Introduction to theAltair Project Lauri N. Hansen, Project ManagerApril 8, 2008

BackgroundLate last year, MSFC and JSC led a study to determine the cost for a Lander Pre-Phase A/Phase A/Phase B studyAssumed an approach to project management that complied with agency standards and policies for large scale projectsCost estimate far exceeded Programs funding capabilityTwo alternatives:Defer any significant Lander work until 2011/2012Pursue a different approachProgram recommended alternate approach in 2/12/07 memo to HQEstablish an in-house design team for Lunar LanderProgram also recommended establishment of a steering committee of senior advisors to help shape and guide the approach

Goals for in-house design teamTwo main goals for in-house design team:Get smart on design and be able to produce and validate a good set of requirementsProvide integration with other projects to ensure architecture closesIncreased confidence in design, cost and schedule estimatesMay allow us to pull long term development schedule to leftTry 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 contractHave a government design team that is smart enough to know what is needed Have written excellent requirements for itGet there in as streamlined a manner as possible

Overview of Approach for In-house Design TeamUsing a Smart Buyer approachDevelop a preliminary government designComing out of initial design effort, have independent reviews and solicit industry input on initial designContinue to refine design & requirements based on industry inputUsing knowledge gained from in-house design effort, create draft vehicle design requirementsIn FY09 have a vehicle requirements review, and baseline requirementsBetween 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)

Draft Lunar Lander Schedule PMR '07 Phase cPhase D= 0% CompletePhase A/B= Lvl I MilestonesPre-Phase AManifestPlanned LaunchesFY09FY10FY11FY12FY13FY14FY15FY16FY17FY18FY19FY20

PDRDCRCDRFY06FY07FY08Research &TechnologySRRMass Sim. for Ares V-YLander 1Fully Cap. Test UnitLander 2-HLRT-NowLander 1 4Baseline LanderLander 3Lander 4In-House LanderIn House DesignHardware EvaluationRisk Reduction PrototypingIn-House Design WorkLander 5Lander 6Lander 10Lander 7Lander 8Lander 9SRRPDRNote 1: Assumed all Lander deliveries 6 months prior to launchNote 2: Schedule based on parametric cost estimateAresV-Y

Lunar Lander Project OrganizationMissionIntegrationBrad Jones, LeadBaselineDevelopmentLee Graham, lead(dual assignment)RiskManagementJulie Bassler, Lead(dual assignment)IntegratedVehiclePerformanceJon Lenius, LeadSubsystemManagementWayne Lee, leadVehicle EngineeringJohn Connolly, LeadTechnologyIntegrationJulie Bassler,Lead Cost Support ProcurementPP&CProject IntegrationLee Graham, LeadLunar Lander Project OfficeLauri Hansen, Project ManagerClinton Dorris, Deputy PM (JSC)Dan Schumacher, Deputy PM (MSFC)SR&QARandy Rust,LeadCrew RepresentativeJoe TannerT&V(vacant) Orion AresProjectLiaisons EVA LSSDate: 11-16-07Lauri N. Hansen, Project Manager

Detailed Approachfor Design TeamInitial task was developing a preliminary in-house design: 6-9 mth durationAgency wide teamExpert designers from across the agencyMinimalist approach add people on a case-by-case basis, only as neededSubsystems, not elementsApproximately 20 25 people on the core teamCo-located initially (approx 2 months)Working from home centers following initial co-location periodAnother 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 ListProduced sub-system schematicsNASTRAN analysis using Finite Element ModelsPerformed high-level consumables and resource utilization analysisSub-system performance analysis by sub-system leadsKeep process overhead to the minimum requiredRecognizing that a small, dynamic team doesnt need all of the process overhead that a much larger one doesBut. It still needs the basics

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

Were trying to find new ways of doing business if youre not at least a little outside your comfort zone, youre not stretching far enough.

Simple and elegant beats out sophisticated and complex.

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

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

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

LLPO has taken a Minimum Functionality design approachProvides early, critical insight into the overall viability of the end-to-end architectureProvides 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 SystemsCEV Smart Buyer lessons learnedRecent CEV Buyback exercises

LDAC Summary Schedule LDAC-1: Minimum Functional VehicleLDAC-2: Minimum Flyable VehicleSafety / Reliability UpgradesLDAC-3: UpgradedFlyable VehicleLOM Upgrades

LDAC-4Contractor BAAInterimReportCollaborativeTechnical ExchangeFinalReport

Current Design StatusLDAC-1 (minimum functionality) design completeRepresents a design effort that is only 6 months old, funded at a relatively low level of effort = VERY preliminaryBelief is that early coordination and cooperation between government and industry will greatly improve the end productLDAC-1 results represent ONE design for the Lunar LanderDoes not represent final decisions on the designSpecific design solution identified in as many cases as possible; should not be interpreted to mean a final selection has been madePart of the (initial) process in driving out requirements based on a real design processLDAC-2 is now in progressThis design cycle emphasis is improving safety & reliabilityStarts 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

Goals for TodayWe 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