Paper ID #16714

Concept of a Human-Attended Lunar Outpost

Mr. Thomas W. Arrington, Texas A&M University Thomas Arrington worked as the student Project Manager for the Human Attended Lunar Outpost senior design project for the the Department of Aerospace Engineering at Texas A&M University in College Station. He has interned with Boeing Research and Technology three times, and was an active member of the Texas A&M University Sounding Rocketry Team. Mr. Nicolas Federico Hurst, Texas A&M 2015 Capstone Design Spacecraft Nico Hurst is a student of Texas A&M University. He recently graduated from the Aerospace Engineering department with my bachelor’s of science and will be continuing his education with a master’s of science in finance. Mr. David B. Kanipe, Texas A&M University After receiving a BS in Aerospace Engineering in May 1970, followed by a MS in Aerospace Engineering in August 1971 from Texas A&M University, Mr. Kanipe accepted a position with NASA at the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston and began his professional career in November 1972. A month after his arrival at NASA, the last Apollo mission, Apollo 17, was launched. Obviously, that was exciting, but in terms of his career, the commencement of the Space Shuttle Program in November 1972 was to have far more impact. As a result, David was able to begin his career working on what he says was the most interesting and exciting project he could possibly imagine: the Space Shuttle. Over his career, David held successively influential management positions including Deputy Branch Chief of the Aerodynamics Branch in the Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Division, Chief of the GN&C Analysis and Design Branch, Deputy Chief of the Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Division, and for the final 10 years of his career, Chief of the Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Division in the Engineering Directorate at the Johnson Space Center. Dave retired from NASA at the end of 2010 after more than 38 years of service in the US Space Program. His career spanned numerous projects and programs, including both crewed and robotic spacecraft. After retiring from NASA, the Head of the Aerospace Engineering Department at Texas A&M University asked him to come to A&M as a Senior Lecturer to teach a Senior Capstone Design course focusing on Spacecraft Design. In September 2014 he became an Associate Professor of Practice in the Aerospace Engineering Department at Texas A&M. He began his fourth year of teaching at Texas A&M in September 2014. Joanna M. Schiefelbein , Texas A&M University Joanna M. Schiefelbein is a recent graduate of Texas A&M University with a Bachelor of Science in Aerospace Engineering. Looking forward to a career in the space industry, Joanna customized her degree by pursuing minors in mathematics and astrophysics, taking electives in rocket propulsion and human spaceflight operations, and by working in an astronomical instrumentation lab. While at Texas A&M, she was active in Aggie Aerospace Women in Engineering (AAWE), Texas A&M Ballroom Dance As- sociation (TAMBDA), and the local chapter of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). Joanna also received an Associate of Science in Engineering from South Texas College and is a member of Kappa Theta Epsilon and Phi Theta Kappa. Prof. David Charles Hyland, Texas A&M University Educated at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dr. Hyland served at the MIT Lincoln Labora- tory for 14 years until 1983. He then worked at the Harris Corporation as a Senior Scientist until 1996 at which time he joined the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, as Professor and Chairman of the Aerospace Department. He went to Texas A&M University in 2003 as Associate Vice Chancellor of Engineering, and Associate Dean. Dr. Hyland, is currently Royce E. Wisenbaker Chair of Engineering, Professor of Aerospace Engineering, and Adjunct Professor of Physics. Dr. Hyland’s current research interests in- clude nanotechnologies for power collection and transmission and quantum processes for novel distributed imaging systems.

c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 Human Attended Lunar Outpost HALO

Abstract This paper documents the impact on student education of a Capstone Design project in the Aerospace Engineering Department at Texas A&M University. The goal of this project was to not only design a lunar outpost suitable for supporting a permanent human presence on the moon, but also to produce a workable launch manifest to send the elements of the base to the moon, and develop construction processes that could be employed to actually build such a lunar base. The development of any extraterrestrial outpost is a complicated endeavor involving the integration of multiple disciplines. Those are the characteristics that made this project attractive as the basis for a capstone design experience. The capstone design series provides the students with valuable experience in their final undergraduate year by allowing them to participate in a team- oriented design project much like the world they will enter as professional engineers. To provide order to the organization and maximize the efficiency of performance, the fundamental principles and tools of Systems Engineering formed the foundation upon which the work was based. The students developed and refined the requirements, organized themselves into disciplinary teams, established milestone schedules, and developed a working structure focused on communication and accountability.

