Peter M. Struk

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

John W. Easton

National Center for Space Exploration Research, Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Gregory P. Funk

ZIN Technologies, Cleveland, Ohio 

Gary S. Latta, Andrew W. Ganster, and Brett E. Estes

United States Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, Crane, Indiana

Recommendations for Enabling Manual Component 

Level Electronic Repair for Future Space Missions

NASA/TM—2011-216933

January 2011
NASA STI Program . . . in Profi le

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the 

advancement of aeronautics and space science. The 

NASA Scientifi c and Technical Information (STI) 

program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain 

this important role.

The NASA STI Program operates under the auspices 

of the Agency Chief Information Offi cer. It collects, 

organizes, provides for archiving, and disseminates 

NASA’s STI. The NASA STI program provides access 

to the NASA Aeronautics and Space Database and 

its public interface, the NASA Technical Reports 

Server, thus providing one of the largest collections 

of aeronautical and space science STI in the world. 

Results are published in both non-NASA channels 

and by NASA in the NASA STI Report Series, which 

includes the following report types:

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major signifi cant phase 

of research that present the results of NASA 

programs and include extensive data or theoretical 

analysis. Includes compilations of signifi cant 

scientifi c and technical data and information 

deemed to be of continuing reference value. 

NASA counterpart of peer-reviewed formal 

professional papers but has less stringent 

limitations on manuscript length and extent of 

graphic presentations.

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientifi c 

and technical fi ndings that are preliminary or 

of specialized interest, e.g., quick release 

reports, working papers, and bibliographies that 

contain minimal annotation. Does not contain 

extensive analysis.

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientifi c and 

technical fi ndings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees.

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected 

papers from scientifi c and technical 

conferences, symposia, seminars, or other 

meetings sponsored or cosponsored by NASA.

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientifi c, 

technical, or historical information from 

NASA programs, projects, and missions, often 

concerned with subjects having substantial 

public interest.

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. Englishlanguage translations of foreign scientifi c and 

technical material pertinent to NASA’s mission.

Specialized services also include creating custom 

thesauri, building customized databases, organizing 

and publishing research results.

For more information about the NASA STI 

program, see the following:

• Access the NASA STI program home page at 

http://www.sti.nasa.gov

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

sti.nasa.gov

• Fax your question to the NASA STI Help Desk 

at 443–757–5803

• Telephone the NASA STI Help Desk at

 443–757–5802

• Write to:

 NASA Center for AeroSpace Information (CASI)

 7115 Standard Drive

 Hanover, MD 21076–1320
Peter M. Struk

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

John W. Easton

National Center for Space Exploration Research, Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Gregory P. Funk

ZIN Technologies, Cleveland, Ohio 

Gary S. Latta, Andrew W. Ganster, and Brett E. Estes

United States Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, Crane, Indiana

Recommendations for Enabling Manual Component 

Level Electronic Repair for Future Space Missions

NASA/TM—2011-216933

January 2011

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135
Acknowledgments

The work was sponsored by the Supportability Project of NASA’s Exploration Technology Development Program.

Available from

NASA Center for Aerospace Information

7115 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076–1320

National Technical Information Service

5301 Shawnee Road

Alexandria, VA 22312

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

Trade names and trademarks are used in this report for identifi cation 

only. Their usage does not constitute an offi cial endorsement, 

either expressed or implied, by the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration.

Level of Review: This material has been technically reviewed by technical management. 
NASA/TM—2011-216933 iii

Executive Summary

Long duration missions to the Moon and Mars pose a number of challenges to mission designers, 

controllers, and the crews. Among these challenges are planning for corrective maintenance actions which 

often require a repair. Current repair strategies on the International Space Station (ISS) rely primarily on 

the use of Orbital Replacement Units (ORUs), where a faulty unit is replaced with a spare, and the faulty 

unit typically returns to Earth for analysis and possible repair. The strategy of replace to repair has posed 

challenges even for the ISS program. Repairing faulty hardware at lower levels such as the component 

level can help maintain system availability in situations where no spares exist and potentially reduce 

logistic resupply mass.

