The maximum size is limited by the Delta II fairing volume. Section 3.4.3 in the PIP illustrates the available volume with the core LRO propulsion module shown since it must be on the centerline and is defined by the required quantity of propellant. The remaining volume will be shared by the payload and the other LRO subsystems. The spacecraft subsystems will be configured once the payload is known in order to best accommodate the selected payload.

The fairing shown is for a three stage Delta II launch vehicle and is our baseline. The two stage Delta fairing is larger and if LRO's total mass is kept low enough the two stage Delta may be considered. Trading mass for reduced mechanical complexity may be desirable should an instrument require a complex deployment to fit in the baseline fairing. Until the design progresses further it is not known whether the total mass can be kept low enough to consider the two stage Delta II. The two stage fairing information will be posted to the library and proposers may comment in their proposal if its use is a potential advantage but must still have a viable design for the baseline fairing.

The mass of an instrument antenna counts against the 100 kg.

While your interests are laudable, NASA is not allowed to divulge any information whatsoever about potential proposers or proposals and in fact will not even know until Notices of Intent to propose who might be proposing. You will have to seek alternative ways to discover potential proposers and one way might be to attend the Preproposal Conference in DC on July 7th.

This is correct; investigations selected late this year will be the ones to fly if they maintain their development on time and within their proposed costs and remain within the resource capabilities of the LRO spacecraft. Investigations selected for LRO must be integrated and launched within the next 4 years. This condition leaves no time for additional downselection steps, however, in any event, the downselection approach is generally reserved for full mission solicitations or when there is more time allowed for this process and a need for over-selection.

The request of this section is an error. All costs requested by this solicitation will be fixed FY05 or Real Year dollars.

The amount of mass reserve for a given element should be at the level deemed appropriate by the proposer with the rationale clearly explained. The LRO AO/PIP does not contain specific requirements for mass reserve levels as this is left up to the proposer to establish and justify.

Hydrogen mapping does not refer to helium-3. The AO specifies a measurement set for hydrogen mapping of the Moon's surface at a high spatial resolution.

The LRO mission is a measurement set driven mission. While there will be a need for such data as you have described, the advisory panels to NASA did not place this particular requirement as one needed for this mission and as such would be outside the scope of the AO.

No, we were very specific at the conference that ALL questions must come to the Program Scientist/Dr. Jim Garvin, so that the answers can be coordinated and posted for all those who might have a need to know. The only exception to this policy appears in Section 5.3 of the AO, which allows questions about OSS Education and Public Outreach to be directed to a Hq named individual, but even in this case, it is highly recommended that Dr. Jim Garvin also be copied on these questions.

A required Probability of Success for LRO instruments has not been established yet. However, as the first mission in the Exploration Initiative, LRO is subject to a high level of visibility and its observation data products are very important to the overall effort. Therefore it must be the most reliable mission possible within our budget and time constraints. The approach GSFC will take to determining the Ps for the Orbiter is to perform the assessment using MIL-STD-217 EEE parts data, manufacturers or GSFC test data for parts not in MIL-STD-217, and a set of appropriate modifying factors based on GSFC space flight hardware experience (i.e. reliability performance data from missions that have been actually built and flown). This approach will yield a realistic estimate of Ps. At this point, the required overall Ps goal for the Orbiter is to be greater than 90%, assuming a 2-year mission lifetime. A similar approach for designing the instrument hardware based upon the provider organization's experience is expected.

The AO language may not have been sufficiently clear. The approved goals of the Lunar Robotics Program are derived from the Presidential Directive and are covered in the ORDT Preliminary Report document as the Level 0 Requirements. These are also cited in Section 1.2 of the AO.

The last day to submit questions is 8/24/04. Questions submitted on 8/24/04 will be answered on or before 8/31/04. No more new Q&A's will be posted after 8/31.

NASA has no plans at this time for a Participating Scientist solicitation since LRO is not a science mission, but aimed instead at acquiring measurements sets needed for the Lunar Exploration Program. Should such a solicitation become a reality, your selection for the LRO AO would not automatically disqualify you from responding to this future solicitation.

LRO is a measurement-driven mission that will derive measurements that can be used directly in support of future Lunar Human Exploration Systems. These measurements are in contrast to the traditional hypothesis-driven science responding to science goals and objectives from Roadmaps and Strategic Plans.

The LRO investigations are expected to provide high-level calibrated measurement sets in the direct support of planning, design, and investment decisions for Lunar Human Exploration Systems. The Level 0 (i.e., raw data) will be archived by the LRO Project. After a short period of verification and validation, not to exceed 6 months, the PI must deposit the higher level reduced data in the Planetary Data System in a PDS-compatible format for public access.

The LRO PIP table is in error. Selection is targeted for approximately 11/30/04 with the following templates:
A Revised PIP will be posted shortly reflecting these corrections.

