Richard C. Oeftering and Peter M. Struk

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Barmac K. Taleghani

Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia

A Lunar Surface System Supportability 

Technology Development Roadmap

NASA/TM—2011-216785

August 2011

AIAA–2009–6425
NASA STI Program . . . in Profile

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the 

advancement of aeronautics and space science. The 

NASA Scientific and Technical Information (STI) 

program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain 

this important role.

The NASA STI Program operates under the auspices 

of the Agency Chief Information Officer. It collects, 

organizes, provides for archiving, and disseminates 

NASA’s STI. The NASA STI program provides access 

to the NASA Aeronautics and Space Database and 

its public interface, the NASA Technical Reports 

Server, thus providing one of the largest collections 

of aeronautical and space science STI in the world. 

Results are published in both non-NASA channels 

and by NASA in the NASA STI Report Series, which 

includes the following report types:

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major significant phase 

of research that present the results of NASA 

programs and include extensive data or theoretical 

analysis. Includes compilations of significant 

scientific and technical data and information 

deemed to be of continuing reference value. 

NASA counterpart of peer-reviewed formal 

professional papers but has less stringent 

limitations on manuscript length and extent of 

graphic presentations.

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific 

and technical findings that are preliminary or 

of specialized interest, e.g., quick release 

reports, working papers, and bibliographies that 

contain minimal annotation. Does not contain 

extensive analysis.

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and 

technical findings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees.

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected 

papers from scientific and technical 

conferences, symposia, seminars, or other 

meetings sponsored or cosponsored by NASA.

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, 

technical, or historical information from 

NASA programs, projects, and missions, often 

concerned with subjects having substantial 

public interest.

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. Englishlanguage translations of foreign scientific and 

technical material pertinent to NASA’s mission.

Specialized services also include creating custom 

thesauri, building customized databases, organizing 

and publishing research results.

For more information about the NASA STI 

program, see the following:

• Access the NASA STI program home page at 

http://www.sti.nasa.gov

• E-mail your question via the Internet to help@

sti.nasa.gov

• Fax your question to the NASA STI Help Desk 

at 443–757–5803

• Telephone the NASA STI Help Desk at

443–757–5802

• Write to:

 NASA Center for AeroSpace Information (CASI)

 7115 Standard Drive

 Hanover, MD 21076–1320
Richard C. Oeftering and Peter M. Struk

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Barmac K. Taleghani

Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia

A Lunar Surface System Supportability 

Technology Development Roadmap

NASA/TM—2011-216785

August 2011

AIAA–2009–6425

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135

Prepared for the

Space 2009 Conference and Exposition

sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Pasadena, California, September 14–17, 2009
Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the contribution of John Easton of Glenn Research Center; Karen Taminger, Eric Madaras, and Kevin 

Somervill of Langley Research Center; Linda Patterson, Mike Steele, Phil Curell, Bill Robbins, Patrick Fink of Johnson Space 

Center; and Savio Chau of the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The authors further acknowledge the contribution of individuals 

of other organizations including Jennifer Green of Casitair Consulting in Tampa, Florida; John Tabera and others of the United 

Space Alliance, NASA Shuttle Logistics Depot facility Canaveral, Florida; Joseph Tellado and others of the NASA Spacecraft 

Services Depot at Kennedy Space Center, Florida; Anthony D’Annunzio, Russell Shannon, Robert Meseroll, and John Quitter 

of the U.S. Navy NAVAIR at Lakehurst, New Jersey; Gary Latta, Andy Ganster, and Brett Estes of the Naval Surface Warfare 

Center at Crane, Indiana; James Lyke of Air Force Research Lab, Kirtland AFB in Albuquerque, New Mexico; Doug Goodman 

(founder) and Sonia Vohnout of the Ridgetop Group, Inc. Tucson, Arizona.

This work was funded by the Supportability Project in NASA’s Exploration Technology Development Program Office (Barmac 

Taleghani, Program Manager, NASA Langley Research Center) and by Supportability, Operability, and Affordability Office (Kevin 

Watson, Chief/SOA Office, NASA Johnson Space Center).

Available from

NASA Center for Aerospace Information

7115 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076–1320

National Technical Information Service

5301 Shawnee Road

Alexandria, VA 22312

Available electronically at http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov

Level of Review: This material has been technically reviewed by technical management. 
NASA/TM—2011-216785 1

A Lunar Surface System Supportability 

Technology Development Roadmap

Richard C. Oeftering and Peter M. Struk

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135

Barmac K. Taleghani

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Langley Research Center

Hampton, Virginia 23681–2199

Abstract

This paper discusses the establishment of a Supportability Technology Development Roadmap as a

guide for developing capabilities intended to allow NASA’s Constellation program to enable a 

supportable, sustainable and affordable exploration of the Moon and Mars. Presented is a discussion of 

“supportability,” in terms of space facility maintenance, repair and related logistics and a comparison of 

how lunar outpost supportability differs from the International Space Station. Supportability lessons 

learned from NASA and Department of Defense experience and their impact on a future lunar outpost is 

discussed. A supportability concept for future missions to the Moon and Mars that involves a transition 

from a highly logistics dependent to a logistically independent operation is discussed. Lunar outpost 

supportability capability needs are summarized and a supportability technology development strategy is 

established. The resulting Lunar Surface Systems Supportability Strategy defines general criteria that will 

be used to select technologies that will enable future flight crews to act effectively to respond to problems 

and exploit opportunities in a environment of extreme resource scarcity and isolation. This strategy also 

introduces the concept of exploiting flight hardware as a supportability resource. The technology roadmap

involves development of three mutually supporting technology categories, Diagnostics Test and

Verification, Maintenance and Repair, and Scavenging and Recycling. The technology roadmap 

establishes two distinct technology types, “Embedded” and “Process” technologies, with different 

implementation and thus different criteria and development approaches. The supportability technology 

roadmap addresses the technology readiness level, and estimated development schedule for technology 

groups that includes down-selection decision gates that correlate with the lunar program milestones. The 

resulting supportability technology roadmap is intended to develop a set of technologies with widest 

possible capability and utility with a minimum impact on crew time and training and remain within the 

time and cost constraints of the Constellation program

1.0 Introduction

NASA’s Constellation Program is involved in ongoing development of Lunar Surface Systems 

Architecture that ultimately is aimed at establishing a Lunar Outpost capable of sustaining long-term 

occupation by human crews. The NASA Exploration Technology Development Program (ETDP) and the 

Supportability, Operability, and Affordability (SOA) Office jointly funded a multidiscipline study that 

examines the technology required to achieve a supportable and sustainable lunar program. Supportability, 

Operability, and Affordability are aspects of the program that are difficult to quantify in the development 

stage yet ultimately will affect the overall cost of the program once facilities are established and 

operational.

NASA is currently developing new vehicles with multiple goals of reducing the human risks and cost 

of space flight while expanding the reach of human exploration. Launch costs are ultimately applied to 
NASA/TM—2011-216785 2

the payload delivered and this study considers technologies that extract the highest possible utility from 

these payloads in lunar operations. This technology roadmap attempts to indentify needs, define the 

capabilities and identify candidate technologies that will be developed. This roadmap is focused on Lunar 

Surface Systems (LSS) maintenance, repair and related logistics of supportability. This study considers 

lessons learned from NASA flight operations, NASA logistics depot experience and lessons learned from 

military flight systems. 

The initial effort was to characterize existing space based maintenance and related ground support for 

the International Space Station (ISS). For the ISS the maintenance strategy is to remove and replace

modular Orbital Replacement Units (ORU) (Ref. 1). This approach was adopted primarily due to 

constraints on crew time and the need to return systems to full function and restore redundancy as quickly 

as possible. The approach envisioned by ISS would have been supported by a robust logistics 

infrastructure with re-supply intervals, as short as every few weeks. In contrast, NASA’s planning for a 

lunar outpost currently assumes only three to four missions per year with two crewed and one to two

cargo missions. (Ref. 2).1

Recently, NASA’s Lunar Surface Systems (LSS) program began considering concepts to extend 

repair capabilities to surface operations, where crew members and robotics may perform repairs and 

routine maintenance. This may involve removing Lunar Replacement Modules

The payload delivered by an expendable cargo vehicle to the lunar surface is 

roughly 22 percent of the payload the same vehicle would deliver to ISS in low Earth orbit (Ref. 3). This 

puts further pressure on the program to design payloads with high utility to match the higher payload cost.

Unlike the ISS, lunar hardware is not part of a closed-loop logistics transportation cycle. The ability to 

return hardware, repair it and re-launch it was based on the Space Shuttle’s massive capability to move 

hardware between Earth and orbit in both directions. For lunar missions, the roughly five fold increase in 

payload delivery cost, the one-way transportation of hardware, and the dramatically reduced frequency of 

launches drives a need for a new supportability strategy.

2

Many of supportability technologies needed to enable this level of maintenance will be embedded in 

the actual flight hardware to assure that hardware is accessible, serviceable and even scavengable.

Therefore the technology must be defined early and infused into the spacecraft design. Many of 

supportability technologies represent new process technologies that can operate in an extremely resource 

scarce environment where conventional technologies are inoperable. Like ISS, the lunar outpost will be 

required to minimize the demand for crew time and crew training. Therefore, this roadmap also considers 

the operational context and the need for ground support of the crew to assure that maintenance operations 

are effective, safe and do not pose risks to the crew or systems.

(LRU), de-integrating 

assemblies, diagnosing and repairing at the sub assembly, commonly called a Shop Replacement Unit 

(SRU), and component level, followed by, functional test and re-integration steps and finally returning the 

hardware to service. This represents an unprecedented level of complexity and potential risk if improperly 

executed. However, it also represents an unprecedented capability and flexibility that empowers the crew 

to act effectively in response to problems. This is a major paradigm shift for a NASA space missions and 

must be carefully considered in the lunar architecture.

2.0 On Orbit Supportability Strategies and Lessons Learned

The following section examines some of the past and current practices for supporting the logistics and 

repair needs of space flight missions. The discussion will begin with a look at previous missions, 

including Apollo, Skylab, and Mir. The discussion will then focus on current practices and lessons 

learned from the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station. Additional insight to maintainability 

based on military experience and lessons learned was provided by Department of Defense contributors.

 1 Recent schedules indicated mission frequency of 2 per year. 

2 Lunar Replacement Unit (LRU) and Orbital Replacement Unit (ORU) are equivalent assemblies
NASA/TM—2011-216785 3

2.1 Apollo Era On-Orbit Maintenance

The experiences of the Apollo, Skylab, and Mir missions point out the occurrence of and recovery 

from faults and failures. Due to the short mission duration, the primary strategy for major failures during 

an Apollo mission was to abort the mission and return to Earth. The events of the Apollo 13 mission 

illustrate this plan. Other Apollo missions experienced far less critical faults and failures, including a 

damaged television camera, a failed potable water tank valve, and damage to a lunar rover fender. In these 

cases the crew used redundant systems operated at a reduced capacity, or in the case of the damaged 

fender, scavenged from materials on hand to repair the damage (in this case, using lunar surface maps 

clipped in place as a replacement fender). Determining the fault in the case of the television camera and 

valve required post flight inspection and testing of identical equipment to determine the root cause of the 

failures. The later Skylab missions suffered from damage incurred during the initial launch, reducing the 

vehicle’s capacity to manage heat and generate power. The first two crews performed repairs allowing 

Skylab to operate, and demonstrated the capability of crews to perform repairs and recover from 

potentially major faults or failures.

2.2 Russian Mir Strategy

In the case of the Mir station, the Russian Space Agency (RSA) planned for a high degree of crew 

involvement in repairing and maintaining the vehicle’s systems. The Russian general maintenance 

philosophy used on the Mir station is still in use on the Russian Segment of the ISS. The philosophy has 

been characterized by the phrase, “Run it until it breaks” (Ref. 4). This should not be interpreted as lack 

of preventative maintenance, but rather that hardware is operated until it reaches its end-of-life without 

preemptive maintenance. Cosmonauts replace faulty hardware if a replacement is available, or would find 

a way to diagnose and repair the system or operate with a degraded system until a replacement could be 

provided. In lieu of a spare, the crew is permitted to cannibalize other system’s hardware at the expense of 

redundancy depending on donor system’s criticality. Replacements may be manifested on the next 

available flight but there is an emphasis of repairing the system at hand. The crew work load increased as 

Mir continued operations well past its expected lifetime. From March 11, 1995, to May 31, 1998,

cosmonauts performed 137 maintenance activities, some major, and all were successful in replacing, 

repairing, or working around the fault (Ref. 4).

Unlike the American approach, Russian approach does not appear to have a heavy dependence on 

logistics and modular Orbital Replacement Units (ORU). The Russian approach places emphasis on the 

crew’s roles and responsibility for spacecraft maintenance. They depend less on sophisticated 

technologies and depend more on diagnostic and repair skills of the crew. In the Russian approach, the 

crew has much more latitude to determining a course of action and has demonstrated resourcefulness in 

the diagnosis and repair of problems. The approach is more consistent with a “resource scarce”

environment where the installed hardware has an intrinsically high value and worth the effort to repair insitu. This is in contrast with the American approach where crew time is highly valued and focused on 

mission objectives and faulty hardware is expendable. There is no right answer, but rather a trade off 

based on the expected spares availability and the crew time availability for maintenance.