This report provides recommendations to help enable manual replacement of electronics at the 

component-level for future manned space missions. The recommendations include hardware, tools, 

containment options, and crew training. The recommendations are based on the work of the Component 

Level Electronics Assembly Repair (CLEAR) task of the Exploration Technology Development Program 

from 2006 to 2009. The recommendations are derived based on the experience of two experiments 

conducted by the CLEAR team aboard the International Space Station as well as a group of experienced 

Miniature/Microminiature (2M) electronics repair technicians and instructors from the U.S. Navy 2M 

Project Office. The emphasis of the recommendations is the physical repair. Fault diagnostics and postrepair functional test are discussed in other CLEAR reports.
NASA/TM—2011-216933 iv
NASA/TM—2011-216933 v

Contents

Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................................iii

1.0 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................1

2.0 Background—Current ISS Repair Methods and Capabilities..............................................................2

3.0 Recommendations for Future Space Missions.....................................................................................5

3.1 Manual versus Semi-Automated Repair .....................................................................................5

3.2 Hardware and Tool Recommendations.......................................................................................6

3.2.1 Soldering Equipment................................................................................................... 10

3.2.2 Hand and Dental Tools................................................................................................ 10

3.2.3 Materials and Supplies................................................................................................ 11

3.2.4 Specialty Tools and Repair Kits.................................................................................. 12

3.2.5 Containment Enclosure and Visual Aids .................................................................... 12

3.2.6 Diagnostics to Support Manual Repair ....................................................................... 13

3.2.7 Component Repair Experiment-1 Tool Kit................................................................. 13

3.3 Crew Training ...........................................................................................................................14

3.3.1 Preflight Training........................................................................................................ 15

3.3.2 In Flight Training and Practice ................................................................................... 16

3.4 Design and Manufacturing Recommendations for Electronics Assemblies.............................16

3.4.1 Accessibility................................................................................................................ 17

3.4.2 Component Layout...................................................................................................... 17

3.4.3 Conformal Coating...................................................................................................... 17

4.0 Summary ............................................................................................................................................19

Appendix A.—List of Acronyms................................................................................................................21

Appendix B.—Detailed Crew Training Syllabus Developed by the U.S. Navy.........................................23

References...................................................................................................................................................32
NASA/TM—2011-216933 vi
NASA/TM—2011-216933 1

Recommendations for Enabling Manual Component 

Level Electronic Repair for Future Space Missions

Peter M. Struk

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135

John W. Easton

National Center for Space Exploration Research

Glenn Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135

Gregory P. Funk

ZIN Technologies

Cleveland, Ohio 44135

Gary S. Latta, Andrew W. Ganster, and Brett E. Estes

United States Navy

Naval Sea Systems Command 

Crane, Indiana 47522

1.0 Introduction 

Long duration missions to the Moon and Mars pose a number of challenges to mission designers, 

controllers, and the crews. Among these challenges are planning for corrective maintenance actions which 

often require a repair. Current repair strategies on the International Space Station (ISS) rely primarily on the 

use of Orbital Replacement Units (ORUs), where a faulty unit is replaced with a spare, and the faulty unit 

typically returns to Earth for analysis and possible repair. This relies on storing spare ORUs in orbit, or 

launching the spare at the earliest opportunity and the crew relying on a backup or operating at a reduced 

capacity until the spare arrives. While appropriate for the ISS, this strategy of replace to repair poses 

significant challenges for outposts on the Moon and for Martian missions (including the long-duration flight 

to Mars). These future missions are challenged with storage space and launch mass constraints which allow 

only limited spares. Furthermore, the distance from Earth to the Moon and Mars makes “on demand”

resupply significantly more difficult.

The strategy of replace to repair has posed challenges even for the ISS program. The grounding of the 

Space Shuttle fleet following the loss of Space Shuttle Columbia had resulted in a delay in the assembly of 

ISS and greatly reduced the cargo mass available for resupply and research. Furthermore, the loss of down 

mass has impacted the program’s ability to return failed hardware for analysis and repair. Fortunately, the 

ISS program was able to rely on international partner vehicles to allow continued crewed operations of the 

ISS (Ref. 1). This situation will, once again, occur when the Space Shuttle fleet is retired after 2010.

One corrective maintenance action is recovering from electronics failures. These failures may occur 

for a number of reasons such as damage caused by the environment, faults and upsets in, or a part of the 

system outliving its useful lifetime. Generally, the damage is limited to a small number of associated

systems of individual components on a circuit board or assembly, such as resistors, capacitors, diodes, or 

an integrated circuit (IC) chips. Often, isolating the failure to the component level has not been possible 

aboard the ISS due to limited equipment and crew time. However, understanding the root-cause failure 

usually requires isolating a fault to the component level. 

