NASA/TP-2006-214203

Logistics Lessons Learned in NASA Space Flight

William A. (Andy) Evans, United Space Alliance

Prof Olivier de Weck, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Deanna Laufer,Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Sarah Shull, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Kennedy Space Center, Florida

May
NASA STI Program... in Profile

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated • CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected

to the advancement of aeronautics and space papers from scientific and technical

science. The NASA scientific and technical conferences, symposia, seminars, or other

information (STI) program plays a key part in meetings sponsored or co-sponsored

helping NASA maintain this important role. by NASA.

The NASA STI program operates under the • SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific,

auspices of the Agency Chief Information technical, or historical information from

Officer. It collects, organizes, provides for NASA programs, projects,and missions,

archiving, and disseminates NASA's STI. The often concerned with subjectshaving

NASA STI program provides access to the NASA substantial public interest.

Aeronautics and Space Database and its public

interface, the NASA Technical Report Server, • TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. Englishthus providing one of the largest collections of language translations of foreign scientific

aeronautical and space science STI in the world. and technical material pertinent to

Results are published in both non-NASA channels NASA's mission.

and by NASA in the NASA STI Report Series,

which includes the following report types: Specialized services also include creating

custom thesauri, building customized databases,

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of and organizing and publishing research results.

completed research or a major significant

phase of research that present the results of For more information about the NASA STI

NASA Programs and include extensive data program, see the following:

or theoretical analysis. Includes compilations

of significant scientific and technical data and • Access the NASA STI program home page

information deemed to be of continuing at http://www.sti.nasa.gov

reference value. NASA counterpart of peerreviewed formal professional papers but has • E-mail your question via the Internet to

less stringent limitations on manuscript length help@sti.nasa.gov

and extent of graphic presentations.

• Fax your question to the NASA STI Help

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific Desk at (301) 621-0134

and technical findings that are preliminary or

of specialized interest, e.g., quick release • Phone the NASA STI Help Desk at

reports, working papers, and bibliographies (301) 621-0390

that contain minimal annotation. Does not

contain extensive analysis. • Write to:

NASA STI Help Desk

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and NASA Center for AeroSpace Information

technical findings by NASA-sponsored 7121 Standard Drive

contractors and grantees. Hanover, MD
NASA/TP-2006-214203

Logistics Lessons Learned in NASA Space Flight

William A. (Andy) Evans, United Space Alliance

Prof Olivier de Weck, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Deanna Laufer,Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Sarah Shull, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Kennedy Space Center, Florida

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Kennedy Space Center

Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899-0001

May
Available from:

NASA Center for AeroSpace Information

7121 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076-1320

(301) 621-0390

This report is also available in electronic form at

http://spacelogistics.mit.edu

U_S & T -

--

I
Executive Summary

The Vision for Space Exploration sets out a number of goals, involving both strategic and

tactical objectives. These include returning the Space Shuttle to flight, completing the

International Space Station, and conducting human expeditions to the Moon by 2020. Each of

these goals has profound logistics implications. In the consideration of these objectives,a need

for a study on NASA logistics lessons learned was recognized. The study endeavors to identify

both needs for space exploration and challenges in the development of past logistics

architectures, as well as in the design of space systems. This study may also be appropriately

applied as guidance in the development of an integrated logistics architecture for future human

missions to the Moon and Mars.

This report first summarizes current logistics practices for the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) and

the International Space Station (ISS) and examines the practices of manifesting, stowage,

inventory tracking, waste disposal, and return logistics. The key findings of this examination are

that while the current practices do have many positive aspects, there are also several

shortcomings. These shortcomings include a high-level of excess complexity, redundancy of information/lack of a common database, and a large human-in-the-loop component.

Later sections of this report describe the methodology and results of our work to systematically

gather logistics lessons learned from past and current human spaceflight programs as well as

validating these lessons through a survey of the opinions of current space logisticians. To

consider the perspectives on logistics lessons, we searched several sources within NASA,

including organizations with direct and indirect connections with the system flow in mission

planning. We utilized crew debriefs, the John Commonsense lessons repository for the JSC

Mission Operations Directorate, and the Skylab Lessons Learned. Additionally, we searched the

public version of the Lessons Learned Information System (LLIS) and verified that we received

the same result using the internal version of LLIS for our logistics lesson searches.

In conducting the research, information from multiple databases was consolidated into a single

spreadsheet of 300 lessons learned. Keywords were applied for the purpose of sorting and

evaluation. Once the lessons had been compiled, an analysis of the resulting data was

performed, first sorting it by keyword, then finding duplication and root cause, and finally

sorting by root cause. The data was then distilled into the top 7 lessons learned across programs,

centers, and activities.

The Top 7 Lessons Learned

1. Resulting problems from lack of stowage specification may include growing time demands

for the crew, loss of accountability, loss of access to operational space, limits to

housekeeping, weakened morale, and an increased requirement for resupply. Therefore,

include stowage requirements (volume, mass, reconfigurability, etc.) in the design

specification.
2. A common logistics/inventory system, shared by multiple organizations would decrease the

problem of differing values for like items across systems.

3. Packing lists and manifests do not make good manual accounting systems. Parent-child

relationships are fluid and need to be intuitively handled by a system updated by the

movement of both parents and children.

4. Commonality is a prime consideration for all vehicles, systems, components, and software

in order to minimize training requirements, optimize maintainability, reduce development

and sparing costs, and increase operational flexibility.

5. Design for maintenance is a primary consideration in reducing the logistics footprint. An

optimization is preferable, taking into account tools, time, packaging, stowage, and lifecycle

cost.

6. Plan for and apply standards to system development. A simple example of this is standard

and metric tools. In most cases, where there are multiple standards, there is an interface

required, and the interface then requires support.

7. Include return logistics requirements in the design specification. Understand and model

packaging requirements, pressurization, and reparability/disposability for the return or

destructive reentry of items ahead of time.

A Space Logistics Community Survey was developed by integrating the top 7 lessons learned

into a 10-part questionnaire. Most questions asked the respondent to rate his/her level of

observance of each issue as well as his/her recommendation of each. The final survey analysis is

based on a sample of 35 responses from members of NASA, academia, the DoD, and spaceaffiliated industry.

It was found that virtually all areas surveyed were highly recommended for implementation in

current practices. Thus, the survey validated that the top 7 lessons learned are of considerable

importance to all participants surveyed, whether from NASA, the aerospace industry, or other

industries represented. The survey results also highlighted several weaknesses in current

logistics practices. There was a notable need and gap in areas where the observed practice did

not meet the recommendation levels. Specifically, the three areas requiring most attention are use

of commonality in systems, inventory management, and design for maintenance. While some of

these may be areas of current mitigation, as exemplified in a separate survey question, some may

be areas where there is less ongoing development. In addition to the results of the survey, the

method of analysis used revealed that a standard regimen of reviewing lessons learned,

consolidating them, and looking for root causes would probably allow broader use of the lessons

in new developments.

The conclusion of this report offers recommendations that we believe will help NASA to ensure

that logistics is at the forefront of consideration for the Constellation Program and beyond,

potentially leading to a substantial cost savings in operations.
Table of Contents

Executive Summary

........................................................................................................................3 Table of Contents............................................................................................................................5

Acknowledgements.........................................................................................................................6

1 Study Objective.......................................................................................................................8

2 Current Practices for Space Shuttle and ISS Logistics ......................................................... 10

2.1 ISS Cargo Lifecycle ...................................................................................................... 10

2.2 Space Shuttle Logistics ................................................................................................. 12

2.3 IS S Lo gis tics ................................................................................................................. 14

2.4 Assessment of Current Logistics Practices ................................................................... 19

3 Lessons Learned from Past and Current Human Spaceflight Programs...............................23

3.1 Ground Rules and Assumptions for Data Analysis.......................................................23

3.2 Methodology for Data Analysis .................................................................................... 24

3.3 The Top 7 Lessons Learned .......................................................................................... 25

4 Space Logistics Community Survey ..................................................................................... 26

4.1 Survey Methodology.....................................................................................................26

4.2 Results and Statistical Significance............................................................................... 27

5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 32

5.1 Analysis Method ........................................................................................................... 32

5.2 Current Space Flight Logistics...................................................................................... 32

5.3 Survey Observations ..................................................................................................... 33

5.4 Impact of Logistics on Flight Safety and Public Awareness

........................................34 6 Recommendations................................................................................................................. 35

List of Abbreviations..................................................................................................................... 37

References ..................................................................................................................................... 38

Appendix A: Composite of 300 Lessons Learned ........................................................................ 39

Appendix B: Survey Questions..................................................................................................... 82

Appendix C: Survey Participants .................................................................................................. 86

Appendix D: Additional Survey Results....................................................................................... 87

Appendix E: Resources for Lessons Learned ............................................................................... 90
Acknowledgements

This work was completed as part of the Interplanetary Supply Chain Management & Logistics

Architectures project supported by NASA under contract NNKO5OA50C. Prof. Olivier de Weck

and Prof. David Simchi-Levi, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, served as the principal

investigators, with Dr. Martin Steele from NASA's Kennedy Space Center as COTR. Randy

Vogtman at United Space Alliance was instrumental in extracting the lessons learned from the

databases mentioned in this report. Ursula Stockdale at United Space Alliance aided in

characterizing current ISS logistics practices. We also thank Mike Galluzzi for reviewing the

document and providing valuable feedback and input regarding Space Shuttle logistics.
"Strategy and tactics provide the scheme for the conduct of military operations;

logistics the means therefore."

Lieutenant Colonel George C. Thorpe, USMC

"More than any other, Antarctic science is dependant on logistics, on the ability to place and

maintain a scientist and his equipment in the right place at the right time. Expeditions to

Antarctica up to 1925 depended on techniques of transport, communication, survival, which

remained largely unchanged for 100 years....after 1925 the development of mechanized

transport, the airplane, radio and technology based on better understanding of human physiology,

were to make access to the Antarctic, travel within it and survival in its hostile environment,

much less difficult."

Beck, P.J., The International Politics of Antarctica, London, Croom Helm Inc., 1986, p.131
1 Study Objective

The Vision for Space Exploration [2] sets out a number of goals as strategic and tactical

objectives. Many of these goals, such as the ones listed below, have profound logistics

implications:

Space Shuttle

- Return the Space Shuttle to flight as soon as it is practical, based on the recommendations

of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board [3]

-

Focus use of the Space Shuttle on completing assembly of the International Space Station

- Retire the Space Shuttle as soon as assembly of the International Space Station is

complete

International Space Station

- Complete assembly of the International Space Station, including the U.S. components

that support U.S. space exploration goals and those provided by foreign partners

-

Focus U.S. research and use of the International Space Station on supporting space

exploration goals, with emphasis on understanding how the space environment affects

astronaut health and capabilities

- Conduct International Space Station activities in a manner consistent with U.S.

obligations contained in the agreements between the United States and other partners in

the International Space Station [4]

The Moon

- Undertake lunar exploration activities to enable sustained human and robotic exploration

of Mars and more distant destinations in the solar system

- Starting no later than 2008, initiate a series of robotic missions to the Moon to prepare for

and support future human exploration activities

- Conduct the first extended human expedition to the lunar surface as early as 2015, but no

later than 2020

- Use lunar exploration activities to further science and develop and test new approaches,

technologies, and systems, including use of lunar and other space resources, to support

sustained human space exploration to Mars and other destinations

At the inception of the Exploration Systems Research and Technology study entitled

Interplanetary Supply Chain Management and Logistics Architectures [5], the investigators

determined that there should be a set of studies on terrestrial analogs for space exploration. The

decision to add a study on NASA logistics lessons learned was based on data needs for space

exploration, challenges encountered in the development of a logistics architecture, as well as in

the design of space systems, and a need for guidance in the development of a logistics

architecture for future missions to the Moon and Mars (Figure 1).

The study, assigned to United Space Alliance LLC in Houston, TX, was to review as many

sources of Logistics Lessons Learned as were available, and to attempt to draw some conclusions

about the current state of NASA's logistics architecture and any challenges to developing an

interplanetary supply chain.
Space Logistics Network (2014) Space Logistics Network (2020)

CEV Operations in LEO Return to the Lunar Surface

terrestrial terrestrial landing site supplier landing site supplier Moon

near-equatorial

,

-

,

'' landine site

main O

main

LEO

supplier

primary pnmary supplier launch site launch site i

LLO '

terrestrial

terrestrial LEO

supplier Moon supplier international

t

Lunar

terrestrial partner Outoost

supplier terrestrial launch site supplier Space Logistics Network (2026)

Lunar Simulations for Mars Moon

terrestrial exploration Legend:

supplier landing site site 1

Main terrestrial node

,-' near- qua orial Secondary terrestrial node

main E

landing site

suppher Main orbital node

primary Secondary orbital node launch site Lunar

LLO, surface Main lunar node

terrestrial LE

Moon explorovmg Secondary lunar node

supplier assy international / ration site 2

partner

orbit

Moon Lunar Main Martian node

terrestrial launch site Outpost

supplier EM L1 trans- .

Ground transport route

shipment point de t?

, Orbital transfer route

ars

Figure 1: The growing complexity of the NASA logistics network architecture

We believe it important to document and learn from the past. As part of this task we investigated

lessons learned from both ISS and Shuttle space logistics. Our team had and gained significant

practical experience to distill these lessons learned, and to bring supporting data to the models

and simulations in support of future exploration logistics.

A result of this study is significant insight into logistics lessons learned within NASA. This

analysis provides both role-based and program-based perspectives over the programs and

activities studied. In performing the study, we also developed a methodology for looking across

programs for logistics lessons, which may be applied to future research.
2 Current Practices for Space Shuttle and ISS Logistics

To ground this study in current practices, we include a brief overview of logistics procedures for

both the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) and International Space Station (ISS). Among the

logistics practices examined are manifesting, stowage, inventory tracking, waste disposal, and

return logistics. These topics are among those that served as the basis for extracting the lessons

learned and lessons not learned from the programs examined.

2.1 ISS Cargo Lifecycle

Since the inception of the ISS in 1998, much of NASA efforts in human space flight have been

centered on assembling and supplying the ISS. As such, we have focused our discussion of

current practices on the complex task of getting cargo from Earth to the ISS and the management

of this cargo on-orbit.

2.1.1 Manifesting for ISS

The process of sending an item to ISS or returning an item from ISS begins with the submission

of a manifest request (MR). Any hardware owner or responsible group may submit an MR.

MRs are reviewed at the weekly Manifest Working Group (MWG) meeting. Once reviewed by

the MWG, the MR is forwarded to either the affected launch team or increment team for their

review and approval/disapproval. If the MR is approved, the request will appear on the next

manifest change request (CR) with all other approved MRs. The CR receives a community wide

review and is evaluated based on cost, delivery schedule, certification, stowage space on

launch/return vehicle, stowage space on ISS, power requirements, etc. Figure 2 below illustrates

this process.
New

Requirement

Requests N

RIP (Wed)

Assesses Allocation

Hardware POC Notified, Requirement Definilion

Mass Property Check For FirstTime Flown hardware

Nolover Requirement or

MIDAS * ~ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄  ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄~ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ c GG

Allocation

Submitter (MR Tracking) MR automatically put on MWG Agenda Tuesday- Russian Telecon

--e ·Progress/Soyuz Manifests MR posted for Review

·Russian hardware launchireturn on

* Manifest CR - ̄ ̄ " ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄~ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ gŠ··U" Notes discussion

presentation @MIOCB Available via Web

per template Tuesday MWG

*For Progress/Soyuz Community ReviOW Verify MR is correct/review Wih submitter Flights: weekly status •LPT review for delivery, ceit. ett -Define Required Approvals

presentation @MlOCB •IM Review for regis, ·Verifywithin On orbitAllocation

*For Shuttle Flights: ApprOVall consumables etc -closureLPT

At L-6 W, Weekly I /MWG signalures status Appeal •Other organizationS ·Status of Open MR's

reports @MIOCB Freqüent ESVieW ·ReviewMod'stoMR's

. . •Across Fit/Increment Integration Of working manifest

RIP SPLINTER - Cross

Fit & Incr Appeal i

MIOCB

Approval

MR closure @ MWG

Innuts to Shuttle/IPs

Proceecl with

implementation

Figure 2: ISS Manifesting Flowchart

2.1.2 Cargo Review Cycle

A simplified overview of the ISS cargo review cycle is shown in Figure 3 below. ISS cargo

manifesting is duplicative in many ways, since the vehicle that will transport it is unknown at the

time the cargo is identified and subjectto change based upon availability of the transportation

system. Currently, the available launch vehicles include the Russian Progress, the U.S. Space

Shuttle, and to some extent the Russian Soyuz. In the next few years, the Japanese Aerospace

Exploration Agency (JAXA) HII Transfer Vehicle (HTV) and European Space Agency (ESA)'s

Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) [6] will also be viable launch options.
HTV ATV SSP SOYUZ PROGRESS

Vehicle Specific Flight Readiness Review

Board (FRR)

ProirramœO rations Readiness Review

ACC TSAANCE Acceptance Data

IPRAEGEENWCY

REV1EW BOARD

Da

ge

BOARD

VENDOR

PROVIDED

EQUIPMENT

INTERNATIONAL

A PARTNER GOVERNMEN

FURNISHED .

EQUIPMENT *tl.. vlIIS'

Figure 3: Simplified ISS Cargo Review Cycle

2.2 Space Shuttle Logistics

Once a cargo item passes through the review cycle depicted in Figures 2 and 3 above and is

designated to launch on the Space Shuttle, the cargo is then categorized as a Shuttle payload.

Shuttle payloads fall into three categories, primary, secondary, and middeck. A definition of

each follows:

• Primary: A primary payload justifies a Shuttle mission, either alone or in combination with

other payloads, and meets the criteria of the Shuttle use policy set forth in NMI 8610.12B,

Policy for Obtaining Officeof Space Flight Provided/Arranged Space Transportation Service

for NASA and NASA-Related Payloads, as determined by the NASA Flight Assignment

Board and approved by the NASA Administrator. A primary payload typically defines the

critical path of the integration process, including KSC processing, flight design and mission

operations preparation, and postflight processing and data reduction.

. Secondary payload: In general, a secondary payload does not define the critical path of the

integration process, but has requirements that use significant SSP resources. However, a
combination of secondary payloads may represent justification for a Shuttle mission in the

same sense as a primary payload. A secondary payload, or combination of secondary

payloads, which defines the critical path of the integration process, including KSC

processing, flight design and mission operations preparation, and postflight processing and

data reduction will be treated as a primary payload for manifesting purposes.

. Middeck: A middeck payload is a payload which uses the accommodations in the Shuttle

middeck (as defined in NSTS 21000-SIP-MDK and/or NSTS 21000-IDDMDK). In general,

a middeck payload does not define the critical path of the integration process, but has

requirements that use significant SSP resources. A picture of the Shuttle middeck lockers is

shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Shuttle Middeck Lockers

Once the proper payload designation is made for all cargo on that Shuttle mission, a Shuttle

manifest change request (CR) can be developed for the vehicle. The Shuttle payload integration

flow, shown in Figure 5, illustrates this process.
NAS.4FORM

1428

†

|LAlmCHSERVICES AGREEMENT

ENGIMEERING

INTEGRAT10N PLAN DESIGN

PRELIMINARY & ANALYSES

FLIGHT ICO

ASSIGNMEMT DEVELOPMENT

FLIGMT COMPATIBlUTY

ASSESSMENT IP ANNEXES

CARGOIITTEGRATION REVIEW

FUGHT DESIGN

& FLIGHT OPS

IMPLEMENTATION I.AUNClWLANDING FLIGHT

SUPPORT VERIFICATION PAYLOAD

PREPARATION ABIALYSIS ETRUCTURAL &

FUGHT OPERATIONS

TNERMAL MODELS

REVIEW

PAYLOAD REAMMESS REVIEW ICD -INTERFACE CCH7ROL DOCUfÆ3⁄4T

I

I OPS - OPERA710MS

IP - INTEGRATION PLAN

FLIGHT REAÐNESE REVIEW

POSTFUGHT MARDWARE & DATA ÐSTRIBlFTIOM

Figure 5: Shuttle Payload Integration Process

2.3 ISS Logistics

2.3.1 Stowage Planning for ISS Resupply

The Shuttle stowage group reviews the manifest CRs and determines the launch and return

stowage configurations for the Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM), middeck crew

compartment, and payload bay. Overview drawings are produced to show how bags and items

are packed into the U.S. launch vehicles. Detailed drawings are also produced to show the

internal configuration of compartments and bags. Ascent packing configurations are driven

more by hardware delivery schedules and launch requirements (packing material) than by the onorbit use and stowage of an item. When possible, ascent packing materials are returned on the

launch vehicle so that the impact on ISS stowage space is minimized.

