a) These sh ould includ e tho se required to verify  the most pro bable findings in  addition to other  possibl e ano malies.  b) Analytical Equipment inclu des: FTIR, S EM/EDS, ESCA or XPS,  ICP/MS, OLM, and Gram S cales.  c) Tech niques to be used for taking sampl es.  1) Surface swab  sample s.  2) Manual extra ction.  3) Freon rinse and filter.  4. Determine th e logisti cal require ment s for the insp ection.  a) Facility requirements (cleanliness, hazardous material , safety, etc.).  1) Lab Coats, gl oves, wip es, swab s, chemi cals, debri s filters, gla ssware, packin g.  b) Tools a nd GS E needed fo r disa ssembly.   c) Available Person nel.  d) Sched ule (provide suffici ent time for ch ange s to the plan ba sed on finding s).  5. Final Report 

The outline  above was not availabl e for the HST  FGS me chanism inspectio n; however,  most of the steps  listed were included in the initial pl anning process. The remaini ng detail,  such as th e actual an alytical   equipm ent used, wa s add ed durin g the insp ection and documente d in the final report.       FGS M/E Inspection & Findings 

Prior to creating the FGS -1 M/E Insp ection Pla n, a gen eral i dea for the cause of the CT an d RB   anomali es was develop ed. It is difficult to pre dict what wo uld b e found during t he det ailed i nspection and  material  analyses. However, industry te sts in additio n to the  previously mentio ned Life T ests[2] provided  a  clue to what was expe cted. Therefo re, the focu s of this task b ecame a lub ricant and bea ring degradation  probl em. It was antici pated that degrad ed lubri cant would be fou nd, howeve r, the pertine nt que stion wa s  the ca use of  the de gradation. Wa s it from a l oading situ ation,  conta mination, ope rational scen ario,  workm anship, or some oth er phe nomena? 

Before the u nit was di sassembl ed, a b attery of te sts we re cond ucted at t he instru ment le vel and the   mech anism b ench level[3]. Table 1 provides a com parison between the p erformance of the  M/E from its  build Accept ance Test s in 1983 to its perform ance after removal from flight FGS-1 at the mech anism  vendor’ s facility in 199 8. It wa s concluded from  this test data  that t here was a v ery slight d egradatio n of  positio nal accuracy in the motor encoders (p robably due to degra dation o f the light o utput in the  readstation L ED’s) but no other si gnific ant cha nges in perfo rman ce wa s noted.  

After all bench tests we re compl eted, the M/E manuf acturer di sassembl ed the mech anism d own to the  beari ng cartri dge, whi ch includes the housing, sha ft, bearings and spacers.  These are self-contai ned  units, a nd it was not possible fo r conta mination  to e nter thi s portion of  the m echanism. The  M/E’s were  then bag ged, packe d and shippe d to the facility for final  disa ssembly , detailed inspectio n and a nalyse s. 

After disa ssembly and in spection of the two M/E asse mblies, t he be arings were remove d, visually  inspected, ph oto-do cument ed, an d weighed. Som e of the d ebris observed during the  low magnification  observation s were lifted  via probing  and analyzed using a battery of analytical te chniqu es, including FTIR,  SEM, EDS, a nd ESCA (or XPS). Bearing motion testi ng was conducted to observ e the behavior of the  toroid ball separato rs und er ope ration simila r to on-orbi t cycli ng. Subse quently the bearin gs were flu shed  to colle ct the  remai ning loose de bris. Finally the beari ngs were disassem bled, and th e condition of   beari ng races, balls and toroids were evaluated visual ly under an o ptical micro scope an d with a SEM. 

Both SSS-A and SSS-B beari ngs contai ned degraded lubricant  residue, little to no free oil and were  heavily cont aminated with foreign fib ers, metalli c and non -metallic pa rticles. No ne of  the beari ng  comp onents appe ared to have expe rienced significant we ar. With the except ions th at the  lubri cant in  0106 (SSS-B ) beari ngs was slightly less degraded than the 0107 (SSS-A) beari ngs, and the 0107  beari ngs had less no n-metallic pa rticle s (mo stly ski n), there was no other obvio us diffe rences between  the relative condition of the bea rings. The ob served differen ces were in suffici ent to explain conclusively   why the 010 6 beari ngs in FGS-1B exp erienced rev ersal bum ps and the A-se rvo did not. Ho wever, the   349