Troubleshooting of electronic faults will often follow multiple steps. Initially, ground controllers would 

use the vehicles health management system along with built-in-test (BIT) capabilities. This type of 

troubleshooting can be expected to isolate the fault to the ORU level. Additional fault isolation or ambiguity 
NASA/TM—2011-216933 2

resolution (i.e., more than one possible faulty ORU) would require a crewmember to go the potential faulty 

hardware. Here, the crewmember would use diagnostic tools as well as mechanical tools to allow access and 

potentially remove and replace the faulty hardware at an ORU level. For future outpost missions, the faulty 

ORU will not likely return to Earth due to limited return mass capabilities. Therefore, root-cause fault 

assessment will require a crewmember to disassemble the ORUs to lower-levels most likely at an area 

dedicated for maintenance. Furthermore, repair at these lower levels can maintain system availability in 

situations where no spares exist and potentially reduce logistic resupply mass.

The crew will be required to perform fault isolation and repair using the limited tools they have available.

Therefore, it is imperative that the tools be selected appropriately for the mission. From 2006 to 2009, the 

Component Level Electronics Assembly Repair (CLEAR) task1 investigated how to enable a component-level 

electronics repair capability on future missions. Such repairs will require new diagnostic and repair tools suited 

for the environments and resource constraints found in these future missions. A significant resource for 

conducting lower-level repair is the crew-time needed to perform such repairs. The CLEAR team 

recommended the development of semi-automated or automated devices with assistance from ground 

controllers to help conduct diagnostics, repair, and post-repair testing (Ref. 2). However, the need for a manual 

repair capability cannot be completely removed and will be a required skill set for future crews.

This report provides recommendations to help enable manual replacement of electronics at the 

component-level. The report will discuss the current ISS repair capabilities, followed by recommendations for 

future missions. These recommendations include hardware and tool requirements, containment options, and 

crew training. These recommendations are based two Station Development Test Objectives (SDTOs) 

conducted by the CLEAR team and by a group of experienced Miniature/Microminiature (2M) electronics 

repair technicians and instructors from the U.S. Navy 2M Project Office. The emphasis of this document is the 

physical repair. Fault diagnostics and post-repair functional test are discussed in other documents (Ref. 2)

prepared by the CLEAR team.

2.0 Background—Current ISS Repair Methods and Capabilities

Current electronics repair strategies on the ISS focus on removing an ORU with faulty electronics and 

replacing it with a spare unit. Current ORUs have not been designed to readily remove circuit cards from 

higher-level assemblies. One exception is the Multiplexer-Demultiplexer (MDM). Using BIT capabilities 

and an external test kit, the crew can isolate a fault on an MDM to the circuit card level. The crew then 

uses a circuit card puller, shown in Figure 1, to remove the faulty circuit card. Such a design strategy 

helps facilitate circuit card removal and is recommended for future designs employing circuit cards.

However, the crew does not attempt a component-level repair at the circuit card level.

Figure 1.—MDM Circuit Card Puller.

 1

The CLEAR task was part of the Supportability project of the Exploration Technology Development Program
NASA/TM—2011-216933 3

Figure 2.—Soldering iron from the US Soldering Kit, used 

on the ISS.

The ISS crew also has access to some tools suitable for electronics repairs. The US Soldering Kit, 

shown in Figure 2, has a battery powered soldering iron, two Weller PT Series 600 °F soldering iron tips, 

a spool of solder wire, solder wick, and heat sinks for performing limited soldering and desoldering tasks.

This kit has been used in the past for some repairs as well as for scientific (Ref. 3) and engineering studies 

of solder joint formation (Refs. 3 to 9). While useful, this soldering kit is not ideal for repairs of circuit 

cards at the component level. Some shortcomings include the maximum tip temperature and temperature 

control methods as well as the limited number of solder tips available.

The crew members conduct soldering tasks within a containment system, a tent-like glovebox with 

clear plastic sides mounted on the Maintenance Work Area (MWA). Figure 3 shows Astronaut Sunita 

Williams using the MWA with containment system for 

soldering aboard the ISS. The containment enclosure traps 

debris to help prevents contamination of the cabin or life 

support equipment. The containment system has a small 

Fresnel lens window that provides a small amount of 

magnification within the work area. The containment 

system also includes two feedthroughs, one for a vacuum 

hose to collect gases and debris evolved from the 

soldering process, and another to provide power to 

instruments, such as video cameras, within the work area.

