OPSTAT

MR 021227

4/29/02

Questions: (Q:)

**Answers: (A:)**

Q: To confirm, are you wanting all processing included, that is, not
just tasks directly related to preparation for flight, but also system
testing, preventive maintenance and corrective maintenance?

**A: Yes. In so far as they contribute to cycle times landing to launch.
The items of system testing, PM and CM all contribute to this.**

Q: Do you want values estimated over time, factoring in degradation of
systems? Or are you looking for a point estimate for the metric at some
generic point in time? If over time, about what time-span do you want to
evaluate?

**A: Historical data, Shuttle systems behavior, should be used to
address such issues. Estimates should be for a stable point in time,
some years into a program, not worse case as when starting up
operations.**

Q: If evaluating over a long time span, is spare part availability a
factor you want included?

A: Yes, to the extent it significantly affects cycle time, landing to
launch. If parts are being waited on and this affects cycle time it must
be factored in.

Q: During the 'conceptual to slightly more detailed' development of new
RLV's do you typically have Failure Modes and Effects Analyses (FMEA's)
available for the systems to be used in the RLV?

**A: Never. As per SOW the information available is typically at most a
level of detail that indicates "Windward surfaces tile, AETB-TUFI-8,
xxx.xxx sq.ft. surface area". More often than not, many systems will
lack even such detail.**

Q: Would you also like to compare metrics on the time required to scrub
a launch, i.e., undo and redo the final preparations?

**A: Not a deciding factor. Overall landing to launch is the priority
estimation. If the last step contributes, along with many other steps,
to rolling up and understanding this, then it is needed. But any one
step is not more important than another unless analysis says so.**

Q: You mention developing and evaluating both technology and approaches
-- is Reliability Centered Maintenance an operational approach to be
considered? Have you already identified other operational approaches
that you are specifically looking to evaluate?

**A: As per SOW, modeling techniques are sought that do not require
answers which are later rolled up. Inputs should be design type (power
level of engine, use of batteries vs. fuel cells, etc). Reliability in
so far as it addresses dependability must be anchored as per SOW to data
and the delta required for the new system. RCM would be an approach
candidate. Other approach examples include bare pad, standardized
payload, or uniform, identical tile/TPS.**

Q: Are you looking only to compare new RLV's to existing Shuttle
metrics, or are you also looking to evaluate operation approaches or
system upgrades on the Shuttle system itself?

**A: Focus is RLV's, but any valid model that creates deltas from
Shuttle/orbiters to generate new RLV cycle times should be able to do so
in steps or single step deviations from Shuttle. Many of these together
would add up to a new RLV.**

Q: Is it possible to give us an idea as to what would be considered an
excessive cost or a reasonable cost for the project? 

>  

**A: Approximately 1 to 2 man years** **over the span of a year should
accomplish the goals of this project.**

>  

Q: How is turn around time estimated currently (in planning for yearly
tonnage sent into space, for example)? 

>  

**A: Traditionally many methods are used. Knowledge of these should be
included in the proposal relevant to proposer qualifications. Briefly,
many methods are used. The various publicly available methods use
modifiers to existing data, such as data from Shuttle. These modifiers,
figures of merit or relationships are generated either manually or
automatically based on the tool. Design type inputs are typically used
as input, although in some instances expert input of resources at lower
levels may be an input. As per the SOW the former, proceeding from
design to outputs is preferred. Tonnage per year may be used as a metric
but the relation to turn time is not causal. Turn time estimation is
generally independent of tonnage. Tonnage will affect the degree or
number of resources required, such as the number of vehicle required,
given any single vehicles turntime capability.**

Q: Are the turn around estimates to be based on existing shuttle flights
or on planned spacecraft? 

>  

**A: Turn time estimation should be based on Shuttle or equivalent,
valid, demonstrated operations. Planned spacecraft, as payloads, may be
considered in the model based on the proposers ideas.**

>  

Q: Approximately how much time for access to subject matter experts or
existing databases will be provided by NASA for this project? 