2.3 The ISS On-Orbit Maintenance (OOM) Philosophy

The ISS philosophy is to use available resources to maintain, repair and replace failed ISS hardware 

components and return the affected systems to their original configuration and efficiency. NASA’s 

baseline approach for the ISS is to remove and replace defective ORUs in their entirety. This approach is 

based on the idea that replacing ORUs requires less crew training and reduces the amount of crew time 

required to make repairs, thus increasing the amount of time to perform science activities. In limited 

cases, where time considerations and the lack of a spare ORU do not permit replacement, repairs are 

made to a part of an ORU. This repair philosophy also requires cooperation from the international 
NASA/TM—2011-216785 4

partners (IP). This includes the planning, training, and execution of repair procedures, and providing 

repair kits including unique tools and parts. The sharing of tools between partners is expected, and all 

affected partners must agree on a plan that calls for scavenging from one system to restore functionality to 

another.

Eleven years of operation have provided insights into supportability operations and lessons that can 

be applied to the next generations of vehicles and missions. NASA should include maintenance and 

reliability requirements in contracts to build parts, systems, and vehicles, and define an Integrated 

Logistics Support (ILS) process, and develop a Maintenance and Operations Concept (MOC) early in the 

design phase. An ILS manager should have a senior position in a project, and logisticians should be 

assigned to design teams as a resource (not a designer) for reparability and maintenance concepts.

Designs should stress commonality of parts, components, fasteners, etc., to the greatest degree possible, 

and decide on a single system of measure (i.e., metric or English), and design with reparability and 

robustness of the finished parts and systems in mind. Missions should also be provided with a 

comprehensive set of tools to allow for maintenance and repair, and provide tools for testing system or 

part performance, diagnose faults, and verify a repair before returning a part or system to service.

2.4 ISS Flight Operations Lessons Learned: Tools and Equipment Recommendations

• Enforce Common Fastener and Tools 

• Eliminate recurring calibration cycles and integrated calibration features

• Common IVA and EVA Tools

• Minimize impact of additional Component Level Tools Set

• Go 100 percent Metric

• Durable portable tool storage and caddies with improved user friendliness

• Logistics must account for consumable bit, blade and die breakage (and extraction)

• Provide a wide range of portable visual magnification 

• Avoid process containment that reduces user access and visibility 

• Reduce or Eliminate need for Post Repair Certification 

2.5 ISS Flight Operations Lessons Learned: Programmatic Recommendations

• Provide Integrated Logistics Support (ILS) education down to sub contractors 

• Logistics and supportability must be a designer responsibility 

• Track logistics requirements and review them at project design milestones 

• Establish “Maintenance Operations Concept” early 

• Enforce explicit availability, maintainability requirements ( Use “Shall”)

• Anticipate obsolescence: Anticipate loss of key vendors, acquire plenty of spare components 

early

• Build In-house component level capability and skills for long term 

• Maximize opportunities to add robustness (life margin) to minimize life cycle costs.

• Provide incentives for Supportability that match size weight and power incentives 

• Centralize design and operations information with comprehensive search capability

2.6 Lessons Learned From the Department of Defense

The experiences of U.S. Navy NAVAIR group with military aircraft, also contribute lessons learned 

and concepts to use in future vehicle development and operation. One important aspect is the “testability”

of a system. Designers must provide a Built-In-Test (BIT) which includes fault isolation to the component 

level to provide faster diagnosis and insight into the root cause of a fault. 

In addition, designers must provide tools and processes to test the operation of a system, isolate faults, 

and perform post repair tests to determine the success of the repair. The design for testability must take 
NASA/TM—2011-216785 5

balanced approach between BIT and external capabilities. BIT tests are useless when the electronics are 

rendered inoperable due to power or communications outage. External equipment is still needed to pick 

up where BIT capabilities fail. Therefore, testability still requires external equipment, tools and 

corresponding crew training.

The NAVAIR experience also includes managing contracts and relationships with outside contractors 

or vendors. Contracts must be written to incorporate new technologies and testability functions. The 

maturity of technology, as well as lack of incentive, can lead a prime contractor to forego integrating in 

testability. The testability and supportability concepts should also be encouraged as a cost saving measure 

for the contractors, by reducing testing and maintenance costs, and positively affecting their balance 

sheets, as well as improving the supportability of the end product for the end user.

3.0 Lunar Capability Considerations per ISS Operations and NASA Depot 

Experience

The following sections summarize the considerations and the issues of extending Earth based depot 

capabilities to a notional “lunar depot” facility. These considerations and recommendations were provided 

by NASA Logistics Depots currently supporting the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station.

Because of the constraints on crew size and logisitics, some extraodinary and innovative techniques may 

be needed to allow Earth based depots to support a lunar depot.

3.1 Crew Operations and Equipment Considerations

3.1.1 Interactive Multimedia for Crew Skills Consideration

Crew training, Earth technical support, and interactive multimedia (including interactive 3–D 

visualizations of assemblies, drawings, processes) capability is needed to provide in-situ familiarization 

and refreshing knowledge and skills prior to performing repairs. Crews must have acquired skills to 

handle maintenance at multiple levels (LRU, SRU, and component level) including, disassembly and

reassembly, diagnostics, and repair. Repair skills are required for various component level fault isolation 

including removal and replacement. Furthermore, crews must be provided with multimedia training in the 

operation and maintenance of test equipment at LRU and SRU level.

3.1.2 Equipment Calibration Consideration

The lunar depot must consider equipment and tool calibration capability to ensure that all 

measurements remain true and within their specified tolerances. On Earth, calibration is governed by the 

science of Metrology and is performed hierarchically by calibration and standards laboratories throughout 

the United States and the World. In a constrained lunar environment, a self sustained Metrology processes 

(calibrations) must be incorporated in the design of equipment and measurements as much as possible so 

as to minimize or eliminate the transportation of equipment back-and-forth to Earth. The use of 

fundamental and primary standards now performed at Primary Standards Laboratories (PSL) along with 

innovative techniques in traceability may be required to be performed within the lunar environment to 

accomplish the calibration objectives.

3.1.3 Repair Process Materials Consideration

Repair processes often require chemicals with special containment requirements and limited shelf life.

Lunar Depot operations must develop innovative materials and processes that simplify storage and 

containment requirements.
NASA/TM—2011-216785 6

3.1.4 Problem, Corrective Action and Configuration Management

A lunar depot will need an automated means of managing the overall process of responding to 

problems, preparing procedures, recording and maintaining quality control records and tracking the 

configuration of individual items including post repair configuration. This requires synchronizing 

information between the lunar depot and Earth based logistics support centers.

3.1.5 Root Cause Analysis Consideration

Supportability will need the capability to perform Materials and Process evaluations and failure 

analysis support for root cause determination of hardware failure. The capability must deal with the 

problem that there is no practical way of returning faulty hardware for analysis. Fault and root cause 

evaluations will become increasingly important to understand and prevent repeated occurrences.

3.2 Flight Hardware Design Considerations 

The NASA Depots also advised that the flight hardware should be designed in a manner that embeds 

capabilities or enables in-situ repair to reduce the dependence on external equipment.

3.2.1 Hardware Commonality Consideration

Past projects considered commonality primarily from a program life cycle cost issue. For LSS, 

however, commonality is required to make in-situ component level maintenance and repair viable. It is 

also essential if scavenging of spares from spent flight hardware is used as a logistics strategy. Electronics 

module commonality allows a mid-level electronics design to be used in multiple applications (Exp.

Pyrotechnic Initiator Controller) and supported by a common set of diagnostic and repair tools. Electronic 

component and specification commonality reduces the number of component spares and also allows 

components to be scavenged. Connector/Interface and harness commonality can minimize the quantity 

and variety of special tools, contacts and spare parts. Mechanical fasteners and hardware commonality

reduces tools and spares, but also simplifies assembly operations with fewer tool changes. Avoid custom 

single purpose equipment and utilize common standard test equipment such as oscilloscopes, meters, 

analyzers, and tools such as torque wrenches, etc.

3.2.2 Manufacturing Materials and Process Consideration

Judicious use of materials and innovative design techniques in manufacturing will be required to 

facilitate maintenance and repairs in the lunar environment. Manufacturing materials and the processes 

selected need to assure reparability. The method of manufacturing and use of materials can restrict or 

prevent the repair of components. Earthbound repair processes often require materials and chemicals with 

special containment and limited shelf life. When materials need to be re-applied consider easy-to-apply 

substitutes that reduce complexity and the need for process containment. 

3.2.3 Embedded Capabilities Consideration

The extent of equipment needed for lunar maintenance and repair and the overall viability of in-situ 

supportability depends on embedding the Diagnostics, Repair and Test in the original design. Hardware 

needs to embed design features that assure ease of access and simplify disassembly and reassembly.

Designers can improve the feasibility of SRU or component level repair by embedding capabilities that 

would minimize the external test equipment, adapters, fixtures, hookup cables, tools and related crew 

training. For electronics this includes embedding repair capability by incorporating test points, diagnostic 

connectors, and self diagnostics software designed for troubleshooting to the component level. 
NASA/TM—2011-216785 7

3.2.4 Delta Acceptance Test Consideration

Design flight hardware to limit the degree of revalidation and re-testing (delta acceptance test) 

required for repairs. Where possible, design to minimize the need for Validated Test Set and employ 

standardized repair procedures. Fault tolerant electronics must provide fault isolation to minimize external 

or subsystem damage caused by a LRU/SRU failure. This system fault isolation capability should also be 

extended to protect the system and permit in-system LRU checkout of repaired hardware. This reduces 

the need for dedicated external test equipment and interface emulators. 

3.3 NASA Depot Recommendations

To accomplish practical supportability goals in lunar operations requires multiple approaches: 

• Eliminate or minimize repair equipment complexity.

• Employ practical, versatile and innovative materials and process technologies.

• Self calibrations, innovative traceability and fundamental reference standards.

• Empower the crew with interactive 3–D multimedia for in-situ or real time training support.

• Provide telecommunication and information infrastructure that links Earth based Flight and Depot 

Operations with LSS for: failure analysis, corrective action instructions, root cause analysis and 

configuration management

• Elevate hardware commonality as critical to LSS supportability (beyond cost saving)

• Design and manufacturing hardware for self sustainability (low logistics needs)

• Embedded capabilities where ever practical to minimize external equipment.

• Develop innovative delta acceptance test techniques that permit in system ORU testing.

3.4 NASA Depot Mean-Time to Repair Data

The NASA Shuttle Logistics Depot (NSLD) and the NASA Spacecraft Services Depot (NSSD) 

provided estimates for labor hours required to repair various types of on-orbit hardware. Only a portion of 

the ISS Orbital Replacement Unit (ORU)s are processed in these facilitates. The estimates were based on 

a mix of space shuttle and space station hardware. The data is usable for considering the general types of 

repairs performed over extended period. The study looked at how hands-on repair time is portioned 

between four primary levels of repair. Note that ORU and LRU are equivalent assemblies.

• System Repair: A Lunar Replacement Unit is replaced with a spare.

• LRU Repair: Involves the replacement of an intermediate (I-Level) or “Shop Replacement Unit”

(SRU)

• SRU Repair: The faulty I-Level SRU is diagnosed and faulty components are replaced.

• Component Repair: This is the restoration or remanufacture of single component and is relatively 

infrequent. 

The study examined the proportion of time spent at various levels of assembly. System Repair (LRU 

Replacement) is performed on orbit and thus System repair times are used as a reference. Compared to a 

System Level Repair, the time required for LRU level and SRU level repair are both roughly five times 

longer. The actual replacement of the hardware as a percentage of the overall time required at each level 

was:

• 19 percent at System level 

• 20 percent at LRU level

• 23 percent at SRU level

With roughly 20 percent of the time at each level spent in the physical repair process the remaining

80 percent of the time is spent performing pre and post repair processes. The pre-repair activity involves 

set-up of the equipment and hardware, disassembly, and performing diagnostics. The post repair activity 
NASA/TM—2011-216785 8

involves reintegrating hardware, testing and revalidation of hardware integrity and even dismantling the 

set-up. 

The data indicates that maintenance beyond the system level will cause a dramatic increase in crew 

labor, particularly if it extends down to component level replacement. The crew labor penalty diminishes 

the payload benefit and thus far has been a barrier to lower level repairs. Efforts to reduce crew time 

should therefore focus on eliminating or reducing tasks surrounding the actual repair. A maintenance 

strategy that involves hardware replacement below the ORU level will depend on solutions to these

issues. Currently, the only known technology program that deals with the full scope of access and 

integration is the Plug-N-Play Satellite project of the Air Force Responsive Space Technology effort.

4.0 Supportability of Missions Beyond Earth Orbit

The Constellation Architecture is a combination of vehicles, facilities, Design Reference Missions 

(DRMs), and mission phases (Ref. 5). The Lunar DRMs include the Lunar Sortie Crew DRM and the 

Lunar Outpost DRMs which include the uncrewed Cargo Altair DRM, the Visiting Lunar Outpost 

Expedition DRM, the Resident Lunar Outpost Expedition DRM, and the Outpost Remote Operations 

DRM. The Supportability concept for the Lunar Sortie Crew DRM emphasizes the use of redundancy and 

high reliability components that require limited maintenance over the typical 7-day mission. The Altair 

Sortie Mission carries a maintenance toolkit, which will be based on the Orion capsule toolkit.

Lunar Outpost will be constructed using a combination of several crew and cargo missions. The LSS 

elements will be delivered using Altair Cargo Landers and the crewed mission durations will increase in 

length depending on the availability of logistics cargo, such as food, water and clothing. From a 

Supportability stand-point, the key point is that the availability of Outpost resources such as power, data, 

communications, launch mass allocation, crew time, and stowage volume is increased over time. The 

Supportability concept must evolve within these constrained resources and any technology development 

effort must strive to reduce resource consumption whenever possible. Another key emphasis is to push 

commonality between the various elements of the Lunar Architecture.

