Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>> The success of Apollo was preceded by precursors.
When we were trying to land on the moon with man we didn't even know if we could do it
without the vehicle sinking in into the surface of the planet.
But it's the robotic precursors that we're able to gain the engineering boundary conditions
as early information in order to enable human space flight.
More recently with Constellation, we've identified that same need,
sending precursor to the moon in the form of LRO and LCROSS.
Again, two very successful missions that are providing tremendous data sets providing the--
that engineering knowledge that would be necessary
to send human beings back to the surface of the moon.
In this new era of exploration, we now have more diverse targets, more diverse destinations.
We have NEOs.
We have-- once again, we saw the surface of the moon as a candidate.
We have the vicinity of mars, the surface of Mars, the moons of Mars.
And so once again, precursors are here to enable human exploration.
So by way of introduction, NASA's planning to have a steady stream of this precursor missions
in order to handle this various diverse candidate destinations for human exploration.
We called this effort the "Exploration Precursor Robotic Missions."
And that's important because of little bit of taxonomy gets little confusing.
These actually consist of two proposed programs xPRP which will consist
of larger flight missions, instrument developments, and the good RNA,
RND effort in order to support human space flight.
And xScouts, a very focus small, highly competitive, very aggressive set of missions
in the range of 200 million dollars or less in order to really try
to spring board off some real innovation in order to do some more threshold measurements.
Spring boarding off of the success such as we had with LCROSS and really opening
up the possibility for the community to be really participative in that.
Now these two programs have notionally have been assigned to two centers the xPRP,
which is the Exploration Precursor Robotics Program is currently slated to go to Marshall
and we set up a center plotting office there and leading
that effort is a Paul Gilbert, if you could stand up.
So once again, as Chris and others had said, if you have any tough questions, Paul is your man.
And the xScout program would be setup at the Ames research center
and the center planning office for that is being headed up by Pete Klupar.
And again, if you have any difficult questions on xScouts, please see Pete.
So these two programs together consist of an overall campaign of precursors missions,
but I'm gonna show you today is basically what the overall scope to this would entail.
A propose point of departure timeline for these two programs and talk about little bit
about the requirements and also I like to talk
about a little what we anticipate getting underway in terms
of a planning activities in FY10.
So why precursors?
Why xPRM? Now, I don't mean to jump ahead
of what the human exploration framework team is doing.
They're developing the overall framework for human exploration.
They're developing the over arching requirements that's an ongoing process.
Again, we are at the point of departure.
This is snapshot in time.
However we think that these general top level human exploration needs of safety,
sustainability, capability and planning are probably going to exist
in the final set in one form or another.
And if we take a look at those top levels of human exploration needs
and we take a look at where precursors fit in.
What were doing with these precursor missions, is we're identifying the hazards
that composed threads to the safety of our astronauts.
We're identifying resource characterization that can enable us to be producing fuels
on distant destinations that will lead to sustainability of a campaign.
We're also doing the engineering boundary condition identification.
Again, if you know what you're doing or if you know what the design criterion are,
you can backup and reduce margins make more intelligent designs.
Have better more sustainable architectures because you have
that additional information which leads to sustainability.
And of course, all that information leads them to the development of capability.
We feed back in to the technology development areas that we know where to focus the efforts.
Of course, because we're flying, we've got the opportunity for technology and fusion and demo.
And we've talked about demo quite often but we would like to really be aggressive in terms
of infusing this technology so that there's not that value of death for technology
that can't get promoted intact for operation.
We're looking forward to incorporating that into the actual critical path
or just of critical path of our missions.
And then the last opportunity, of course, all of this feeds in to planning.
But very specifically, the robotic precursors provide the opportunity for us
to get the reconnaissance data in order to try
to select targets whether they'd be multiple asteroids, whether they are different locations
on Mars or different locations on the moon, we can use this information
in order to make our planning decisions.
So don't we already have our robotics program?
I get that question a lot.
Science Mission Directorate does have a tremendous level
of success with there various programs.
