Science Enabling Engineering Enabling Science Enabling EngineeField Geology from an Engineer’s Perspective

Ruthan Lewis, Ph.D.Co-Chair Optimizing Science and Exploration Working GroupCo-Chair, Optimizing Science and Exploration Working Group

Exploration Systems Mission DirectorateNASA Headquarters

Workshop on Robots Supporting Human Science and ExplorationLunar Planetary Institute

A g st 5 2009August 5, 2009

Why the Moon? Global Exploration Themes

Human Civilization Scientific Knowledge

Exploration Preparation Global Partnerships

2Economic Expansion Public Engagement

Constellation Architecture

AltairLunar Lander

Earth Departure Stage

Lunar Lander

Ares ICrew Launch Vehicle

OrionCrew Exploration Vehicle

Ares VCargo Launch Vehicle

3

Exploration Roadmap

Lunar Outpost BuildupLunar Outpost Buildup

Exploration and Science Lunar Robotics MissionsExploration and Science Lunar Robotics Missions

0605 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Research and Technology Development on ISSResearch and Technology Development on ISS

Commercial Orbital Transportation Services for ISSCommercial Orbital Transportation Services for ISS

Space Shuttle OperationsSpace Shuttle Operations

Space Shuttle Program Transition and Retirement

Space Shuttle Program Transition and Retirement

Ares I and Orion DevelopmentAres I and Orion Development

Operations Capability Development(EVA Systems, Ground Operations, Mission Operations)

Operations Capability Development(EVA Systems, Ground Operations, Mission Operations)

Orion and Ares I Production and OperationOrion and Ares I Production and Operation

Altair Lunar Lander DevelopmentAltair Lunar Lander Development

Orion and Ares I Production and OperationOrion and Ares I Production and Operation

4Surface Systems DevelopmentSurface Systems Development

Ares V and Earth Departure StageAres V and Earth Departure Stage

Lunar Crewed Mission Profile

MOON

Crew of 4 + 500 kg cargo

LLO 100 km

100 kg return payload

Altair performs LOI

Orion

Orion performs 3 Burn TEI up to 1,492 m/s

Direct or Skip Entry

ERO

EDS Performs TLI on FD5

Orion 20.185 t at

TLI

25

ERO

Ares-1 Ascent Target

90 min 25

EARTHUp to 4 days LEO Loiter

Nominal Water Landing

90 min. launch

separation

Lunar Surface Systems Elements

Solar Power ISRU

Communications

Solar Power ISRU

Communications

Carrier MobilityLander and Ascent

Site survey, resource mapping

Augmented Power System

Logistics ModuleCarrier MobilityLander and Ascent

Site survey, resource mapping

Augmented Power System

Logistics ModuleCarrier Mobilityvehicle

Carrier Mobilityvehicle

Basic HabBasic Hab

24Logistics carriersMobility

Initial EVA System Regolith moving 24Logistics carriers

MobilityInitial EVA System Regolith moving

Integrated Lunar Architecture Analysis

Strategic Analysis

10 000

12,000

Surface Sys / LunarO t t W d

PMR ’08 Marks (April ‘08)($ M)

HLR – June 2019

Ares V“Contenders” Additional

Technical, Cost,

System and Mission Recommendations

Page 6May 21st, 2008 SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED (SBU)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

$ in

M HLR

Total NOA

IOC

Lunar OpsOutpost Wedges

ISS Ops

June

FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 TotalTotal NOA 1,710 1,779 2,482 2,840 3,188 6,454 6,498 7,044 7,818 8,151 8,690 10,189 10,436 10,692 10,952 98,923IOC 635 1,720 2,919 3,325 3,253 4,835 4,739 4,369 1,321 751 60 0 0 0 0 27,926ISS Ops 0 0 0 0 4 191 421 638 3,528 3,559 3,580 3,643 3,595 3,629 3,641 26,429HLR 7 8 27 41 51 412 1,317 2,093 3,181 3,727 4,665 5,182 4,752 3,144 836 29,442Lunar Ops 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 91 294 919 2,002 3,947 7,262Surface Sys / Lunar Outpost Wedges 0 0 2 4 4 4 16 32 77 120 173 398 1,246 2,273 2,663 7,013Total Cost 641 1,728 2,948 3,369 3,312 5,442 6,493 7,131 8,108 8,164 8,569 9,516 10,512 11,048 11,088 98,071NOA vs. Cost - Rate 1,068 50 (466) (529) (124) 1,012 5 (87) (290) (13) 121 672 (76) (356) (136) 852NOA vs. Cost - Cum 1,068 1,119 653 124 0 1,012 1,017 930 640 627 748 1,420 1,344 988 852

