NASA JSC Mission Design NASA/KARI F2F October 25-26, 2016

Home , First Lunar Outpost, Magnum (rocket)

Gerald Condon / EG5 281-483-8173 / 832-221-7306 gerald.l.condon@nasa.gov

Frank Monahan / EG5 281-244-7173 [email protected]

Flight Mechanics and Trajectory Design Branch Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Division Engineering DirectorateJohnson Space Center NASA / Johnson Space Center 1 Outline

• JSC / EG5 Capabilities • Software Tools – Copernicus • Video • Overview • Mission Examples – General • Lunar and Cislunar Mission Examples • Constellation • MARE • EM-1 • EM-2 • Other –Station keeping Moon, NRO, Project M

Johnson Space Center 2 Outline

Johnson Space Center 3 JSC Flight Mechanics and Trajectory Design Branch (EG5)

Flight Mechanics and Trajectory Design Branch Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Division Engineering DirectorateJohnson Space Center NASA / Johnson Space Center Charter

The Flight Mechanics and Trajectory Design Branch (EG5) is responsible for the design and evaluation of reference trajectories and flight vehicle performance capabilities for all missions assigned to JSCJohnson Space Center 5 Flight Mechanics and Trajectory Design Roles

Program/Project Directives Vehicle Designs and Subsystem and Technology • Destinations; Missions Performance Capabilities Impacts • Requirements; Resources

Structures Propulsion Thermal PS Aero Power Avionics Mission Systems Software Analyses Design(s)

Examples from Flight Mechanics GN&C Design Flight Environments Technology Needs Flight Testing Design and Evaluation Johnson Space Center 6 Flight Mechanics and Trajectory Design Roles

• Design/development of mission design and associated trajectories for all flight phases of a space mission, including: • Ascent/Orbit/Rendezvous/Interplanetary/Entry/ Aerocapture/Terminal Descent • Integrated Design Reference Missions • Conceptual Flight Profiles • Flight Performance Envelopes and Corridors • Windows – Launch; De-orbit (including Phasing); Trans-lunar and Trans-Mars Injections • Vehicle Capability Evaluations and Requirements • Preliminary GN&C Algorithms and Architectures • Parachute/Parafoil System Design and Performance • Entry Demise and Debris Predictions • Optimal Performance Analysis • Loads and Dynamics Design for Human Rating • Trajectory/Vehicle /Flight Mechanics Visualization • Software tool development

Johnson Space Center 7 Flight Mechanics and Trajectory Design Roles

Surface Coverage vs Mission Delta-V Assessment of Lunar Surface Coverage vs Mission DV For Selected Epoch Coverage Assumptions: Full Coazimuth Return Convert prop to dry mass (lbm) > 2000 1500 1000 500 4648 ft/s 5003 ft/s Vehicle Equivalent V (m/s) > (1220) (1268) (1317) (1366) 1417 m/s 1525 m/s 100 99.8%99.8% 97%

AssumptionsAssumptions 90 AssumptionsAssumptions --DVDV driverdriver configurationconfiguration 87.4%87.4% --FullFull coazimuthcoazimuth usedused forfor eacheach 80 --136136 hrhr returnreturn (TEI(TEI--11 toto --ForFor 606606 POD:POD: 74% EI)EI) NominalNominal returnreturn withwith fullfull Capability 70 coazimuth driver --SharedShared internalinternal VV coazimuth driver budgetbudget ----ForFor prop/massprop/mass swap:swap: - All major maneuvers 60 AuxilliaryAuxilliaryengineengine - All major maneuvers backup driver - Dispersions not backup driver 56.3%56.3% - Dispersions not appliedapplied 50 --LoiterLoiter usedused toto increaseincrease coveragecoverage (up(up toto 21.121.1 daysdays CEVCEV Evaluations and 40 activeactive lifetimelifetime 100% Temporal Availability 95% Temporal Availability 30 90 % Temporal Availability 80% Temporal Availability Surface Coverage (percent) Coverage Surface 20 60% Temporal Availability Requirements 10 606 POD 606 POD Tank Loading Tank Sizing 0 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 Mission DV Budget (m/s) 3609 3937 4265 4593 4921 5249 Mission DV Budget (ft/s)

NOTE: Possibility of relaxing the 200 nm boundary for Canada and Mexico exists, but that requires approval at the highest level and may not be appropriate for nominal operations.