The LSS Maintenance and Repair Concept are separated into two main operations phases: Nominal 

and Contingency operations. During nominal operations, the maintenance approach is designed to 

maximize the functional availability of the LSS systems while at the same time reducing the overall 

supportability burden in terms of logistics mass, volume, crew time for maintenance, and cost. The 

activities during nominal operations will follow a pre-determined process and schedule that will be 

managed by the CxP Mission Operations project. During the nominal operations phase, maintenance 

operations are performed on a continuous basis by the ground crew, surface crew and surface robotic 

assets. Even if the surface crew is not present, maintenance operations can continue in an autonomous 

state, especially in the areas of Predictive and Proactive Maintenance where continuous monitoring of the 

status of LSS hardware is important, especially prior to crew arrival. The second area is Contingency 

Operations which occurs when, despite the best efforts to anticipate failures through Preventative and

Predictive Maintenance techniques, a random failure occurs that may or may not threaten the life of the 

crew. During Contingency Operations, the maintenance is “reactive” in that the crew will be reacting to 

an actual hardware failure and the safety off the crew takes the highest priority, and restoring the LSS 

elements to a functional state in the shortest time possible also becomes a driver.

In order to implement the LSS Supportability Concept, a plan is required whose goal is to 

significantly reduce the spares and maintenance cargo resupply from Earth. Ideally, the reduced spares 

and cargo mass reductions come without forcing a significant increase in the consumption of other 

resources such as crew time, power, and data and communications bandwidth. Because all of these 

resources are so intricately linked, the main emphasis of pre-System Requirements Review analysis and 

trades will be to determine the relationships between them and how to best optimize the overall 

Supportability approach to achieve the best balance between them.

The approach is an evolutionary path that begins with the current ISS support program and culminates 

in the 500-day Mars mission. Currently, the ISS support program focuses on LRU-level remove and 
NASA/TM—2011-216785 9

replace procedures which are designed to minimize the amount of crew time required for maintenance. In 

the ISS plan, failed LRUs are replaced on-orbit and then returned to Earth on the Shuttle for 

refurbishment and reflown later. After Shuttle retirement, the ISS program will enter a new phase where 

return of hardware to Earth for refurbishment becomes increasingly difficult. While this has already 

caused an increase in ISS operations costs due to the need to buy new spares, it will help to prepare for 

LSS operations since there will be a new emphasis on repair and in-situ diagnostics, test and root cause 

fault assessment.

The LSS Supportability Concept involves the steps necessary to reduce spares and maintenance cargo 

mass, and is separated into phases including: the initial ISS support phase using the Shuttle as the primary 

resupply vehicle (ending in 2010); the ISS support phase beginning with international vehicle support 

only and then introducing Orion and Commercial Orbital Transportation System (COTS) vehicles as they 

come on line (2010 to 2016+); initial lunar orbital flights and Altair Sortie Missions to the Moon (Human 

Lunar Return in 2021); Lunar Outpost phase (separated into three sub-phases of Construction, Permanent 

Human Presence and Mars-Forward); and finally the Mars mission phase beginning notionally around 

2030. In each of these phases, steps are necessary to approach the end goal of a self-sufficient outpost.

The supportability lessons learned during Lunar Operations will help drive requirements for the future 

Mars missions, and to fine tune the technologies required for Outpost self-sufficiency. The entire structure 

of the LSS Supportability Concept is designed to pave the way for future exploration of Mars and other 

destinations. For the Mars mission, NASA is planning on having one crew and one cargo mission to 

support a 500-day long-duration stay. The Mars Cargo Lander will preposition critical cargo which will 

include not only the spares and maintenance equipment but also scientific exploration cargo, including 

rovers and other elements, life support gases, crew food and clothing and everything else necessary to 

sustain life and support exploration. The Mars crew will have to maintain the hardware elements with 

little support from Earth and strict limits on launch mass and volume. 

5.0 LSS Supportability Needs

Some LSS maintenance and repair needs can be derived from high level Constellation Program 

documents. Since repair technologies involve the details at the component level, lower level capability 

documents will be used whenever available. In a recent Technology Prioritization Plan (TPP) for ETDP 

the LSS Diagnostics, Test and Verification (DTV) and Maintenance and Repair (M&R) capabilities needs 

were ranked numbers 6 and 7 on the LSS priority list. At the time this roadmap was developed Lunar 

Surface Systems was still in the architecture development stage and elements were not decomposed below 

a system level. The Surface Architecture Reference Document (SARD) captures the ground rules and 

assumptions for scenario development and scenario operational concepts. Although not explicit 

requirements, these can be used to anticipate capability needs.

At this early stage the project must use analogs to anticipate LSS needs such as Shuttle and ISS and 

experience. This includes the NASA ISS and STS Logistics Depots experience for lessons learned. The 

recently completed studies by the Component Level Electronic Assembly Repair (CLEAR) project 

determined the types electronics used on ISS and the types of problems experienced. They provide an 

analysis of ISS electronics and contribute to the body of supportability experience and lessons learned.

Lunar missions require LSS to adopt a supportability strategy that is distinctly different from the ISS.

ISS and LSS differ dramatically in the types and intensity of activity. LSS will involve more frequent 

EVAs, more physically intensive operations with severe wear and tear and physical risks. LSS is also 

composed of independently mobile elements which increase the odds of accidental damage.

5.1 Needs From LSS Surface Architecture Reference Document (SARD)

Many of the needs, or derived needs, for LSS M&R can be found in the Surface Architecture 

Reference Document (SARD). The SARD is established by the LSS Architecture Team as it develops 

scenarios or design reference missions to evaluate various vehicle and crew configurations. The SARD 
NASA/TM—2011-216785 10

includes ground rules and assumptions to help establish boundaries of the architecture trade space. These

SARD ground rules explicitly or implicitly affect the Supportability strategy. The ground rules and 

assumptions related to Supportability are interpreted in terms of supportability capability needs. 

The supportability plan as discussed in Section 4.0 is also an appendix of the SARD document. It 

establishes that logistics beyond Earth orbit needs new capabilities to achieve program supportability, and 

affordability. Unlike prior plans, this plan involves minimizing logistics dependence rather than growing 

a logistics infrastructure. The objective is to establish a high level of resource independence which, in 

turn, requires a new capability strategy. 

5.2 ISS Analog M&R Needs Assessment

The Component Level Electronic Assembly Repair (CLEAR) project was aimed at the development 

of repair techniques that would enable crews perform effective component level replacement of faulty 

electronics. This earlier work examined the fundamentals of the basic soldering process in low gravity. It 

also considered the range of capabilities from basic manual soldering up to an automated apparatus 

capable of repairing circuits with the latest generation of high density integrated circuits. These 

capabilities would also be flanked by capabilities to perform diagnostics and tests in support of the repair.

These capabilities would need to fit within the payload, resources and crew time constrains of the 

program. 

The work was based on following premises:

1. In many spacecraft electronics assemblies a major portion of the mass is the enclosure (up to 

60 percent).

2. An individual electronic component may weigh between 1/100th and 1/1000th of a complete ORU.

3. Hardware faults are ultimately repaired at the component level. 

4. Faulty electronics assemblies are composed of mostly good components.

There are clearly opportunities to reduce logistics mass if a diagnostic and repair capabilities can be 

compressed into a compact capability. The CLEAR project demonstrated that solder base repair in low 

gravity is feasible given the appropriate tools and crew training. The project performed an assessment of 

Constellation Program In-Space Electronic Diagnostics and Repair Needs based on the only practical 

analog, the ISS. The project examined electrical system drawings and documents from the ISS Vehicle 

Master Data Base to determine specific materials and processes needed to perform electronic repairs. 

Further, it considered diagnostic and functional test needs. Rather than simply tally up the conventional 

equipment the strategy was to examine the signal measurement needs and develop diagnostic and test 

concept around that information. The study considered the two broad categories of analog (linear) and 

digital electronics.

Analog covers all nondigital devices used in instrumentation, power modulation, audio, transducer 

and motor drivers, and radio communications. Analog signals for LSS are expected to be similar to the 

ISS signals. Figure 1(a), characterizes the analog electrical signals of ISS electronics based on three 

variables Bandwidth, Channel Count, and Dynamic Range. Figure 1(b) characterizes the digital signals of 

ISS electronics based on two variables Clock Speed and Channel Count. Digital circuits may involve 

complex functions but the signals are inherently simple. 

Analog signal measurements cover a very broad range of signal types that are difficult to diagnose by 

embedded techniques and thus requires external diagnostic equipment. To minimize the payload penalty, 

a Synthetic Instrument (SI) approach is recommended. SI employs a single vastly reconfigurable 

instrument set that provides the capability to emulate (synthesize) many different instruments on demand. 

Digital devices are inherently suited for internal Built-in-Test (BIT) capability. Embedded or built in 

diagnostics reduces the need for external equipment and have little or no impact on weight and volume.

The recent trend is toward embedding prognostics at the silicon level that monitors the time 

dependent degradation that eventually results in an end-of-life failure. Embedding this type of prognostic 

capability can be used to extend the life of electronics with less dependence on preemptive replacement.
NASA/TM—2011-216785 11

(a) ISS Avionics analog signals

(b) ISS Avionics digital signals

Figure 1.—Gamut of ISS avionics signal measurement needs.
NASA/TM—2011-216785 12

5.3 Electrical PRACA Analysis

To address the issue of the types of electrical problems how often they occur, CLEAR examined ISS 

electrical problem reports. The analysis of ISS Electrical On-Orbit Problem Reporting and Corrective 

Action (PRACA) Database examined the on orbit electrical problems encountered on ISS. The intent was 

to determine the percentage of problems that could benefit from diagnostics and the percentage that 

involve component level repair. Roughly 770 On-Orbit Problem Reports were recorded through a period 

ending in March 2008 of these 328 were problems associated with electrical systems. A number of 

patterns emerged from the on orbit PRACAs that suggest certain shortcomings in the current system.

Despite the widespread use of Built-In Test capability there were numerous cases of ambiguity about 

the root cause of a fault. The study concluded that these BIT capabilities do not extend down to 

component level where the faults actually occur. Due to ORU remove and replace strategy, the expense of 

embedding BIT capability much below ORU level is deemed as unnecessary. Once a faulty ORU is 

removed the root cause investigation is differed until the item is returned to Earth. This is contrary to the 

“Proactive Maintenance” approach outlined in Section 4.0. For LSS, there is no option to return faulty 

equipment to Earth and thus the root cause analysis drives the need for component level diagnostics by 

embedded or external means.

Certain ISS problem reports involved hardware that simply exceeded their expected end-of-life. Most 

common incidence of EOL hardware faults were in the ISS light fixtures (66 PRACAs) which is 

considered a “logistics issue” rather than a reliability issue. The logistic solution is to perform preemptive 

replacements which actually increase the logistics burden by forcing the premature retirement of 

operating hardware. This implies the need for embedded prognostics to indicate the onset of EOL failures 

and even indicate life remaining. Embedded prognostic maximizes service life and minimizes preemptive 

maintenance and logistics.

The study concluded that roughly 63 percent of the electrical problems would benefit from additional

diagnostics, particularly for root cause analysis, and about 42 percent of the problems could be ultimately

resolved by a component level replacement. Many problems are related to operations or software and not 

hardware, therefore diagnostics does not always result in a repair. For LSS where ground based servicing 

is nonexistent, diagnostics that can provide insight to the lowest levels is essential to minimizing effort 

and driving directly to the root cause. 

5.4 Capability Needs Categories

Lunar Surface Systems evaluation of technology priorities ranked the DTV and M&R categories as 

number 6 and 7 out of many other technology categories. However, scavenging and recycling continues 

to grow in importance as the lunar architecture studies consider scenarios to reduce costs. 

5.4.1 Diagnostics, Test and Verification (DTV)

This category addresses the need to diagnose and test a wide variety of potential electrical and 

mechanical system problems. Effective repair requires initial diagnosis and knowledge of the root cause.

Test and Verification are required to verify that repaired hardware is truly functional and suitable to be 

returned to service.

5.4.2 Maintenance and Repair (M&R)

Roughly half the problems on the Space Station involved electrical system problems. Most electrical 

hardware problems can be traced to faulty components that can be simply replaced. For practical reasons 

spacecraft mechanical and structural hardware tend to have little or no redundancy. Often there are no 

spares, particularly, for larger components. Performing an in-situ repair of major mechanical or structural 

components may be the only option on the Moon. Unlike Space Station, LSS will also have substantial 

wear and tear problems. 
NASA/TM—2011-216785 13

5.4.3 Scavenging and Recycling (S&R)

These capabilities are growing in importance as LSS tries to maximize the effectiveness of lunar 

payloads and minimize the program cost, particularly when a lunar outpost is established. In lieu of a 

robust logistics system and the uncertainty regarding in-situ material technology the expended descent 

section of the Altair lunar lander is considered a “resource” for hardware and material logistics.

5.5 Derived Supportability Capabilities

Table 1 is a listing of needed capabilities derived from interpretation of the SARD Assumptions and 

Ground Rules, LSS Supportability Concept, CLEAR Project Analysis of ISS, and STS Lessons Learned 

from Flight Operations and Logistics Depots.

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF DERIVED SUPPORTABILITY CAPABILITY NEEDS

Capability need Rationale

Embedded diagnostics and 

prognostics employed at lowest 

levels in electronics.

Many ISS “root cause unknown” results from lack of an ability to identify and isolate a fault 

below ORU level. Component level Embedded DTV reduces the need and the payload penalties 

of external instruments.

Employ synthetic instrument 

approach when embedded is 

not feasible

Certain circuits (particularly analog) have signals or support dependencies that are not 

effectively addressed by embedded techniques. Synthetic Instruments is intended to minimize 

the instrument payload penalties of large conventional test equipment. SI exploits advances in 

FPGA and Signal Manifold technologies.