The nested complexity of cargo in the Space Shuttle, ISS, MPLM, etc. is one of the major

challenges in current space inventory management practices. Figure 6 below illustrates this

complexity. The components of Figure 6 are explained in the sections that follow.
Supply Bags in MPLM Cargo MPLM in

Items in Bags MPLM Racks Integration Shuttle

Figure 6: Nested Complexity of Shuttle Cargo in an MPLM

2.3.2 Carriers

The Shuttle middeck and MPLM provide accommodations for internal cargo. The payload bay

provides stowage accommodations for external (unpressurized)cargo.

The Shuttle middeck includes lockers and floor/ceiling bags. Each middeck locker has

dimensions of about 20"xl8"x10". There are two types of floor/ceiling bags; one type holds 5

middeck locker equivalents (MLE) and the other holds 10 MLEs. The lockers and floor/ceiling

bags can be packed with cargo transfer bags (CTBs), mesh bags, or loose hardware. When

necessary, the hardware items are packed in foam cushions. Since the relatively small size of the

middeck lockers restricts the size of the items that can be launched, the floor and ceiling bags

provide the capability to launch and return oversized items.

The MPLM has 16 rack bays. Each rack bay can be configured to carry a Resupply Stowage

Platform, a Resupply Stowage Rack, an Express Transport Rack, or be left empty.

2.3.3 Containers

2.3.3.1 Racks

A Resupply Stowage Platform (RSP) is a flat plate that can pivot at the bottom. Large M-bags

are mounted on the front and back sides of the RSP. Cargo can be packed loosely into the Mbags or packed into CTBs before being stowed in the M-bags. RSPs are only flown in the

MPLM and do not transfer to ISS. RSPs provide the capability to launch and return oversized

items in the MPLM.

A Resupply Stowage Rack is a metal rack with locker compartments of various sizes. Hardware

can either be packed loosely into the compartments or within CTBs that are then placed in the

compartments. RSRs are flown in the MPLM and can be transferred and installed on ISS as

needed. RSRs provide a limited capability to launch and return large items.

An Express Transport Rack (ETR) is a metal rack that is primarily used to transfer payload cargo

to ISS. ETRs are flown in the MPLM and do not transfer to ISS. An ETR has accommodations

for locker mounted payloads and International Sub-rack Interface Standard (ISIS) drawers that

interface with the Express Racks on ISS.
On ISS, there are 4 types of racks; Express racks, Zero-G stowage racks, RSRs and system racks.

An Express Rack is a metal rack installed on ISS and designed to accommodate payloads.

Express racks usually consist of 8 locker compartments equivalent to a middeck locker and 3

drawers. The locker compartments can be used for powered payloads or passive stowage. The

drawers are used for passive stowage.

Zero-G Stowage Racks (ZSRs) are fabric racks that are used on ISS to provide stowage

accommodations. The internal compartments of the ZSRs are reconfigurable so that different

size cargo can be stowed.

System racks are metal racks that have been outfitted with particular system hardware. When the

entire rack space is not needed for the system components, lockers are built into the rack to

provide additional stowage. Most of these lockers are the same size as RSR lockers.

2.3.3.2 Bags

Cargo transfer bags (CTBs) are the primary packing container for ISS. CTBs are available in

four sizes to provide maximum flexibility when packing hardware. The single CTB was

designed to fit inside a middeck locker. Half size CTBs (half the size of a middeck locker),

double CTBs, and triple CTBs are also available. CTBs were primarily designed to modularly

interface with the ZSRs, although the half and single CTBs are also compatible with the Express

rack lockers and most locations in RSRs and system racks.

There are three sizes of M-bags; M-01 (6 CTBE), M-02 (4 CTBE), and M-03 (10 CTBE). Their

capacity is defined in cargo transfer bag equivalents (CTBE). A single CTB is 1 CTBE, which

corresponds to a volume of 1.86 cubic feet.

2.3.4 Transfer Operations

Transfer Operations describes the transfer of cargo between the Shuttle and ISS. The transfer

team uses the approved manifest CRs and the ascent/descent stowage drawings to develop the

transfer list that the crew uses. The transfer list is an Excel spreadsheet that is printed in

hardcopy for the crew to use during the Shuttle flight. Changes to the transfer list are up-linked

either as pen and ink changes that the crew handwrites into their transfer book or as an electronic

file that the crew can print on-orbit. At the end of each mission day, the crew reports through a

voice call-down the transfers that were completed that day. The transfer team updates an

electronic copy of the transfer list and distributes the updates to others in the control center.

A similar process is followed for the unloading of a Progress cargo vehicle. This process is

managed by the Russian ground control team with inputs from the U.S. team if U.S. hardware

was launched on that Progress flight.

2.3.5 Inventory Management on ISS

The Inventory Management System (IMS) is the database that contains the official ISS

inventory. The IMS database resides on ISS and at multiple locations on the ground. On ISS,
the IMS resides on the file server but can be accessed from any laptop. The crew may also use

the hand-held Bar Code Readers (BCR) to record changes to inventory (Figure 7). The

Inventory Stowage Officer (ISO) and the Russian Inventory Stowage Specialist (RISS) may also

enter changes to the onboard inventory to help alleviate some of the crew time required to

properly maintain the database. Each crew member is allocated on the order of 20 minutes per

day for IMS updating. Changes to the database are exchanged electronically between the ISS,

Mission Control Center-Houston (MCC-H), and Mission Control Center-Moscow (MCC-M)

IMS modules on a daily basis.

IMS Database

Bag with Barcode

Figure 7: ISS Inventory Management System

Prior to each flight to ISS, whether it is a Shuttle, Progress, or Soyuz, a dataset containing all the

necessary information on the resupply items is provided to the ISO team. The dataset is an Excel

file that can be automatically loaded into the IMS. For Progress flights, the ISO team builds

plans in IMS that updates IMS as the crew unloads the vehicle and stows the items. The crew

can also use the BCR or call down their accomplishments at the end of each day. Due to the

high activity level during Shuttle flights, the crews usually ask the ISO on console to update IMS

with the transfers completed that day.

2.3.6 Stowage Planning for ISS

The Inventory Stowage Officer team performs stowage planning for U.S. items on ISS. The ISS

stowage planner determines the final stowage locations for all U.S. items transferred to ISS from

any launch vehicle. ISS stowage locations are provided to the transfer team for inclusion in the

transfer list. For those items that cannot be transferred to their final stowage locations during the

Shuttle flight, an unpack list is generated by the ISO team. After Shuttle undocks, the unpack

list, an Excel spreadsheet, is up-linked to the crew. As the crew unpacks, they can choose to

update IMS themselves, use the BCR, or call down the completions to MCC-H. If the crew

chooses to call down their completions, the ISO on console will update IMS.
2.3.7 Trash

2.3.7.1 Trash Staging

Each day the crew generates common trash. Common trash is defined as food waste, used

wipes, dirty clothes, and used hygiene items. This trash is collected into trash bags. Solid and

liquid human waste is collected into special containers. All trash is staged in the aft portion of

the Service Module for future packing into the departing Progress vehicle. Broken equipment is

usually left in its current stowage location until Progress trash packing is initiated. The U.S.

team schedules time prior to the actual Progress packing for the U.S. crewmember to gather the

U.S. items for disposal and pack into the Russian provided trash bags. A photo of the completed

trash gathering is taken so that the Russian team can determine the amount of volume that the

U.S. items will require.

2.3.7.2 Trash List

Before any U.S. item that is not designated as common trash can be considered for disposal on

Progress, a Waste Manifest Request (WMR) must be submitted. Approved WMRs are then

collected into a change request and approved by the community. For the U.S. trash gathering

activity, the trash ISO uses the approved waste CR to generate a crew message identifying which

items should be collected for disposal. This message is an Excel spreadsheet and is up-linked via

the Orbital Communication Adapter (OCA) to the ISS crew. To accompany the electronic crew

message, an IMS plan is built so that the crew can update IMS, if they choose, as they execute

the crew message. The crew may also use the BCR to track their trash gathering as they retrieve

the U.S. items and pack them in the Russian-provided trash bags. Although the IMS plans and

BCR are available, the primary method that the crews have used to report trash gathering has

been a voice call-down to MCC-H. An ISO then updates IMS with the changes. It is ultimately

the diligence of the crew that ensures that valuable items are not accidentally disposed of with

the trash.

2.3.7.3 Trash Packing into Progress

Approximately one week prior to the planned undock of the Progress vehicle, the crew begins

packing the trash items into the vehicle. The Russian team provides the crew an OCA message

that directs them where to place each approved trash item. IMS is usually updated by the RISS

after trash packing is complete.

2.3.8 Return

Items must be manifested for return using the same process that applies to launch items.

Stowage plans are developed for the return vehicles. The ISO team uses the approved CRs and

stowage drawings to develop a pre-pack list. The pre-pack list is an Excel spreadsheet that

provides the crew with direction on which items to collect and how to pack them for return.

CTBs, which are the primary method of collecting items for return, are labeled and staged for

easy retrieval during transfer operations. To accompany the Excel spreadsheet, an IMS plan may
be built to help the crew with updating IMS as the pre-packing occurs. The crew may opt to

report accomplishments at the end of each day and have the ISO on console update IMS.

2.4 Assessment of Current Logistics Practices

The current Shuttle/ISS logistics system has many advantages and disadvantages. The current

system is seen as a large improvement over the logistics systems used in past space programs

such as MIR and Skylab. The system works well and training for crew and ground personnel is

minimal.

The shortcomings of the current system include a high-level of complexity, redundancy of information/lack of a common database, and a large human-in-the-loop component. The

complexity of the system is so great that it is difficult to find a person in the Space Shuttle

Program or ISS Program that understands the entire process. Figure 8 illustrates the interaction

of just some of the numerous documents and databases that govern the Shuttle/ISS logistics flow.
*U.S. Maintenance

Modeling Projections: * Denotes tasks and products that are

• Mass Feedback: the responsibility of the M&R Office

• Crew Time Mass/Volume Assembly shadowed box denotes a

(Internal/External) Allocations Requirements Program baseline document

Adequate/

SSP 50112, Not Adequate Payloads Flight Crew Shaded box denotes a supportíng

Operations Requirements Requirements database/data system

Summary

Document

Five- Vehicle Master

Year Plan Database contains:

«

--

Feedback:

• Preventive Maintenance Mass/Volume Allocations

SSP 5410X-XX

Requirements Adequate/Note

ID

nccrenme bjectives

a/WNMam

olumel

Dimensions

• Flight Summary

•Station Manifest *SSP 5410X-ANX 2,

• Exceptions to Groundrules (IDRD,Annex 1) IDRD contains:

and Constraints

• Covers One Flight • Maintenance Capabilities

• All tions

• Assembly Cargo • Maintenance Resources

- ss

• Crew Equipment • Maintenance Planning Data

- Volume

• Payloads • Maintenance of IP H/W

- Crew Time

• Maintenance Spares • Maintenance Schedule

•Requirements.

.

Covers one planning period

Covers one planning penod divided into increments

(aboutone year)divided into

increments *Maintenance

Manifest L&M Control Panel Review

Requirements Disposition of IP issues

Tactical Planning A

System contains:

*Maintenance Planning

. Martix (MicrosoftAccess .

*Maintenance tasks

CS E

eAnSDA) hosted on PC)contains: *Maintenance tasks assigned to the

•U.S. Payloads •Scheduled Maintenance assigned to the planning penod

Actions planning period - Divided by

Requirements .

• aan Prepo oned - virdeemdeby increm t

*Prioritized IP

Planning Priority CMILP System contains:

Maintenance •Flight Manifest *Prioritized DMI •Prioritized DMI List

Requirements •Spares Planning Data List (U.S.and (U.S.H/W only)

Working set of maintenance CSA H/W Only) - On-Orbit Inventory Data

planning data - Manifest Planning Data

t

Controlled by MCC - Includes

MER support as needed

Government and Contractor

inventories (HUBILMCSII/PDMS) Data/Voice

contain:

Links

• Spares Availability

Ssp_50520_assyrqmts.ppt

Figure 8: ISS support planning process

The lack of a common database to handle manifesting, inventory management on the ground,

and on-orbit inventory management is another weakness of the current system. Presently there

are separate databases/applications to do manifesting, ground tracking, manage the parts catalog,

on-orbit inventory management, etc. Very few, if any, of these databases can interact with each

other, causing a lot of extra work for personnel who need to transfer information between the

systems. This extra human intervention also expands the chance that an error is made.
As was stated above in section 2.3.5, the current method of inventory management on the ISS is

based on the Inventory Management System (IMS) and barcode readers. While this system is

reliable (only 2-3% of items on ISS are tagged as "lost"), it is also very time consuming. Significantly more than the allotted 20 minutes per day are spent by the crew for managing the

onboard logistics.

The ISS has also experienced a shortfall of stowage space. Some of this is the result of the

reduced Shuttle flight rate and down mass capacity and some of it stems from an inadequate

consideration of stowage and micro-logistics inside the ISS during station design and planning. Resultantly, spaces that were never intended for stowage, such as the joint airlock, the

pressurized mating adapters (PMAs), and the Russian docking compartment, are being used as

closets (Figure 9). This "overflow" of stowage affects the habitability of the ISS and adds

additional time to on-board activities that require accessing any of locations being used as

closets. It also affects crew morale.

158011E06401

Figure 9: The Overflow of ISS Stowage in the Joint Airlock

[http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/index.html]

Another example of the complexity involved in space logistics can be easy illustrated in the breadth of nomenclatures used to describe a "container type-device". Table 1 below shows a

sampling of the nomenclature used by the Space Shuttle and ISS Programs to identify

"containers". On one hand, this large number of terms does reflect the real complexity involved

in space logistics, on the other hand the excess may be due to a lack of coordination across

programs and could be interpreted as superfluous complexity.
Table 1: Nomenclature Survey

• Pocket • Item • Component

• Container • Drawer • Subsystem

• Carrier • Kit • System

• Module • Locker • SRU

• Segment • Unit • LRU

• Compartment • Rack • ORU

• Element • Lab • CTB

• Pallet • Platform • M-01

• Assembly • MPLM • M-02

• In-space Facility • Payload Bay • M-03

• Node • Fairing

• Vehicle

It should also be noted that accommodation mass can consume much of the useful payload mass

of a launch vehicle. The comparison in Table 2 below shows that for Shuttle the fraction

(percentage)of useful payload mass is significantly lower than for a dedicated logistics vehicle

such as Progress. The mass of the orbiter is a "payload" in terms of the Shuttle first stage

(SRBs) and ET, however much of the useful payload mass for Shuttle is consumed by the

accommodation mass described in Sections 2.3.2 and 2.3.3. This effect is slightly more

pronounced when the Shuttle launches to an inclination of 51.6 because the dry mass of the

orbiter acts as a lever, further reducing the relative percentage of useful upmass capability.

Efforts will have to be made to explicitly account for and design accommodation mass into the

system both for crewed flights of the CEV as well as robotic resupply or pre-positioning flights.

Table 2: Mass Comparison (Note: Shuttle numbers are given for the MPLM configuration.)

[12][13][14]

Mass (kg) Shuttle Shuttle Soyuz-TM Progress-M

(i=28.5) (i=51.6) (i=51.6) (i=51.6)

Total launch mass (TLM) 2,032,000 2,032,000 290,000 290,000

Vehicle dry mass 76,985 76,985 6,190 4,740

Total propellant mass 11,853 11,853 ~880 1,750

Basic performance 17,690 17,055

(@ 407 km) (@ 407 km)

Accommodation mass 2,288 (general 2,288 (general 81 (seatliners) (included)

overhead) overhead)

4,491 (MPLM tare 4,491 (MPLM

mass) tare mass)

1,204 (f1t-spec 1,204 (f1t-spec

overhead) overhead)

3,044 (ISPRs,etc.) 3,044 (ISPRs,

etc.)

Useful payload upmass 6,481* 6,028** 479 2,550

Useful payload downmass 6,481 6,028 439 1,700

(all destructive)

% payload upmass as a fraction 0.32% 0.30% 0.17% 0.88%

of total launch mass (TLM)

* Limited by MPLM maximum payload of 9,071 kg less 3,044 kg accommodation plus mid-deck capacity of 454 kg

** Limited by Shuttle basic performance
3 Lessons Learned from Past and Current Human Spaceflight

Programs

The bulk of the work performed in this study was focused on gathering lessons learned from

NASA's past and current human spaceflight programs. The following sections describe the

methodologies and results of this effort.

3.1 Ground Rules and Assumptions for Data Analysis

We began our research by making some ground rules and assumptions:

A. Multiple space programs have maintained some form of lessons learned data

B. Logistics lessons are not always straightforward

C. There are usually different views of logistics lessons

D. Limited lessons learned data is available

E. Lessons, either learned or repeated (andnot learned), are valuable information

Each of the ground rules or assumptions involved some preparatory work in order to adequately

take them into account.

A. Multiple space programs have maintained some form of lessons learned data.

To consider the perspectives on logistics lessons, we searched several sources within NASA,

including organizations with direct and indirect connections with the system flow in mission

planning. We utilized crew debriefs, removing all reference to individual crew members and

missions. We made use of John Commonsense, the lessons repository for the Mission

Operations Directorate since Apollo. We used the Goddard Space Flight Center Flights

Programs and ProjectsDirectorate (FPPD) database and searched the Skylab Lessons Learned

databases at both Johnson Space Center and Marshall Space Flight Center. Finally, we used the

public version of the Lessons Learned Information System (LLIS) and verified that we received

the same result using the internal version of LLIS for our logistics lesson searches. See

Appendix E for a complete listing of the resources used in our search.

B. Logistics lessons are not always straightforward.

To address the issue that there are many terms used to describe logistics, we developed a

taxonomy, using both a selection from the body of knowledge from SOLE - The International

Society of Logistics and from our experience as space flight operators. The proof of this ground

rule is fairly easy to demonstrate. We ran a search on LLIS and found two hits using the word logistics, 16 with the word stowage, 28 with the word maintenance, etc. Logistics functions, as

defined in Blanchard [7], provided the framework for our search.
• Logistics • Inventory

• Packaging • Accountability

• Handling • Tracking

• Transport • Stowage

• Maintenance • Design

• Parts • Trash

• Supplies • Shipping

• Spares • Warehouse

• Support • IMS

• Manifest • Pre-pack

Figure 10: Logistics Lessons Taxonomy

C. There are usually different views of logistics lessons.

We stated, as an assumption, that there were multiple perspectives---most notably those of the

project/programmanager, design engineer, logistics analyst/engineer, ground controller, crew

member, and business manager. We decided to design role perspectives into a survey at the end

of the research and note perspectives as we found lessons. This was not always possible with all

resources shown in Appendix E.

D. Limited lessons learned data is available.

Our assumption was that there was little data available for a single on-orbit node or mission. We

believed that we needed to find sources of lessons that covered at least the Phase I /Mir and the

Skylab, in addition to the data available for the ISS, in order to get any significant amount of

data.

E. Lessons, either learned or repeated, are valuable information.

We believed that we would find more affirmation of developments and capabilities than negative

references, but we made this ground rule so that we could capture both. Lessons are not

problems; they are something learned by performing a task either correctly or incorrectly. In

most cases, what we found was that logistics lessons are noted as unmitigated and then repeat

themselves, program after program.

3.2 Methodology for Data Analysis

Once the ground rules were established, our next task was to conduct the research of lessons

learned, utilizing multiple databases (seeAppendix E), and consolidating the data into a single

spreadsheet. In some cases, we searched relational databases (e.g.LLIS) for the set of keywords

listed in Figure 10 that we developed for this purpose. In other cases, we combined a review of

the documents (e.g. JohnCommonsense, Apollo Mission Histories) and our knowledge of

logistics to pull out the related lessons. We reviewed the crew comments, sanitizing them to take

out restricted information such as the identity of individuals, the missions, etc. We also did some

limited interviews with Shuttle and ISS flight controllers.
Our search returned approximately 300 lessons learned regarding space flight logistics. The 300

filtered and edited lessons learned are included in this report as Appendix A. Keywords were

then applied to the gathered lessons for the purpose of sorting and evaluation. Once the lessons

were compiled, an analysis of the resulting data was performed, first sorting it by keyword, then

finding duplication and root cause, and finally sorting by root cause. The root cause analysis

used a simple fishbone diagram [8] for cause and effect mapping to derive the root lessons.

Once this analysis was done, in order to gain perspective, the interim product was distilled to

derive the root lessons from the data. The result revealed agreement between the independent

views of the lessons, with seven top lessons prevailing. The top seven lessons learned are

detailed in Section 3.3.

