The NASA Human Space Flight Supply Chain, Current and Future

Edgar Zapata

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Kennedy Space Center

<edgar.zapata-1@nasa.gov>

Abstract

The current NASA Human Space Flight transportation system, the Space
Shuttle, is scheduled for final flight in 2010. The Exploration
initiative will create a new capability with a combination of existing
systems and new flight and ground elements. To fully understand and act
on the implications of such change it is necessary to understand what,
how, when and where such changes occur and more importantly, how all
these interact. This paper presents Human Space Flight, with an emphasis
on KSC Launch and Landing, as a Supply Chain of both information and
materials. A supply chain methodology for understanding the flow of
information and materials is presented. Further, modeling and simulation
projects funded by the Exploration initiative to understand the NASA
Exploration Supply Chain are explained. Key concepts and their purpose,
including the Enterprise, Locations, Physical and Organizational
Functional Units, Products, and Resources, are explained. It is shown
that the art, science and perspective of Supply Chain Management is not
only applicable to such a government & contractor operation, it is also
an invaluable approach for understanding, focusing improvement and
growth. It is shown that such commercial practice applies to Human Space
Flight and is invaluable towards one day creating routine, affordable
access to and from space.

# 1. Introduction

In a world of complex systems, understanding first requires successful
communication, such as by conveying clear definitions. The "operations"
of one person may be called the "logistics" of another (as is common in
Department of Defense circles). Even with NASA the term "operations" may
be used commonly in distinct ways, referring to processing for flight if
you are at Kennedy Space Center but used commonly only in reference to
actual flight time and the "mission" if you are at Johnson Space Center.
The introduction of a new term, the "supply chain" may as well be
interpreted narrowly, as referring only to the process of getting parts
or materials to a given site of interest, or as broadly as all the
outward and inward facing processes that are required to produce a final
product for a customer.

Human Space Flight incurs a large portion of both time and cost in the
movement of information as well as materials, so the term "supply chain"
as it used throughout this paper is the more expansive of the possible
definitions. That is, the supply chain is all of the processes, direct
and in-direct, that extend out as links in a chain to create a product,
hence meeting the customer requirement. As Human Space Flight would fall
into the realm of a "developing" market \[1\], as measured by final
outcomes such as launch rates (but not necessarily intermediate
products), this more expansive definition captures the labor and service
oriented dominance of the components that go into creating a launch.

Specifically, we define an Exploration Supply Chain as:

> "The integration of NASA centers, facilities, third party enterprises,
> orbital entities, space locations, and space carriers that
> network/partner together to plan, execute, and enable an Exploration
> mission that will deliver an Exploration product (crew, supplies,
> data, information, knowledge, and physical samples) and to provide the
> after delivery support, services, and returns that may be requested by
> the customer."

# 2. The NASA Human Space Flight Space Transportation Supply Chain as an Enterprise Level Network

The first shift in perspective asked by a supply chain methodology for
understanding complex systems is to define one's reason for existence -
the customer. In this perspective the Space Shuttle does not launch
merely because it can, or to meet a manifest from a program management
office within the Shuttle program at Johnson Space Center (JSC). This
would be analogous to believing General Motors manufactures cars for
dealerships. Actually, dealerships are simply the means (and not the
only one) by which customer requirements are conveyed to the plant. The
customer is the purchaser of the car.

The Human Space Flight customers include:

> Current Customer: The International Space Station program at JSC.
>
> Future Customers: The prior ISS (near term through 2017+) as well as
> the Exploration customer to be defined, requiring Lunar sorties and
> extended missions and so on (mid-term 2018+) and Mars exploration
> missions (long term \~2020+).

One may represent this network of relationships among Enterprise level,
relatively independent, members of the Human Space Flight supply chain
as shown in Figure 1. Note the new additions for the Lockheed-Martin
awarded CEV and that a complete analog is very similar in network
structure to Space Shuttle operations.

![](media/image1.png){width="4.927777777777778in"
height="2.495138888888889in"}

Figure 1

# 3. Why Supply Chain Management? Why Now?

It may be asked if "supply chain management" as an evolving science, or
even in its mature, practiced forms to be discussed further ahead,
applies to Human Space Flight (HSF)? As a developing market, HSF volume
is low as measured by the number of launches per year (nationally or
globally, even including un-crewed launches), so how can one apply
concepts engendered to move lots of product to lots of customers --
fast?

