DOCSLIB.ORG

GAO-12-207SP, NASA: Assessments of Selected Large-Scale Projects

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
GAO-12-207SP, NASA: Assessments of Selected Large-Scale Projects United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees GAO March 2012 NASA Assessments of Selected Large-Scale Projects GAO-12-207SP March 2012 NASA Assessments of Selected Large-Scale Projects Highlights of GAO-12-207SP, a report to congressional committees Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found This is GAO’s fourth annual GAO assessed 21 NASA projects with a combined life-cycle cost that exceeds assessment of the National $43 billion. Of those 21 projects, 6 were in an early phase of development called Aeronautics and Space formulation, and 15 had entered the implementation phase where cost and Administration’s (NASA) large-scale schedule baselines were established. Five of the 15 projects in implementation projects. GAO’s work has shown that successfully launched in 2011, and two of them met their cost and schedule these projects, while producing baselines. NASA’s largest science project—the James Webb Space Telescope ground-breaking research and (JWST)—however, has experienced development cost growth of $3.6 billion—or advancing our understanding of the 140 percent—and a schedule delay of over 4 years. While the development cost universe, tend to cost more and take and schedule for most of the projects in implementation remained relatively longer to develop than planned, and stable, the impact of the JWST increases on the portfolio is significant. For are often approved without evidence of a sound business case. GAO has example, 14 of the 15 projects currently in implementation, excluding JWST, had designated NASA’s acquisition an average development cost growth of $79 million—or 14.6 percent—and management a high risk area. schedule growth of 8 months from their baselines. With JWST, these numbers increase dramatically to almost 47 percent and 11 months, respectively. Cost In response to congressional direction, and schedule increases within NASA’s most technologically advanced and costly GAO reviewed NASA's major projects. projects, such as JWST, can have cascading effects on the rest of NASA’s Specifically, this report provides portfolio. For example, the administration has proposed to terminate funding for observations about the performance of the joint NASA/ESA EMTGO project, and another large project in our review— NASA's major projects, assesses the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL)—experienced substantial cost overruns that knowledge attained at key junctures of led NASA to take funding from other projects. MSL and JWST account for development, identifies challenges that approximately $11.4 billion—or 51 percent—of the total life-cycle costs for the 15 can contribute to cost and schedule growth, and outlines steps NASA is projects in implementation during our review. taking to improve its acquisitions. To Most of the projects that GAO reviewed did not meet technology maturity and conduct this review, GAO assessed design stability best practices criteria, which if followed can lessen cost and data on 21 projects with an estimated schedule risks faced by the project. Specifically, 10 of the 16 projects that held a life-cycle cost of over $250 million, preliminary design review moved forward without first maturing technologies. In including data on projects’ cost, addition, 13 of the 14 projects that held a critical design review did so without first schedule, technology maturity, design achieving design stability. Some projects reported using other methods to assess stability, and contracts; analyzed design stability. Many of the projects GAO reviewed for this report also monthly project status reports; and interviewed NASA and contractor experienced challenges in the areas of launch vehicles, contractor management, officials. GAO also reviewed project parts, development partner performance, and funding. For example, nine projects cost estimates and interviewed officials we reviewed reported challenges with launch vehicles, including their increasing responsible for NASA’s cost estimation cost and availability. New launch vehicles are in development, but have not yet policy. been certified, and another vehicle has failed on its two most recent flights. What GAO Recommends The agency is continuing its implementation of initiatives to reduce acquisition management risk. One prominent effort is the Joint Cost and Schedule GAO is not making any new Confidence Level (JCL), a new cost estimation tool that involves a probabilistic recommendations in this report, but analysis of cost, schedule, and risk inputs to arrive at development cost and has made prior recommendations to schedule estimates associated with various confidence levels. Five projects GAO address transparency in project costs reviewed have completed a JCL. NASA officials stated a few projects have and the lack of consistent design excluded or not fully considered relevant cost inputs and risks, such as launch metrics; NASA concurred and is taking vehicle costs. GAO was unable to confirm that the five projects that prepared steps to address them. estimates using the JCL were budgeted at the approved confidence level. NASA has not yet launched a project that prepared a JCL; therefore, NASA officials View GAO-12-207SP. For more information, contact Cristina Chaplain at (202) 512-4841 or stated it will take several years to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of the [email protected]. JCL in improving cost and schedule estimating for its major projects. United States Government Accountability Office Contents Letter 1 Background 4 Observations on NASA’s Portfolio of Major Projects 13 Observations from Our Assessment of Knowledge Attained by Key Junctures in the Acquisition Process 18 Observations on Other Challenges That Can Affect Project Outcomes 27 Observations about NASA’s Continued Efforts to Improve Its Acquisition Management 35 Project Assessments 38 Aquarius 40 ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter (EMTGO) 42 Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) Mission 44 Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) 46 Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite-2 (ICESat-2) 48 James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) 50 Juno 52 Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM) 54 Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) 56 Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) 58 Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN (MAVEN) 60 Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) 62 NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP) 64 Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2) 66 Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) 68 Radiation Belt Storm Probes (RBSP) 70 Soil Moisture Active and Passive (SMAP) 72 Solar Probe Plus (SPP) 74 Space Launch System (SLS) 76 Stratospheric Observatory For Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) 78 Tracking and Data Relay Satellite (TDRS) Replenishment 80 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 82 Appendix I Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 86 Appendix II Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 89 Page i GAO-12-207SP Assessments of Selected Large-Scale Projects Appendix III Selected Major NASA Projects Reviewed in GAO’s Annual Assessments 97 Appendix IV Technology Readiness Levels 98 Appendix V Significant Accomplishments of Projects That Have Launched 100 Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 105 Tables Table 1: 21 Selected Major NASA Projects Reviewed in GAO’s 2012 Annual Assessment 9 Table 2: Development Cost and Schedule Growth of Selected Major NASA Projects Currently in the Implementation Phase 15 Table 3: Selected Major NASA Projects Reviewed in GAO’s Annual Assessments 97 Figures Figure 1: NASA’s Life Cycle for Flight Systems 7 Figure 2: Launch Date and Life-Cycle Cost for 15 Major NASA Projects in Implementation 11 Figure 3: JWST’s Cumulative Development Cost Growth Compared to the Total Life-Cycle Cost Estimates for Seven Selected Major NASA Projects 14 Figure 4: Percentage of Selected Major NASA Projects Meeting and Not Meeting Technology Maturity Criteria at Preliminary Design Review 20 Figure 5: Average Number of Critical Technologies Reported for Selected Major NASA Projects Reviewed from 2009 to 2012 22 Figure 6: Percentage of Engineering Drawings Releasable at CDR for Selected Major NASA Projects 24 Page ii GAO-12-207SP Assessments of Selected Large-Scale Projects Figure 7: Comparison of Design Drawings Increase for 20 Major NASA Projects That Have Held CDR prior to and since Fiscal Year 2009 26 Figure 8: Illustration of a Project’s 2-Page Summary 39 Abbreviations AFB Air Force Base AFS Air Force Station ASI Argenzia Spaciale Italiana (Italian Space Agency) ATLAS Advanced Topographic Laser Altimeter System CDDS Cavity Door Drive System CDR critical design review CONAE Comision Nacional de Actividades Espaciales (Space Agency of Argentina) CSA Canadian Space Agency DCI data collection instrument DPR dual-frequency precipitation radar DSN Deep Space Network DWSS Defense Weather Satellite System EDL entry, descent, and landing EEE electrical, electronic, and electromechanical EMTGO ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter ESA European Space Agency EVM earned value management FAA Federal Aviation Administration FORCAST Faint Object Infrared Camera for the SOFIA Telescope FPI Fast Plasma Investigation GLAST Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope GMI GPM microwave imager GPM Global Precipitation Measurement (mission) GPS Global Positioning System GRAIL Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory GREAT German Receiver for Astronomy at Terahertz Frequencies HEPS High Efficiency Power Supply HOPE Helium-Oxygen-Proton-Electron ICESat-2 Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite-2 IPO Integrated Program Office ISIM Integrated Science Instrument Module ISS International Space Station
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Gao-16-309Sp, Nasa
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees March 2016 NASA Assessments of Major Projects GAO-16-309SP March 2016 NASA Assessments of Major Projects Highlights of GAO-16-309SP, a report to congressional committees Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found This report provides GAO’s annual The cost and schedule performance of the National Aeronautics and Space snapshot of how well NASA is planning Administration’s (NASA) portfolio of major projects has improved over the past 5 and executing its major acquisition years, and most current projects are adhering to their committed cost and projects. In March 2015, GAO found schedule baselines. Over the last 2 years, eight projects in the portfolio that projects continued a general established cost and schedule baselines. As the figure below shows, as the positive trend of limiting cost and average age of the portfolio has decreased, the cost performance of the portfolio schedule growth, maturing has improved, because new projects are less likely to have experienced cost technologies, and stabilizing designs, growth. but that NASA faced several challenges that could affect its ability to Development Cost Performance of NASA’s Major Project Portfolio Has Improved as Average effectively manage its portfolio. Project Age Has Decreased The explanatory statement of the House Committee on Appropriations accompanying the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 included a provision for GAO to prepare project status reports on selected large-scale NASA programs, projects, and activities. This is GAO’s eighth annual assessment of NASA’s major projects. This report describes (1) the cost and schedule performance of NASA’s portfolio of major projects, (2) the maturity of technologies and stability of project designs at key milestones, and (3) NASA’s progress in implementing Note: GAO presents cost and schedule growth both including and excluding JWST because the initiatives to manage acquisition risk magnitude of JWST’s cost growth has historically masked the performance of the rest of the portfolio.