Finally, a survey was designed to validate the lessons learned research in current programs. The

survey used the lessons themselves as a framework to measure exposure to the lessons,

knowledge of the problem, expectations for future programs, and role-based perspectives on the

lessons surveyed. The formation and results of that survey are discussed in Section 4.

3.3 The Top 7 Lessons Learned

The following seven lessons represent the review of nine separate data sources (Appendix E) for

lessons learned across programs, centers, and activities. This list is an attempt to look across

perspectives to derive a root lesson and address the root causes.

1. Stowage is the most mentioned lesson in all databases. Resulting problems from lack of

stowage specification may include growing time demands for the crew, loss of

accountability, loss of access to operational space, limits to housekeeping, weakened morale,

and an increased requirement for re-supply. Potential mitigation is to include stowage

requirements (volume, mass, etc.) in the design specification.

1. Reconfigurable stowage volume is recommended.

2. For high turnover, small items, pantry stowage is recommended (i.e. resupply the

pantry, not the items in it).

3. A system for naming and numbering stowage volumes should be established and

maintained.

4. Entryways, docking compartments, and other interconnections must take into account

pass-through and cargo transfer operations.

2. A common logistics/inventory system, shared by multiple organizations would decrease the

problem of differing values for like items across systems. Configuration management is

enhanced with this type of system architecture, as well. Additionally, a single inventory

system lends itself to a common naming system.

3. Packing lists and manifests do not make good manual accounting systems. Parent-child

relationships are fluid and need to be intuitively handled by a system updated by the

movement of both parents and children.
4. Commonality should be a prime consideration for all vehicles, systems, components, and

software in order to minimize training requirements, optimize maintainability, reduce

development and sparing costs, and increase operational flexibility. Failure to do this

increases the logistics footprint.

5. Design for maintenance should be a primary consideration in reducing the logistics

footprint. Smaller parts may be possible for repairs, consistent with the ability to test the

sufficiency of the repair and the tools and training provided to the crew. An optimization is

preferable, taking into account tools, time, packaging, stowage, and lifecycle cost.

6. Plan for and apply standards to system development. Multiple standards applied to the

same area increase the logistics footprint. A simple example of this is standard and metric

tools. In most cases, where there are multiple standards, there is an interface required, and

the interface then requires support. A corollary to this is the use of commercial off the shelf

(COTS) hardware. Unless it is delivered built to an existing standard, it automatically

becomes a source of extra support requirements.

7. Include return logistics in the design specification. Need to understanding and model

packaging requirements, pressurization, and reparability/disposability for the return or

destructive reentry of items ahead of time. Trash growth and disposal should be modeled as

part of the crew timeline.

4 Space Logistics Conununity Survey

We developed a Space Logistics Community Survey by integrating the top 7 lessons learned into

a 10-part questionnaire (Appendix B). Most questions asked the respondent to rate his/her level

of observance of each issue (e.g. the use of commonality in vehicles, system, or software) in

current crewed spaceflight practice as well as his/her level of recommendation for each. The

group of approximately 80 who were notified of the survey were selected as either participants of

a Space Logistics Workshop [9] or as others affiliated with the areas of Space and Logistics. The

participants were notified by email and told that their personal information would be kept

confidential to ensure the fidelity of the data. The analysis is based on the 35 responses that

were received. See Appendix C for a listing of survey respondents.

4.1 Survey Methodology

Data was collected using a web-based form. Each participant filled out the survey online and the

responses were emailed directly to the survey administrator. The administrator collected the data

as a series of numbers, 1-6, each referring to a measure on the scale used for that question (e.g.

scale: 1. Unnecessary, 2. Somewhat Unnecessary, 3. Neutral, 4. Recommended, 5. Strongly

Recommended, 6. N/A). After all the data had been received and collected, it was analyzed for

observable patterns and statistical significance.

A copy of the survey used in this study is accessible at

http://spacelogistics.mit.edu/survey/startpage.htm.
We distributed requests to complete the survey by email to all the participants with the web link.

A copy of the survey is included in this report as Appendix B.

4.2 Results and Statistical Significance

4.2.1 Statistical Tests

Both chi-squared and t-tests were performed on the data to test its statistical significance. The

chi-squared test is a test for independence of the data. For each question, the test was performed

to determine whether the data was independent from a random result. The responses were

compared with the baseline value of a random response for all questions. A random response

was represented as an even ranking of all possible answers by the participants. Table 3 below

shows the response to the question of the relative importance of logistics practices and the

percentage likelihood that the results could be due to chance.

Table 3: Relative Importance of Logistics Practices

Surveyed Element Rank X Confidence

Design for maintenance considerations 1 0.5% 99.5%

Use of commonality in systems 2 27.9% 72.1%

Design of an integrated inventory system 3 8.4% 91.6%

Design for stowage considerations 4 21.0% 79.0%

Planned use of standards in system 5 47.0% 53.0% development

Design for return logistics 6 0.2% 99.8%

What this table shows is that design for maintenance was considered the most important

consideration and return logistics the least among the six practices with strong confidence in the

data, 99.5% and 99.8% likelihood respectively. Similar calculations were performed for all

questions in the survey, showing a propensity for a chi-square value under 10% for those

questions that asked about recommended future considerations and about 20% for those

questions regarding previously and currently observed space logistics practices. In other words,

for the questions in which the respondent was asked to rank how they recommended an issue for

the future, the result was significant with 90% confidence. For questions asking about

observance in current practice, responses were significant with an approximate confidence value

of 80%. With a sample size of 35, these responses show a high measure of fidelity according to

the chi-squared test.

A t-Statistic test was used to compare how responses varied among the role of the participant in

his/her organization. T-statistics are used to compare two sample sets of data to determine

whether the underlying populations have the same mean. In this context, it was used to

determine whether two sets of data were statistically different from each other. The ranking of importance for the six main logistics considerations is shown in Table 4 below. A "1" indicates

the most important aspect identified and "6" the least important. For the most part,
program/projectmanagers had a slight variation in responses from the engineers, logisticians,

and from the group as a whole.

Table 4: Ranking of Importance

Program/Project

All Engineers Logisticians Managers

1 Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance/

2 Commonality Commonality Commonality Inventory/

3 Inventory Inventory Inventory Commonality

4 Stowage Stowage Stowage/ Stowage

5 Planned Standards Planned Standards Planned Standards Return Logistics

6 Return Logistics Return Logistics Return Logistics Planned Standards

We calculated a two-tailed non-paired t-statistic because for each pair of data sets there were two

samples with unequal variances. This test was performed for each of the six possible pairs of

data for engineers, logisticians, program/projectmanagers, and the group as a whole (e.g. All v.

Engineers, All v. Logisticians, Engineers v. Logisticians, etc.). The results illustrate the

probability that the two sets of data being compared are statistically different from each other.

The most significant differences were in how the program managers ranked compared to the rest

of the group. There was an 87.9% significant difference between Program/ProjectManagers

(PMs) and Logisticians in their ranking of return logistics. Similarly, comparing PMs to

Engineers on their ranking of design for maintenance, there was an 88.1% difference. Somewhat

surprisingly, there was a 92.4% difference in the way Engineers rank maintenance from the rest

of the group. While each group ranks it as the top priority, Engineers do so overwhelmingly,

leading to the large difference in the t-statistic. The rest of the data that was analyzed showed

lower t-statistics in the data comparisons, making the differences in responses less significant.

The full results of the statistical tests are shown in Table 5 below.

Table 5: T-test results showing the statistical difference between data

Statistical difference in All v. All v. All v. Eng. v. Eng. v. Log. v.

ranking of Engineers Logisticians PMs Log. PMs PMs

Design for stowage

considerations 0.508 0.480 0.384 0.726 0.073 0.552

Design of an integrated

inventory system 0.229 0.350 0.057 0.087 0.101 0.171

Use of commonality in

systems 0.579 0.156 0.334 0.385 0.599 0.390

Design for

maintenance

considerations 0.924 0.240 0.606 0.871 0.881 0.456

Planned use of

standards in system

development 0.407 0.202 0.318 0.478 0.559 0.082

Design for return

logistics 0.757 0.971 0.513 0.900 0.103 0.879
While this data is certainly telling, it is somewhat less dependable than the statistics performed

on the data set as a whole, since the groups become smaller when dividing them by role. Specifically, for the 28 participants that answered the previously discussed question, 7 identified

themselves as engineers, 11 as logisticians, and 6 as PMs. It is important to note the difference

in the way that the groups rank each factor, but the actual numeric comparisons should not be

considered precise using the small data sets.

4.2.2 Data Charts

The rest of the results from the questionnaire are presented below. To compile the raw data into

charts, a system of weights was imposed. All answers in the "Least Important" category were

given a weight of one, with each succeeding category given an additional weight. For questions

with six answer choices, the weights ranged from one to six with six being the "Most Important".

For each question, the number of responses at each level in the answer scale were summed and

then multiplied by their weight and summed all together to give a total score. Finally, all scores

were normalized by diving the total score by the number of responses for that question, to give a

normalized weight between zero and the maximum weight possible for that question. The charts

compare the normalized scores of all possible answers for each question.

The overall relative importance of logistics considerations is depicted in Figure 11 below.

Relative importance of Logistics Considerations

6

Figure 11: The relative importance of the top logistics lesson areas

However, when sorted by role, we see the slight divergence by program/projectmanagers.

While all roles agreed that maintenance planning was most important in the design, there were

differing priorities beyond that. Interestingly, Engineers and Logisticians agree in all categories.
6

- ALL

- ENGINEERS

5 _

O LOGISTICIANS

O PMS

4 -

Design for Use of Design of an Design for Planned use of Design for retum

maintenance commonality in inventory system stowage standards in logistics

considerations systems considerations system

deolopment

Figure 12: Relative importance of logistics considerations by role

Neither engineers nor logisticians correlated the importance of standards in the development of

commonality, although that correlation was expected. Program/ProjectManagers rated all

considerations differently from the group as a whole, giving maintenance, inventory, and

stowage equal weight. They also did not correlate commonality and standards, showing a lack of

connection between the two in the design and/or implementation process.

In response to prior experiences or lessons learned in your organization, in

which of the following areas were logistics considerations taken into account?

c 20

o

Figure 13: Ranking of previous efforts in addressing space logistics lessons learned
Figure 13 illustrates where emphasis on addressing these lessons has been placed in the past

according to the respondents. In this question, it was asked where potential mitigation of

problems had occurred in past experience. Maintenance again stands out as the overwhelming

concern, with the others following relatively closely.

Figures 14-16 illustrate the gap between observed logistics practices in the past and

recommended logistics practices in the future. Of the areas surveyed, including use of

commonality, design for maintenance, design of an integrated inventory system, stowage

considerations, and return logistics, three areas stand out as those requiring the most attention.

Design for commonality, inventory, and maintenance all had noticeable gaps where observation

levels did not meet recommendation levels. These are the areas that potentially need the most

focused effort to close the gap. While Figure 13 shows that recent efforts have been directed

towards improving design for maintenance in particular, inventory and commonality do not rank

among the top previous efforts. These two issues in particular should be of high priority in

future consideration of space logistics as they can also lead to large hidden costs.

Commonality O Observed

III Recommend

Use in vehicles, Reduction of Increased Optimi2ed Minimized

systems, or development operational maintainability training

software and sparing flexibility resulting from requirements

costs resulting resulting from commonality resulting from

from commonality commonality

commonality

Figure 14: Observed and Recommended Commonality Measures

O Observed Inventory Management

- Recommend

1

Supplies with Packing lists and Systerns that Systemcornnon System based Systems that Cbnfiguration

excessive rmnifests used eripby multi- to multiple on a cormen update the management

inventory levels as rmnual level organizations logistics system novement and using a sys.

accounting classifications of location of both conmon to

systerm supply parents and multiple

children in organizations

inventory w ith and based on a

parent-child comrmn bgLstics

Figure 15: Observed and Recommended Inventory Management System Development
Maintenance O Observed

il Recommend

Repair Maintenance Design for Design for Design for Design for Design for

systems or repair tools tirne lifecycle cost packaging Stowage

w ith systems

scheduled, w ith multiple

corrective or levels (ex.

preventive O-l-D)

maintenance

Figure 16: Observed and Recommended Emphasis on Maintenance Considerations

Additional charts compiled from the survey data concerning specific logistics lessons, including

stowage difficulties and transport modes, are shown in Appendix D.

5 Conclusions

5.1 Analysis Method

It should be noted that our analysis method had some shortfalls. The first is that the LLIS is not

a completely integrated Lessons Learned Information System. The other sources are a

combination of documents and databases, but provide perspective that should be available in

LLIS. A standard taxonomy might be helpful in general searches of the LLIS, which is instead

divided into specialized areas. Logistics and disciplines such as systems engineering can only

effectively apply lessons learned information if they are able to see multiple perspectives on the

same problems. The method of analysis used here revealed that a standard regimen of reviewing

lessons learned, consolidating them, and looking for root causes would probably allow broader

use of the lessons in new developments and operational programs.

5.2 Current Space Flight Logistics

The current space logistics practices were reviewed for Shuttle and ISS and it was found that

they represent a significant advance over the state of the art during Skylab and MIR.

Nevertheless there is significant room for improvement. Interestingly, many of the current issues

have their root in organizational issues, not purely technical issues. Areas of concern are:

- Fragmented databases between various logistics functions (manifesting, cargo

integration, on-orbit operations) and organizations (NASA Centers, International

partners). This dispersion of data leads to redundancies and errors and results in a large

workforce to compensate for these shortcomings.
- Stowage issues on ISS are significant and are in part due to the lower flight rates

experienced after the Columbia accident, and in part due to insufficient planning for

micro-logistics during ISS development. Micro-logistics refers to the detailed flow of

crew and supply items between modules and vehicles.

- Real-time awareness of system health and logistics inventory levels is challenging to

obtain. While the bar-code based Inventory Management System (IMS) has proven to be

effective, it is also time-consuming for the crew and ground controllers. New

technologies such as Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) could potentially alleviate

this by transitioning to a more automated system, but technology maturation and system integration challenges remain.

- From an administrative and managerial perspective, the current ISS and Shuttle logistics

processes are overly complex and bureaucratic and very few people are able to coherently describe the process in an end-to-end fashion. Whilst it is essential that on-orbit inventory be carefully planned, approved, and monitored, the processes to accomplish

this could be significantly streamlined in future operations.

- Current logistics practices within NASA are structured along program/projectlines,

which can lead to inefficiencies when considering the costs and impacts of duplication of

effort and inconsistencies in requirements as viewed from an Agency-wide perspective.

Also, it should be noted that the space logistics lessons learned presented in this report focus in

particular on the space segment and that large capital investments and operational costs are tied

up in the ground infrastructure and supplier network. Important lessons learned from the Shuttle

and ISS programs exist in terms of dealing with technology obsolescence, strategic supplier

relationships and long-term supplier viability as well as the establishment of policy directives

and regulations that promote - rather than hinder -- commonality, reuse and efficiencies across

programs. We recommend a separate effort on capturing lessons learned from a ground infrastructure, logistics and supply chain management perspective.

5.3 Survey Observations

The perspectives of project managers, as opposed to engineers and logisticians, are appreciably different. In a system where decision-making is predominately top-down, this can lead to

situations where priorities are not balanced with all perspectives. The survey pointed out

specific areas where program managers view competing priorities differently from engineers and logisticians. This is perhaps a good direction for future research.

There is also a noticeable lack of correlation between commonality and standards for all groups

surveyed. This seems to indicate that there is a misunderstanding of how to develop

commonality. From the DoD (DoD Logistics Transformation Study [10]) to commercial logistics, there is a recognized requirement for both to exist for either to succeed. Again, this

perceived difference between commonality and standards points to an area where further

education and/or development can be established to enable proper use of either to be effectively implemented.
While stowage and inventory are ranked closely, there is a priority for inventory design over

design for stowage. Visibility and easy accessibility of assets is the primary goal of both

stowage and inventory management systems. Design for stowage benefits from the capability of

tracking and locating stowed items. A common inventory management system allows for single

source input of data, with a middleware connection to specialized data. We expected to see more

of a correlation between these related functions in the future. Design for stowage and inventory

management should be more closely linked to ensure effective use of both.

In the Figures 14-16 above, where there is a large gap between observed and recommended

practices, there is evidence of either, mitigation, system design, or technology requirements in

current and future systems. Virtually every area surveyed had highly recommended efforts

where there was a low level of observation in current practice. Based on the recommended

responses, the survey validated that the top 7 lessons learned are of considerable importance to

all participants surveyed, whether from NASA, or the aerospace industry. While all had strong

recommendations of logistics considerations, the ranking of observed practices was significantly

lower. There was a notable need in areas where the observation did not meet recommendation

levels, specifically in design for commonality, inventory systems, and maintenance.

While some of these may be areas of current mitigation, such as design for maintenance, as

exemplified in a separate survey question, some may be areas where there is less ongoing

development, as with the use of commonality and integrated inventory management. This study

has proven beneficial in both pinpointing the areas of importance in logistics, but also in

identifying the areas where further progress can be made.

5.4 Impact of Logistics on Flight Safety and Public Awareness

During the period that this report was assembled we have also monitored press releases and

media reports regarding space logistics. Since the Columbia accident there has been significant

interest in the relationship between traffic models and resupply capability, and on-board

inventory. Additionally, there has been recognition both within and outside NASA that critical

shortages and logistics related events - not just vehicle malfunctions -

can have a profound

impact on spaceflight safety and mission assurance.

Two events from the recent past - as reported by the media - illustrate this point:

Dec. 10, 2004, 12:24PM

Space station crew endures food shortage

NASA says a Russian capsule will bring supplies on Christmas Day

By MARK CARREAU

2004 Houston Chronicle

A food shortage on the international space station means its two crew members must eat less

until a Russian supply capsule arrives Christmas Day, NASA officials said Thursday. Supplies

are so low that if the usually reliable Progress spacecraft missed its delivery, American Leroy

Chiao and Russian Salizhan Sharipov would be ordered back to Earth by mid-January, halfway

through their six-month mission.
Mar 23, 2006 10:59: AM

ISS spacewalks on hold

ORLANDO SENTINEL

On a related note, mission managers said Wednesday that four canisters used to purge Russian

spacesuits of carbon dioxide are missing. Station residents Bill McArthur and Valery Tokarev so

far have been unable to find them. The issues are nothing new. Both have been known to NASA

officials for some time and were mentioned in an internal ISS status report posted last week on

SpaceRef.com. More details are available in stories from Reuters and The Associated Press.

It may be true that some of the reporting on space logistics events by the media may not always

be grounded in fact or may be somewhat over-exaggerated. Nevertheless, it is becoming clear

that effective logistics is essential in ensuring crew effectiveness and mission safety. This

includes, but is not limited to the pre-emption of critical shortages, the incorporation of lessons

learned on stowage, sparing requirements and consumables usage, and effective communications

between the crew and ground controllers.

As ProjectConstellation lays the groundwork for a human return to the Moon, new vehicles and

procedures will have to be developed

-

taking into account the lessons of the past - while

addressing the challenges of the future.

6 Recommendations

As the Shuttle program comes to a close with anticipated retirement by 2010, we have come to

realize that without the ability to collaborate, integrate and standardize the current decision

making process relevant to logistics and the supply chain as a whole, NASA will find it

increasingly difficult to work as an informed collaborator with suppliers and contractors in

bringing new systems and sustainment processes to fruition. The cost of operating and

sustaining the resulting systems will continue to grow, exceeding designated budgets. We have

also come to learn that the path to optimizing operability and sustainability is by consideration of

the entire supply chain.

As such, we recommend the following course of action to ensure that logistics is at the forefront

of consideration for the Constellation Program and beyond, potentially leading to a substantial

cost savings in operations:

1. Establish a list of space logistics relevant requirements that must be taken into account

during development of the Constellation Program (CxPO) overall and CEV, CLV, CaLV,

LSAM, EDS, and Lunar Outpost/Base design specifically, as well as adaptation of ground

processing infrastructure.
2. Empower a position responsible for logistics oversight early in the process, the equivalent

of a Chief Logistics Officer (CLO). This position should be in charge of creating and enforcing

standards across program elements, identifying opportunities for lifecycle cost savings as well as

ensuring that past lessons are taken into account when formulating future space flight logistics

requirements.

3. Space Logistics modeling and analysis investment: Currently, among the technology areas

recommended for funding by the ESAS report [11, Chapter 9], the areas on analysis and

integration (llA, 11B) only have two logistics-related projects listed. Additional analysis,

modeling and optimization investments for space logistics should be developed, validated and

also applied to future considerations of operations and supportability including commonality,

interoperability, maintainability, logistics, and in-situ fabrication (area12A).