Moses Lake, WA

For

Big Sand Gap, OR ascending approaches:

Redmond, OR 0.3 L/D => Catlow Valley, OR Salt Water two sites Springs, NV

Graves Valley, CA Carson Flats, NV 0.35 L/D => eight sites 25 nm / 200 nm coastal boundary 0.3 L/D => 230 nm toe to LS Edwards AFB, CA 0.4 L/D => 0.35 L/D => 370 nm toe to LS eight sites 0.4 L/D => 530 nm toe to LS Groundtrack thru Edwards 530 nm

Johnson Space Center 1 8 Flight Mechanics and Trajectory Design Roles

Preliminary GN&C Architectures & Algorithms

1 Lunar Lander Vehicle (LLV) 2 Certified Landing Area An area mission planners have chosen Landing Target which they believe has a high The a priori designated point that a probability of containing at least one mission planner would like the LLV safe Landing Aim Point and is worthy to touchdown at or near. A of exploration. designated area around this landing 6 target (flag) is the known as the Intended Landing Point Landing Site by ALHAT. The selected Landing Aim Point chosen from a prioritized list of candidate LAPs.

7 A Landing Location Actual point on the lunar surface where the LLV eventually touches down.

5 Tye Brady 4 Draper Laboratory Landing Aim Point Release 1.1 A surface relative position free of Landing Scan Area hazards, identified within the The portion of the lunar surface that is 3 Landing Scan Area. scanned for hazards by the onboard LLV Landing Site hazard detection system. Scan occurs A 90m (3 sigma) radial area that near the start of the approach trajectory surrounds the Landing Target and activity at a slant range of 500m to 2km also has a high probability of LANDING TERMS from the Landing Target. Scan area is containing at least one safe Landing smaller than 90m radius to ensure Aim Point. Johnson Spaceprecision Centergoals are met. 9 Core Strengths

• Collaborative systems engineering approach to mission, trajectory, and vehicle designs Orbital Mechanics • Optimal trajectory designs for atmospheric and Flight Mechanics exo-atmospheric flight Dynamics • Terminal descent systems design and dynamics Optimization • Guidance algorithm development Flight Testing Systems Engineering • Corridors formulation based on multiple systems constraints • Monte Carlo evaluation of guided trajectories

Direct With Flyby

E a r t L h 1 M o L H o 2 n a 10 l Johnson Space Center o Analysis Tools

• Ascent/Entry/Aerocapture/ Powered • Interplanetary Descent – Copernicus – 3 DOF – SORT & POST – Optimization to any destination – 3 DOF - 6 DOF – Low thrust/High thrust – Monte Carlo – Multi-body – Optimization w/ GN&C – Patched conic to Fully integrated – Antares – 6 DOF w/ GN&C – Mission Assessment Post-Processor (MAPP) – Monte Carlo – Trajectory design scanning and mission planner – Ares/Orion – Multi-body • Entry Debris – FAST – Simulation for Prediction of Entry Article – 3 - 6 DOF w/ GN&C Demise (SPEAD) – Monte Carlo – 6 DOF – Capable of modeling different vehicles – Combined heating, structural break-up, and – Multi-body trajectory – Predicts break-up sequence and pieces survival • Orbital – Flight Analysis System (FAS) • Terminal Descent – 3 DOF – Decelerator Systems Simulation (DSS) – Launch targeting, rendezvous design, – 6 DOF – 18 DOF orbital maneuvering – Chute system design, dynamics, and – STK and LandOpp performance – Trajectory graphics – Parafoil Dynamics Simulation (PDS) – Landing opportunities analyses – 8 DOF parafoil simulation – Parafoil design, dynamics, and performance 11 – GN&C design Johnson Space Center Outline

Johnson Space Center 12 Copernicus

Gerald Condon / JSC/EG5 Jacob Williams / ERC/JETS

Johnson Space Center Video

Johnson Space Center 14 What is Copernicus?

A generalized spacecraft trajectory design and optimization application

An integrated Graphical User Interface (GUI)

Real-time 3D interactive visualization

Johnson Space Center 15 Copernicus Architecture

Copernicus marries a powerful computation engine with a friendly GUI and an interactive OpenGL graphics visualization capability. Main Program Copernicus Libraries

GUI User Inputs Mission Design Design Modifications Toolkit Library Numerical Feedback Celestial Mechanics Routines SPICE Interface Math Utilities Coordinate Transformations Binary File I/O Gravity Models

Engine Trajectory Segments Optimization Visualization Integration Batch Library Aid in Problem Set-Up Control Algorithms Distributed Processing Trajectory Solution Feedback Engine Models Automated Copernicus Runs “Real” Trajectory Insights Production Data Output Johnson Space Center 16 Copernicus: Interactive 3D Graphics

High resolution 3D graphics provide continuous feedback when using Copernicus to solve an optimization problem.

