**[PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS]{.underline}: [\_\_]{.mark} DRAFT \--**

> **[\_[X]{.underline}\_]{.mark} FINAL -- PROPOSAL DUE BY: 11:00 a.m.,
> 03/09/05**

**[DO TITLE]{.underline}: PORTABLE LIFE SUPPORT SUBSYSTEM (PLSS)
SCHEMATIC STUDY**

**DO Type: [\_X\_]{.underline} CPFF [\_\_\_]{.underline} FFP**

**[DO Contact Information]{.underline}:**

**TMR: [\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ B. Mike Lawson\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}
Phone[\_\_\_\_\_39124\_\_\_]{.underline}**

**DO Manager: [\_\_\_\_\_ Gretchen Thomas\_\_]{.underline}
Phone[\_\_\_\_\_37664\_\_\_]{.underline}**

**DO Mgr. Alternate: [\_Mike Rouen\_\_\_]{.underline}
Phone[\_\_\_\_\_39242\_\_\_]{.underline}**

**[Concurrences]{.underline}:**

**[\_\_\_S/ 2-15-05\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline} [\_\_\_S/
2-15-05\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline} [\_\_\_S/
2-15-05\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}**

**Gretchen Thomas Craig Dinsmore Joe Gensler**

**DO Manager DO Mgr. Management COTR**

**[\_\_\_S/ 2-15-05\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline} [\_\_\_S/
2-15-05\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}**

**B. M. Lawson Steve Miller**

**Division TMR S & MA**

**Task Contains Flight Hardware, Flight Software or GSE?
[\_\_\_]{.underline} Yes [\_X\_]{.underline}No**

**Program Supported: [\_\_]{.underline}Shuttle [\_\_]{.underline}ISS
[\_\_]{.underline}EVA [\_X\_]{.underline}Advanced [All
Spirals]{.underline}**

**\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--**

**WBS: [X]{.underline} 1.0 EVA [\_\_]{.underline} 2.0 FCE
[\_\_]{.underline} 3.0 EVR [\_\_]{.underline} ECLSS [\_\_]{.underline}
5.0 ATCS [\_\_]{.underline} 6.0 CHeCS**

# 

*For purposes of complying with FAR 52.232-22, Limitation of Funds, the
total amount allotted by the Government to contract is specified in
clause B.6, Contract Funding. The funding listed in B.6 is the amount
allotted for **all** Delivery Orders on the contract combined.*

*All terms and conditions of the contract apply to this Delivery Order.
In the event of a conflict between the contract and this Delivery Order,
the contract shall prevail.*

*WBS reporting shall be done in accordance with applicable WBS reporting
categories, as shown above and in the contract within Section C, Table
1.*

# **Narrative Task Description**

## [Background / Problem Description]{.underline}: 

### Schematic Definition

For this study, a Portable Life Support Subsystem (PLSS) schematic is
the single page diagram that describes the technologies selected to
accomplish the life support functions and the fluid mechanical
functional interconnections. A Portable Life Support Subsystem is here
taken to mean a self contained life support subsystem along with the
emergency life support system required to accomplish a fail safe design.
This excludes such umbilical supplied life support subsystems such as
the Skylab ALSA. It does not exclude such arrangements as having
recharge capability carried on a rover or other methods used to off load
crew person carried weight. For this study, the term "schematic" is
limited to the fluid and mechanical functions and only the electrical
functions necessary to maintain safety. This definition purposely
excludes the information handling architecture of the EVA informatics
related hardware which is another study itself.

### Schematic History

An example of the schematic currently in use in the United States space
program is shown in

Figure 1. The only other US portable life support subsystem, the Apollo
PLSS, used a similar schematic as does the current Russian space suit.
All three share in common the following technologies: high pressure
oxygen storage, sublimator for heat rejection, battery for power,
lithium hydroxide for CO~2~ control, and charcoal for trace contaminant
control. Although they each have some different interconnections (for
example the Shuttle is set up for zero g operation while the Apollo
system was optimized for gravity field operation) the basic schematic is
the same from the stand point of use of the technologies listed above.
The only deviation from this list is the replacement of lithium
hydroxide with an in orbit regenerable metal oxide for CO~2~ control on
the ISS which was driven by a storage volume and launch cost tradeoff.

### Prior Studies

Prior studies of Portable Life Support Subsystem schematic arrangements
have been accomplished. A particularly comprehensive study, the Advanced
Extravehicular Protective Systems (AEPS) Study, was accomplished for the
Ames Research Center (NAS 2-6021) by J. G. Sutton, P. H. Heimlich, and
E. H. Tepper of the Hamilton Standard Division of United Technologies in
1972 (NASA CR114384). A broader study of the EVA system as a work system
included portable life support considerations and was accomplished in
1980 but it was focused on zero g operations and so did not include
lunar and mars related information. In anticipation of the space station
and in preparation to direct the technology program leading up to
selection of a schematic for space station use, NASA accomplished an in
house study in the 1987 time frame. It was titled the Point Design Study
and was only documented via presentation charts. But, again, this study
was focused on

Zero G operations only. During the First Lunar Outpost activity some
schematic study was done focused on the lunar destination. This work
identified radiators as a viable heat rejection mechanism. This work is
documented in "First Lunar Outpost Extravehicular Life Support System
Evaluation," Bruce C. Conger, Luis A. Trevino and B. Michael Lawson,
ICES[^1] paper number 932188. This study did not cover the breath of
technologies of interest being mainly concerned with the thermal
subsystem. Consequently, the best study to use as a base for the present
effort is the 1972 AEPS study.

Prior studies of the EVA system needed to accomplish Lunar and Mars
exploration were accomplished in 1988. These studies provide excellent
context for how and where the PLSS will be used. The studies were
performed under the generic title of "Extravehicular Activity Systems
Requirements Definition Study" resulting in "Extravehicular Activity at
a Lunar Base," September 1988 and "Extravehicular Activity in Mars
Surface Exploration," May 1989 lead by the ESSEX Co. and performed under
contract NAS 9-17779.

