1. Lunar Exploration Transportation System (LETS) Customer Briefing 12-17-2007 LETS go to the Moon!

2. Agenda IPT Class –Overall objectives –Class Flow/Schedule –Requirement Process –Review Board Membership –Technical Mentors Level 1 Requirements Proposed FOMs Surface Objectives Concept Design Constraints “Efficiency” Design Thoughts –Previous Landers/Rovers –Alternative Mobility Concepts Final Report Requirements

3. Integrated Product Team Class Develop a system-level perspective for translating requirements into feasible solutions Develop oral, written, and information technology- based communication skills Practice the critical thinking skills required for success in a changing environment Acquire basic character qualities that enable individuals and teams to function effectively

4. Class Flow Baseline Review (1/31/08) Evaluate baseline per CDD Understand CDD from customer Demonstrate your ability to review board Alternatives Review (2/28/08) Develop alternatives to accomplish mission Select a concept to continue detailed design Detailed Design Review (4/29/08) Develop detailed design of selected concept Provide prototype model to review board

5. Process of Requirements Requirements…

6. Review Board Membership Board of 6-10 government/industry/academic officials Review board chair selected by customer –Coordinates input from members to faculty personnel Review board ranks teams, does not provide input to final grades Time commitment –3 reviews, 2-3 hrs. each

7. Technical Mentors Officials that provide guidance to student teams in a technical discipline ARE NOT members of the review board Disciplines needed –GN&C –Thermal –Power –Structures –Payload –Systems Engineering –Operations Time commitment –On-call basis

8. Level 1 Requirements Landed Mass 1450 kg + 100 kg 1 st mission landing site is polar region Design must be capable of landing at other lunar locations Minimize cost across design Launch Date NLT September 30 th 2012 Mobility is required to meet objectives Survivability ≥ 1 year Lander/Rover must survive conops. The mission shall be capable of meeting both SMD and ESMD objectives. The lander must land to a precision of ± 100m 3 sigma of the predicted location. The lander must be capable of landing at a slope of 12 degrees (slope between highest elevated leg of landing gear and lowest elevated leg) The lander shall be designed for g-loads during lunar landing not to exceed the worst case design loads for any other phase of the mission (launch to terminal descent).

9. Proposed FOMs Surface exploration Maximized Payload Mass (% of total mass) Objectives Validation: Ratio of SMD to ESMD: 2 to 1. Conops: Efficiency of getting data in stakeholders hands vs. capability of mission. Mass of Power System: % of total mass. Ratio of off-the-shelf to new Development –Minimize cost

10. Single site goals: –Geologic context Determine lighting conditions every 2 hours over the course of one year Determine micrometeorite flux Assess electrostatic dust levitation and its correlation with lighting conditions Mobility goals: –Independent measurement of 15 samples in permanent dark and 5 samples in lighted terrain Each sampling site must be separated by at least 500 m from every other site –Minimum: determine the composition, geotechnical properties and volatile content of the regolith Value added: collect geologic context information for all or selected sites Value added: determine the vertical variation in volatile content at one or more sites –Assume each sample site takes 1 earth day to acquire minimal data and generates 300 MB of data Instrument package baselines: –Minimal volatile composition and geotechnical properties package, suitable for a penetrometer, surface-only, or down-bore package: 3 kg –Enhanced volatile species and elemental composition (e.g. GC-MS): add 5 kg –Enhanced geologic characterization (multispectral imager + remote sensing instrument such as Mini-TES or Raman): add 5 kg Surface Objectives

11. Concept Design Constraints Surviving Launch –EELV Interface (Atlas 431) Mass Volume Power Communications Environments –Guaranteed launch window Survive Cruise –Survive Environment Radiation Thermal Micrometeoroids

12. Concept Design Constraints Lunar Environment (@ poles and equator) –Radiation –Micrometeoroid –Temperature –Dust –Lighting Maximize use of OTS Technology (TRL 9) Mission duration of 1 year Surface Objectives Reference: Dr. Cohen

13. Efficiency Design Thoughts Previous Landers –Surveyor –Apollo Lunar Lander –Viking –Pathfinder Rover concepts –Apollo Lunar Rover –Sojourner –Spirit & Opportunity –MSL Alternative mobility concepts

14. Previous Landers - Surveyor Atlas-Centaur Launch Vehicle Useful Mass was 292 kg Mission Duration was 65 hours Science Instruments included: A TV camera, and strain gauges mounted on each leg shock absorber.