Johnson Space Center Start of Problem Solution

Johnson Space Center User Adjustment

Johnson Space Center 19 Iteration Process

Johnson Space Center 20 Converged Solution

Johnson Space Center 21 Trajectory Design Features

Copernicus provides enough design features to allow the user to create a myriad of trajectories of varying level of complexity.

• Mission Segments • Impulsive Maneuvers • Integrators/Propagators • Lambert Targeting • Optimal Control Theory • State Parameterizations • Parameter Optimization • Maneuver • Numerical Differentiation Parameterizations • Ephemerides • Gravity Assists • Reference Frames • Halo Orbits • Finite Burn Engine Models • Gravity Models • Finite Burn Maneuver • Visualization Models • Text Output Johnson Space Center • Batch Capabilities 22 Levels of Fidelity

• Low fidelity  High fidelity [within the same tool] • Scans/trade studies  Detailed mission design • Impulsive Δv  Optimized finite burn maneuvers • Circular planet orbits  Real ephemeris (SPICE) • Evolutionary (DE)  Gradient-based (SNOPT,…) • Patched conic model  High fidelity force model

Johnson Space Center 23 Copernicus Building Blocks: Segments

Many, many classes of problems can be modeled with the segment concept. There are many ways to solve the same problem.

Single points (states) Impulsive + Coast arc

t0 tf t0 tf

Single points + impulsive maneuvers Finite burn maneuver

t0 tf t0 tf

Coast arc Impulsive + Finite Burn maneuvers

tf tf Johnsont0 Space Center t0 24 Building Blocks: Segments + Plugins

• Multiple spacecraft and propulsion systems. The simple segment • Segment to segment information inheritance.construction method can • Plugins allow user-defined capabilities. be used to create • Optimization variables and constraints. anything from a simple trajectory to an extremely • Forward and backward propagation. complex set of interdependent trajectories . Johnson Space Center 25 Copernicus User Base

ARC GSFC JSC JPL, KSC, LaRC MSFC University of Washington Space MSNW Exploration Andrews Space Engineering

CSNR RIT OAI P&W ARC UC Boulder Iowa State SAIC GRC APL Innovative Orbital Naval Design Lockheed-Martin GSFC Postgraduate Aerojet Analytical Mechanics School Zero-Point Frontiers LaRC Associates Boeing Edwards AFB JPL General Dynamics Mississippi State Ga. Tech Aerospace MSFC SpaceWorks Enterprises Corporation UA-Tucson UT-Austin Copernicus is released JSC through JSC Tech Ad Astra Transfer under a Jacobs Odyssey KSC government use license. 199 licenses issued to 155 individual recipients Complete user list (all previous versions) Johnson Space Center 26 includes ~250 people. 9 Some Key Uses For Copernicus at JSC The extensibility of Copernicus covers multiple robotic and human mission applications. Here’s an example of some of the activities at JSC that use Copernicus.

ARRM/ Orion ARCM EM1/EM2

Evolvable Mars Autonomous Campaign On-Orbit Mission Planning

SLS Orion Displays

Ground Future Support for Capabilities Flight / Proving Operations Ground / ISECG

Johnson Space Center 27 Copernicus Usage Across NASA Orion/MPCV/EM1 & EM2/SLS [JSC] ARM (Asteroid Redirect Mission) [JSC, LaRC, JPL] Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) [ARC] Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) LCROSS ISS Terrestrial Return Vehicle (TRV) [IM/JSC] Moon Age and Regolith Explorer (MARE) [JSC, SwRI] HAVOC Europa Impactor Studies High Altitude Venus Operational Concept (HAVOC) Venus Atmosphere and Surface Explorer (VASE) Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution (MAVEN) [GSFC, CU/LASP] Nuclear Cryogenic Propulsion Stage Interstellar (heliopause) Probe [JPL] GDO Geospace Dynamics Observatory (GDO) [MSFC] Fission Fragment Rocket Engine (FFRE) [MSFC] NEA Scout Large Ultraviolet/Optical/Infrared (LUVOIR) Surveyor [GSFC] iSat [MSFC] FFRE Near Earth Asteroid Scout (NEA Scout) [MSFC, JPL] Lunar Flashlight [JPL] Lunar Flashlight