Introduction

The Capstone Design series is critical to the undergraduate engineering curriculum in terms of preparing the graduating students to more easily transition from the academic environment to the professional engineering environment. At Texas A&M there are three options available to students taking Capstone Design: 1) Aircraft Design, 2) Rocket Design, and 3) Spacecraft Design. While the stated objective of all Capstone Design courses is the design project, the pursuit of a successful design provides an invaluable opportunity for students to learn how to utilize the principles and tools of Systems Engineering to logically and systematically produce a coherent design. In addition, by applying these tools, the students learn: 1) to apply the technical skills they’ve been taught over the previous three years; 2) the power of teams and teamwork; and 3) the importance of communication skills. In most cases, the Capstone Design series is the last opportunity prior to graduation to impress upon the student the importance of these principles.

The Human Attended Lunar Outpost (HALO) was developed in the Aerospace Engineering Department at Texas A&M as a senior-level capstone design project in the area of Spacecraft Design. The class of 14 students began the design process in January 2015 and concluded in December 2015. During this period, the team participated in a preliminary design review (PDR) in May, a faculty review in November, and a critical design review (CDR) in December. Both the PDR and the CDR are presented to faculty and industry experts who ask questions of the team and grade their efforts according to ABET principles.

As mentioned earlier, the work reported herein was conducted in the domain of Spacecraft Design. The challenge of Spacecraft Design is that several of the technologies required to design a credible spacecraft system are typically not covered in detail in the basic aerospace engineering curriculum. This includes disciplines such as telecommunications and antenna design, power generation and distribution, command and data handling, and regenerative life support. This becomes a benefit, however, not a handicap. The professor includes lectures covering the technical fundamentals and applications of these disciplines; but the student teams must perform additional literature research into the details as they apply to the project design. The professor also provides relevant reference material and, when possible, invites subject-matter experts to be guest lecturers in class and answer student questions. Fortunately, most students eagerly embrace the challenge of investigating a new technology and learning to apply that knowledge to the project. As a result, this activity provides a tangible example of the necessity for life-long learning as required by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET): General Criterion 3(i).

In the process of accreditation, ABET assesses the degree to which a university curriculum satisfies its published outcomes. As mentioned above, Capstone Design classes provide an excellent laboratory for learning to use the principles and tools of Systems Engineering. If developed properly, the Capstone Design series of courses can satisfy a significant number of the ABET Student Outcomes. The Student Outcomes, Program Outcomes, and Assessment Methods and relevant to the Capstone Design class discussed in this document can be found below in Table 1. The ABET Criterion 3 Student Outcomes referred to in Table 1 can be found in Appendix A.

Table 1 ABET Student Outcomes Relevant to Capstone Design: Spacecraft

ABET Program Outcomes Assessment Method Student Outcomes 3(c), Understand the basic Systems Class project, homework, 3(i), 3(k) Engineering processes and how quizzes, mid-term written report, they apply to spacecraft design faculty review board, and end-of- term design review board 3(a), Apply technical skills learned in the Class project, homework, 3(c), undergraduate curricula to real- quizzes, oral status reports, mid- 3(e), world problems. term written report, faculty 3(PC2), review board, and end-of-term 3(PC3), design review board 3(PC4), 3(PC5) 3(d), Successfully function in a Class project, oral status reports, mid- 3(g) controlled team environment for a semester written report, faculty review sustained length of time during board, and end-of-semester design review which students will participate on board cross-discipline teams in which clear communication and cooperation are imperative