Embedded structural fault 

detection and location system.

Flight weight structures are highly stressed and designed with narrow margins. These structures 

are not damage tolerant and lives may depend on quickly detecting, locating and repairing a 

fault.

Conductor and connector fault 

detection, isolation and signal 

rerouting.

Conductors (cables and connectors) are significant source of electrical problems and are 

vulnerable to operational and environment damage. Conductors in complex harnesses are 

difficult to repair. Emerging techniques called “signal manifolds” can actively redirect signals 

through alternate paths around the damage conductor.

Diagnostic RFID, fluid and 

electrical line locator.

Cable harness and fluid line repair involves locating a specific line among many and is time 

consuming and prone to risk of further damage. To minimize the disruption and risk, RFID tags 

can be used to quickly locate a specific line at key access points.

Remote in-situ calibration DTV and Repair equipment must be properly calibrated. Without an option for returning 

equipment to Earth for calibration, Remote or in-situ calibration is the only viable option.

Accessible enclosures for ease 

of assembly, diagnostic, repair 

with minimum loss of integrity

Space systems are difficult to access for diagnostics and repair. An enclosure that unfolds to 

allow diagnostics and test without violating system integrity dramatically simplifies repair 

operations. It is also highly applicable to scavenging.

Reconfigurable electronics Reconfigurable electronics allows us to use scavenged hardware as spares to reduce logistics.

Component reparability and 

scavengability

In-situ repair is viable if the materials selected are suited to scavenging, repair and reuse with 

minimum processing.

Noncontact measurement Measurements made by optical or imaging methods are essential to support diagnostic and 

repair of hardware with a minimum set of instruments. Noncontact methods also avoid risk of 

damage and wear in harsh process environments.

Metal weld repair Major structures are not supported by spares and must be repaired in-situ. Electron Beam 

technology can weld repair cracks, rejoins or reinforces broken metal hardware and even 

upgrade utility by weld-on features.

Material cutting and sizing Repairs exploits scavenged materials require cutting and trimming techniques suitable for 

extracting a variety of materials of varied shape and size.

Manual and automated 

electronic component repair

Electronics assemblies are almost entirely built by solder processes. Depending on complexity 

solder repairs may be done manually or by automated equipment.

Surface repairs, in situ 

restoration of damaged 

hardware surfaces

Many mechanical faults involve damaged surfaces. Surface damage in flanges and hatches 

cause leakage. Rotating shafts, bearings, and motors are vulnerable to surface damage. Repair 

must also treat surface properties: (Hardness, corrosion resistance, conductivity)

Materials scavenging, recycling 

and fabrication feedstock 

generation

Scavenging materials and reusing them requires converting the reclaimed material into a 

suitable feedstock that is versatile and minimizes the material logistics infrastructure.

In situ fabrication capabilities To exploit scavenged or recycled materials requires a space compatible fabrication process 

capable of producing usable end products with little or no process consumables and no post 

processing.
NASA/TM—2011-216785 14

6.0 LSS Supportability Strategy

The Vision for Space Exploration involves an “expansion process” but NASA budgets are not 

expanding and are, in fact, only a fraction of the Apollo Program. Budget constraints require NASA to 

keep a program affordable and sustainable because once the capability is in place the ongoing operational 

cost is a constraint to future capabilities. This has been the experience with the Space Shuttle and the 

International Space Station where the operations cost of the established capability limits the ability of 

NASA to pursue its next objective. 

There is concern that a Lunar Outpost will likewise restrict the future of space exploration. The 

technologies that support the Lunar Outpost must minimize support cost but also provide a high value or

return on investment (ROI). A high ROI not only helps reduce constraints on future programs but may 

also reduce the costs of Mars exploration. 

6.1 Strategy: Resource Independence

This section defines a strategy that considers the overall goal, considers constraints and the lessons 

learned and the needs determined in the previous sections. The strategy involves developing capabilities 

based on technologies that can reduce or eliminating the dependency on imported hardware, material and 

operational resources. It exploits the environment and the material properties and behaviors in the lunar 

environment. The supportability strategy is to build capabilities that achieve a high level of logistics 

resource independence and minimize the cost of sustaining operations. 

6.1.1 Low Consumable Dependencies

Lunar environment itself can be considered the equivalent to a resource that can be used to reduce 

process support needs. For example, soldering and welding repair operations can be performed in a 

vacuum without flux agents by exploiting the lunar environment and employing technologies that can preclean a surface without consumables. Reducing dependency on a critical process consumable also reduces 

risk. If the supply of a consumable is exhausted the process is halted and the capability is lost. This may 

cripple a crew’s ability to repair a problem with the possible loss of capability or even loss of mission.

Process technology that is not bound to a complex set of logistic consumables is innately robust.

6.1.2 Resources From Scavenging and Recycling

In the long term, many materials can be extracted from the lunar surface by In-Situ Resource 

Utilization (ISRU). In the near term, portions of the lander can be scavenged and reused for spares or 

secondary applications. Scavenging can be done at various levels of assembly from LRU to component 

level and even the raw materials can be scavenged or recycled for various applications. 

6.1.3 Vitamin Logistics

The term “vitamin technology” was coined to describe an approach to lunar logistics where payload 

mass is minimized and value is maximized by importing small amounts of high value technology and 

combining it with low value in situ materials and technology (Ref. 6). This is based on an analogy from 

biology where bulk consumption of foods must be augmented with small amounts of essential “vitamins”

to assure health. It addresses the reality that capabilities of independent operations still benefit from 

importing small amounts of vital materials. By focusing costly logistics payload capacity on high value 

technology and materials while exploiting the low value bulk materials available from scavenging, 

recycling and in-situ sources; logistics may be much more effective. A microprocessor or field 

programmable device can be considered a vitamin technology. Further, a high value “vitamin material”

may be an alloying element or special plating material that greatly enhances the properties of simple bulk 

material.
NASA/TM—2011-216785 15

6.1.4 “Bootstrap” Capability Expansion

Certain technologies are attractive because they are versatile enough to expand capabilities in a 

“bootstrap” strategy. A bootstrap capability provides the flexibility to exploit resources and expand its 

initial capability. This implies some form of fabrication technology that can convert hardware assets and 

materials into a new product. Such a product would include tools, fixtures, and other aids that are not 

otherwise part of a tool inventory. An example of a bootstrap capability for the lunar environment may be 

using scavenged hardware to construct simple resource gathering tools, build fixtures that aid in 

fabrication and repair, construct simple structures that support energy collection and storage, or convert 

surplus tanks or logistics modules into LSS Depot applications. 

6.1.5 Capabilities Consistent With the Resource Independence Strategy

The supportability lessons learned, supportability capability needs and the resource independence 

strategy can be distilled into general technology characteristics that best meet the needs.

• Ease of Use: Low demand for crew, operations, and engineering support resources (operational 

effectiveness).

• Lunar Environment Compatibility: This reduces containment needs, resource consumables and 

maximizes the utility in the lunar environment. 

• Resource Effectiveness: Minimizes logistics resources dependency and maximizes exploitation 

of available or in-situ resources 

• High Utility: Provides or supports a wide variety of applications included bootstrap expansion.

• Risk Impact: Reduce risk or empower the crew to effectively respond to risk. 

6.2 Scavenging and Recycling Impact on Supportability

Scavenging and Recycling (S&R) improves “Return on Investment” of Supportability is more 

deterministic. That is, DTV and M&R technology normally sits and waits for something to break.

Whereas, the technology employed as part of S&R operations will have specific roles. DTV will be used 

to assess the initial serviceability of the scavenged hardware, evaluate repairs or modifications, and 

perform functional tests to verify the hardware is suitable for service. The M&R equipment is used 

directly in assembly and repair or reconfiguration of scavenged hardware. Scavenging thus provides a 

specific and scheduled role for the technologies and places a quantifiable value on the supportability 

technology. 

6.2.1 Consumables Scavenging

LSS plans to “scavenge” residual propellants (H2 and O2) for power and water. This capability is 

already covered under the In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) project and is not included in this 

roadmap.

6.2.2 Hardware Scavenging

This involves extracting serviceable hardware from the lunar lander or other spent flight hardware.

The priority is to employ scavenged hardware as spares. The hardware spares can be acquired at various 

levels from LRU level, SRU level, and down to the component level. The next priority is to reuse

hardware for secondary applications including the bootstrap expansion of outpost infrastructure and a 

potential LSS Depot capability.

Hardware scavenging has an impact on DTV needs. DTV technologies can be used for diagnostics, 

prognostics and evaluation of scavenged hardware. It can be used for performing functional test and 

verification of scavenged hardware prior to reuse. Hardware scavenging also has an impact on M&R 

needs. M&R capabilities support the disassembly of LRUs for lower-level spares can be used in the repair 

and reconfiguration of hardware.
NASA/TM—2011-216785 16

6.2.3 Materials Scavenging and Recycling

Materials extracted from landers, logistics modules, and reclaimable waste can be used as material for 

repair and fabrication. Materials extracted from landers can serve as feedstock for repair and fabrication. 

This, in turn, drives the need to embed scavenge-ability into hardware and materials selection. Materials 

scavenging and recycling is a primary driver of advanced process technologies including Electron Beam 

and Ion Beam based processes.

A Mars mission will be highly dependent on material recycling, and the proposed resource 

independence strategy of the Lunar Outpost will demonstrate material recycling technologies.

It should be noted that materials recycling has drawn significant attention in recent years. The LSS 

S&R technologies may have important environmental-social-economic spin-off potential as “green 

technologies” that may provide a tangible return on investment in terrestrial applications.

6.3 Develop Embedded and Process Capabilities 

Maintenance and repair are commonly viewed as involving external processes. However, there are 

many opportunities to embed a capability into hardware. By embedding as much capability into the 

design of the flight hardware as possible the program can minimize the up-mass of external equipment.

Further, the features that assure that hardware is repairable by in-situ processes must be done in the initial 

design. Therefore embedded and process technologies are co-dependent, and development of one 

influences the other.

Process and embedded technologies have different development criteria and are addressed in the 

following sections. These lower-level criteria will be consistent with the development strategy, and used 

to screen the initial set of technologies and used in down-selecting candidate technologies. The criteria 

will be balanced so that negative and positive aspects keep the evaluation simple and minimize the need 

for weight functions. Criteria will need to be reviewed and refined by stakeholders. In many cases, the 

selection criteria may also serve as the basis for Key Performance Parameters (KPP) which are used to 

monitor the progress of the technology development.

6.4 Technology Infusion

Generally, Technology Readiness Level (TRL) level 6 is considered mature enough for infusion into 

a space flight program (Ref. 7). Currently, the schedule shows that the first Altair vehicle will fly in 2021.

Technology for Altair must be at TRL-6 by the time the preliminary design review is complete. Although 

the criteria for selecting a capability are driven primarily by needs, there may be multiple technology 

options available. Technology selection requires further criteria that consider the needs in a context of 

constraints or operational drivers, such as, size, weight power (SWP), crew operations, and training

(Ref. 8). In Sections 7.0 and 8.0 these criteria are identified and will be used to evaluate the candidate 

technologies. The criteria will be further refined and technologies will be characterized in the formulation 

phase by feasibility studies and technology assessments.

The technology development funding for Constellation is very constrained and not all technologies 

can be funded. All technologies will be screened by a process that involves evaluating the following 

criteria. 

• TRL: Current Technology Readiness Level (1 to 6) where TRL-6 is regarded as the technology 

infusion point. 

• SWP Cost: Size, Weight and Power Impact: Increase/decrease in payload and related cost

• Crew Operational Cost: Impact on crew time, training and engineering support cost that offsets 

payload impact.

• Risk Impact: How does the technology reduce risk or provide a response to risk

• Down Selection: Technical issue or competing technology would prevent the technology from 

being adopted that is not a programmatic Schedule or Cost issue.
NASA/TM—2011-216785 17

7.0 Embedded Supportability Technologies

Supportability technologies can be designed-in or “embedded” into the flight hardware to minimize 

the need for external hardware with little impact to weight and power. Embedded technologies however 

impose added development risk in the host hardware and must be integrated into the flight hardware 

development schedule. Embedded technology should be at high TRL for infusion into the Altair flight 

vehicle development path. The development of embedded supportability technologies has a direct impact 

on the process technology development. In some cases, embedded minimizes the need for process 

equipment while in others the embedded technology assures the effectiveness of the external process 

technology.

7.1 Embedded Technology Development Criteria

Derived from general needs, lessons learned, and specific assumptions and ground rules from the 

Surface Architecture Reference Document, this section describes the capabilities or special properties

that can be embedded into systems. The following list represents the capabilities needed and evaluations 

of embedded technologies will consider how well these needs are met. The criteria below are intended to 

assure that the technologies are consistent with the Supportability Strategy. 

7.1.1 Access for Maintenance, Repair and Scavenging

Embedded technologies need to assure that hardware is accessible for maintenance, repair and 

scavenging.

Rationale: This includes considering the time effectiveness of manual and automated access with 

minimum violation of system integrity. Depot and ISS flight experiences indicate that crew time to extract

LRUs, hook up equipment de-integrate, access components, re-integrate and test assemblies far exceeds

the time involved in the actual component repair. This is expected to be the same for scavenging 

operations. Therefore, embedding features that enhance accessibility and preserve integrity also improve 

supportability.

7.1.2 Embedded Diagnostics

Embedded technologies need to provide diagnostic capabilities from the system down to component 

level.