### PLSS Interfaces: 

The PLSS is strongly driven by vehicle life support and power systems
for it is the vehicle systems that determine what resources are
available for PLSS recharge. This interaction creates a strong tie of
the PLSS technology selections to the vehicle technology selections
requiring the EVA community to be ready to support vehicle trade studies
with a complete picture of the impacts of various vehicle technology
selections on the PLSS. Some vehicle technology selections close entire
technology class path ways and others can force the PLSS into selections
that tend to open loops the vehicle life support community has been
striving hard to close. It is important that the PLSS community "do its
homework" early so the vehicle trade studies can be properly supported.

### New Technology 

Certainly in the 32 years since the 1972 study there has been a
significant amount of technology development accomplished both inside
the aerospace industry (most often documented in the ICES conference)
and outside that is applicable to the PLSS schematic. Besides the life
support technology development directly, there has been significant work
done on basic materials (CO~2~ absorption chemistry, MEMS and
nanotechnology) and fundamental process (Microchannel heat and mass
transfer).

Three major areas of technology that are expected to have considerable
impact on the PLSS schematic are: 1) the shrinking size of power
supplies making it possible to go from battery supplied power to a fuel
based power supply which can raise the power available from the current
100W range to the 1000W range, 2) the Microsystems elements that are
becoming available for heat transfer and chemical processes and 3) the
distributed sensing / processing technologies. The first makes it
possible to consider high power thereby allowing the use of technologies
that have been rejected in all previous studies because of the weight
cost of the power supply required. The second aids this trend and makes
all processes potentially smaller and lighter. The third has profound
implications on the packaging (which accounts for half the system
weight) of a PLSS but, more germane to this study, provides the
opportunity to better monitor PLSS performance and thereby aid in
accomplishing the needed increases in PLSS life time and reduction in
testing to assure safety.

Outside of NASA, significant work has been done on portable life support
for Earth based use by the military in response to chemical and
biological warfare threats and there is current interest concerning
similar threats for first responders for homeland defense. Commercial
applications for some subsystems of the portable life support subsystem
(thermal control) have arisen for work in extreme environments and for
mitigation of symptoms of some medical conditions such as MS.

Even the fundamental engineering process of how to do selection trade
off studies has undergone significant change as documented in books by
authors such as Pugh[^2] and Ullman[^3].

All of these facts suggest it is time for a new comprehensive study that
builds on but does not repeat prior work as we prepare to plan and
implement the technology program focused on fulfillment of the Vision
for Space Exploration. A study drawing on NASA and non NASA expertise is
warranted

and needed to lay out a development roadmap that directs budget planning
for future exploration efforts. In addition, new analysis capabilities
and design methodologies are available allowing a more comprehensive
study than previous studies with the same resources.

## 

## [PROCESS TO BE FOLLOWED]{.underline}: 

### Form Design Team(s)

An interdisciplinary design team that includes both NASA and the
contractor personnel is to be formed for the generation and evaluation
of schematic concepts. The contractor is to plan to accomplish the
entire job without dependence on NASA effort. NASA effort will provide
operational experience and additional depth of study but shall not be
planned into the critical path to accomplish the study requirements. If
it is deemed advisable, teams can be formed that focus on subsystems of
the schematic and team selection, and may include or may not include
NASA participants to supply the team with additional expertise. The
availability of NASA expertise is described below in the Table 1 --
Potentially Available NASA Expertise is planned to be provided as a
"best efforts" arrangement.

###### Develop Tasks Assignment

Since the exact nature of the expertise to be provided by NASA is needed
in order to do an in-depth plan, internal team planning will be
accomplished as agreed to by NASA and the contractor for accomplishment
of tasks. This planning shall not affect the scope of the contractor's
work but can increase or decrease the scope of potentially available
NASA participation.

###### Schedule Project

Since the exact schedule availability of the potentially available NASA
expertise is subjective, internal team planning for adjustments to
various task schedules will be accomplished as agreed to by NASA and the
contractor. These schedule adjustments shall not affect the scope of the
contractor's work.

###### Form Teams

Team composition shall be based not only on the technical expertise
needed but with due considerations for the different roles[^4] needed to
form an effective design team. Design teams are to

be limited to the number of people required to form an effective team.
The teams shall solicit the input of those outside the team, as needed,
to accomplish the design task at hand. The teams shall

support the contract milestone reviews and respond to any Review Item
Discrepancies (RIDs) generated during those reviews that affect the
design team's efforts.

### Define the Problem

Success of a design process depends heavily on good problem definition
which is not a trivial exercise. As a minimum the following steps shall
be accomplished to fully define the problem of PLSS schematic selection.

###### \-- Review and Update Prior Work

The following studies shall be reviewed and updated as needed to take
into account new knowledge of the technologies included in those studies
since their completion. Where entirely new technology or techniques have
come to fore, this study is expected to address those issues.
Consequently, this update task is expected to be of limited scope.

1.  "Advanced Extravehicular Protective Systems (AEPS) Study," 1972

2.  "Extravehicular Activity at a Lunar Base," September 1988

3.  "Extravehicular Activity in Mars Surface Exploration," May 1989

One area of concern where update of the Lunar Base study is known to be
required is operation in the lunar pole area. The potential for
extremely cold environments (order of 40°K) is a concern and a specific
analysis of the impacts on the PLSS schematic and technology selection
of this case is required.

###### \-- Develop Vehicle Interfaces

The PLSS is strongly driven by the resources available from the vehicle
on which it is based and used. The PLSS potentially receives resources
from the vehicle life support, propulsion, and power systems. An effort
shall be accomplished to scope the potentially available resources that
are likely to be available for the Lunar and Mars missions. To
accomplish this task the NASA will provide support to address the
impacts of EVA system resource needs on other spacecraft systems.

###### \-- Prepare the Functional Decomposition

A functional decomposition[^5] shall be accomplished that is designed to
drive out "what" is needed to accomplish the PLSS purpose. This
decomposition is specifically done without regard to "how" the functions
are to be accomplished. A functional decomposition shall be accomplished
for the PLSS as a whole and for the major subsystems that the PLSS
decomposition identifies. The purpose of the functional decomposition is
to break the problem down in a way that generates the greatest
understanding of the PLSS and forms a basis to allow the generation of
creative solutions for the PLSS functions.

###### \-- Develop Specifications

As a basis for the customer specification, the Advanced Technology Space
Suit Design Requirements Document DRD, July 1999 shall be used. This
specification shall be reviewed and those portions of it applicable to
this effort updated as necessary by NASA with input from design team
members. This customer specification includes those areas that must be
controlled to accomplish the end use of the PLSS.

