Ann P. Over, Mark K. Klem, and Susan M. Motil 

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

A Successful Infusion Process for Enabling 

Lunar Exploration Technologies

NASA/TM—2008-215045

January 2008

AIAA–2007–6196
NASA STI Program . . . in Profi le

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the 

advancement of aeronautics and space science. The 

NASA Scientifi c and Technical Information (STI) 

program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain 

this important role.

The NASA STI Program operates under the auspices 

of the Agency Chief Information Offi cer. It collects, 

organizes, provides for archiving, and disseminates 

NASA’s STI. The NASA STI program provides access 

to the NASA Aeronautics and Space Database and 

its public interface, the NASA Technical Reports 

Server, thus providing one of the largest collections 

of aeronautical and space science STI in the world. 

Results are published in both non-NASA channels 

and by NASA in the NASA STI Report Series, which 

includes the following report types:

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major signifi cant phase 

of research that present the results of NASA 

programs and include extensive data or theoretical 

analysis. Includes compilations of signifi cant 

scientifi c and technical data and information 

deemed to be of continuing reference value. 

NASA counterpart of peer-reviewed formal 

professional papers but has less stringent 

limitations on manuscript length and extent of 

graphic presentations.

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientifi c 

and technical fi ndings that are preliminary or 

of specialized interest, e.g., quick release 

reports, working papers, and bibliographies that 

contain minimal annotation. Does not contain 

extensive analysis.

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientifi c and 

technical fi ndings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees.

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected 

papers from scientifi c and technical 

conferences, symposia, seminars, or other 

meetings sponsored or cosponsored by NASA.

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientifi c, 

technical, or historical information from 

NASA programs, projects, and missions, often 

concerned with subjects having substantial 

public interest.

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. Englishlanguage translations of foreign scientifi c and 

technical material pertinent to NASA’s mission.

Specialized services also include creating custom 

thesauri, building customized databases, organizing 

and publishing research results.

For more information about the NASA STI 

program, see the following:

• Access the NASA STI program home page at 

http://www.sti.nasa.gov

• E-mail your question via the Internet to help@

sti.nasa.gov

• Fax your question to the NASA STI Help Desk 

at 301–621–0134

• Telephone the NASA STI Help Desk at

 301–621–0390

• Write to:

 NASA Center for AeroSpace Information (CASI)

 7115 Standard Drive

 Hanover, MD 21076–1320
Ann P. Over, Mark K. Klem, and Susan M. Motil 

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

A Successful Infusion Process for Enabling 

Lunar Exploration Technologies

NASA/TM—2008-215045

January 2008

AIAA–2007–6196

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135

Prepared for the

Space 2007

sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Long Beach, California, September 18–20, 2007
Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Exploration Technology and Development and Constellation Program Offi ces for their 

continued support in funding the work to enable NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration, the Lunar Architecture Team for 

their vision of lunar sorties and outposts, and the Lunar Lander Project Offi ce for their cooperative spirit to 

establish the technology portfolio to meet the lander needs.

Available from

NASA Center for Aerospace Information

7115 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076–1320

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfi eld, VA 22161

Available electronically at http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov

Level of Review: This material has been technically reviewed by technical management. 
NASA/TM—2008-215045 1

A Successful Infusion Process for Enabling Lunar 

Exploration Technologies 

Ann P. Over, Mark K. Klem, and Susan M. Motil 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Glenn Research Center 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135 

Abstract 

The NASA Vision for Space Exploration begins with a more reliable flight capability to the International Space 

Station and ends with sending humans to Mars. An important “stepping stone” on the path to Mars encompasses 

human missions to the Moon. There is little doubt throughout the stakeholder community that new technologies will 

be required to enable this Vision. However, there are many factors that influence the ability to successfully infuse 

any technology including the technical risk, requirement and development schedule maturity, and, funds available. 

