Presentation Transcript

1. Introduction to theAltair Project Lauri N. Hansen, Project Manager April 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 validatea 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. HLR 3 2 Draft Lunar Lander Schedule PMR '07 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 T-Now Lander 1 Manifest Ares V-Y 4 Planned Launches Research & Technology Baseline Lander SRR PDR CDR DCR Mass Sim. for Ares V-Y Lander 1–Fully Cap. Test Unit Lander 2-HLR Lander 3 Lander 4 Lander 5 Lander 6 Lander 7 Lander 8 Lander 9 Lander 10 In-House Lander In House Design Hardware Evaluation Risk Reduction Prototyping “SRR” PDR Note 1: Assumed all Lander deliveries 6 months prior to launch Note 2: Schedule based on parametric cost estimate In-House Design Work Pre-Phase A Phase c = 0% Complete = Lvl I Milestones Phase A/B Phase D

6. Lunar Lander Project Organization Lunar Lander Project Office Lauri Hansen, Project Manager Clinton Dorris, Deputy PM (JSC) Dan Schumacher, Deputy PM (MSFC) PP&C Project Liaisons • Orion • Ares • EVA • LSS • Cost Support • Procurement Crew Representative Joe Tanner Project Integration Lee Graham, Lead Technology Integration Julie Bassler, Lead T&V (vacant) SR&QA Randy Rust, Lead Vehicle Engineering John Connolly, Lead Baseline Development Lee Graham, lead (dual assignment) Mission Integration Brad Jones, Lead Risk Management Julie Bassler, Lead (dual assignment) Subsystem Management Wayne Lee, lead Integrated Vehicle Performance Jon Lenius, Lead Date: 11-16-07 Lauri 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 • The Lander Project is a multi-center team that must leverage the strengths from all ten NASA centers, and across multiple industries. • 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. • 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 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 Mar 09 Sept 07 Sept 08 Dec 08 LDAC Summary Schedule LDAC-1: Minimum Functional Vehicle LDAC-2: Minimum Flyable Vehicle Safety / Reliability Upgrades LDAC-3: Upgraded Flyable Vehicle LOM Upgrades LDAC-4 Contractor BAA Collaborative Technical Exchange Interim Report Final Report

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