Engineering "Mini specifications" shall be prepared for each function
that must be met to "tier down" the customer specification to the
measurable, verifiable specifications needed for engineering design.
These specifications shall capture the essence of the engineering
requirements for any functional component or subsystem that satisfies
the functional need. Except in rare cases, these specifications shall be
contained on one page for each function.

###### \-- Develop Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation criteria and their rankings shall be developed prior to the
effort to generate concepts so that the figures of merit for concepts
are well understood by those who generate the concepts and to avoid the
pitfall of subliminally designing selection criteria that favor
particular concepts. In terms of criteria ranking, safety (both Flight
and Ground Operational), shall rank first.

> 1\. The ability of the concept to be used in non-NASA applications
> shall be used as a criterion.
>
> 2\. The degree a concept supports commonality shall be used as a
> criterion.

\-- **Develop Concepts**

The basic premise is that to find a good idea of how to accomplish a
function many ideas must be generated. So a divergent convergent path is
planned.

###### \-- Search for Function Satisfying Ideas

This activity is meant to be a primary place where creativity has a
chance to happen at the function level. The idea is to generate as many
concepts as possible for each of the lowest level functions identified
in the functional decomposition. A concept is an idea that is
sufficiently developed so that its behavior in the intended use can be
evaluated.

###### \-- Generate PLSS Concepts

This activity is meant to be the primary place where creativity has a
chance to happen at the PLSS level. For this activity a PLSS concept is
a combination of the concepts generated to satisfy each function which
is capable of accomplishing the entire PLSS job. System level
considerations shall be used to keep the number of concepts within
bounds. For example, one function concept may generate an output (waste
heat for example) that can be effectively used as an input for a
function satisfying concept for a different function. In such a case the
logical thing to do is use those different concepts together.

###### \-- Document Concepts

Since there is expected to be a range of technological maturity in the
concepts (i.e. the concepts currently in use in flight systems versus a
wholly new concept that is the result of a creative search) it is
important that all concepts be described and documented to a similar
degree for comparison purposes.

At the functional concept level a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis
(FMEA) will be generated for each viable concept. For the PLSS level, an
FMEA will be generated using as a basis all of the functional concept
level FMEAs and including system interactions so that the safety of each
schematic concept can be judged. As concepts are being generated, the
FMEAs are expected to be a design tool; consequently, they must be
generated as early in the process as possible.

### \-- Evaluate Concepts

Criteria are expected to lend themselves to two types of comparisons to
requirements, absolute and relative. Where the criteria are to be
evaluated in a relative manner, the Decision-matrix[^6] method shall be
used. Several rounds of evaluation are expected both at the lower
function level and at the PLSS level. The absolute comparisons made by
engineering analysis shall be used in the rankings done as part of the
Decision-matrix method so that a complete picture of concept performance
is formulated and used in the final selection ranking.

**Table 1 - Potentially Available NASA Expertise**

### 

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Background and Expertise**                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Experience with NASA Advanced PLSS Technology. Expertise in Systems   |
| Engineering & Integration, ventilation and thermal technology; 10+    |
| years experience as NASA project manager for advanced and flight      |
| systems. Experience acting in the shaper role on design teams         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Experience as lead for PLSS group for NASA during the development of  |
| the Shuttle EMU. 20 years PLSS Advanced Technology leadership         |
| experience. Pro-E modeler. Experience with significant study of       |
| design methods including techniques to foster creativity. Experience  |
| acting in the coordinator role on design teams.                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Experience as a subsystem manager for Shuttle active thermal control  |
| freon loop (radiators, flash evaporator, ammonia boiler, etc.) and    |
| EMU thermal and systems analysis manager for NASA during early        |
| Shuttle missions. Experience in Shuttle EMU thermal certification,    |
| vent loop pressure drop analyses, smoke-in-cabin contingency          |
| analyses, suit purge analysis-testing-certification, and visor        |
| thermal certification. Experience in advanced spacesuit Lunar and     |
| Mars spacesuit insulation. Experience in working well in various team |
| roles, including creativity and implementation.                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Experience in designing various Payload and EVA tools and equipment,  |
| EVA systems engineering, integration of space suit with vehicle, EVA  |
| operations and training, human/robotics interaction, advanced EVA     |
| concepts and designs, use of advanced technologies in EVA systems,    |
| and with design team roles: Creator, Resource-investigator, and       |
| monitor-evaluator.                                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Advanced EVA experience, including insulation testing and research,   |
| airlock concept development, and PLSS packaging concepts and lead for |
| the PLSS ventilation system. Experience in all design team roles,     |
| especially as a coordinator, shaper, and implementer.                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Approximately 15 years of spacecraft thermal control and life support |
| analysis, thermal control system development for Space Station and    |
| advanced development projects. Experience performing systems analysis |
| for Advanced Life Support and coordination of many trade-off studies. |
| Experience in the development of the "equivalent system mass (ESM)"   |
| analysis methodology.                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Approximately 16 years of experience in development of analytical and |
| computational tools for performance predictions and design            |
| optimization of thermal, mechanical and chemical systems relating to  |
| extravehicular activity (EVA) and pressure suits. Specific experience |
| with thermal, chemical and mass transfer analysis, integration and    |
| modeling for                                                          |
|                                                                       |
| Zero g, Lunar and Mars environments, including analysis of human      |
| thermal comfort and efficiency. Experience in design teams as a       |
| shaper, to find practical but creative ways of solving complex        |
| technical problems, including stripping needless conservatism from    |
| models.                                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Approximately 20 years of R&D battery experience. Lead experience for |
| the design and implementation of EVA batteries including the new      |
| lithium-ion design for the PLSS. Experience playing, coordinator,     |
| creator, and implementer in the past design teams.\"                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Approximately 20 years battery experience and experience managing the |
| NASA ISS Battery Team.  Experience leading contractor teams for       |
| design, deployment, storage, and operation of ISS batteries.          |
| Evaluation and recommendation expertise for Lithium-ion and           |
| Nickel-Hydrogen battery technology. Polymer Energy Rechargeable       |
| System program expertise. Experience as coordinator,                  |
| monitor-evaluator, team worker, implementer, and completer-finisher   |
| on past teams.                                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Approximately 20 years experience in analysis of electrochemical      |
| energy storage systems for a range of applications including:         |
| earth-orbiting and planetary spacecraft; lunar and Mars outpost and   |
| rover vehicle power; and unmanned air vehicles.                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

### Note: Please refer to specifics concerning Potentially Available NASA Expertise in the above "Processes to be Followed" section, within this DO. 

