Dumbacher2012 pmchallenge

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Exploration Systems DevelopmentProgram Management Overview

Dan DumbacherFebruary 2012

2

The NASA Vision

NASA Strategic Goals1. Extend and sustain human activities across the solar system.2. Expand scientific understanding of the Earth and the universe in which

we live.3. Create the innovative new space technologies for our exploration,

science, and economic future.4. Advance aeronautics research for societal benefit.5. Enable program and institutional capabilities to conduct NASA’s

aeronautics and space activities.6. Share NASA with the public, educators, and students to provide

opportunities to participate in our mission, foster innovation, and contribute to a strong national economy

To reach for new heights and reveal the unknown, so that what we do and learn will benefit all humankind.

3

Stepping Stone Exploration

4

Human Exploration & Operations: Organization

Current as of February 2012

5

Exploration Systems Development

These programs will develop the launch and spaceflight vehicles that will provide the initial capability for crewed exploration missions beyond LEO.

– The Space Launch System (SLS) program is developing the heavy lift vehicle that will launch the crew vehicle, other modules, and cargo for these missions

– The Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) program is developing the vehicle that will carry the crew to orbit, provide emergency abort capability, sustain the crew while in space, and provide safe re-entry from deep space return velocities

– The Ground Systems Development and Operations (GSDO) program is developing the necessary launch site infrastructure to prepare, assemble, test, launch and recover the SLS and Orion MPCV flight systems

6

Organization and InterfacesESD Division and Programs

Cross-Program Systems Integration

(CSI)

Program Level

HEO/ESD Level

Space Launch System(SLS)

Line of AuthorityLine of Communication

Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle(MPCV)

Ground Systems Development &

Operations(GSDO)

ESD HQ Agents

(Reach back Support)

Program to

Program Technical Working Groups

PP&C Integration Team (PIT)

Budget Integration WG

Risk Integration WG

Transition Integration WG

Schedule Integration WG

Config Mgt & Document Mgt

WG

Integrated Programmatic

Communication

Exploration Systems Development

(ESD)HEO RMAO

Programmatic and Strategic Integration

(PSI)ESD RMO

7

Analysis of Alternatives Overview

8

Objectives of Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)

• Focus on delivering beyond Low Earth Orbit (BEO) capability for human exploration as expeditiously and safely as possible

• Assume a flat-line budget

• Develop an integrated capability by aligning MPCV, SLS, and GSDO concepts through a set of common ground rules and assumptions

• Develop a budget profile to enable a wedge to be created for future in-space systems development

9

FY 2011FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT

Integrated Plan Leading to Orion, SLS, and GSDO Information & Decisions

FORMULATION PLAN

SLS, Orion, 21CGS ALT

ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS

INTEGRATED SLS, Orion, GSDO ALTERNATIVE

FINAL ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS

INTEGRATED SLS, Orion, GSDO

DRAFT PRG GUIDANCE

SLS ACQUISITION

Integrate SLS, Orion, GSDO

INDEPENDENT COST ASSESSMENT (ICA)

ARCHITECURE SELECTION

SECTION 309 REPORT

FINAL REPORT TO NASA

ARCHITECURE ANNOUNCEMENT

December 23

10

Orion MPCV Analysis Approach

• The MPCV Analysis sought to validate or challenge whether the beyond-LEO version of the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (the Reference Vehicle Design) is the most effective approach through:

– Understanding progress to date on the Orion development effort

– Validating whether the Orion requirements closely match MPCV requirements consistent with the Authorization Act

– Examining and implementing ways to be able to deliver an affordable and achievable crew vehicle as soon as possible. For example:

• Streamlining government oversight and insight activities to ensure we are focusing on the key-risk items

• Implementing an incremental approach to developing and building vehicle capabilities• Planning a more innovative and cost-effective vehicle qualification plan, utilizing

distributed test labs, for example• NASA is also exploring other affordability measures including consolidating facilities

and re-using test assets

11

Decision for Orion as MPCV

• Examined technical, risk and cost implications of replacing functionality of MPCV with in-space vehicle and planned Commercial Crew capabilities