4. Reduce the overlap in the logistics tracking system. The lack of a common database to

handle manifesting, inventory management on the ground, and on-orbit inventory management is

a weakness of the current system. It is unrealistic to think that future programs will handle all

these critical functions with one database but it is important to have fewer databases that can

easily pass information amongst themselves.

5. Automated inventory tracking and system updating. There is a need to develop new

technologies and integrated system solutions that allow for automated tracking of agents, supply

items, and assets in the space logistics area, including automatic updating of inventory during

cargo integration and on-orbit operations.

6. Redesign and simplify packaging and stowage. Current packaging and rack equipment on

the Shuttle and ISS are modular and effective in protecting experiments and supply items from

vibrations, shocks and other environmental hazards. However, accommodation mass and

volume is significant and -

in some cases - exceeds the mass of the useful payload itself.

Accommodation mass and modular, reconfigurable stowage must be explicit considerations in

the design of the CEV, LSAM, and other future flight hardware elements.

7. Move the NASA knowledge capture into one system (LLIS) and develop an ontology for

assigning keywords. Additionally, there should be an effort to identify root causes and group

lessons, which could easily be integrated into the relational database.

8. Institute standard contract requirements, performance and evaluation criteria, and

reporting requirements. Having programs fully aligned in their logistics and supportability

posture will appreciably reduce costs and improve responsiveness. Some areas where

commonality can prove beneficial are:

• Certified Sources

• Contract requirements and management

• Cross-Projectresources and materials
List of Abbreviations

ATV Automated Transfer Vehicle

BCR Barcode Reader

CEV Crew Exploration Vehicle

CaLV Cargo Launch Vehicle

CLV Crew Launch Vehicle

CR Change Request

CTB Cargo Transfer Bag

CTBE Cargo Transfer Bag Equivalent

DOD Department of Defense

EDS Earth Departure Stage

ESA European Space Agency

ETR Express Transport Rack

HTV HII Transfer Vehicle

IMS Inventory Management System

ISO Inventory and Stowage Officer

ISPR International Standards Payload Rack

ISS International Space Station

JAXA Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency

JSC Johnson Space Center

KSC Kennedy Space Center

LLIS Lessons Learned Information System

LSAM Lunar Surface Access Module

MCC-H Mission Control Center-Houston

MCC-M Mission Control Center-Moscow

MLE Middeck Locker Equivalent

MPLM Multi-Purpose Logistics Module

MR Manifest Request

MSFC Marshall Space Flight Center

MWG Manifest Working Group

OCA Orbital Communication Adapter

PMA Pressurized Mating Adapter

RISS Russian Inventory Stowage Specialist

RSP Resupply Stowage Platform

RSR Resupply Stowage Rack

SSP Space Shuttle Program

WMR Waste Manifest Request

ZSR Zero-G Stowage Rack
References

[1] Beck, P.J. The International Politics of Antarctica. London, England: Croom Helm Inc.,

1986, [p.131]

[2] National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA Vision for Space Exploration,

<http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55583main_vision_space_exploration2.pdf>

[3] Columbia Accident Investigation Board Final Report, <http://caib.nasa.gov/>

[4] International Space Station Homepage, <http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/>

[5] Interplanetary Supply Chain and Logistics Architecture Project,

<http://spacelogistics.mit.edu>

[6] European Space Agency, Automated TransferVehicle,

<http://www.esa.intlesaMI/ATVIESAE021VMOC_0.html>

[7] Blanchard, B. S. and Fabrycky, W.J. Systems Engineering and Analysis, 3rd edition, Prentice

Hall, 1998

[8] Ishikawa, K., Guide to Quality Control (Industrial Engineering & Technology), 1986

[9] NASA Space Exploration Logistics Workshop Proceedings, January 17-18, 2006, NASA/CP2006-214202

[10] DoD Logistics Transformation, The Defense Science Board 1998 Summer Study Task

Force, Dec. 1998

[11] NASA's Exploration Systems Architecture Study, Final Report, November 2005, NASATM-2005-214062

<http://www.nasa.gov/mission pageslexploration/news/ESAS_report.html>

[12] ISS ViPER Team, ISS Integrated Traffic Model Report, May 2002

[13] Advanced Programs Office, Systems Definition Branch, JSC 23303: Design Mass

Properties, 1989

[14] JPL Systems Office, Space Station Freedom Level II Program Office, SDTM Station

Description, Version 1.3, October 1990
Appendix A: Composite of 300 Lessons Learn ad

Event Logistics applicability Source Number Keyword(s)

Any comments on the usability of the BCR Barcode system was Crew 44 Barcode

software? inadequately sized to run Comments

application. A more generic

discussion is the necessity to

log users in and out on orbit.

There are only six persons. A

more reasonable

implementation might be an

open application that asks for

- the operator's name.

Have there been any issues with cable or Barcode labels come off, in Crew 74 Barcode

hose labels coming off? particular the wraparound Comments

vinyl flaps.

Please comment on any Bar Code Reader Transactions involving more Crew 81 Barcode

(BCR) performance issues with respect to than three items were better Comments

the location/module the barcode reader was handled using the computer

being used (problems with scanning, delay display instead of the BCR.

in response time, etc).

There was a kit of various sized bar code Crew will use barcode label Crew 53 Barcode

labels provided for you to use as you chose. size that fits the item. Comments

Did you ever find them necessary or useful?

If so, did you use one of the labels more

frequently than the others?

Any comments on the communication Reinforce testing and training Crew 38 Barcode, IMS between the crew and the ground regarding of barcode reader before Comments

IMS? flight.

Did we give you enough time to prepack Pre-pack is the preparation and Crew 32 Barcode, items before a Shuttle flight? We duplicated pre-positioning of on-orbit Comments Prepack, IMS,

the prepack paper plan in IMS, why or why cargo prior to arrival of the Transfer

not was that useful/helpful? What could transport vehicle. This requires have made it more useful for you? movement of the item(s) from

their stowage position, kitting

and subsequent stowage in

staging area.

Do you have any comments on the ISS Transfer kitting needs to be Crew 75 Barcode, inventory audits? How effective and useful accounted for in IMS system. Comments Storekeeping,

were they? Any recommendations for Storage locations should have Packing improvement? barcoded labeling

How much did you use the barcodes? Transfer and packing kits need Crew 52 Barcodes

Which barcodes did you use -

those on barcode labels. Comments

bags, those on items, both? What did you

use the barcodes for?

Consumables low-level indications Low-level indications for John N/A cargo,

consumables should be such Commons consumables

that there will be sufficient ense

time for corrective action

without having to depend upon

an emergency system. The

indications should be available

to the ground.
There were too many sources of information There are many users and Phase 2-9. certification

for basic engineering data. Data was being customers for logistics 1/MIR

obtained from multiple Payload Element information, a central

Developer (PED)personnel, post- repository and single points of

Acceptance Test (AT) results and destow contact will keep the

data, many of which were inconsistent and information flow in synch.

did not agree with approved CCB data.

These discrepancies made it difficult to

control manifest information and maintain

reliability of the data.

Contractor building rehab job Meeting attendance and NASA 749 Communication

superintendent not available during participation may be a PLL

construction meetings contractual issue requiring

statement of work direction

Add a logistics move coordinator to teamin Add a logistics move NASA 860 Communication

modification and rehabilitation projects coordinator to team in PLL

modification and rehabilitation

projects

During the flight, problems were noted with Reinforce necessity of Crew 13 Communications

the ops nomenclature in O2/N2 procedures procedures and equipment Comments Maintainability

matching up with equipment labels on the nomenclature match.

O2 panel in the Airlock (A/LlA2).

All rotating components must John N/A Component

be designed to preclude Commons design

fragmentation damage should ense

a failure occur. The design of

all rotating components should

consider contribution to

ambient noise levels in the

crew cabin.

Non configuration managed drawing used to Using documentation NASA 443 Configuration

service high voltage equipment applicable to configuration PLL management,

maintenance

procedure

Bearing failure broke centrifuge due to Conduct testing and operations NASA 494 Configuration

excessive loading readiness reviews PLL management,

operations logs

and situational

awareness

Description of efforts to eliminate leaking Changes to processing and NASA 1000 Continued

reaction control system (RCS) valves design of a deployed PLL Product

component will have a

Improvement

logistics impact

Use of robotic removal of Solid Rocket Continuous improvement can NASA 832 Continuous

Booster Thermal Systems yield productivity efficiencies PLL Process

in post recovery refurbishment Improvement,

Design for

maintainability

Fasteners used in ground support equipment Operations analysis should NASA 1205 Continuous

for the MPLM come loose and are tracked include realistic assessment of PLL product

into module components subjectto high improvement

traffic.
How do you assess the process of cargo Each crew will consume Crew 76 Crew

stowage for cargo that is: delivered, consumables at a different rate Comments Provisioning

returned, and disposed?

No single database to control all pertinent There are many users and Phase 2-18. data; manifest

payload manifest information. Multiple customers for logistics 1/MIR

databases were controlled by multiple information, a central

organizations, which did not communicate repository and single points of

efficiently with each other. Data on the contact will keep the

same hardware was inconsistent, throwing information flow in synch.

the reliability of all databases into question.

Late parts development caused unqualified Unique design of space NASA 479 Delivery

parts to be installed until qualified parts hardware imposes unusual PLL

were available logistics requirements, late

deliveries and extensive work

at launch site

EEE parts selection criteria Reinforces necessity for NASA 725 Design

creation, application, and PLL

enforcement of standards.

Use of concurrent design Reinforces necessity for NASA 681 Design for

creation, application, and PLL logistics

enforcement of standards.

Factors associated with spacecraft Effective development of a NASA 724 Design for

maintenance concept maintenance concept can PLL maintainability

enhance the effectiveness of

maintenance support planning

and aid both logistics planning

and design of a maintainable

system. The maintenance

concept can also provide

assessments of cost savings for

maintenance activities and

resources allowable at each

maintenance level

Extra Vehicular Activity (EVA) event Establish standards for tool, NASA 834 Design for

design considerations material and task design PLL maintainability

factors when performing EVA

operations

Use of proposed venting scheme reduces Reduction in material and NASA 854 Design for

number of components in system maintenance costs PLL Maintainability

Benefits of Implementing Maintainability Implementation of NASA 835 Design for

on NASA Programs maintainability principles can PLL maintainability,

reduce risk by increasing Product lifecycle

operational availability and

reducing lifecycle costs.

Mean Time To Repair (MTTR) predictions NASA has established NASA 840 Design for

guidance for MTTR prediction PLL Maintainability,

analysis Systems

Engineering

Availability Prediction and Analysis NASA has established NASA 841 Design for

guidance for availability PLL Maintainability,

Prediction and Analysis Systems

Engineering
Design considerations when using Reinforces necessity for NASA 682 Design for

composites creation, application, and PLL maintenance

enforcement of standards.

Use of high reliability parts in design Sparing and qualification of NASA 709 Design for

enhance reliability parts designated and qualified PLL maintenance

as high reliability

Crew-use hardware such as fasteners, Standardize and minimize JSC 1-15 design for

electrical and plumbing connectors, variety of devices Skylab maintenance,

switches, circuit breakers, and screws, etc., Lessons commonality

should be standardized as much as possible

to facilitate crew operations, reduce crew

errors, and reduce crew training

requirements. Each common usage also

reduces total sparing levels. This approach

will simplify design, documentation,

sparing, and actual in-orbit usage.

Designing preventative maintenance Process improvement NASA 891 Design for

strategies using reliability centered revisiting preventative PLL maintenance,

maintenance (RCM) analysis maintenance strategies based reliability and

on performance data process

improvement

Spacelab interfaces not standardized Operators not involved during NASA 326 Design for

design phase caused mismatch PLL operations

of equipment to Spacelab

Space fastener selection and design criteria Reinforces necessity for NASA 675 Design for

creation, application, and PLL operations and

enforcement of standards. maintenance

Microelectronic circuit design Reinforces necessity for NASA 678 Design for

considerations creation, application, and PLL operations and

enforcement of standards. maintenance

Microcircuit design experience documented Reinforces necessity for NASA 680 Design for

in checklists creation, application, and PLL operations and

enforcement of standards. maintenance

Spacecraft deployed appendage test Ground based testing NASA 716 Design for

guidelines requirements must be PLL preflight

coordinated with logistics to processing

ensure GSE is available

Spectral fatigue reliability Reinforces necessity for NASA 696 Design for

creation, application, and PLL reliability

enforcement of standards.

Fracture Mechanics Reliability Reinforces necessity for NASA 700 Design for

creation, application, and PLL reliability

enforcement of standards.

Use of Government-Industry Exchange These and similar data NASA 805 Design for

Program (GIDEP) and Failure Experience interchange programs contain PLL Reliability

Data Exchange (FEDI) programs significant problems are

identified on parts,

components, processes,

equipment, materials,

specifications, or safety

hazards.
Analyzing system reliability using block Using block diagramming NASA 825 Design for diagram models methods for model PLL reliability

construction and predictive

analysis

QuantitativeReliability Requirements Used QuantitativeReliability NASA 827 Design for

as Performance-Based Requirements for Requirements Used as PLL reliability Space Systems Performance-Based

Requirements for Space

Systems

Maintainability Program Management Establishing maintenance and NASA 831 Design for

Considerations logistics concepts early in the PLL Reliability

conceptual phase of the

program

Preflight testing exhausted power supply For various reasons NASA 601 development,

spares development activities may PLL sparing and precontinue post delivery at the launch

launch facility, planning and operations

design must take this into

account.

Are there any other cargo areas that Stuff piles up when ground is Crew 103 Disposal, Excess

additional pantry groupings would be reluctant to disposition Comments

beneficial? equipment no longer required.

Early on the crew found the

plenum voids in the FGB a

good place to store stuff. The

Russian module manufacturer

objectedstrenuously

Do you have any suggestions for aiding in Crew wants to advise on Crew 100 Excess,

the identification and selection of cargo suitability of material for Comments Storekeeping, items that are currently on-orbit which can disposal. Proposed current and Stowage

be returned/trashed due to lack of use or any future end use for every item

other reason? in inventory should be known

for ground to provide timely

approval on disposal.

Do you have any suggestions for aiding in Program needs to assess what Crew 89 Excess,

the identification of cargo items that are equipment is to remain on Comments Storekeeping,

currently on-orbit which can be returned due orbit taking up space. Stowage

to lack of use or any other reason? Crewmember referenced an on

board spare that can only be

changed when orbiter is

present and broken equipment

still on-orbit.

From a Habitability/Operations perspective, Ground needs to keep on top Crew 98 Excess, Stowage how would you describe the overall on-orbit of disposing of no longer Comments

stowage situation? required equipment
Trash should be separated into biologically Separate trash into JSC 1-6 excess; trash

active and inactive material. Daily disposal biologically active and Skylab

of active material is necessary, whereas less inactive material Lessons

frequent disposal of inactive material is

satisfactory. Stowage of collected trash

"external" to the habitable volume of the

spacecraft is highly desirable. Food

containers make up the bulk of the trash and

should be designed to consume minimum

volume when expended. A compactor seems

like a desirable feature. Backups and

contingency plans are necessary.

Projectcancelled after it became apparent Logistics analysis required to NASA 1366 Feasibility

that proposal was inadequately prepared, determine adequacy of PLL evaluation and

reviewed and implemented proposed implementation assessment

Pre-flight Problem/Reporting Procedures Considerable development NASA 733 Flight

work/testing may occur at the PLL qualification,

launch facility, documented Flight readiness

anomalies are a significant review,

factor in qualification and operational

flight certification. readiness review

Did you typically eat three meals a day? Crew Eats three meals a day Crew 68 Food, Crew

Comments Provisioning,

Timeline

Did you feel that there was enough variety Large variability in crew food Crew 66 Food,

in your eight-day menu cycle or does the preference Comments Provisioning

cycle need to be lengthened?

Non-flight hardware is critical to support Generally speaking the focus Phase 5/37 GSE; transport

program milestones and needs to be is on flight hardware, but it is 1/MIR

documented and transported with the same just as important for non flight

level of support as flight hardware. equipment to be where it's

needed when it's needed.

A comprehensive database was not Failure to have integrated Phase 5/9 IMS

developed early enough to track all stowage and manifesting tools 1/MIR

NASA/Mir hardware. When the database before the advent of operations

was implemented, much of the hardware leads to inefficiencies and lost

had lost traceability and could not be time.

adequately tracked in the database. Also,

the database had two disadvantages: - Links

were never established to Payload

Integration Planning System (PIPS),which

could have served as the master database for

the program. - Microsoft Access required

more in-depth computer programming

knowledge than traditional spreadsheets in

order to make modifications.

Any comments on the communication Crews quickly weary of daily Crew 38 IMS

between the crew and the ground regarding calls to locate on orbit items. Comments

IMS?
Any comments on the communication Crew believes there should be Crew 38 IMS

between the crew and the ground regarding tighter integration between Comments

IMS? performance of procedure, e.g.

installation of component, and

follow-up IMS update

Do you have any suggestions for System should be able to Crew 39 IMS

enhancements/improvements to the IMS locate available empty Comments

software? stowage

Do you have any suggestions for Suggested IMS improvements: Crew 39 IMS

enhancements/improvements to the IMS Hourglass indicator to show Comments

software? processing is occurring

Full screen as default

Introductory logo displays

take up time

Server needs to be more

responsive

How do you assess the search for and The crew primary search Crew 77 IMS

inventory of items, and working with the function used numbers instead Comments

IMS? of names for items.

How much daily overhead is there to keep At least one hour of work Crew 29 IMS

the IMS database updated to reflect the daily daily required maintaining Comments

changes? Do we need to add this to your IMS; this time was not

daily timeline? timelined.

IMS can display the data in a "tree" or IMS can display the data in a Crew 46 IMS

graphically. Which do you prefer? Are "tree" or graphically, Comments

they both beneficial? What changes and or Crewmember noted that tree

improvements would you make? was preferred.

IMS performance (loading time, response IMS server and LAN are not Crew 83 IMS

time during searches, etc.) has been an issue adequately sized to handle Comments

in the past. Different crewmembers have traffic

given varying responses on the "lack of

performance". Could you please offer your

opinions?

The program office is now supplying Dimensional information in Crew 88 IMS

dimensions (length, width, height, mass)in IMS assists in search for item Comments

IMS for many of the new items flying up.

Would dimensional data in IMS have been

any use for your work?

Was the search capability easy, adequate, or Synonym capability would be Crew 43 IMS

cumbersome to use? desirable in locating items Comments

along with English names for

Russian items.

Was the time that Russia scheduled for you Adequate time to properly Crew 31 IMS

to transfer/stow items and update IMS post update the IMS must be Comments

Progress docking sufficient? accounted for in the crew

timeline.

What are some troubleshooting issues that Add indicator that software is Crew 48 IMS

should be addressed by training? working or when application Comments

needs to be restarted
What were the least used features of the Graphical features of software Crew 41 IMS

software? were not used Comments

What were the most used features of the Search and move capabilities Crew 40 IMS

software? of software were used most Comments

often

Which IMS capabilities did the crew feel Ensure crews receive adequate Crew 47 IMS

needed better emphasis from a training IMS training on ground Comments

perspective?

In about 5% of your BCR scans, the BCR Barcode reader had difficulty Crew 82 IMS, Barcode

misinterpreted a barcode. Can you reading curved surfaces. Comments

comment on the condition of the barcodes

(i.e. dirty, scratched)that you scanned that

gave erroneous information?

Do you have any comments on the ISS During inventory audit Crew 75 IMS,

inventory audits? How effective and useful activities the crew prefers that Comments Storekeeping

were they? Any recommendations for ground perform data entry

improvement?

A practical and streamlined equipment It's easy to lose sight of the JSC 8-7 IMS, stowage,

stowage inventory management and crew interface as the various Skylab inventory,

accounting system is needed during the logistical information Lessons storekeeping

mission operations phase of the program. management systems are

The system should output crew data in the devised

exact format to be used by the crew and

should be compatible with the real time

uplink to the orbiting spacecraft for

presentation on board. The system should

also track other onboard data references

affected by a given stowage change.

Do you have any comments on the ISS Inventory audits are useful Crew 75 IMS, stowage,

inventory audits? How effective and useful Comments inventory,

were they? Any recommendations for storekeeping,

improvement? audit

General Crew Comment Crew works directly with an Crew 21 IMS, Transfer,

Inventory and Stowage Officer Comments Stowage

(ISO) console position who is

solely responsible for

providing help.