15. Previous Landers – Apollo Designed to transport astronauts to and from the moon Mass 14,696 kg Volume 6.65m 2 Height 6.37m Diameter 4.27m Endurance 72 hrs Provides life support for 2 crew

16. Previous Landers - Viking Two Viking Landers were the first spacecraft to conduct prolonged scientific studies on the surface of another planet Dry Mass 576kg Dimensions 3m by 3m by 2m One Lander survived 6.5 yrs

17. Previous Landers - Pathfinder Flight System Launch Mass (890kg) Payload (25kg) X Band Antenna Solar Arrays Deploys airbags which reduce impact by as much as 40 g Designed to survive 30 sols with an extended mission lifetime of up to 1 year

18. Previous Rovers - LRV Lunar Roving Vehicle Total range 35.89km Rover mass 210kg Useful Payload mass 490kg Each wheel 0.25 hp DC motor Two 36v silver-zinc potassium hydroxide non- rechargeable batteries with a capacity of 121 A·h.

19. Previous Rovers - Sojourner Rover Mass (10.5 kg) Solar Powered generating 16 Watts during peak operation Non-Rechargeable Battery which generates approximately 300 Watts/hour Contains a Six Wheel Drive Rocker Bogie Design (made rover very versatile) Can carry approximately 1.5 kg of payload at a time

20. Previous Rovers – Spirit and Opportunity Delta II Launch Vehicle Lander mass: 348 kg Rover mass: 185 kg Mission duration was 90 days Scientific Instruments included: Several cameras, spectrometer, alpha particle x-ray, microscopic imager, RAT, and several other tools

21. Previous Rovers - MSL Mass 800kg Max Speed 90m per hr Average Speed 30m per hr Expected to traverse a minimum of 6km over its two year mission duration

22. Alternative Mobility Concepts LETS Other? Penetrators Rover(s) Lander(s)

23. Alternative Mobility Concepts LandingMobility Single Lander1 Rover Multiple Rovers Penetrators 1 Rover + Penetrators Multiple Rovers + Penetrators Land on Wheels1 Rover Multiple Rovers Penetrators 1 Rover + Penetrators Multiple Rovers + Penetrators Multiple Lander1 Rover Multiple Rovers Penetrators 1 Rover + Penetrators Multiple Rovers + Penetrators

24. MobilityAdvantagesDisadvantages Single RoverProven technology More OTS Minimum ground support Single point of failure Increased chances of Con-Ops (Mission) failure Multiple RoversMaximize data return Increased range/area Increased comm area w/ networking Faster mission completion Increased ground support More complex comm Increased dry mass Individual science payload limited (no single large device) PenetratorsMaximize data return Less weight No moving parts “Random” spread (penetrator not accurate) Complex comm Nonwired: batt & comm req Wired: limited range Propulsion (?) Unproven Single Rover + Penetrators Good light/dark solution “Intelligent” data analysis/gathering Maximize data return Sacrifice mass for penetrators Multiple Rovers + Penetrators Maximize data return Increased range/area Faster mission completion Increased comm area w/ networking Dry mass penalty Complex comm Complex power Limited individual science payload Alternative Mobility Concepts Single Lander +

25. MobilityAdvantagesDisadvantages Single Rover (same vehicle) Mass savings Less ground support Lower probability of mission completion and data return Unproven technology Rover might be damaged by landing Rover moves with prop system Multiple Rovers (same vehicles) Maximize data return Increased range/area Increased comm area w/ networking Faster mission completion Increased ground support More complex comm Increased dry mass Science payload limited (no single large device) PenetratorsMaximize data return Less weight No moving parts (penetrators) Good light/dark solution “Intelligent” data analysis/gathering “Random” spread (penetrator not accurate) Complex comm Penetrators require comm/pwr (?) Propulsion (?) Unproven technologies Single Rover + Penetrators (same as above) Multiple Rovers + Penetrators Maximize data return Increased range/area Faster mission completion Increased comm area w/ networking Dry mass penalty Complex comm Complex power Limited individual science payload Alternative Mobility Concepts Land On Wheels (LOW) +

26. MobilityAdvantagesDisadvantages Single RoverComm relay stations Maximize data return (no single point failure) Mass penalty Volumetric penalty Multiple RoversWide range/area Comm relay Increased data return Dry mass penalty Volumetric penalty Science individual payload limited Complex comm PenetratorsWide range/area Fast mission completion time No moving parts Multiple data sites (possible linking for seismic analysis) Dry mass penalty Complex comm Comm/pwr required for each lander/penetrator Single Rover + Penetrators Comm relay stations Maximize data return “Intelligent” data analysis/gathering Dry mass penalty Complex comm Comm/pwr required for each lander/pen/rover Multiple Rovers + Penetrators Maximize data return Increased range/area Faster mission completion Increased comm area w/ networking Dry mass penalty Complex comm Limited individual science payload Comm/pwr required for each lander/pen/rover Alternative Mobility Concepts Multiple Landers +

27. Final Report Requirements Lander development schedule –By subsystems Configuration drawing –Lander –Rover concepts (Southern) –Sample return vehicle (ESTACA) Concept of operations Level 2 Requirements CDD Design Analysis Package Parts List/ Vendor List