Engineering topics

Andrews, Daniel R.

Publications and source records attributed to Andrews, Daniel R..

7 records

NASA NTRS2015

Resource Prospector (RP): A Cost-Effective Lunar Resource Pathfinder

Resource Prospector (RP) is an in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) technology demonstration mission under study by the NASA Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorates (HEOMD). This clever mission is currently planned to launch in 2020 and will demonstrate extraction of oxygen, water and other volatiles, as well measure mineralogical content such as silicon and light metals, like aluminum and titanium, from lunar regolith. Expanding human presence beyond low-Earth orbit to asteroids and Mars will require the maximum possible use of local materials, so-called in-situ resources, and the moon presents a unique destination to conduct robotic investigations that advance ISRU capabilities, as well as providing significant exploration and science value. This mission is equally important; however, for how it executes as a risk-tolerant, cost-effective mission. RP follows on the path-finding approaches of the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) mission. The LCROSS mission confirmed the presence of water-ice on the moon, but also established a new lightweight-approach to project and mission execution which was considerably cheaper and faster than traditional NASA missions. RP has been designated as a Class D mission, just as LCROSS. This mission classification is the most risk-tolerant class of mission within the NASA risk framework and as such, is given more latitude to accept higher-levels of residual risk. The intention is that by saving monies normally spent attempting to assure a single missions success, more missions can be funded. A well-designed portfolio can accept occasional mission failure, as it still gets more done for the same investment of resources. This classification enables tailoring the NASA Policy Requirements (NPRs) to lighter-weight approaches to mission management and execution. RP is also studying both international and commercial partnerships as a means to maximize return on the investment. International partnerships provide both capabilities synergies and cost-sharing opportunities, while the evolving new space commercial options are revealing new approaches to acquiring cost-effective services, including the benefits of bundling services. Even the world of launch vehicles is changing, offering much less expensive access to space, especially if NASA is able to be flexible in how it approaches mission assurance. Finally, leveraging investments being made elsewhere within a program portfolio, can enable cost-savings by enabling two applications with one investment. RP will be the next pathfinder mission to both enable exploration capabilities for future missions, and continue to evolve cost-effective approaches for NASA.

Lunar↗

NASA NTRS2011

Shooting the Moon

This story is about an unlikely NASA mission to the Moon. It was unlikely because it was started with far too little time and too-little money to complete. It was unlikely because it was able to take chances to accept risk of failure. It was unlikely because it was searching for the unthinkable: water-ice on the moon... Figure 1-1: LCROSS Mission. The mission of the Lunar CRater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) was to investigate the possibility of water ice in craters on the Moon s poles. This is certainly an interesting scientific topic in itself, but I intend to focus on the compelling experience of managing the LCROSS Project in the context of this storied Agency. Perhaps most interesting are the implications this story has for managing any development effort, lunar or not, and working a balance to achieve success. NASA is by design a risk-taking agency within the US Government. It could be argued that NASA s purpose in the aerospace community is to take on the really big challenges that either the corporate world can t afford, are not yet profitable endeavors, or are just too risky for private corporations to entertain. However, expectations of the Agency have evolved. A combination of grim human tragedies and some very public cost and schedule overruns have challenged the public s and Congress s tolerance for risk-taking within the Agency. NASA, which is supposed to be in the business of taking risks to do bold, difficult things, has become less and less able to do so within its cost framework. Yet effectively replacing prudent risk management with attempts to "risk-eliminate" is completely unaffordable. So where does risk-taking fit within the Agency, or within private/corporate organizations for that matter? Where astronauts play there is clearly concern about risk. When an organization puts humans in harm s way, it is understandably going to take extra effort to assure nobody gets hurt. Doing so, of course, costs money - a lot of money to pay for labor and hardware which is attempting to assure nothing will go wrong. Sophisticated designs, with doubly- or triply-redundant systems, extensive testing to verify those systems, and numerous engineering test units built to learn and evolve a hardware design, all drive the cost and time required to implement. Human spaceflight is an expensive business because of the exceptional system complexity and levels of assurance required for human space travel. What about missions that do not involve human spaceflight? What about missions whose potential failure will not take a human life, whose costs are small and whose urgency and importance are limited by design? A portfolio consisting of this type of mission can be designed to be risk tolerant, not requiring large expenditures to guarantee against failure. With the money saved, the number of missions that can be executed within the portfolio grows, or the total cost of the portfolio can be reduced. The NASA LCROSS mission is a pathfinder example of a low-cost, quick turn-around mission which struck a balance on mission risk, while accomplishing big objectives, like defining how we understand the Moon.