You know, amazing, amazing robotic investigations there.
But the point is, is that xPRM is focused on human space flight needs, goals, and objectives.
Science is primarily focused on scientific objectives.
It makes sense.
Whereas the scientific community is looking at the National Academies decadal surveys
to guide what they're doing, what we're looking forward is was is it going to take
for human beings to do what they need to do.
Now obviously, there's a level of synergy that can occur.
We see that with LRO for example, a wonderfully dual-purposed spacecraft
that the instruments suite is very compatible between the objectives
of both human space flight and Science Mission Directorate.
And then that particular case there was a-- it's an ESMD mission right now.
And before this year, it's out.
It'll become an ESMD mission.
There is the opportunity for collateral benefit.
And where there is collateral benefit we will make strong--
we will make intelligent decisions in order to leverage that capability.
But be very clear that the objectives are different
and that's why there's a separate robotics program
or potential robotics program for exploration.
And we can't even look at one particular sample topic.
If you take a look at the oxygen content in the regular found on the moon.
More clearly, from a scientific standpoint, it's very interesting.
It talks all about the potential sources and sinks,
the volatiles on the lunar surface, very interesting stuff.
From an exploration standpoint, that we need to know, okay, how much is there?
Can we get to it?
Can we mine it?
Can we use it?
How do you use it?
How is that gonna make our architecture sustainable.
Those are the differences in the questions that we're asking.
So the top level objectives and principles, number one precursor investigations.
We're looking at the precursor measurements and experiments to support human exploration.
And what do I mean by that?
You already saw a little bit earlier with the charts but just to go over it one more time,
the engineering boundary conditions.
I'd like to quote, actually a member of the audience Dr. David Akin.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design.
I'm sure that many of you seen that out on the web or maybe have a copy post
at your bulletin board as I have for the last 20 years of my career.
But engineering is done with numbers.
Analysis without numbers is at best only in opinion.
And so that's what the precursor investigations are doing.
They're quantifying those engineering boundary conditions in order to allow us
to do the engineering which is necessary to send human beings to these remote destinations.
Identifying hazards.
We're talking about dust.
We're talking about toxicity.
We're taking about the hazards of being able to land 10 to 50 metric tons on the surface of Mars
which is significantly different than landing 1 metric ton on the surface of Mars.
To identify the resources, in order to sustain an architecture, in order to lower launch masses
by potentially developing fuels in remote places so that we have the ability to get home
without having to take the fuel with us to do it, and to live off the land.
And of course once again, to provide that knowledge in order to inform that selection.
The moon is a big place.
There's a lot of very interesting places to go.
Mars is a big place.
There's a lot of interesting places to go.
There's a lot of very interesting NEOs out there to potentially send human beings to.
Where do we wanna go?
We need this precursor missions in order to answer those questions.
In a very, very close second is that flight technology demonstrations.
To bring that, the technology development get it into flight and then to operation.
Now in the course of these objectives, we have some very strong principles to coordinate
with our other NASA directorates.
We clearly have multiple flight activities going on.
We have to coordinate.
We wanna make good use of the taxpayer's money.
>> Get the best return on our investment that we possibly can.
Fostering competition and this is across the board.
This is commercial.
This is academic.
This is all participants.
We wanted to foster competition in terms of the missions primarily with the exploration scouts,
the payloads applicable to both missions, the investigations.
We have a lot of innovation out there and we wanna make sure that we make good use of it.
To foster opportunities in international collaboration,
we use a country who've identified that we need to extend a hand to our international partners
that we need to take roll in engaging our international partners as we go
out to explore space beyond low Earth orbit.
And of course, to foster participatory exploration activities.
And we've got to work forest issues.
We've got to make sure that we've got the engineers out here in school right now
to replace us and engaging them in a real way is part of the way to do that.
So draft level, zero requirements.
Again, I don't wanna get ahead what the HSF is doing.
Okay. But if we do take a look of those human space flight objectives they're defining those.
