LEAG Science Scenarios for Human Exploration Specific Action Team. Charter, Introduction of Members, Meeting Goals and Objectives, Apollo Experience

Transcription

1 LEAG Science Scenarios for Human Exploration Specific Action Team Charter, Introduction of Members, Meeting Goals and Objectives, Apollo Experience James W. Head, Department of Geological Sciences, Brown University, Providence RI USA

2 Motivation for Specific Action Team (SAT) and Charter: Letter from OSEWG (Optimizing Science and Exploration Working Group) Ruthan Lewis, OSEWG Co-Chair, ESMD, NASA Headquarters Jennifer Heldmann, OSEWG Co-Chair, SMD, NASA Headquarters Michael Wargo, LEAG Executive Secretariat, NASA Headquarters to LEAG (Lunar Exploration Analysis Group) -Clive Neal, LEAG Chair, University of Notre Dame Form a LEAG Science Scenarios for Human Exploration Specific Action Team.

3 Science Scenarios for Human Exploration SAT Charter NASA is currently formulating: lunar architectures, operational/science scenarios, integrated program strategies, and timelines for the human return to the lunar surface. This information will be provided to the NASA Constellation Program Office through the OSEWG (Optimizing Science and Exploration Working Group) in the form of candidate science and exploration requirements that will be considered for inclusion into the governing requirements documents for the development of the Constellation architecture and hardware. NASA requests the Lunar Exploration Analysis Group (LEAG) to form a Specific Action Team (SAT) to provide evaluation of and, as required, develop new lunar science scenarios for human exploration at the Moon in collaboration with OSEWG.

4 Science Scenarios for Human Exploration SAT Charter The SAT activities will be conducted in two phases to support upcoming NASA needs for requirements inputs. First, the SAT will work with the NASA to understand existing lunar science scenarios and evaluate how well these scenarios meet lunar science objectives defined in the LEAG Roadmap. By identifying scenarios that address high priority LEAG Roadmap science objectives, NASA will work with the SAT to derive candidate requirements for lunar exploration. The second phase could involve creation of new or expanded science scenarios to (for example) more broadly encompass high priority LEAG Roadmap objectives or investigate the scientific value of new Constellation approaches to lunar exploration. The need for and specific content and schedule for Phase 2 will be determined at the completion of Phase 1.

5 Requested Tasks in Phase 1 1. Conduct an evaluation of given sets of multi-mission scenarios utilizing the framework provided by the OSEWG Support Team. The evaluation will consist of an assessment of how well a given set of science scenarios address LEAG Roadmap objectives. If no priority among objectives is provided by the LEAG Roadmap, the SAT members may be asked to assign a rough priority to the objectives. 2. Upon completion of the evaluation, provide comments on the evaluation tool and suggestions to NASA for improvement. 3. Assess the limitations of the scenario assumptions. a. If there are severe limitations imposed by certain boundary conditions outlining the constraints of the missions, especially those that can be traced to specific high priority objectives, include this information with the report. Such information is valuable to NASA and is essential for understanding the implications on achieving science objectives through human exploration at the Moon. b. If there are natural breakpoints in the assessment of the science return given the architectural constraints (e.g. large increases in science return for modest added capability beyond the given architectural baseline constraints), include this information in the report. 4. Determine if further scenario development and analysis work is in order to build upon Phase 1. Suggest content of such work.

6 Science Scenarios for Human Exploration SAT Charter This is not intended to be and should not be interpreted as the analysis or development of actual surface plans for astronauts on the Moon. (Not a Reference Mission) The science scenarios evaluated or later developed by LEAG, along with the accompanying LEAG findings and analysis, will be used by NASA to generate candidate science requirements to be considered for incorporation into the Exploration Program governing documents and ultimately the Constellation Program.