This paper focuses on effective infusion processes that have been used recently for the technologies in development 

for the lunar exploration flight program, Constellation. Recent successes with Constellation customers are 

highlighted for the Exploration Technology Development Program (ETDP) Projects managed by NASA Glenn 

Research Center (GRC). Following an overview of the technical context of both the flight program and the 

technology capability mapping, the process is described for how to effectively build an integrated technology 

infusion plan. The process starts with a sound risk development plan and is completed with an integrated project 

plan, including content, schedule and cost. In reality, the available resources for this development are going to 

change over time, necessitating some level of iteration in the planning. However, the driving process is based on the 

initial risk assessment, which changes only when the overall architecture changes, enabling some level of stability in 

the process. 

Nomenclature 

CaLV Cargo Launch Vehicle 

CEV Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle 

CFM Cryogenic Fluid Management 

CLV Ares Crew Launch Vehicle 

CSA Customer Supplier Agreement 

CxP Constellation Program 

EDS Earth Departure Stage 

ESAS Exploration Systems Architecture Study 

ETDP Exploration Technology Development Program 

EVA Extra Vehicular Activity 

GRC NASA Glenn Research Center 

ISRU In-Situ Resource Utilization 

LAT Lunar Architecture Team 

PCAD Propulsion and Cryogenics Advanced Development 

PDR Preliminary Design Review 

RCS Reaction Control System 

SE&I Systems Engineering and Integration 

SOA State of the Art 

SRR Systems Requirements Review 

TBR To Be Resolved 

TRL Technology Readiness Level 

VSE Vision for Space Exploration 
NASA/TM—2008-215045 2

I. Introduction 

The NASA Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) includes human space flight missions to the International Space 

Station, the Moon, and Mars. To accomplish the VSE, several iterations of architecture studies and concept 

development have been completed. The Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) completed and published 

in December of 2005 included a detailed transportation architecture for all three missions, which was subsequently 

refined. The Lunar Architecture Team (LAT) study, published in December of 2006, focused on defining the surface 

architecture and detailed drivers for lunar surface operations. At the writing of this paper, a follow-on study, LAT-2 

is nearing completion to refine the architecture further. Each of these mission concepts identified technology that 

was required to “enable” the mission concepts, as well as technology that was highly desired to “enhance” the 

mission. Technology solutions enable missions by buying down the risk on mission performance, life-cycle costs, 

and/or safety and reliability. In an ideal situation, NASA would fund all technologies that had promise of payback 

for later missions. However, fiscal realities are such that only the highest priority subset of the technologies 

identified can be funded and this decision process is a significant challenge. Perhaps more importantly, there are 

many factors that influence the ability to successfully infuse any technology including the technical risk, 

requirement and development schedule maturity, and, funds available. This paper focuses on the successful infusion 

processes that have been used recently for the technologies in development for the lunar exploration flight program, 

Constellation. One technology project, Propulsion and Cryogenics Advanced Development (PCAD), has 

implemented an effective technology infusion process with the Lunar Lander flight project. A similar process was 

recently applied across the power technology needs starting with the Energy Storage Project. With the help of 

ETDPO, other successful technology projects, and the Constellation customers, an effective technology infusion 

process is now in implementation across the program. With the VSE, there is an unprecedented opportunity to make 

this technology infusion a success because of the strong “technology pull” to enable the missions. 

II. Vision for Space Exploration Architectures 

The Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) completed in December 2005 included a lunar 

transportation architecture as shown in figure 1. 

This architecture was updated and modified through follow-on studies including the Lunar Lander internal study 

concepts and the Lunar Architecture Team. For example, the Lander key design drivers were to minimize mass of 

the descent and ascent stages to allow the maximum payload possible, and, to simplify the interfaces. 

Figure 1.—Exploration Transportation Architecture 
NASA/TM—2008-215045 3

Figure 2.—Notional LAT Lander Concept 

Figure 3.—Notional LAT Surface Architecture Concept 

In addition to the Lunar Lander, based on the objectives defined for the lunar missions, a surface architecture 

was defined including surface power, surface communications, habitats, rovers for humans and science, and in-situ 

resource utilization. A notional architecture is shown in figure 3. 
NASA/TM—2008-215045 4

III. Architecture Driven Technology Needs 

The architecture studies described above each precipitated a time-phased list of technology needs required to 

achieve the architecture concept of operations. The ETDP was formulated to address these technology needs. The 

current program consists of 21 technology projects, most containing multiple technologies within each project, each 

addressing one or more elements of the future flight systems as depicted in table 1. 

