Introduction to theAltair Project

Lauri N. Hansen, Project ManagerApril 8, 2008

2

Background

Late last year, MSFC and JSC led a study to determine the cost for a Lander Pre-Phase A/Phase A/Phase B study

Assumed an approach to project management that complied with agency standards and policies for large scale projects

Cost estimate far exceeded Program’s funding capability

Two alternatives:

Defer any significant Lander work until 2011/2012

Pursue a different approach

Program recommended alternate approach in 2/12/07 memo to HQ

Establish an in-house design team for Lunar Lander

Program also recommended establishment of a steering committee of senior advisors to help shape and guide the approach

3

Goals for in-house design team

Two main goals for in-house design team: Get smart on design and be able to produce and validate a good set

of requirements Provide integration with other projects to ensure architecture closes Increased confidence in design, cost and schedule estimates May allow us to pull long term development schedule to left

Try out a different approach for early project development that will hopefully allow a more streamlined Phase A/B

Long Term Vision: By the time we let a major Lander contract

Have a government design team that is smart enough to know what is needed

Have written excellent requirements for it Get there in as streamlined a manner as possible

4

Overview of Approach for In-house Design Team

Using a Smart Buyer approach Develop a preliminary government design

Coming out of initial design effort, have independent reviews and solicit industry input on initial design

Continue to refine design & requirements based on industry input Using knowledge gained from in-house design effort, create draft

vehicle design requirements In FY09 have a vehicle requirements review, and baseline

requirements Between 2009 – 2011, build hardware/test beds to mature

confidence in path for forward design (lower risk of unknown surprises)

Continue to mature design in-house until PDR timeframe (tentative)

5

Draft Lunar Lander Schedule PMR '07

Phase c

Phase D

= 0% Complete

Phase A/B = Lvl I Milestones

Pre-Phase A

ManifestPlanned Launches

FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

2 3

PDR DCRCDR

FY06 FY07 FY08

Research &Technology SRR

Mass Sim. for Ares V-Y

Lander 1–Fully Cap. Test Unit

Lander 2-HLR

T-Now

Lander 1 4

Baseline Lander

Lander 3

Lander 4

In-House LanderIn House Design

Hardware Evaluation

Risk Reduction Prototyping

In-House Design Work

HLR

Lander 5

Lander 6

Lander 10

Lander 7

Lander 8

Lander 9

“SRR” PDR

Note 1: Assumed all Lander deliveries 6 months prior to launchNote 2: Schedule based on parametric cost estimate

AresV-Y

6

Lunar Lander Project Organization

MissionIntegration

Brad Jones, Lead

BaselineDevelopment

Lee Graham, lead(dual assignment)

RiskManagement

Julie Bassler, Lead(dual assignment)

IntegratedVehicle

PerformanceJon Lenius, Lead

SubsystemManagementWayne Lee, lead

Vehicle EngineeringJohn Connolly,

Lead

TechnologyIntegrationJulie Bassler,

Lead

• Cost Support• Procurement

PP&C

Project IntegrationLee Graham,

Lead

Lunar Lander Project OfficeLauri Hansen, Project Manager

Clinton Dorris, Deputy PM (JSC)Dan Schumacher, Deputy PM (MSFC)

SR&QARandy Rust,

Lead

Crew Representative

Joe Tanner

T&V(vacant)

• Orion• Ares

ProjectLiaisons

• EVA• LSS

Date: 11-16-07Lauri N. Hansen, Project Manager

7

Detailed Approachfor Design Team

Initial task was developing a preliminary in-house design: 6-9 mth duration Agency wide team

Expert designers from across the agency Minimalist approach – add people on a case-by-case basis, only as needed

Subsystems, not elements Approximately 20 – 25 people on the core team

Co-located initially (approx 2 months) Working from home centers following initial co-location period

Another 20-25 FTE distributed across the Agency (not co-located) Focused on Design (‘D’ in DAC)

Developed detailed Master Equipment List (over 2000 components) Developed detailed Powered Equipment List Produced sub-system schematics NASTRAN analysis using Finite Element Models Performed high-level consumables and resource utilization analysis Sub-system performance analysis by sub-system leads

Keep process overhead to the minimum required Recognizing that a small, dynamic team doesn’t need all of the process overhead that a

much larger one does But…. It still needs the basics

8

Key Tenets

1. The Lander Project is a multi-center team that must leverage the strengths from all ten NASA centers, and across multiple industries.

2. We’re trying to find new ways of doing business – if you’re not at least a little outside your comfort zone, you’re not stretching far enough.

3. Simple and elegant beats out sophisticated and complex.

4. Start with the minimum required and add as necessary. Applies to size of team, technical design, and documentation.

5. Buy down risk consciously, know how much you’re buying, and how much it costs you to do so.

9

“Minimum Functionality” Approach

“Minimum Functionality” is a design philosophy that begins with a vehicle that will perform the mission, and no more than that Does not consider contingencies Does not have added redundancy (“single string” approach)

LLPO has taken a Minimum Functionality design approach Provides early, critical insight into the overall viability of the end-to-end

architecture Provides a starting point to make informed cost/risk trades and consciously

buy down risk

A “Minimum Functionality” vehicle is NOT a design that would ever be contemplated as a “flyable” design!

The “Minimum Functional” design approach is informed by: NESC PR-06-108, “Design Development Test and Evaluation (DDT&E)

Considerations for Safe and Reliable Human Rated Spacecraft Systems CEV “Smart Buyer” lessons learned Recent CEV “Buyback” exercises

10

June 07 Dec 07 Mar 08 June 08 Sept 08 Dec 08 Mar 09Sept 07

LDAC Summary Schedule

LDAC-1: Minimum Functional Vehicle

LDAC-2: Minimum Flyable VehicleSafety / Reliability Upgrades

LDAC-3: UpgradedFlyable VehicleLOM Upgrades

LDAC-4

Contractor BAA

InterimReport

CollaborativeTechnical Exchange

FinalReport

11

Current Design Status

LDAC-1 (minimum functionality) design complete Represents a design effort that is only 6 months old, funded at a

relatively low level of effort = VERY preliminary Belief is that early coordination and cooperation between

government and industry will greatly improve the end product LDAC-1 results represent ONE design for the Lunar Lander

Does not represent final decisions on the design Specific design solution identified in as many cases as possible; should not

be interpreted to mean a final selection has been made Part of the (initial) process in driving out requirements based on a real

design process LDAC-2 is now in progress

This design cycle emphasis is improving safety & reliability Starts with the premise that adding redundancy across the board is not

necessarily the best answer. Plan is to identify the biggest risks in the design and assess optimum ways

to mitigate

12

Goals for Today

We are at a point where we think coordination with Industry is beneficial to both sides

Will be issuing a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) to seek input on the minimum functionality design and innovative ways to buy down risk while minimizing mass impacts

Will also be seeking input on effective government/industry teaming relationships