7 Timing Results are requested in two phases: Phase 1: A first set of science scenario evaluation and findings is required by June 1, The findings and evaluation will be discussed at the NASA Lunar Science Institute Lunar Science Forum at NASA Ames Research Center in July 2009, which could also serve as a means of soliciting further community input. Phase 2: If during Phase 1, clear desire or need for creation of further scenarios is uncovered, then a further set of scenario building and evaluation will be conducted by the SAT in collaboration with the OSEWG Support Team. The specific deliverables and schedule are currently TBD but will be added NLT June 1 as an amendment to this TOR.

8 Science Scenarios for Human Exploration SAT Charter Report Format The results of this SAT should be presented in the form of a PowerPoint presentation. Additional supporting documents can be prepared as needed. Rationale should accompany all comments and suggestions. The report may not contain any material that is ITARsensitive. Ruthan Lewis, OSEWG Co-Chair, ESMD, NASA Headquarters Jennifer Heldmann, OSEWG Co-Chair, SMD, NASA Headquarters Michael Wargo, LEAG Executive Secretariat, NASA Headquarters

9 The Larger Context For Science Scenarios for Human Exploration SAT 1. What are the questions? Summarize important scientific problems. Define requirements to fulfill scientific objectives. How does the implementation of scientific objectives fit in with the current exploration architecture? How should it change the future exploration architecture? 2. Guidance from the past: -Apollo Lunar Exploration Program. -President Bush s Vision for Space Exploration. 3. The present environment: -New President Obama Administration. -International Lunar Exploration Program. 4. The future. -20 years: (Past: ) (Future: ).

10 Specific Action Team Members Jim Head (Chair) Brown University Clive Neal University of Notre Dame Terry Fong NASA Ames Research Center David Kring Lunar & Planetary Institute Ralph Harvey Case Western Reserve University Dean Eppler Johnson Space Center/SAIC Matt Fouch Arizona State University Joe Levy Brown University Lunar geoscience, Apollo planning/operations. Exploration of remote environments: Antarctica, active volcanoes, seafloor (human/robotic). Chairman of Lunar Exploration Analysis Group (LEAG). Lunar Science, petrology and geochemistry, sample analyses, fieldwork. Intelligent Robotic Systems, software and human/robotic interactions and interfaces. Robotic field tests. Lunar Science. Impact cratering processes. Impact crater fieldwork. Lunar and martian meteorites, petrology, Antarctic fieldwork (ANSMET). Field operations, geology, Remote Field Demonstrations Tests, Antarctic field experience. Geophysics; internal structure and processes, field seismology. Mars/Antarctic research (ice-related processes). JPL Mission X experience. MEPAG (HEMSAG). Antarctic fieldwork.

11 Specific Action Team Member Responsibility Assignments Jim Head (Chair) Brown University Clive Neal University of Notre Dame Terry Fong NASA Ames Research Center David Kring Lunar & Planetary Institute Ralph Harvey Case Western Reserve University Dean Eppler Johnson Space Center/SAIC Matt Fouch Arizona State University Joe Levy Brown University -Lunar geoscience strategy. -Lunar surface operations assessment. -Human/robotic science partnerships. -Provide continuing assessment of process from perspective of the LEAG Roadmap objectives. -Lunar sample strategy. -Human/robotic interactions and interfaces. -Focus on future technology and potential impact on potential new architectures. -Impact cratering process strategy. -Relation to lunar fieldwork. -Lunar surface operations assessment from ANSMET planning perspective. -Field operations overview: mobility, traverse design and distances, -Spreadsheet advisor and monitor (SA/M). -Geophysics strategy and field seismology. -Field geophysics operational impacts. -Science field operations realism assessment (Antarctica). -Future astronaut perspective.

12 Lunar Surface Science Campaign Summary Chart

13 Science Scenarios for Human Exploration SAT -Unique Opportunity- Stretch or Redirect : Non-Polar Outpost. Sorties only before base. Extended stay. Human-Robotic partnerships. Dual Mode Rovers. Extended Mobility. Farside Access.