(PPC A16) While in theory you could make a case for the cost savings of flying two related instruments as a single investigation, this AO is NOT soliciting such investigations. If there are two instruments there should be two proposals. If however, a single instrument can be used to obtain data toward multiple measurement sets, this would be highly desirable and acceptable.
PPC A16 UPDATE:   The burden of making the case that a proposal is for a "single instrument" that addresses multiple measurements versus a "suite of instruments" rests with the proposer. While a proposer could make a case for cost savings in flying two related instruments or suite of instruments as a single investigation, the LRO AO does NOT solicit investigations in which the "related instruments" are structurally or technically distinct (i.e, profoundly different measurement physics). If there are two inherently distinct instruments, then there should be two proposals. However, if a single instrument or instrument "system" can be used to obtain data that addresses multiple measurement sets, this would be highly desirable and acceptable. Also note that the LRO AO indicates that in special cases, "small, related set of instruments" could be proposed to address specific measurement requirements.

The planning date for LRO launch is October 15, 2008. The Launch Readiness Review would be held within one month of launch, assume 3 weeks prior. Thus, for planning purposes the schedule from launch forward is as follows:

• Transit to the Moon - 4 days.
• Checkout and commissioning with the first 30 days after launch.
• Primary observation and measurement mission 12 months duration.
• PI's deliver higher level reduced data to Planetary Data System (PDS) within 6 months after prime mission complete.
• Extended mission option (objectives as yet undefined) up to an additional 48 months.

Both Cost and workforce data should be presented by month for Phase A/B and by FY for later phases.

Yes, it is the responsibility of the instrument builders to provide the thermal blankets. If for a particular instrument the proposers believe another approach makes more sense they should discuss it in their proposal but baseline building their own thermal blankets.

Yes, you can have a protective cover with a design of your own choosing.

While a GSFC project mission effort may seem like an imminently sensible activity to include, it is not in the LRO planning at present. As it stands now the GSFC project plans to simply archive level 0 and make sure that the PIs are piping their products to the PDS with no reduced data explicitly required until 6 months after the mission. A GSFC-based effort, depending on what payload is ultimately selected, is under evaluation with the results to be available by Selection. However, since this is not presently in the baseline so you should not plan on it.

These are two different items although it is possible to build two copies of a single design should a proposer choose to incorporate the functional ity of both items in one design. See below:

$90M is in RY dollars. See AO Pg. 12, Sec 5.7

The university's cognizant audit agency and approved university accounting procedures determine the calculation and application of F&A rates.

The GDS MRT (pg. 25 of the PIP) are ground interface tests between the LRO ground elements including any instrument/PI support facilities. The purpose of these tests is to verify/validate the GDS requirements. MRTs are usually performed between the MOR and FOR/ORR reviews. The amount of PI/instrument time required is dependent on how complex the I/F is between the instrument/PI facility and the rest of the GDS. But typically each MRT takes 2-4 hours to perform with some prep time for each. MRT #5 (end-to-end) may take up to a full day to execute plus some prep time. The prep time involves reviewing/supporting the development of the test plan for each MRT.

Also see Q&A 15, as a revised PIP (Rev A) correcting Section 6.2 has has been posted. I-PDR is still, however, selection + 5 months, however, Selection is currently projected no earlier than the end of November 2004.

Although the LRO DMP is in development, after more serious consideration the Project has decided to not post a preliminary DMP for proposal purposes because there would be too many TBD's that have not yet been baselined with the evolving approving organizations at GSFC and NASA Headquarters. For this AO, proposers may use their own judgement citing historical precedences and/or guidelines from other programs when discussing their plans for data processing, analysis, and archiving.

The Pointing Accuracy and the Pointing Stability on page 7 characterize how well pointing will be controlled. Pointing knowledge will be at least 30 arc-sec. The OD accuracy on page 7 characterizes the knowledge produced from the ongoing OD performed during the mission. LRO will control the orbital altitude to at least +/- 20 km in the case of a 50 km target mean altitude.

Current reaction wheel sizing will not support slew rates this high (exact max rate is tbd at present) and furthermore while LRO will be able to slew to perform off nadir-pointing it is not currently being designed to track a target on the ground as we move along the orbital path, i.e. as that target moves out of the nadir pointed FOV. It is also important to note that off nadir pointing must be planned as to be compatible with the overall observation plans for the entire compliment of instruments comprising the payload.

The project can supply data in SPICE format if required.

LRO will have adequate on-board memory to support the maximum instrument data rates in the PIP and the daily total downlinked data volume in the PIP.

A gimbaled (steerable) antenna is planned.

No, this is not normally provided by the mission GDS. If an instrument team wants to use the relevant GDS S/W on their ground system the project will supply it and assist in it's installation and use.

LRO will have line-of-sight access to every point on the moon twice each month, once on the ascending side of its orbit and once on the descending side of its orbit. LRO will not have a strictly repeating ground-track. The data in App. C is supplied so that potential swath overlaps can be understood in relation to instrument FOV and latitude. Because the Moon's J2 is insignificant compared to the Earth's, lunar orbits do not experience nodal regression the way that low Earth orbits do. Therefore, inclination cannot be used to control/create repeat periods. The only way to create a repeating orbital path is to control orbital period via propulsive maneuvers. Currently LRO plans to control the orbital altitude, not period.

Our preliminary estime is that SPICE products are planned to be made available weekly and position information will be be posted with a time lag of 5-14 days.

Yes.