Observation: Tracking hardware manifests Despite prevalence of Phase 2-2. IMS; manifest;

is a labor intensive job that requires computers, databases and 1/MIR inventory

dedicated personnel. Background: associated reports, many

Numerous documents are developed by organizations and programs

various organizations for different purposes are document driven. Any

and formatted differently although they all logistics apps must be

contain a large percentage of common integrated and allow for

information. Examples include the MMO collaborative activities

Manifest, the WG-6 004 document, the

Phase One Requirements Document and the

Phase One 0005 document. At present a

great deal of manpower is expended trying

to ensure the various documents are in

agreement. Recommendation: Develop a

hardware tracking database which has

common use for all organizations and which

is accessible by all parties. Dedicated
support (includingknowledgeable engineers

as well as software experts)is required to

maintain this database and ensure its

accuracy.

Every item that is on ISS must be expected Single mission execution Phase 3/1 IMS; manifest; to be returned from ISS on Shuttle or any processes must be adapted 1/MIR inventory

other manned return vehicle. when planning a multi-mission

campaign. This LL is not

applicable to a destination

operations environment.

On-board inventory tracking and return prep Failure to have integrated Phase 5/1 IMS; prepack; readiness checking needs help. stowage and manifesting tools 1/MIR stowage

before the advent of operations

leads to inefficiencies and lost

time.

A user-friendly, graphics-based An integrated stowage and Phase 3/16 IMS; Stowage

configuration tool was never developed to analysis tool is desirable. 1/MIR

allow the ground team to perform real-time

assessments or emergency replanning of

hardwarelstowage relocations on Mir.

There was no convenient portable method There are pros and cons to the Phase 5/29 IMS; stowage for recording inventory. Long duration various inventory management 1/MIR

crewmembers were of the opinion that the strategies practiced in the

ground did not need to know in detail where space program. Factors such

every piece of hardware was located and as ease-of-use and practicality

therefore, did not want to do inventories. must be considered when They felt that as long as the crewmember designing a system.

onboard was aware of the location of

hardware, that should be all that was

required (evenafter the Spektr collision).

They also felt that the onboard crewmember

is the best source for identifying where

hardware should be stowed and the one to

provide the resupply bag stowage plan.

Most crewmembers do not think the bar

code reader is the solution.

A Spektr inventory was performed during To keep accurate stowage Phase 5/30 IMS; stowage, NASA 2 and files were left for the NASA 3 locations of on board 1/MIR inventory

crewmember. In addition, the NASA 3 inventory, daily call downs

crewmember would send down updated files may be necessary.

when he relocated hardware.

Personnel moves require facility setup and Institutional logistics is NASA 746 Infrastructure infrastructure installation generally responsible for PLL

ensuring facilities meet user's

needs

Lack of availability of standard office Institutional logistics rapid NASA 1453 Institutional

equipment hampered Columbia accident response to infrastructure PLL logistics

board investigation needs aids investigation

Lack of availability of office space Institutional logistics rapid NASA 1455 Institutional hampered Columbia accident board response to infrastructure PLL logistics investigation needs aids investigation
Lack of availability of IT hampered Institutional logistics rapid NASA 1456 Institutional

Columbia accident board investigation response to infrastructure PLL logistics

needs aids investigation

Lack of witness interview processes and Institutional logistics rapid NASA 1458 Institutional

equipment hampered Columbia accident response to infrastructure PLL logistics

board investigation needs aids investigation

Lack of accident scene documentation Institutional logistics rapid NASA 1461 Institutional

equipment hampered Columbia accident response to infrastructure PLL logistics

board investigation needs aids investigation

Application of development collaborative Institutional logistics rapid NASA 1475 Institutional

information management and modeling tool response to infrastructure PLL logistics

inconsistent through accident investigation needs aids investigation

Individual hardware suppliers should not The development and JSC 1-21 inventory,

independently establish hardware quantities deployment of space Skylab classification

required for program activities. The equipment involves many Lessons

program organization must establish a versions (flight, training; test

consistent approach in determining article, etc) of the equipment

quantities of equipment required to support for a myriad of users.

a program. A combination events chart and

requirements checklist was a useful tool for

quantity determination.

Resupply of the station is an international Stowing of consumables next Crew 86 Inventory,

and complex endeavor covering clothes, to each other aids during Comments stowage

food, tools, and the like. The international inventory audits. Coordination

aspect of logistics coupling differing among international partners is

cultures, ops concepts, products, etc. further essential.

adds to the overhead in this area.

There was a lack of inventory management Affirmation of need for Phase 5/36 inventory; IMS;

system onboard Mir. Each long duration inventory management 1/MIR stowage

crewmember preferred to use their own

method of stowing items. The Russians

have no established system and therefore

moved items at will. The Russians would

not provide detailed technical information,

which would allow the U.S. side to develop

accurate ground based computer or physical

simulators of the Mir Station.

An attempt was made to track GSE by kits Assemble kits only when all MSFC 2.5.4a kitting, GSE,

composed of several pieces of equipment pieces are available. The CM Skylab PHS&T

required to perform a particular function. overhead on partial kits is Lessons

The approach proved to be ineffective since tedious and time consuming. learned

in many instances the kits were delivered on

a piece by piece basis. As a result, control

and management visibility of the GSE were

difficult until adoption of the more realistic

approach of tracking individual pieces of

equipment rather than groups.

What label issues cost you time and why? Stress importance of proper Crew 3 Label

and consistent labeling Comments
There was no clearly defined process to If permitted, organizations Phase 2-19. manifest

provide manifest inputs into the Phase 1 supplying material to be 1/MIR

Requirements Document. As a result, some transported will strike separate

working groups or their supporting PED deals with vehicle providers.

organizations established their own

independent paths for manifesting payloads

aboard Mir without coordinating with other

working groups (ex: Extra-Vehicular

Activities, Space Medicine Program,

International Space Station Risk

Mitigation).

There were philosophical differences in Manifesting processes tend to Phase 2-20. manifest

manifesting between the Russian and U.S. be vehicle and agency centric. 1/MIR

sides. Russians had no established system A common process that

by which they tracked launch manifests, ensures transportation access

resulting in an inability by the U.S. side to needs to be agreed to by

verify information in time to meet mission responsible individuals in both

milestones. U.S. manifests are baselined at organizations

L-12 months, but Russian manifest

information is not provided until after

transfer on Mir.

Observation: Shuttle manifest changes are The greater the granularity of Phase 2-24. manifest

constant leading up to a flight. These insight into manifested 1/MIR

changes occur due to science changes, material, the more changes

operations, and problems that occur during will occur as the flight

long duration increments. matures. An open change

process ensures that all parties

are coordinated.

A "below the line" manifest was maintained Not all material manifested for Phase 2-7. manifest;

prior to freeze dates to identify additional a flight is ready when needed. 1/MIR contingency

payloads which might be added to the To mitigate this, NASA

official manifest in the event a manifested maintains a priority system

payload had to be removed because of and backup manifest to

hardware failure or inability to meet maximize transportation

schedules. resources

The same program level manifesting system Common manifesting system Phase 2-1. manifest; IMS;

should be used for every vehicle going to desirability. If not provided 1/MIR

ISS. On the esoteric side. Ideally, the same with a software application,

manifesting system should be used for every owning organizations will

vehicle going to ISS. Similar to an airline develop their own apps.

reservation system, if an item comes up with

a requirement to be on the ISS by x-date,

then a computer program could review the

item's development milestones and mass

properties against the various launch vehicle

flow requirements to find a potential launch

vehicle.
Too many nomenclature schemes were used Despite previous experience in Phase 2-12. manifest

to identify the same piece of hardware on the identification and tracking 1/MIR

different manifests. Drawing names, label of transported material, the

names, crew names and Principal operations community feels

Investigator (PI) names were all used based more comfortable with naming

on the needs/preferences of the user. items than using part numbers

and revisions

PED/PI organizations were requested to No enforced central repository Phase 2/13 manifest

provide the same manifest data to multiple for information causes the 1/MIR

manifesting organizations, creating the owning organization to supply

potential for inconsistencies between the the same information multiple

data provided and taxing limited PED times to different requesting

resources. organizations.

The manifesting of all Mir transfer hardware If permitted, the transport Phase 2-14. manifest

was controlled by the MOIWG and Phase I

-vehicles will attempt to own 1/MIR

the program drove the manifest, not the the manifest process. Clear

carrier. This eliminated an additional lines of control must be

approval path through the Shuttle program established and adhered to.

and enabled Phase I management to

establish priorities and effectively

implement its science program.

Items sent to Russia for launch on Progress It is a fact of life that Phase 2-15. manifest

or Soyuz were prioritized by Phase I and/or manifested cargo will not be 1/MIR

MOIWG. This prioritization was ready when needed or the

particularly important because launch vehicle will not have the

opportunities for U.S. payloads aboard these published payload capability.

vehicles were uncertain due to mass and To optimize the manifest

volume constraints. The prioritized list process cargo will be

allowed the Russians to understand which prioritized and placed on

items were critical for the mission and to standby.

plan accordingly.

Multiple paths for manifesting payloads A central controlling board Phase 2-16. manifest

resulted in numerous disconnects in the must be established and 1/MIR

manifest. Radiation Monitoring Equipment publicized to prevent

(RME), Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) unrealistic expectations of

and Med Ops payloads had alternate material transport

approval paths which did not supply the

necessary manifest information to the

MOIWG

The lack of a controlled process for Manifesting processes tend to Phase 2-17. manifest

manifesting payloads aboard Progress or be vehicle and agency centric. 1/MIR

Soyuz led to difficulties in finalizing the A common process that

launch manifests for these vehicles. Data ensures transportation access

was provided to the U.S. side only after the needs to be agreed to by

vehicle docked to the Mir and items were responsible individuals in both

successfully transferred. In addition, a great organizations

deal of effort had to be expended to

transport items to Russia with no guarantee

that the items would ultimately get loaded

onto the vehicle.
were the repair of the teleprinter and

replacement of the printed circuit boards in

the video tape recorder.

The flight backup and test units on limitedproduction programs should be considered

as spares sources within reasonable

refurbishment effort, launch delay, and

reprocurement time considerations.

Did you have any problems with Reinforces need for procedure Crew 96 Maintenance,

maintenance procedures? and training standards. Comments Standards

Tools initially selected for Skylab were Include GP tools in toll kit. 2.6.2 maintenance,

primarily those required for specific tasks. A Facilitate transport of tools Selection tools few contingency tools were included such as and securing of tools and parts of tools

a pry bar, a hammer, and the Swiss Army in a zero g environment.

knife, which proved to be valuable assets.

Wrenches were provided only for specific

applications. The crew activities and

evaluation indicate a tool kit should contain

all the tools normally found in a tool

collection for comprehensive home usage,

as well as the special tools required for

special aerospace hardware. Good quality

off-the-shelf hand tools are adequate and no

special features are required for use in

space. An improved tool caddy for carrying

tools from place to place should be

developed for easy location of the needed

tool after arriving at the work station.

Transparent material would be desirable.

The caddy should also hold small parts in an

accessible manner as the work is done, since

containing and locating these items was a

problem in zero gravity.

Brakeline not connected on DC-X caused Prototype design process did NASA 638 Maintenance;

subsequent accident during recovery not place emphasis on PLL operation;

development operations documentation

maintenance

Non-critical late changes to the manifest There are many customers for Phase 2-10. manifest

were accepted by the CCB without the manifesting process, it is 1/MIR

assessing the impacts to resources and important to keep the

schedules. These changes were primarily controlling board(s)and the

items requested by PEDs/PIs to cover supporting logistics functions

potential contingency situations in flight coordinated.

(e.g.,spare parts, back-up cables, additional

logbooks, and disks).

Some payloads were not tracked by serial Not all material providers Phase 2/11 manifest

number, leading to uncertainty in which follow strict configuration 1/MIR

item was to be manifested for the mission management procedures; use

and ultimately loaded onto the vehicle. of serial number tracked items

permits an extra degree of

granularity.
investigation of in-orbit anomalies during

the Skylab missions.

Initial design concepts should include in- Initial design concepts should 2.6.1 maintenance,

flight maintenance provisions, with the include in-flight maintenance Criteria design for

necessary design features to facilitate failure provisions, with the necessary for Design maintainability

detection, isolation, corrective action, and design features to facilitate

verification of repair. Provisions should be failure detection, isolation,

made for tools, spares, maintenance corrective action, and

equipment, and space for maintenance work. verification of repair.

Accessibility to equipment attaching Provisions should be made for

hardware, electrical connections, and tools, spares, maintenance

plumbing is imperative, even in areas where

maintenance is not planned. All

contingencies cannot be anticipated, but

corrective maintenance action can be taken

if the general design is consistent with this

approach.

In much of the unplanned Skylab repair

work, it was necessary to remove cover

plates held in place by an inordinate number

of fasteners, which were not always of the

design best suited for operational removal.

Allen head screws and hexagon head bolts

were much preferred over other types by the

crew.

A substantial effort had to be spent in

identifying, to and by the crew, components,

cables, and tubing to be repaired or

replaced. A simple system of identification

decals should be used to facilitate

identification.

Result of steam line accident mishap No individual was responsible NASA 1084 Maintenance,

investigation board coordinating work PLL project

management

Spares selection should include repair parts Crew can repair equipment to 2.6.3 maintenance,

for critical items whose design permits in- the lowest practical limit, Selection spares

flight bench repair, as well as replaceable regardless of SMR codes, of spares

assemblies. Skylab has proven that the crew, provided that they have tools

when provided the proper tools, procedures and parts.

and parts, is capable of performing bench

repair of failed assemblies beyond prior

expectations. Although there were initially

no repair parts aboard, these were provided

on subsequent revisits and used

successfully.

A good example is the tear-down of tape

recorders by the crew of SL-3 and the

subsequent furnishing of repair parts and

repair by the SL-4 crew. This reduced the

volume requirements for resupply by

providing a few repair parts instead of an

entire new assembly. This philosophy could

reduce the number of primary spares

required on board initially, if the capability

to repair the failed items is provided.

Other examples of detail repair on Skylab
indicator lights from the front of the panels.

12. Design external protective covers for

experiments and other equipment for

manual operation by EVA as well as by

automatic opening. An EVA manual

override may be necessary if automatic

opening fails.

13. Single force fasteners should be used to

close out all access panels in lieu of slotted

or Phillips head screws.

Routine maintenance of experiment Operations and maintenance Phase 5/6 maintenance hardware residing in Moscow was well planning must include remote 1/MIR

planned and coordinated by PED/PI servicing activities if required

personnel. For example, routine GASMAP

maintenance in Russia was planned and

supported by PED personnel during the

course of the program.

What is your general impression of the Identify equipment requiring Crew 97 Maintenance

serviceability and supportability of the service to designers so that Comments

station? convenient access can be

instituted in design

What's your general impression of the Access panels need to be Crew 106 Maintenance

serviceability and supportability of the designed for convenient Comments

station? removal in operation

environment. Specifically

panels that require large

amount of fasteners to endure

launch loads may only require

2 to 3 fasteners in zero-g

Protection of electrical connectors for GSE Installation of appropriate NASA 850 Maintenance

electrical connector caps when PLL procedures

not mated.

Provide a depot repair, maintenance, and Depot staffed by experienced JSC 1-18 maintenance,

modification capability for delivered developers and located in Skylab depot

experiment hardware. Schedule and proximity to operations Lessons

manpower expenditures were minimized provides timely repair activity

because of the quick turnaround capability and troubleshooting support

afforded by the depot concept of operation

and the physical location of the depot in

relation to the receiving and shipping docks.

The ability to repair items in the depot or to

go directly to the proper specialty

manufacturing area within the company

greatly enhanced the time it took to achieve

needed repairs. The members of the small

team of people used to run the depot were

all "graduates" of the qualificationacceptance test phases (engineering,test,

and quality). This fact made the decision

process more accurate and timely.

Subsequent repairs and tests were

accomplished more efficiently because of

the experience of the personnel involved.

The depot provided a suitable location for

the mission support testing to assist in the
Do you have any suggestions on improving Need to involve logistics Crew 105 Maintainability

station hardware, station maintenance tasks? standards early in design. Comments

Reduce number of and types

of tools required.

Excessive failure analysis time causes slow Delays in accomplishing NASA 221 Maintainability,

turnaround failure analysis causes PLL Failure Analysis

excessively slow turnaround

times for many repairable

components

For the location codes, would using an Use of color codes for label Crew 57 Maintainability,

alternate color or increasing the label size criteria is acceptable Comments labels

make the label easier to locate/read?

Logistics depot development Establish a logistics depot NASA 220 Maintainability,

PLL SMR

Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composite Reinforces necessity for NASA 689 Maintenance

Material Selection creation, application, and PLL

enforcement of standards.

Two individuals were left in manhole Lax attitude contributed to NASA 1085 Maintenance

unattended failure to follow procedures PLL

In-orbit repair and maintenance can be Design considerations for JSC 1-2 maintenance

performed satisfactorily in zero g. In-flight operations and maintenance Skylab

maintenance guidelines should include the Lessons

following:

1. Consider extravehicular activity (EVA) as

a normal means of repair.

2. Provide proper procedures, tools, and

equipment for crew usage,

3. Design equipment to facilitate potential

in-flight maintenance.

4. Consider EVA inspection and repair

during the design requirements phase of a

program.

5. Provide for the effective containment of

nuts, bolts, washers, tools, hardware

components, etc., by means of tool and/or

retainer boxes, bungee cords, etc.

6. Provide for a worksite, repair bench, or

equivalent equipped with adequate restraints

for tools and equipment.

7. Provide spares for those hardware items

most likely to require servicing and/or

replacement.

8. Promote the use of standard-size screws,

bolts, etc., in the spacecraft design.

9. Provide a high-fidelity maintenance

training simulator.

10. Provide the capability to reservice fluid

and gas systems from the interior of the

spacecraft. Fluid/gaseous connectors (Bnuts, weld or solder joints) should be

located and configured such that they can be

inspected by the crew for leaks.

ll. Design panels to allow replacement of
Apollo-era ground infrastructure for the Multi Program use facilities NASA 1233 Lifecycle Space Shuttle Program requires such as centers must perform PLL planning revitalization continual logistics analyses to

maintain capabilities.

Strategic Resources Review (SRR)facility To make most cost effective NASA 1234 Lifecycle

closure decisions decisions logistics analysis are PLL planning

performed.

Insufficient amount of Simplified Aid for Required logistics analysis to NASA 1113 Logistics

EVA Rescue (SAFER) units available for determine probability of PLL Analysis

unplanned contingencies sufficiency

The current EMU is adequate for the near- Required logistics analysis to NASA 1126 Logistics

term needs of the ISS and the Space Shuttle, determine predicted lifecycle PLL Analysis

but its obsolescent technology, high cost, costs

and other limitations make it unsuitable for

future exploration and development of deep

space

Parts Obsolescence May be Caused by Contingency planning includes NASA 1013 Logistics Several Issues Including Vendors Going Out maintaining a priority list of PLL program

of Business, Discontinuance of a Part, and top issues

Environmental Law Changes

Addresses Aviation Safety Assurance Panel Required LRU forecasting and NASA 1051 Logistics

(ASAP) concern regarding availability of 'what if' scenarios PLL program Shuttle LRU spares

Transition and development of the NASA and USA should NASA 1052 Logistics

LOGISTICS tasks for the orbiter and its continue the task of PLL program

ground operations under the SFOC are management integration of the

proceeding efficiently and according to plan formerly separate LOGISTICS

contracts and retain and

expand the roles of the

experienced LOGISTICS

specialists therein.

long-term projectionsare still suggesting NASA and USA should NASA 1053 Logistics increasing cannibalization rates, increasing reexamine and take action to PLL program

component repair turnaround times, and loss reverse the more worrying

of repair capability for the Space Shuttle trends highlighted by the

LOGISTICS program statistical trend data

Process for reviewing MIR/Phase 1 lessons Late stowage requirements for NASA 1056 Logistics

learned for applicability to ISS Program flights to MIR caused design PLL program

of late load capability into the

ISS Multi-Purpose Logistics

Module (MPLM)

Components from a operational orbiter were Inadequate sparing causes NASA 197 LSA, Sparing

removed to repair a non operational orbiter cannibalization of orbiters to PLL

support launch

IUS design has no connectors, cables must Maintainability assessment NASA 313 M&O be spliced must include analysis of PLL

repairs that may occur during

testing
Colored labels were used on the CTBs to Use of color coded labels to Phase 3/14 label; packaging

track bags returning and those going to Mir: categorize cargo can be useful 1/MIR

pink for ascent and blue for descent.

Do you have any comments about the Crew wants 'time of usable Crew 73 Labeling

labeling of emergency equipment or air' on O2 bottles in addition Comments

emergency lockers? to amount remaining

Were there any identification labels that Stress importance that material Crew 70 Labeling,

kept you from identifying hardware? labeling and procedure Comments Maintenance

material identification match.