Johnson Space Center 28 Design and Operational Example LCROSS Mission (Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite)

LRO/LCROSS Design Case Study

• Copernicus was used to construct hundreds of optimal Earth-Lunar flyby-to-Lunar impact trajectories including the separation phase from the original LRO trajectory which was bound for Lunar orbit. • Also used post-launch to examine under/over burns en route. Johnson Space Center 29 Constellation Program

• Architecture evaluation • Trade studies (TLI, LOI, TEI) • Lunar Capability Concept Review (LCCR) • Copernicus changed the way we look at mission design

Lunar Free Return Trajectory

Johnson Space Center 30 Orion Project (Lunar Missions)

• Copernicus used extensively for Orion vehicle design and performance • Databases developed to characterize Orion lunar missions over the entire planned operational lifetime. • Millions of optimized trajectories using Copernicus on a computing TEI-2 cluster. • Ground support

TEI-3 TEI-1

Johnson Space Center 31 Three-Burn Trans-Earth Injection Maneuver Sequence

Abort Analysis

Multiple trajectories/spacecraft Mission specific targeting Orbit period Batch processing 50%: 0.29 days 25%: 2.9 days post partially failed LOI coasting Nominal trajectory

Fly-by return Nominal trajectory

Direct return Direct return

Johnson Space Center Moon-centered view Earth-centered view 9 VASIMR / Low Thrust

• Variable specific impulsive engine • Earth orbit transfer, Earth to Moon, Earth to Mars. Johnson Space Center 33 Asteroid Redirect Mission

Crewed missions to asteroid in lunar DRO

Asteroid transfer to DRO storage orbit

Final lunar flyby

Final DRO Insertion Johnson Space Center 34 Asteroid Tour Mission Design

GTOC-4: 32-Asteroid Intercept with Final Rendezvous (10 years)

GTOC-5: 15-Asteroid Rendezvous- Intercept (15 years)

Johnson Space Center 35 Halo Orbit & Transfers

ISP Reference Mission 31: Earth-Sun Libration Point Transfer Options to Earth-Moon L2 Halo Orbit

2 days 3 days 4 days 1 day

5 days

L2 6 days Direct

Earth Moon L2 Halo 2 days 1 day 3 days 6 days 5 days 7 days 4 days 8 days Flyby Earth Moon Flyby L2 L2 Halo

30 days 20 days 40 days 10 days

5 days 90 days 50 days DirectMoon’s and Flyby Transfers to Earth-Moon L2 Halo Orbit L1 and L2 Libration Points 1 Low Energy Johnson Space CenterMoon day 3636 Flyby To Sun (Manifold) 60 days

Earth

80 days 70 days Weak Stability Boundary/Ballistic Capture 2 days 3 days 4 days 1 day Lunar Capture Mission

5 days

L2 6 days Direct

Earth Moon L2 Halo 2 days 1 day 3 days 6 days 5 days 7 days 4 days 8 days Flyby Earth Moon Flyby L2 L2 Halo Lunar Halo – Cargo Mission Sun-Earth Halo Orbit Missions 30 days 20 days 40 days 10 days

5 days 90 days 50 days Moon’s L2 Halo Orbit 1 Low Energy Moon day Flyby To Sun (Manifold) 60 days

Earth

80 days 70 days

Johnson Space Center 37 Lunar Missions

Three-Burn Trans-Earth Injection TEI-2 Maneuver Sequence

TEI-3 TEI-1

Lunar Mission With Landing and Stage Disposal

Johnson Space Center 38 Mars Mission Studies

ISP Reference Mission 12: Mars Sample Return Mission [Using low thrust engine and optimal control theory]

Mars Flyby Earth Departure

Earth Arrival Inspriation Mars 2018 Mars Free-Return Johnson Space Center 39 Ongoing Explorations Studies

Low thrust transfer to a lunar distant retrograde orbit

2009 HC Transfer in 2025

Johnson Space Center Round trip to L1 and L2 Halo Orbits 40 Outer Planet/Interstellar Trajectory Design

ISP Reference Mission 8: Earth/Venus/Venus/Jupiter/Pluto flyby mission

Interstellar transfer: Earth to Proxima Centauri

Johnson Space Center 41 TEI Autonomous Targeting

Initial Guess Generation Fully Analytic

Iterative Algorithm

Entry EI Target Line

Johnson Space Center Impulsive Solution 42 Advanced Mission Design: Asteroid Missions