The containment system, while effective at containing 

debris formed during soldering, does have some 

limitations. The containment system is designed to 

collapse and fold for storage; performing this operation 

multiple times has created many creases and folds in the 

system walls, making it difficult to see through any area 

but the Fresnel lens. The containment system is also 

somewhat tall, leading to a large distance (on the order of 

12 in.) between the work piece and the crew member’s 

eye. This can make seeing the work piece difficult with 

the naked eye, and limits the effectiveness of a 

magnifying lens visor provided for the crew because the 

work piece is beyond the focal length of the lens. This 

distance between the work piece and closest viewing 

location can also have ergonomic effects, and become 

uncomfortable for tall crew members. Finally, the MWA 

and containment tent take 30 min or more to setup up 

which has a significant impact on crew time.

Figure 3.—Astronaut Sunita Williams conducts a 

soldering experiment within the MWA 

Containment System aboard the ISS.
NASA/TM—2011-216933 4

Crew members also have access to a wide variety of additional tools as shown in Figure 4. For 

example, the ISS Pin Kit contains jumper wires with various terminations, connectors, pin, and lugs for 

making wire connections. The various drawers of the IVA Tool Kit contain a number of common hand 

tools, most of which are appropriate for mechanical rather than electronics tasks, but does include crimper 

tools used with the pins and lugs found in the Pin Kit. This lack of electronics tools can limit the 

effectiveness of electronics repairs. Electronics tools, such as tweezers, cutters, and dental picks are 

smaller than similar tools used for mechanical repairs. These smaller tools are more appropriate for 

electronics repairs because the items being manipulated by the tools are also small, and the small size of 

the tools limits heat loss during soldering to the tool, making the soldering task more effective. Large 

tools may also damage the component under work, adjacent components, and the circuit board if used.

Electronics tools often include protection from electrostatic discharge, which can damage components.

The crew also has access to a combination multimeter and oscilloscope, logic analyzer, power supply, and 

other basic electronics diagnosis tools, as well as the dedicated MDM tester already discussed.

Repair tasks aboard the ISS depend on extensive guidance from ground support teams. These teams 

collect data and reports from the crew after a failure, and use this information to determine a cause of and 

solution to the failure. These efforts range from working on fully functional mock-ups of flight 

instruments and systems on the ground, to communicating and meeting with the developer of the 

instrument, whether within NASA or an outside vendor. The team then develops and tests procedures for 

a repair, a process that often requires intensive work. The procedures are then transmitted to the crew 

who, guided by the procedures, attempt to perform a repair and return a faulty device to functioning. To 

the author’s knowledge, no crew members have attempted to replace a component at the circuit card level 

of actual flight hardware.

Figure 4.—A sample of tools available aboard the ISS.

Pin Kit

IVA Tool Kit (5 drawers)

Power Drill

Ethernet Repair Crimp Tool

1553 Databus Analyzer Current Probe Logic Analyzer Power Supply

Breakout Box

Meter
NASA/TM—2011-216933 5

3.0 Recommendations for Future Space Missions

To enable component-level electronics repair in future manned space missions, crews will require 

significantly more capability than currently available aboard ISS. The entire repair process encompasses 

fault diagnostics, the physical repair, and acceptance testing post repair. Additionally, crew members need 

adequate skills based training to be able to respond to a wide variety of potential problems. Each area of 

the repair process—diagnostics, repair, test, and training—requires more capability and forethought to 

enable future crews to conduct repairs in a manner consistent with the constraint of spaceflight. One of 

the primary constraints is that of available crew time. Crewmembers primary mission is to conduct the 

science and exploration tasks assigned. Repairs, although inevitably necessary, should not require the 

majority of the available crew time to conduct.

The following sections discuss recommended tools, facilities, training, and design changes to existing 

hardware to enhance a future crew’s capability to perform manual electronics repairs. Fault diagnostic and 

post-repair functional test are discussed in other reports (Ref. 2) generated by the CLEAR project. This 

section begins by differentiating between manual and semi-automated repairs. Next, a variety of hardware 

recommendations are presented which include soldering tools, other hand tools, a containment system, and 

visual aids. Then, a recommended crew training approach is presented that includes a training syllabus prior 

to the flight as well as training materials used during the flight. The hardware and training recommendations 

come from experience gathered from developing two ISS Station Development Test Objectives (Refs. 10 to 

12) and a study conducted by the U.S. Navy 2M Project Office. Finally, some discussion regarding 

suggested design changes to ORUs will conclude the recommendations.