Ares V Concepts

Altair

Risk AnalysesProgrammatic and Requirements Impacts

Integrated Performance

Altair Concept

Cost, Risk Assessments

Orion, Ares I, EVA Baseline

Altair Capabilities

Reserves & Margins

Methodology“Basis Mission” Buyback Refinement

Altair Concept

Surface System Design/Analysis

“Trade Set”

Cost, Risk, Scenario AnalysesStrategic Analysis

C ti d A t l di

TransporterTransporter

Ground OperationsTrade Set

Option & Comparisons

Element Configuration ConceptsOperational Strategies

Continued Assessments leading to Surface System LCCR

Functional RelationshipsDesign Reference Scenarios as a Hub

Objectives

Sites ExplorationRequirements

Analog Planning& Operations

ConceptsDesign Reference

Scenarios

• Sequence, Phasing• Servicing

Verification ConceptsScenarios

• Robotic Support• Mobility • Servicing

• Sample Acquisition– Decision Making Criteria– Analysis– Tools

Req’d/SuggestedTechnologies

Payload ID

CampaignAnalysis

• Mobility• Navigation• Communication• Carriers,

Packaging

8

and DataPackaging• Logistics

Design Reference Missions (DRMS): Scenarios

• Scenarios and methodologies based on practical knowledge and experience

• Comparison of scenarios to get a sense of and/or optimize our trade spaces as we build our architecture

• They tell usy– How we do– What we do– Why we do

The Systems Engineering and Science Perspectives are Similar

• From a science perspective: conceive/define the problem (hypothesis), identify the variables needed to be studied, plan and carry out the methodology to collect data, analyze, validate by observing similarities in other areas, conditions, etc. put the puzzle pieces together

• Consider the complete problem, define needs and required functionality (early in the development cycle), document requirements, synthesize design, verify and validate system

• In doing so, one expects– recognition and minimization or reduction of risks– improvement and guarantee of quality: improve understandability and verifiability; consistent,

repeatable, reliable results– reduction of total cost: applying standardized process obtains uniform, easily retraced results– improvement of communication between all stakeholders: standardized and uniform description

of all relevant elements and terms is the basis for mutual understanding between all stakeholders

The Science/Engineering Double Helix

Why is an Engineer Concerned about Field Geology?Needs and Processes

• Transformation of science requirements

• Real-time implementation and processes

• Getting the results through operations and technology planning

• Remote sensing

– Crew interaction and communication• Surface to surface

– EVA to EVA– EVA to IVA

IVA to IVA• Remote sensing• Infrastructure to support science

– Pre mission– During mission

– IVA to IVA• Surface to Orbiter• Surface to Earth

– Crew autonomy– Analytical tools and facilitiesg

– Post mission for future missions

• Human observation– Human factors

M bilit d

Analytical tools and facilities– Decision Making

• Measuring success – were the science objectives addressed?

– Mobility and access– Crew training

– Planning– Replanning

Why is an Engineer Concerned about Field Geology?Informing and Enabling

• Techniques used to determine viability of field sites– Geoscience significance – physical and chemical aspects– Other metrics and “figures of merit” under discussionOther metrics and figures of merit under discussion

• Instrumentation network, global access is of high priority• Resources/utilities available to support science operations and activities

– LightingI t t ti l t i i• Instrumentation placement, viewing

• EVA implications (sighting)• Power (for mobility, instrumentation, etc.)