### Technical Library Contents --

Advanced Extravehicular Protective Systems (AEPS) Study, was
accomplished for the Ames Research Center (NAS 2-6021) by J. G. Sutton,
P. H. Heimlich, and E. H. Tepper of the Hamilton Standard Division of
United Technologies in 1972 (NASA CR114384).

"Extravehicular Activity Systems Requirements Definition Study"
resulting in "Extravehicular Activity at a Lunar Base," September 1988
and "Extravehicular Activity in Mars Surface Exploration," May 1989 lead
by the ESSEX Co. and performed under contract NAS 9-17779.

Advanced Technology Space Suit Design Requirements Document DRD, July
1999

Government Project Plan and Cost estimate as documented in the Microsoft
Project file titled:

PLSS Schematic Study 12-01-04.mpp

RAESR_Template.doc

GFE EVA FEMA Guide.pdf

![](media/image1.png){width="7.625in" height="7.770138888888889in"}

**Figure 1 - Shuttle EMU Schematic**

**[Deliverables/Products]{.underline}:**

##### 

+--------------+--------------------------+-------+--------+---------+
| ##           | ###### Description       | ##### | ####   | #####   |
| #### Product |                          | # Qty | ## Due | # Class |
+==============+==========================+=======+========+=========+
| **Hardware** | **None Required**        |       |        |         |
+--------------+--------------------------+-------+--------+---------+
| Mock Up      |                          |       |        |         |
+--------------+--------------------------+-------+--------+---------+
| Prototype    |                          |       |        |         |
+--------------+--------------------------+-------+--------+---------+
| C            |                          |       |        |         |
| ertification |                          |       |        |         |
+--------------+--------------------------+-------+--------+---------+
| Flight       |                          |       |        |         |
+--------------+--------------------------+-------+--------+---------+
| Training     |                          |       |        |         |
+--------------+--------------------------+-------+--------+---------+
| Other        |                          |       |        |         |
+--------------+--------------------------+-------+--------+---------+
| #####        |                          |       |        |         |
+--------------+--------------------------+-------+--------+---------+
| ##### Test   | **None Required**        |       |        |         |
+--------------+--------------------------+-------+--------+---------+
| #####        |                          |       |        |         |
+--------------+--------------------------+-------+--------+---------+
| **Software** | **None Required**        |       |        |         |
+--------------+--------------------------+-------+--------+---------+
|              |                          |       |        |         |
+--------------+--------------------------+-------+--------+---------+
| **Other      |                          |       |        |         |
| Products**   |                          |       |        |         |
+--------------+--------------------------+-------+--------+---------+
| **Road Map** | A well documented and    | **1   | **Upon | **N/A** |
|              | justified, multi-concept | Elect | Comple |         |
|              | development road map     | ronic | tion** |         |
|              | that is phased by        | C     |        |         |
|              | mission and spiral.      | opy** | **(    |         |
|              | Several parallel paths   |       | Drafts |         |
|              | may be included in the   |       | as     |         |
|              | road map with one listed |       | Re     |         |
|              | as the baseline along    |       | quired |         |
|              | with statements of the   |       | to     |         |
|              | evaluation criteria that |       | S      |         |
|              | are expected to cause a  |       | upport |         |
|              | change to the baseline   |       | Sch    |         |
|              | concept. The selected    |       | eduled |         |
|              | concepts must be part of |       | M      |         |
|              | a planned evolutionary   |       | ilesto |         |
|              | path that steps in a     |       | nes)** |         |
|              | logical way to provide a |       |        |         |
|              | good solution for the    |       |        |         |
|              | upcoming missions and    |       |        |         |
|              | spirals. The road map    |       |        |         |
|              | should assume a PLSS     |       |        |         |
|              | packaging technology     |       |        |         |
|              | that allows reasonable   |       |        |         |
|              | cost technology          |       |        |         |
|              | evolution and upgrade as |       |        |         |
|              | the programs progress to |       |        |         |
|              | more challenging         |       |        |         |
|              | environments and         |       |        |         |
|              | operating conditions.    |       |        |         |
+--------------+--------------------------+-------+--------+---------+
| **Doc        | The schematics will be   | **1   | **Upon | **N/A** |
| umentation** | documented with the      | Elect | Comple |         |
|              | following as a minimum.  | ronic | tion** |         |
|              |                          | C     |        |         |
|              | -   Top level Failure    | opy** | **(    |         |
|              |     Mode and Effect      |       | Drafts |         |
|              |     Analysis             |       | as     |         |
|              |                          |       | Re     |         |
|              | -   Size variation with  |       | quired |         |
|              |     metabolic rate and   |       | to     |         |
|              |     EVA duration and the |       | S      |         |
|              |     math models used in  |       | upport |         |
|              |     the sizing.          |       | Sch    |         |
|              |                          |       | eduled |         |
|              | -   Vehicle interface    |       | M      |         |
|              |     requirements.        |       | ilesto |         |
|              |                          |       | nes)** |         |
|              | Rational for selection   |       |        |         |
|              | of the technology and    |       |        |         |
|              | PLSS Schematic concept   |       |        |         |
+--------------+--------------------------+-------+--------+---------+
| **Math       | The information needed   | **1   | **Upon | **N/A** |
| Models**     | to upgrade the mission   | Elect | Comple |         |
|              | study support tool EVA   | ronic | tion** |         |
|              | System Sizing Analysis   | C     |        |         |
|              | Tool (EVASSAT) that is   | opy** | **(    |         |
|              | used to support advanced |       | Drafts |         |
|              | mission and vehicle      |       | as     |         |
|              | studies is also a        |       | Re     |         |
|              | required product.        |       | quired |         |
|              |                          |       | to     |         |
|              |                          |       | S      |         |
|              |                          |       | upport |         |
|              |                          |       | Sch    |         |
|              |                          |       | eduled |         |
|              |                          |       | M      |         |
|              |                          |       | ilesto |         |
|              |                          |       | nes)** |         |
+--------------+--------------------------+-------+--------+---------+
| **Lunar Pole | Report on the impact of  | **1   | **Upon | **N/A** |
| Operation**  | operation at the lunar   | Elect | Comple |         |
|              | poles.                   | ronic | tion** |         |
| **Impact     |                          | C     |        |         |
| Report**     |                          | opy** | **(    |         |
|              |                          |       | Drafts |         |
|              |                          |       | as     |         |
|              |                          |       | Re     |         |
|              |                          |       | quired |         |
|              |                          |       | to     |         |
|              |                          |       | S      |         |
|              |                          |       | upport |         |
|              |                          |       | Sch    |         |
|              |                          |       | eduled |         |
|              |                          |       | M      |         |
|              |                          |       | ilesto |         |
|              |                          |       | nes)** |         |
+--------------+--------------------------+-------+--------+---------+
| *            | Report on commonality    | **1   | **Upon | **N/A** |
| *Commonality | analysis accomplished.   | Elect | Comple |         |
| Report**     |                          | ronic | tion** |         |
|              |                          | C     |        |         |
|              |                          | opy** | **(    |         |
|              |                          |       | Drafts |         |
|              |                          |       | as     |         |
|              |                          |       | Re     |         |
|              |                          |       | quired |         |
|              |                          |       | to     |         |
|              |                          |       | S      |         |
|              |                          |       | upport |         |
|              |                          |       | Sch    |         |
|              |                          |       | eduled |         |
|              |                          |       | M      |         |
|              |                          |       | ilesto |         |
|              |                          |       | nes)** |         |
+--------------+--------------------------+-------+--------+---------+
| **Final      | Final Report             | **1   | **Upon | **N/A** |
| Report**     |                          | Elect | Comple |         |
|              |                          | ronic | tion** |         |
|              |                          | C     |        |         |
|              |                          | opy** |        |         |
+--------------+--------------------------+-------+--------+---------+