And what we have to do is not accomplish--
in xPRM, we would not have to accomplish those human space flight objectives per se.
What we have to do is take a step back and say, "What do we as robotic precursor missions need
to do in order to enable the human beings to do their job?"
And so by going through a series of literature searches, to identify the existing
and notional needs goals and objectives for human exploration to Mars and to the moon,
taking the needs, goals, and objectives that were drive for constellation, calling that down
and then trying to take a step back and identify what the precursor robotic missions would need
to do.
That's how we arrived at these level zero requirements.
I'm not gonna go through all them but there are a couple that I do wanna point out.
Number one, is that diversity of missions, right off the bat.
Nearest objects Mars, moons and Mars and the moon.
Future human exploration potential destination.
This is a very exciting stuff.
And of course, I already talked about the two programs but the other third comment
that I haven't made yet, we want good launch tempo.
Between those two programs we've got a requirement, a notional requirement to launch
at least on average once every 18 months with a goal of at least once a year.
This will be continues stream of precursor information coming in,
in order to fill a pipeline.
A pipeline that can service the engineering activities, the planning activities,
engaged people on a regular basis.
And there's lot's of opportunities along that cadence for us
to collaborate, to partner, to compete.
So to introduce the programs.
Again, xPRM is the overall umbrella consisting of two programs.
xPRP is the larger of the two programs and this consist of three primary parts.
The flight missions which I'm gonna talk a lot more about later
so I'm not gonna talk a whole lot about that right now.
Instrument development, this is a wonderful opportunity for partnership.
What we're talking about here is funding a line explicitly for the purpose of the development
of human space flight instruments to be flown on missions other than our own.
This is to open up opportunities for us to put an instrument on an international opportunity,
to put an instrument on a commercial venture.
to put an instrument on a Science Mission Directorate at mission.
And similarly in the overall arching strategy on our flight missions,
we would allow payload allocations in order to try
to collaborate the other in a reciprocating fashion.
To receive instruments that on our payload opportunities.
And then of course, a very solid research and analysis for exploration.
This is taking the raw data and turning it in to the strategic knowledge for exploration.
This is turning ones and zeros in the PDS into real engineering numbers
so that we can really get our work done.
And then the exploration scout, which I had also indicated again--
and I'll talk about them a little bit more.
But again, very highly competitive, higher risk missions,
threshold investigations, very exciting stuff.
So the flight missions and instruments again,
just in the hierarchy structure we're seeing this again.
I'll talk about it later.
But those flight instruments, missions of opportunity for ideal partnerships.
And so I wanted to define that term MOs because you're gonna be seeing it a few times here.
That's Missions of Opportunity.
And once again, very competitive.
We wanna compete almost every one of these and we probably do it in some type of SALMON
like called that SMD has used very successfully in the past.
The research and analysis will consist of a larger set of components.
We have the exploration mapping and modeling project notionally.
This would be derived from what we currently have
under the old lunar precursor robotics program, the LMMP or as Mark Robinson likes to refer
to it LMMMMP, due to many Ms in there.
But what we're doing with this is we're taking the data out of the PDS.
And if you gone out to the PDS, you know, it's a wonderful wealth of data
and I frankly can't make heads or tails of it.
But this will allow the people that are doing the work who are not scientist
who do not know how to navigate the PDS and bring this data available not only
to those engineers but also to the public.
They've got a lunar pre-- a lunar mapping and modeling portal which is gonna allow the public
to go out and take a look at whether all the features in the moon and we wanna expand
that in order to be looking at the features of Mars in a very interactive way,
to take a look at the NEO imagery and the data in a very interactive way.
And so the xMMP would be providing that.
Data systems, we anticipate generating a lot of data and we're doing it right know with LRO.
The LROC images are fantastic and that there is
so much data we had to add a note to the PDS server.
So that's what that element to the RNA is about.
We're anticipating having to take care of the data that we're getting down.