Andrews, Daniel R.↗

NASA NTRS2010

LCROSS Lunar Impactor - Lessons Learned from a Small Satellite Mission

The Lunar CRater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) launched with the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) on June 18, 2009. While the science function of the LCROSS mission was to determine the presence of water-ice in a permanently-shadowed crater on the moon, the operational purpose was to be a pioneer for future low-cost, risk-tolerant small satellite NASA missions. Recent strategic changes at the Agency level have only furthered the importance of small satellite missions. NASA Ames Research Center and its industry partner, Northrop-Grumman, initiated this spacecraft project two-years after its co-manifest mission had started, with less than one-fifth the budget. With a $79M total cost cap (including operations and reserves) and 31-months until launch, LCROSS needed a game-changing approach to be successful. At the LCROSS Confirmation Review, the ESMD Associate Administrator asked the Project team to keep a close record of lessons learned through the course of the mission and share their findings with the Agency at the end of the mission. This paper summarizes the Project, the mission, its risk position, and some of the more notable lessons learned.

Andrews, Daniel R.↗

NASA NTRS2010

LCROSS - Lunar Impactor: Pioneering Risk-Tolerant Exploration in Search for Water on the Moon

The Lunar CRater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) was launched with the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) on June 18, 2009 to determine the presence of water-ice in a permanently shadowed crater on the south pole of the Moon. However, an equally important purpose was to pioneer low-cost, quick-turnaround NASA missions that could accept a higher-than-normal-level of technical risk. When the LCROSS mission proposal was competitively selected by the NASA Exploration Systems Mission Directorate to design, build, and launch a spacecraft in 31 months with a $79M cost-capped budget and a fixed mass allocation, NASA Ames Research Center and its industry partner, Northrop-Grumman, needed a game-changing approach to be successful. That approach was a ground-breaking combination of having a risk-tolerant NASA Class D mission status and finding the right balance point between the inflexible elements of cost and schedule and the newly-flexible element of technical capability.

Andrews, Daniel R.↗

NASA NTRS2010

LCROSS: A High Return, Small Satellite Mission

Early in 2006, the NASA Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) held a competition for NASA Centers to propose innovative ideas for a secondary payload mission to launch with the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) to the Moon. The successful proposal could cost no more than $80 million dollars (less was preferred), would have to be ready to launch with the LRO in 31 months, could weigh no more than 1000 kg (fuelled), and would be designated a risk-tolerant "Class D" mission. In effect, NASA was offering a fixed-price contract to the winning NASA team to stay within a cost and schedule cap by accepting an unusually elevated risk position. To address this Announcement of Opportunity to develop a cost-and-schedule-capped secondary payload mission to fly with LRO, NASA Ames Research Center (ARC) in Moffett Field, CA, USA embarked on a brainstorming effort termed "Blue Ice" in which a small team was asked to explore a number of mission scenarios that might have a good chance for success and still fit within the stated programmatic constraints. From this work, ARC developed and submitted six of the nineteen mission proposals received by ESMD from throughout the Agency, one of which was LCROSS - a collaborative effort between ARC and its industrial partner, Northrop-Grumman (NG) in Redondo Beach, CA, USA.

Andrews, Daniel R.↗

NASA NTRS1989

An airfoil pitch apparatus-modeling and control design

The study of dynamic stall of rapidly pitching airfoils is being conducted at NASA Ames Research Center. Understanding this physical phenomenon will aid in improving the maneuverability of fighter aircraft as well as civilian aircraft. A wind tunnel device which can linearly pitch and control an airfoil with rapid dynamic response is needed for such tests. To develop a mechanism capable of high accelerations, an accurate model and control system is created. The model contains mathematical representations of the mechanical system, including mass, spring, and damping characteristics for each structural element, as well as coulomb friction and servovalve saturation. Electrical components, both digital and analog, linear and nonlinear, are simulated. The implementation of such a high-performance system requires detailed control design as well as state-of-the-art components. This paper describes the system model, states the system requirements, and presents results of its theoretical performance which maximizes the structural and hydraulic aspects of this system.

Andrews, Daniel R.↗

NASA NTRS1989

An airfoil pitch apparatus-modeling and control design

The study of dynamic stall of rapidly pitching airfoils is being conducted at NASA Ames Research Center. Understanding this physical phenomenon will aid in improving the maneuverability of fighter aircraft as well as civilian aircraft. A wind tunnel device which can linearly pitch and control an airfoil with rapid dynamic reponse is needed for such tests. To develop a mechanism capable of high accelerations, an accurate model and control system is created. The model contains mathematical representations of the mechanical system, including mass, spring, and damping characteristics for each structural element, as well as coulomb friction and servovalve saturation. Electrical components, both digital and analog, linear and nonlinear, are simulated. The implementation of such a high-performance system requires detailed control design as well as state-of-the-art components. This paper describes the system model, states the system requirements, and presents results of its theoretical performance which maximizes the structural and hydraulic aspects of this system.

Andrews, Daniel R.↗