– Thermal• Instrumentation limitations• EVA• Mobility

– Communication and Navigation– Operational/Path planning flexibility – nominal and contingency, planned/unplanned (realtime

changes e g new discoveries leading to re-planning)changes, e.g. new discoveries leading to re-planning)– In-Situ Resources for sustainability– Crew health and protection– Mobility

• Observational and tactile access• Robotic assistance• Sample acquisition• Traveling laboratories and analysis

13

Instrument/Payload Characteristics

•• Payload/Instrument Point of Payload/Instrument Point of ContactContact

•• Payload/Instrument Concept Payload/Instrument Concept NameName

•• Vibration Requirements/ConcernsVibration Requirements/Concerns

•• Contamination (dust, particle) Contamination (dust, particle)

•• Applicable NRC Lunar Science GoalsApplicable NRC Lunar Science Goals

•• Science objectivesScience objectives

•• Type of Instrumentation/Sensor (e gType of Instrumentation/Sensor (e g

Requirements/ConcernsRequirements/Concerns

•• Astronaut Time Required for Astronaut Time Required for DeploymentDeployment

•• Type of Instrumentation/Sensor (e.g. Type of Instrumentation/Sensor (e.g. spectrometer, imaging, magnetometer, spectrometer, imaging, magnetometer, etc.)etc.)

•• MeasurementsMeasurements

•• Mass and VolumeMass and Volume

•• Power SystemPower System

•• Power ProfilePower Profile

•• Site RequirementsSite Requirements

•• OperationsOperations

•• RedeploymentRedeployment

•• Thermal DesignThermal Design

•• CommandingCommanding

•• Data Rate/VolumeData Rate/Volume•• RedeploymentRedeployment

•• Modes of useModes of use

•• Positioning RequirementsPositioning Requirements

•• Data Rate/VolumeData Rate/Volume

•• Mission Life/Operational DurationMission Life/Operational Duration

•• TechnologyTechnology

•• Pointing or Orientation RequirementsPointing or Orientation Requirements •• ServiceabilityServiceability

14

List of Questions and Preparationfor Field Geology Trip

• Where is each team member with respect to the other and the point(s) of interest?A th lti l i t f i t t b i b d t ti ?• Are there multiple points of interest being observed at one time?

• Is there a differentiation of macro observation vs. micro observation?• What is the sequence of events, questions asked, etc. ? Is the sequence

repeated at each point of interest?repeated at each point of interest? • Is there a checklist for things to ask, or is it in one’s head? • How does one make sure that one hasn’t forgotten to ask a particular question? • How does one know when to move from one point to another, i.e. what is the

decision criteria for moving from one point to another?• My preparation

Had “primer” Field Geology 101 course in Arizona with practicing field geologists and engineering– Had primer Field Geology 101 course in Arizona with practicing field geologists and engineering colleagues

– Met with principal investigator and team to understand the science hypothesis, statement of the problem, objectives of the trip

– Read reference material to better understand the area, geological principles and theories, the relationship of the area to other areas of the islandsrelationship of the area to other areas of the islands

Field Geology Trip Observations

• The Field Team– Communication

• PI control and how briefings were conducted• How communication was conducted in the field• How the group observed in the field• Merging and splitting of personnelg g p g p

– Personnel expertise• Recognition by team members of each other’s

responsibilities and expertise• Previous team member joint excursions;

Weather Conditions: Clear, Very strong winds and windgustsGeologists present: Jim Zimbleman (PI), Larry, Jane, Jake, Brent

11:00am Group overview plan; PI Zimbleman leads

Weather Conditions: Clear, Very strong winds and windgustsGeologists present: Jim Zimbleman (PI), Larry, Jane, Jake, Brent

11:00am Group overview plan; PI Zimbleman leadsPrevious team member joint excursions; “tightness” of the group

• Use of instrumentation• Variation of observational techniques

11:00am Group overview plan; PI Zimbleman leads11:20 regroup to discuss emplacement technique and confirmation of location11:29 group splits up: 2, 2, 1 (total 5 people) characterizing and theorizing emplacement technique

2 persons scouting, 2 persons detailing, 1 person mapping w/GPS11:50 group collects at pit for group pix, heads out to next location12:00 all observing banded ("fishscale") thrust12:20 1 person detailing, 2 persons scouting, 1 person scouting12:32 return to cars for lunch1:20 break from lunch, unload GPS system to take to field1:40 trek to next inflation area; planning four GPS readings across area1:45 set up differential GPS at hand-picked base site

good line of site to area to be mappedusing Real Time Kinematic (RTK) processing vs. Post-Processing Kinematic (PPK)