3(d) Experience dealing with the Team design meetings, oral team reports, positives and negatives of personal mid-semester written report, faculty interactions review board, and end-of-semester design review board 3(f), Understand how non-technical Class project, mid- semester written 3(h), 3(j), design drivers such as cost, safety, report, faculty review board, and end-of- 3(i) federal regulations, schedules, and semester design review board federal budget constraints affect design efficiency and cost. 3(g) Improved communication skills Class project, oral status reports, mid- semester written report, faculty review board, and end-of-semester design review board 3(c), Experience in the definition of the Class project, homework, 3(e), 3(k) technical issues involved in quizzes, mid-term written report, spacecraft mission design and the faculty review board, and end-of- assessment of the comparative term design review board effects on spacecraft design, schedule, and cost

3(c), 3(k) Ability to explain the basic Class project, quizzes, mid-term technical issues involved in written report, faculty review spacecraft fabrication and testing board, and end-of-term design review board

3(k) Understanding and utilization of the Class project, homework, basic industry standard design and quizzes, mid-term written report, review procedures as practiced by faculty review board, and end-of- NASA and the Air Force term design review board

3(b) Application of sound testing Class project, experimentation, principles to conduct simple, mid-term written report, faculty small scale experiments in order to review board, and end-of-term prove a concept, substantiate design review board analysis, or investigate an unknown phenomenon and then analyze and interpret the resulting test data

Project Initiation To begin the design process, the students in the Capstone Design class were given a Statement of Work (SOW) that described both the proposed mission and the expected scope of the resulting lunar facility. In fact, the project had been a relatively brief class project in a previous class, Aero 426, during the fall semester. The previous class only had six to seven weeks to produce a design. It should be noted, however, that they did a very credible job considering the amount of time allotted to them. Using the SOW and the previous results as a starting point, the students began by organizing themselves into cross-discipline teams. Since the class consisted of only 14 students, the membership of each team was fairly limited. In addition, two students volunteered to serve in the critical positions of Project Manager (PM) and Deputy Project Manager (DPM). As a result, several students served on more than one team. Even though the class was relatively small, the PM and DPM roles could not be minimized. The PM is responsible for the overall management and integration of the teams. Even though the PM is a peer, he/she must act as an authority. In general, this has not been a problem because the teams quickly recognize the benefit of the PM provides. The DPM is a backup for the PM, but he/she also provides the configuration management for the project. The organization is shown below in Figure 1.

HALO Project Manager

Deputy Project Manager

Communications, Architecture Construction Electrical Power Life Support Command & Robotics Control

Figure 1. HALO Organization

Assumptions

For the purposes of this project, the Space Launch System (SLS) is assumed to be operational. Without the SLS, or some other launch vehicle capable of delivering large payloads to the lunar surface, it will be extremely difficult to develop a viable human tended facility on the moon. Likewise, it is assumed that the water ice trapped in the lunar regolith is at a constant concentration across the crater surface. The value of this concentration is taken from estimates by lunar observations conducted by NASA.. Several assumptions were made regarding the

Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of certain vital technologies; however, all of the technologies implemented in the HALO project were laboratory tested and most were tested in an environment similar to the lunar surface. Only a few of the technologies have seen testing in orbit. The construction of the base will require the use of precursor robots to prepare the base site and perform the vast majority of the construction prior to human presence. Toward this end, NASA has launched the Lunar Precursor Robotic Program to gather environmental data on potential construction sites and assess local resources. The initial mission in this program, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), was launched on June 18, 2009. The radiation protection utilized in the paper is consistent with current technology. It is assumed to be sufficient, but in reality, the technology of radiation mitigation must become more effective to ensure that human exposure in the environment of space can be minimized.

Design Process Following the selection of teams, the students began the process of writing the requirements for the mission. This included the high level requirements found in the SOW as well as any derived requirements that became apparent as they began to formulate their early designs (see Appendix B for a list of the major driving requirements). They were also required to develop a work breakdown structure (WBS) and a Gantt chart to track progress for each team (see Figures 2 and 3). Creating a WBS forces each team to think about the scope of their responsibilities and apportion the work into manageable blocks for each team member and the Gantt chart. In addition, having a published document that spells out who is responsible for what promotes accountability. Initially, students are usually uncertain as to how to begin; but they adapt quickly and ultimately demonstrate the spiral development process. It is a much more powerful learning experience to be personally involved in the process and see it at work.