Institute some workshops, the NLSI has done a wonderful job of setting
out destination oriented workshops functioning as an institute in order to, again,
to perform the research and analyses, the non-flight hardware in order
to provide added value to the lunar data sets.
We'd like to expand that.
Now we perhaps would recast NLSI.
Add note, add a NEO note, add a Mars note.
That's one option.
We could try to do another institute separate from NLSI.
The trade space is still open.
It is obviously pros and cons of doing each.
The next is sensor technology development, and this one is unique.
This is not the instrument development I was talking about before.
But this is the early technology development in order to try to develop very--
that the explorations' specific in sensors and instrument development, high resolution optics,
miniaturization of what chemistry labs, things of that nature that would go under that line.
And then of course, research investigation grants.
Okay, we're very familiar with the ROSES process that SMD has
and the laser grants and things of that nature.
This is providing that foundational knowledge needed to interpret the mission results
and then translate that into real strategic knowledge for exploration.
The xScout program again.
So here we have the option.
A lot of these are gonna be PI-led which is different than we've usually done business.
We still might-- you know, the trade space is still open.
We might wanna try to direct a couple of these to some internal centers.
But the main focus of these things is to get that innovation, to get that competition,
to get a vehicle to do a meaningful investigation outside of LEO
for under 200 million and we think that people can do it for a lot less than that.
In terms of planning, what we've assumed is, okay, out of 200 million dollar rate assuming
about 50 million dollars for access to space and using a variety
of options, I can allow that to happen.
They were figuring on a cadence so that leaves one every two years.
We'd like to do a lot better than that.
In this area in particular, with this level of innovation we're really,
really wanna hear your ideas in the one on ones tomorrow.
We wanna know what's attainable in this very low dollar amounts.
And again, just because they're small,
just because they're high-risk doesn't mean that they're not important.
They're vitally important.
We're taking about or measuring those threshold measurements, those yes or no answers is
where the xScouts are really gonna excel.
When you're developing an architecture, you could go one way or you could go another way,
if we just knew whether or not the concentration of water was X, very specific.
Threshold measurement, you get a scout mission in there, you get that answer
and you've informed an entire architecture for under 200 million dollars
and hopefully a lot less than that.
And of course the xScouts because of their higher rate of cadence,
can be used to compliment the portfolio of xPRM or of xPRP.
Sorry, I got caught on my own nomenclature.
>> So whereas xPRP who can afford to get as many missions off, as quickly as the xScout missions,
maybe focusing on NEOs, xScout could be focusing on the moon.
They can be complementary portfolios and we would try to write the AOs for these missions
such that they complement one another and address the key questions
that the architecture development would be looking toward.
Oops, there we go.
So, point of departure.
This is about the fourth one.
This is gonna change again.
Okay, I can almost guarantee that.
But we wanted to give you a snapshot.
We wanted to show you what we're thinking to give you an idea of what kind of scope,
what kind of diversity that looking for, what kind of investigations are we looking for.
And now were opening up in this workshop the opportunity for you
to tell us what wonderful investigation should be going in here in place of what we have here.
Or if these are the right ones, we'd like to hear that too.
Okay, we're still working on whether or not the budget will actually close on this.
It had for a while and as we keep looking into it then we realize, "Well, maybe we've kind of--
we're little too optimistic there and so we've shuffled things around a bit."
And again, this is a snapshot in time.
This is not in stone.
So the first mission, very exiting, return to a NEO.
Some of type of exploration rendezvous orbiter, notionally.
Something discovery class, something similar to what near-dead--
but once again, focused on the human space flight objectives.
And so what are those objectives?
We're out there to identify what the hazards are gonna be.
When you fly out to a NEO or you're encounter a particulate cloud,
something that you're gonna have to be shielding against, are you gonna be able to--
are there other orbiting bodies there?
When you touch it, is it gonna come apart like dandelion field
in a spring breeze with this loosely bound objects?
We have to understand proximity operations.
These gravity wells are not easy, quantifying those engineering boundary conditions
and then also potentially looking for resources.