3.1 Manual versus Semi-Automated Repair

Manual repairs are defined as those accomplished with the majority of manipulation done by crew 

members. There are a wide variety of tools that minimize the physical manipulation required by human 

hands—these tools are referred to as semi-automated. Examples of such tools include probing devices and 

rework stations. Earlier reports (Ref. 2) by the CLEAR project discuss an approach to developing semiautomated tools to repair electronic circuit boards. Some of the semi-automated tools include diagnostic 

probers and automated soldering systems which offer a tremendous advantage to the crewmembers. For 

example, probing a circuit board for a fault can involve probing hundreds of locations on a circuit board.

Also, automated soldering can minimize the potential of overhearing a component during repair. While 

semi-automated tools offer the potential to minimize valuable crew time, they can add significant 

complexity to systems. Simple manual tools help alleviate that complexity. Therefore, it is important to 

understand the capabilities and limitations of manual repair.

A manual repair capability can augment a semi-automated repair system as follows:

• First, manual systems are typically portable which is important for situations where bringing the 

failed hardware to another location is not practical.

• A second area of consideration for manual systems is in the size of the failed component. Some 

components, such as resistors or capacitors when compared with typical integrated circuit 

packaging, lend themselves more naturally to manual repair and may present operational 

difficulties for a semi-automated system. A manual tool set will provide an easier method for 

working with such components.

• Third, semi-automated systems may not provide a method of repairing all expected repair tasks.

You will still need a manual repair capability for such contingencies.

• Fourth, manual systems may provide a faster resolution to a problem, particularly if the fault is 

minor and easily repaired. An example of such a situation is re-soldering leads for a battery clip 

to a circuit board in a handheld multimeter.
NASA/TM—2011-216933 6

• Fifth, manual repair capabilities provide multitasking opportunities where a larger or complicated 

task may be performed on the semi-automated system while a crew member works a smaller or 

less complicated task, decreasing the amount of time needed to recover from a fault.

• Finally, in the case where the semi-automated repair system experiences a fault, the manual 

system provides a means for repairing the semi-automated system, or to repair other faults.

In summary, manual tools offer flexibility.

3.2 Hardware and Tool Recommendations

The following recommendations focus on the hardware and tools to provide for crew members to 

conduct manual electronics repair during a mission. Table 1 lists recommended types of soldering 

equipment, hand tools, dental tools, materials, and cleaning supplies. Images of representative tools are 

shown in Figure 5 through Figure 7. The general characteristics of the tools are further discusses below.

This section also includes recommendations of changes to a future containment enclosure for use while 

soldering in the confined areas of a vehicle or habitat module.

TABLE 1.—LIST OF RECOMMENDED SOLDERING EQUIPMENT, HAND TOOLS, AND MATERIALS WITH 

CHARACTERISTICS THAT WOULD HELP ENABLE FUTURE COMPONENT-LEVEL 

REPAIR OF ELECTRONICS IN A SPACECRAFT ENVIRONMENT

[This table includes reference to trade names and trademarks and does not constitute an official endorsement by NASA. 

Rather, the particular characteristics of that item have features which may be advantageous 

for repairs in a spacecraft environment. Equivalent items may be available.]

Recommended tools Mass 

(g)

L

(mm)

W/D

(mm)

H

(mm)

Vol 

(mm3)

1. Soldering Equipment

Pace SENSATEMP, ST 75 Power Source 4000.0 88.0 171.0 254.0 3,822,192

Or equivalent. Dial control for ease of use, no calibration required, no temperature setback or programming issues.

Pace TD-100 Soldering Iron 80.0 140.0 17.0 31,777

Or equivalent. Low mass, low profile, ease of tip insertion and placement.

Pace TD-100 Tip and Tool Stand (Cubby) 63.5 50.8 190.5 614,515

Or suitable soldering iron rest. Required to hold safely soldering iron when not in use.

1/16 in. Chisel Tip 5.1 113.0 7.7 5,262

Universal soldering tip, used in the majority of soldering applications

1/8 in. Chisel Tip 5.7 113.0 7.7 5,262

Higher mass tip, many through-hole and SMT soldering and component removal applications.

1/32 in. Conical Tip 4.7 108.0 7.7 5,029

Fine pitch tip, many through-hole and SMT applications, useful in high component density application.