>  

**A: Very little. Proposer qualifications should address how much access
they would have to already available data or how much knowledge the
proposer has of existing sources, documents and organizations. Previous
experience qualifications should include knowledge of data that is
available and having it or knowing where to obtain it. NASA contract
lead will provide high level source data and guidance for most areas.
The use of a single workshop over a day or 2 may be proposed as a way to
gather all SME time together efficiently.**

>  

Q: Will it be possible to accompany a shuttle from landing to launch;
that is, to actually see each of the stages of the turn around? 

>  

**A: No.**

>  

Q: Will all data collection research and program team meetings be held
at KSC? (i.e. is there any anticipated travel beyond KSC?) 

>  

**A: Yes.** 

Q: The purpose of the analysis would be to prepare a time allotments for
cycle time periods for Reusable Launch Vehicles, depending on routine
items and development of a forecast of accepted non-routine issues.

A: No. In-consistent with SOW. Allotments are generally values that are
reverse engineered from answers or assumptions in order to fit into a
goal (time metric). This task seeks to generate turn-times and derive
designs that have an estimated likelihood of requiring times that meet
goals.

Q: This would also include the development of predictive tools for cost
and schedule processes for best turn-time versus manpower and other
resource allocations.

**A: Yes. Consistent with SOW.**

Q: Boundaries for the project - delivery from touchdown to launch.

**A: Yes. Mission / on orbit stay time (e.g. 10 days) and processes are
NOT included.**

Q: The assessment would consider the various organizational structures,
directly involved work groups, and suppliers. Included may be other
parties that are identified that could contribute to additional critical
bottlenecks or barriers.

**A: Yes. Consistent with SOW.**

Q: Assume follow-up revisions and refinement that would enhance the
total process and pragmatic solution deliverables would be a part of the
project objectives.

**A: The work must stand on it\'s own. Final project deliverables must
be fully usable and complete. Refinements for future work would address
specific improvements, greater scope, or opportunities but the scope of
this task would still stand alone and be accomplished and ready to be
used to generate RLV turn-times based on conceptual RLV designs.**

Q: Is break down of cost required and if so what format/detail is
required?

**A: Yes, standard. Identify the major top-level tasks and associated
labor and materials including hourly rates and overhead percentages.
Summarize.**

Q: Please explain what is meant by \"Other Applicable Identifiers\"?

**A: For example, needing NASA civil servant time, needing a NASA
facility,** needing a piece of unique or special equipment such as "xyz
workstation".

Q: What basis will award be made on (price alone or price and other
factors, e.g. past performance and quality)?

A:

-   **Can it be done? Merit and technical feasibility of achieving
    objectives. 50%**

-   **Can this team do it? Qualifications of team, Past Performance.
    25%**

-   **Can it be done within time and money? Effective planning and
    understanding of how to carry out the task and manage available
    resources and meet schedule. 25%**

Q: Is it NASA's desire to use turnaround time as the sole independent
variable in the model for determining operational cost?

**A: Cost estimation is NOT a part of this task. Statement of
relationship identifies priority of turn time estimation only.**

Q: What dependent variables are you interested in?

**A: Design features should represent most if not 100% of the required
input variables an interface presents to a user. For example "choose
fluid...RP-1" or "choose power supply -- PEM fuel cell". As per SOW it
is NOT desired here to add up lower level assumptions as inputs or to
input resources and add these up to calculate higher level metrics. Such
relationships may be encoded in the tool but would not be present in a
user interface which would have only design control variables as
choices. The qualifications of the proposal team to derive or understand
these parameters is also related to this area.**

Q: The craft seems to have these independent variables as constraints.
Please define?

**A: See prior.**

Q: Please explain what you mean by the following statement: "System RLV
system characteristics include choice of technology, reliability,
design, or operational approach.\"

**A:**

**A technology may be a choice presented to the user such as "choose
type of material, windward surface". A user may choose the variable
"Metallic type xyz".**

**Reliability may be a choice presented to the user "indicate
reliability of sub-system main propulsion". A user may choose "0.9999".
It may also be at a higher or lower level as required.**

**Design may be a choice presented to the user such as "placement of
umbilical at base, none above base level". Or "use same 4 LOX tanks for
OMS, RCS, Power unit and Thermal / cooling".**

**Operational approach may be a choice presented to the user such as
"IVHM identifies 50% of all faults requiring R&R's upon any power up
cycle".**

Q: Please explain what you mean by the following statement: "We get to
choose; they get to choose, who chooses, when are/will choices be made.
Can choices be changed, added, modified at will?"