TABLE 1.—TECHNOLOGY MAPPING TO CONSTELLATION FLIGHT ELEMENTS 

Discipline Technology Project / 

Constellation Flight Element

Orion 

(CEV)

ARES-I 

(CLV)

ARES-V 

(CaLV) EDS Power Habitat Mobility ISRU Comm

Crosscutting/

Outpost

Mechanical Structures, Materials, & 

Mechanisms

Thermal Protection Systems

Dust Management

Propulsion and Cryo 

Advanced Development 

Cryogenic Fluid Management

Energy Storage (Batteries & 

Fuel Cells)

Advanced Fission Surface 

Power

Thermal Thermal Controls

High Performance & Rad Hard 

Electronics

Integrated System Health 

Management

Automation for Operations

Intelligent Software Design

Autonomous Precision 

Landing

Automated Rendezvous & 

Docking Sensor

Exploration Life Support

Environmental Monitoring and 

Control

Fire Prevention, Detection & 

Supression

Crew Support Extra Vehicular Activity (EVA)

ISRU In-Situ Resource Utilization

Supportability

Human-Robotic Systems

Ground 

or Flight 

Ops/ SE&I

Protection 

Systems

Propulsion

EVA

Launch Vehicle Lunar Surface Systems

Lunar 

Lander

Avionics & 

Software

Environmental 

Control & Life 

Support

Power

Robotics, 

Operations and 

Supportability

IV. Technology Prioritization 

The technology areas in table 1 represent technology needs identified by the general architecture assessments 

such as ESAS and LAT. This identification as a promising technology in architecture assessments is a necessary but 

not sufficient condition to remain funded. The Constellation Program (CxP), who manages the development of the 

Exploration flight elements, in concurrence with NASA Headquarters and the ETDP, has implemented a 

Technology Prioritization Process (TPP)1

 to assess and prioritize the technology needs across the program. The CxP 

process includes rigorous systems engineering assessments to identify and prioritize the technology capabilities 

required to meet the design, development, and test of mission systems, going beyond the initial architecture 

assessments. These capabilities are identified by mission phase (Initial/ISS, Lunar, or Mars) and by “enabling” or 

“enhancing.” In this context, the mission cannot be completed without the enabling technology. However, the 

enhancing technologies allow missions with better performance and/or lower risk and life cycle costs. The net result 

is an integrated technology priority list identifying the “pull technologies.” In the case where flight system 

requirements are not well defined, the technology program works with the architecture concept leads to define core 

 

1

Constellation Program Technology Insertion Strategy Document, CxP 70079
NASA/TM—2008-215045 5

technologies that cross most architecture solutions, working to supplement the TPP process. For example, although 

the exact mobility needs are not known for the surface we know that low power, lunar environment tolerant (e.g., 

dust, vacuum, temperature) mobility subsystems are required to be developed. 

V. Technology Infusion Process 

At the macro scale, a technology may have been identified as critical and selected for funding based on the 

program priority list. Although a technology development has sufficient funding and some level of success with 

development, it may not be used in the target flight system, or “infused.” There are many factors that influence the 

ability to successfully infuse any technology including the technical risk, requirement and development schedule 

maturity, and funds available. An effective infusion process has been demonstrated by the ETDP PCAD Project, 

managed at GRC. The PCAD project content includes “green propulsion” (non-toxic) main and reaction control 

system (RCS) propulsion, currently including hydrogen and methane fuels. PCAD also includes Cryogenic Fluid 

Management (CFM) content including storage, distribution, and low gravity management of cryogenic fluids for 

vehicles and surface systems. PCAD’s process started with a sound risk development plan and was completed with 

an integrated project plan, including content, schedule and cost. The following are details of the infusion process 

that recently worked well between the PCAD and the Lunar Lander Projects. 