• CC-Based Approach produces large increases in required mission mass and associated number of launches (factor of 2 - 3) over Capability-Driven Reference with significant impacts on safety risk and P&O cost

– Increases complexity of in-space vehicle assembly and number of elements required implying lower reliability system

– Increases ground launch infrastructure and/or technology development– Introduces unique mission-critical events and additional Loss-of-Crew scenarios– “Launch-on-Demand” CC capability required to assure crew survivability in many

abort scenarios– Parametric costs estimates indicate recurring cost delta per mission provides

insufficient P&O funding for SLS and eliminates funding wedge for future capabilities given the flat-line budget

Assessment confirms the requirements for an MPCV

12

SLS Analysis Approach

Approach: • Leverage three government Requirement Analysis Cycle (RAC) Teams to create and

study different design concepts that leverage capability across American industry• In parallel, solicit industry input and concepts via study contract input

Implementation:• Team studies (Fall 2010) concluded without architecture decisions• Government Requirements Analysis Cycle (RAC)

– Three competing configurations with fourth team looking at cross-cutting affordability– Approaches to affordability addressed by all 3 teams– Common requirements, goals/threshold approach - tradable– Incorporate incremental inputs from NASA Heavy Lift study contracts– Out brief to SLS Feb 16-18

• Contractor Heavy Lift Study Contracts–awarded November 2010– 13 Contractors, $650K each, 6 month studies – broad SOW ideas– Initial Out briefs Feb 22-24– Final Out briefs Apr 25-28

13

Analyzed SLS Concepts

LOX/H2 – Reference Vehicle Design LOX/RP Modular

DescriptionHydrogen core configuration with

solid strap-on boosters; multiple evolution paths

Large RP configuration (large diameter tanks) with multiple

engine options, incl. NASA/USAF common engine

Modular RP configuration (smaller diameter tanks) with multiple engine options, incl. NASA/USAF common engine

Lift Capability 70 mT – 150 mT 100 mT – 172 mT 70 mT – 130 mT

Note: Images based on government design solutions from RAC teams

14

SLS DecisionPhilosophy/Rationale

• Maintains US leadership in LOX/LH2 technology– LOX/LH2 core uses RS-25E engines; LOX/LH2 Upper Stage uses J-2X– Establishes fixed central design path with logical use of existing strength in design and

manufacture– Maintains existing knowledge base, skills, infrastructure, workforce, and industrial base

for existing state of the art systems • Minimizes Unique Configurations

– Evolutionary Path to 130mT allows incremental development; thus progress to be made even with constrained budgets

– Allows early flight tests for MPCV – Provides flexible/modular design and system for varying launch needs– Gains synergy, thus reducing DDTE by building core and upper stage in parallel,

allowing common tooling and engine feed components• Provides a Balanced Approach for Acquisition

– Opportunity for use of existing contracts for development phase enabling a fast start– ASM will provide official agency decision on acquisition strategy– Allows for competition for best value to the government

15

Orion MPCV Overview

16

Orion MPCV Vehicle

Launch Abort System• Provide protection for the CM

from atmospheric loads and heating during first stage flight

• Safely jettison after successful pad operations and first stage flight

Service Module (SM)• Provide support to the CM from

launch through CM separation to missions with minimal impact to the CM

Crew Module (CM)

• Provide safe habitat from launch through landing and recovery

• Conduct reentry and landing as a stand alone module

Spacecraft Adapter• Provide structural connection to the launch vehicle

from ground operations through CM Separation• Provide protection for SM components from

atmospheric loads and heating during first stage flight

The Orion MPCV design divides critical functions among multiple modules to maximize the performance of the integrated spacecraft design

17

Orion MPCV Technology Advancements

PropulsionAbort Motor, Attitude Control Motor,High Burn Rate Propellant for SolidRocket MotorsBenefits: High reliability launch abort, steerable solid rocket motors