Figure 2. Work Breakdown Structure

Figure 3. Example Team Schedule

The class is scheduled with four 75-minute meetings per week. Once the basics of systems engineering are explained and the primary tools are demonstrated, the teams use two of the weekly class times for team meetings. The other two weekly meetings are reserved for lectures and team reports. The team reports are especially important because each team reports to the class on its progress, proposals, and what they need from the other teams (or the professor). The class audience is allowed to ask questions of the other teams during their presentation (in a civil manner). As they became more involved in the design of the lunar outpost, they began to become comfortable with their responsibility for communication and interaction between teams and the occasional restrictions of the requirements. As the design progressed, each team found that it had to find ways to adjust to the ever-changing design. For example, the Robotics Team had a problem with recharging the robots that composed the initial construction crew of the base prior to human habitation. The team was concerned about the potential for dust contamination of the physical connections that are required for recharging the robot batteries. In response, the Power

Team found that wireless transfer of electricity is possible over short distances and developed a wireless charging station for the robots. The Architecture and Construction teams changed the layout and configuration of the outpost several times, which affected all teams (see Figure 4). In the beginning of the design cycle, some students may have thought that their first design would be the final product. By mid-semester as everyone began to see the interdependencies of the systems, it became clear that any large system is a bundle of comprises within each subsystem.

Figure 4a. Initial HALO Layout

Figure 4b. HALO Secondary Layout

Figure 4c. Intermediate Station Layout

Figure 4d. Final Station Layout

One other analysis that is not often discussed at the university level is the failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA). For HALO, the major risks of every subsystem were analyzed and documented in a project-wide FMEA chart. A sample FMEA chart is shown below in Table 2. Table 2. Example Failure Modes and Effects Analysis

FEVER COMPONENT CAUSE OF FAILURE CRITICALITY LIKELIHOOD # COMPONENT NAME COMPONENT FUNCTION FAILURE MODE CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE MITIGATION REMARKS CHART # DESCRIPTION MODE OF FAILURE Arch/EPS A 1 1a Nuclear power supply Nuclear Reactor Power Source Leak Meteor Impacts Loss of Power HIGH Regolith Protection 1b Fuel Rod Failure Installation Oversite Loss of Power MEDIUM Replacement Rods 1c Overheat Coolant Leakage Core Failure HIGH Replace Coolants 2a Airlocks Airlocks Electrical Dust Safety Concerns LOW-MED Dust Mitigation 2b Manufacturing Critical Safety Issue MED-HIGH Inspection Electrical (Due to B 1 3 Emergency Escape Escape Dome Cover Protection for Vehicle Fail Open Escape Delay/Impossible HIGH Redundancy Fires or Other) Inadequate Life 4a Escape Vehicle Leaving the Moon Base Poor Planning Potential Death MED Redundancy Support 4b Damage Debris Components Failure LOW Protection Radiation and Meteorite 5a Shell Pod Shell Puncture Meteorites Loss of Pod Pressure LOW Patching Crew Protection 5b Debris Loss of Pod Pressure LOW Protection

Based on the system-wide FMEA evaluation, Risk Characterization charts were constructed to the weigh consequences and likelihoods of the more dangerous or threatening risks. Among these, the most hazardous risks were tabulated in a report very similar to the NASA Standard HDBK-8739.18 format. These reports document problem analyses and resolution plans, which are more in-depth than the overarching FMEA chart. An example of such a report is shown below in Table 2. The major benefit of performing a FMEA is that it encourages an in depth assessment of each subsystem which leads to an improved knowledge of subsystem components as well as their potential failure modes.

Table 3. – Example Risk Report

Problem Regolith deposition during water-ice accumulation

Category Life Support Systems

Problem Level High-Probability

Problem Long-Term Consequence

Problem Analysis Due to the closeness of the cold plate during water extraction, there is considerable probability that regolith could be captured by the cooling water and trapped in the ice. This could result in regolith entering the habitat’s water system causing erosion and health concerns.