A. Baseline Requirements and Definitions 

To start the infusion process, the needs, goals, and objectives of the flight program need to be stated in a set of 

requirements. For PCAD, although the Lander did not have baselined requirements they were able to confirm the 

majority of the requirements to guide the technology development. An example of those requirements is for the 

Lander liquid oxygen (LOx), liquid methane ascent main engine as shown in table 2. 

TABLE 2.—EXAMPLE OF LANDER LOx-METHANE ASCENT MAIN ENGINE PRELIMINARY REQUIREMENTS 

Performance Life Propellant inlet conditions 

Total thrust: 3,500 to 7,500 lbf (TBR) 6 starts (TBR) Pressure: 325 psia 

Isp: 355 sec minimum End of Life 9 months in space (TBR) Temperature: 185 °R 

Start time: 0.5 sec (max) Impulse (includes 1.5x margin) 

Vacuum start Continuous:4,500K lbf*sec 

(650 sec @ 7.5K) (TBR) 

LOx temperature: 163 to 224 °R with a 

goal down to 145 °R 

 Continuous:4,500K lbf*sec 

(1425 sec @ 7.5K) (TBR) 

LCH4 temperature: 170 to 224 °R with a 

goal up to 264 °R 

 Sun and deep space viewing Startup vapor slug: 100 in.3

In addition to requirements, there must be an understanding and definition of what Technology Readiness Level 

(TRL)2

 means for a given technology. For example, in general Exploration has a goal to develop technologies to a 

TRL level of 6 before they are delivered to the flight program for engineering development. For propulsion and 

CFM, PCAD spent significant time to define what TRL meant for their disciplines. In general, most technologies 

have a range of infusion points that follow the maturity of the flight design. For example, at SRR the technology 

development may not be complete; however, enough risk mitigation has been accomplished to adequately address 

the design maturity and risk. 

B. Technology Risk Assessment 

The PCAD Team conducted a risk workshop to identify the risks to be able to meet the Lunar Lander and CEV 

propulsion system requirements. A rigorous risk identification process was used to enable succinct statements of the 

risk, a relative ranking, mitigation strategies, and ultimately customer ownership. These risks serve to identify the 

technology gaps compared to State of the Art (SOA). The workshop provided raw data that needed to be 

consolidated for each area. This process resulted in a prioritized set of risks for the Lander propulsion system as 

shown in table 3. The color-coding for the risk corresponds to the scoring of likelihood (1-5) multiplied by 

consequence (1-5). Reds are 15-25; yellows 8-12 and greens are <8. The PCAD Risk abbreviations are “G” for 

green propulsion (e.g., methane fuel), “C” for CFM and, “D” for deep-throttling main engines. For example, the first 

 

2

TRL levels as defined in the NASA White Paper “Technology Readiness Levels” by John C. Mankins, April 1995. 
NASA/TM—2008-215045 6

risk in the table, G15 was 15th risk at the workshop for green propulsion and it covered ignition reliability for liquid 

oxygen-liquid methane combination. Customer interaction at the actual workshop was limited, hence follow-up 

meetings were held with the customer to review and refine the risks and associated mitigation strategies, and to 

effectively transfer ownership of the risks. 

TABLE 3.—PCAD ROLLED-UP RISKS FOR LUNAR LANDER (NOT IN ORDER) 