AvionicsAlgorithmic Autocode Generation, ARINC-653/DO-178 Standard Operating System, Baseband Processor, High Speed/High Density Memory Devices, Honeywell HX5000 Northstar ASICBenefits: Low cost, high performance, open architecture

NavigationAtmospheric Skip Entry, Flash Lidar, Vision Navigation Sensors, Autonomous Rendezvous and Docking, Fast Acquisition GPS Receiver, High Density Camera SensorsBenefits: Low cost, high reliability, autonomous docking

CommunicationsInteroperable Communications, Communication Network Router Card, Digital Video Recorder, Phased Array AntennasBenefits: Low cost, high reliability, open architecture

Life Support & SafetySolid Amine Swing-Bed, Backup and Survival Systems, Closed Loop Life Support, Contingency Land Landing, Enhanced Waste Management, Environmental Control, Hazard Detection, Isolation and RecoveryBenefits: Low consumables, long mission duration, high reliability, low operations cost

StructuresComposite Spacecraft Structures, Human Rated Spacecraft Primary Structures Development, Advanced ManufacturingBenefits: Low cost, low mass

Thermal Protection SystemAblative Heatshield with CompositeCarrier StructureBenefits: Low cost, high reliability, high energy (Beyond LEO) entry

PowerHigh Energy Density Lithium Ion Batteries, Column Grid Array Packaging (CGA), Direct Energy Power Transfer SystemBenefits: Low cost, high reliability, low mass, long mission duration

18

SLS Overview

19

SLS Planned Evolution

Block 1A – 105 t incorporates

Advanced Boosters

Block 1 – 70 t Block 2 – 130 t

20

SLS Key Characteristics

• Human-Rated

• Affordable– Constrained budget environment– Maximum use of common elements and existing assets,

infrastructure and workforce– Competitive opportunities for affordability on-ramps

• Initial Capability: 70-100 metric tons (t), 2017-2021– Serves as primary transportation for Orion and exploration missions– Provides back-up capability for crew/cargo to ISS

• Evolved capability: 105 t, post-2021– Includes Advanced Booster– Allows incorporation of any products from the Advanced

Development NRA focusing on risk reduction

• Evolved capability: 130 t, post-2021– Offers large volume for science missions and payloads– Modular and flexible, right-sized for mission requirements

SLS First Flight (Non-crewed) in 2017

21

Summary by Element:Risk Reduction Incorporated in Design

• Boosters (3-phased approach)– Phase I: 5-segment Solid Rocket Booster in-scope modification to existing Ares contract with ATK for initial flights

through 2021– Phases II and III: Advanced Boosters

• II: Engineering demonstration and risk reduction via NASA Research Announcement (NRA): Full and Open Competition in FY12; award by FY13

• III: Design, Development, Test & Evaluation (DDT&E): Full and Open Competition (RFP target FY15)

• Stages– Core/Upper Stage: Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition (JOFOC) to Boeing, modifying current

Ares Upper Stage contract– Instrument Unit Avionics: In-scope modification to existing Ares contract with Boeing; consolidated with Stages

contract to Boeing

• Engines– Core Stage Engine: RS-25d JOFOC to existing Space Shuttle contract with Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne (PWR)– Upper Stage Engine: J-2X in-scope modification to existing Ares contract with PWR– Future Core Stage Engine: Separate contract activity to be held in the future

• Spacecraft and Payload adapter and Fairing– Initial design: Adapter and Fairing design and development in-house through early design phase– Fairing Full and Open Competition planned for FY13

22

SLS Trades and Vehicle Reliability

SLS Trades consider impacts on performance, safety and budget.• SLS has multiple trade studies (20+) on-going

– Number of engines, stage testing at SSC vs. FRF, etc. • Results of all trades must be reconciled prior to establishing a complete

baseline configuration addressing all 3 factors• Planning to baseline configuration at end of SRR/SDR – May 2012• SLS Program is still in formulation phase

Reliability predictions for all vehicles • Models use STS data for heritage and heritage derived hardware, e.g. SSME• Model includes flight path and time• Model used to predict LOM and LOC for 4 cases for each vehicle configuration:

No Engine-Out (EO), Core EO, Upper Stage EO, and Both Stages EO• Estimates used to trade against performance and costs• Estimates will be used to develop reliability allocations for Elements post SDR

23

SLS Procurement Milestones

• SLS Acquisition Overview Synopsis, posted September 22, 2011

• Industry Day at Marshall Space Flight Center on September 29

• SLS Advanced Development RFI, posted October 7, 2011

• SLS Advanced Booster Engineering Demonstration and Risk Reduction RFI, posted October 7, 2011

• Industry Day at Michoud Assembly Facility on November 14

• SLS Advanced Booster Engineering Demonstration and Risk Reduction Draft NRA, posted December 12, 2011

• SLS Advanced Development Draft NRA, posted February 1, 2012

• SLS Advanced Booster Engineering Demonstration and Risk Reduction NRA, posted February 9, 2012

• Industry Day at Marshall Space Flight Center on February 14

24

Block 1 Design/DevelopmentAdvanced DevelopmentBlock 1 Requirements

Block 2 Design/Development Advanced DevelopmentBlock 2 Requirements

Block 1 Mission

Block 2 Mission

Block 3 Design/Developmen

t Advanced DevelopmentBlock 3

Requirements

Advanced DevelopmentBlock 4 Requirements

Missions Requirements Block 0 Design/Development Block 0 Mission

Improvements in Affordability, Reliability, and Performance

Stakeholders &

Customer Needs

* NASA, Office of Chief Technologist

TechnologyMaturation*

Technology Maturation*

Technology Maturation*

SLS Philosophy for Evolutionary Upgrades

25

SLS Development Key Tenets

• Utilize an evolutionary development strategy that allows for incremental progress within constrained budgets

• Incorporate mature technical solutions into SLS program-phased block upgrades

• Optimize use of common elements and existing assets for a flexible/modular design

Improve Affordability, Reliability, or Performance

26

Ground Systems Development and Operations(GSDO) Overview

27

Horizontal Launch & Landing Small Vehicle LaunchClean Floor Processing

Heavy Class Launch Capability

Flexible Approach

Multi-Use Integration (VAB)

Flexible Launch Capability

28

GSDO Program Highlights

• The demolition of the Fixed Service Structure/Rotating Service Structure (FSS/RSS) at Launch Complex 39-B was completed.

• Multi-Purpose Processing Facility (MPPF) Phase 1 modifications (HVAC) are progressing.

• Space Shuttle Program facility turnover is underway.

• Provided significant contribution to the Interagency Working Group Launch Infrastructure Modernization Report

Before After

29

Orion MPCV Ground Test Article

30

SLS Configurations

• 385 ft

• 315 ft

• 209 ft

• 0• 130t_Block ll cargo• 105 - Block lA cargo • 130t Block ll crew• 105t - Block IA crew• 70t - Block l crew

Notional GSDO Range

32

Overall Flight Test Strategy

33

Mission/Flight Test Objectives

• Flights are needed to test critical mission events and demonstrate performance in relevant environments– Abort, jettison, separation, chute deploy, Re-entry and TPS performance in

BEO conditions, Integrated vehicle systems performance, and environments validation

– Data collected from flights will be used to eliminate additional SLS test flights as the SLS configuration evolves

– Dedicated flight tests will not be required for incorporation of competitive boosters, RS-25E, or the upper stage (with J-2X)

• Four missions/test flights planned to meet minimum mission/flight test– Exploration Flight Test-1 (EFT-1), an orbital, uncrewed test flight in 2014

provides MPVC system level tests and risk reduction opportunity– Ascent Abort-2 (AA-2), an abort test in high dynamic pressure environment – Exploration Mission-1 (EM-1), an Un-crewed BEO (lunar flyby) and EM-2,

a crewed BEO flight (includes 3-4 day lunar orbit) will provide more system level testing and shakedown