14 Things for the Specific Action Team to Keep in Mind How can we help to optimize the science and engineering partnership and synergism? Science is the exploration of the unknown: How does ongoing scientific discovery during the process of exploration influence subsequent steps? What is the definition of serendipity and how can it be planned for? It is hard to see into the future, so keep the maximum flexibility possible. How can we meet design requirement deadlines but maintain maximum flexibility? What can we learn from the past (say, Apollo) that can help guide us in the future? What will be the influence of the flood of new international data on the Moon be on the planning process? Are the operational guidelines valid? If not, how can they be improved?

15 Things for the Specific Action Team to Keep in Mind We are looking 20 years into the future, so we need to maintain maximum flexibility, and allow maximum capability to incorporate new technological developments that will surely come. Do we fully understand the constraints, challenges and difficulties of human lunar surface operations? Can a wider range of terrestrial field operations experience help us to optimize the process? (Antarctica, seafloor active volcanoes, etc.) We need to provide broad guidelines, but also guidelines that are sufficiently detailed to be useful in architectural design and operational planning. We need to keep our eyes on the goal and not be derailed by excessive quantification, metrification and traceability. Exploration is a process of discovery, iteration and adaptation, not a set of boxes that can be checked in advance. This process is not a spreadsheet problem, it is a systems engineering problem. This is why science and engineering synergism is so important.

16 The Process Review the various scenarios. Outpost Only (500 km). Outpost Only (1000 km). Outpost + 3 Sorties. Outpost + 5 Sorties. Assess their consistency with the LEAG Lunar Roadmap at the Objective Level. Think about their effectiveness at the Investigation Level. Assess whether operational assumptions are valid. Assess whether there is sufficient flexibility in the system. Make recommendations for Phase 2.

17

18

19

20 1967 College Placement Annual - NASA Job Advertisement OUR JOB IS TO THINK OUR WAY TO THE MOON AND BACK

21 Sequence of Increasing Capability in Apollo C-Apollo 7: Earth orbit; CSM separation, flight,cm re-entry. C -Apollo 8: Lunar Swingby. D-Apollo 9: Earth Orbit, CSM-LM Extraction, LM-CSM Separation, LM Descent, Ascent, Rendezvous. F-Apollo 10: Lunar Orbit, LOI, LM-CSM Separation, LM Descent, Ascent, Rendezvous, TEI. G-Apollo 11: 1 EVA, PSEP. H-Apollo 12: 2 EVAs; Hand-carried tool rack; ALSEP. H-Apollo 13: H-Apollo 14: 2 EVAs; Mobile Equipment Transporter (MET); ALSEP; ASE. J-Apollo 15: 1 SEVA; 3 EVAs; LRV; ALSEP; HFE. J-Apollo 16: 3 EVAs; LRV; ALSEP, HFE; Lyman Alpha Telescope. J-Apollo 17: 3 EVAs; LRV; ALSEP, Traverse Gravimeter, PSE, SEP. -Apollo 18-22: 4 EVAs; DMLRV (Dual-Mode Lunar Rover).

22 Guidance from the Past: The Apollo Program Why did we go? What did we do to prepare to go? Robotic Exploration: Ranger, Surveyor, Lunar Orbiter. Landing site mapping, analysis and selection studies. Close coordination: Science and engineering synergism. What did we do when we got there? Accomplished the national goal: Apollo 11. Undertook an historic scientific exploration program (A11-17). Optimized Human/Robotic Exploration (ALSEP, LSE, CSM SIM, DMLRV). Sent a professional geoscientist to the Moon (A17 LMP Harrison Schmitt). What was the legacy? Prestige, pride, and perspective. Revolutionized human understanding of Earth and planetary origin and history! The Moon is a keystone in our knowledge.

23 Apollo and Luna

24

25 What are Some Lessons for Us From Apollo The only thing constant is change. Need to design-in the expectation and ability for constant capability upgrades. There will be a long sequence of steps involving hardware, procedure, and operational testing and verification before normal operations. Scientific exploration is discovery: The scientific return from each mission will seriously influence the planning and execution of the next one, and the one after that. Therefore, need to set up the environment for ongoing science and engineering synergism throughout the process. Therefore, need to design in maximum flexibility, and ability to respond to short-term changes in landing sites, traverses, sampling strategies, equipment manifests, etc., etc.