Rationale: The ISS PRACA report history indicates that current built-in-test capability on ISS 

provides limited insight into problems below the ORU level. There are a substantial number of “unknown 

root cause” statements in the ISS PRACA system that, currently, can only be resolved by returning 

equipment to the Earth. Component level embedded diagnostics reduces external equipment, and speeds 

problem isolation. Further, it also reduces the time and cost of unneeded replacement due to root cause 

ambiguity or misdiagnosis.

7.1.3 Embedded Prognostics

Embedded technologies need to provide prognostics capability from the system level down to 

component level.

Rationale: Component level embedded prognostics reduce external equipment, reduce ambiguity, and 

speeds problem isolation. Prognostics are aimed at detecting time dependent (aging effects) that will 

ultimately end the life of otherwise reliable hardware. End of life is dependent on variations in the 

original manufacturing and service life history. The preemptive “time based maintenance” approach 

means the service life is cut short. An embedded means of tracking life experience and degradation is 

needed. Embedded prognostics devices can track life experience by sharing the same experience and 

same degradation environment. Specific internal indicators can be used to alert the system and predict an 
NASA/TM—2011-216785 18

end of life failure. Thus as a form of “condition based maintenance” it eliminates the need for wasteful 

preemptive replacement without the risks of running the system to failure.

7.1.4 Common Components and Interfaces

Embedded technologies need to provide a high level of commonality that minimizes M&R equipment 

needs, operational resources needs, component spares required.

Rationale: Commonality has elevated importance when scavenging of flight components as spares.

The ability to repair with scavenged components will depend on the ability to transplant components from 

one system to another. 

7.1.5 Adaptable, Reconfigurable Hardware

Embedded technologies need to provide flexibility or innate reconfigure-ability to support applications 

beyond the original flight function.

Rationale: Re-using flight hardware may require reorganization of internal functions or combining 

basic functions with other hardware (and functions) to provide new capabilities. This has implications for 

software and interconnection designs. In some cases, the adaptability can be seen as an alternative to 

imposing commonality. 

7.1.6 Scavengable Components

Embedded technologies need to provide an ability to safely extract components and reuse them

without substantial loss in reliability.

Rationale: Scavenged components intended as spares will still need to provide a high level of 

reliability. Designers will need to consider how a component can be mounted that will allow it to be 

extracted, stored, and reused in a condition suitable for reuse as a spare or for new applications

7.1.7 Scavengable Recyclable Materials

Embedded technologies need to provide materials that are compatible with the lunar environment and 

can be scavenged and recycled with a minimum set of processes.

Rationale: The success of the supportability strategy depends on developing lunar compatible 

materials and processes that do not require massive equipment or imported process materials. This means 

limiting the choice of materials which may have an impact on vehicle payload performance. The trade-off 

between maximum performance and reusability must consider the supportability impact. 

7.1.8 Deratable Design for Repaired or Scavenged Hardware

Flight hardware needs to provide a capacity to operate in a derated mode that allows scavenged or 

repaired hardware to operate under less stress and provide extended useful life.

Rationale: Repaired and scavenged hardware cannot be as thoroughly tested as the original acceptance

tests and thus there is uncertainty about reliability. Designing hardware to operate in a derated mode 

lowers stress, adds margin and improves reliability and operational life.

7.2 Embedded Technology by Capability Category

In Figure 2 the three main capability categories in embedded technologies are further decomposed to 

capability sub-categories. The capability needs are defined for each sub-category and “candidate”

technologies are briefly discussed. Note that in some cases the sub-categories are better described as 

hardware or material properties rather than capabilities. 
NASA/TM—2011-216785 19

Figure 2.—Embedded technology needed for LSS Supportability.

7.3 Embedded Diagnostics, Test and Verification Category

7.3.1 Embedded Diagnostic and Prognostic Capabilities

This capability provides the diagnostic and prognostic capability from ORU level down to component 

levels. The techniques can assist in detecting and isolating faults and problems that evade system level 

detection. Further, new techniques permit the prediction of the ultimate end of life at the silicon level for 

electronics. For large structural components techniques are needed that assist the crew in detecting and 

locating dangerous cabin leaks and potentially catastrophic structural cracks.

• Silicon Level Prognostics: Embedded in electronics, features at silicon level that serves as a 

“canary device” that provides an early detection of age dependent degradation and indicates end 

of life (Refs. 9, 10, and 11).

• Component Level Diagnostics: Embedded in electronics, techniques that detects lead cracking in 

large IC packages such as Ball Grid Array (BGA) packages (Ref. 12).

• Power Component Diagnostics: Ring-down technique to expose degradation of power 

components (Ref. 13).

• Automated Leak Location: Acoustic sensor network for detecting and quickly locating cabin 

pressure leaks.

• Automated Crack Detection: Acoustic sensor network for detecting structural cracks.

7.3.2 Embedded Signal Diagnostic Capabilities

Diagnosing and testing of hardware is often impeded by complex connectors and wiring harnesses 

and the need to build custom test adapters for each application. Analog wiring is particularly troublesome 

because each line may have unique signal properties and be susceptible to interference and loss of signal 
NASA/TM—2011-216785 20

integrity. There are multiple options around this problem. Converting analog to digital not only reduces 

sensitivity but allows data to be sent via high speed serial data links that use common conductors, 

connectors, and interface protocols. If plug-n-play features are embedded, then hardware can be 

disconnected and reconnected elsewhere in the system assuring portability. This portability is particularly 

important for scavenging and reuse of flight hardware. The “Smart Transducer” approach extends 

network connections and flexibility down to the individual device level. By tapping into multiple 

networks the transducer has a fault tolerant way of sending and receiving data. The penalty of this Smart 

Transducer is the added complexity and need for a Smart Transducer Interface Module (STIM) and an 

internal Transducer Electronic Data Sheet (TEDS).

Many electronic problems only appear when the units are physically interconnected and operating. 

Often it is necessary to attach multiple instruments to observe signals. In some cases, it is necessary to 

inject a stimulus signal and observe a response. To diagnose these problems requires an ability to tap into 

signals between units without violating system integrity or distorting signals.

• Diagnostic Networks: Embeds networking at the transducer level and provides a means to

reconfigure avionics to isolate devices and perform ad-hoc in-circuit testing. It employs new 

IEEE 1451 “Smart Transducer” standards where each device includes a Network Capable 

Application Processor (NCAP), a Smart Transducer Interface Module (STIM) and an embedded 

Transducer Electronic Data Sheet (TEDS) (Ref. 14).

• Smart Connector: May be used as an embedded or external technique. Provides signals

monitoring of integrated systems and reduces the number of specialty test connectors while 

reducing fault ambiguity. It may be further enhanced if combined with “signal manifold”

technology.

• Signal Manifolds: Employs MEMS technology that provide complex signal routing on 

impedance “tunable” lines for accurate in-situ diagnostics and tests without violating integrity or 

requiring insertion of test adapters. This also allows for remote signal rerouting without physical 

intrusion (Refs. 15 to 17).

7.3.3 Diagnostic Operations Capabilities

These capabilities address the physical aspect of diagnostics and repair operations. Locating and 

repairing faulty wires, components, and fluid lines is impeded by the large number of lines packed into 

spacecraft and the ambiguous markings used.

• Diagnostic RFID: Embedded RFID tags can assist in the physical location and replacement of 

the correct components or lines and even provide ancillary data to support tests (Ref. 18).

7.4 Embedded Maintenance and Repair Category

7.4.1 PnP Avionics Capabilities

This is an adaptation of capabilities developed by the Air Force Research Lab as part of the PnP 

Satellite Program that employs multiple technologies to rapidly integrate a satellite in 6 days. The 

capabilities combine Structural, Avionics, and Power accessibility in one design. PnP Avionics includes 

enclosures with integrated hinged walls where avionics boxes can be literally unfolded without 

disconnecting or violating the system integrity. It includes PnP self-organizing network connections; it 

also involves power utilities that are embedded in both the network connections and the structure. Further 

development is needed to adapt these technologies for fault tolerant human rated applications.

• PnP Accessible Enclosures: Highly accessible enclosure assemblies with unfold-able or hinged 

structural joints. This structure allows the integrator to structurally disconnect panel hinge-points 

of a cube shaped enclosure so that it can lay flat for ease of access (Ref. 19).
NASA/TM—2011-216785 21

• PnP Reconfigurable Avionics: Plug-N–Play network that automatically configures the 

connection and reads the IEEE 1451 Smart Sensor Electronic Data Sheet (Ref. 19).

• PnP Embedded Power: Embeds power distribution ports in enclosure structural panels (Ref. 20).

7.4.2 Electronic Component Reparability Capabilities

This need involves developing components that are designed to permit field repairs with minimum 

processing. This includes eliminating features that impede access, removal, and reinstallation of 

components. This could include developing a removable conformal tape that could eliminate conformal 

coatings used on electronics. This includes reintroducing the use of IC sockets designed to be vibration 

and shock resistant and provide a near tool-less method of replacing integrated circuits.

• Hi Reliable IC Sockets: Simple repair by special IC mounting sockets allows replacement of 

Integrated circuits with simple hand tools (Ref. 21).

• Low ESD Conformal Tapes: Simple low static discharge conforming tape permits removal and 

reapplication of conformal protection without physical damage or hazardous chemicals. This tape 

may be derived from high temperature low ESD tapes used in circuit fabrication (Ref. 22).

7.5 Embedded Scavenge and Recycle Category

7.5.1 Scavenge-Recyclable Capabilities

This sub-category involves embedding properties that supports scavenge and recycling capabilities. 

They improve hardware and material scavenging by either simplifying the scavenge process or by 

improving the reusability of hardware. For materials, scavenging and recycling implies selecting materials 

that can be processed in the lunar environment. For example: high temperature electronics are intended to 

address the reusability of scavenged electronic components by eliminating the need for central thermal 

control system.

• Recyclable Structures: Structures made of materials that are easily recycled for new applications.

• High Temperature Electronics: High temperature tolerance eliminates or reduces the need for 

heat sinks and cold plates and may eliminate the need for a central thermal control interfaces and 

improve portability.

• Reconfigurable Thermal Control: Removable reconfigurable avionics thermal control that 

provides portability and less dependence on centralized active thermal control.

• Reconfigurable Enclosures: This is an extension of PnP avionics that involves developing 

avionics enclosures that can be decomposed into panels and reused to create new avionics 

assemblies (Ref. 19).

7.6 Embedded Technology Preliminary Characterization

A preliminary characterization of the “technology candidates” in terms of technology infusion is 

shown in Table 2. This can be considered an initial screening based on commonly used parameters 

described in Section 6.0.
NASA/TM—2011-216785 22

TABLE 2.—EMBEDDED TECHNOLOGY PRELIMINARY CHARACTERIZATION

Technology TRL SWP 

cost

Crew cost Risk impact 

or utility

Selection 

issues

Silicon level prognostics 5 No impact Reduced Reduces unexpected EOL, enables in-situ root cause 

analysis None

Component level diagnostics 5 No impact Reduced Enables in-situ root cause analysis None

Power component diagnostics 4 Low Reduced Reduces unexpected EOL, enables in-situ root cause 

analysis Redundancy

Automated leak location 3 Low Reduced Enables rapid response to cabin air leakage Integration

Automated crack detection 2 Low Reduced Enables rapid response to structural cracking event Tech maturity

Diagnostic networks 4 Low Reduced Provides automated internal isolation and test of circuits Determinism

Smart connector 4 Low Reduced Reduces ambiguity, prevents R&R errors None

Signal manifold 4 Low Reduced Enables signal rerouting around failed connections Configuration 

control

Diagnostic RFID 4-5 Low Reduced Reduces errors and explicitly identifies and tracks 

hardware Optical methods

PnP accessible enclosures 5 Medium Reduced Enables simple physical access, reduces violation of 

system integrity

Encapsulation 

requirements

PnP reconfigurable avionics 5 Low Reduced Enables rapid integration of new functions, reduces 

integrity violation

Determinism, 

redundancy

PnP embedded power 4 Low Reduced Enables rapid power integration Determinism, 

redundancy

Hi reliable IC sockets 2-3 Low Reduced Enables rapid R&R of electronic components Vibe specs

Conformal tapes 2-3 Low Reduced Enables rapid restoration of conformal coatings Reliability

Recyclable structures 2 Medium Reduced Enables structural elements to be reused by simple 

processes for repairs Weight

High temperature electronics 3 Improves Reduced Possible elimination of active thermal control Tech maturity

Reconfigurable thermal control 3 Improves Reduced Enables greater LRU portability Tech maturity

Reconfigurable enclosures 4 Medium Reduced Enables enclosure reassembly for new applications Tech maturity

7.7 Embedded Development Schedules3

Embedded technologies impose some added development risk in the host hardware and must be 

integrated into the flight hardware development schedule. Because the primary vehicle of interest is the 

Altair lunar lander, the schedules for all embedded technologies are virtually locked-in with the vehicle 

schedule, as illustrated in Figure 3. The technologies are aimed at specific capabilities within the three 

main categories. There is limited overlap or competition between the embedded technologies. The 

primary competition is between embedded and the equivalent process technology. A selected embedded 

technology may reduce the need for a process technology. In other cases a process technology is 

dependent on certain embedded features. Therefore, embedded technology selections are expected to 

impact the selections of Process Technology.

 3

Recently updated program schedules indicate that Altair flights begin in 2021. 
NASA/TM—2011-216785 23

Figure 3.—Embedded Capabilities Development Schedule.