34

MPCV Test Campaign Reduces Risk While Maturing the Design

GTA Acoustic, Modal, Vibe TestingEnvironment compatibility

Water Drop TestsCorrelate structural math models in water landing conditions

Parachute TestsNominal and contingency parachute performance tests

Wind Tunnel Testing Aero/aerothermal database validation for Orion configuration

TPS Arc Jet TestingHeatshield model correlation for entry performance

EFT-1 Test Article Manufacturing and AssemblyFirst production primary structure built for orbital flight

Pad Abort Test - May 6, 2010Demo abort capability with prototype LAS

Exploration Flight Test 1

35

Exploration Mission – 1 (EM-1)BEO Un-crewed Flight

• Mission description– Un-crewed circumlunar flight – free return trajectory– Mission duration ~7 days

• Mission objectives– Demonstrate integrated spacecraft systems performance prior to

crewed flight– Demonstrate high speed entry (~11 km/s) and TPS prior to

crewed flight• Spacecraft configuration

– Orion “Block 0 Lunar”• Launch vehicle configuration

– SLS Block 0, 5 segment SRBs, 3 SSMEs, 70-80 t– Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS)

• Launch site– KSC LC-39B

35

Exploration Mission – 2 (EM-2) BEO Crewed Flight

• Mission description– Crewed lunar orbit mission– Mission duration 10-14 days

• Mission objectives– Demonstrate crewed flight beyond LEO

• Spacecraft configuration– Orion “Block 0 Lunar”

• Launch vehicle configuration– SLS Block 0, 5 segment SRBs, 3 SSMEs, 70-80 t– Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS)

• Launch site– KSC LC-39B

36

Affordability

Accelerate Decision-Making Velocity

Manage Program RQ & Contractor Interfaces

Maintain Competition & Improve Acquisitions

Incentivize Contractors for Effective Cost MgmtIdentify Best Practices &

Implement Lessons Learned

Flatten Organization - Clear Authority &

Accountability

Maximize Use of Industry Standards

Eliminate Non-Value Added NASA & FAR RQ

Develop Mitigation Plans for High Risks / Cost Drivers

Streamline Certificate of Flight Readiness Process

Implement “Should Cost” Based Management

Capitalize on Progress Payment Structures

Define Strategy & Clear Roles for Oversight/Insight

Focus on Key Driving Requirements

Make Affordability a Requirement

Push Reserves to Programs

Leverage Use of In-House Capability

Maximize Competition thru the Life of Program

Adopt Appropriate Safety & Risk Posture

Improving Affordability of Human Spaceflight Programs

Reduce Frequency of Agency-level Reviews

Accelerate Decision-Making

•Overhauled the Governance Structure–Flattened organization – removed a layer–Clear authority and accountability–Fewer decision-boards–Pushed reserves to the programs–Fewer meetings and streamlined reporting

•Implementing a New, Efficient, Distributed Integration Approach–ESD leads with reach back to the Programs & Centers through -

•ESD Office of Cross Program Systems Integration (CSI)•ESD Office of Programmatic & Strategic Integration (PSI)

•Leveraging Lessons Learned–Constellation Program–Ares 1X Flight Demonstration Project–Standing Review Board–Booz Allen Hamilton–Industry Input on Affordability – 1-on-1 meetings and SLS BAA input–DoD Better Buying Power Initiatives–NASA/DAU Program Executability Workshop

Manage Program RQ & Contractor Interfaces

•Including Affordability as a Requirement– Encouraging commonality and utilization of industry standards vs NASA

unique requirements.–Streamlined and Minimized Key Driving Requirements

• ESD issued only 21 level one requirements; CxP had several hundred.

• Strategically focused staffing of insight / oversight of contractor performance

–Minimize number of Gov’t staff performing insight/oversight–Follow a Risk-based or a Hybrid approach

– Focus and clarify Government roles pertaining to interactions with and direction to contractor.

•Risk Management– ESD cannot afford to mitigate all risks; risk acceptance needs to be

approved and documented.– Connecting risk approach to use of reserves will allow ESD to strategically

choose the most important risks to mitigate.