1:57 GPS base station setup; trek to other survey points2 persons trek with GPS, 1 person detailing, 1 person detailing (note: Jane did not go in field in the afternoon)

Note: The more silicon content the higher the viscosity because have better bonding; so, if add other metals, they break up the viscosity

Note: Strategies discussed in the field with Jake Bleacher: observation, sampling

Note: Need to have discussion in the field between teammembers

11:00am Group overview plan; PI Zimbleman leads11:20 regroup to discuss emplacement technique and confirmation of location11:29 group splits up: 2, 2, 1 (total 5 people) characterizing and theorizing emplacement technique

2 persons scouting, 2 persons detailing, 1 person mapping w/GPS11:50 group collects at pit for group pix, heads out to next location12:00 all observing banded ("fishscale") thrust12:20 1 person detailing, 2 persons scouting, 1 person scouting12:32 return to cars for lunch1:20 break from lunch, unload GPS system to take to field1:40 trek to next inflation area; planning four GPS readings across area1:45 set up differential GPS at hand-picked base site

good line of site to area to be mappedusing Real Time Kinematic (RTK) processing vs. Post-Processing Kinematic (PPK)

1:57 GPS base station setup; trek to other survey points2 persons trek with GPS, 1 person detailing, 1 person detailing (note: Jane did not go in field in the afternoon)

Note: The more silicon content the higher the viscosity because have better bonding; so, if add other metals, they break up the viscosity

Note: Strategies discussed in the field with Jake Bleacher: observation, sampling

Note: Need to have discussion in the field between teammembersq

– By training background– Where trained, and by who– Where experienced; previous excursions

Note: Need to have discussion in the field between teammembers

2:44 "End" discussion with Jake Bleacher, re: lunar and Mars equivalents2:53 Jake Bleacher conducts sample collection:

1) took GPS waypoint reading2) took pix with guide/reference card in view3) took compass reading4) marked visible arrows in direction of compass reading (North) on sample area with whiteout pen5) took pix of sample area with compass and marked arrows in view6) bagged samples of non-altered (more prominent/common in the area of interest) and altered (tannish/orange sample) samples

3:04 Jake Bleacher concludes sample collection3:11 Jake Bleacher and Ruthan Lewis meet with Brent, Jim, and Larry at edge of inflated emplacement

Jake Bleacher measures depth of differentiation between old and new emplacement with tape measure3:22 Brent places GPS staff; Jim leaves to meet him

Others gather together to discuss metrics and another locationR. Lewis and Jake briefly discuss Jake's MMAMA proposal: influence of mental fatigue and time in field, results of following Apollo style multiple times and repeated

3:30 Group observes "lava falls"3:45 Larry observes vesicle density in a large cross section

Jake measures depth of top layer of a pit3:59 Group gathers back at GPS base unit location4:15 Breakdown/wrap-up GPS base station, head back to car

Note: Need to have discussion in the field between teammembers

2:44 "End" discussion with Jake Bleacher, re: lunar and Mars equivalents2:53 Jake Bleacher conducts sample collection:

1) took GPS waypoint reading2) took pix with guide/reference card in view3) took compass reading4) marked visible arrows in direction of compass reading (North) on sample area with whiteout pen5) took pix of sample area with compass and marked arrows in view6) bagged samples of non-altered (more prominent/common in the area of interest) and altered (tannish/orange sample) samples

3:04 Jake Bleacher concludes sample collection3:11 Jake Bleacher and Ruthan Lewis meet with Brent, Jim, and Larry at edge of inflated emplacement

Jake Bleacher measures depth of differentiation between old and new emplacement with tape measure3:22 Brent places GPS staff; Jim leaves to meet him

Others gather together to discuss metrics and another locationR. Lewis and Jake briefly discuss Jake's MMAMA proposal: influence of mental fatigue and time in field, results of following Apollo style multiple times and repeated

3:30 Group observes "lava falls"3:45 Larry observes vesicle density in a large cross section

Jake measures depth of top layer of a pit3:59 Group gathers back at GPS base unit location4:15 Breakdown/wrap-up GPS base station, head back to car

– Subject matter experts (e.g. flow, texture, channels, inflated flows, etc.)