7.8 Embedded Technology Development Cost Considerations

Of the capabilities listed many involve a distinct technology that is embedded or added to the flight 

hardware design. In some instances the capabilities can be interpreted as design features or properties that 

are incorporated with little impact on the overall vehicle development. Some demonstration may be 

required to validate the TRL. Certain capabilities such as Air Force Research Lab Plug-N-Play Avionics 

technologies or Navy’s NAVAIR Avionics Technology programs may be acquired through a cost sharing 

collaboration with the Air Force and Navy. Note that the ETDP role in embedded technology 

development ends when the technology is infused and the flight program becomes responsible for flight 

development.

8.0 Supportability Process Technologies

Derived from general needs, lessons learned, and specific assumptions and ground rules from the 

Surface Architecture Reference Document, this section describes the capabilities needed and the 

technologies intended to meet them. Process technologies are external to flight hardware and development 

is driven by end applications. The development schedules for process technology are similar to 

independent payloads and are not expected to be on the flight vehicle development path. As described in 

the previous section, the development of process technology is somewhat dependent on selections made 

in embedded technology. If there is technical or program reason not to adopt an embedded solution, then 

an external process may replace it. In other cases, a process technology may depend on the design 

materials selection and changes in materials will directly impact the viability of a specific process.

8.1 Process Capability Criteria

Process technology will need to be demonstrated independent of the flight hardware and may include 

demonstration aboard ISS. The criteria below are intended to assure that the technologies are consistent 

with the Supportability Strategy. 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Feasibility Process Technologies

Down 

Selection

SDR PDR

Embedded Technologies

Embedded Selections 

Impacts Process Selections

CDR

TRL-6

Altair 

Flights
NASA/TM—2011-216785 24

8.1.1 Environment Compatibility Criteria

A process that is compatible with the space environment eliminates the complexities of preserving 

materials and hardware in space. Environment compatibility minimizes process support and containment 

equipment and, in turn, simplifies operation and logistics. Consistent with the Supportability Strategy, 

developing process technologies that are compatible also reduce resource dependency. Process 

compatibility is primarily an issue of base material and process material compatibility. Processes that 

require an atmosphere impose added burdens on the crew cabin environment; instead processes should be 

selected that are suited to the lunar environment.

8.1.2 Process Dependency Criteria

Process dependency may be defined as the need for external infrastructure, consumable material 

resources, and pre and post processes and equipment, crew or robotic operation support, or dedicated 

process containment required to perform processes. Dependencies are contrary to the supportability 

strategy of resource independence. They are also a measure of the process’s logistics and operational 

complexity. A thorough breakdown and description of these dependencies is a system engineering task 

that is needed for an informed technology evaluation. 

8.1.3 Resource Effectiveness Criteria

The supportability strategy based on resource independence requires that the resources imported from 

Earth be minimized, and effectively used. In addition, the strategy requires developing capabilities to 

exploit available resources effectively. As capability builds, the long term goal is to switch from an 

entirely logistics based resource consumption to in-situ resource consumption. The use of scavenged 

hardware and materials from flight systems is a transitional capability that bridges the gap between pure 

logistics and in-situ resource utilization

8.1.4 Process Utility Criteria

The process utility is intended to select technologies that provide the greatest possible utility from a 

small set of capabilities in order to achieve the Supportability strategy. Process Technologies will be 

evaluated for their ability to support multiple applications across the DTV, M&R and S&R categories.

The utility evaluation also evaluates the technology for utility in both internal (IVA) and external (EVA) 

applications. The evaluation assesses the utility as a manual, automated or robotic process. The utility 

evaluation of a process determines the potential to expand or to “bootstrap” an existing capability. For 

example: technologies that can produce tools can effectively expand capabilities without additional 

payloads.

TABLE 3.—PROCESS TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION CRITERIA

Environment 

compatibility

Dependency Resource

effectiveness

Utility

Gravity Infrastructure Common logistics resources Utility across categories

High vacuum Logistics resource Scavenged hardware EVA and IVA utility

Thermal Pre and Post Process Scavenged materials Manual, robotic utility

Radiation Operational Lunar environment Capability expansion 

Dust Containment 

8.2 Process Capabilities

The three main capability categories in process technologies are further decomposed to capability 

sub-categories. The capability needs are defined for each sub-category and “candidate” technologies are 

shown.
NASA/TM—2011-216785 25

Figure 4.—Process technology needed for LSS Supportability.

8.3 Diagnostics, Test and Verification Process Category

This capability provides the diagnostic and prognostic capability from ORU level down to component 

levels. The techniques can assist in detecting and isolating faults and problems that evade system level 

detection. The technologies shown here are external processes and in some cases overlap the capabilities 

of the embedded technology. Unlike embedded, however, process technology is more flexible with 

broader application and utility. Process DTV technologies may also serve as back-up whenever embedded 

DTV is rendered inoperative. The result of selecting an embedded technique will impact the related 

process technology, but it is unlikely embedded solutions will eliminate processes entirely. The following 

describes the technology candidates for three DTV Process Sub-Categories:

8.3.1 Electronic Diagnostics and Test Processes

This subcategory is very important because electronics have many built-in functions and special 

instruments are the only way to observe these functions. Even mechanical systems rely on electronics for 

remote command, control, and data acquisition.

• Diagnostic Signature Analysis: Diagnostics based on graphical trace comparison of a known 

good signature against a suspect signature that allows unskilled users to located circuit faults.

Tech development involves broadening the range by integrating complex signature analysis

(Ref. 23).

• Synthetic Instruments: A technique using advanced FPGA techniques to replace conventional 

instruments with a single compact unit capable of “synthesizing” various instruments on demand. 

Tech development aimed at eliminating analog dynamic range and signal routing limitations

(Ref. 24).

• Wire Connector Diagnostics: Methods of evaluating wire harness and connector integrity rapidly 

using combined electrical and physical response to an injected signal (Ref. 25).
NASA/TM—2011-216785 26

8.3.2 Noncontact Measurement

This subcategory is primarily aimed at measuring mechanical hardware dimensions and internal 

material properties. Noncontact, optical, dimensional measurements and various imaging technologies 

can make measurements with fewer tools that also do not interfere with the processes they support.

Further, they provide measurement of key internal properties and can detect hidden flaws. 

• 3–D Optical Measurements: Optical measurement of three dimensions and surface properties can 

eliminate a variety of unique measurement tools.

• X-Ray Imaging: Used to provide internal flaw detection, measure internal dimensions, and 

provide materials properties. It has been used to investigate mechanical problems nonintrusively

• Electron Beam Imaging: Electron Beams have an extreme range of imaging scales and are 

compatible with the lunar environment. Integrating E-Beam imaging with welding and fabrication 

technology is possible. 

8.3.3 In-Situ Diagnostics Support

This subcategory involves technologies specifically aimed at assisting the user (crew). It includes a 

local node attached to the Constellation Command, Control, Communications and Information (C3I)

infrastructure and for diagnostics support. This capability will also include local information libraries and 

data archives that can support the user in case communications are lost. The RFID and digital user 

assistant devices are at fairly high TRL level and should be linked to Altair for early applications. Remote 

calibration, however, is a problem with no clear solution and warrants further investigation.

• Diagnostic RFID: Exploits RFID to help identify and track repair hardware and assist in 

physically locating and identifying faulty LRUs and specific harness cables (Ref. 18).

• Portable Electronic Diagnostic Assistant: Based on U.S. Navy NAVAIR unit that provides the 

user interface and various maintenance libraries that are automatically synched and refreshed and 

with ground based sources, including synthetic instrument programs, hardware manuals, “gold”

signature data, and crew training and refresher media. This portable assistant (laptop or PDA) will 

also provide wireless LAN access (Ref. 26).

• Remote Calibration: Calibration is a supportability infrastructure issue that demands an 

innovative solution that eliminates the need to physically return instruments to Earth for 

calibration. 

8.4 Maintenance and Repair Process Category

This category is composed of three subcategories; electrical repairs, weld repairs, and surface repairs.

The capabilities will also apply directly or support scavenge and recycling processes. Repair capability 

will be needed, as early as, the first Altair mission. The following describes the technology candidates for 

three M&R Process Sub-Categories:

8.4.1 Electronics Repair Processes

Although there is a vast array of electronic functions in space systems there is only one primary way 

of mounting components, specifically, soldering. Most soldering needs can be covered by manual and 

automated process.

• Semi-Automated Electronics Repair: A concept developed by the CLEAR project and derived 

from industrial automated workstations that can be programmed to support diagnostic probing 

and then perform component level R&R using a solder reflow process. This may also support 

electronics scavenging (Ref. 27).
NASA/TM—2011-216785 27

• Advanced Manual Electronics Repair: Special tools, fixtures and prepackaged material kits may 

be used to compensate for relatively low user soldering skills. Such kits would bridge the gap 

between current ISS tools and the semi-automated reflow process (Refs. 28 and 29).

8.4.2 Welding Repair Processes

Welding has vast applications in both repair and fabrication of mechanical and structural hardware.

Directed energy beam techniques are normally automated or performed robotically. E-beam welding 

surface quality often eliminates post weld finishing. Ion Cold Welding is a metal bonding technique 

invented specially for high vacuum applications. 

• Electron Beam Welding: Only electron beam based welding technology is viable from an 

environment and consumables aspect. E-Beam welding can often weld materials without 

additional feedstock. Due to precise beam energy and steering control, welds are often very 

smooth. For wider range of motion a precise robotic motion is needed. E-beams are not generally 

considered as a manual method (Ref. 30).

• E-Beam Precision Positioning: E-Beam welding has built-in beam steering capability that 

provides wide versatility. However, many welding applications require complex 3–D weld paths 

that require robotic manipulation. Mobile equipment based robots will need to be augmented with 

high levels of path stability to maintain the E-beam precision welding capability.

• Ion Cold Welding: This technique is for thin sheet or foils materials and exploits the natural 

tendency of ultraclean metal surfaces to bond without high temperatures. Ion engine derived 

etching technique strips oxides and contamination from the surface and allows simple mechanical 

pressure to bond surfaces (Ref. 31).

8.4.3 Surface Repair Processes

LSS hardware is expected to experience a great deal of surface damage due to operations in the lunar 

environment. Repair of surfaces due to wear, scratches, gouges, contamination and erosion will affect 

mechanical, structural, optical and even electrical hardware. Damage on critical mating surfaces such as 

hatchways or pressure system flanges may prevent sealing and may result in loss of critical resources.

Robotic and mobility systems will likely experience surface abrasion damage on rotating and sliding 

surfaces on shafts and bearings. Damage due to rocks, abrasive sand, and dust may be a cause of frequent 

mechanical maintenance.

Surface damage often involves damage to the coatings that provide protection or special surface 

property. Coating repair processes may include nonvolatile powder or materials like liquid metals. Some 

coatings are applied as thin molecular scale films by thermal vapor or ion techniques.

• Powder Coating Processes: For surfaces with relatively thick coatings such as paint, repairs may 

be applied by an electro-statically charged thermally fused powder or atomized liquids.

Electrostatic transfer of powder is used in virtually all copiers and laser printers and can be 

applied to high vacuum operations. Lasers and electron beams have been used to thermally fuse 

powders which eliminate the need for masking materials.

• Liquid Droplet Coating: Coatings of nonvolatile liquids can be applied using high vacuum 

adaptations of ink jet technologies. These techniques can precisely place pico-liter drops of 

material with an accuracy of an ink jet printer. At least three droplet techniques can handle 

temperatures of metals from solder to aluminum (Ref. 32).

• Vapor Coatings: Electronics and optics make extensive use of thin film coatings applied by vapor 

deposition. The two primary types are Thermal and Sputtering vapor deposition. Thermal vapor 

deposition simply vaporizes a material and condenses it onto the surface. Ion Sputtering transfers 

molecules from source to a substrate surface. Sputtering provides finer control and operates at 
NASA/TM—2011-216785 28

much lower temperatures and can been used to apply metal, polymer, and even ceramic coatings

(Ref. 33 and 34).

• Regolith Abrasives: This technique may be an effective alternative to machine finishing that 

exploits lunar regolith. Relatively low torque, low vibration, and lubricant free operation, makes 

it a potential high vacuum replacement for conventional machining techniques.

• Ion Implantation: Ion implantation is a surface treatment that implants material at or below the 

surface. This technique can change the fundamental properties of the base material. It is widely 

used in the creation of semiconductors. It has been used to harden tool steels as a substitute for 

heat treatment. Ion implantation is one way to restore the properties to materials altered by 

processes like welding (Ref. 35).

• Ion Etch: Ion etching has been used for both electronics and MEMS fabrication. Ion etching has 

been used to remove surface oxides and contaminants allowing metals to be cold welded together. 

(ref Patent) Ion etching has also been coupled with electron beams in electronics manufacturing

(Ref. 36).

• Ion Milling: Ion milling employs directed ion beams similar to electron beam technology and is a 

direct descendent of ion engine technology. Ion milling can drill very deep holes and precisely cut 

hard machine tool materials with cutting edges with unequaled sharpness. Ion technology is also 

effective on ceramic and glass materials. It is a mask-less process that can operate on surfaces and 

on full 3–D objects (Ref. 37).

8.5 Scavenge and Recycle Process Category

This process category includes hardware scavenging, materials scavenging and in-situ fabrication.

Hardware scavenging is likely to be the earliest form of scavenging. Operations would likely employ the 

very same tools used in maintenance including diagnostic and test equipment. Some specialized tools may 

be needed for special application such as scavenging large tanks or rocket engine hardware. The 

propulsion systems have some intriguing potential for reuse including power generation, ISRU 

processing, and short range robotic “hopper” applications that use reaction control thrusters. The 

unmanned cargo landers provide a full array of avionics including power distribution, communications, 

navigation, controls and data handling systems. The cargo landers provide the best opportunities for 

scavenge-able spares. 