######## SCHEDULE

######## 

######## Start Date: 03/28/05 Finish Date: 10/13/05

######## 

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **ITERIM MILESTONES**               **DUE DATES**

  **Kick-Off Meeting**                **2 weeks after DO Award**

  **Problem Definition Review**       **6 weeks after DO Award**

  **Concept Design Review**           **24 weeks after DO Award**

  **Project Complete**                **30 weeks after DO Award**

  **For schedule detail see Microsoft 
  Project file located on the CRAVE   
  web site for this DO listed under   
  the Government Cost Estimate        
  below.**                            
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

**[Government Estimate Located in RFQ File in Microsoft Project File On
CRAVE Web Site]{.underline}**

**[The file is titled]{.underline}: PLSS Schematic Study
12-01-04R3.mpp**

**Total Government Estimate for this DO: [[\$ 400
K]{.underline}]{.mark}**

**Option 1: [[\$ N/A]{.mark}]{.underline} (See Attachment 1)**

**Option 2: [[\$ N/A]{.mark}]{.underline} (See Attachment 2)**

**TOTAL COST ESTIMATE FOR THIS DO: [[\$ ]{.underline}]{.mark}**

**FEE: [[\$]{.underline}]{.mark} (If Applicable)**

**OPTION 1: [[\$ N/A]{.underline}]{.mark} (See Attachment 1)**

**OPTION 2: [[\$ N/A]{.underline}]{.mark} (See Attachment 2)**

> **[DATA REQUIREMENTS]{.underline}**

**All DRs contained in the contract are applicable and required unless
marked N/A below.**

**Notes: 1. Grey Scaled Cells Need No Additional/Required Fill-ins.**

**2. On All Other Cells, If Necessary, Fill in Additional
Rqmts/Deliveries in L**ast Column.

+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| * | **D | **DRD TITLE**   | **    | **FR      | **REQ   | **AD     |
| * | ATA |                 | DUE** | EQUENCY** | UIRED** | DITIONAL |
| D | TYP |                 |       |           |         | REQUIR   |
| R | E** |                 |       |           | **FOR   | EMENTS** |
| D |     |                 |       |           | DO?**   |          |
| \ |     |                 |       |           |         |          |
| # |     |                 |       |           | **Y/N** |          |
| * |     |                 |       |           |         |          |
| * |     |                 |       |           |         |          |
+===+=====+=================+=======+===========+=========+==========+
| 1 | W   | FlightGFE       | With  | Once      | **Att   |          |
|   | rit | Configuration   | Pro   |           | achment |          |
|   | ten | Management Plan | posal |           | J-8**   |          |
|   | Ap  |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | pro |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | val |                 |       |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 2 | Man | Regular Status  | T     | Monthly   | **Y**   |          |
|   | dat | Report/ Summary | hirty |           |         |          |
|   | ory | Review          | (30)  |           |         |          |
|   | Sub |                 | days  |           |         |          |
|   | mit |                 | foll  |           |         |          |
|   | tal |                 | owing |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | con   |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | tract |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | start |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 3 | W   | Project         | Per   | Once with | **Y**   | Support  |
|   | rit | Technical       | DO    | Revisions |         | Go       |
|   | ten | Requirements    | sch   |           |         | vernment |
|   | Ap  | Specification   | edule |           |         | modi     |
|   | pro |                 |       |           |         | fication |
|   | val |                 |       |           |         | of       |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | existing |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | speci    |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | fication |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 4 | Man | GFE Systems     | Spec  | Once with | **N**   |          |
|   | dat | Requirements    | ified | Revisions |         |          |
|   | ory | Data Package    | in DO |           |         |          |
|   | Sub |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | mit |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | tal |                 |       |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 5 | W   | Flight GFE      | Spec  | Once with | **N**   |          |
|   | rit | Projects        | ified | Revisions |         |          |
|   | ten | Requirements &  | in DO |           |         |          |
|   | Ap  | Verification    |       |           |         |          |
|   | pro | Document        |       |           |         |          |
|   | val |                 |       |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 6 | Man | Preliminary     | Spec  | Once with |         |          |
|   | dat | Design Review   | ified | Revisions |         |          |
|   | ory | Data Package    | in DO |           |         |          |
|   | Sub |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | mit |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | tal |                 |       |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 7 | W   | Flight GFE      | Spec  | Once with | **N**   |          |
|   | rit | Workmanship     | ified | Revisions |         |          |
|   | ten | Specifications  | in DO |           |         |          |
|   | Ap  | List            |       |           |         |          |
|   | pro |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | val |                 |       |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 8 | W   | Project         | PDR   | Once      | **Y**   | First    |
|   | rit | Schedule        | or    | w/        |         | update   |
|   | ten |                 | 10%   | Revisions |         | that     |
|   | Ap  |                 | e     | (due w/DO |         | includes |
|   | pro |                 | ffort | proposal, |         | detail   |
|   | val |                 | com   | updates & |         | NASA     |
|   |     |                 | plete | details   |         | parti    |
|   |     |                 | Mile  | provided  |         | cipation |
|   |     |                 | stone | as DO     |         | 2 weeks  |
|   |     |                 |       | pr        |         | after    |
|   |     |                 |       | ogresses) |         | Kickoff  |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | meeting. |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 9 | W   | Flight GFE      | Spec  | Once with | **Y**   | Informal |
|   | rit | Interface       | ified | Revisions |         | ICDS     |
|   | ten | Control         | in DO |           |         | only     |
|   | Ap  | Document        |       |           |         | with     |
|   | pro |                 |       |           |         | team     |
|   | val |                 |       |           |         | ge       |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | nerating |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | vehicle  |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | impacts  |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | as no    |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | vehicle  |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | eng      |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | ineering |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | teams    |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | are in   |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | place at |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | this     |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | time.    |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | Flight   |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | approval |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | rigor is |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | not      |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | required |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 1 | W   | GFE End Item    | Spec  | Once with | **N**   |          |
| 0 | rit | Specification   | ified | Revisions |         |          |
|   | ten |                 | in DO |           |         |          |
|   | Ap  |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | pro |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | val |                 |       |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 1 | Man | Flight GFE      | As    | As        | **N**   |          |
| 1 | dat | Failure         | a     | Required  |         |          |
|   | ory | Analysis Report | greed |           |         |          |
|   | Sub |                 | by    |           |         |          |
|   | mit |                 | TMR   |           |         |          |
|   | tal |                 | in DO |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 1 | W   | Flight GFE      | As    | Once with | **Y**   | Only     |
| 2 | rit | Verification    | Spec  | Revisions |         | those    |
|   | ten | and Validation  | ified |           |         | unique   |
|   | Ap  | Plan            | in    |           |         | to the   |
|   | pro |                 | E     |           |         | s        |