Now, do we know that human beings are gonna be doing ISO on asteroids?
Well, no. We don't know that yet.
We've got another separate process that's gonna identify that.
But while we're there, we know, we know that hazards are gonna be important.
The ability to do proximity operations is gonna be important.
The ability to understand those engineering boundary conditions is going to be important.
So what kind of measurements are we looking at?
Obviously, imagery, submitter for pixel imaging, multiple colors, topography,
compositional mapping, any number of approaches,
s sounding imaging SARs are among the possibilities.
A NEO mission in 2014 yielding results in the 2015, 2016 timeframe is perfectly timed
to send a human being to a NEO in the 2025 timeframe allowing us
to do a precursor mission here, perhaps another one in the 2019 timeframe in order
to refine what measurements we're taking as we understand the scope of our requirements better.
We also have the other options too.
I mean, I've indicated this notional discovery class but there's nothing that would preclude us
from designing something that with slightly smaller payload scope
but increasing the diversity.
Something like a stat set of spacecraft to go to two separate targets.
Perhaps be even more aggressive.
Do something in the order of three to four spacecraft investigating multiple targets.
Again, this is a snapshot in time.
This is snapshot in time.
We have to determine the viability of how this works and how it fits into the budget launch.
Teleoperated Lunar Lander, you know, we say why do you wanna go to the moon?
You're already there.
Well, yeah were there.
Now is a really good time to get to ground truth, to found what we've in orbit.
LROs producing a tremendous amount of data to actually land and get the ground truth
to verify that, to confirm those data sets.
It's a wonderful opportunity.
People are excited about the moon.
LCROSS made the discovery of 15 gallons of water within the field of view during that impact.
M-cubed made the discovery of water in areas
that aren't even in permanently shadowed regions.
The press has been alive with, it's a new moon.
So now it's the time to strike on this, to get that ground truth on that.
And not just that, but to do it in a really exciting way, to take the MSO, Mars' camera,
put it on in the Lunar Lander, 3D high def.
Well, that's a great participatory exploration opportunity right there.
Avatar quality graphics.
That was really engaging.
Once again we wanna be measuring the hydrogen content.
We're getting a lot of good data out of land on LRO.
Let's get down there with dynamic albedo spectrometer and actually try
to get some more indications, some ground truth as to that hydrogen
that we didn't know would be there in the sunlit areas.
But, [inaudible] excuse me.
But all the mass spectroscopy in search of radiation experiment,
LRO is discovering some really interesting things
about the radiation environment coming off the surface of the moon, unexpected stuff.
It'd be really nice to get an instrument down there in order to verify.
In such research utilization, you heard Chris Moore talked about the wonderful developments
that have been going on in the ATDP program.
We need to get those folks up there.
We need to get them up there and doing the experiments on the moon in order
to start demonstrating some of these in flight.
And Hawaii is nice but the moon is a little cooler.
Sampling on this possibility with a microscopic imagery on it.
And of course, an allotment again for partnering payloads.
We wanna make sure that we provide the opportunity for Science Mission Directorate
for internationals to all be working together on this.
And so we wanna go down together.
Surface mobility experiment.
Now, we got a constrained budget so we're looking--
you know, we're thinking probably a [inaudible] in class rover,
very little payload capability maybe one or two instruments.
You know, very specific we're gonna have to get here.
Maybe a dust particle size analyzer and alpha particle x-ray spectrometer, something that fits
within that 1 or 2 kilogram kind of payload for that small rover.
And of course, we put a context camera on it so they can look back and forth.
And I know I've got one of those tiny little high def cameras so there's no reason on earth
that that one probably couldn't be a high def as well.
Three channels are high def coming down from the moon.
Pretty exciting stuff.
So how do we do that?
Well, another opportunity for inter-directorate collaboration and technology infusion,
optical helm, put it on the lander.
It does limit our landing sites quite a bit and we still-- once again, we're looking at whether
or not this architectural close but it's another opportunity to start infusing some
of these great technologies that we know that we're gonna be needing
and providing some really exciting output as a result.