Impulsive to Finite Burn

• Earth-Mars gravity assist flybys with Vesta & Ceres encounters

Johnson Space Center 43 NEO Abort Studies

Low-thrust mission to asteroid 1999_YM9 with possible abort trajectory

Temporal abort coverage for 1999_YM9 human missions to NEOs Abort Return Trajectory

Johnson Space Center 44 Advanced Mission Design: Asteroid Tours

• Global Trajectory Optimization Competition • Rendezvous and intercept the maximum number of asteroids in 15 years.

Johnson Space Center 45 Quantum Vacuum Thruster

Mission to Mars Mars Arrival

Earth to 1000 AU

Mars Position at Spacecraft mass = 90 t Spacecraft mass = 90 t Start of Transit time = 2-6 years Transit time = 75 days Trajectory 1000 AU

LEO Spiral

Earth to Proxima Centauri Interstellar Note: Voyager 1, launched in September, 1977 (36 years ago) is currently around 125 AU away

Spacecraft mass = 90 t Transit time = 30-123 years

Johnson Space Center 46 Proxima Centauri Copernicus in Academia

• University technical instruction and research • Makes spacecraft trajectory design accessible to a much wider audience • Inspires the interest and creativity of the next generation of engineers and scientists

Johnson Space Center 47 Outline

Johnson Space Center 48 Outline

Johnson Space Center 49 Mission Design and Performance Assessment for the Constellation Lunar Architecture

Johnson Space Center 50 Mission Overview

MOON

Ascent Stage 100 km Altair Performs LOI Expended Low Lunar Orbit

Orion Orion Performs TEI Performs APC

Service Module Earth Departure Low Expended

Earth Stage Expended Orion Orbit Altair EDS,

EDS Performs TLI Ares I I Ares Ares V Ares Direct Entry Vehicles are not to scale. Or Skip Landing 51 JohnsonEARTH Space Center Mission Types

• Polar Sortie Lunar Sortie/ • Latitude mostly within 4° of either lunar pole Outpost Region +86° to +90° Latitude • Surface stay < 7 days • Orion low lunar orbit 4° 4° • Inclination = 90°; • LAN = free => Minimum LOI V • 1-burn LOI Global Access Sortie Mission • Global Sortie • Landing site (LS) region Global Access • Latitude = -86° to 86°; Any longitude Sortie Mission • Surface stay < 7 days LS latitude, Low lunar orbit longitude Inclination, LAN 4° 4° • 3-burn LOI (in general) Lunar Sortie/ Outpost Region -86° to -90° Latitude Johnson Space Center 52 Global Sortie Mission Design: Lunar Orbit Insertion (LOI) and Trans-Earth Injection (TEI)

LOI TEI

From Earth To Earth

Johnson Space Center 53 Lunar Mission Design: Abort Considerations

• Anytime departure from the lunar surface • Anytime return to the Earth using a three-burn TEI sequence.

CEV Orbit Plane Change CEV Orbit Ground Track CEV Orbit contains (pre-LSAM descent) LSAM launch site for CEV Orbit this (pre-LSAM ascent) nominal mission depiction Maximum LSAM Landing CEV/LSAM Nominal Ascent Site On-Orbit Departure LSAM Wedge Angle Maximum CEV Orbit CEV/LSAM Descent Ground On-Orbit Track (at Wedge LSAM Angle Deorbit) Moon Rotation CEV Orbit Relative to Orbit Ground Plane Track (1st LSAM launch)

Strategy for Anytime Departure

1. The LOI orbit inclination and longitude of the ascending node are selected so that the plane change required to align the CEV for LSAM ascent/rendezvous never exceeds a specified value, found near the mid-point and the end of the surface stay. Equal maximum plane change requirement near 2. Prior to LSAM launch, the post-LOI CEV orbit plane is mid-point and at the end of the surface stay. changed to provide (near) in-plane LSAM ascent. Johnson Space Center 54 Temporal Coverage: Blended Polar/Global Sortie Mission Design (No Extended TEI Loiter, Altair LOI V = 1000 m/s)

Nominal Mission (no extended Altair loiter) 4 Days Altair Post-LOI Extended Loiter