|   | val |                 | A-023 |           |         | chematic |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | un       |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | derstudy |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | and to a |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | depth to |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | assist   |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | ev       |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | aluation |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | and      |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | co       |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | mparison |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | of the   |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | sch      |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | ematics. |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | Flight   |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | approval |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | rigor is |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | not      |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | required |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 1 | W   | GFE Software    | Spec  | Once with | **Y**   | Only     |
| 3 | rit | Requirements    | ified | Revisions |         | those    |
|   | ten | Specification   | in DO |           |         | unique   |
|   | Ap  |                 |       |           |         | to the   |
|   | pro |                 |       |           |         | s        |
|   | val |                 |       |           |         | chematic |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | un       |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | derstudy |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | and to a |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | depth to |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | assist   |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | ev       |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | aluation |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | and      |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | co       |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | mparison |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | of the   |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | sch      |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | ematics. |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | Flight   |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | approval |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | rigor is |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | not      |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | required |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 1 | W   | GFE Software    | Spec  | Once with | **N**   |          |
| 4 | rit | Development     | ified | Revisions |         |          |
|   | ten | Plan            | in DO |           |         |          |
|   | Ap  |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | pro |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | val |                 |       |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 1 | W   | GFE Software    | Spec  | As        | **N**   |          |
| 5 | rit | Design Document | ified | Required  |         |          |
|   | ten |                 | in DO |           |         |          |
|   | Ap  |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | pro |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | val |                 |       |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 1 | W   | Engineering     | At    | Once with | **N**   |          |
| 6 | rit | Drawings        | PDR,  | Revisions |         |          |
|   | ten |                 | as    |           |         |          |
|   | Ap  |                 | spec  |           |         |          |
|   | pro |                 | ified |           |         |          |
|   | val |                 | in DO |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 1 | W   | EEE Parts Lists | Spec  | As        | **N**   |          |
| 7 | rit | and Analysis    | ified | Required  |         |          |
|   | ten | Report          | in DO |           |         |          |
|   | Ap  |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | pro |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | val |                 |       |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 1 | Man | Critical Design | Spec  | Once with | **N**   |          |
| 8 | dat | Review Data     | ified | Revisions |         |          |
|   | ory | Package         | in DO |           |         |          |
|   | Sub |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | mit |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | tal |                 |       |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 1 | Man | Engineering     | As    | As        | **N**   |          |
| 9 | dat | Drawing Change  | n     | Required  |         |          |
|   | ory | Proposal        | eeded |           |         |          |
|   | Sub |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | mit |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | tal |                 |       |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 2 | W   | GFE             | Spec  | Once with | **N**   |          |
| 0 | rit | Qualification   | ified | Revisions |         |          |
|   | ten | Test Procedure  | in DO |           |         |          |
|   | Ap  |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | pro |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | val |                 |       |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 2 | W   | Flight Product  | Spec  | Once with | **N**   |          |
| 1 | rit | User's Guide    | ified | Revisions |         |          |
|   | ten |                 | in DO |           |         |          |
|   | Ap  |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | pro |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | val |                 |       |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 2 | Man | Software Code   | Spec  | As        | **N**   |          |
| 2 | dat |                 | ified | Required  |         |          |
|   | ory |                 | in DO |           |         |          |
|   | Sub |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | mit |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | tal |                 |       |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 2 | W   | Information     | \     | JPG       | **Att   |          |
| 3 | rit | Technology (IT) | (30\) | 2810.1    | achment |          |
|   | ten | Security        | days  |           | J-4**   |          |
|   | Ap  | Program Plan    | after |           |         |          |
|   | pro | and Reports     | DO    |           | **Due   |          |
|   | val |                 | a     |           | 30 days |          |
|   |     |                 | ward, |           | after   |          |
|   |     |                 | and   |           | DO      |          |
|   |     |                 | as    |           | award** |          |
|   |     |                 | spec  |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | ified |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | in    |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | JPG   |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | 2     |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | 810.1 |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 2 | W   | Certification   | Spec  | Once with | **N**   |          |
| 4 | rit | Plan            | ified | Revisions |         |          |
|   | ten |                 | in DO |           |         |          |
|   | Ap  |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | pro |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | val |                 |       |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 2 | Man | Certification   | Spec  | Once with | **N**   |          |
| 5 | dat | Report          | ified | Revisions |         |          |
|   | ory |                 | in DO |           |         |          |
|   | Sub |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | mit |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | tal |                 |       |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 2 | Man | Engineering     | Spec  | As        | **Y**   | Analysis |
| 6 | dat | Analysis        | ified | Required  |         | rigor    |
|   | ory |                 | in DO |           |         | su       |
|   | Sub |                 |       |           |         | fficient |
|   | mit |                 |       |           |         | for use  |