Maintain Competition & Improve Acquisitions-

•Conducting ‘Will Cost’ and ‘Should Cost’ Reviews–Conducted a ‘Should Cost’ training session–Booz Allen support of Independent Cost Assessment–DoD Price Fighters assisting SLS IATs–DCMA to assist with ‘Should Cost’ review of Contractor overhead

•Implementing Contract Incentives for Cost Reductions

•Issuing Multiple Lower-Level Contracts vs Large System Level–Reduces pass through of subcontracting overhead & fees–Enables greater insight and ability to define requirements–Enable direct employment of contractor performance incentives–Improves competition

•SLS: Element-level contracts•Ground Dev & Ops: FP IDIQ contracts

•Leveraging Existing Assets

ESD - A fresh start to improve affordability…

• Major cost drivers in human space flight are organizational structures, requirements and acquisition strategy / contract management.

• ESD and its programs are new, very different development programs in comparison to prior NASA experiences

• This new beginning has enabled NASA to pursue a more efficient and affordable future to human space flight by implementing approaches to secure better buying power, such as: – Accelerating Decision-Making Velocity– Better Managing Program Requirements & Contractor Interfaces, and– Improving Acquisition Strategy and Implementation

43

Space Launch SystemAffordability Begins with Accountability• Evolvable Development Approach

– Manage requirements within constrained, flat budgets– Leverage existing National capabilities

• Liquid oxygen/hydrogen propulsion infrastructure• Manufacturing and launch-site facilities

– Infuse new design solutions for affordability• Robust Designs and Margins

– Performance traded for cost and schedule– Heritage hardware and manufacturing solutions– Adequate management reserves controlled at lower levels

• Risk-Informed Government Insight/Oversight Model– Insight based on:

• Historic failures• Industry partner past performance and gaps• Complexity and design challenges

– Judicious oversight:• Discrete oversight vs. near continuous• Timely and effective decisions

• Right-Sized Documentation and Standards– 80% Reduction in the number of Type 1 Data Requirement Documents from the Ares Projects– Increased use of industry practices and tailored NASA standards

• Lean, Integrated Teams with Accelerated Decision Making– Simple, clear technical interfaces with contractors– Integrated Systems Engineering & Integration organization– Empowered decision makers at all levels– Fewer control Boards and streamlined change process

8094_Affordability.44National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Multi-Purpose Crew VehicleAffordability Actions

• Orion/MPCV affordability initiatives over the past 12 months have reduced DDT&E cost and enabled schedule acceleration.

• Initiatives include:

– Streamlined government oversight and insight that focuses on key-risk items and collocation with Prime contractor in selected areas

– Incremental approach to building and testing vehicle capabilities

– Reduction in formal deliverables and simplified processes while retaining adequate rigor

– Partnering with suppliers to analyze cost drivers and possible efficiencies

– Consolidation of test labs and re-use of test articles

45

Ground Systems Development and Operations Approach to Affordability

• Architecture leverages existing Shuttle/ISS and Constellation assets and avoids unnecessary costs to be affordable.– Relies heavily on “grandfathering” of these heritage systems with respect to

code compliance.• LC39 Pad B (clean pad)• Uses modified Ares 1-ML• Integration: VAB – High Bay-3• Utilizes CxP Crew/Crew Module Recovery Approach

• Civil Servants perform the traditional “Prime” role for management & integration– Allows Ground Operations to quickly respond to changing program direction

with minimal cost/schedule impact– Avoids overhead costs on subcontracts, and is different from the Shuttle-USA

experience• Acquisition approach enables flexibility and maximizes competition.

– Reduce schedule and procurement costs through ‘best value’ fixed-price IDIQ contracts. Pre-qualify and pre-stage supplier pools (designers, fabricators, constructors):• Design IDIQ contracts (in place)• Construction IDIQ contracts (in place)• GSE Fabrication IDIQ contracts (in place)• Craft Labor contract for installation support (in planning)

Near-Earth Asteroids:– Compelling science questions:

How did the Solar System form? Where did Earth’s water and organics come from?