Three key concepts speak to "how" to apply supply chain management
methods to Human Space Flight:

-   ***How*:** By treating information flows (sustaining, requirements
    management, configuration control, scheduling, planning,
    administrative, financial, etc.) [as integral]{.underline} to
    material logistics flows (flight & ground hardware for processing,
    assembly and launch, and return for refurbishment, reuse, and
    disposition, commodities, payloads, flight crew equipment, etc).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ***How*:** By taking advantage of capabilities that exist to capture
    the relationships of material and information via Supply Chain
    Advances such as the Supply Chain Council SCOR \[2\] and already
    defined methodologies in defining such flows.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ***How*:** By taking advantage of capabilities that exist to create
    simulations automatically that can relate information and material
    flows within a supply chain from the enterprise level on down to the
    physical operations concept level and downward to the level of
    resources and processes.

A natural progression is to ask "why" Human Space Flight is still a
developing field in the human enterprise as we advance to becoming a
space-faring civilization. This question may be asked in various layers
recursively ("ask why 5 times") to derive an understanding that goes
beyond "how". The beginning of understanding is to measure out the
current Human Space Flight Supply Chain - that which produces a Human /
Crew in Space, at the International Space Station, and back safely -- in
more tangible terms. This is shown in Figure 2.

![](media/image2.png){width="5.636111111111111in"
height="4.077083333333333in"}

Figure 2

One can see from that the tasks we see in a more visible light
internally as the work of preparing a spaceship and which the public
sees as a launch is but a small component of the entire picture (by cost
\~10% of Launch and Landing). Every hour spent by a technician to
prepare human space flight hardware for launch is represented in as the
lone stick figure at the top of the diagram. Each of the other icons,
such as 4 people and materials in "Prime Contractor Logistics"
represents 4 times as much (labor and materials) *by cost relation*.
Areas dominated by labor such as "Prime Contractor All Other In-Direct
Functions" are represented by only "people" icons. The cut icons are
portions thereof for that category. For example KSC Infrastructure would
add roughly 4 and ½ hours to match the original hour. This Launch and
Landing emphasis would not be complete without reference to the rest of
the program elements around the country, whereby due to production of
hardware, program management and such another 82 "units of work" would
match the original unit of work. This vaguely defines relationships of
cost to hours, albeit loosely, as the actual data relationships used in
developing are costs and by necessity this includes labor and materials.
The strictest relationships where cost and labor-hours are near
identical for are for those icons showing only people, areas dominated
by labor as a service or function. For example, every hour of labor by
the lone top stick figure is actually matched by a need for 4 more hours
in prime engineering and 5 in prime in-direct, i.e. another 9 hours.

Of note, the common term in business of "overhead" by a reasonable
categorization for direct Prime and direct NASA functions shows that the
business support functions are roughly 100% *in EACH case*, government
or contractor. For example, note that the sum is "5" units of Prime
In-direct to the sum (also 5) of Prime technicians (1) and engineering /
technical management (4) - the more visible items of work.

# 4. Locations, Physical Functional Units

Having introduced the concept of the Enterprise previously, the
independent entities that network together to bring about a product, the
next steps in applying a supply chain perspective are to establish
locations and physical functional units.

Locations are exactly as they sound, the geographical place an activity
takes place or through which, to or from, the material or information
flows. Physical functional units have a semblance to things physical
such as buildings, a Spaceports processing, logistics, and launch
facilities.

For the 1^st^ Exploration system to be developed, the Crew Exploration
Vehicle (CEV, the launch abort system, capsule, service module and
adapter portion) and the Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV, the Reusable Solid
Rocket Motors and Assemblies, and the 2^nd^ Stage) a diagram capturing
relationships among physical functional units would be as shown in
Figure 3.

![](media/image3.png){width="5.611111111111111in"
height="3.2090277777777776in"}

Figure 3

# 5. Products and Transformation

The flow of material, weather parts, a sub-element such as a Launch
Abort System (LAS), or a higher level element such as a CEV, or an
integrated stack, introduces the key concept of product. Semantically,
in summery:

-   Enterprise: An independent entity networked with others to produce,
    meet a customer requirement, or add value.

-   Location: the place the Enterprise resides, either as operations,
    production, logistics, warehouses, office buildings, etc in certain
    state such as Florida, California, and Texas etc.

-   Physical Functional Units: A building, facility and/or the
    equipment, such as Ground Support Equipment that is a required
    resource at the location.

Transformation occurs as value is added in any step of the supply chain
(or not, leading to discovery and improvement).