Lunar Lander Risk Risk Statement Corresponding PCAD Green Propulsion Risk

G15 - Ignition Reliability

G31 - Lack of Space Qualified Exciters

G30 - Lack of Qualified Spark Plug for High Cycle Applications

C088 - Propellant Acquisition

G35 - RCS Igniter Integration with Main Stage

G02 - Integrated System Test Requirement

C051 - CFM System Level Integration

G26 - Lack of Performance Data to Benchmark Analytical Models

G36 - Performance Loss Due to Propellant Quality

G09 - Material Limits at High Temperature Operation

G29 - Propellant Delivery Timing & Valve Operations

G19 - Thermal Cycle Limits of Thrust Chambers

G17 - Combustion Stability Characteristics

G06 - Engine Health Monitoring

G27 - Variable Requirements

G25 - Start Transient Requirements

G37 - Heat soakback requirements

G50 - Thermal Exposure Variations

G22 - Propellant Specification

G4 - Lack of Facility capabilities and/or availability

D95 - LOX/ H2 Ascent Engine Fast Start

D91 - Inconsistent Assumptions Between Performance, Cost &

D101 - Deep Throttle Engine Overall Performance

D104 - Deep Throttle Engine Human Rating

D-97 - Deep Throttle Engine, Unclear Requirements

D89 - Deep Throttle Engine Throttling

D94 - Deep Throttle Engine Specific Impulse

D102 - Deep Throttle Transient Response

D108 - DTE Expander Cycle Heat Transfer

D88 - DTE Terrain Avoidance Maneuvers

D107 - DTE Expander Cycle Heat Output

D90 - DTE Engine Restart After Cold Soak

D106 - DTE Chug Stability

D109 - DTE Chamber Durability

D93 - DTE Weight

D103 - DTE Burn Time and Restart

D112 - Limited Number of Qualified Suppliers for Deep Throttle Engine

D113 - Limited In-House Technical Competency

C053 - RCS Feed line

C088 - Propellant Acquisition

C090 - Long Term In-Space Cryogenic Propellant Storage

C065 - Active Cooling for Thermal Control

C090 - Long Term In-Space Cryogenic Propellant Storage

C091a - COPV for Cryogenic Propellants

C091b - COPV for High Pressure Helium

C092 - CFM Development Risk

C051 - CFM System Level Integration

C089 - Low Gravity Mass Gauge

C072 - Cryogenic Helium Regulator

D105 - LOX/ H2 Ascent Engine Contamination Due to Lunar Dust

C064 - Lunar Surface Thermal Control

G39 - Foreign Object Damage from Lunar Surface

Given that LOX/Methane are non-hypergolic propellants, an

ignition system is required; Because no space qualified 

hardware currently exists for LOX/Methane there are risks that 

the required ignition systems will not be at a TRL of 6 prior to 

full-scale development.

Given that advanced development of LOX/Methane propulsion

technology is proceeding prior to establishment of LSAM ascent 

and RCS requirements; there is a risk that the advances made 

through PCAD will not satisfy these future requirements. 

Alternatively, if advanced development is to satisfy a very wide 

range of potential requirements there is a risk that PCAD 

resources & schedule are inadequate.

LOX/Methane Test Facility 

Suitability & Availability

Given that there are limited contractor and government test 

facilities currently supporting a range of Cx propulsion system 

development activities; there is a risk that necessary advanced 

development tests cannot be accomplished when needed.

RCS & Ascent Engine 

Ignition

Unknown Ascent/RCS 

Propulsion System 

Requirements

Given that flight-qualified, human-rated LOX/Methane 

propulsions systems do not currently exist, there is a limited 

amount of data at both the component and system level to 

guide mission planning and provide confidence the systems will 

meet performance targets.

LOX/Methane Propulsion 

Technology Maturity

Descent Engine 

Performance

Descent Engine 

Development Base

Descent Deep Throttling

LOX/ H2 Ascent Engine Fast

Start

Given that the LSAM will be exposed to lunar dust, there is a

risk that contamination could result in malfunctions

Given that flight-qualified, human-rated long duration, on-orbit 

cryogenic fluid management systems do not currently exist, 

there are advanced development tasks at both the component 

and system level that have not yet been completed.

Given that long duration liquid hydrogen storage is required, 

active thermal control may be required to mitigate boil-off.

Cryogenic Propellant 

Quality

Lunar Dust Contamination

Cryogenic Fluid 

Management Technology 

Maturity

Active Cooling for Thermal 

Control

Given the nature of a distributed cryogenic propulsion system, 

there is a risk that engine feed quality will be unacceptable.

Given the propulsion needs for high performance, reliable lunar 

descent, there is a risk that this capability cannot be met using 

an engine design within the current technology base (RL-10 

derivative). 

Given that there is limited expertise within both NASA and 

industry, successful on-schedule descent engine development is

at risk.

Given that the lunar descent propulsion will need engines to

provide a wide range of thrust, there is a risk that throttling 

requirements cannot be met.