– Planetary defense: Understanding and mitigating the threat of impact

– Potential for valuable space resources– Excellent stepping stone for Mars

We Can Reach Multiple Destinations

Increasing Our Reach and Expanding Our Boundaries

High-Earth Orbit (HEO)/Geosynchronous-Earth Orbit (GEO)/Lagrange Points:– Microgravity destinations beyond LEO– Opportunities for construction, fueling,

and repair of complex in-space systems – Excellent locations for advanced space

telescopes and Earth observatories

Earth’s Moon:– Witness to the birth of the Earth and

inner planets– Has critical resources to sustain humans– Significant opportunities for commercial

and international collaboration

Mars and Its Moons,Phobos and Deimos:– A premier destination for discovery:

Is there life beyond Earth? How did Mars evolve?

– True possibility for extended, even permanent, stays

– Significant opportunities for international collaboration

– Technological driver for space systems

8032 SLS 101 Briefing.47

48

MPCV Test Campaign - Status Reduces Risk While Maturing the Design

GTA Acoustic, Modal, Vibe TestingEnvironment compatibility

Water Drop TestsCorrelate structural math models in water landing conditions

Parachute TestsNominal and contingency parachute performance tests

Wind Tunnel Testing Aero/aerothermal database validation for Orion configuration

TPS Arc Jet TestingHeatshield model correlation for entry performance

EFT-1 Test Article Manufacturing and AssemblyFirst production primary structure built for orbital flight

Pad Abort Test - May 6, 2010Demo abort capability with prototype LAS

SLS Status•SLS Program Office

– Presented “Pass the Torch” lecture at U.S. Space and Rocket Center’s Davidson Center for Space Exploration on Feb 2– Kickoff meeting on Feb 15 for System Requirements Review (SRR) / System Definition Review (SDR) in Mar 2012

•Program Planning & Control– Baselined SLS Program Plan at the Program Control Board on Jan 26– Hosted technical interchange meeting (TIM) for the Exploration Systems Division’s integrated programmatic communications

working group from Jan 30 – 31

•Procurement– Held SLS Industry Days for the SLS Program, Stages, and NASA Research Announcement (NRA) Advanced Booster

Engineering Demonstration and Risk Reduction (EDRR), attended by over 670 companies and potential partners– Conducted SLS Advanced Development and Academia Industry Day on Feb 14

• Boosters– Held kick-off for Integrated Acquisition Team on Jan 13– Discussed systems engineering and integration at ATK-Lakeside from Jan 23 – 26

• Engines– Completed 10 tests for J-2X Upper Stage Engine E10001 (~1,040 sec cumulative hot-fire time)– Successfully demonstrated full flight mission duration (500 sec) and 100 percent power level (235 sec) in 2011– Conducting engine to facility control system checkouts in preparation for PPA-2 Test #1

• Stages– Baselined Integrated Acquisition Team Board on Jan 17

• Spacecraft & Payload Integration– Successfully tested 3’ by 5’ Manufacturing Test Panel 6003 at LaRC on Jan 19– Baselined Exploration Flight Test 1 (EFT-1) MPCV-To-Stage Adapter (MSA) detailed schedule on Jan 20

• Mobile Launcher move to Pad B

• Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) designs for cable removal and VAB door modifications complete

• Crawler Transporter-2 moved into VAB HB-2 to continue modification

• VAB Door Project contract awarded to USA

• Pad B LH2/LO2 Cross Country Pedestal Refurbishment complete

• Tank Refurbishment sandblasting and painting started

• ML Structural Design Contract awarded to RS&H

• Received tilt-up umbilical arm test article at the the Launch Equipment Test Facility (LETF)

•LETF Testing is scheduled to start beginning of May, 2012

• Initiated construction on CRF facility to support Orion Launch Abort System (LAS) assembly for EFT1

• Orion Ground Test Article (GTA) at KSC for GSE development

50

GSDO Status

51

www.nasa.gov

Questions?