Altair Only

Integrated Altair and Orion

Johnson Space Center 55 Gap Analysis – ESAS Sites Temporal Coverage

Integrated Altair/Orion gap assessment 4 days of extended LOI loiter and no extended TEI loiter for landing sites in the proximity of:

C) Orientale Basin Site Typical Coverage for Equatorial ESAS Landing Sites (D – H)

Johnson Space Center 56 Gap Analysis – 90% Temporal Coverage Example

Integrated Altair/Orion gap assessment 4 days of extended LOI loiter and no extended TEI loiter for landing sites in the proximity of:

90% Temporal Coverage Site Zoom-in of Peak Capability Gaps for the 90% Coverage Case

Johnson Space Center 57 Lunar Orbit Maintenance - Constellation

Johnson Space Center 58 Lunar Orbit Maintenance - Constellation

• Introduction of lunar orbit maintenance burns • Deadband – restore periapsis to 100 km; let apoapsis float (until final or pre-departure maneuver)

Johnson Space Center 59 Lunar Orbit Maintenance - Constellation

• For 100x 100 km lunar orbit, the minimum total DV cost occurs for orbits with inclinations of 85° and 95°

Johnson Space Center 60 Outline

Johnson Space Center 61 Moon Age and Regolith Experiment

MARE

November 19, 2009

Jerry Condon David Lee JSC/EG5 JSC/EG5 September 4, 2014 [email protected] Space Center [email protected] 281-483-8173 281-483-8118 MARE mission overview

MOON Surface Operations Not to Scale. Morpheus Lander 7. DOI Descent/Landing 100 km Performs LOI 6. LOI Low Lunar Orbit PDI LS TCM 4 LOI DOI

TCM 3 TCM-4 8. PDI TCM 2 TCM-3 9. Powered 5. 0 Landing Low TCM 1 TCM-2 Earth EDS Expended Orbit 2. Orbit Insertion 1. Launch TLI TCM-1 4. EDS Jettison

3. TLI

JohnsonEARTH Space Center Lunar Day – Solar Arc

LUNAR SURFACE DAY OPS: ~13.5 DAYS Arc of Sun Vector North-Facing Radiator

Solar Arrays within 5 deg of East-West line

Arm Ops Envelope

Johnson Space Center 64 TLI and LOI Performance Scan for 2021 – 3 Ascending and 3 Descending TLI Opportunities per Landing Opportunity at 10° Sun Elevation for 23.4° N, 60.0° W

Johnson Space Center TLI V vs Lunar Arrival Epoch

Earth Moon Transfer [4.5 Day Flight Time, LLO Inclination sweep from 90 to 180, Optimal LLO LAN]

• Earth departure will be essentially coplanar 3.150 • Any required plane change between Earth-Moon transfer plane and post-LOI plane would be conduct at the Moon 3.148 • Minimizes TLI requirement 3.146 • Supports keeping within candidate launch vehicle C3 capability

3.144

3.142 V (km/s) V - 3.140

3.138

TLI Delta TLI 3.136

3.134

3.132 Undispersed Impulsive DVs 3.130 9/1/2012 9/16/2012 10/1/2012 10/16/201210/31/201211/15/201211/30/201212/15/201212/30/2012

TLI Epoch 66 Johnson Space Center LOI V vs Lunar Arrival Inclination For Selected Arrival Epochs Earth Moon Transfer [4.5 Day Flight Time, LLO Inclination sweep from 90 to 180, Optimal LLO LAN]

1.100 Orbit over Landing Site 1.050

1.000 V (km/s) V - 0.950 Landing Site LOI

LOI Delta LOI 0.900

0.850

0.800 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 67 Johnson Space Center LLO Inclination (deg) Powered Lunar Descent • Primary Phases: • PDI, braking, pitch-up/throttle-down, approach, pitch to vertical, and vertical descent

Braking Phase PDI

Pitch-up/Throttle-down, Approach, Pitch to Vertical, and Vertical Descent

Colored lines represent thrust direction. Each colorJohnson represents Space Centera different descent flight phase. 68 Powered Lunar Descent

End of Braking Phase Pitch-up Throttle-down

Approach HDA scan Divert mnvr. start execute 300 m slant 150 m slant Pitch to range range Vertical Vertical Colored lines represent thrust direction. Descent to Each colorJohnson represents Space Center a different descent flight Surface 69 phase. Outline

Johnson Space Center 70 Johnson Space Center 71 EM-1

Johnson Space Center 72 JSC/EG5/Flight Mechanics and October 24, 2016 Johnson Space Center Trajectory Design Branch 73 Products Provided

Lighting conditions at Performance analysis – launch, landing … delta-V / propellant relative to requirements. sunrise/sunset Burn durations.