    [Show full text]
  • Ares I Upper Stage Powering the Second Phase of a Rocket’S Journey to Space
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA’s Ares I Upper Stage Powering the Second Phase of a Rocket’s Journey to Space Going to the moon and beyond will be a stunning Shortly after J-2X engine cutoff, the Orion cap- achievement and an enduring legacy to future sule will separate from the upper stage. Orion’s generations. Supporting the agency’s mission engine then will ignite to insert the capsule into to explore, learn and progress is NASA’s Ares I low-Earth orbit. The Ares I upper stage – dor- crew launch vehicle, an in-line, two-stage rocket. mant after safe shut-down of the J-2X upper The flagship of the Constellation Program’s space stage engine – will re-enter Earth’s atmosphere facts transportation system, the Ares I will carry the and splash down in the Indian Ocean. The upper Orion spacecraft and its crew on missions to the stage and J-2X engine will not be reused. International Space Station and then later on to the moon and beyond. Upper Stage Components The entire Ares I vehicle will be 325 feet tall, with Taking the Ares I on the second phase of its jour- a liftoff mass of 2.0 million pounds and payload ney from Earth will be the spacecraft’s second, capacity of 56,200 pounds mass to low Earth or upper, stage, powered by the J-2X engine. orbit for International Space Station missions, Approximately 133 seconds after liftoff, the Ares and 55,600 pounds mass for lunar missions. I upper stage will separate from the vehicle’s first A self-supporting cylindrical structure, the Ares stage, and the J-2X will ignite.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Earth Observation Data to Improve Health in the United States Accomplishments and Future Challenges
    a report of the csis technology and public policy program Using Earth Observation Data to Improve Health in the United States accomplishments and future challenges 1800 K Street, NW | Washington, DC 20006 Tel: (202) 887-0200 | Fax: (202) 775-3199 Author E-mail: [email protected] | Web: www.csis.org Lyn D. Wigbels September 2011 ISBN 978-0-89206-668-1 Ë|xHSKITCy066681zv*:+:!:+:! a report of the csis technology and public policy program Using Earth Observation Data to Improve Health in the United States accomplishments and future challenges Author Lyn D. Wigbels September 2011 About CSIS At a time of new global opportunities and challenges, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) provides strategic insights and bipartisan policy solutions to decisionmakers in government, international institutions, the private sector, and civil society. A bipartisan, nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, D.C., CSIS conducts research and analysis and devel- ops policy initiatives that look into the future and anticipate change. Founded by David M. Abshire and Admiral Arleigh Burke at the height of the Cold War, CSIS was dedicated to finding ways for America to sustain its prominence and prosperity as a force for good in the world. Since 1962, CSIS has grown to become one of the world’s preeminent international policy institutions, with more than 220 full-time staff and a large network of affiliated scholars focused on defense and security, regional stability, and transnational challenges ranging from energy and climate to global development and economic integration. Former U.S. senator Sam Nunn became chairman of the CSIS Board of Trustees in 1999, and John J.