26 My Background: - Worked in the systems analysis division (Bellcomm) of NASA Headquarters ( ). - Participated in: - Candidate landing site identification, mapping and analysis (GLEP). - Landing site selection (ASSB). - Apollo landing site traverse planning (USGS, JSC, SWG). - Apollo lunar surface operations planning (LSOP). - Astronaut training (general and site-specific). - Apollo mission simulations (usually as CDR or LMP). - Apollo Mission Operations. - Post-mission crew debriefing and analysis. - Post-mission Preliminary Examination of samples and other data. - Briefing of the Apollo Program Director and staff.

27 Robotic Lander/Orbiter Precursor Program: - Ranger 1-9 ( ). - Surveyor 1-7 ( ). - Lunar Orbiter 1-5 ( ).

28 Soviet Lunar Missions: - Luna Landers. - Lunokhod. - Luna Sample Return. - Luna Orbiters - Zond Human-rated Missions

29 Apollo Launch Dates - Astronaut Missions - Apollo 7 October 11, 1968 Apollo 8 December 21, 1968 Apollo 9 March 3, 1969 Apollo 10 May 18, 1969 Apollo 11 July 16, 1969 Apollo 12 November 14, 1969 Apollo 13 April 11, 1970 Apollo 14 January 31, 1971 Apollo 15 July 26, 1971 Apollo 16 April 16, 1972 Apollo 17 December 7, 1972

30 Astronaut Training: - General geological background (group field trips). - Classes at JSC (rocks, processes, etc.). - Landing site-related field trips (prime and backup crews) - Mission-related field sites and traverse simulations. - Orbital observations and science operations. - Crew briefings on EVA traverses and timelines. - Mission simulations. - Final briefings at Crew Quarters at KSC in the days before launch. - Debriefings following splashdown.

31 Scientific Goals and Objectives: -Broadly, to understand the nature, internal structure and history of the Moon and its environment. -Four-pronged approach: 1) Surface science station: Deployed surface experiments package (ALSEP). 2) Surface exploration: Lunar surface observations, photography, exploration traverses, and sampling (Field Geology Experiment); geophysical instruments (gravimeter, magnetometer, active seismic, SEP, etc.). 3) Orbital exploration: astronaut observations and photography, SIM Bay experiments. 4) Moon as a platform: Lyman alpha telescope, gravity waves, etc.

32 Scientific Goals and Objectives: Implementation -Implementation of broad goals and objectives focused on site selection and traverse planning. -Fundamental questions evolved and changed very rapidly as data from each mission was returned and analyzed. -Example 1: Origin of the maria, their age, their diversity, their relationships to basins, their mode of emplacement (Apollo 11-17). -Example 2: Lunar chronology and history: What was the absolute age basis for the relative stratigraphic history? -Example 3: The nature and role of impact basins.

33 Scientific Goals and Objectives: Implementation -Implementation of broad goals and objectives focused on site selection and traverse planning. -Fundamental questions evolved and changed very rapidly as data from each mission was returned and analyzed. -Example 1: Origin of the maria, their age, their diversity, their relationships to basins, their mode of emplacement (Apollo 11-17). -Example 2: Lunar chronology and history: What was the absolute age basis for the relative stratigraphic history? -Example 3: The nature and role of impact basins.

34 The Evolution of Scientific Return from Apollo: -Initial missions dominated by landing and crew safety concerns and short stay times. -Development of pinpoint landing capability (Apollo 12) a major positive factor. -Initial surface experiments package (ALSEP) was excellent and it evolved. -Scientific surface equipment became more varied and sophisticated with each mission. -Increasing mobility and increasing distance was always a concern (MET, LFU, LRV, DMLRV). -Increased mission confidence permitted orbital plane changes and opened up the rest of the Moon. -Involving the astronauts and FCOD personnel early in all phases helped immensely. -Early rivalry and contempt gave way to scientific and engineering synergism and optimization of scientific return. -J-Missions (Apollo 15-17) were well-executed scientific exploration endeavors. -Apollo would have explored human/automated concept more fully (DMRV).