Lighting Delta Velocity and Prop

Subset Data Line of sight Earth, Moon shadowing Eclipse Products Comm communications / Provided dropouts. Field of view (to Entry Time of satellites, ground Interface Flight stations)

Entry targeting analysis Mission duration. Flight segment durations.

JSC/EG5/Flight Mechanics and October 24, 2016 Johnson Space Center Trajectory Design Branch 74 Outline

Johnson Space Center 75 EM-2

MTLI-Free Minimum Mission Notional HEO Demonstration Orbit EUS Disposal Lunar Outbound (9) Free Return Cislunar Destination (no maneuver) Lunar Return Orion (10) RTC Maneuvers Orion (8) Lunar Flyby Variable targeted flyby altitude

(11) Entry & Landing (7) CPL Orbital Insertion Co-manifest Payload (1) Launch (6) OTC Maneuvers (2) ARB EUS Orion (4) CPL Deploy, EUS Disposal

(5) TLI-2 Orion (3) Orion Separation (HEO) EUS Disposal TLI-1 EUS 1-2) LEO parking orbit, orbit checkout, and EUS “TLI”-ARB demonstration 3-4) Orion separates after majority of EUS TLI burn, achieves safe sep distance, EUS completes TLI-1 with disposal maneuver & deploys CPL 5) Orion flight test system characterization occurs in HEO, TLI-2 performed by Orion, initial mission duration fixed by target altitude 6) Option available to increase mission duration TLI-2 OTC-1 with fly-by altitude raise 7) CPL performs completely independent mission, non-critical path to mission success 8-9) Free return flyby, no Orion critical maneuvers required 10-11) Nominal mission return and cis-lunarPre entry-Decisional: velocity targeting Internal San NASA Diego vicinity Johnson Space Center Use Only 76 Outline

Johnson Space Center 77 Transfer Options to EM-L2

2 days 3 days 4 days 1 day

5 days

L2 6 days Direct

Earth Moon L2 Halo Initial 185x185 km LEO Altitude 2 days 1 day 3 days LEO L2 Halo Earth 6 days Flight Departure Arrival + Mission Type Departure C3 5 days 7 days 4 days Time V Flyby V Total V 8 days (km^2/s^2) Flyby (days) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) Earth Moon Flyby L2 L2 Halo Direct 6.3 -1.685 3151 967 4118

Lunary Flyby 8.4 -2.083 3133 294 3427 30 days 20 days 40 days 10 days

5 days Manifold 89.6 -1.991 3195 0 3246 90 days 50 days Moon’s L2 Halo Orbit 1 Low Energy Moon day Flyby To Sun (Manifold) 60 days

Earth

80 days 70 days

Johnson Space Center 78 Results EML2H to DRO

• 3-impulse transfer (flyby, midcourse, and insertion) • Departure epoch: Nov 29, 2022 21:29:40 TDB

• Halo Az: 2,000 km • Total Δv: 126.7 m/s • Total Transfer Time: 37.89 days

06/10/2015 Johnson Space Center 79 Results LEO to DRO- Nominal

Earth

• Departure epoch: Nov 28, Nominal Outbound 2025 Duration: 9.02 days • Departure C3 = -2.089 2 2 km /s Nominal Return • Total Orion V: 892.7 m/s Duration: 5.97 days • Total Orion Prop: 7,885 kg DRO • Total Nominal Mission Duration: 21 days DRO Departure • All Aborts Possible Within 21 days. Moon DRO Insertion DRO Stay: 6 days

Johnson Space Center DRO_2_target_line_ImpulsiveTLI_DATE=2025120600_CMP=10__VISUALIZATION.id eck 80 LEO to DRO- Abort

Earth

Failed Outbound Flyby Failed DRO Insertion Failed DRO Departure Failed Return Flyby

DRO

Moon

Johnson Space Center DRO_2_target_line_ImpulsiveTLI_DATE=2025120600_CMP=10__VISUALIZATION.id eck 81 Results LEO to NRO - Nominal

Outbound [4.93 days] • TLI epoch: 1-Dec 2025 10:14:45 TDB Earth • TLI C3: -2.155 km/s • Total Mission Duration: 21.00 days • NRO Stay Time: 10.57 days • Total Orion Prop: 7431.6 kg