If the components of an assembly all had When components in an Crew 56 Labels, IMS

IMS barcodes label, was it difficult to assembly had barcode labels it Comments

determine which of the IMS barcode labels was sometime difficult to

was the parent in IMS? determine the parent.

How much did you utilize the decals (i.e. Use a standard rack labeling Crew 18 Labels, Stowage

O3, Pl) located on the standoffs in the scheme, use the Lab as an Comments

MPLM and US Lab? Would it be adequate example.

(on future modules)to only label the rack

bay (1,2,3) and have decals on the endcones

indicating forwardlaft and

overhead/port/deck/s

Projectbudget bled by reliance on facility Stresses importance of NASA 1342 Lifecycle

with small customer base and shifting supplier risk analysis PLL Analysis

NASA priorities

Projectunderestimated complexity when Reinforces logistics role in NASA 1370 Lifecycle

using COTS navigation product in shuttle overall systems engineering PLL analysis

process

There is no systematic plan to counter Logistics should be NASA 1138 Lifecycle

obsolescence and assure the availability of responsible for providing a PLL planning

adequate facilities, GSE, and specialized systematic plan to counter

test-and-checkout equipment throughout the obsolescence and assure the

expected lifetime of the Space Shuttle. availability of adequate

facilities, GSE, and

specialized test-and-checkout

equipment throughout the

expected lifetime of the Space

Shuttle.

Potential International Space Station (ISS) Required logistics analysis to NASA 1144 Lifecycle

Supportability Problems With Existing determine predicted lifecycle PLL planning

Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Assets costs

The funding of the EVA R&T program is Required logistics analysis to NASA 1147 Lifecycle

not adequate to provide the maximum safety determine predicted lifecycle PLL planning

benefit in terms of new equipment and costs

procedures that lower the risk of

extravehicular activities

The current and proposed budgets are not Logistics analysis required to NASA 1231 Lifecycle

sufficient to improve or even maintain the draw conclusion PLL Planning

safety risk level of operating the Space

Shuttle and ISS

Elements of the Shuttle systems upgrades To make most cost effective NASA 1232 Lifecycle

portfolio may be delayed or deferred decisions logistics analysis are PLL planning

necessitating a need to ensure adequate performed.

long-term LOGISTICS planning for mature

systems
The manifest was maintained in Russian and When dealing with Phase 2-6. manifest; IMS English on the same page, and used only international partners, careful 1/MIR

metric values. Therefore, the manifest consideration must be given in

provided to the Russians via hardcopy was establishing language and

the same as that used by the U.S., which measurement standards.

eliminated error associated with maintaining Although dual language and

multiple versions. measurement capabilities were

a concession, the impact on

future transactions with other

international partners were not

considered.

Observation: A great deal of time and effort Establishing and maintaining a Phase 2-3. manifest; IMS; is expended in manifesting items such as qualified parts list will 1/MIR certification; ziplock bags, tape, pens, dry wipes and expedite the manifesting of loadmaster

paper. materials on space Recommendation: a. Set aside an area transportation

onboard station for stowage of common-use

supplies. b. At a specified time prior to the

next shuttle launch, have a crew person

inventory the supplies on hand. C. On the

ground, have a catalog of core pre-approved

supplies that FEPC maintains to replenish

those supplies. d. Remove these items from

the standard manifesting process. Under the

present system, it takes almost as much

manpower to manifest a ziplock bag as it

does to manifest a payload.

Background: Any time the long duration

crew needed these types of items, they had

to be processed through the CR route.

Drawings had to be changed, safety

certifications generated and CCB approval

obtained in the same manner that major

hardware is processed.

Working Group 6 found it difficult to Lines of ownership can Phase 2-32. manifest; determine third-party (international) become confusing as material 1/MIR ownership hardware ownership to obtain usage passes through multiple

agreements. (ex. French camera) providers.

The trade-off between planning too many Lower priority cargo may not Phase 2-35. manifest; experiments and too few is very important. be flown imposing significant 1/MIR research Processing reserve experiments would be operations and preparatory

very beneficial in the event that planned costs on supplying

payloads drop out late in the process. organizations.

However, even the planning process is

expensive and PIs want to fly their

experiments if they do the initial

preparation.
Component Terminology Simplicity and Nomenclature selected for John N/A Nomenclature

Consistency vehicle components should be Commons design

simple, concise, and refer to ense

common everyday

terminology where possible

(I.e. instead of calling a light a

General Luminaire Assembly

(GLA), call it a light). When

complex terminology s used, it

must be recognized that

additional system

familiarization and training for

the crew and operational

personnel are required. In

addition, identical components

should use the same

terminology throughout the

entire vehicle. Differences

between engineering and

operations nomenclature

should be minimized.

During recent Multi-Purpose Logistics Design of GSE should include JSC 369 outfitting,

Module (MPLM, S/N FMl) operations, usage analysis to ensure Lessons preparation for

some loose debris was generated by the product holds up under Learned launch, PHS&T

Personnel Access Floor (PAF, S/N 002). anticipated traffic

The source of the debris was found to be

from the personnel access floor rivets (Part

Numbers MS21140 &

Robust Systems Consumables The overall system should be John N/A overall system

designed with sufficient Commons design

consumable margins to ense

accommodate foreseen

contingencies. Lack of robust

consumable margins requires

very detailed design

optimization that reduces

mission flexibility and

responsiveness to changing r

Wherever possible, all circuit John N/A Packaging design

design and packaging of Commons

similar hardware or function ense

will be standardized at the

lowest possible level for

supportability, maintainability,

and interchangeability.

Certification requirements should take into Packaging specifications Phase 3/5 packaging;

account the extremes of the ground storage should identify the transport 1/MIR transport

and transportation and space environment. environment to the destination

Hardware sometimes sat in cold node. This must include all

warehouses. internodal transport to

intended and potential

vehicles.
The process for packaging and processing Kitting can be delivered Phase 3/12 packaging;

CTB shipments to KSC was performed well packaged for flight, providing 1/MIR transport

due to well defined schedules and adequate that standards are followed.

lead times. The hardware was shipped

directly to Spacehab and required good

coordination between Stowage and

Logistics.

The Collapsible Transfer Bag (CTB) The Collapsible Transfer Bag Phase 3/13 packaging;

concept allowed greater flexibility for the (CTB) concept allowed greater 1/MIR transport

ground and the crewmember for packing flexibility for the ground and

and transferring items. the crewmember for packing

and transferring items.

Hardware packaging requirements were not Packaging specifications Phase 5/10 packaging;

compatible with actual transportation should identify the transport 1/MIR transport

conditions in Russia. Thermal and shock environment to the destination

loads encountered during transportation by node. This must include all

rail or truck often exceeded the design internodal transport to

capability of the shipping containers. In intended and potential

addition, the U.S. had no control over the vehicles.

mode of transportation within Russia.

Crew Transfer Bag (CTB) packaging Logistics processing staffing Phase 3/2 packing; transfer;

schemes were determined primarily by one must ensure capabilities are 1/MIR packaging

specialist, resulting in a potential single available when required.

point failure.

It has been noted through review of IMS Utility of pantry provisioning Crew 16 Pantry

data, that you have begun using the pantry needs to be assessed and Comments

concept for some items (bungies,tape, etc.). optimized for each application

Any suggestions on how the stowage group

can aid in the developmentlimplementation

of a broader pantry plan to include more l

Pantry-type food storage as opposed to Reinforcement of pantry JSC 1-5 pantry;

meal-sequence food storage: Particularly for stocking concept Skylab provisioning;

long-term flight, it is recommended that a Lessons stowage

pantry-style food storage system be

implemented. In this type system, all

identical foods are stored in the same

location

Delimitation of nozzles as a result of storage Problem discovered during NASA 466 PHS&T

environment factors receiving inspection PLL

Circuit boards deteriorated during storage Equipment doesn't always NASA 607 PHS&T

launch when scheduled, spares PLL

for launched systems may be

used for other projects

Monitoring spacecraft exposure to magnetic Space systems may be NASA 706 PHS&T

fields during storage and transportation susceptible to damage from PLL

magnetic fields during storage

or transportation and may

require monitoring
Maintenance & Test Criteria for Circuit Pre-installation testing may be NASA 848 PHS&T

Breakers to be performed prior to or during required for circuit breakers PLL

installation. due to previous instances of

process variables, inspection

techniques, and even fraud

During transportation of the X-33 fuel tank, Lead truck passed under NASA 1068 PHS&T

the transport truck struck an underpass overpass in center, transport PLL

truck did not follow exact

track

Spacecraft damaged due to mismatch of Stresses importance of NASA 1089 PHS&T

spacecraft and GSE analysis and readiness reviews PLL

Flight equipment not properly packed for Conflicting contractor and NASA 1211 PHS&T

shipment center PHS&T requirements PLL

result in confusion regarding

correct configuration

Recipient of tool shipment refused delivery Reinforces fracturization of NASA 1272 PHS&T

because tool was improperly packaged logistics among organizations PLL

to the point where no entity is

responsible for successful

completion of task.

GSE interferes with installed payload in Importance of design reviews NASA 1323 PHS&T

MPLM and adherence to Interface PLL

Control Documentation

Closed cell material used for stowage Packing of materials JSC 2-7 PHS&T

restraints should have an allowable transported through space Skylab

tolerance to account for changes in volume must include a thorough Lessons

at different pressures. analysis of encountered

environments and effect on

dunnage

Interface verification matrices should be Regardless of analysis, JSC 14-1 PHS&T

established to ensure adequate fit checks of reviews, certifications and Skylab

critical Government furnished equipment qualifications, fitchecks to Lessons

(GFE) hardware interfaces. A specific verify equipment mates will be

organization should be charged with the requested. For equipment

responsibility for generating and completing delivered packed for flight this

these matrices. may necessitate unpacking and

mating unless it can be shown

that the equipment was mated

to other flight certified

equipment.

Printed wiring boards solder connections Logistics support analysis NASA 402 PHS&T, shelf

have shelf life issues must include shelf life analysis PLL life

Many of the orbital workshop equipment Launch restraints are not used JSC 2-36 PHS&T, stowage

restraints appeared to be oversized. Simpler when equipment is on orbit Skylab

concepts would have probably saved cost, Lessons

weight, complexity, and crew time.

Operational equipment restraints should be

standardized and should be simple and easy

to use. Bungee-type restraints attached to

stowage lockers, walls, doors, etc., would be

adequate for many of the in-orbit equipment
stowage and handling activities. Specific

book restraints are needed at work sites to

retain checklists and to keep them open to a

given page. If a press-fit restraint is used for

loose hardware, care must be taken not to

insert the hardware too deeply or too tightly

into the retention device. A specific means

for keeping clothing spread out to dry while

the crew sleepswould be desirable.

Contaminated part sent to shipping Tracking system must include NASA 99 PHS&T, Special

special handling instructions PLL Handling

Electrostatic precaution measures during Reinforces necessity for NASA 685 PHS&T;

ground processing creation, application, and PLL marking

enforcement of standards.

NASA budget reductions affect transitioned Budgetary squeezes increase NASA 1012 Planning,

logistics functions cannibalization and PLL logistics program

component turnaround times

General Crew Comment Communications regarding the Crew 65 Pre pack,

pre pack were beneficial in Comments communication

resolving questions

Discuss the role the ISS Loadmaster Transfer arrangement call for Crew 85 Pre pack,

performed. manned vehicle crewmember Comments Loadmaster,

to be responsible for Transfer

transferring cargo between

vehicle and ISS. This person is

designated as loadmaster

The original plan was to discard the pre- Early crew used pre pack lists Crew 59 Pre pack, transfer

pack list once the transfer lists arrived with which did not always agree Comments

the shuttle crew. Did this happen, or did with final transfer lists

you continue to use the pre-pack list?

Pre-flight processing and testing results in Significant wear and tear NASA 316 Pre-flight

excessive mates and demates of flight occur to flight equipment prior PLL processing

connectors to launch

Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) control in Reinforces necessity for NASA 732 Pre-flight flight hardware creation, application, and PLL processing

enforcement of standards.

Integration and Test Practices to Eliminate Reinforces necessity for NASA 729 Pre-flight

Stresses on Electrical and Mechanical creation, application, and PLL processing Components enforcement of standards.

Do you have any suggestions for us to make Commonality in packing and Crew 9 Prepack,

the pre-pack list and all the changes we send transfer lists Comments manifest

you easier to use? Would sending the same

file back and forth and allowing the crew to

insert comments and the ground to add new

items be useful?

Did you ever reference the Station Flight X Reinforce need for Crew 58 Prepack,

Transfer List prior to Station Flight X+1 coordination and commonality Comments Transfer

arrival? in stowage and transfer record

identification.
Fuel cells not properly isolated from shuttle Procedures did not address NASA 1184 Procedures

electrical busses circumstances PLL

Quick Release Pin from gantry platform The less stuff you have that NASA 923 Procedures,

kickplate was found on shuttle requires the use of QRPsthe PLL Design for

less QRPsyou'll have maintainability

available to get lost

Orbiter projectis currently working to Reinforces necessity for NASA 1243 Procurement

reduce the number of outstanding drawing performing obsolescence PLL

changes reviews and maintaining an

active supplier surveillance

program.

Projectdifficulties due to inadequate Budgeted procurement time NASA 1397 Procurement

budgeting, planning and engineering underestimate time to get PLL

vendors under contract

Separate Center and contractor Separate Center and contractor JSC 5-3 Procurement,

procurements of the same or similar items procurements of the same or Skylab standards

should be avoided, because this approach similar items should be Lessons

can result in several specification number or avoided, because this approach

part number callouts for the same item. can result in several

Common requirements for the same item by specification number or part

more than one Center or contractor should number callouts for the same

be coordinated, and the commonality item

aspects should be managed to the advantage

of the program.

NASA aircraft used for both Space Shuttle Logistics assessments required NASA 1102 Procurement/Pla

operations and astronaut training are for cost benefit analysis for PLL nning

increasingly out of date and, in several extension/replacement

respects, may be approaching the unsafe

Design practices followed to make the Solid Refurbishment and process NASA 836 Product

Rocket Boosters (SRB) reusable improvements and their effect PLL Lifecycle

on lifecycle costs

Plans to fly Shuttle until 2012 necessitate Lifecycle improvements NASA 999 Product lifecycle

phased upgrades to maintain schedules impact logistics support PLL

requirements

Lessons learned from Chandra X-Ray A good listing of NASA 987 Program

Observatory Program programmatic lessons learned, PLL

see actual lessons learned

section

Substantial Benefits to projectsfrom use of Use of Blanket Purchase NASA 1218 Purchasing

Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) during Agreement (BPA) during PLL

procurement procurement allows flexibility

during Indefinite Delivery/

Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ)

contracts

AT by Accompanying Documentation (AD) Vehicle specific flight Phase 3/7 qualification;

was negotiated with the Russians to aid the qualification certifications 1/MIR manifest;

processing of reflown payloads. must be established between certification

vehicles, organizations, and

agencies.
There was a need for consistent definition of Vehicle specific flight Phase 3/11 qualification; certification requirements for payloads. - qualification certifications 1/MIR manifest; Although certification requirements were must be established between certification defined in the 002 document, these vehicles, organizations, and

requirements were always open to agencies.

interpretation depending on the Russian

specialist involved in the Acceptance

Testing.

- Russian and Shuttle certification

requirements are different, thereby causing

confusion PEDs. Russian requirements are

general, whereas U.S. requirements tend to

be specific. - Most problems were in fluid

containment and verification and offgassing

limits.

Broken chairs are repaired under warranty Maintain warranty records in NASA 931 Record Keeping

event equipment does not PLL

perform as specified

As EEE components are processed and Aerospace components have NASA 982 Record Keeping

packaged original lot information is lost the added requirement for PLL

pedigree determination, lost

information can cause non or

loss of flight certification

Crane use even though out of operational Reinforces necessity for NASA 565 record keeping;

configuration and past due servicing record keeping and PLL maintenance;

maintenance planning operations

Checklist development of factors that affect Reinforces necessity for NASA 684 Reliability; long-term storage of devices creation, application, and PLL PHS&T

enforcement of standards.

Poor weather visibility prevented Operations procedures should NASA 871 Safety

technicians from adequately monitoring N2 be analyzed for all credible PLL

tank filling hazards

Guidelines for close call reporting at GSFC None other than as a NASA 1086 Safety

are not clear participating organization PLL

Vehicle launched despite abort directive None other than as a NASA 1090 Safety

participating organization PLL

A 55-gallon drum of paint wastes Reinforces handling NASA 1181 Safety

subsequently ruptured after being over procedures for transported and PLL

packed into an 85-gallon salvage drum due stored goods

to leakage from the original drum

Operators suffered extremity damage while None, other than as a NASA 1361 Safety

performing work participating organization PLL

Uncoordinated work resulted in water None other than as a NASA 1183 Safety, deluge system activation participating organization PLL operations

Improper configuration of vehicle led to Configuration not properly NASA 1182 Safety; damaged fuel cell documented in repair PLL procedures

procedures

Oil pumps were overfilled Maintenance & Operations NASA 216 Servicing

(M&O) PLL
Ni-Cd battery handling and storage factors Ni-Cd batteries can be NASA 644 Shelf life; issue

damaged and irreversibly PLL processing;

degraded through improper limited life

use and handling prior to

launch

Super Ni-Cd battery handling and storage Ni-Cd batteries can be NASA 694 Shelf life; issue

factors damaged and irreversibly PLL processing;

degraded through improper limited life

use and handling prior to

launch

The shipping/logistics team developed a The necessity of developing a Phase 5/15 shipping

schedule and process for the return of U.S. end-to-end material lifecycle 1/MIR

hardware from Russia. To implement the process is affirmed

plan, personnel were sent to Moscow to

perform detailed inventories, review duallanguage hardware lists with the Russians,

determine which items would be transferred

to RSA or Phase II, negotiate three-way

protocols, and package the hardware for

shipment. The efforts have resulted in the

successful return of approximately $1.5

million of hardware, despite the numerous

obstacles presented by RSA and Russian

Customs officials.

The Russian organization structure required The necessity of developing a Phase 5/18 shipping;

multiple levels of approval for hardware end-to-end material lifecycle 1/MIR manifest

shipments. Personnel supposedly process with empowered

authorized to prepare documentation or control gates is affirmed

approve shipments were unwilling to initiate

a process without higher approval.

Personnel hand carrying hardware into The necessity of developing a Phase 5/23 shipping;

Russia were met with varying application of end-to-end material lifecycle 1/MIR manifest

customs regulations based on the whim of process with empowered

customs officials. These items, as well as control gates is affirmed

parcels sent through various express

delivery companies, were more likely to be

detained

The standard shipping form (JSC290) was Common software standards Phase 5/11 shipping;

created on a Macintosh software platform for forms and applications 1/MIR transport

which was not available in PC format. This must be implemented prior to

limited access to the form once PCs became advent of operations

the JSC standard desktop system.

The shipping template from JSC to Moscow Shipping of materials across Phase 5/44 shipping;

(2 weeks)was not compatible with late international boundaries I/MIR transport

changes to training, which required payload requires extensive lifecycle

training hardware to be at GCTC. planning

Having hardware facilitator/coordinators Use of expediters in foreign Phase 5/45 Shipping;

both in Moscow and the U.S. helps locations is justified when the 1/MIR transport

shipping, and tracking the hardware. amount of material shipped is

extensive.
Many hardware shipping requests were not If there is no coordinated Phase 5/14 shipping; submitted in compliance with the shipping approved process ahead of 1/MIR transportation

process. Inadequate lead times and time, organizations supplying incorrect shipping information provided by material to be transported will

the requester resulted in rework of shipping strike separate deals with forms and delays in the schedule. Some transport agencies and

organizations opted to bypass the MOIWG organizations.

entirely and ship/carry hardware on their

own, resulting in unnecessary delays and

additional costs.

Organizational interrelationships on the If there is no coordinated Phase 5/19 shipping; Russian side were not properly defined, approved process ahead of 1/MIR transportation

resulting in individual PEDs/PIs working time, organizations supplying directly with their Russian counterparts material to be transported will

and/or special channels to deliver and strike separate deals with

process hardware. transport agencies and

organizations.

Sparing, Resupply, & Logistics strategy Preposition spares to ensure John N/A Spares

mission success Commons provisioning

ense

Sparing, Resupply, & Logistics strategy Provide cannibalization John N/A Spares,

options (component swapping Commons swapping,

due to failure or for system ense provisioning

augmentation).

Russian spares philosophy is different from Inadequate on-orbit sparing Phase 5-2 spares; US. Russians do not use "new' spares, they may lead to cannibalization 1/MIR maintenance

reuse old, or previously failed parts

(cannibalize).