|   | tal |                 |       |           |         | in       |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | hardware |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | certi    |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | fication |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | are not  |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | r        |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | equired. |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | Rigor    |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | needed   |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | is that  |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | to       |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | support  |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | under    |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | standing |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | of and   |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | s        |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | election |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | of       |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | sch      |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | ematics. |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | Flight   |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | approval |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | rigor is |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | not      |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | required |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 2 | Man | Acceptance Data | Spec  | One Time  | **N**   |          |
| 7 | dat | Package         | ified |           |         |          |
|   | ory |                 | in DO |           |         |          |
|   | Sub |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | mit |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | tal |                 |       |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 2 | Man | Export Control  | After | Yearly    | **Y**   |          |
| 8 | dat | Audit Results   | award |           |         |          |
|   | ory |                 | of    |           |         |          |
|   | Sub |                 | 1st   |           |         |          |
|   | mit |                 | DO,   |           |         |          |
|   | tal |                 | y     |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | early |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | on    |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | Sept. |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | 30    |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | there |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | after |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 2 | W   | Quality Plan    | With  | Once with | **Att   |          |
| 9 | rit |                 | Pro   | Revisions | achment |          |
|   | ten |                 | posal |           | J-11**  |          |
|   | Ap  |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | pro |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | val |                 |       |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 3 | W   | Patent          | As    | As        | **Y**   |          |
| 0 | rit | R               | Req   | Required  |         |          |
|   | ten | ights-Retention | uired |           | **(If   |          |
|   | Ap  |                 |       |           | Applic  |          |
|   | pro |                 |       |           | 'ble)** |          |
|   | val |                 |       |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 3 | W   | Shuttle/Station | Spec  | As        | **N**   |          |
| 1 | rit | Payload Safety  | ified | Required  |         |          |
|   | ten | Data Package    | in DO |           |         |          |
|   | Ap  |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | pro |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | val |                 |       |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 3 | Man | Limited Life    | Spec  | As        | **Y**   | Only to  |
| 2 | dat | Systems List    | ified | Required  |         | rigor    |
|   | ory |                 | in DO |           |         | n        |
|   | Sub |                 |       |           |         | ecessary |
|   | mit |                 |       |           |         | to       |
|   | tal |                 |       |           |         | un       |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | derstand |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | s        |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | chematic |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | l        |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | ogistics |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | issues.  |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | Flight   |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | approval |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | rigor is |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | not      |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | required |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 3 | W   | Space Station   | As    | As        | **Y**   | Flight   |
| 3 | rit | GFE Failure     | Early | Required  |         | pre      |
|   | ten | Modes and       | in    |           |         | paration |
|   | Ap  | Effects         | pr    |           |         | and      |
|   | pro | Analysis and    | ocess |           |         | approval |
|   | val | Critical Items  | as    |           |         | rigor is |
|   |     | List            | poss  |           |         | not      |
|   |     |                 | ible. |           |         | required |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | and      |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | detail   |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | app      |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | ropriate |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | for the  |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | s        |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | chematic |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | level of |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | unders   |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | tanding, |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | ev       |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | aluation |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | and      |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | se       |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | lection. |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 3 | W   | Space Shuttle   | Spec  | As        | **N**   |          |
| 4 | rit | GFE Safety and  | ified | Required  |         |          |
|   | ten | Analysis Report | in DO |           |         |          |
|   | Ap  | &Hazard Report  |       |           |         |          |
|   | pro |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | val |                 |       |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 3 | W   | Software        | 90    | Once with | **Y**   |          |
| 5 | rit | Quality         | Days  | Revisions |         |          |
|   | ten | Assurance Plan  | Prior |           | **(If   |          |
|   | Ap  | Report          | to    |           | Applic  |          |
|   | pro |                 | Sof   |           | 'ble)** |          |
|   | val |                 | tware |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | D     |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | evelo |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | pment |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 3 | W   | ISS Hazard      | Spec  | As        | **N**   |          |
| 6 | rit | Report          | ified | Required  |         |          |
|   | ten |                 | in DO |           |         |          |
|   | Ap  |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | pro |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | val |                 |       |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 3 | U   | Reliability and | With  | One Time  | **Att   |          |
| 7 | pon | Maintainability | Pro   |           | achment |          |
|   | R   | Plan            | posal |           | J-9**   |          |
|   | equ |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | est |                 |       |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 3 | W   | Government      | Spec  | As        | **N**   |          |
| 8 | rit | Certification   | ified | Required  |         |          |
|   | ten | Approval        | in DO |           |         |          |
|   | Ap  | Request (GCAR)  |       |           |         |          |
|   | pro |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | val |                 |       |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 3 | W   | Risk Assessment | Spec  | As        | **Y**   | Use as   |
| 9 | rit | Executive       | ified | Required  |         | an       |
|   | ten | Summary Report  | in DO |           |         | outline  |
|   | Ap  | (RAESR)         |       |           |         | for the  |
|   | pro |                 |       |           |         | safety   |
|   | val |                 |       |           |         | section  |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | of the   |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | s        |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | chematic |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | docume   |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | ntation. |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | Flight   |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | pre      |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | paration |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | and      |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | approval |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | rigor is |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | not      |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | required |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | Detail   |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | only as  |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | n        |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | ecessary |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | to       |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | un       |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | derstand |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | and      |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | select   |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | sch      |