Resolution Plan Water filters to extract regolith particles; easy access to water piping in order to complete repairs.

Success Metric Suitable repair methods

By the end of the first semester the design began to settle down. Changes became fewer and less dramatic. This allowed the management team to create a proposed launch schedule and manifest that would send the necessary equipment and materials to the crater location to support the construction of HALO. The ultimate launch schedule is shown below in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Graphical launch schedule and timeline

Conclusions

This was admittedly a very ambitious project, especially for a relatively small number of students. It did, however, provide an excellent subject for the exercise of System Engineering tools and principles and addressing many ABET student outcomes. The first few weeks of class are spent in the explanation of systems engineering, project management, requirements, and the use of concepts like work breakdown structure and Gantt charts. All of these concepts are in everyday use throughout industry. Once the design process began, the class realized that the sheer size and scope of the project required a systems engineering process in order to be able to maintain control of the design process. Each team created a Gantt chart (Fig 3) and the management team used those schedules to create a project-wide chart. All design related documents were numbered and placed in DropBox so they were available to everyone. As the design matured, the teams performed failure modes and effects analysis on their systems, which ultimately became input to a risk analysis. While the team utilized Gantt charts and WBS to facilitate the development of HALO, the impact of these exercises stretched much deeper. The development of Gantt charts as well as WBS gave the students the methodology to formulate a solution to an otherwise vastly new and unknown project. This experience of breaking down a large project, scheduling and maintaining deadlines, and reworking various task assignments to account for changes and anomalies can be referred upon in many of the students’ career choices. A major lesson learned during the course of this project, which is hardly expressed in regular academic work, was the dealings with third party companies. The team experienced many delays with the delivery of JSC-1 (a lunar regolith simulant) that was needed for various experiments. This delay pushed back many decisions and much work that was reliant on the completion of these experiments, leading to a time crunch once the simulant finally arrived and the omission of a few experimental results. In a future endeavor, it may be wise to work on acquiring necessary materials early to allow for these delays. A cost analysis of this project was not conducted due to the necessary technological advances of unknown resolution that would have to occur to make such a station viable. It was determined that any attempt to assign a cost to these advances would be extremely difficult and highly inaccurate. As mentioned previously, the teams were allowed to use two class periods a week to meet and work on their designs. These periods were also useful for cross-team communication. In addition to regular class times, the PM called for meetings at other times when it was necessary. Clearly, communication was a high priority. The exciting opportunity that Capstone Design offers is not only to learn about Systems Engineering and the associated concepts and tools; but the opportunity to actually use these tools and concepts in a project that simulates a real world situation. Everything learned in class will be encountered in the real world. Capstone Design provides a valuable opportunity for students to become familiar with and use the principles and vocabulary of Systems Engineering before

graduation. This outcome is endorsed by ABET and has become an attribute industry expects engineering graduates to exhibit.

