Purpose of the Conference

To bring together Constellation personnel and management and potential industry partners to discuss and leverage the experiences and lessons learned from the six Apollo lunar landings as new lander designs and operations are considered. Specifically, the conference will consider the terminal descent phase which consists of the last few hundred feet of the landing trajectory to touchdown. This conference will provide a forum for direct communication between the Apollo and Constellation teams (including potential industry partners and academia), and a comparison between past and current technologies. A separate conference is planned for fall of 2008 at MIT which will address the broader landing sequence from Lunar Orbit Rendezvous (LOR) to touchdown. The Go For Lunar Landing: From Terminal Descent to Touchdown Conference will provide valuable inputs for that upcoming Conference.

At the annual 2007 Society of Experimental Test Pilot Conference, Neil Armstrong delivered a paper Prototyping a Lunar Lander: The LLRV and LLTV Projects. His last paragraph stated Now the United States is planning to return to the moon, perhaps as early as 2019. When that craft is on final approach to that flat topped ridge near Shackleton crater, I hope the person at the controls has had a simulation experience that is at least as good as the LLTV provided the Apollo crews a half century earlier. SETP, Anaheim, CA (9/29/07).

As in the case of the Apollo Lunar Module, a key capability of the Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM) will be an automated landing capability, and possible greater reliance upon it. Experience (Apollo and Shuttle) has shown that manual control to touchdown is not only a very desirable backup capability, but has been preferred to date as the primary means for landing. Key questions concerning astronaut training for manual descent need to be addressed as the architecture matures. What will design and operation of the LSAM's training hardware and/or simulator(s) entail? What are the technical requirements and specifications? What is the required in-commission date? Can sufficient fidelity/realism be achieved with ground-based simulation, or is an actual flying vehicle required; such as the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle (LLTV) employed in Apollo and the Shuttle Training Aircraft (STA) currently in use today? What are the implications of having refueling and reusability of the landing systems as a design criterion? Bringing together the Apollo expertise, along with Constellation requirements definition for manual control, will help kick-start the process of LSAM design and development related to the final landing phase of lunar missions.

Welcome Reception

Welcome reception the evening before the conference (March 3rd) at the Fiesta Inn from 6:00 pm until 7:30 pm (sponsored by Honeywell).

March 4th Agenda

7:30: Breakfast at Fiesta Inn

8:45 am: Keynote Address: Overview of the NASA Constellation Program, Jeff Hanley NASA HQ.


Panel 1: Apollo Team
Moderator: Harrison Schmitt, NASA retired, Apollo 17 LM Pilot

  1. Training and preparation vs. actual mission experiences.
  2. Wish list for a next try.

Panel 2: Imaging and Cartography
Moderator: Chirold Epp, Johnson Space Center

  1. Apollo images for training.
  2. Constellation pre-mission data base passive.
  3. Constellation live mission -- active imaging for cockpit displays.

Panel 3: Avionics (GNC, automatic controls, displays, manual controls)
Moderator: Mitch Fletcher, Honeywell

  1. Compare/Contrast Apollo to Constellation. Similarities, differences both mission and technologies.
  2. Training an intelligent simulator and Robotic Landing Control System (RLCS): Pilot/astronaut input to artificial intelligence for lunar landing.
  3. Testing an intelligent simulator and RLCS with manual vs robotic control of an LLTV.

5:30 pm Hospitality Reception (sponsored by Honeywell)


March 5th Agenda

7:30: Breakfast at Fiesta Inn

8:30 am: Keynote Address: Overview of the NASA Altair Lunar Lander Program, Lauri Hansen NASA Johnson Space Center.

Panel 4: Guidance, Navigation, and Control

Moderator: Doug Zimpfer, Draper Lab
  1. Compare/Contrast Apollo to Constellation. Similarities, differences both mission and technologies.
  2. Rocket system differences and influence on flight dynamics and operational considerations.
  3. Include displays and input devices such as Rotation Hand Controller (RHC)/Translational Hand Controller (THC) to that projected for Constellation.

Panel 5: Simulations and Training
Moderator: Tom Alderete, NASA Ames Research Center

  1. Fixed-base simulation limitations for last few hundred feet of the lunar landing maneuver -- limitations of vertical flight fixed base simulation for lunar g simulation. Ames Research Center Vertical Motion Simulator & Langley Lunar Landing Research Facility.
  2. Training an intelligent simulator and Robotic Landing Control System (RLCS): Pilot/astronaut input to artificial intelligence for lunar landing.
  3. Testing an intelligent simulator and RLCS with manual vs. robotic control of an LLTV.
  4. Human Role in Precision Automatic Landing (manual and supervisory control)

Panel 6: Projected Needs/Wrap-Up
Moderator: William Gregory, Honeywell

  1. Major differences expected between the Apollo LM and the new lunar lander.
  2. Issues of emergency take-over of manual control in an automatic landing.
  3. Comparison of today's simulation capabilities, versus benefits of an actual flying simulator (Vertical Motion Simulator vs. Shuttle Training Aircraft vs. Training and Testing an Intelligent simulator and Robotic Landing Control System (RLCS) vs. LLTV).
  4. Identify potential long-lead items for training/simulation system.
  5. Layout phased programs and milestones for go forward to ensure adequate attention given to flight crew training for the landing maneuver and influence on the design process for the new lunar lander.