35 What is the Relationship of Human and Automated Exploration?

36 Summary of Broad Apollo Scientific Results: - Completely changed our perspectives on the origin and evolution of the Moon. - Turned astronomical objects into geological and geophysical objects. - Provided an absolute chronology for lunar (and planetary) history. - Yielded our first understanding of non-earth planetary interiors. - Revealed the fundamental themes of how one-plate planets work. - Illuminated the role of impact cratering as a geological process throughout planetary history (from magma oceans to biotic crises). - Provided a model for the formation of primary planetary crusts. - Showed that the Moon was most likely derived from the Earth. - The Moon has provided insight into the missing chapters of Earth history. - The Moon remains the cornerstone of knowledge about planetary bodies other than the Earth. - Apollo provided fundamental knowledge and a rich legacy for future generations. Fundamental scientific discoveries are still being made with these data!

37 Conclusions and Perspectives: The General - Flags and footprints are one-shot deals and are not sustainable. - To my knowledge, terms like applied science and suitcase science were not used in the Apollo Program. - After Apollo 11 (flags and footprints), scientific exploration was what generated the excitement, and provided the basis for sustaining the program. - What is the current justification for returning to the Moon? -Why are we going? What will sustain the effort? What will be the legacy? - Exploration is accessing and understanding the unknown: Science is exploration. - Apollo recognized this early on and worked toward science and engineering synergism and optimization. - Can the current effort do anything less and be successful?

38 Conclusions and Perspectives: The Specific - Need to start where Apollo left off: Develop science and engineering synergism. - The Moon is a cornerstone for Solar System exploration: Develop a broad program for an in-depth understanding of the Moon as a planetary body. - Need well-integrated automated and human exploration elements: Orbital, lander, rover. - Need to constantly iterate and fold results back into mission planning (Copernicus): need flexibility. - Human mission landing mission style and frequency should be driven by science requirements and evolving scientific findings. - As with Apollo, all science and operational capabilities should undergo constant evolution and optimization. - Budget Bookkeeping. - Total Costs: The Chinese Fortune Cookie.

39 Perspectives from Earth Scientific Exploration: - Active volcanic eruptions: Mount St. Helens, Hawaii. - Seafloor exploration: Human and Automated. - Antarctic exploration: Remote field camp in harsh Marslike hyperarid polar desert environment.

40 NAS-NRC Overarching Science Themes Lunar Science Early Earth/Moon System Terrestrial Planet Differentiation Solar System Impact Record Lunar Environment

41 Th Science Concepts 1. The bombardment history of the inner Solar System is uniquely revealed on the Moon 2. The structure and composition of the lunar interior provides fundamental information on the evolution of a differentiated body 3. Key planetary processes are maniested in the diversity of lunar crustal rocks. 4. The lunar poles are special environments that may bear witness to the volatile flux over the latter part of solar system history. 5. Lunar volcanism provides a window into the thermal and compositional evolution of the Moon. 6. The Moon is an accessible laboratory for studying the impact process on planetary scales 7. The Moon is a natural laboratory for regolith processes and weathering on anhydrous airless bodies. 8. Processes involved with the atmosphere and dust environment of the Moon are accessible for scientific study only while the environment remains in a pristine state.

42 Science Priorities in the Context of Lunar Exploration Topo 1. Fundamental Solar System Science Characterize and date the impact flux (early and recent) of the inner solar system. Determine the internal structure and composition of a differentiated planetary body. Determine the compositional diversity (lateral and vertical) of the ancient crust formed by a differentiated planetary body. Characterize the volatile compounds of polar regions on an airless body and determine their importance for the history of volatiles in the solar system. 2. Planetary Processes Determine the time scales and compositional and physical diversity of volcanic processes. Characterize the cratering process on a scale relevant to planets. Constrain processes involved in regolith evolution and decipher ancient environments from regolith samples. Understand processes involved with the atmosphere (exosphere) of airless bodies in the inner solar system. Determine the utility of the Moon for astrophysics observations and as a platform for observations of Earth and solar-terrestrial processes.