**A: Choice refers to a user case or interface. A design evolves through
choices of hardware, systems, technology. Designers do NOT choose
resources or durations or relationships. Traditionally they have no
expertise in these areas since they are neither operations analysts nor
experts. These operations metrics and outputs are a consequence of the
designer's choice of hardware, systems, technology, etc. This task seeks
to estimate turnaround time for future RLVs based on design choices. A
typical user would NOT see what is in the tool, which may include
Shuttle data, relationships, resources, times, etc.**

Q: Would additional outputs form the system be required; such as the
example listed:

Example:

Detailed breakdown of "turnaround time" into subcategories like:

-   TPS processing times

-   Engine processing times

-   Major refurbishment to routine maintenance ratios

-   Stacking and hook up times

-   Size of maintenance crews

**A: Yes, very desirable but not required.**

Q: Example:

Costs for alternative processing plans including cost breakdowns on a
detailed level like:

-   Manpower costs

-   Spare parts inventory costs

-   Part lifecycle costs

**A: Yes, very desirable but not required.**

Q: Please explain what you mean by the following statement: "The first
sentence describes a calculator? \"Duration times shall not be used as
inputs in such a capability, except at that level where results
generated at one level are rolled up into a next level. It is not
desired here to develop a calculator that adds up lower level
assumptions.\"

**A: It has been the experience that a tool that allows the input of low
level assumptions, even if performed by experts, loses repeatability,
responsiveness, traceability and credibility. A resource may be
estimated to be a certain value one day, but another value by a
different user, on another day. In each case, the result is slow
response on generating estimates. One single vehicle analysis may take
40 hours or even weeks. A resource would be required each use of a tool
to assess what the resource is and why due to ever changing design
choices (such as an EMA vs. a hydraulic system vs. gadget X of the day).
Non-operations experts would be unable to use such a tool. Hence,
parting from design choices as the main and perhaps sole source of input
data yielding the desired operations metric or consequence is the
objective of this task.**

Q: The two different types of example craft indicate a software program
that lets various types of craft be built up of software parts or
widgets.

> How, and in what form will the data be made available?
>
> Will Access to a data repository or actual files of data be made
> available? There are vast islands of individual workstation data
> repositories at NASA.
>
> Will the Arena software be used?
>
> Does NASA have the Arena software? Will it be provided for our use?
>
> If NASA does not have the Arena software does NASA expect a
> re-engineering process?

**A: These questions too specifically address "HOW" to perform this
task. Choice of software is left to the proposal and cost statements.
Access to NASA data will be provided as guidance only or some files and
data in some cases. Qualifications would state awareness of moving
within NASA's data systems. Civil servants will NOT be available full
time for this task and independence of team as well as knowledge of data
sources will speak to qualifications.**

Q: How much of the results will be based on currently provided data, or
real world research? Real world research could include: aircraft
turnaround, train systems, nuclear power plants, automobiles, military
aircraft and ships, etc.

A: This is "How" and is left to the proposal.

Q: Does NASA view there will be a lot of researching of real world data
required?

**A: No. Data mining is not a part of this task as per SOW. Either the
data is more or less readily available in usable form or it will not be
used.**

Q: What are the provisions for access to proprietary data banks and data
from private organizations and companies that may be required for
gathering of this type data.

**A: Use of proprietary data is discouraged but will be considered if
any final product still meets the objective of being openly available to
the public through NASA.**

Q: Please explain what the following statement means: \"they required
data that was not readily available, derivable or applicable\"?