# 

# 6. Organizational Functional Units and Enabling Functional Units

A distinction in supply chain methodology that is extremely useful in
the Human Space Flight supply chain is that difference between an
organizational function that can hold up material flow and those
functions that, for simplification purposes, are safely assumed not to
be able to hold up material flow. The later are enabling. As shown in
Figure 5, enabling functions flow into the physical functional units,
with applied resources, but do not necessarily have to be viewed as
capable of holding up the material product (such as a rollout, or
launch).

On the contrary, organizational functions capable of holding up material
flow, as they must add information to proceed or not, such as a Flight
Readiness Review, behave quite differently from a supply chain
perspective.

Organizational functions that are required to be performed to receive
items, to assemble them into a product, to deliver and so forth can be
represented visually as shown in Figure 4.

![](media/image4.png){width="5.522916666666666in"
height="6.932638888888889in"}

Figure 4

![](media/image5.png){width="6.490972222222222in"
height="3.3243055555555556in"}

Figure 5

# 7. Human Space Flight and Supply Chain Management Implications and Future Opportunities

Various logical questions arise from data about a given supply chain, as
shown previously for Human Space Flight. The following data can be
discovered within Shuttle, albeit after many years of assembling data in
a form analogous to assembling a jig-saw puzzle (or a brain teaser
\[3\]):

**Dollars**: As shown in Figure 2, and associated more detailed data,
data exists on cost, very often as dollars and at times as workforce
size, of the numerous functions of the Human Space Flight program, in
it's current rendition as the Space Shuttle operation.

**Time**: The amount of time to create the product, in this case a
launch, corresponding to the hands-on activities in Figure 2 or the flow
of large flight hardware elements across Physical Functional Units is
also relatively well known (at a high level, such as "historical SRB
stacking times").

Logical questions arising from such past data and research, or in
attempting to derive and assemble an understanding of underlying
relationships among departments, organizations, and enterprises, or in a
desire to understand drivers would include:

-   **Inter-relationships of Size and Scope**: What is the
    inter-relationship in size between function A and B? More tangibly
    by way of example, why is the ratio of technical support
    (engineering et al) to hands-on 4:1? By way of another example, why
    are Center Management and Operations (CMO) as charged to Human Space
    Flight about 29% of the other functions being performed (by cost)?

-   **Drivers of Cost**: In a given function, what drives size? That is,
    without resort to external factors (holding these constant), what
    factors internal to each category drive the size of the function? By
    way of example, what internal factors drive the Civil Service
    technical workforce size (as charged to a specific program). By way
    of another example, within Prime In-direct functions, what internal
    factors drive the work effort required in work control and document
    creation?

-   **Inter-relationships of Time**: How do time delays in in-direct
    functions contribute to the delivery of product? By way of example,
    the time to process a Space Shuttle from the official start of a
    flow to launch may be counted in months (perhaps \~5 months).
    However, the specific request to "launch" on X date with Y
    configuration from a customer has been in flow for some time, on the
    order of years, only the last 5 months of which we see as the more
    visible movement of product. In this "supply chain / customer time"
    the request is what requires action, and the day it arrives the
    counter starts. The clock ends when the Crew and goods return safely
    from the ISS.

-   **Drivers of Productivity**: In a given function as shown in Figure
    2, direct or in-direct, what factors internal to the function drive
    the time to prepare product? By way of example, what drives how long
    sourcing a product takes within the procurement function?

# 8. Gaining Understanding of Inter-relationships and Drivers

By delving into data on the functions shown in Figure 2, and within the
limits of subject matter expertise, past reports, etc, a preliminary set
of relationships can be determined among components of information and
materials on the Launch and Landing supply chain, extending outward to
suppliers and customers. Various projects at KSC funded by the
Exploration initiative and the Constellation program tasked with
developing the Shuttle replacement system are developing supply chain
analysis capabilities along these lines.

Three such projects include:

-   The Exploration Systems Analysis and Technology Assessment Model for
    Exploration, Launch and Landing Effects Ground Operations (LLEGO)
    model

-   The Earth-to-Orbit Supply Chain Simulation for Exploration (E2O Sim)

-   The Inter-planetary Supply Chain Management / Logistics Project
    (SpaceNet)

The relationship of these projects to gaining knowledge, providing
useful and actionable analysis, and to each other is as shown in Figure
6.

![](media/image6.png){width="4.360416666666667in"
height="2.229861111111111in"}

Figure 6

# 9. Opportunities

The term "supply chain management" brings with it an assortment of
semantic confusions, typically associated with the expansiveness or not
of the term and with a sense that it may be just another term (or fad)
for logistics management. It may even be said that the term "operations"
-- the getting of product to customers -- is the actual older term.
Various key differences occur in SCM practice that make the new term
justifiable as a new type of practice. These new uses point the way to
opportunities through the perspective gained in "thinking supply chain
management".