43 EARD Science-Related Requirements DRAFT Black is established. Blue has values TBR. Red can be considered open? The heading areas map to metrics already under consideration. Mission Rates and Duration: [Ex-0012] The Constellation Architecture shall provide the capability to perform missions according to the mission rates, intervals, and durations specified in the Constellation Mission Rate and Duration Table. Nominal rate: 2/year; Max: 3/year; Min mission rate interval: 180 days; Min destination duration: 7 days for sortie (14? 45?), 210 days outpost. Mobility: [Ex-0024] The Constellation Architecture shall provide extended-range crew surface mobility of 500 (TBR- EARD-018) kilometers (km) to support extended exploration based from outpost locations. Downmass (non-infrastructure, e.g. science): [Ex-0071] The Constellation Architecture shall allocate at least 500 kg or?? (TBR-EARD-020) of cargo mass capability to support requirements other than infrastructure and logistics needs (e.g., scientific research, commercial, Education and Public Outreach (EPO), International Partners, etc.) for transport to the Moon on crewed lunar missions. Upmass (non-infrastructure, e.g. science): [Ex-0072] The Constellation Architecture shall allocate at least 100 kg (TBR- EARD-037), [Objective: 250 kg (TBR-EARD-047)] of cargo mass capability to support requirements other than outpost infrastructure and logistics (e.g., science, commercial, Education and Public Outreach (EPO), international partners, etc.) for transport from the Moon on crewed lunar missions. Delivery Volume: Cruise and LLO: 0.57 m 3 or?? (TBR-EARD-005), surface delivery volume not shown in table? Return Volume: From Surface: m3 or?? (TBR-EARD-006) Outpost Power: [Ex-0018] The Constellation architecture shall provide the capability to supply (TBD-EARD-033) kilowatts (kw) of power for lunar outpost payloads. Outpost Surplus Power: (includes payloads) [Ex-0074] The Constellation Architecture shall have the capability of supplying outpost surplus power to systems or payloads. Non-Infrastructure Surplus Power: (e.g. includes science) [Ex-0077] The Constellation Architecture shall provide at least (TBD-EARD-031) of power to support requirements other than infrastructure and logistics needs (e.g., scientific research, commercial, Education and Public Outreach (EPO), International Partners, etc.) during crewed lunar missions. Sorties: [Ex-0017] The Constellation Architecture shall perform TBD # Lunar Sortie Missions to any designated location on the lunar surface. 43 Navigation: [Ex-0017] The Constellation Architecture shall provide TBD # navigation features

