National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA’s Lunar Robotic Architecture Study NASA’s Lunar Robotic Architecture Study Lunar Robotic Architecture NASA’s www.nasa.gov Final Report NASA-TM-2006-214067 Vol. 1 July 2006 Final Report July 2006 ii Preface This report documents the findings and analysis of a 60-day agency-wide Lunar Robotic Architecture Study (LRAS) conducted by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Work on this study began in January 2006. Its purpose was to: • Define a lunar robotics architecture by addressing the following issues: o Do we need robotic missions at all? If so, why and under what conditions? o How would they be accomplished and at what cost? Are they within budget? o What are the minimum requirements? What is the minimum mission set? • Integrate these elements together to show a viable robotic architecture. • Establish a strategic framework for a lunar robotics program. The LRAS Final Report presents analysis and recommendations concerning potential approaches related to NASA’s implementation of the President’s Vision for Space Exploration. Project and contract requirements will likely be derived in part from the LRAS analysis and recommendations contained herein, but these do not represent a set of project or contract requirements and are not binding on the U.S. Government unless and until they are formally and expressly adopted as such. Details of any recommendations offered by the LRAS Final Report will be translated into implementation requirements. Moreover, the report represents the assessments and projects of the report’s authors at the time it was prepared; it is anticipated that the concepts in this report will be analyzed further and refined. By the time some of the activities addressed in this report are implemented, certain assumptions on which the report’s conclusions are based will likely evolve as a result of this analysis. Accordingly, NASA, and any entity under contract with NASA, should not use the information in this report for final project direction. Since the conclusion of this study, there have been various changes to the Agency’s current portfolio of lunar robotic precursor activities. First, the Robotic Lunar Exploration Program (RLEP) has been renamed the Lunar Precursor and Robotic Program (LPRP). On May 17, 2006, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) was confirmed to enter its implementation phase. Last, a new low-cost secondary payload known as the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) was co-manifested to launch with LRO in 2008. These changes are consistent with the conclusions and recommendations of this study, but came too late to be specifically reflected in this report. The cover image of the Copernicus crater on the moon is seen from the Lunar Orbiter spacecraft, an Apollo lunar robotic precursor mission. Copernicus is 93 km wide and is located within the Mare Imbrium Basin, northern nearside of the moon (10 degrees N., 20 degrees W.). Image shows crater floor, floor mounds, rim, and rayed ejecta. Rays from the ejecta are superposed on all other surrounding terrains which places the crater in its namesake age group: the Copernican system, established as the youngest assemblage of rocks on the moon. Source: Shoemaker and Hackman, The Moon (London: Academic Press, 1962), pp. 289-300. 1 2 Table of Contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................5 2. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................9 2.1. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................9 2.2. STUDY CHARTER AND SCOPE........................................................................................................10 2.3. SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.....................................................................................................................11 2.4. SCHEDULE .....................................................................................................................................12 3. APPROACH.......................................................................................................................................13 3.1. ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSTRAINTS................................................................................................13 3.2. ANALYSIS PROCESS.......................................................................................................................17 3.3. ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT AND INTEGRATION.....................................................................22 4. REQUIREMENTS AND NEEDS.....................................................................................................29 4.1. OVERVIEW.....................................................................................................................................29 4.2. COMMUNICATION AND NAVIGATION............................................................................................30 4.3. MAPPING (VISUAL, TOPOGRAPHIC, AND RESOURCES) .................................................................33 4.4. ENVIRONMENT (DUST AND RADIATION).......................................................................................36 4.5. IN-SITU RESOURCE UTILIZATION (ISRU) .....................................................................................41 4.6. OTHER RISK REDUCTION FOR DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATIONS ................................................45 4.7. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION: NUCLEAR POWER ........................................................................48 4.8. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION: OPPORTUNITY SCIENCE ..............................................................49 5. ANALYTICAL RESULTS ...............................................................................................................51 5.1. OVERVIEW.....................................................................................................................................51 5.2. MISSION SCENARIO ANALYSIS......................................................................................................51 5.3. MISSION IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS .........................................................................................56 5.4. SCHEDULE ANALYSIS....................................................................................................................61 5.5. IMPLEMENTATION RISK ANALYSIS ...............................................................................................63 6. ARCHITECTURES...........................................................................................................................65 6.1. OVERVIEW.....................................................................................................................................65 6.2. BASELINE ARCHITECTURE ............................................................................................................65 6.3. EXCURSIONS TO THE BASELINE ARCHITECTURE ..........................................................................68 6.4. COST / BENEFIT ANALYSIS............................................................................................................80 6.5. ARCHITECTURE FLEXIBILITY ........................................................................................................81 6.6. FUTURE WORK ..............................................................................................................................83 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................86 APPENDICES ………………………………………………………………………………………89 APPENDIX A: TERMS OF REFERENCE ...........………………………………………………….91 APPENDIX B: TEAM ………………………………………………………………………………97 APPENDIX C: INPUTS ……………………………………………………………...……………...99 APPENDIX D: COMMUNICATION AND NAVIGATION ……………………………………..101 APPENDIX E: MAPPING (VISUAL, TOPOGRAPHIC, AND RESOURCES) ………………….113 3 APPENDIX F: ENVIRONMENT (DUST AND RADIATION) ..………………………………....117 APPENDIX G: IN-SITU RESOURCE UTILIZATION (ISRU) …………………………………...119 APPENDIX H: NUCLEAR POWER ...……………………………………………………………123 APPENDIX I: OPPORTUNITY SCIENCE ……………………………………………………….125 APPENDIX J: SPACE RADIATION AND SPACE WEATHER ………………………………...127 APPENDIX K: PRIOR U.S. MISSIONS TO THE MOON ……………………………………….131 APPENDIX L: ACRONYMS ……………………………………………………………...……....135 APPENDIX M: COST ANALYSIS ………………………………………………………………..139 4 1. Executive Summary This report of the Lunar Robotic Architecture Study (LRAS) responds to a charter from the NASA Headquarters Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) on behalf of the NASA Administrator to recommend an architecture for lunar robotic precursors. PA&E chartered the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) during the spring and summer of 2005 to provide an overall architecture for NASA’s exploration mission. It then chartered LRAS to provide a flexible architecture for the robotic spacecraft that would be required on or near the Moon as precursors to each of the architectural elements that ESAS recommended. The LRAS team was asked to address a basic set of questions: • Do we need robotic missions at all? If so, why and under what conditions? • How would they be accomplished and at what cost? Are they within budget? • What are the minimum requirements? What is the minimum mission set? The LRAS team concluded that there