4:15 Breakdown/wrap up GPS base station, head back to car4:24 Team back at car

Note: GPS system readings were "spotty" according to Jim and Brent

4:15 Breakdown/wrap up GPS base station, head back to car4:24 Team back at car

Note: GPS system readings were "spotty" according to Jim and Brent

Field Geology Trip Observations

Field Geology Trip Observations

Field Geology Trip Observations

An Example of General Surface Exploration Philosophy

• Each mission should explore new territory and continue to push back the frontier

• Each mission builds on previous missions• Each mission extends range and time away from outpost as confidence

is gained in surface systems and operational experienceg y p p• Every mission should plan time for revisits to prior sites based on

discoveries and Earth-based research (e.g., initial reconnaissance can be followed up with detailed investigation)p g )

• Every mission will likely involve local fieldwork (e.g., science station emplacement, regolith studies)

20

Basic Geological Field Approach

• Determine temporal relationships from spatial relationships– uses the superposition principle– observe such relationships for exposed strataobserve such relationships for exposed strata

• in impact or volcano-tectonic formations• in surface deposits, such as ejecta or pyroclastic deposits• by traversing regolith for expression of underlying geochemical boundaries, such as flow fronts

• Surface expression of underlying stratigraphy will be found in discernableSurface expression of underlying stratigraphy will be found in discernable stratigraphic contacts and nonconformities

– vertical (crater, volcano-tectonic ridge, scarp, or rille walls)– horizontal (traverse underlying bedding, sample surface outcrops, cross volcanic flow fronts or

impact debris fields)p )

• Ground Truth is currently limited– to a small number of nearside, mostly near equatorial sites– extended by remote sensing and imaging with relatively low spatial resolution (by terrestrial

standards)standards)

• Processes as observed and sampled in these landings sites will utilize– previous limited lunar field work– major contribution from terrestrial analogue studies

21

Example: South Pole Lunar Outpost Exploration(Crew Mission #1, FY2019, 4 crew, 7 days)

Malapert

Leibniz β• General Surface Capability

– Living out of Lander– Unpressurized rover

S i A ti iti

Haworth

• Science Activities– Emplace lunar environment

monitoring station• Lunar atmosphere composition• Radiation level

Shoemaker

• Volatile transport to the poles• Suitability of the Moon for observatories

– Conduct geological reconnaissance of Shackleton rim; circumferential and radial traverses

Shackleton

Faustinide Gerlache

radial traverses• Age of Shackleton impact (e.g., Imbrian)• Composition of target massif• Age of target massif (e.g. SPA inner ring)• Impact process

– Collect life science/ crew biology data

Sverdrup

gy(note: continues on every crew mission)

• Biological samples• Function monitoring

22(from Margot et al, 1999 and Bussey)

Example: South Pole Lunar Outpost Exploration (Crew Mission #2, FY2020, 4 crew, 14 days)

Malapert

Leibniz β• General Surface Capability– Living out of small pressurized rovers

(SPR)

Haworth

( )– Robotic assistant

• Science Activities– Emplace lunar geophysical station

• seismicity, heat flow, magnetic fields, rotational

Shoemaker

seismicity, heat flow, magnetic fields, rotational dynamics

• Lunar interior

– Conduct traverse geophysics (note: continues on every crew mission)

Shackleton

Faustinide Gerlache

• mega-regolith stratigraphy• gravity

– Conduct geological reconnaissance of Shackleton massif

• Composition of target massif

Sverdrup

• Composition of target massif• Age of target massif (e.g. SPA inner ring)

– Revisit sites of interest based on prior discoveries and research on returned samples (note: continues on every

23(from Margot et al, 1999 and Bussey)

samples (note: continues on every crew mission)

Example: South Pole Lunar Outpost ExplorationComposite

Malapert

Leibniz β

Malapert

Leibniz βMalapert

Leibniz β

Malapert

Leibniz β

Malapert

Leibniz β

Malapert

Leibniz β

Malapert

Leibniz β

Malapert

Leibniz β

Malapert

Leibniz β

HaworthHaworthHaworthHaworthHaworthHaworthHaworthHaworthHaworth

ShoemakerShoemakerShoemakerShoemakerShoemakerShoemakerShoemakerShoemakerShoemaker