Angled MiniWave Tip 5.6 113.0 7.7 5,262

Ease of use, SMT gull wing lead installation applications.

Single Sided Chisel Tip 5.6 113.0 7.7 5,262

Additional SMT installation applications.

0805 Chip Removal Tip 5.4 110.0 7.7 5,122

Removal of SMT chip and MELF components.

1206 Chip Removal Tip 5.8 110.0 7.7 5,122

Removal of SMT chip and MELF components.

Solder Catch 40.0 38.1 88.9 88.9 301,112

Essential for holding molten solder removed from soldering iron and solder extractor tips.

Motorized Solder Extractor 220.4 196.9 38.1 224,427

Or equivalent. Best, most efficient and preferred method of solder removal/extraction.

Solder Extractor Tool Stand 63.5 50.8 190.5 614,515

Or suitable soldering iron rest. Required to hold safely solder extractor when not in use.

Glass Flux Solder Trap Kit

Better option than paper flux/solder traps, reduced number of replacements required.

Solder Extractor Filters

Replacement filters required for optimal performance of solder extractor.

Bottle Brush 9.7 235.0 12.7 29,769
NASA/TM—2011-216933 7

TABLE 1.—LIST OF RECOMMENDED SOLDERING EQUIPMENT, HAND TOOLS, AND MATERIALS WITH 

CHARACTERISTICS THAT WOULD HELP ENABLE FUTURE COMPONENT-LEVEL 

REPAIR OF ELECTRONICS IN A SPACECRAFT ENVIRONMENT

[This table includes reference to trade names and trademarks and does not constitute an official endorsement by NASA. 

Rather, the particular characteristics of that item have features which may be advantageous 

for repairs in a spacecraft environment. Equivalent items may be available.]

Recommended tools Mass 

(g)

L

(mm)

W/D

(mm)

H

(mm)

Vol 

(mm3)

Required for maintenance of glass flux/solder traps.

3/16 in. Wire Brush 2.7 152.4 6.4 4,826

Required for maintenance of solder extractor, used to unclog heating element.

1/8 in. Wire Brush 2.6 152.4 3.2 1,226

Required for maintenance of solder extractor, used to unclog heating element.

Tip Cleaner Set 34.0 124.0 14.4 20,195

Required for maintenance of solder extractor, used to unclog extractor tips.

0.030 ID Thermo Drive Tip 6.0 65.5 6.6 2,241

For through-hole and SMT solder extraction applications.

0.040 ID Thermo Drive Tip 6.0 65.5 6.6 2,241

For through-hole and SMT solder extraction applications.

0.060 ID Thermo Drive Tip 6.0 65.5 6.6 2,241

For through-hole and SMT solder extraction applications.

Flo-D-Solder Tip 6.0 65.5 6.6 2,241

For SMT solder extraction applications.

Visifilter(s) 10.9 45.0 6.2 1,359

Required for operation of solder extractor.

Visifilter Elements 4

Replacement filters required for optimal performance of solder extractor.

Tip Tool 15.4 91.0 11.00 8,648

Required to safely remove and replace hot soldering iron and solder extractor tips.

2. Hand Tools

Utility Diagonal Cutters 87.7 127.0 50.8 257,407

Universal cutter, used in non-precision applications to save the cutting surfaces of the precision cutters.

Precision Angle Flush Cut Pliers 80.3 152.4 50.8 308,889

Required for lead and wire termination. Appropriate for nearly all precision cutting applications, angled pliers fit more 

applications that straight cutting pliers.

Flat Nose Micro Pliers 35.1 114.3 50.8 231,667

Multi-use tool used in many applications, can replace lead forming tools

Curved Point Tweezers 16.3 114.3 25.4 57,917

Used in fine placement SMT applications and conformal coating removal. Essential for cut and pull component 

removal.

Self-Locking Tweezers 27.8 165.1 12.7 20,914

Effective in component placement during soldering, used as “third hand” during soldering operations.

Orangewood or Fiberglass Sticks 2.0 152.4 6.3 4,751

Multi-purpose soldering and rework aid.

Acid Brushes 5.6 152.4 19.1 43,666

Essential for post-soldering and general purpose cleaning applications.

Lead Forming Tool

Recommended for forming through-hole components.

ESD Wrist Strap and Cord

Mandatory for all soldering and rework applications.