References 1. O’Neill, Gerard. The High Frontier, Human Colonies in Space. William Morrow and Company, Inc. New York 1977 2. Heppenheimer, T. A. Colonies in Space. Stackpole Books. Harrisburg, PA. 1977. 3. Marshall Space Flight Center, “Space Launch System,” https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SLS-Fact-Sheet_aug2014-finalv3.pdf, 2015, (Accessed October 2015). 4. Congress of the United States Congressional Budget Office, “Alternatives for Future U.S. Space-Launch Capabilities,” https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/109th-congress- 2005-2006/reports/10-09-spacelaunch.pdf, 2006, (Accessed September 2015). 5. Encyclopedia Astronautica, “RL-10A-4-2,” http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rl10a42.htm, (Accessed October 2015). 6. WiTricity Corporation, “WiTricity – The Basics,” http://witricity.com/technology/witricity-the-basics/, (Accessed February 2015). 7. D. Ben J. Bussey, Kirsten E. Fristad, Paul M. Schenk, Mark S. Robinson and Paul D. Spudis, “Planetary science: Constant illumination at the lunar north pole,” Nature, 434, 842, April 2005. 8. NASA Goddard Space Center, “Peary Crater,” http://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/lola/feature20110228.html, 2011, (Accessed February 2015). 9. David T. Smith, Maria T. Zuber, Gregory A. Neumann, Erwan Mazarico, and LOLA Science Team, “LRO-LOLA: Measurements of Lunar Altimetry and Surface Conditions,” http://www.iki.rssi.ru/conf/2011- lg/presentations/2_DAY/20110226_Smith%28GSFC%29.pdf, 2011, (Accessed February 2015). 10. V. C. Cox, P. B. Paulus, and G. McCain, “Prison Crowding Research - The Relevance for Prison Housing Standards and a General Approach Regarding Crowding Phenomena, American Psychologist, vol. 39, no. 10, October 1984. 11. NASA Science News., “A New Paradigm for Lunar Orbits,” http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/30nov_highorbit/, 2006, (Accessed April 2015). 12. David I. Poston, “The Heatpipe-Operated Mars Exploration Reactor (HOMER),” http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/766062, 2000, (Accessed September 2015). 13. Taylor, Lawrence A., and Thomas T. Meek. "Microwave Sintering of Lunar Soil: Properties, Theory, and Practice." J. Aerosp. Eng. Journal of Aerospace Engineering 18.3 (2005): 188-96. Web. 14. “Microwaving Water from Moondust – NASA Science.” NASA, n.d. Web. 30 Jan. 2016 15. Lane, Helen W. Isolation, NASA Experiments in Closed Environment Living: Advanced Human Life Support Enclosed System Final Report. San Diego, CA: Univelt, 2001. Print.

16. "Nutrition and Healthy Eating." Water: How Much Should You Drink Every Day? N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Jan. 2016. 17. . (NASA Standards website is currently down) 18. . Clowdsley M, Nealy J, Wilson J, Anderson B, Anderson M, Krizan S. Radiation protection for Lunar mission scenarios. In: Proceedings of AIAA Space 2005 Conference. Long Beach, California; 30 August–1 September 2005. 19. NASA. "Closing the Loop - Recycling Water and Air in Space." Food and Package Engineering Morris/Food and Package Engineering(2011): 405-31. Web. 14 Mar. 2015.

Appendix A. ABET General Criterion 3. Student Outcomes

(a) https://www.dropbox.com/s/w7hcvopucvw9b0n/halo%20asee%20rework.docx?dl=0 An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering

(b) An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data

(c) An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability

(d) An ability to function on multidisciplinary teams

(e) An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems

(f) An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility

(g) An ability to communicate effectively

(h) The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context

(i) A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning

(j) A knowledge of contemporary issues

(k) An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

Appendix B Driving Requirements

# Title Description Source 0.1 Feasiblility Final results shall include an assessment of the overall feasibility of establishing an autonomous, self-sustaining Lunar Station with today's technology. SoW Sec. 1.0 0.2 Most Vexing Problems Final results shall include an estimation of the most vexing problems hindering success and the technical advances required to solve them SoW Sec. 1.0 1.1 Initial Amount of Material The mass of materials sent to the moon for construction and operation of the Lunar Station shall not exceed TBS kg SoW Sec. 3.1 1.2 Fail Safe All critical subsystems shall be two-fault tolerant SoW Sec 3.1.10 1.3 Health and Wellbeing The Lunar Station shall provide the infrastructure necessary to maintain the health and wellbeing, both physical and psychological, of eight (8) human crewmembers SoW Sec 3.3 1.4 Autonomy The Lunar Station shall be capable of indefinite and autonomous self-sustaining operation SoW Sec 3.4 2.1 Project Oversight The Project Manager shall maintain oversight of all Project activities SoW Sec 4.1.1.1 2.2 The Project Manager shall manage technical, schedule, and cost of the project SoW Sec 4.1.1.2 2.3 Risk The Project Manager shall manage and control project risk SoW Sec 4.1.1.3 2.4 Progress Report The Project Manager shall report on project status as required by the customer SoW Sec 4.1.1.4 3.1 Systems Engineering The Deputy Project Manager shall manage the Systems Engineering process SoW Sec 4.1.2.1 3.2 Config Control The Deputy Project Manager shall control the Configuration Management process SoW Sec 4.1.2.2 3.3 WBS The Deputy Project Manager shall manage and maintain the project level Work Breakdown Structure SoW Sec 4.1.2.3 3.4 Work Schedule The Deputy Project Manager shall manage and maintain the project level work schedule SoW Sec 4.1.2.4 3.5 Status Report The Deputy Project Manager shall report on status as required by the customer SoW Sec 4.1.2.5 4.1 Documentation The subsystem teams shall Document all research and technology references SoW Sec 4.1.3.1 4.2 Team Reports The subsystem teams shall provide status reports as required by the customer SoW Sec 4.1.3.2 4.3 The subsystem teams shall maintain documentation consistent with that prescribed by the Deputy Project Manager SoW Sec 4.1.3.3 5.1 Station Layout The Architecture Team shall design the station configuration and layout Sow Sec 4.2.1 5.2 Material Comp. The Architecture Team shall determine the mix of in situ and earth-origin resources/materials required to construct the Lunar Station SoW Sec 4.2.2 5.3 Ingress/Egress The Lunar Station living, working, and food production areas shall have TBD entry systems and associated airlocks for crew ingress and egress SoW Sec 4.2.3 5.4 Launch Facility A launch facility shall be designed that can support the launch of 5000 kg of payload to rendezvous at Lagrange Point 1 or 2 SoW Sec 4.2.4 5.5 Launch facility shall be located TBD km from the outer boundary of the Lunar Station SoW Sec 4.2.4.1 5.6 A Landing pad shall be provided that shall have a land able surface area of no less than 3000 m^2 SoW Sec 4.2.5 5.7 Launch Facility shall be located TBD km from the outer boundary of the Lunar Station (Redundant) SoW Sec 4.2.5.1 5.8 Proposals shall include a preliminary design and feasibility analysis SoW Sec 4.2.5.2 6.1 In situ resources shall be utilized to build and enhance the physical structure of the Lunar Station SoW Sec 4.3.1 6.2 Measures shall be taken to minimize the presence of regolith dust in a non-conditioned area encompassing 8000 m^2, around and including the Lunar Station itself SoW Sec 4.3.2 6.3 Measures shall be implemented to block the introduction of regolith dust into the living, working, and good production areas of the Lunar Station SoW Sec 4.3.3 6.4 The Structures and Mechanics team shall produce a complete structural analysis model SoW Sec 4.3.4 6.5 The Lunar Station living areas and food production areas shall provide protection from impact of micrometeorites of a size up to and including 6.5mm SoW Sec 4.3.5 6.6 The Lunar Station living areas and food production areas shall provide routine protection from cosmic galactic radiation (CGR) as well as emergency shelter from Solar Particle Events (SPEs) SoW