Mars orbiter 2016.
Now we take a look obviously of trying to do something at Mars earlier than this.
And it's just, you know, really too late for us to try to be looking
at opportunities earlier than this.
And quite frankly, a 2016 opportunity we're kinda late even now.
I know the Science Mission Directorate has already selecting instruments
for their 2016 mission.
So we've got it in the trade spacer right now.
Again, this is all subject to change.
We have to take a look at how things would fit underneath the budget profile.
But we've got a couple of options here.
First option, this is the one that would be more favorable.
Some type of resource explorer.
And you say, "Well, why are we doing another Mars orbiter?
You know, don't we have MRO up there?"
The Science Mission Directorate has been going there a whole bunch of times.
They're not looking for resources.
They're not looking for the things that we're looking for.
They're not looking for the hazards that can affect the 10 to 50 metric ton landing.
They're looking for the things that could affect 1 metric ton landing.
And then they're designing so that they can handle it.
It's a lot tougher to land 10 to 50 metric tons.
And so we need to do additional type measurements.
We need to take a closer look at resources.
And so we've got, you know, candidate list of instruments there that you can read
as easily as I can read them to you.
And of course we have another opportunity for optical telecommunications demo.
But again, this one is a really tight fit.
This is one is a really tight fit in this portfolio.
And so you got ideas as to the ways to meet these objectives really, really inexpensively.
You really wanna hear it.
Another option, sample return, very exciting.
Never actually land just skimmed through that atmosphere, pick up dust bring it on back.
We haven't talk about that as much in the study team.
We wanted to keep it on the table as an option but we've mostly been focusing
on the possibility of an orbiter.
2018, best opportunity to land mass on the surface of Mars in 30 years,
three times the landing capability that we have in 2016.
You think that this is kind of important?
And we really wanna try to prioritize the way to make use of that.
Now, since this further out in the timeline and there's more larger budget on certainties
and we're still working on the front end of it.
We really don't have any clear ideas as to what we wanna do with that yet.
But an initial first cut would be like a MER-class rover.
And again, it's because of-- you know, we're looking at missions that are
in the order of 800 million dollars or less.
>> And going Mars is expensive.
We wanna hear how you would make it less expensive.
And again, we'd be focusing primarily on resource type investigations
and hazard investigations primarily, focusing on the NRC safe on Mars objective for example.
And of course, we'll be assessing the EDL.
Oh, EDL, I missed the point on the last chart.
Another opportunity to infuse aerial capture with this orbiter, not a demo, fly-along demo.
We actually looked at the fly-along demo.
And the fly-along demo turns into its own spacecraft and becomes really,
really expensive 'cause then, you know, all these subsystems
of the spacecraft on the experiment.
It's actually less expensive to go for it, to infuse it.
They're still looking at where exactly what the risk posture would that would be.
But here's an opportunity, again, to infuse that technology.
To take an incremental step forward in order to enable the objectives of FTD even better.
And then again, to enable the human space flight activities even better.
So then 2019, now we're really getting out there.
So what exactly would be doing with that?
Again, a NEO mission, something that would spring board off of what we're doing in 2014
to better inform a human exploration in 2015.
And in fact, maybe we kind of got this order reversed.
We should probably be doing a diverse setup to the front and then a more tone
or more specific set, more of a discovery class in the later part.
Again, we're looking for your opportunities.
What kind of investigations would we be looking at?
Again, for a proximity remote sensing, possible beckon emplacement,
small hoppers, touch and go, grappling.
How do you anchor to one of these things?
Do you wanna anchor to one of these things?
Sample return, resource relevance sample return.
Now once again, this is a dual use thing.
You say Science Mission Directorate, they got a lot-- they've got missions--
potential mission that might be going after NEOs.
This is a duplicity.
To degree that might be.
But the objectives are different.
The objectives are different.
The investigations are different.