Moon

Return [5.48 days] Outbound Flyby: 213 m/s NRO Insertion NRO Insertion: 206 m/s NRO Departure NRO Departure: 205 m/s Return Flyby: 199 m/s

NRO_2_target_line_Impulsive_CMP=10.ideck Johnson Space Center 82 Results LEO to EML2H - Nominal

Earth

• Departure epoch: Dec 8, 2025 • Departure C3 = -1.896 km2/s2 Nominal Outbound • Halo Az = 2,638 km (period ≈ Duration: 6.67 days 13.5 days) • Total Orion v: 697.6 m/s Nominal Return • Total Orion Prop: 6,469 kg Duration: 8.0 days • Total time in EML2H vicinity: 6 days Moon • Total Nominal Mission Duration: Nominal Halo 20.66 days Insertion • All Aborts Possible Within 21 days. Halo

L2HALO_2_target_line_ImpulsiveTLI_DATE=2025121000_CMP=10__WITH_ABORTS.ideckNominal Halo DeparturePage 83 Johnson Space Center 83 High Energy Trajectory

“Backflip” portion of trajectory Moon’s Orbit

Earth

ARM Lunar High Energy Trajectory Top View Side View

Johnson Space Center 84 Results LEO to High Energy - Nominal

2008EV5_HighEnergyEndgame_2025ARCM_091515[0001]_FiniteBurns_wAborts[0006].ideck

Earth Nominal Outbound Duration: 7.63 days • Departure epoch: Nov 25, 2025 Nominal Return • Departure C3 = -1.740 km2/s2 Duration: 4.66 days • Total Orion v: 131.4 m/s • Total Orion Prop: 1,512.9 kg Moon • Total time in lunar backflip: 6 days • Total Nominal Mission Duration: 18.2 days • All Aborts Possible Within 21 days. Nominal Backflip Nominal Backflip Insertion Backflip Departure

Johnson Space Center 85 BACKUP

Johnson Space Center 86 The Road to GN&C Conceptual Timeline

HQ Directive for new mission

Level 0 Requirements

Mission Design Interconnected Tasks Trades Studies – Vehicle performance and sizing Preliminary GN&C algorithm development Refined trades GN&C algorithm development for onboard / autonomy

Flight

Post-flight

Johnson Space Center 87 Earth Ascent / Entry Exploration: Moon Specific Previous Space Shuttle / Orbiter Apollo Projects Support Shuttle II Interlune One Liquid Fly Back Booster (LFBB) First Lunar Outpost (FLO) & Studies Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLLV) Lunar Transfer Vehicle (LTV) Shuttle C Cargo Element (SCE) Lunar Excursion Vehicle (LEV) Exploration: General Application

Crew Logistics Vehicle (CLV) Lunar Scout Human Spaceflight Chapter Personal Launch System (PLS) Common Lunar Lander (CLL) Low Thrust Trajectories Reuseable Launch Vehicles (RLVs) Lunar Ice Discorver Mission NEP Architecture X-38 (Phoenix, V131, V132, V131r, V201 Reusable Lunar Lander Artifical Gravity Parafoil Systems Tests Human Lunar Return (HLR) Formatioin Flying Team Crew Rescue Vehicle (CRV/ACRV) Lunar Gateway Station Next Decadal Planning Team 2nd Generation Launch Vehicle TransHab Module Space Launch Initiative (SLI) Exploration: Mars Specific HEDS /Exploration Blueprint Columbia Investigation Mars Transfer Vehicle (MTV) NASA Exploration Team Orbital Space Plane (OSP) Mars Excursion Vehicle (MEV) Planetary Aerocapture Shuttle Return To Flight (RTF) Pathfinder X New Exploration Vision Mars Combo Lander Earth Orbit Mars Precision Landing LifeSat Satellite Mars on a Shoe String (MOSS) Hubble Refurbishment Mars Global Surveyor Team Wakeshield Experiment Mars Sample Return (MSR) Direct Orbital Transfer Vehicle (OTV) Mars 3 Magnum Mission Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle (OMV) Mars Rover Sample Return (MRSR) Aeroassist Flight Experiment (AFE) Mars ISRU Sample Return (MISR) Shuttle Flight Experiments Mars Sample Return (MSR) Split Mission Space Station Freedom (SSF) Mars 2001/03/05/07/09 (Phoenix) InternationalJohnson Space Station Space (ISS/ISSA) Center Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) 2009