-   Material flow is understood within a context that information is
    integral and important to satisfying the customer. In aerospace it
    is particularly applicable that the item has the necessary
    documentation, typical in a low volume sector with high priced
    goods.

-   Information makes or breaks the Enterprise, and much of the flow of
    information that relates to a product occurs outside of
    organizations designated "logistics" per se. As example,
    organizations designated "logistics" at KSC (such as NSLD, SRB
    Logistics or Ground Ops Logistics for facilities) comprise in sum
    less than 20% of the total cost of KSC operations.

-   Understanding activity functions, value added (or not) steps in the
    process invariably will lead to a link in the chain to the more
    visible functions of the organization delivering product. Logistics
    departments alone will not do this. Operations alone will not do
    this. SCM allows the integrated organization of logistics,
    operations, support functions and business functions to be attacked
    as a whole that delivers product.

Opportunities can be seen in relationships among elements and functions
of each as shown in Figure 7.

![](media/image7.png){width="3.8986111111111112in" height="2.74375in"}

Figure 7

**Specific Opportunities:**

-   **Prime Contractor In-direct**: Currently half the basic Prime
    workforce in the subject area of:

> -Program interfaces / coordination, rules management (LCC, OMRS, etc)
>
> -Requirements management and flow-down
>
> -Generate work documents
>
> -Configuration management
>
> -Documentation, authorization, tracking
>
> -Work control
>
> -Scheduling
>
> -Interface tasks into master scheduling and manifest and schedule
> daily work
>
> -Dedicated ground systems support, design, planning, and operations
> and maintenance (O&M)
>
> -Internal facing business functions

-   **Engineering & Technical Management, both Contractor and NASA**:
    Given that engineering be it NASA or prime provide finalized forms
    of information, such as technical instruction / work documents,
    forward into the configuration control systems, and that such an
    area is likely to relate in scope not just to the labor to be
    performed but also to the means by which these organizations receive
    and process information, this area is ripe for improvements. Such
    may take the form of improved drawing systems, access to these, and
    usability. Alternately requirements being conveyed, turned into
    plans, and instructions, and quick but correct decisions are
    improved anytime antiquated processes, information systems, or
    over-staffed approval processes can be automated, streamlined or
    otherwise simplified through more inter-operable systems across
    NASA, contractors, sub-contractors and customers. An analog example
    from the financial aspect is the realization of the NASA Integrated
    Financial Management Program (IFMP) whereby dozens of NASA systems
    that were not inter-operable were replaced with a single integrated
    system (SAP software). Ultimately the NASA Shared Services Center
    (NSSC), again as analog, is another realization consolidating
    (eventually) physically in one location many of the functions of
    NASA procurement and finance.

-   **Logistics -- Integration**: Interoperable systems between
    operations engineering, logistics, work control and scheduling,
    across prime and NASA, would flow information electronically across
    compatible systems from suppliers through to customers. Today only a
    fraction of that vision has been put to practice. This area is
    especially prone to controversy as it introduces the issue of links
    in the supply chain seeking to benefit themselves rather than the
    system as a whole by access to "other peoples systems". This is the
    "Walmart / Proctor & Gamble (P&G)" issue for short. For example, in
    integrating P&G and Walmart Supply Chain information systems one can
    envision that P&G seeing stock levels drop in certain Walmarts would
    seize the chance to increase the price at that opportune moment when
    new orders arrive. Inversely, Walmart seeing through integrated
    information technology systems (I/T) that P&G has a glut of product
    at the plants may be tempted to bargain P&G down that month. Yet
    such supply chains have been integrated based on the premise of
    mutual benefit. Hence the opportunity to design improved I/T systems
    in this area is not only necessary but inevitable.

# 10. By Design

Figure 7 visualizes drivers on the left which are encompassing of that a
product has a certain complexity, it may fail or not in use, test or in
preparation for use, characterizing it's reliability, and it is an
object that is acted upon within a set of human, technological and
organizational processes, the operations & supply chain drivers. More
tangibly by way of example, a 2^nd^ stage may have many engines or few
(complexity). These may fail or not during a test or inspection
(reliability). The engines may be difficult to access due to many other
parts overlying the engine and propulsion or due to poor access (again
complexity, as parts count). It may be decided to verify many checks
with the engine installed, and horizontal, versus upon receipt and after
vertical, taking X days and resources versus Y days and resources
(operations method as driver). The resolution of the issue may be
scheduled and documented for the operations team in 3 hours (supply
chain management, information technology) or 3 days (if a poor system
for information flow). Lastly the part may take 10 days to order as
information winds through the various systems in procurement, or
logistics, or both, and finance. Or it may arrive the next day (supply
chain management as a driver). Lastly, actual installation after access
is achieved may take days or hours (operations) as the decided steps are
performed on the shop floor.