And that's why we're doing it 'cause we wanna send human being there.
So what are doing in FY10?
We got a lot of work ahead of us and the programs don't exist.
These are proposed programs.
But if we're gonna meet the aggressive schedules that we've been trying to lay out for activities
in that file and we have to do some precursor work to our precursor missions.
And with that includes our mission definitions.
We need to take the input that we've gotten so far from the study team.
We need to take your input from this workshop, from the RFI.
We just release the RFI on Friday.
It's a little bit late in the game for this workshop but it's out there now.
And so we're looking forward to getting your inputs on that and then folding that in
and developing what we're referring to as objective definition teams
And the Science Mission Directorate
at [inaudible] that'd be the same as the science definition team.
We're gonna follow a similar model and we did it for LRO.
And even though we have a very, very aggressive schedule soon at LRO, and we constrained it
and we're actually able to get a good objective definition out in a fairly quick fashion
and we're anticipating trying to do that again here.
And we also need to do some mission concept studies.
We got to put some numbers beyond this engineering.
Engineering without numbers is opinion.
And so we're gonna be working toward that then once we have those top level objectives
that we need to do with proof of existence concepts, notional payloads
and we know came make these-- that make these observations.
Then we have to have a functional acquisition strategy meeting.
This is where we're gonna be deciding where we're gonna be doing things.
Are we gonna make it?
Are we gonna buy it?
If we're gonna buy it is it gonna be AO?
Is it gonna be an RFP.
Is it gonna be sole source because we need to get the ball rolling.
We need this instrument so it correlates to another measurement.
These are the decisions-- excuse me, that we'll be making in the make by decisions.
Following that, we're gonna start doing the AO preparation.
When I say AO, this is my generic term
for all the procurement documents whether they'd be AOs or RFPs or Joe Fox [phonetic].
So that when we got appropriations then we'll be ready.
We'll be ready.
We'll be poised in order to engage in these really, really exciting missions.
So on summery, we're poised.
Well, we will be in order to provide this critical knowledge for exploration
from a very diverse set of destination.
This is a really, really exciting time to be working here.
Again, it's analogous to pre-Apollo.
The precursors enabled human exploration.
The proposed scope, again, focusing on human space flight objectives where you--
but we're leveraging the unique capabilities of partners and partnership.
And no other programs exists, fulfills these objectives right now.
And it's fully consistent with the current best estimate that we have
of what human space flight means.
Again, precursor investigations, focusing on those engineering boundary conditions, hazards,
resources, and determination of targets, and a very close second providing an opportunity
for technology demonstrations and infusions.
And so here we are the timeline.
It's pretty aggressive one.
2014 the NEO rendezvous, 2015 the Lunar Lander, 2016 the Mars Orbiter, 2018 the Mars Lander,
2019 the NEO Rendezvous, and throughout
that entire thing we've got this constant line of missions of opportunity.
This instrument developed, and so we're gonna fly in every mission other than our own,
opportunities for partnership, opportunities
to extend the human exploration precursing investigations beyond our own program.
And of course the xScout and once again,
notionally we got that one every two-year cadence.
We expect to do a lot better than that.
But even with that, that's a pretty admirable tempo.
So with that, I think I have time for a couple of questions.
[ Pause ]
>> This is David Gump with Astrobotic Technology in Carnegie Mellon.
>> Yes sir?
>> The cuts program in follow on fixed price commercial purchases are likely to really bring
down the cost of getting people and cargo to orbit.
A similar approach for the moon with fix price commercial purchases could have more impact
on affordability than anyone technology that's under development.
But your slides don't mention commercial at all.
So, I'm curios what your plans are to use that tool to bring down cost.
>> Okay.
[ Pause ]
>> We took a lot of look at commercial partnership
and exactly what commercial partnerships means and promoting commercial activities.
The study team didn't really look at seeding a Lunar Lander capability in the same way
that the cuts program seeds the commercial crew and the cuts option.
That's not the focus of xPRM.