**A: Example: an approach may require "324.5 civil servants to spend 10
hours each filling out a database form. NOT feasible."**

**Example: an approach may require "Shuttle component data at the level
of "fuel cell no. 1" including resources, scheduled and unscheduled
maintenance, and all process duration timelines". NOT feasible. Such
data does not exist in most cases nor would it be in a readily available
form. Data that may often be taken for granted in aircraft operations is
often wholly unavailable for Shuttle.**

**Example: an approach may require "advanced technology xyz resources,
process flow diagram, task list, resources". NOT feasible. Such data
typically will not exist.**

**Example: an approach may require inputting system reliability and
maintainability figures as a predominant means of estimation. NOT
feasible. NOT applicable. These are not inputs a designer views as
his/her choices. These are consequences for which tools like the one to
be created here exists.**

Q: Currently models of this type already exist that rely on just
characteristics of the system and do not sum up the various processing
elements to get an estimate.

> Will the new model replace these existing models?

**A: Yes. If improved and successful over current systems.**

Q: What is the functionality that is lacking in the existing model that
the new model must have?

**A: Ability to expand to include new information, address new
technology choices, and to generate a result that has more confidence
and fidelity.**

Q: \"The degree to which absolute values versus comparative values have
confidences shall be addressed\".

> What type of data will be compared?
>
> Please explain what the following statement means: "The degree to
> which absolute value versus comparative values have confidence shall
> be addressed."
>
> What type of values will be compared?

**A: Knowing a value improves over Shuttle in a range of 10 to 20% is
not the same as knowing the value to be "x" with a 90% confidence based
on the assumptions. One is comparative, and the actual value may vary
due to lack of understanding of the baseline (Shuttle). Another is
absolute and stands on its own without need for a comparison point.**

**Any "how" proposed shall address this issue.**

Q: Please discuss, in-depth, the level of fidelity and how that is to be
determined.

### 

**A: HOW is left to the proposal ideas, qualifications and
effectiveness.**

Q:

> Does NASA have software we will be using?
>
> How will the deliverables be evaluated?
>
> Is there required software we have to purchase?
>
> If no requirements, is there any type of software we would still have
> to buy?
>
> Is a specific language required for the deliverable \"final tool
> capability (\"software\")
>
> As the craft attribute values are changed, is the "model" suppose to
> be able to predict turn around times? A spacecraft object with
> attributes like, number of stages, fuel type, weight, thrust, etc. The
> behavior of a spacecraft object would change based on its attribute
> value. Different behavior class objects would have to be part of the
> model.
>
> What are the deliverable software requirements?
>
> What are the requirements for the final tool capability?
>
> What are the requirements that the final tool must be capable of?

Please describe, in-depth, "final tool capability" listing all the
requirements that the final tool must be capable of?

**A: Yes. As attributes are changed a new estimate is generated. The
other questions above are left to "HOW" and the proposal merits,
qualifications, and effectiveness of the team proposed.**

Q:

> What will the software platform be? Example: Is it ARENA, Aegis,
> Visual BASIC, C++, JAVA, etc.
>
> Will the software platform be provided by NASA?

What will the hardware platform be?

> Will the hardware platform be provided by NASA?

**A: HOW is left to the proposal. No software will be provided by NASA,
but such costs may be included in a proposal. It is expected
qualifications will include having the infrastructure and capability to
perform the task. It would NOT be a strength if many such one-time costs
to procure capability were incurred in a proposal.**

Q: Will NASA be willing to provide the winning bidder with mathematical
relationships between applicable design characteristics and processing
times including mean processing time and distributions -- here are some
examples:

A:

-   **NO.** Amount of ground support equipment required to achieve a
    desired flight rate

-   **YES.** Tonnage to orbit demand

-   **YES.** Per flight payload capacity

-   **NO. Possibly extrapolated.** Reliability of component parts

-   **NO. Is an Output.** Time to repair or replace defective parts

-   **Qualifications include knowing available public or disseminated
    sources.** Time to service hypergolic hydraulic system

-   **Qualifications include knowing available public or disseminated
    sources.** Time to service Electro-hydraulic system

-   **Qualifications include knowing available public or disseminated
    sources.** Time to service Electro-mechanical actuator

-   There are more inputs that are implied by the sample reference
    vehicle statistics that are attached to the statement of work:

-   **YES.** Number of stages

-   **YES.** Gross liftoff weight (GLOW)

-   **YES.** Where the returned stages are processed

Creating many such variables, if required, may be worked as part of
"HOW" based on other available information, extrapolation, techniques,
knowledge capture, modifiers, relative measures, etc and creative
approaches offered by the proposers.