Sec 4.3.6 6.7 The Lunar Station living areas and food production areas shall be sealed against lunar regolith particles 1.0 micron and larger SoW Sec 4.3.7 7.1 The Regenerative Life Support System shall provide for the continuous health and wellbeing of the crew SoW Sec 4.4.1 7.2 The living quarters, work areas, and food production areas shall be maintained within 66-74 degrees F SoW Sec 4.4.2 7.3 The atmosphere within habitable quarters shall be maintained at an air pressure of TBD psi (+/- 0.5 PSI) SoW Sec 4.4.3 7.4 The partial pessure compostition of Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon Dioxide, and water vapor shall be maintained at TBD percentiles SoW Sec 4.4.4 7.5 A nutrition plan, including a variety of foods capable of maintaining optimum human health, shall be developed SoW Sec 4.4.5 7.6 A self-sustaining agricultural system for the cultivation and growth of food shall be designed. SoW Sec 4.4.6 7.6.1 The agricultural system shall require TBD m^3 of volume SoW Sec 4.4.6.1 7.6.2 The agricultural system shall require a maximum of TBD liters of water per day SoW Sec 4.4.6.2 7.6.3 The agricultural system shall utilize a maximum of TBD watts per day SoW Sec 4.4.6.3 7.6.4 The agricultural system shall utilize a maximum of TBD LED light units SoW Sec 4.4.6.4 7.7 Water and air shall be recycled SoW Sec 4.4.7 7.8 Waste products (human and other) shall be recycled where possible and discarded or destroyed if necessary SoW Sec 4.4.8 7.9 All habitable areas of the Lunar Station shall be protected from (GCR) SoW Sec 4.4.9 7.10 Emergency shelter shall be provided to protect the crew from (SPE) SoW Sec 4.4.10 7.11 Radiation exposure shall be monitered continuously SoW Sec 4.4.11 7.12 Measures shall be implemented to limit individual crew annual exposure from all radiation sources to TBD Sv/yr SoW Sec 4.4.12 7.13 Various forms of entertainment and diversion shall be provided to enhance the crew's psychological well-being SoW Sec 4.4.13 7.14 The habitable volume allotted for each crewmember shall be TBD m^3 SoW Sec 4.4.15 7.15 Storage volume for a crew of eight (8) including food, spares, and personal storage shall be TBD m^3 SoW Sec 4.4.16 7.16 TBD grams of protein shall be included in the daily diet of the crew SoW Sec 4.4.17 7.17 Excess heat load shall be rejected to space SoW Sec 4.3.8 8.1 All viable sources of electric power shall be considered SoW Sec 4.5.1 8.2 Power production shall support all systems operating simultaneously SoW Sec 4.5.2 8.3 The power distribution shall be two fault tolerant SoW Sec 4.5.3 9.1 Robotic assistants shall be utilized in the construction of the Station SoW Sec 4.6.2 9.2 As a mitigation of regolith dust, a robotic machine shall be utilized to harden no fewer than 8000 m^3 of the lunar surface around the Station including the immediate area around the habitats as well as other areas constituting common paths SoW Sec 4.6.3 9.3 An autonomous robotic system shall be designed to extract water from known lunar water ice reservoirs, process it to make it potable, and deliver it to the Lunar Station SoW Sec 4.6.4 9.4 The robotic complement shall also include a Lunar Mobility Vehicle for forays greater than 0.5 km from the station SoW Sec 4.6.5 10.1 Intra-station communication shall be available continuously while the station is inhabited SoW Sec 4.7.1 10.2 The communication system shall also be capable of communication with the earth ground station, incoming or outgoing spacecraft, and other vehicles on the lunar surface (as line-of-sight allows) SoW Sec 4.7.2 10.3 All critical environmental systems of the Lunar Station itself shall be continuously monitored and controlled while th estation is inhabited. SoW Sec 4.7.3 10.4 All critical data emanating from the health monitors worn by the crew shall be continuously monitored by the C & C system SoW Sec 4.7.4 10.5 The Command and Control Center broadcasting capability shall include alerts SoW Sec 4.7.5.1 10.6 The Command and Control Center broadcasting capability shall include warnings SoW Sec 4.7.5.2 10.7 The Command and Control Center broadcasting capability shall include emergency evacuation SoW Sec 4.7.5.3 10.8 The Command and Control Center broadcasting capability shall include instructions SoW Sec 4.7.5.4 10.9 The Command and Control System shall be able to be interrogated by any crew member at any time SoW Sec 4.7.6 10.10 Frequent and regular contact with friends and family shall be provided to the crew SoW Sec 4.4.14 10.11 I-S Coms The Lunar Station shall provide Inter-Station Communications SoW Sec 3.4.2.1 10.12 L-E Coms The Lunar Station shall provide Lunar-Earth Communications SoW Sec 3.4.2.2 10.13 L-I Coms The Lunar Station shall provide Lunar-Interstellar Communications Sow Sec 3.4.2.3 10.14 L-L Coms The Lunar Station shall provide Lunar-Lunar Communications Sow Sec 3.4.2.4