However in xPRM, we do look at the possibility of using such a capability word to exist.
We get a lot of questions with respect to the Lunar Lander versus the Google X Prize.
A lot of folks have asked why-- you know, what's the difference?
Well, they're both landers, but lander is just a vehicle.
Well, they both have cameras.
Well, everything has cameras.
Well, they're both Tel operated.
Well, we don't have a lot that's fully autonomous.
But that's where the similarities end.
The xPRM objectives are to do the precursor investigations.
Without the precursor investigations, it's not my charter to do the mission.
I need to be able to get the ground truth on the volatiles.
I need to be able to prove that we're-- that we're doing-- that we have the ISOU capability.
If the Google X Prize develops a technology that demonstrates clearly that we can land very,
very inexpensively, we definitely wanna make use of that
and that's exactly where the xScout would come in.
There's nothing at all that would preclude, you know, Google X Prize teams from proposing
on the Scout missions and having a very good chance of winning,
you know, for that level of innovation.
We also look at the possibility of commercial data vice.
And we got very limited experience with that, mostly in the Science Mission Directorate.
And it's been a varying track record with levels of success with that.
So we didn't have enough data to really evaluate it fully
but we're definitely are making recommendation to management that it is something
that it's definitely worth keeping an eye on as we progress
because there's a significant potential.
>> That, you know, it would be wonderful if we were to able to just say,
look we need imagery of this site.
And if there's a commercial capability that is in orbit around the moon, great.
You know, we can do commercial data vice, we've done it.
And again, the culture is evolving, the capability is evolving and the desire commercial
to provide those services and for us to be able to step in and just by them is evolving.
And I think that is something that we have to keep looking at.
But right now, to answer your question very specifically, the focus of the xPRM right now is
to do those precursor investigations.
Now, if there's a commercial leveraging opportunity to do those precursor investigations
that we may have missed and I'd very eager to hear from you as to how we can fold that in,
in order to do the precursor investigation objectives
by leveraging from commercial opportunities.
That answers your question?
Nah? Any other questions?
>> Hey, Jay.
This Walt Falconer [phonetic] in the back, you probably can't see me back here.
Anyway, you know, the Augustine Committee in their discussion
of the flexible path architecture mentioned two other destinations that you don't seem
to have brought up which include going to Lagrange points are well as to Phobos-Deimos.
So is the intention is that-- or it was deliberately omitted from your road map
or discussion or are those potential candidates as well?
>> They're definitely potential candidates.
In terms of the point of departure architecture that we had,
we don't have anything listed for Lagrange points.
And again, if you take a look at what I was talking,
you take a look at what the human space flight objectives which could very well be going
to Lagrange points and doing assembly, a very large item in order
to do a low energy trajectory change to another Lagrange point, it's a good stuff, okay.
And that could be a human space flight objective.
But if we take a look back, what kind of precursor investigations do I need
to do in order to prepare for that?
And when the study teams take a look at this, we were determining that really what really come
to are hazards, radiation hazards.
And that's an investigation that we can do on almost any interplanetary mission
by monitoring during the cruise base out to a NEO,
where you can probably meet most of those objectives.
And then from there, becomes a pure technology demonstration mission.
So I don't wanna preclude it but in terms of the precursor investigation which is my reason
for sending a mission as a precursor investigation
to Lagrange points for the robotics.
It wasn't the strong player.
It's not saying anything about the human space flight.
Phobos and Deimos, definitely it can be in the trade space.
Right now, with the limited opportunities that we have for the Mars orbits,
we are focusing primary on the resource aspects.
We were looking at the objectives that we're laid out by NIPEG
to identify hydrogen rate resource areas in 16 and then
of course getting the ground truth in 18.
Because of the fact that we didn't put a Phobos-Deimos mission
in there does not mean that we wouldn't.
It just means that in terms of the priority and the limited budget on this point
of departure time line, we didn't include one.
Any other questions?
[ Pause ]
>> And 4 seconds to spare.
[ Applause ]