Mechanical Wire Stripper 390.0 165.1 114.3 1,694,062

Recommended for proper wire stripping applications.

3. Dental Tools

Cleoid/Discoid 16.1 165.1 6.3 5,147

Or similar dental scraping tool. Mandatory for conformal coating removal applications.

No. 23 Chisel 26.9 177.8 6.3 5,542

Essential for many rework tasks. Fine cutting tool, many conformal coating removal applications.

No. 6 Explorer 16.2 152.4 6.3 4,751

Mandatory for fine conformal coating removal tool. Many soldering and rework applications.

4. Materials
NASA/TM—2011-216933 8

TABLE 1.—LIST OF RECOMMENDED SOLDERING EQUIPMENT, HAND TOOLS, AND MATERIALS WITH 

CHARACTERISTICS THAT WOULD HELP ENABLE FUTURE COMPONENT-LEVEL 

REPAIR OF ELECTRONICS IN A SPACECRAFT ENVIRONMENT

[This table includes reference to trade names and trademarks and does not constitute an official endorsement by NASA. 

Rather, the particular characteristics of that item have features which may be advantageous 

for repairs in a spacecraft environment. Equivalent items may be available.]

Recommended tools Mass 

(g)

L

(mm)

W/D

(mm)

H

(mm)

Vol 

(mm3)

Solder 453.6 57.0 52.0 121,052

Flux or Flux Pen 18.2 139.5 15.6 26,663

Alcohol (Alcohol Pen Dispenser) 18.2 139.5 15.6 26,663

Only very limited quantities of alcohol may be evaporated in the atmosphere of the ISS.

De-Soldering Wick 7.5 46.0 11.0 4,372

Recommended for surface solder removal.

Tissues, Lint-Free 104.0 119.0 119.0 75.0 1,062,075

Essential for cleaning applications.

Toothpicks

Fine pitch soldering aid. Used in fine conformal coating removal.

Extra Fuses

Required replacements for operation of the soldering power source.

Totals (for available data) 5787.1 9,595,383

Figure 5.—Images of recommended soldering equipment to allow for component-level repair of electronics. (Note that 

images are not to scale.)

Single Sided Chisel Tip

Chip Removal Tip

Wire Brush

1 of 4 items in 

flux / solder trap kit

Flo-D Solder Tip

In-line extractor filter In-line extractor filter element

1/16 in. Chisel Tip 1/8 in. Chisel Tip 1/32 Conical Tip Angled Mini Wave 

Motorized Extractor 

Single Channel 

Soldering Power 

Supply

Soldering Iron Tip 

and Tool Stand

Pencil Type Soldering 

I

Tip Tool

Motorized Solder Extractor

Solder Extractor Filterers

Flux/Solder Trap
NASA/TM—2011-216933 9

Figure 6.—Images of recommended hand and dental tools to allow for component-level repair of electronics. (Note 

that images are not to scale.)

Figure 7.—Images of recommended materials and supplies to allow for component-level repair of electronics. (Note 

that images are not to scale.)

Flux Pen

Solder Desoldering Wick

Tissues Toothpicks Fuses Alcohol Syringe

Mechanical Wire 

Stripper

Utility Cutters Angled Flush Cut Pliers Flat Nose Micro Pliers

Curved Point Tweezers

Self Locking Tweezers

Cleoid Discoid

#23 Chisel

#6 Explorer

Acid Brush

Orangewood Stick

ESD Wristrap and Cord
NASA/TM—2011-216933 10

3.2.1 Soldering Equipment

In comparison to the existing US Soldering Kit, this report recommends both different and additional 

soldering tools for component-level electronics repair.

3.2.1.1 Soldering Iron and Power Source

The current US Soldering Kit limits the maximum temperature for soldering to 600 °F. It is common 

industry practice to use 700 °F tips for general soldering applications requiring the use of alloys 

containing lead. For the higher melting point lead-free alloys, a slightly higher temperature is generally 

required. The temperature control of the existing soldering iron is not the best choice for repair 

applications. For most repair applications, we would recommend the use of a higher-end, electronicallyadjustable soldering stations (e.g., those that can be adjusted in 1° increments to satisfy the needs of the 

actual application) which is not available with the curie point style tips2 currently in use aboard ISS.

Furthermore, soldering irons which do not require calibration are desired.