As hardware spare inventory is satisfied there will be a surplus of duplicate hardware. With no 

specific applications, this hardware may be scavenged for its material content. Material scavenging only 

has value if it is reformed into usable product. Materials scavenging (recycling) will require special 

processes that convert materials into a suitable intermediate feedstock. Recycling is expected to be 

process and power intensive and may become significant after the Lunar Outpost is complete.

Note that most of these capabilities are currently considered to be “technology gaps”. This means that 

there are no specific technology solutions to meet the capability. The following describes the technology 

candidates for three S&R process sub-categories.

8.5.1 Hardware Scavenge and Reuse Processes

This subcategory involves removing hardware and processing at various levels of assembly down to 

component level. This includes processing that will make the hardware suitable for spares. Reworking or 

reconfiguring hardware for secondary applications will involve equipment already described for repair 

and maintenance applications.

• Electronic Component Scavenging: In faulty electronic assemblies most components are still 

good. When surplus electronic LRUs become available the components may be extracted as 

spares. Components like integrated circuits are best handled by an automatic solder reflow 

capability with pick and place component extraction. The Semi Automated Electronics Repair 

apparatus described in the M&R category provides a suitable capability.
NASA/TM—2011-216785 29

• Structure Element Scavenging: Structural scavenging is aimed at acquiring elemental structural

shapes, fasteners, and hardware for spares or new applications. Safely separating welded 

assemblies may require special cutting technologies. Candidates may include lunar oxygen based

plasma or oxygen assisted E-beam cutting tool. Lunar regolith may serve as a working media in 

an electrostatic driven hypervelocity abrasive particle jet cutting tool.

8.5.2 Material Recycling Processes

Recycling requires a series of processes to decompose a material and convert it to a usable feedstock.

The processes needed depend on the materials selected. Metals offer the greatest versatility but 

composites may make up a considerable portion of the final vehicle weight. Altair material decisions will 

dramatically affect recycling technologies. 

• Material Cutting and Sizing: Many materials can be reused “as is” but must be cut free from the 

parent structure and trimmed to a usable size for reapplication. Cutting processes must provide 

wide utility without a large mechanisms or consumable cutting edges. Multipurpose E-beam, ion 

beam or plasma techniques along with hypervelocity abrasive particle jets may be viable.

• Metal Feedstock Generation: This technology converts scavenged metals into feedstock for 

repair and fabrication. The simplest approach may be to simply melt metal (potential e-beam 

application) and create a metal powder feedstock by a combination of ultrasonic and electrostatic 

means.

• Nonmetallic Recycling: In addition to metals the lander will be composed of composites, glass, 

ceramics and polymers. Each has different recycling methods and level of difficulty. The amount 

of a given material type available may determine if recycling is worth the development costs. At 

this point the material make up of the vehicle is uncertain. 

8.5.3 In-Situ Fabrication Processes

In-situ fabrication subcategory poses the most challenge but also provides the greatest payoff in 

achieving the Supportability strategy. Without fabrication the payoff for scavenging and recycling cannot 

be realized. To eliminate the need for a massive manufacturing infrastructure tool-less techniques or Free 

Form Fabrication (FFF) technology is essential. The current state of the art in FFF does not produce 

finished parts. The technology below is intended to advance FFF to the point where it is possible to 

produce useful products without post processing.

• Electron Beam FFF Processes: There are two techniques that appear to be strong candidates for 

lunar applications. Both employ electron beam technology and both provide a fully dense metal 

product. Electron Beam FFF (EBF3) is a derivative of electron beam welding and Electron Beam 

Melting (EBM) is derived from early powder sintering technologies. EBF3 has been tested in 

zero-g aircraft flights and has a higher TRL level. EBM appears to outperform EBF3 by 

producing products that more closely represent the final product. EBF3, however, has greater 

control of the feedstock, much greater multi-axis mobility, and demonstrated the ability to 

perform post processing. EBF3 has demonstrated low sensitivity to gravity and thus is more 

robust (Ref. 38).

• Pre-Encapsulation: This technique minimizes or eliminates the need for post processing by using 

pre-machined parts that are embedded into the product. By encapsulating a precision feature, the 

fabrication process can form the bulk material around the prepositioned part without distorting it.

Similar techniques have been used for casting and conventional welding. The approach is 

consistent with the “vitamin technology” aspect of the Supportability strategy by exploiting a 

small amount of high value encapsulated hardware and bulk scavenged materials.

• Successive Refinement FFF: Most FFF techniques employ an open-loop approach to build 

products in a series of 2–D planes. Variations in material feedstock delivery or fusion with the 

underlying form create irregularities. Without refining or correcting the accumulated flaws, the
NASA/TM—2011-216785 30

resulting product is equivalent to a rough cast part requiring post process machining. Elimination 

of post process machining and its resource and compatibility issues is essential to achieving the 

Supportability strategy. Successive refinement approach provides constant monitoring of the true 

shape and combines additive and subtractive techniques that provide closed-loop control and 

corrects accumulating deviations. By changing scale to smaller additive and subtractive 

increments down to the molecular scale it will be possible to produce highly accurate products.

This capability is a hybridization of electron beam technology, materials deposition technologies, 

and extractive ion etching and milling technologies. 

8.6 Process Technology Preliminary Characterization

A preliminary characterization of the “technology candidates” in terms of technology infusion is 

shown in Table 4. This can be considered an initial screening based on commonly used parameters 

described in Section 6.0.

TABLE 4.—PROCESS TECHNOLOGY PRELIMINARY CHARACTERISTICS

Technology TRL SWP 

cost

Ops 

cost

Risk impact and utility Selection 

issues

Diagnostics signature analysis 4 Low Reduced Enables crew in-situ fault finding with minimum training None

Synthetic instruments 3 None Reduced Provides compact in-situ fault diagnostics and post repair test None

Noncontact probing 3 Low Reduced Diagnostic probing without damage to circuit coatings Effectiveness

Conductor diagnostics 3 Low Reduced Provides wire and connector fault diagnostics Effectiveness

Optical measurement 3 Low Reduced Simplifies dimensional measurement. Tech maturity

X-ray imaging 4 Medium Medium Non Intrusive mechanical fault diagnostic tool Wt and Power

E-beam imaging 3 Medium Medium Precision flaw detection and surface evaluation Tech maturity

Diagnostic RFID 5 Low Reduced Rapid ID and Location of components and lines None

Diagnostic assistant 4 Low Reduced User tool for Prognostic and Diagnostics analysis None

Remote calibration 2 Medium Reduced Enables calibration without returning tools to Earth Tech maturity

Adv manual electronics repair 4 Medium Low Enables repair of wiring and large components Effectiveness

Semi-auto electronics repair 3 Medium Medium Enables repair of high density electronics Weight

Electron beam welding 6 High High Enables repair of mechanical and structural components Wt and Power

Precision positioning 4 High Medium Precise handling for field repairs. Wt and Power

Ion cold welding 4 Medium Medium Simplified welding of thin sheet stock. Effectiveness

Power coating 3 Medium Medium Repairs thick film coatings Tech maturity

Liquid droplet coating 3 Medium Medium Precisely repairs coatings without masks Tech maturity

Vapor coating 3 Medium Medium Provides thin film repair for optics, solar cells and electronics Effectiveness

Ion implantation 4 Medium Low Restores special surface properties to repaired hardware Tech maturity

Ion etch and milling 3 Medium Low Provides precision etch and milling of small components Tech maturity

Abrasive grind and polish 1 High Medium Exploits regolith cleaning, leveling and scratch removal Effectiveness

Electronic comp scavenging 3 Medium Medium Automatically recovers electronic components for spares Weight

Structure element scavenging 2 High High Enables scavenging of structural hardware Wt and Power

E-beam fabrication 5 High High Enables fabrication of replacement components Effectiveness

Pre-encapsulation 2-3 Medium Medium Enables precision devices to be embedded in FFF products Weight

FFF successive refinement 2 High Medium Provides finished FFF products without post processing Tech maturity

Material cutting and sizing 2-3 Medium Medium Extracts and sizes scavenged stock by beam or particle 

techniques Tech maturity

Metal feedstock generation 2 High High Enables fabrication from scavenged metals Tech maturity

Non metallic recycling 2 High High Enables recycling of nonmetallic materials. Tech maturity
NASA/TM—2011-216785 31

8.7 Process Technology Development Schedules4

The schedule for Supportability process technology is more complex than embedded and involves an 

incremental phased development. Certain technologies are driven by early needs where others are driven 

by the available infrastructure required to support them. All technologies are expected to achieve TRL-6 

well before Altair’s first flight. Further refinement of the schedule requires project formulation process 

that follows the delivery of this technology roadmap.

8.7.1 Phased Technology Development Milestone Rationale

Supportability roadmap completion is followed by the Supportability Technology Development 

Formulation process in FY 2010. Process technologies are external to flight hardware. They are not 

expected to be on the flight vehicle development path and are more consistent with an independent 

payload schedule. Process technologies are aimed at providing specific capabilities and development is 

driven by end applications. Although focus has been on Lunar Surface Systems, the first user is expected 

to be Altair and certain capabilities will be tailored for Altair. These process technologies follow the 

Altair schedule and there are roughly ten years available from now to the first landings of Altair. Other 

capabilities will be developed on schedules consistent with the build-up and completion of the Lunar 

Outpost. 

Rather than show a development schedule for individual technologies, Process technologies are 

grouped into three development paths based on the point where the capability is needed. The three 

capability milestones are Altair First Flight, Outpost (delivery of Hab 1), and Outpost Complete.

8.7.2 Altair Supportability Capabilities (Altair First Crewed Flight Milestone: 2021)

• Basic DTV and M&R capabilities will be provided to the first crewed mission.

• Capabilities are limited to contingency tools due to vehicle space and weight constraints and the 

expendable nature of the vehicle. This group will include handheld diagnostic tools and manual 

repair tools.

• Technology development should achieve TRL-6 at 4 years before the Altair Flight Readiness 

Review

8.7.3 Outpost Supportability Capabilities (Delivery of Habitat 1 Milestone: 2025) 

• Most of DTV and M&R capabilities will be delivered and hardware scavenging capability will be 

phased-in following Hab-1 delivery.

• Capabilities are scaled to suit the permanent nature of the habitat and the ability to accommodate 

DTV and M&R equipment in a workstation. Phasing is affected by the availability of LSS 

infrastructure and accommodations of the Lunar Outpost and thus delivery spans the time 

between Hab-1 delivery and Outpost Complete.

• Hardware scavenging capabilities will be provided to allow the crew to exploit lander hardware 

for spares. 

• Hardware scavenging capabilities phasing depends on the build-up of the Outpost infrastructure 

and on how aggressively the program exploits lander hardware.

• Technology development should achieve TRL-6 at 2 to 3 years before the Altair Flight Readiness 

Review

8.7.4 Outpost Complete Supportability Capabilities (Outpost Complete Milestone: 2027)

• All DTV and M&R capabilities will be in place.

• Hardware scavenging technology will be operational and scavenging operations for spares will 

have begun.

 4 Recently updated program schedules indicate that Altair flights begin in 2021.
NASA/TM—2011-216785 32

• Materials Scavenging and Recycling and in-situ Fabrication are phased in

• Material Scavenging and Recycling capabilities are energy intensive so the Lunar Outpost must 

have an adequate power infrastructure.

• Accumulation of an inventory of landers is needed to make materials scavenging feasible.

• Technology development should achieve TRL-6 prior to the Altair Flight Readiness Review

8.7.5 Technology Decision Gates

The decision gate where the first process down-selection occurs is directly linked with the embedded 

down-selection point prior to Altair SDR. The TRL-6 milestones shown in Figure 5 are where technology 

infusion occurs. In many cases the embedded and process technologies are complementary and the down 

selection point for process technologies is affected by the infusion of the embedded technologies. If an 

embedded technology is dropped the related process technology may be expanded. Conversely, successful

infusion of embedded technology may result in descoping or dropping a process technology.

The schedule shows that at the TRL-6 milestone the technology may be adopted by the program for 

flight development, or dropped. The schedule is intended to provide three years of further development 

beyond TRL-6 to achieve full operational readiness 2 years before flight. This allows the hardware to be 

fully integrated into the vehicle. 

The schedule also shows that a number of technologies for later phases are carried in a low intensity 

“Feasibility Phase” where technologies are carried under a system level feasibility analysis. Many may be 

developed by other organizations or by Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) funding. For each 

incremental technology group, the development starts with Authority-To-Proceed and groups are phased 

on 2 year increments but individual technology schedules may vary.

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

Process 

Technology 

Development 

Formulation

Outpost: DTV, M&R 

Hardware Scavenging

Hab 1

Altair Flights

SRR SDR PDR CDR DCR

SDR PDR CDR FRR

LSS Supportability

Roadmap Complete

Embedded Technologies

TRL-6

TRL-6

TRL-6

TRL-6

Altair Basic: DTV, M&R 

Outpost Complete: Materials 

Scavenge & Recycling 

Outpost: DTV, M&R 

Hardware Scavenging

Outpost Complete: Materials 

Scavenging & Recycling

Altair Basic: DTV, M&R 

Feasibility 

Feasibility 

Outpost 

Complete

Feasibility 

^ Down-Select ^ 

Points

Figure 5.—Process Technology Development Schedule.
NASA/TM—2011-216785 33

8.8 Development Cost Considerations

Of the capabilities listed many involve a distinct process technology that is new and enabling for 

lunar applications. The majority of the processes already exists in industry, but may be rarely used 

because high vacuum support system requirements are very expensive to build, maintain and tend to 

impede flexibility. These high vacuum based processes require an equipment and infrastructure 

investment that must be amortized over many units. This is why these processes rarely appear outside the 

high value, high production rate facilities of the electronics industry. In the lunar environment, these same 

technologies are free of the high vacuum equipment may be a simple low mass, power efficient, and 

comparatively low cost alternative to converting a conventional process.