|   |     |                 |       |           |         | ematics. |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 4 | W   | Problem         | 2     | As        | **N**   |          |
| 0 | rit | Reporting and   | bus   | Required  |         |          |
|   | ten | Corrective      | iness |           |         |          |
|   | Ap  | Action (PRACA)  | days  |           |         |          |
|   | pro |                 | of    |           |         |          |
|   | val |                 | pr    |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | oblem |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | isol  |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | ation |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | but   |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | no    |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | later |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | than  |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | 10    |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | days  |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | after |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | dete  |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | ction |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 4 | U   | Nonconformance  | Spec  | As        | **N**   |          |
| 1 | pon | Record          | ified | Required  |         |          |
|   | R   |                 | in DO |           |         |          |
|   | equ |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | est |                 |       |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 4 | Man | Government      | Rep   | Once with | **N**   |          |
| 2 | dat | Industry Data   | orted | Revisions |         |          |
|   | ory | Exchange        | one   |           |         |          |
|   | Sub | Program and     | time  |           |         |          |
|   | mit | NASA Advisory   | when  |           |         |          |
|   | tal | Problem Data    | d     |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | iscre |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | pancy |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | o     |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | ccurs |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 4 | W   | Electrical,     | Spec  | Once with | **N**   |          |
| 3 | rit | Electronic, and | ified | Revisions |         |          |
|   | ten | E               | in DO |           |         |          |
|   | Ap  | lectromechnical |       |           |         |          |
|   | pro | (EEE) Parts     |       |           |         |          |
|   | val | Control Plan    |       |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 4 | Man | Certification   | Spec  | Once with | **N**   |          |
| 4 | dat | Data Package    | ified | Revisions |         |          |
|   | ory |                 | in DO |           |         |          |
|   | Sub |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | mit |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | tal |                 |       |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 4 | W   | Certification   | At    | Once with | **N**   |          |
| 5 | rit | and Acceptance  | CDR   | Revisions |         |          |
|   | ten | Requirements    |       |           |         |          |
|   | Ap  | Document        |       |           |         |          |
|   | pro |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | val |                 |       |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 4 | U   | Wage/Salary and | t     | Once      | **N**   |          |
| 6 | pon | Fringe Benefit  | hirty |           |         |          |
|   | R   | Data            | (30)  |           |         |          |
|   | equ |                 | days  |           |         |          |
|   | est |                 | after |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | iss   |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | uance |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | of    |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | each  |           |         |          |
|   |     |                 | DO    |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 4 | W   | GFE Acceptance  | Spec  | One Time  | **N**   |          |
| 7 | rit | Test Procedure  | ified |           |         |          |
|   | ten |                 | in DO |           |         |          |
|   | Ap  |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | pro |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | val |                 |       |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 4 | Man | Flight GFE      | Spec  | Once with | **N**   |          |
| 8 | dat | Verification &  | ified | Revisions |         |          |
|   | ory | Validation      | in DO |           |         |          |
|   | Sub | Report          |       |           |         |          |
|   | mit |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | tal |                 |       |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 4 | Man | Space Shuttle   | Spec  | As        | **N**   |          |
| 9 | dat | GFE Failure     | ified | Required  |         |          |
|   | ory | Modes and       | in DO |           |         |          |
|   | Sub | Effects         |       |           |         |          |
|   | mit | Analysis (FMEA) |       |           |         |          |
|   | tal | and Critical    |       |           |         |          |
|   |     | Items List      |       |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 5 |     | **Reserved**    | **\-  | **\-\--** | **      | *        |
| 0 |     |                 | \--** |           | \-\--** | *\-\--** |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 5 | Man | NASA Contractor | After | Monthly   | **Y**   |          |
| 1 | dat | Financial       | Iss   |           |         |          |
|   | ory | Management      | uance |           |         |          |
|   | Sub | Reporting       | of    |           |         |          |
|   | mit |                 | 1st   |           |         |          |
|   | tal |                 | DO    |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 5 | W   | Government      | With  | Once with | **Att   |          |
| 2 | rit | Property        | Pro   | Revisions | achment |          |
|   | ten | Management Plan | posal |           | J-7**   |          |
|   | Ap  |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | pro |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | val |                 |       |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 5 | Man | System Safety   | With  | One Time  | **Att   |          |
| 3 | dat | Plan            | Pro   |           | achment |          |
|   | ory |                 | posal |           | J-10**  |          |
|   | Sub |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | mit |                 |       |           |         |          |
|   | tal |                 |       |           |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 5 | W   | R-Quality Plan  | With  | Only      | **Y**   |          |
| 4 | rit | Template        | Prop  | a         |         |          |
|   | ten |                 | osal/ | pplicable |         |          |
|   | Ap  |                 | Revi  | to        |         |          |
|   | pro |                 | sions | B-CRAVE   |         |          |
|   | val |                 | as    | contracts |         |          |
|   |     |                 | Req   | in        |         |          |
|   |     |                 | uired | a         |         |          |
|   |     |                 |       | ccordance |         |          |
|   |     |                 |       | with the  |         |          |
|   |     |                 |       | SOW and   |         |          |
|   |     |                 |       | the DRD   |         |          |
+---+-----+-----------------+-------+-----------+---------+----------+

Type 1 = Written Approval Type 2 = Mandatory Submittal Type 3 =
Submittal Upon Request

**[GOVERNMENT FURNISHED PROPERTY]{.underline}**

**None Required**

[^1]: The ICES conference, cosponsored by multiple engineering societies
    and managed by the SAE, is one of the primary places the EVA
    community publishes.

[^2]: Pugh, S.: *Total Design Integrated Methods for Successful Product
    Engineering*, Addison-Wesley, Wokingham, England, 1991

[^3]: Ullman, D. G.: *The Mechanical Design Process*, McGraw Hill, 1992

[^4]: For example see *3.5.2 Team Roles*, Page 55 of Ullman's Second
    Edition.

[^5]: Guidance on how to accomplish the kind of functional decomposition
    contemplated is contained in Ullman, 2^nd^ Edition, Chapter 7.

[^6]: ^6^ See Ullman, D. G.: *The Mechanical Design Process*, McGraw
    Hill, 1992, chapter 8.