1. Section Number - 1 NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center RLEP Overview James G. Watzin GSFC/Code 430 (RLEP) August 16-17, 2005

2. LRO SRR - RLEP2 LRO Identified in Exploration Vision Rationale –Environmental characterization for safe access –Global topography and targeted mapping for site selection and safety –Resource prospecting and assessment of In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) possibilities –Technology “proving ground” to enable human exploration “Starting no later than 2008, initiate a series of robotic missions to the Moon to prepare for and support future human exploration activities” - Space Exploration Policy Directive (NPSD31), January 2004

4. LRO SRR - RLEP4 Robotic Lunar Exploration Program - A Historical Context - GSFC RLEP office established several weeks after announcement of Exploration Vision RLEP directed to implement LRO “In-House” –The fastest option, with the best assurance of meeting the Exploration objectives by the 2008 launch readiness date, with the lowest risk and the lowest cost reserves required Advanced (unfunded) concept work could begin immediately despite the fact that the payload and program budget were not yet established –Flexible and robust, in that any changes due to the evolving nature of Exploration could be accommodated without modification of contracts LRO mission objectives, scope and development strategy quickly outlined by RLEP and OSS, with guidance from the ORDT, for Code T –Identified LRO as “Discovery” class mission –Led to joint AA (codes T, S, U, M) approval of Mission Objectives (2 months) –Enabled rapid development and release of AO (4 months) Skeletal staff further defined LRO mission until AO selections and funding received one year later Subsequent maturation of Exploration (and resultant series of reorganizations) brings us to the current construct –Program Director (OSS → SMD → ESMD), Program Management (GSFC → ARC), LRO (GSFC)

5. LRO SRR - RLEP5 RLEP Organization RLE n Mission n RLE 4 Mission 4 RLE 3 Mission 3 RLE 2 Mission 2 400 Robotic Lunar Exploration Program Manager J. Watzin Secretary - TBD Deputy Program Manager TBD Program Business Manager P. Campanella 400 System Assurance Manager R. Kolecki Safety Manager D. Bogart Future Mission Systems J. Burt Mission Flight Engineer M. Houghton Manufacturing Engineer N. Virmani Materials Engineer P. Joy Avionics Systems Engineer P. Luers Program Director (HQ) R. Vondrak Program Scientist (HQ) T. Morgan Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) Project Manager C. Tooley Program Support Manager K. Opperhauser Program Support Manager K. Opperhauser Program DPM/Resources TBD Program Financial Manager W. Sluder Procurement Manager TBD Contracting Officer J. Janus Payload Systems Manager A. Bartels Payload Systems Manager A. Bartels Ground Segment Manager R. Schweiss Ground Segment Manager R. Schweiss Launch Vehicle Manager T. Jones Launch Vehicle Manager T. Jones 400 200 300 500 400 EPO Specialist N. Neal EPO Specialist N. Neal CM/DM D. Yoder Scheduling A. Eaker General Business P. Gregory K. Yoder MIS A. Hess J. Brill 100 400 James Watzin, RLEP Program Manager Date 07/15/2005 RM Coordinator A. Rad Resource Analysts TBD Mission Business Mgr. J. Smith

6. LRO SRR - RLEP6 Path to LRO SRR February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 Executed Rapid Combined Phase A/B Conducted Limited Preliminary Project Planning & Mission Trades Established Scope, Scale & Risk Posture Vision RLEPGSFCOSS ORDT AO Level 1 Req’ts SRR AMES established atby AO Proposals Program Review AO Selection ESMD Objectives LRO PM & SE $500K $40M -$13M $12M $500K $300K POP 04-1 submitted SMD PIP POP 05-1 submitted

7. LRO SRR - RLEP7 LRO Development AO & PIP The PIP (companion to AO) was the project’s 1st product and contained the result of the rapid formulation and definition effort. The PIP represents the synthesis of the enveloping mission requirements drawn from the ORDT process with the defined boundary conditions for the mission. For the project it constituted the initial baseline mission performance specification. Key Elements: –Straw man mission scenario and spacecraft design Mission profile & orbit characteristics Payload accommodation definition (mass, power, data, thermal, etc) –Environment definitions & QA requirements –Mission operations concept –Management requirements (reporting, reviews, accountabilities) –Deliverables –Cost considerations LRO Development – PIP Strawman Orbiter One year primary mission in ~50 km polar orbit, possible extended mission in communication relay/south pole observing, low-maintenance orbit LRO Total Mass ~ 1000 kg/400 W Launched on Delta II Class ELV 100 kg/100W payload capacity 3-axis stabilized pointed platform (~ 60 arc-sec or better pointing) Articulated solar arrays and Li-Ion battery Spacecraft to provide thermal control services to payload elements if req’d Ka-band high rate downlink ( 100-300 Mbps, 900 Gb/day), S-band up/down low rate Centralized MOC operates mission and flows level 0 data to PI’s, PI delivers high level data to PDS Command & Data Handling : MIL-STD-1553, RS 422, & High Speed Serial Service, PowerPC Architecture, 200-400 Gb SSR, CCSDS Mono or bi-prop propulsion (500-700 kg fuel)

8. LRO SRR - RLEP8 How LRO Measurement Objectives Will Be Met by the Selected Instrumentation Specific measurement sets solicited on the basis of the objectives stated in LRO AO: –Characterization of deep space radiation in lunar orbit, including neutron albedo (> 10 MeV): biological effects and properties of shielding materials NS (neutron albedo beyond 10 MeV, globally) → partially addresses (neutrons only) Rad (Tissue Equiv. GCR response) → partially addresses (GCR uncertainty) –Geodetic lunar topography (at landing-site relevant scales) Lidar (10-25 m scales in polar regions; 10 m along track globally) → Completes (definitive) –High spatial resolution hydrogen mapping of the lunar surface NS (5-20km scale H mapping globally, 5kmin polar regions) → Completes (best achievable) –Temperature mapping of the Moon’s polar shadowed regions IR (300m scale at ~3K from 40-300K) → Completes –Landform-scale imaging of lunar surfaces in permanently shadowed regions Lidar (topo, 1 um reflectivity in polar regions at 25m scales) IR (mid IR imaging at 300m scale) Imaging (near UV imaging at 400m scale) NS (“imaging” H at ~5km scales) –Identification of putative deposits of appreciable near-surface water ice in lunar polar cold traps NS (5km scale h mapping in upper meter at 100 ppm sensitivity) → Completes (@ 5km scale) Lidar (via reflectivity at 10m scales) → Partially addresses (depends on sampling) –Assessment of meter or small-scale features to facilitate safety analysis for potential lunar landing sites Imaging ( 100 km 2 areas) → Completes –Characterization of the Moon’s polar region illumination environment at relevant temporal scales (i.e., typically that of hours) Imaging (100m scale UV-VIS-NIR images per orbit) → Completes (with Lidar 3D context) Lidar (via topography and reflectivity) → Completes at 10’s m scales in 3D, with IR Completes (except for regolith characterization [3D]) Expected data products are captured as the LRO Level 1 Requirements

9. LRO SRR - RLEP9 Evolution of the LRO Programmatic Requirements Program prescribed by the Vision Schedule defined by the Vision Scope and scale derived (by OSS and RLEP) from original budget guidelines and schedule Mission concept and implementation strategy derived (by RLEP and OSS) for code T Mission measurements outlined by ORDT and definitized through the selection of AO proposals Level 1 requirements codified selected data products The LRO development is the living history of the evolution of its’ mission requirements The baselining of Level 1 requirements enables a structured and disciplined path forward into development