    [Show full text]
  • Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter
    Chapter 6 Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Jim Taylor, Dennis K. Lee, and Shervin Shambayati 6.1 Mission Overview The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) [1, 2] has a suite of instruments making observations at Mars, and it provides data-relay services for Mars landers and rovers. MRO was launched on August 12, 2005. The orbiter successfully went into orbit around Mars on March 10, 2006 and began reducing its orbit altitude and circularizing the orbit in preparation for the science mission. The orbit changing was accomplished through a process called aerobraking, in preparation for the “science mission” starting in November 2006, followed by the “relay mission” starting in November 2008. MRO participated in the Mars Science Laboratory touchdown and surface mission that began in August 2012 (Chapter 7). MRO communications has operated in three different frequency bands: 1) Most telecom in both directions has been with the Deep Space Network (DSN) at X-band (~8 GHz), and this band will continue to provide operational commanding, telemetry transmission, and radiometric tracking. 2) During cruise, the functional characteristics of a separate Ka-band (~32 GHz) downlink system were verified in preparation for an operational demonstration during orbit operations. After a Ka-band hardware anomaly in cruise, the project has elected not to initiate the originally planned operational demonstration (with yet-to-be­ used redundant Ka-band hardware). 201 202 Chapter 6 3) A new-generation ultra-high frequency (UHF) (~400 MHz) system was verified with the Mars Exploration Rovers in preparation for the successful relay communications with the Phoenix lander in 2008 and the later Mars Science Laboratory relay operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Selection of the Insight Landing Site M. Golombek1, D. Kipp1, N
    Manuscript Click here to download Manuscript InSight Landing Site Paper v9 Rev.docx Click here to view linked References Selection of the InSight Landing Site M. Golombek1, D. Kipp1, N. Warner1,2, I. J. Daubar1, R. Fergason3, R. Kirk3, R. Beyer4, A. Huertas1, S. Piqueux1, N. E. Putzig5, B. A. Campbell6, G. A. Morgan6, C. Charalambous7, W. T. Pike7, K. Gwinner8, F. Calef1, D. Kass1, M. Mischna1, J. Ashley1, C. Bloom1,9, N. Wigton1,10, T. Hare3, C. Schwartz1, H. Gengl1, L. Redmond1,11, M. Trautman1,12, J. Sweeney2, C. Grima11, I. B. Smith5, E. Sklyanskiy1, M. Lisano1, J. Benardino1, S. Smrekar1, P. Lognonné13, W. B. Banerdt1 1Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109 2State University of New York at Geneseo, Department of Geological Sciences, 1 College Circle, Geneseo, NY 14454 3Astrogeology Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, 2255 N. Gemini Dr., Flagstaff, AZ 86001 4Sagan Center at the SETI Institute and NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035 5Southwest Research Institute, Boulder, CO 80302; Now at Planetary Science Institute, Lakewood, CO 80401 6Smithsonian Institution, NASM CEPS, 6th at Independence SW, Washington, DC, 20560 7Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Imperial College, South Kensington Campus, London 8German Aerospace Center (DLR), Institute of Planetary Research, 12489 Berlin, Germany 9Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA; Now at Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA 98926 10Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996 11Institute for Geophysics, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712 12MS GIS Program, University of Redlands, 1200 E. Colton Ave., Redlands, CA 92373-0999 13Institut Physique du Globe de Paris, Paris Cité, Université Paris Sorbonne, France Diderot Submitted to Space Science Reviews, Special InSight Issue v.
    [Show full text]
  • Gnc 2021 Abstract Book
    GNC 2021 ABSTRACT BOOK Contents GNC Posters ................................................................................................................................................... 7 Poster 01: A Software Defined Radio Galileo and GPS SW receiver for real-time on-board Navigation for space missions ................................................................................................................................................. 7 Poster 02: JUICE Navigation camera design .................................................................................................... 9 Poster 03: PRESENTATION AND PERFORMANCES OF MULTI-CONSTELLATION GNSS ORBITAL NAVIGATION LIBRARY BOLERO ........................................................................................................................................... 10 Poster 05: EROSS Project - GNC architecture design for autonomous robotic On-Orbit Servicing .............. 12 Poster 06: Performance assessment of a multispectral sensor for relative navigation ............................... 14 Poster 07: Validation of Astrix 1090A IMU for interplanetary and landing missions ................................... 16 Poster 08: High Performance Control System Architecture with an Output Regulation Theory-based Controller and Two-Stage Optimal Observer for the Fine Pointing of Large Scientific Satellites ................. 18 Poster 09: Development of High-Precision GPSR Applicable to GEO and GTO-to-GEO Transfer ................. 20 Poster 10: P4COM: ESA Pointing Error Engineering
    [Show full text]
  • The Messenger Spacecraft Power System Design and Early Mission Performance
    THE MESSENGER SPACECRAFT POWER SYSTEM DESIGN AND EARLY MISSION PERFORMANCE G. Dakermanji, C. Person, J. Jenkins, L. Kennedy, D. Temkin Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, 11100 Johns Hopkins Rd., Laurel, Maryland, 20723-6099, USA Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT The MESSENGER (MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry, and Ranging) spacecraft was launched on August 3, 2004. The spacecraft will be inserted into Mercury orbit in March 2011 for one year of orbital operation. During the mission, the spacecraft distance to the Sun will vary between approximately 1 and 0.3 Astronomical Units (AU), imposing severe requirements on the spacecraft thermal and power systems design. The spacecraft is maintained behind a sunshade. The two single-axis, gimbaled solar array panels are designed to withstand the expected high temperatures. A peak power tracking system has been selected to allow operation over the widely varying solar array I-V curves. In order to reduce cost and risk while increasing the likelihood of mission success, the approach taken in the power system design, including the solar arrays, was to use conventional design, materials, and fabrication techniques. 1. MISSION DESCRIPTION a. Launch Configuration Sunshade MESSENGER (MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry, and Ranging), shown in Fig. 1, is a Battery NASA Discovery Program spacecraft designed and built by the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL). It will orbit the planet Mercury for one Earth year of orbital operation. Most of what is known about Mercury comes from the Mariner 10 spacecraft. Using three flybys, Mariner 10 was able to map about 45% of the planet surface during a one-year period between 1974 and 1975.