44 Science Scenarios for Human Exploration SAT Findings 1)/2) The SAT will work with NASA to 1) understand existing lunar science scenarios: 2) evaluate how well these scenarios meet lunar science objectives defined in the LEAG Roadmap. Productive and useful preliminary work has been done by the GSFC personnel making the presentations. It is clear that in order to understand and evaluate these scenarios, there is a strong need to refine and improve the assumptions and exploration elements (e.g., geophysics ) that go into the site selection and traverse planning. There is also a strong need for more scientific input about the requirements for landing and traverse location accuracy. Furthermore, there is a need for a notional list of what new field technology will be available by this time (e.g., a Lunar Trimble). It would be very helpful to undertake a post-apollo assessment to show how capabilities and science return during Apollo changed with time. This could provide a set of metrics that show how improved capability and performance increased science return. This project would need to involve scientists, engineers, and operations personnel. There was a clear need for much more analysis of the role of robotics: Robotic precursors, complements and followups; human-robotic relationships and complements; robotic followups to human (e.g., such as the Apollo Dual-Mode Lunar Roving Vehicle (DMLRV)). If these types of analyses are to be successful, there is a need for a robust Lunar Data Analysis and Training Program, funded jointly by SMD-ESMD, that would involve things like data integration and analysis; candidate landing site characterization; site selection processes; post-mission analysis to feed into ongoing process; training of scienceengineering synergism participants. We were also asked to provide comments on the evaluation tool and suggestions to NASA for improvement. We found that the spreadsheet evaluation structure was too granular and opaque to most and did not readily convey meaning and message at the forest level. We developed an alternative evaluation process and presentation; this needs to be vetted, tested and refined. The goal is to find the mechanism that best informs decision makers and engages all participants in a dialog. With the drawbacks of the spreadsheet, and the preliminary nature of the four candidate scenario plans that were presented to us, we found it difficult to use the process to identify specific scenarios that addressed high priority LEAG Roadmap science objectives, or to rank one site and approach relative to the other. Using the LEAG Roadmap Objectives and the very preliminary exploration scenarios for the four options presented to the SAT [Outpost Only (500 km); Outpost Only (1000 km); Outpost + 3 Sorties; Outpost + 5 Sorties], it was found that Sorties were a necessity to ensure exploration access to address the diversity of fundamental scientific questions raised by the Moon. The SAT also found that, although some important scientific goals could be accomplished at an Outpost, the higher the number of Sorties, the higher the likelihood of achieving the LEAG Roadmap Objectives. The SAT also considered "stretch" scenarios that included off-polar outposts (to optimize sortie science return) and the importance of farside access (perhaps assisted by robotics). These items should be further considered in Phase 2.

45 Science Scenarios for Human Exploration SAT Findings 3) NASA will work with the SAT to derive candidate requirements for lunar exploration. We found that this activity was quite productive and represented an important potential contribution by the SAT, as evidenced by the input discussed above, and as described in more detail in Appendix 1. We find below that the scientific community should continue to be engaged in this processes and that this be one of the main activities in Phase 2.

46 Science Scenarios for Human Exploration SAT Findings 4) Findings for Phase 2 of Science Scenarios for Human Exploration Specific Action Team: The SAT members all felt that they could continue to provide important input into the planning and evaluation process and that the continuation of the SAT into a Phase 2 was an excellent way to ensure the "science and engineering synergism" that the SAT felt was so important to best informing the decision makers and to ensure the success of the endeavor. Candidate activities in a Phase 2 might involve some or all of the following: Creation of new and/or expanded science scenarios to more broadly encompass high priority LEAG Roadmap objectives, to investigate new findings from ongoing international lunar missions, and/or to investigate the scientific value of new Constellation approaches to lunar exploration brought about by the current Presidentially-directed assessment of human exploration. Provide more concrete input into, and evaluation of, guidelines, assumptions, goals and objectives for surface science operations for Campaign scenario planning, and evaluation of this planning. Work with NASA to continue to derive input to candidate EARD Science-Related Requirements for lunar exploration. Work with NASA to continue to refine, clarify and optimize their evaluation criteria to best serve decision makers. Help develop the science and engineering synergism that led to the success of the Apollo Lunar Exploration Program. Help initiate and review a post-apollo assessment to show how capabilities and science return during Apollo changed with time with the goal of providing guidelines or a set of metrics that show how improved capability and performance increased science return. On the basis of their wide field experience, help compile a list of candidate new field technology that will be available and that should be considered in traverse planning. Provide and initiate further analysis of the role of robotics, and the human-robotic partnership, in all phases of the program. Robots can and should be used to improve mission planning and mission operations in order to increase crew productivity and science return. The current lunar architecture already contains a significant number of surface assets (e.g., crew rover) that could be used robotically. Robots can perform surface work: before, during, after crew missions. Robots can (and should) be used in ways that are significantly different from MER, i.e., we should consider how to coordinate robot-human activity (e.g., robot recon before crew sortie) and human-robot (robot follow-up after crew sortie). We also need to address the questin of the role of robotic precursor missions to human exploration. Help develop new and expanded science scenarios to more broadly encompass high priority LEAG Roadmap objectives. Continue to investigate the scientific value of new Constellation approaches to lunar exploration ( stretch ).