Given that a pump fed LOX/ H2 engine is being considered for

LSAM Ascent and the engine has a requirement to be able to 

perform during certain abort scenarios, there is a possibility 

that it might not meet the engine quick/fast start requirements 

for the abort.

C. Integrated Technology and Flight Schedules 

Based on the integrated risk matrix that was reviewed by the Lander, schedules for the technology development 

were developed to meet the flight project schedule. The risk mitigation items became tasks on a schedule supporting 

the Lander SRR and PDR, and some times post-PDR phases. Each task included an associated resource estimate. 

Several iterations were conducted to optimize the tasks (e.g., synergy was found by assuming the same reaction 

control system for the Ascent and Descent Stages). Throughout the process, all participants maintained a strict rigor 

to challenge task needs by inserting only mandatory tasks that met Lander schedule and critical risk mitigation 
NASA/TM—2008-215045 7

needs. Based on the risk priorities and phasing of funding, the content within the planned budget and outside of the 

guideline was identified. Further iterations and scrubs of the task schedule were conducted to minimize the 

overguideline needs. By the end of this meticulous process, the Lander Project became the best advocate for the 

increased funding needs. 

D. Final Steps of Technology Infusion 

The final step in the process was the documentation of the PCAD technology deliverables to the Lander Project. 

This was accomplished with a Customer Supplier Agreement (CSA),3

 including the technology development 

schedule of deliverables to meet the flight schedule needs, as shown in table 4. Over time, the Lander Project has 

continued to refine their requirements; however, the original PCAD risks were and still are applicable. The CSA 

with PCAD and the Lander Project, and the associated development schedule will remain a “living document” with 

periodic updates (at least once/year) to assure the alignment for technology infusion. Updates will also be required 

as the funding changes. The process outlined here, including a rigorous risk development process, enables a more 

stable development program that can adapt to changes. 

TABLE 4.—PCAD AND LUNAR LANDER SCHEDULE FOR TECHNOLOGY DELIVERABLES 

Deliverables Expected 

completion date 

Description 

PCAD—Ascent/Descent RCS Design Deliverables 

NGST RCS Contract 4th Qtr FY07 Complete workhorse testing of RCS concept. Test Report 

Aerojet RCS Contract 1st Qtr FY08 Deliver 4 Aerojet 100-lbf RCS engines (Contract Option 3) 

Igniter Duration Testing 

(Duration and Wide Operating Range) 

1st Qtr FY08 Vacuum ignition pulse (100,000+) duration testing 

High Area Ratio Testing 3rd Qtr FY08 Vacuum testing of a single engine to obtain performance data 

and benchmark data to examine kinetics models in existing 

analytical tools 

Spark Plug Durability 4th Qtr FY08 Heat transfer analysis and thermal stability analysis and test data 

of current insulating materials in LOx/LCH4 environment 

100-lbf LOx/LCH4 RCS Thruster Sea Level 

Testing 

4th Qtr FY08 Sea level testing over a range of propellant inlet conditions 

100-lbf LOx/LCH4 RCS Thruster APSTB 1st Qtr FY09 Vacuum testing of a 3 thruster reaction control box in a CEV 

configuration 

Exciter Breadboard demonstration 3rd Qtr FY09 Breadboard testing of capacitive and/or inductive discharge 

Ignition proof-of-concept (PoC) exciter designs 

100-lbf LOx/LCH4 RCS Thruster Vacuum 

Testing 

4th Qtr FY09 Thermal vacuum testing over a range of propellant inlet 

conditions 

LOx/LCH4 RCS Thruster APSTB 4th Qtr FY11 Testing of RCS engines and main engine simulator in lunar 

lander APSTB configuration. 

PCAD—Ascent Main Engine Deliverables

KTE Workhorse Testing 3rd Qtr FY07 Complete sea level workhorse testing of 7.5K-lbf LOx/LCH4 main 

engine concept. Test data report. 

KTE Contract 4th Qtr FY07 Complete contract base period with PDR for 3.5K-lbf LOx/LCH4

prototype Ascent Main Engine. Workhorse test date and PDR 

level engine design. 