Shackleton

Faustinide Gerlache

Shackleton

Faustinide Gerlache

Shackleton

Faustinide Gerlache

Shackleton

Faustinide Gerlache

Shackleton

Faustinide Gerlache

Shackleton

Faustinide Gerlache

Shackleton

Faustinide Gerlache

Shackleton

Faustinide Gerlache

Shackleton

Faustinide Gerlache

SverdrupSverdrupSverdrupSverdrupSverdrupSverdrupSverdrupSverdrupSverdrup

24

Example of Surface Exploration Summary

Scenario 4.2.0 South Pole Lunar OutpostManifest-Driven Case

7080 120

Scenario 4.2.0 South Pole Lunar OutpostManifest-Driven Case

7080 120

1260 km220 km14 days2

310 km210 km7 days1

Approximate area available for exploration based on max. radius

Approximate max. radius of exploration

Mission DurationCrew Mission

1260 km220 km14 days2

310 km210 km7 days1

Approximate area available for exploration based on max. radius

Approximate max. radius of exploration

Mission DurationCrew Mission

1260 km220 km14 days2

310 km210 km7 days1

Approximate area available for exploration based on max. radius

Approximate max. radius of exploration

Mission DurationCrew Mission

1260 km220 km14 days2

310 km210 km7 days1

Approximate area available for exploration based on max. radius

Approximate max. radius of exploration

Mission DurationCrew Mission

10203040506070

Mis

sion

Dur

atio

n (d

ays)

20

40

60

80

100

App

rox.

Max

. Ra

dius

of

Exp

lora

tion

(km

)

10203040506070

Mis

sion

Dur

atio

n (d

ays)

20

40

60

80

100

App

rox.

Max

. Ra

dius

of

Exp

lora

tion

(km

)

7850 km250 km30 days5

5030 km240 km21 days4

2830 km230 km21 days3

7850 km250 km30 days5

5030 km240 km21 days4

2830 km230 km21 days3

7850 km250 km30 days5

5030 km240 km21 days4

2830 km230 km21 days3

7850 km250 km30 days5

5030 km240 km21 days4

2830 km230 km21 days30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Mission

0

Mission Duration Approximate Maximum Radius of Exploration (km)

01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Mission

0

Mission Duration Approximate Maximum Radius of Exploration (km)

31,420 km2100 km75 days8

25,450 km290 km50 days7

20,110 km280 km45 days6

31,420 km2100 km75 days8

25,450 km290 km50 days7

20,110 km280 km45 days6

31,420 km2100 km75 days8

25,450 km290 km50 days7

20,110 km280 km45 days6

31,420 km2100 km75 days8

25,450 km290 km50 days7

20,110 km280 km45 days6 Scenario 4.2.0 South Pole Lunar OutpostManifest-Driven Case

607080

atio

n

25000

30000

35000

ea

or

km*2

)

Scenario 4.2.0 South Pole Lunar OutpostManifest-Driven Case

607080

atio

n

25000

30000

35000

ea

or

km*2

)

01020304050

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Mis

sion

Dur

a(d

ays)

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

Appr

ox. A

reAv

aila

ble

foEx

plor

atio

n (k

01020304050

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Mis

sion

Dur

a(d

ays)

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

Appr

ox. A

reAv

aila

ble

foEx

plor

atio

n (k

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Mission

Mission DurationApproximate Area Available for Exploration Based on Maximum Radius (km*2)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Mission

Mission DurationApproximate Area Available for Exploration Based on Maximum Radius (km*2)

ModelingPath Planning, What If’s

ModelingPath Planning, What If’s

• Data gaps influence simulated pathp

• Variation between “planned/desired” path and possible

thpath• More like

“Orienteering”

11 22

33 4444

Surface Scenario Assessments

Figures of Merit

Manifest Trades and Analysis

Figures of Merit

Page 29

Scenarios

System Integration Flow

30

Appreciating that Science Enables Engineering Enables Science…

• Provides an understanding of the complexities and subtleties of field study and the accompanying implementation techniques

• The process is not all that different from an systems engineering approach

• Challenges our definition of “success” and the “metrics” by which we g ymake trades for architecture evolution while considering that science is the evolution of discovery

• Take advantage of the opportunity to strike a balance and facilitate one g pp yof the primary reasons for going to the Moon – Scientific Knowledge

Inspiration, Innovation and DiscoveryWho Knows What We’ll Discover