    [Show full text]
  • Constellation Program Overview
    Constellation Program Overview October 2008 hris Culbert anager, Lunar Surface Systems Project Office ASA/Johnson Space Center Constellation Program EarthEarth DepartureDeparture OrionOrion -- StageStage CrewCrew ExplorationExploration VehicleVehicle AresAres VV -- HeavyHeavy LiftLift LaunchLaunch VehicleVehicle AltairAltair LunarLunar LanderLander AresAres II -- CrewCrew LaunchLaunch VehicleVehicle Lunar Capabilities Concept Review EstablishedEstablished Lunar Lunar Transportation Transportation EstablishEstablish Lunar Lunar Surface SurfaceArchitecturesArchitectures ArchitectureArchitecture Point Point of of Departure: Departure: StrategiesStrategies which: which: Satisfy NASA NGO’s to acceptable degree ProvidesProvides crew crew & & cargo cargo delivery delivery to to & & from from the the Satisfy NASA NGO’s to acceptable degree within acceptable schedule moonmoon within acceptable schedule Are consistent with capacity and capabilities ProvidesProvides capacity capacity and and ca capabilitiespabilities consistent consistent Are consistent with capacity and capabilities withwith candidate candidate surface surface architectures architectures ofof the the transportation transportation systems systems ProvidesProvides sufficient sufficient performance performance margins margins IncludeInclude set set of of options options fo for rvarious various prioritizations prioritizations of cost, schedule & risk RemainsRemains within within programmatic programmatic constraints constraints of cost, schedule & risk ResultsResults in in acceptable
    [Show full text]
  • Human Issues Related to Spacecraft Vibration During Ascent
    Human Issues related to Spacecraft Vibration during Ascent Consultant Report to the Constellation Program Standing Review Board Jonathan B. Clark M.D., M.P.H. Suite NA 425 One Baylor Plaza Baylor College of Medicine Houston TX 77030-3498 1731 Sunset Blvd Houston TX 77005 713 859 1381 281 989 8721 [email protected] [email protected] Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not reflect the views of the National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI), Baylor College of Medicine (BCM), the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), or the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Human Issues related to Spacecraft Vibration during Ascent Consultant Report to the Constellation Program Standing Review Board Jonathan B. Clark M.D., M.P.H. Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not reflect the views of the National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI), Baylor College of Medicine (BCM), the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), or the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Pogo in Liquid Fueled Rocket Motors The pogo phenomenon, or fuel pump inlet pressure fluctuation/ cavitation due to tuning feed line resonant frequencies was a major concern in the early space program. Pump tests showed that as inlet pressures were reduced toward cavitation, the pump started acting as an amplifier, causing large oscillations in the thrust chamber pressure. As the rocket engine thrust develops, liquid propellant is cyclically forced into the turbopump. This fluctuating fluid pressure is converted into an unintended and variable increase in engine thrust, with the net effect being longitudinal axis vibration that could result in spacecraft structural failure.