Q: Can the time frame be shorter than the 12 months specified?

**A: Yes.**

**The following questions are asking about HOW specific to one
proposer's approach. They cannot be answered at this time.**

**Other - Generic Model of Current Simulation Development**

1.  How many major flight hardware element (FHE) types (excluding
    payload) do you have?

# FHE 1

a)  What is the name of FHE 1?

b)  Is this FHE expendable or reusable?

c)  How many......are required in the launch vehicle (LB)?

d)  What is the total number of\...\...\... in existence?

e)  What is the ascent time for the ....?

f)  Does this FHE reach on-orbit?

> If yes:
>
> f.1 What is the time on orbit

g)  Is it landing in water or on land?

h)  What is the primary landing location?

i)  What is the secondary landing location?

j)  What is the probability of landing in.........?

k)  What is the descent time for the .........?

l)  Is there a post flight safing process?

m)  Where does the post flight safing process take place?

n)  How long does the post flight safing process take?

o)  Do you need a transporter to transport the FHE to the post-light
    safing Facility?

> If yes:
>
> o.1 What type of transporter is needed?
>
> o.2 How long will the transportation process to safing facility take?
>
> Note: If there is a secondary landing site, then you need to ask the
> following
>
> question twice:
>
> o\. 3 How many of those transporters are available in total in the
> primary

landing site?

2\. If there is a secondary landing site? If so:

# FHE-1

a)  What type of transporter is needed to transport the FHE from the
    secondary to the primary location?

b)  How many total other landing sites is there?

c)  How long will it take?

d)  Is there a post-light de-configuration process?

> If yes:
>
> d.1 How long does it take?
>
> d.2 What facility does de-configuration take place in?
>
> d.3 After how many flights does the vehicle go through periodic
> maintenance?

e)  Is there a need for pre-maintenance?

> If yes:

e.1 Where does the pre-maintenance take place?

> e.2 How long does pre-maintenance take?
>
> e.3 How do you get it to that facility? And How much travel time is
> needed?
>
> e.4 Where does the maintenance take place?
>
> e.5 How long does the maintenance take?
>
> e.6 What type of transporter is needed to get it there?
>
> e.7 How many total do you have?

f)  Is there a need for post-maintenance?

> If yes:
>
> f.1 Where does the post-maintenance take place?
>
> f.2 How long does post-maintenance take?
>
> f.3 How do you get it to that facility? And How much travel time is
> needed?
>
> f.4 Where does the Normal Ground Ops take place?
>
> f.5 How long does it take to get to it?
>
> f.6 How long does the Normal Ground Ops take?
>
> f.7 What kind of transporter do you need to transport to Integration
> Facility?
>
> f.8 How long will the integration take place?
>
> f.9 Do you need an MLP?
>
> f.10 What is the order in which this FHE is integrated into the
> vehicle (pull down menu
>
> 1,2,...up to the total number of FHEs defined above?
>
> f.11 How long does it take to integrate this FHE into the vehicle?
>
> f.11.1 If this is FHE number n (the last FHE of the total FHE of the
> total FHEs) and
>
> the integration and launch facilities are not the same, then:
>
> f\. 11.1.1 What kind of transporter do you need to transport to the
> launch
>
> facility?
>
> f.11.1.2 How long will it take?
>
> f.11.1.3 How much time is needed on the launch facility?
>
> f.11.1.4 If there is a need for an MLP, what facility does the MLP go
> to
>
> after the launch?

3\. Process Information

# FHE-1

a)  How frequently are the missions generated?

b)  How long does payload manufacturing take?

c)  How does the payload get transported to the launch site?

d)  How long does it take?

e)  Where does the payload get integrated into the vehicle (e.g.,
    processing, integration, launch)?

f)  How long does the payload integration take?