crew being on the Gateway. Respondents can derive their systems from existing experiment facilities used on Shuttle and ISS or develop their own as needed to address Gateway-unique operations. Implications on Gateway systems such as environmental control, computing, robotics, communications, power and thermal need to be assessed. Crew activities just prior to leaving the Gateway and upon initially returning to the Gateway needed to support the uncrewed period should also be assessed. Respondents can assume approximately one month of Gateway reconfiguration/stabilization/system evaluation preceding the crew arrival while two weeks are necessary to return to uncrewed operational status. 7

8 Gateway Logistics as a Science Platform Allocate 500 kg in logistics module for science experiments Define experiment priorities from NASA space science planning documents Design science instrument packages and concept of operations Recommend engineers and scientists for teams in this theme 8

9 Gateway-based Cislunar Tug Design a cargo tug to go between Gateway (nearrectilinear halo orbit, or NRHO) and low lunar orbit (LLO) Launch on single commercial vehicle and refuel from commercial LV Develop detailed designs, costs, conops Develop payload handling system, refueling system, tug maintenance/refurbishment Initial operations in 2025 Come up with business case for tug 9

10 Gateway-based Human Lunar Surface Access Delivered via SLS; crew via Orion Reusable crew cabin, refurbishment at Gateway Propulsion elements can be reusable or expendable 6 day lunar stay with 2 crew independent; 2 days with 4 crew with surface assets (rovers/habitats) Clear paths for evolution with commercial inputs Number of launches per human mission? (prefer 1 SLS, commercial launches acceptable) Initial operations in

11 Gateway Uncrewed Utilization & Operations Come up with design of systems to make Gateway robotically operated and maintained when crew is not present (11 months/year) Assume external SSRMS-type manipulator Propose internal robotic systems, automation systems to maintain unbroken operations Also consider robotics to support/aid/augment crew when present Evolutionary technologies for lunar and Mars bases 11

12 Choosing Project Themes for 484 Realistic preliminary design teams (ideally students) Challenging project using all elements of 483 Human spaceflight project Large classes: find two (or more) projects which are stand-alone, but interdependent enough to need coordination between teams (Ideally) both/all eligible for RASC-AL 12

13 Issues with 2019 RASC-AL Themes Theme 1 (science packages): infeasible We re not scientists; insufficient engineering content Theme 2 (NRHO-LLO tug): meh Cargo only, LLO only, no human elements Might be able to incorporate into human surface access architecture Theme 3 (Human access to lunar surface): doing it! Theme 4 (Robotic Gateway): conflicted Direct leveraging of SSL capabilities Already doing it with Gemstone team and X-Hab 13

14 Collaborative Tasks for this Class Consider options for second project theme within RASC-AL given one team will do Theme 3 Could do Theme 2 tug design Could do Theme 4 and screw Gemstone team Also consider options without RASC-AL, e.g.: Do interesting companion elements to human lander (e.g., pressurized rovers, habitats, etc.) Look at Gateway to support human Mars exploration Do detailed study of specific technologies (e.g., inflatables combined with inflatable airlock/x-hab) Something really outside of the box? 14

15 Today s Class Outputs Take the next minutes to discuss and brainstorm in your teams to come up with your preferred options for the second team s topic Last ~20 minutes of class each team will have 2 minutes to present their prioritized list (and brief descriptions where necessary) to entire class (also write it down and hand it to me) Grad teams should discuss what project you want to do for this term - start from RASC-AL themes, but you can consider other options, too 15

16 Questions to Consider How did your group handle discussion? (single leader, multiple leaders, loudest voices, votes?) How did your team respond to bad (i.e., unexpected or off-the-wall) ideas? Added to list of considerations or derided/rejected? How easy was it for you to get your thoughts heard? did everyone get equal changes to talk, or did one or a few people dominate the conversation? Did your group try to maintain notes on the conversation, or use other formal tools? 16