9.0 Summary of Embedded and Process Incremental Capabilities

Capabilities are grouped into four technology increments and linked to Constellation milestones:

9.1 Increment 1

Currently all embedded technologies are intended for Altair First Flight, (2021). Embedded 

technology TRL-6 and infusion by Altair and should be achieved by Altair PDR (2015). The embedded 

technologies are aimed at providing multiple supportability capabilities without increasing size weight 

and power of the flight hardware yet decreasing crew time required for DTV, M&R and S&R operations.

For practical reasons not all the technologies will be applied to Altair. Most technologies are expected to 

apply directly to Lunar Surface Systems. Scavenging however, drives the need to assure that Altair has

compatibility, commonality, access and internal features that support reusability.

9.2 Increment 2

For process technologies limited set of DTV and M&R tools will be available for Altair First Flight, 

(2021). The TRL-6 infusion point is set to support the Altair CDR (2017). Altair, as an expendable 

spacecraft, has limited need and accommodations for spares or repair capabilities. For crew safety, a basic 

set of readily available tools and diagnostics equipment will be needed. The diagnostic and test may be as 

limited as a single portable synthetic instrument. 

9.3 Increment 3

Outpost Hab-1 Delivery, (2025) a set of DTV, M&R and Hardware Scavenging equipment will be 

available two years before flight. The TRL-6 infusion point is at Launch–6 years (2019). The actual 

delivery of complete DTV and M&R capabilities will likely be spread over several flights during the 

build-up of the lunar outpost. With the accumulation of spent landers hardware scavenging may begin to 

create an inventory of spares at various levels of assembly.

9.4 Increment 4

Outpost Complete, (2027) the Material Scavenging and Recycling technologies will be delivered 

2 years before flight. The TRL-6 infusion point is at Launch–6 years (2021). By the time of Outpost 

Complete the scavenging of Altair hardware may likely exceed the expected spares needed. The surplus 

hardware can be scavenged for its material content. Eventually, the capability to convert the materials to 

feedstock will be needed as a resource for extended repair and component fabrication.
NASA/TM—2011-216785 34

10.0 Conclusion

In preparing this document the project was provided information by various subject matter experts 

and contributors representing NASA centers, NASA contractors, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Air Force and 

industry. Supportability strategies have been discussed from Apollo through STS, the Russian MIR and 

ISS. Lessons learned have been provided by the U.S. Navy, ISS Flight Operations, NASA Shuttle 

Logistics Depot and NASA Space Station Depot. LSS needs were established using various sources 

including the Surface Architecture Reference Document, CLEAR Project Documents, and needs derived 

from lessons learned. The LSS Supportability plan for missions beyond Earth orbit has been provided by

Lunar Surface Systems Supportability.

In the LSS Supportability Plan and the LSS Supportability Technology Strategy the goal of achieving 

a high degree of resource independence was established as the focus for defining the criteria and selecting 

the technologies. From this goal and the lessons learned submitted by contributors, two types of 

technologies were established. Specifically, Embedded and Process technology types that were defined 

based on the method of technology infusion. Both types have three primary application categories, 

specifically; Diagnostics, Test and Verification, Maintenance and Repair, and Scavenging and Recycling. 

Embedded and Process technologies are distinctly different in how they are infused into the program 

and thus each has different development cycles. Embedded technologies are directly linked to the Altair 

development milestones. Meanwhile, Process technologies are linked to their end application and have a 

more schedule latitude. Embedded technology by ETDP ends when the technology is infused or adopted 

by the Altair program. Embedded technologies must be at TRL level 6 by Altair Preliminary Design 

Review (PDR). Embedded technology leads process technology development on the overall schedule and 

may have a direct impact on the selection and development of process technologies. Therefore, embedded 

technology down-selection milestones are linked to the process technology down-selection milestones.

Finally, the technology development has been organized in four waves or increments. 

The Supportability Technology Roadmap has identified a wider set of capabilities and technologies 

beyond maintenance and repair. In many ways this effort is the first exposure of the underlying 

complexity involved in establishing a human presence on another world. It is likely that only a portion of 

these technologies will prove viable. In some areas only a capability is defined and may represent a gap in 

the current technology base. Some near term capabilities will exploit technologies developed by other 

programs. Some downstream capabilities envisioned, such as scavenging and recycling, will require a 

long term development commitment but may ultimately provide the greatest return on investment by 

providing a bootstrap capability. Overall, these capabilities will provide a suitable capability for Mars 

while helping to minimizing the operational costs of lunar exploration. The Supportability Technology 

Roadmap is a living document that is expected to evolve. This Supportability Technology Roadmap is 

expected to help shape the operational infrastructure of human exploration. 

References

1. NASA, Mission Operations Directorate-Space Flight Training Division, International Space Station 

Familiarization Training Manual, ISS FAM C TM 21109, June 3, 2004.

2. NASA, Surface Architecture Reference Document (SARD), Version 3.4, September 12, 2008.

3. Larson, W., Pranke L., “Human Spaceflight: Mission Analysis and Design,” McGraw-Hill, New 

York, 1999.

4. Goetter, C., Contemporary On-Orbit Maintenance Philosophies, Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of 

the Requirements of MAS 604, Human Factors in Aviation/Aerospace Industry, Embry-Riddle 

Aeronautical University (Houston Resident Center), March 1999.

5. Green, J., Spexarth, G., “A Mars-Forward Approach to Lunar Supportability Planning” AIAA–2009–

6427 [to be published],” Casitair Consulting, Tampa, FL, 2009.

6. Freitas, Jr., R., Advanced Automation for Space Missions, Proceedings of the 1980 NASA/ASEE 

Summer Study, 1980.
NASA/TM—2011-216785 35

7. Mankins, J., Technology Readiness Levels, White Paper, NASA Advanced Concepts, Office, 

Washington DC, 1995.

8. NASA/SP—2007-6105, NASA Systems Engineering Handbook: Technology Assessment, 

Washington DC, 2007.

9. Goodman, D., Wood, S., “Return-on-Investment (ROI) for Electronic Prognostics in High Reliability 

Telecom Applications,” IEEE 1–4244–0431–2/06, 2006.

10. Goodman, D., U.S. Patent 7239163, “Die-level process monitor and method,” 2007.

11. Goodman, D., U.S. Patent 7271608, “Prognostic cell for predicting failure of integrated circuits,”

2007.

12. Hofmeister, J., Judkins, J., Ortiz, E., Goodman, D., “Real-Time BIST Detector for BGA Faults in 

Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs),” Ridgetop Group Inc. Tucson, AZ, 2006

13. Ridgetop Group, Inc., “Ring Down Power Prognostics,” 05/09 DS01_RingDown_OV_revD,”

Ridgetop Group, Inc. Tucson, AZ, 2009.

14. Mark, J., Hufnagel, P., IEEE 1451.4 Standard Working Group, “IEEE 1451.4 Standard for Smart 

Transducers,” IEEE Standards Association, 2004.

15. Lyke J.C, U.S. Patent 6667873, “Adaptive Manifold,” 2003.

16. Lyke, J.C., U.S. Patent 6958664, “Variable permittivity structure based on micro-electromechanical 

systems (MEMS),” 2005.

17. Lyke J. C., U.S. Patent 6148399, “Advanced Instrument Controller,” 2000.

18. Fink Patrick et al., “RFID Needs for NASA Applications,” CANEUS Workshop 2007.

19. Arritt, Brandon J. et al., “Development of a Satellite Structural Architecture for Operationally 

Responsive Space,” 49th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and 

Materials Conference, April 2008.

20. McNutt C.J., Vick, R, Whiting, H., Lyke, J., Modular Nano-satellites—(Plug and Play) PnP CubeSat, 

AIAA, 7th Responsive Apace Conference, April 2009.

21. Dozier, U.S. Patent 6913468, “Method of removably mounting electronics components to a circuits 

and sockets formed by the methods,” 2005.

22. 3M Corp, “Clean room High Temperature ESD Tape’, 3M product literature, St. Paul, MN, 2006.

23. Smith C.S, “Fundamentals of Signature Analysis: In depth overview of Power Off testing using 

Analog Signature Analysis,” Product Literature, Huntron Inc. July 2009.

24. Lupinetti, Francesco: “New Synthetic Instrumentation methods Solve Tough System Level Test 

Problems,” Electronic Design, 2008.

25. http://www.aeroflex.com/ats/products/prodfiles/articles/8888/2170E_ED_AERO_ePrint.pdf

26. Madaras, Eric I, Anastasi, Robert F., U.S. Patent 6810743 “Non-destructive evaluation of wire 

insulation and coatings,” 2004.

27. Shannon, R.; Quiter, J.; D’Annunzio, A.; Meseroll, R.; Lebron, R.; Sieracki, V., “A systems approach 

to diagnostic ambiguity reduction in naval avionic systems,” Autotestcon, IEEE, 2005.

28. Struk, P.M., Oeftering, R.C. Easton, J.W., and Anderson, E.E., “Semi-Automated Diagnosis, Repair, 

and Rework of Spacecraft Electronics,” 46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, 

NV, January 7–10, 2008, AIAA–2008–1130.

29. Pettigrew, R.D., Easton, J.W., Struk, P.M., and Anderson, E.E., “In-Flight Manual Electronics Repair 

for Deep-Space Missions,” Aerospace Conference, 2007 Institute of Electrical and Electronics 

Engineers (IEEE), March 3–10, 2007.

30. Lyke, J. C., U.S. Patent 6539618, “Ball grid array tool,” 2003.

31. Taminger, K. M. B., and Hafley, R. A., “Characterization of 2219 Aluminum Produced by Electron 

Beam Freeform Fabrication,” Proceedings of 13th SFF Symposium, Austin, TX, pp. 482–489 (2002).

32. Sater, B., U.S. Patent 4245768, “Method of cold welding using ion beam technology,” 1981.

33. Oeftering, R., NASA, U.S. Patent 5,772,479, “Directional Electrostatic Accretion Process Employing 

Acoustic Droplet Formation,” 1998.

34. Goebel, D., Katz, I., Fundamentals of Electric Propulsion—Ion and Hall Thrusters, Wiley & Sons, 

Hoboken, NJ, 2008.
NASA/TM—2011-216785 36

35. Remnev, G.E. et al., “High intensity pulsed ion beam sources and their industrial applications,”

Surface and Coatings Technology, 114, pp. 206–212, 1999.

36. Shrivastava, S, “Hardening of steel by boron ion implantation dependence on phase composition,”

Vacuum vol. 47, No. 3, pp, 247–249, 1996.

37. Sater, B.L., U.S. Patent 4245768, “Method of cold welding using ion beam technology,” 1981.

38. Ishitane et al., U.S. Patent 723579, “Focused Ion Beam Apparatus,” June 2007.

39. Taminger, K. M., Watson K. J., Hafley R. A., U.S. Patent 7168935, “Solid freeform fabrication 

apparatus and methods,” 2007.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188 

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 

burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. 

Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

01-08-2011 

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Memorandum 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

A Lunar Surface System Supportability Technology Development Roadmap 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

Oeftering, Richard, C.; Struk, Peter, M.; Taleghani, Barmac, K. 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

WBS 825855.01.03.03.03 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135-3191 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

E-17160-1 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

10. SPONSORING/MONITOR'S

 ACRONYM(S)

NASA 

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING

 REPORT NUMBER

NASA/TM-2011-216785 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified-Unlimited 

Subject Categories: 12, 15, 18, 19, 29, and 31 

Available electronically at http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov 

This publication is available from the NASA Center for AeroSpace Information, 443-757-5802

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

This paper discusses the establishment of a Supportability Technology Development Roadmap as a guide for developing capabilities intended to allow NASA’s Constellation 

program to enable a supportable, sustainable and affordable exploration of the Moon and Mars. Presented is a discussion of “supportability,” in terms of space facility 

maintenance, repair and related logistics and a comparison of how lunar outpost supportability differs from the International Space Station. Supportability lessons learned from 

NASA and Department of Defense experience and their impact on a future lunar outpost is discussed. A supportability concept for future missions to the Moon and Mars that 

involves a transition from a highly logistics dependent to a logistically independent operation is discussed. Lunar outpost supportability capability needs are summarized and a 

supportability technology development strategy is established. The resulting Lunar Surface Systems Supportability Strategy defines general criteria that will be used to select 

technologies that will enable future flight crews to act effectively to respond to problems and exploit opportunities in an environment of extreme resource scarcity and 

isolation. This strategy also introduces the concept of exploiting flight hardware as a supportability resource. The technology roadmap involves development of three mutually 

supporting technology categories, Diagnostics Test and Verification, Maintenance and Repair, and Scavenging and Recycling. The technology roadmap establishes two distinct 

technology types, “Embedded” and “Process” technologies, with different implementation and thus different criteria and development approaches. The supportability 

technology roadmap addresses the technology readiness level, and estimated development schedule for technology groups that includes down-selection decision gates that 

correlate with the lunar program milestones. The resulting supportability technology roadmap is intended to develop a set of technologies with widest possible capability and 

utility with a minimum impact on crew time and training and remain within the time and cost constraints of the Constellation program. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Space operations; Supportability; Constellation; Systems engineering; Logistics 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF

 ABSTRACT

UU 

18. NUMBER

 OF 

 PAGES

42 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

STI Help Desk (email:help@sti.nasa.gov) 

a. REPORT

U 

b. ABSTRACT

U 

c. THIS 

PAGE

U 

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code)

443-757-5802 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18