Critical or multi-use hardware items needed Initial lifecycle planning for Phase 5/43 spares; onboard backups. Careful analysis is some station components and 1/MIR maintenance; required for long-duration spaceflight payloads was based on a analysis; impacts, e.g. impacts on electronics due to Shuttle model and did not take Single Event Upsets (SEUs). This list of into account longer duration in

critical or multi-use items requiring spares is a space environment

typically outside the standard set used for

Shuttle missions.

Obsolete parts Involves balancing the NASA 222 Sparing and

alternatives of purchasing and PLL provisioning

storage of excess parts,

establishing manufacturing

facilities and skills or

potentially facing critical

shortages

As for the cargo stowage areas inside the As the station is being built, Crew 78 Staging

compartments: do they hinder your work? there are open areas awaiting Comments

outfitting. Because not

designated as a reconfigurable

stowage location they are not

involved in the stowage

locations.
At L-4 weeks, we uplinked a "Transfer Big Crew liked the idea of early Crew 84 Staging, Flight

Picture" message that included an overview prepack coordination so that Comments Arrival

of the items planned for return. volume may be seat a side for Preparation

stowage of large items

As the construction of the Station progresses Unused system areas, in this Crew 17 Staging,

and more and more cargo is being delivered, case the airlock, will be Comments stowage;

is unloading cargo (MPLM, Middeck, pressed into use for permanent Transfer

Progresses)in staging areas, to be put away and temporary stowage

at a later time, still a viable plan? resources.

The LDM crewmembers often used the Transfer operations require a Phase 3/15 staging; stowage;

Progress and the CTBs as a staging area and staging area to efficiently stow 1/MIR transfer

worked from the bags directly instead of materials and cargo

stowing items onboard Mir.

A staging area for Shuttle resupply was not Transfer operations require a Phase 3/19 staging; stowage;

defined. Therefore, each crewmember had staging area to efficiently stow 1/MIR transfer

to clear space to receive all packed bags. materials and cargo

As bags were transferred to the Shuttle,

resupply bags could be brought to Mir from

the Shuttle.

We would like to continue doing the reverse For many consumables, the Crew 95 Storekeeping

audit (you only tell us what you need)for crew may perform the Comments

office supplies, and start including hygiene, inventory and provide the

six weeks prior to crew rotation when ground with the demand.

Shuttle flights resume, by sending the

resupply form. Do you have any

suggestions?

Do you have any suggestions on how the Improve intra-ground Crew 26 Storekeeping,

ground can better track consumable status communications. Use all Comments Communication

while limiting the impact to the crew to available ground logistics

provide the data? Our plan is to revise resources before requesting

usage rates and resupply at the beginning of additional data from crew.

each increment.

Pre-packing of hardware on orbit is The on-orbit crew packs the Phase 6/4 stowage, preaccomplished as tasks are completed and is return manifest; a handful of 1/MIR pack; manifest;

typically not presorted. As a result, many individuals will accomplish staging

categories of equipment may be packed in the work performed by a

the same return bag; i.e. early destow hundred on the ground. It is

science with R+3 and R+5 hour important to plan and practice

requirements, nominal destow items, crew returned cargo dispositioning

personal items, GFE, etc. Destow with all interested

operations are a complex and manpower organizations and agencies.

intensive operation and need to be well

organized to preclude loss of science and

potential misrouting of hardware.

As a result of early destow operations the

"STS-81 U.S. Hardware Destow Ground

Operations Process" (JSC-27665)was

developed to formalize the Mir/Shuttle

destow ground operations. However, this

document does not control the organizations

at KSC that deliver the hardware. Upon

landing, hardware still may be returned from

the runway by four different organizations,
the shuttle flight crew equipment (FCE)

personnel, the KSC payloads organization,

Spacehab Inc. personnel, and in some cases,

by VITT team members. These

organizations deliver hardware to,

respectively, the FCE lab at SSPF, the O&C

high bay, the SPPF facility and the crew

quarters. This makes inventory control a

monumental activity. Each group operates

using their own paper for defining

requirements, e.g. the Launch Site

Disposition Plan (Shuttle), the Phase 1

Destow Plan (Phase1), Turnover TAP's

(KSC Payloads)and customer ICA's

(Spacehab),which are not necessarily

recognized by other parties.

Use the documentation plan as a model for

future ground destow operations. A list of

specific recommendations are included as

highlights:

1. Establish a destow and inventory team,

representing the operations organization

(Shuttle) and the user organizations (Phase

1, (cut and paste error - see 6-5) ISS,

Spacehab).

2. Hardware would be delivered to a central

location for dispositioning and inventory

control.

3. The requirements would be documented

in one universally recognized destow

document.

4. Alternatively, require the crew to pack all

early destow and nominal destow items in

separate bags (requires more space and crew

coordination on-orbit).

5. Exception to the above rule is that cold

stowage or other fragile items should be

delivered to an off-line laboratory for

processing by qualified personnel and

inventoried on a non-interference basis.

6. Conduct a pre-landing meeting with the

destow team members to ensure that all

team members understand their duties and

responsibilities.

7. Conduct a pre-landing meeting with the

PED representatives to ensure that they are

informed of potential turnover times and

understand shipping requirements.

8. Ensure adequate PED support at Edwards

in the event of a contingency landing.

9. Sort the Master Destow List several ways

(by PED, bag, and part number)to meet the

needs of the various destow operations.

10. Prepare preprinted labels containing

hardware name and part number to facilitate

the photography process for the descent
hardware.

Designers of onboard stowage facilities for Stowage design considerations JSC 2-6 stowage

future spacecraft should consider the Skylab

following: i. Individual food stowage items Lessons

should be located conveniently near the

crewman's place in the wardroom.

Spacecraft control panel numbers and

stowage location

Volume/space management for payloads Use of velcro and tethers Phase 3⁄4 stowage

within Mir was flexible enough to maximize within habitable space can 1/MIR

module usage. Velcro, tethers, brackets or create stowage volume.

other devices could attach payloads

wherever usable volume was available and

crew safety would not be compromised.

Constraining manifests by limiting payload

accommodations would have resulted in

fewer experiments.

There were no established U.S./Russian Coordination between Phase 3/18 stowage

Interface Control Documents (ICDs) or organizations and agencies 1/MIR

agreements citing stowage locations, must be developed to the

allocations, or available nonstructural implementation level.

interfaces within Mir. It was believed that

we had verbal agreements establishing the

use of locations in the Spektr and Priroda

modules that held U.S. hardware when the

modules were launched. Over time, some

of these locations were filled with non-U.S,

items.

Stowage locations were not incorporated It is necessary for procedures Phase 3/20 stowage

into the procedures. Stowage changes to reference accurate stowage 1/MIR

remained very dynamic throughout the locations.

program. Crew members usually stowed

items in a manner to suit their needs and

operational requirements.

Stowage Locations - Mir does not have Configurable stowage Phase 3/21 stowage

dedicated stowage locations which greatly locations must be included 1/MIR

affects operations. This results in wasted during vehicle development

time trying to locate items.

Russians have a different philosophy on Configurable stowage Phase 3/22 stowage

stowage planning and pre-launch stowage locations must be included 1/MIR

timing. Stowage needs extensive planning - during vehicle development

especially for waste and used items.

Removal of these items needs planning. Be

prepared for late changes. Russians don't do

as much pre-flight contingency situation

planning as we do.
Any suggestions for improving Some expedition crews Crew 14 Stowage

communications and/or content of wanted a more active role in Comments

communications between on-orbit stowage stowing items. The "item

planners and crew? location lookup" orientation of

the IMS did not accommodate

this. A key lesson learned is

that the best stowage schema

for transportation is not

necessarily the best for user

Does the non-standard stowage have some Stowage in general purpose Crew 8 Stowage

negative impact to your operational workspace reduces availability Comments

efficiency or is there just no impact at all to of the space for other purposes

the current non-standard stowage that you're

dealing with?

General Crew Comment International partner Crew 93 Stowage

participation in stowage Comments

activities is not guaranteed. In

example cited 75% - 80% of

equipment and tools in IP

segment were found with

prolonged search and

consultation with other control

centers.

To what extent would you say your work Itemretrieval times are Crew 107 Stowage

and every day activities were impeded by influenced by the amount of Comments

stowage on walls and in corridors? Do we time it takes to clear path to

need to add additional time to unstow cargo access stowage area.

for any activities?

Were the crew provisions packed in an Crew may restow items to Crew 11 Stowage

efficient manner? meet crew peculiar needs. Comments

Were the crew provisions packed in an Crew recommends packing Crew 24 Stowage

efficient manner? like items together. Comments

What label issues cost you time and why? All stowage locations should Crew 2 Stowage

have the same location- Comments

labeling scheme.

During Shuttle flights an equipment list was Do not change format of lists Crew 37 Stowage, built, replacement for daily stowage notes. without training and informing Comments Communication

Was the change in format confusing? crew.

Please indicate the top two habitability and Constant stowage flux affects Crew 1 Stowage, human factors issues you experienced with housekeeping and quality of Comments Communication ISS life.

How did the pantry style stowage work? Pantry style stowage worked Crew 67 Stowage, Crew

well Comments Provisioning,

Pantry

What suggestions do you have to minimize Daily consumption of food Crew 101 Stowage, excess,

overall stowage inefficiency? How can the generates trash that must be Comments food

ground help to facilitate stowage disposed of.

consolidation and minimize large numbers

of partial CTBs?
How did cargo and stowage management Early IMS was inaccurate and Crew 4 Stowage, IMS

impact your mission? difficult to use. Crew found it Comments

easier to have a daily listing

rather than access IMS.

General Crew Comment Reinforces necessity for Crew 91 Stowage, IMS

periodic audits to synch the Comments

inventory to the IMS

Was an overabundance of stowage an Stowage discipline is the key Crew 6 Stowage, IMS

impact to your time on-orbit? to efficient use of time. Comments

Pre flight we worked with the transfer folks Use of equipment lists are Crew 12 Stowage,

to integrate our assembly procedures more helpful and saves crew time Comments maintenance

into Work prep and the Transfer List and

hope to streamline the process in the future.

Do you have any comments on Work Prep,

the Equipment List, IMS and the Transfer

Crew will rearrange supplies Crew 103 Stowage, Pantry

as expedient during a mission. Comments

What seems to be a logical

stowage scheme for the

ground or a crew may be

meaningless to another.

Stowage Commentary What seems to be a logical Crew 27 Stowage, Pantry

stowage scheme for the Comments

ground or a crew may be

meaningless to another.

Stowage Commentary The initial estimates of time Crew 28 Stowage, Preneed to stow items are always Comments Pack

too low.

Do you have any recommendations for Crew is mainly interested in Crew 33 Stowage,

items that should not be included in IMS? IMS use for non-system Comments Storekeeping

inventory purposes. If an ORU

is installed they are not

interested in its location; it is

part of the ISS assembly.

Do you have any recommendations for There is a sort of Laffer Curve Crew 108 Stowage,

items that should or should not be tracked in at work regarding Comments Storekeeping,

IMS? storekeeping tasks in the crew Provisioning,

workload. A realistic Barcode

assessment must be made as to

the smallest level of detail

required to be tracked to effect

a responsive logistics system

as opposed to the lowest level

We are considering adding an "empty/full" Add provision for crew to Crew 87 Stowage,

field in IMS and on the BCR in a future pack items into kit and then Comments Stowage,

version, We know that for items such as move entire kit. transfer, packing

CTBs, CWCs, food containers, etc., that you

were asked this a lot. Would this have been

useful for you to use?
General Crew Comment Use of transfer packing item Crew 61 Stowage, transfer

numbers on return bags is Comments

sufficient information,

provided that the contents are

tracked somewhere else.

General Crew Comment The practice of tracking Crew 64 Stowage, transfer

arrived supplies by when they Comments

arrived can be accomplished

through use of color coded

labels.

General Crew Comment Transfer between shuttle and Crew 19 Stowage, transfer

ISS is performed using Cargo Comments

Transfer Bags (CTB) as a

result CTBs become the

standard by which cargo is

judged

How accurate was the ground's Stowage and transfer is an Crew 5 Stowage, transfer

understanding of the on-board operational evolutionary process, the early Comments

constraints associated with the management increments did not feel that the

of stowage/cargo? (E.g., time to ground had a sound concept of

load/unload, staging volume). the principles involved

Consumables' tracking was not established. Affirms requirement for Phase 5/28 stowage;

An attempt to track consumables and reasonable consumables 1/MIR consumable

hardware life was made during Increment 7, tracking

but because this required a methodical

approach from the inception of the program,

the effort was inadequate.

Need multiple locations for critical and A dynamic stowage system is Phase 3/6 stowage; IMS

multi-use hardware

.items

to reduce mission flexible to accommodate loss 1/MIR

risk due to potential loss of these items if a of stowage volume

particular module becomes uninhabitable

(e.g.,the Spektr incident).

Kit contents were not tracked early in the Affirms importance of Phase 5/27 stowage; IMS

program, creating problems with knowing creating parent/child 1/MIR

where to find an individual item (suchas relationships when kitting

scissors)and difficulty knowing how many

items were still on board as the increments

progressed. Individual contents were often

returned not the whole kit. Starting with

Increment 5, kit contents were tracked to

provide insight into current stores of kit

items.

There was limited tracking of hardware There is a complex Phase 5/41 stowage; IMS;

items below kit level on the manifest. This relationship between 1/MIR manifest

led to difficulties in tracking piece parts on manifests, inventory, and

orbit and determining which items required stowage that, if not understood

resupply and which kits required completely, can drive data to

refurbishment. As a result, unnecessary excruciating minutiae that

resupply items were approved and flown. imposes a tremendous

paperwork burden.
Hardware nomenclature should be Nomenclature issues will JSC 12-1 stowage; label

standardized throughout a program. On consume an inordinate amount Skylab

Skylab, many names existed for a single of time. Establishment of Lessons

item, and this nonstandardization resulted in standard to use name and part

confusion, ambiguity, and lost time during number in all labels,

communications among various user groups. descriptions, procedures, etc.

will mitigate this issue

The Dimensional Installation Drawings Configuration management Phase 3/8 stowage;

(DIDs) and Dimensional Sketches (DSs) did between differing 1/MIR packaging;

not go through the JSC release system organizations and agencies transfer

because the drawing requirements agreed to must be coordinated using

in the US/R-002 document were not lifecycle objectives

consistent with JSC requirements. In

addition, the Russians reviewed the

drawings in an open-ended iterative cycle,

and there was no efficient way to release the

drawings through the JSC system after each

iteration without compromising mission

milestones.

Reflown items needed DID verification Configuration management Phase 3/9 stowage;

against the known module or station between differing 1/MIR packaging;

configuration since the configuration organizations and agencies transfer

changed over time. However, since the must be coordinated using

Russian ground team did not have detailed lifecycle objectives

knowledge of station configuration at any

point in time, ground assessments using

DIDs and DSs were often inconclusive

The use of a Shuttle crewmember to assist Use of transport vehicle Phase 5/32 stowage; transfer

in transfer, unpacking and locating hardware personnel to transfer 1/MIR

was extremely helpful to the LDM equipment optimizes resource

crewmember and to the ground in loading and training

establishing the configuration for the next

increment.

Every item flown to ISS should have an Use photographs for every Phase 5/46 stowage;

electronic picture available to the flight item of material manifested 1/MIR transfer;

control team. Every item flown to ISS aids locating items on orbit. inventory

should have an electronic picture available There is, however, a penalty

to the flight control team. These images associated with

should not be on the main LANS or photographing, cataloging, and

fileservers supporting the vehicle and flight cross referencing each object.

controllers, but should be on a system that a This LL is important when

flight controller could get to. The issue here working with material

is that LAN bandwidth can be impacted if delivered in a foreign

too many positions begin reviewing too language.

many images across the LAN at the same

time. Each image should be accompanied

by the relevant safety data, mass property

data, flights manifested on, current location,

etc.
Design Commonality Commonality should exist at John N/A Subassembly

the Line Replaceable Unit Commons design

(LRU) subassembly level ense

across all vehicles. By using

common subassemblies across

the vehicle, maintenance costs

can be much lower as the need

to assemble a wide array of

spare parts lessens. This also

reduces up-mass and on-board

spares volume requirements.

Commonality also reduces the

number of hand tools that

must be maintained onboard.

The smallest number of

different tools should be

maintained on the space

vehicle - for work both IVA

EVA.

Interchangeability of Consumables Consideration should be given John N/A subsystems

to designing vehicle Commons design

subsystems to that consumable ense

items in common with other

subsystems on the overall

vehicle can be interchanged

(I.e., S-IVB-stage

pressurization and pneumatic

He). The ability to transfer the

fluids between the systems

should be implemented.

Component Removal and replacement Systems should be designed so John N/A System/compone

as to permit the easy removal Commons nt design

and replacement of ense

components. While in-flight

replacement of malfunctioned

units will not normally be a

consideration for short mission

space vehicle, it must be

considered in the case of

vehicle employed in missions

of long duration. Replacement

units should be located

internally to expedite the

replacement process. The

following concepts should be

considered in

system/component design: a.

Ease of maintenance (access,

safing/hazard isolation, tool

interface);b. Restrict premaintenance hazard isolation

to item being maintained; c.

Repair rather than replace; d.

Replace at the lowest

hardware level possible; e.

Assume intermediate-level
(LRU) subassembly)

maintenance will be

performed.

The only trash disposal method identified on Trash disposal manifests must Phase 5/25 transport;

Mir was the use of the Progress vehicles. be created to maintain an 1/MIR manifest; trash;

Incomplete information was supplied on accurate on board inventory excess; stowage

items disposed of in the Progress. picture.

As for the cargo stowage areas inside the As materials are moved Crew 78 Transfer

compartments: do they hinder your work? tolfrom from the transport Comments

vehicle, an ad hoc staging area

is developed for temporary

storage.

Do you have any suggestions for us to make Highlight changes in packing Crew 9 Transfer,

the pre-pack list and all the changes we send lists Comments manifest

you easier to use? Would sending the same

file back and forth and allowing the crew to

insert comments and the ground to add new

items be useful?

To what detail would you prefer on-orbit Communications are necessary Crew 15 Transfer,

stowage planners to be involved in transfer to coordinate pre pack and Comments prepack, staging,

plan locations? identifying staging areas communications

To what detail would you prefer to see Communications are necessary Crew 90 Transfer,

cargo transfer plans identify on-orbit to coordinate pre pack and Comments prepack, staging,

stowage locations: A) Leave entirely up to identifying staging areas communications

the crew; B) provide specific locations for

all cargo items being transferred; or C)

provide locations only for items with

specific

The lack of real-time U.S. support at the Other agency manifest Phase 3/3 transfer; manifest

Russian launch site prevented verification of processes may not ensure as- 1/MIR

the as-loaded list for Russian launches. built documentation.

Logistics function is transitioning smoothly Processes and procedures used NASA 1011 Transition

to Space Flight Operations Contract in transition plan are effective PLL

(SFOC).

For some missions, it may be necessary for Have a transport plan in place Phase 6/1 transport

the Orbiter to land at the Dryden Research for the backup landing sites as 1/MIR

Center. These flights will be carrying well as the primary.

science payloads, which require special

handling and laboratory processing.

Hardware off loaded at DFRC will have to

be inventoried and turned over to a number

of different experimenters. Facilities at

DFRC are inadequate to perform these

functions. The Mission

management/WG6/Phase 1 office destow

team has one office trailer available to

receive, inventory, weigh, photograph and

turnover the off-loaded hardware. On

occasion, we have been asked to share this

trailer with shuttle-sponsored payloads. No

FAX capability exists and there is no water

or restroom facility. Some lab capability is

available at the PRF Facility, located several
miles away. The PRF is an ARC-owned

facility and is not normally staffed unless

ARC has payloads on board, except by

special request. It is our understanding that

this facility may be closed in the near future.

The STS-76 mission landed at DFRC. Have a transport plan in place Phase transport

Processing activities were a challenge, for the backup landing sites as 1/MIR

taking twice as long as KSC operations and well as the primary.

76 carried only a single Hab module. Had a

fully loaded double Hab Shuttle-Mir Flight

landed at DFRC, the available facilities

would have been overwhelmed. Use of

DFRC for ISS missions should be expected.

Recommendation: Some minimal facility

with adequate processing and laboratory

space needs to be identified or constructed

at DFRC for ISS use. The potential loss of

long duration science would far exceed the

cost of an adequate facility.

MOIWG had a dedicated shipping/logistics Although each NASA site has Phase 5-3 transport;

group with trained personnel and adequate a shipping/receiving unit, it is 1/MIR handling;

resources to assume the responsibility of necessary to have a program shipping

processing all hardware shipments within specific function accountable

the NASA/Mir program. for program assets

Shipping/logistics personnel coordinated Although each NASA site has Phase 5/4 transport;

well with program personnel and utilized all a shipping/receiving unit, it is 1/MIR handling;

available resources to ensure success in necessary to have a program shipping

shipping/hand carrying items to and from specific function accountable

JSC. Communication with JSC for program assets

Transportation, the NASA Travel Office,

and PEDs/Payload Investigators (PIs) was

well coordinated to identify potential

couriers both to and from Russia.