As key drivers documented in many an instance, the right operation "by
design" will naturally include the right vehicle, facility and ground
support equipment, and the right supply chain processes and operational
steps. It is the premise of this perspective that all aspects are
integral to improving Human Space Flight.

-   Reduce system and sub-system complexity as measured by parts count,
    number of different fluids, number of toxic fluids, number of
    distinct tanks, number of distinct avionics, controllers and
    devices.

-   Improve reliability, especially as to reduce fault-legs (i.e. quad
    can be triple, triple can be dual) but still to maintain or exceed
    past system level reliability and safety. This is an area neglected
    in product development focused narrowly on reducing weight and
    margin/robustness.

-   Improve operations through data collection of tasks, steps, times
    and resource needs. Lead to actionable technology, systems, I/T and
    practices

-   Improve supply chain management through data collection of
    department/organizational functions, products, times, resource needs
    and integration across key information systems. Lead to actionable
    technology, systems, I/T and practices.

# 11. In Closing

Tools are in development or capabilities exist at a usable level of
maturity, especially organizationally, that offer a path to realizing
the gains (cost, time) being advertised for future systems such as
envisioned in the Exploration initiative. Data of assorted types exists
after decades of Shuttle operations that is indicative of directions for
improvement (what) as well as specific methods (how) due to emerging
insight into functions as relate to product (why).

*It is expected that the various projects described here will all be
complete by mid-2007. As shown in Figure 8, as one example, the E2O Sim,
a view of "Orion Ares I" will emerge that can offer valuable insight
into the path forward.*

![](media/image8.wmf){width="6.378472222222222in"
height="2.959722222222222in"}

Figure 8 Screen-shot of The Earth-to-Orbit Supply Chain Simulation

# 12. Acknowledgments

The author gratefully wishes to acknowledge the contributions to the
work described of:

-   Mike Galluzzi, Space Shuttle Program Office, Supply Chain Guru, NASA
    KSC

-   Cary Peaden and Steve Kyramarios, NASA KSC, Phase 1 & 2 Project
    Managers

-   The team at Productivity Apex Inc.

    -   Mr. Mike Callinan, President, Mansooreh Mollaghasemi, Ph.D.
        Senior Scientist, Sam Fayez, Ph.D. Supply Chain Scientist,
        Dayana Cope, Simulation Engineer, Assem Kaylani, Software
        Engineer, Nathan Rychlik, Cost Analyst

-   The team at Blue Frog Technologies Inc.

    -   Alex Ruiz-Torres, Ph.D. Lead Investigator and Integrator

-   Russel Rhodes & Carey McCleskey, NASA KSC, Systems Engineering and
    Integration, for valuable insight, data and operations & engineering
    expertise

-   Martin Steele, Ph.D, NASA KSC, for continued collaboration as lead
    of the Inter-planetary Supply Chain and Logistics project

-   Doug Craig of the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate, NASA HQ,
    sponsor of the E2O project

-   Don Monell, of the JSC Constellation Systems Engineering and
    Integration Office, sponsor of the E2O sim project.

-   Pat Troutman and Bill Cirillo of the NASA Langley Research Center,
    sponsors of the ESATA operations model project.

# 13. References

\[1\] Hugos, M., *Essentials of Supply Chain Management,* Wiley & Sons
Inc. Publications, Hoboken, New Jersey, 2003.

\[2\] Supply Chain Council, *Supply Chain Operations Reference Model
(SCOR)*, The Supply Chain Council, online at:
[http://www.supplychain.org/page.ww?section=SCOR+Model&name=SCOR+Model](http://www.supplychain.org/page.ww?section=SCOR+ Model&name=SCOR+Model)
viewed on 1/25/07.

\[3\] General Accounting Office, report to the Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics, Committee on Science, House of Representatives, *GAO*, GAO
Government Publication, Washington D.C. May 2004

\[4\] Cooper, M., Lambert, D., Pagh, J., *Supply Chain Management: More
Than a New Name for Logistics*, The International Journal of Logistics
Management, Volume 8, MCB UP Ltd, Oxfordshire, England, 1997.