ATK Contract 4th Qtr FY07 Complete contract base period with PDR for 3.5K-lbf LOx/LCH4

prototype. Ascent Main Engine. Workhorse test date and PDR 

level engine design. 

PWR Heated Tube SAA 4th Qtr FY07 Complete testing with super heated gaseous methane and 

subcooled liquid methane - Test Results. 

Workhorse vacuum testing 1st Qtr FY09 Complete vacuum workhorse testing of LOx/LCH4 main engine 

concept. Test data report 

ATK Workhorse Testing 3rd Qtr FY11 Complete sea level workhorse testing of 7.5K-lbf LOx/LCH4 main 

engine concept. Test data report. 

Prototype engine demonstration 1st Qtr FY12 Complete design, development, fabrication and vacuum testing of 

a lunar lander prototype ascent engine. 

 

3

CSA is part of the Cx Technology Insertion Strategy document, CxP 70079 
NASA/TM—2008-215045 8

E. Other Technology Projects 

Other GRC ETDP Projects have enjoyed some success following the lead of PCAD. At the time of this writing, a 

Power Risk Workshop is planned for late August 2007 to identify the power technology risks for the Energy Storage 

and the Fission Surface Power Projects. This risk workshop and risk mitigation identification process will enable 

more rigorous integrated schedules and CSA’s with the Lander, EVA, and various Lunar Surface Systems. The Dust 

Management Project is in formulation and is planning to utilize this process. 

VII. Summary 

Historically it has been difficult to successfully infuse new technologies into flight systems. The Exploration 

Program, with the help of the Architecture Study teams, the ETDP and the Constellation Program, has developed a 

method to prioritize and manage the technology portfolio for the Agency. At a technology project level, this paper 

showed the details of an effective technology infusion process that was used by the ETDP PCAD Project, and is 

now in use by other technology projects. The driving process is based on rigorous risk assessments, which change 

only when the overall architecture changes, enabling some level of stability in the process to be able to 

accommodate the typical perturbations of most NASA programs, including budget fluctuations. 
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188 

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 

burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. 

Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

01-01-2008 

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Memorandum 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

A Successful Infusion Process for Enabling Lunar Exploration Technologies 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

Over, Ann, P.; Klem, Mark, K.; Motil, Susan, M. 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

WBS 825855.01.03.03 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135-3191 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

 REPORT NUMBER

E-16228 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

10. SPONSORING/MONITORS 

 ACRONYM(S)

NASA 

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING 

 REPORT NUMBER

NASA/TM-2008-215045; AIAA-2007-

6196

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified-Unlimited 

Subject Categories: 16 and 18 

Available electronically at http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov 

This publication is available from the NASA Center for AeroSpace Information, 301-621-0390

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

The NASA Vision for Space Exploration begins with a more reliable flight capability to the International Space Station and ends with 

sending humans to Mars. An important “stepping stone” on the path to Mars encompasses human missions to the Moon. There is little doubt 

throughout the stakeholder community that new technologies will be required to enable this Vision. However, there are many factors that 

influence the ability to successfully infuse any technology including the technical risk, requirement and development schedule maturity, and 

funds available. This paper focuses on effective infusion processes that have been used recently for the technologies in development for the 

lunar exploration flight program, Constellation. Recent successes with Constellation customers are highlighted for the Exploration 

Technology Development Program (ETDP) Projects managed by NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC). Following an overview of the 

technical context of both the flight program and the technology capability mapping, the process is described for how to effectively build an 

integrated technology infusion plan. The process starts with a sound risk development plan and is completed with an integrated project plan, 

including content, schedule and cost. In reality, the available resources for this development are going to change over time, necessitating 

some level of iteration in the planning. However, the driving process is based on the initial risk assessment, which changes only when the 

overall architecture changes, enabling some level of stability in the process. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Lunar; Exploration; Technology development; Propulsion; Energy storage 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 

 ABSTRACT

UU 

18. NUMBER 

 OF 

 PAGES

14 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

STI Help Desk (email:help@sti.nasa.gov) 

a. REPORT

U 

b. ABSTRACT

U 

c. THIS 

PAGE

U 

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code)

301-621-0390 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18