Shipping/logistics personnel took the Transportation functions must Phase 5/5 transport;

initiative to stay abreast of all pertinent kept abreast of organizational 1/MIR handling;

domestic and international importlexport and international export, shipping

regulations. Contractor personnel import and shipping

recognized the need for such training regulations.

independently and identified seminars and

classes that would be betieficial (i.e., Export

Control seminars conducted by the Bureau

of Export Administration). JSC/JB7

identified similar needs at the same time.

The MOIWG shipping process for inbound Although each NASA site has Phase 5/12 transport;

and outbound shipments was developed a shipping/receiving unit, it is 1/MIR handling;

early, and in compliance with JSC JB7 necessary to have a program shipping Transportation Shipping plans. specific function accountable

for program assets
An Integration Liaison was established in Although each NASA site has Phase 5/13 transport;

Moscow to assist with shipments and a shipping/receiving unit, it is 1/MIR handling;

coordinate with U.S. Embassy personnel, necessary to have a program shipping

Russian Customs and Russian Phase I specific function accountable

personnel. The liaison was highly effective for program assets. This would

in establishing strong working relationships include liaisons with foreign

which contributed to the success in entities if traffic warrants it.

processing expedited shipments.

Shipping processes were developed based Transportation functions must Phase 5/24 transport;

on State Department export regulations. kept abreast of organizational 1/MIR handling;

While understanding of these regulations by and international export, shipping

shipping personnel matured over the course import and shipping

of the program, information on process, regulations.

time, and cost was often ignored by

hardware developers and those who

developed the schedules. As a result, the

MOIWG did not enforce strict compliance

with the shipping process, and "smuggling"

activity never met with disciplinary action

due to the desire to meet schedules. Other

related issues include the following:

- Shipping considerations and constraints

were not addressed in decision-making

forums. The Configuration Control Board

(CCB) Change Request review process did

not include review by shipping/logistics

personnel to verify that program schedules

could be met.

- The responsibility for hardware shipment

was not fiscally tied to the MOIWG, All

shipping costs were covered by JSC

Transportation and were transparent to the

MOIWG; as a result, the MOIWG had no

appreciation for the labor and difficulties

involved in expediting shipments, nor was

there any financial oversight to manage the

shipping function and impose

accountability.

Hardware received from other NASA Different organizations, Phase 5/21 transport;

centers or private institutions did not have centers, and agencies have 1/MIR handling;

appropriate documentation which would different standards. A program shipping;

qualify it for flight status (i.e., JSC form centric standard that applies to qualification;

DD1149, COFR). As a result, these items all material must be developed certification

could not be received formally into the JSC and in place prior to the advent

bond system until the correct documents of operations.

were provided.
All returning data products need to be Return cargo is subjectto the Phase 6/2 transport; identified in time to be incorporated in the same processes as launch 1/MIR manifest destow documentation. cargo.

As a result of the data from different

experiments being recorded on common

data recording devices, a general policy was

established requiring all data products be

archived at JSC prior to dissemination to the

various experimenters. Some data products

are unique to a specific experiment and

cannot be duplicated.

The Destow Plan should be available Ensure that return cargo Phase 6/3 transport;

electronically so that personnel needing it manifests and dispositioning 1/MIR manifest

can receive it by email - or even via instructions are disseminated.

download from a web page. Destow

Process. O&C vs. FCE. Hardware difficult

to track down.

Trash Management Provide for immediate John N/A Trash

disposal of trash, rather than Commons Management

the stockpile method. ense

The Russians kept all hardware left behind It is important to understand Phase 3/17 trash; stowage;

on the Mir and it did not seem that they need for all material on orbit 1/MIR disposal

threw anything away. This created cluttered and maintain a disciplined

conditions in the aisles onboard Mir. approach to stowage.

Trash Disposal Backup disposal provisions John N/A Vehicle cargo,

should be provided for all Commons stowage design

trash, garbage, food residue, ense

feces, urine, etc., which could

provide hazardous

environmental conditions if

the operational disposal

system failed.

Soft Stowage Soft racks should be used for John N/A Vehicle cargo,

stowage (e.g.ZSR). Stowage Commons stowage design

locations should be easily ense

accessible (one-handed

accessibility),and locations

should have dividers that are

reconfigurable.

Soft Bags 1 Soft bags should be designed John N/A Vehicle cargo,

to best fit soft stowage racks Commons stowage design

and hard stowage racks (I.e. ense

payload or system racks) on

the orbital station as well as

stowage locations on the

transport vehicle.

Soft Bags 2 Soft bags should be available John N/A Vehicle cargo, in various sizes (e.g. 0.5, 1.0, Commons stowage design

2.0, and 3.0 CTB's, M-01 and ense

M-02 bags)
Stowage Locations Design of all stowage John N/A Vehicle cargo,

locations should maximize Commons stowage design

available volume (I.e. ense

locations depth should be as

close to module shell as

possible).

Panel Front Stowage Module panels should be John N/A vehicle design

designed so stowage may be Commons

located on the panel fronts ense

throughout the vehicle for

extended periods of time.

Design and Component Compatibility Commonality should be a John N/A vehicle design

prime consideration for all Commons

vehicle, system, component, ense

and software in order to

minimize training

requirements, to optimize

maintainability, reduce

development and sparing

costs, and increase operational

flexibility. Special attention

should be made to prevent

failure propagation and

allowances should be made for

incorporation of system

optimization. This extends to

units of measure from design

specification through system

operation.

Design the Vehicle for Maintainability Assume that maintenance will John N/A Vehicle design

need to be performed on any Commons

system. Manual interfaces ense

should be easily accessible.

Components should be

designed so that maintenance

tasks are simple. Panels

should be designed so that any

components behind the panel

can be easily and quickly

accessed.

Sparing, Resupply, & Logistics strategy As much as possible, eliminate John N/A vehicle design,

manual intervention to Commons reconfiguration

perform routine ense

reconfiguration tasks. Provide

additional level of FDIR

software that performs 'BIT'

functions for integrated

systems and vehicles.

Transfer Crew, passenger, and cargo John N/A Vehicle design,

transfer should normally be an Commons transfer

intravehicular (IV) transfer ense operations, crew

operation. Design of the crew cabin design

cabin must provide for

efficient transfer and stowage

of cargo
On-orbit COTS Usage of COTS products for John N/A Vehicle

on-orbit vehicles should be Commons hardware,

carefully weighed against the ense components

costs and risks of certifying

and operating such products in

a space environment.

During testing a 'banana plug' test connector Existing stock of plugs in NASA 985 Warehouse

contacted a ground strap, the subsequent are inventory were modified and PLL

tripped the circuit breaker impose requirements on new

procurements

The control of non-JSC tagged flight A program wide logistics plan Phase 5/39 warehouse; hardware through JSC bond pre and post and process must include 1/MIR transport flight was not well defined or understood. center-centric processes

Numerous times flight hardware was

delayed shipping to KSC/SPPF due to no

records of certification even though the

hardware was reflown hardware. Also,

problems returning flight hardware once the

Principal Investigator (PI) had completed

data download was difficult requiring a new

form 1149. ISS should have a process setup

and separate bond room for ISS hardware

that is shipped and controlled at JSC.

Hardware shipped from other centers to JSC A program wide logistics plan Phase 5/42 warehouse;

was difficult to get into JSC Bond. Also, and process must include 1/MIR transport JSC quality rules changed for the paperwork center-centric processes

requirements.

Flight articles need to have a designated Strict access and configuration Phase 5/38 warehouse; bonded storage facility unique to program control is a must for 1/MIR transport

requirements to maintain configuration and equipment in storage and

quality control. transit

Agreements with the Russians were made Warehousing and Phase 5/7 warehouse;

early to provide storage space at NITS, environmental requirements 1/MIR transportation; GCTC, and TsUP which would adequately must be established prior to packaging

accommodate the volume of hardware transportation

needed throughout the program. The

storage space was not 'bonded' in a manner

consistent with NASA centers. The rooms

were secured only by a key which was kept

by the building custodian. No safe,

controlled storage facility for U.S. hardware

was provided in Moscow, with the

exception of Gagarin Cosmonaut Training

Center (GCTC). Conditions at NITS were

often detrimental to the hardware, and the

volume of activity occurring at NITS with

non-U.S. personnel made security a

problem.

Electronic Daily Products Use of a integrated daily John N/A

electronic product enhances Commons

accessibility ense
Sparing, Resupply, & Logistics strategy The sparing, resupply, and John N/A

logistics strategy should Commons

include development of ense

quantitative dormant reliability

parameters (probability that

given component will operate

as designed after a specified

period of being inactive).

Sparing, Resupply, & Logistics strategy Consider on-orbit fabrication John N/A

of structural and mechanical Commons

replacement parts ense

Inventory Management Long duration vehicles require John N/A

capability to manage stowage Commons

and inventory including ense

system configuration and

compatibility (for swapping),

and maps units to interior parts

(for cannibalization). The

capability should not require

significant effort.

Tool Design The smallest number of John N/A

different tools should be Commons

maintained on the space ense

vehicle -

for work both IVA

and EVA.

Tool Design #2 All tools should be certified John N/A

for both IVA and EVA use so Commons

duplicate tool sets are not ense

required.

Fastener Design Establish common sizes of John N/A

fasteners for components. Commons

ense

Tool Design #3 Develop no-tools-required John N/A

replaceable components and Commons

access panels (especiallyfor ense

routine preventive

maintenance).

Tool Design #4 Do not combine English and John N/A

SI units (requirethe use of SI Commons

"metrics" sizes). Additionally, ense

a tool set should minimize

number of tools requiring

calibration.

Battery optimization Common usage batteries (for John N/A

hand-held type devices) Commons

should be of a common ense

typeldesign to maximize

interchangeability. While not

optimizing a battery to a

particular application may

reduce capability, providing a

common set of batteries would

reduce the amount of logistics

and spares required while
increasing operational

flexibility.

Handhold attach points should John N/A

e provided for handling large Commons

vehicle components. Also ense

connections should be

provided to permit breaking

down large items to

transportable size.
Appendix B: Survey Questions

1. To what degree have you observed the following in your work? To what degree would

you recommend or agree with the use of the following?

Please select an option from each of the categories.

Observed Recommend

a. Design specification for stowage

b. The use of reconfigurable stowage

c. The use of pantry stowage (i.e. reË

g

2 Ë

supply the pantry, not the individual y y & 5 «

g § g § 8 :

items) for high turnover, small items Ë Ë â Ë Ë 2 Ö a 2 i x a

d. A naming and numbering system for

stowage volumes

e. The consideration of cargo transfer

operations when designing or

configuring entryways or docking

compartments

f. The use of an automatic inventory

tracking system

2. To what degree have you observed the following problems, resulting from or relating to

stowage difficulties?

a. Increased time demand for crew Z i

b. Increased requirement for re-supply y | g i é 4

c. Loss of access to operational space & S Ë Ë 2

d. Limits to housekeeping

3. To what degree have you observed the following in your work? To what degree would

you recommend or agree with the use of the following?

Please select an option from each of the categories.

Observed Recommend

a. An inventory system common to

multiple organizations

b. An inventory system based on a

common logistics system y g & 6 «

8

c. Configuration management using an Ë Ë E A Ë 2 Ë

inventory system that is common to

multiple organizations and is based

on a common logistics system
d. Packing lists and manifests used as

manual accounting systems

e. Systems that update the movement

and location of both parents and children

in inventory with parent-child

relationships

f. Inventory system that employs multilevel classifications of supply

g. Supplies with excessive inventory

levels

4. To what degree have you observed the following in your work? To what degree would

you recommend or agree with the use of the following?

Please select an option from each of the categories.

Observed Recommend

a. The use of commonality in vehicles,

systems, or software

b. Minimized training requirements

resulting from commonality

c. Optimized maintainability resulting o X © a 2

from commonality

d. Reduction of development and sparing

costs resulting from commonality

e. Increase operational flexibility resulting

from commonality

5. To what degree have you observed the following in your work? To what degree would

you recommend or agree with the use of the following?

Please select an option from each of the categories.

Observed Recommend

a. When designing for maintenance, the

following are taken into consideration:

i. tools -= =

iii. packaging 2 xo or Dogt iv. stowage

v. lifecycle cost

b. Maintenance or repair system with

multiple levels (ex. OperationalIntermediate-Depot)
o o

- Never

y

A.

- Rarely

- None/Not - None/Not

- Somewhat

considered considered

- Frequently :

- Little - Little

- Often

Importance Importance

- N/A

- Somewhat - Somewhat

Important Important

- Unnecessary

- Very - Very

- Somewhat

Important Important Unnecessary

- Essential - Essential

- Neutral

- Recommended

oo

- Strongly

a

Recommended

-
Design for maintenance considerations

Planned use of standards in system development

Design for return logistics

9. Are there more important logistics considerations that are problematic? If so, please

explain briefly.

10. In response to prior experiences or lessons learned in your organization, in which of the following areas were logistics considerations taken into account?

Design for stowage considerations

Implementation of a common inventory system

Use of commonality in systems

Design for maintenance considerations

Planned use of standards in system development

Design for return logistics

Consideration of transport modes

Other:

None
Appendix C: Survey Participants

gam: Omanizalan Pasili<m

Andre Goforth NASA Engineering

BenjaminS.

Blanchard Virginia Tech Engineering

Bryan Austin Boeing Flight Operations

Charles Murphy United SpaceAlliance Logistics

Dave Garten Honeywell Defense & Space Engineering

Dennis Martinez Boeing Logistics

Donald Blick Raytheon Other

Elizabeth Pierotti Honeywell-D&S Glendale Logistics

Frank Camm RAND Other

James Visentine Boeing ISS Logistics Support Engineering

Jim Weisheit BAE Systems Program Management

Joe Parrish Payload SystemsInc. Program Executive

Lockheed Martine Space

John Bull Systems Company Engineering

John Lauger Boeing Logistics

Kevin Wolf Boeing Logistics

Mission Ops-ISS Mechanics

Linda Patterson and Maintenance Flight Operations

Systems Engineering and

Martin J. Steele Integration Engineering

Michael Galluzzi MK-SIO SSP Program Management

Michael Ross SMC/ISGL Logistics

Olivier de Weck MIT Engineering

Richard Hicks Orbital Sciences Corp. ProjectManagement

Robert Shishko JPL Engineering

Susan Voss NASA JSC OC . Program Management

Sarah James SOLE Logistics

Sarah Shull MIT/JSC Logistics

Sean M. Van Andel Boeing ISS Product Support Engineering

Anthony Butina NASA Logistics

Missile Defense Agency

Terrence B. Johnson System Engineering Team Logistics

Todd Hellner NASA-ISS Program Office Program Management

Tovey Bachman LMI Government Consulting Logistics

Ursula Stockdale United SpaceAlliance Flight Operations

Walter

Tomczykowski ARINC Program Management

William A. Evans Flight Operations Logistics

William Robbins NASA Logistics

Anonymous

-
Appendix D: Additional Survey Results

Responses to additional survey questions are included below. Figure 17 shows that the transportation question regarding importance of various design considerations was inconclusive,

since it showed little variation in the importance of considerations. Similarly, regarding possible problems arising from stowage difficulties, increased time demand for crew ranks number one, though there is little difference between the four options (Figure 18).

Design of Transport Modes

5

2

1

Quantity that can be Time Materials/resources Cost of various

carried available rmdes

Figure 17: Transportation Decision Criteria

Observed problems resulting from stowage

difficulties

4

- -

a a a

increased time Loss of access Limits to Increased

demand for to operational housekeeping requirement for

crew space re-supply

Figure 18: Stowage Observations

For the rest of the survey questions, participants ranked both their level of observation and recommendation of the various considerations. Where there is a large difference between

observed and recommend, there may be opportunities for technology development or standardization to address the individual areas. This divergence also points to a need identified by the respondent where there may or may not be current mitigation to resolve the problem.
Return Logistics O observed

- Recommend

Figure 19: Return Logistics Considerations

Stowage Considerations O Observed

- Recommend

5

Anaming and Consideration The use of The use of an Design The use of

numbering of cargo reconfigurable automatic specification for pantry stowage

system for transfer ops. stowage inventory stowage (i.e.re-supply

stowage when designing tracking system the pantry, not

volumes or configuring

the individual

entryways or

items) for high

docking turnover, small

compartments

items

Figure 20: Stowage Observations and Recommendations

While Figures 19 and 20 do show evident differences between observe and recommend, these

differences were found to be less significant that in other logistics areas, specifically

commonality, inventory management, and maintenance. However, return logistics and stowage

considerations are still prime candidates for future consideration when designing for logistics.

Additionally, these charts present the opportunity to narrow the focus from stowage (Figure 20)
to specific aspects of stowage of high importance, including design specification for stowage and the use of an automatic inventory tracking system. The survey results showing gaps between

observed and recommended practices can be constructively used to identify specific issues in logistics where further measures can be taken.
Appendix E: Resources for Lessons Learned

Resource Location Search Methodology Date Product

term(s) Complete Developed

NASA http://llis.nasa.gov/llis/o Logistics Using search terms 132 records were 13 Jul 05 NASA

Public 11s/index.html recovered. Relevant information cut and PLL.xls

Lessons Publis Access pasted into product file. Review interpreted

Learned http://www.nasa.govloff information and produced summary

Database iceslocelllis/homel

new

NASA http://llis.nasa.gov/llis/ll Logistics Spot checking of recovered records using 06 Jul 05 None

Internal is/llis.html search indicates same results as Public

Lessons (Restricted Access) Lessons Learned database.

Learned

Database

Crew http://mod.jsc.nasa.gov/ Logistics; IMT, MIOCB lessons learned and Crew 14-Jul-05 Crew Lesson

Comments dt/HTMIJECWGWeblo packing; Provisioning, Extra Vehicular Activity, Learned.doc

ostflight/uspostflight.ht provisioning; Flight Crew Equipment/Food/Trash/Crew

ml. IMS; Provisioning/Habitation, Inventory

(RestrictedAccess) Maintenance; Stowage Officer/Inventory Management

stowage System, Logistics and Maintenance,

Prepack, and Stowage debriefs for 11

increments were reviewed and 108

comments extracted. Comments were

sanitized and results interpreted as they

apply to project.

JSC Lessons http://iss- Logistics Using search term logistics, one record 07 Jul 05 JSC #1

Learned www.jsc.nasa.gov/ss/iss recovered. Same as PLLl205.

apt/lldb

(RestrictedAccess)

MSFC http://klabs.org/historyl N/A PDF file reviewed for logistics 20 Jul 05 Skylab

Skylab ntrs docs/manned/space applicability. Relevant paragraphs cut and lessons

Lessons stations/nasa tm x- pasted into product file and keywords learned.x1s

Learned 64860 msfc skylab_les added. NASA Technical MemorandumXsons.pdf 64860

(Public Access)

JSC Skylab http://klabs.org/histor N/A PDF file reviewed for logistics 20 Jul 05 JSCLessons y/ntrs docs/manned/s applicability. Reviewed document and Skylab.xls

Learned pace stationslisc- relevant paragraphs cut and pasted into

09096 jsc skylab les product file and keywords added.

sons.pdf NASA Technical Memorandum X72920

FPPD http://eol.asfc.nasa.a N/A Non searchable database containing 31 20 Jul 05 None

Lessons ov/miscPages/fppd-ll- records, with last entry being 2001.

Learned database.html Review of record titles does not

(Public Access) identify any logistics applicable entries

EVA http://evaweb.isc.nasa logistics Search terms generated no hits. 26 Jul 05 EVA

Lessons .cov/ceb/LessonsLear

Reviewed each record for applicability Lessons

Learned ned and placed results in product Learned.xls

(RestrictedAccess)
Resource Location Search Methodology Date Product term(s) Complete Developed

Human http://mod.jsc.nasa.go Commonly

Space referred to as 'John 28-Jul-05 JohnCommo v/Da8/exploration_vi Commonsense' document Systems (JSC nsense2.xls sion/JOHN%20COM 07268A). Review document for Operationa space MONSENSE_JSC%2 logistics applicable passages l Design 007268A%

Criteria

Manual

Phase 1 http://iss- logistics Each record reviewed for Lesson applicability 2-Aug-05 P1/MIR LL www.jsc.nasa.gov/ss/ and relevant items copied into product Extract.xls Learned issapt/lldb/lldb data/p file and projectapplicability added hasellessons.doc