    [Show full text]
  • NASA's Ames Research Center
    NASA’s Ames Research Center NASA’s center in Silicon Valley Ames Research Center, one of 10 NASA fi eld Ames provides NASA with advancements in: centers, is located in California’s Silicon Valley. For more than 70 years, Ames has been a leader in Entry systems: Safely delivering spacecraft to conducting world-class research and development. Earth and other celestial bodies. Location: California’s Silicon Valley, 40 miles Supercomputing: Enabling NASA’s advanced south of San Francisco; 12 miles north of San modeling and simulation. Jose, between Mountain View and Sunnyvale Next generation air transportation: Transforming Jobs: Approximately 2,500 on-site employees and the way we fl y. contractors Airborne science: Examining our own world and Economic impact: $1.3B annually for the U.S.; beyond from the sky. $932M for California and $877M for Bay Area, creating more than 8,400 jobs in the U.S. with Low-cost missions: Enabling high value science 5,900 in California (2010 Economic Benefi ts to low Earth orbit and the moon. Study). Biology and astrobiology: Understanding life on Established: Dec. 20, 1939 as part of the National Earth -- and in space. Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA); became part of the National Aeronautics and Exoplanets: Finding worlds beyond our own. Space Administration (NASA) in 1958. Autonomy and robotics: Complementing Missions: Ames-related missions scheduled for humans in space. launch in 2013 include LADEE, PhoneSat, EDSN, EcAMSat, SporeSat and IRIS. Ames will launch Lunar science: Rediscovering our moon. several space biosciences payloads this year. The center is lead for the Mars Curiosity rover’s Human factors: Advancing human-technology Chemistry and Mineralogy (CheMin) instrument interaction for NASA missions.
    [Show full text]
  • LUNAR NETWORK TRACKING ARCHITECTURE for LUNAR FLIGHT Shane B
    LUNAR NETWORK TRACKING ARCHITECTURE FOR LUNAR FLIGHT Shane B. Robinson∗ A trade study was conducted with the objective of comparing and contrasting the radiometric naviga- tion performance provided by various architectures of lunar-based navigations assets. Architectures considered consist of a compliment of two beacons located on the lunar surface, and two orbiting bea- cons that provide range and range-rate measurements to the user. Configurations of these assets include both coplanar and linked constellations of frozen elliptic orbiters and halo orbiters. Each architecture was studied during the lunar-approach, lunar-orbit, and landing phases of a South Pole lunar sortie mis- sion. Navigation filter performance was evaluated on the basis of filter convergence latency, and the steady state uncertainty in the navigation solution. The sensitivity of the filter solution to Earth-based tracking augmentation and availability of range measurements was also studied. Filter performance was examined during the build up of the lunar-based navigation system by exploring different combi- nations of orbiting and surface-based assets. 1 INTRODUCTION The objective of the work outlined in this document is to conduct a parametric trade intended to evaluate some proposed constellations of moon-orbiting navigation and communication beacons. These orbiting beacons are intended to support the lunar missions of NASA’s Constellation program. This study is sponsored by the flight performance systems integration group at JPL (FPSIG), whose work is funded by the NASA Constellation program office. The work outlined in this report will focus on investigating lunar network aided navigation performance during near lunar phases of baseline missions proposed by the Constellation program.
    [Show full text]
  • GST Responses to “Questions to Inform Development of the National Plan”
    GST Responses to “Questions to Inform Development of the National Plan” Name (optional): Dr. Darrel Williams Position (optional): Chief Scientist, (240) 542-1106; [email protected] Institution (optional): Global Science & Technology, Inc. Greenbelt, Maryland 20770 Global Science & Technology, Inc. (GST) is pleased to provide the following answers as a contribution towards OSTP’s effort to develop a national plan for civil Earth observations. In our response we provide information to support three main themes: 1. There is strong science need for high temporal resolution of moderate spatial resolution satellite earth observation that can be achieved with cost effective, innovative new approaches. 2. Operational programs need to be designed to obtain sustained climate data records. Continuity of Earth observations can be achieved through more efficient and economical means. 3. We need programs to address the integration of remotely sensed data with in situ data. GST has carefully considered these important national Earth observation issues over the past few years and has submitted the following RFI responses: The USGS RFI on Landsat Data Continuity Concepts (April 2012), NASA’s Sustainable Land Imaging Architecture RFI (September 2013), and This USGEO RFI (November 2013) relative to OSTP’s efforts to develop a national plan for civil Earth observations. In addition to the above RFI responses, GST led the development of a mature, fully compliant flight mission concept in response to NASA’s Earth Venture-2 RFP in September 2011. Our capacity to address these critical national issues resides in GST’s considerable bench strength in Earth science understanding (Drs. Darrel Williams, DeWayne Cecil, Samuel Goward, and Dixon Butler) and in NASA systems engineering and senior management oversight (Drs.
    [Show full text]