Should a higher-temperature tip be problematic to certify for use in spacecraft, another alternative is a 

backplane heater (although this increases the equipment to be carried). A back plane heater would bring 

the entire board to just below the reflow temperature of solder. The crew member would then use the 

soldering iron to heat specific joints to the reflow temperature to complete the repair task. The use of a 

back plane heater makes the soldering tasks easier in a number of ways. Less heat from the soldering iron 

is required at the specific joint to reach reflow temperatures, which requires less time with the soldering 

iron tip on the joint. The soldering iron tip does not have to be as hot as in the case where the circuit board 

is at room temperature, because the heater provides most of the energy instead of the soldering iron tip.

Heating the circuit board with the backplane heater also reduces thermal shock to the board by reducing 

the temperature gradient between the board components and soldering iron tip.

A recommended power source (1a), soldering iron (1b), and tool holder (1c), or their equivalents, are 

listed in Table 1 and shown in Figure 5. It is noted that a constant power source compared with a battery 

power source is preferred because the latter may reduce soldering effectiveness as the battery drains.

However, both can produce equivalent results if control circuitry is properly designed.

3.2.1.2 Soldering Iron Tips

The available tips in the US Soldering Kit only include one style tips—a screwdriver shape. Smaller 

or other shapes are required to more easily work with many component types including surface mount 

technology (SMT). Table 1 and Figure 5 show a recommended selection of tips (1d to 1j) to cover a 

majority of soldering applications including those appropriate for SMT.

3.2.1.3 Solder Extraction 

A number of tools are required to extract solder and maintain the solder extraction equipment (see 

items 1k to 1y and 4d in Table 1 and shown in Figure 5 and Figure 7).

3.2.2 Hand and Dental Tools

While the existing ISS IVA Toolkit has a number of hand tools available, most are not suited for use 

in electronics repairs due to size. The tools must be sized correctly for the task at hand. Often electronics 

components have small features, such as small, closely spaced leads, or the component itself is small.

Components of these sizes require tools to manipulate the smaller components. Examples of some needed 

additional tools are listed in Table 1 and shown in Figure 6. These include cutters, pliers, tweezers, 

conformal coating removal tools, lead-forming tools, ESD protection, and wire strippers. Tools used to 

manipulate components during soldering should have smaller contact area and thermal mass to limit heat 

 2

Curie style soldering tips use magnetized soldering tips which lose their magnetic properties at a certain 

temperature (the Curie point). As long as the tip is magnetic, it clings to the heating element. At the design (Curie)

temperature, it loses contact, cooling down.
NASA/TM—2011-216933 11

loss. Cutters should have jaws to allow cutting close to component bodies or in tight spaces on a circuit 

board. Fiberglass (or orangewood) sticks, dental tools, and even toothpicks are needed for removing 

conformal coating, reapplying conformal coating, or as a tool to position a component on the circuit 

board. The fiberglass in the stick will not wear away as readily, as a wooden stick would, when removing 

conformal coating. The stick will also limit damage due to shorts or static build-up during use. Other 

aspects of tools include designs which reduce user fatigue as well as ensuring that the tools are not 

mishandled or used for applications other for which they were intended.

3.2.3 Materials and Supplies

The needed materials and supplies include solder, external solder flux or flux pen, alcohol or alcohol 

pen, and de-soldering wick. Additional supplies which may be part of a general supply kit include tissues 

(lint-free), toothpicks, and extra fuses.

3.2.3.1 Solder

The 60/40 Sn/Pb solder with a RA flux core in the current ISS Soldering Kit is not recommended due 

to the highly active rosin flux core. The residue left behind from soldering with such a solder normally 

requires removal with some solvent like alcohol. More discussion of flux is presented in a subsequent 

section.

Previous work (Refs. 4, 5, and 7) showed an increase in void defects formed while soldering in 

reduced gravity. To help mitigate the increase of voids, various combinations of solder and flux were 

evaluated (Refs. 8 and 9) including a solid-core wire with an externally applied flux. These materials and 

techniques were ultimately tested aboard the ISS as part of the Soldering in Reduced Gravity Experiment

(SoRGE)(Ref. 11). A flux-cored solder wire was the easiest to solder compared with a solid-core wire 

with externally applied flux. Joints formed with the eutectic (63/37 Sn/Pb) solder wire generally had 

fewer internal voids than those formed with the 60/40 rosin-flux-cored solder (Ref. 9).

On the basis of the results of SoRGE, the CLEAR team recommends eutectic rosin-flux-cored solder 

wire for general electronics repairs in future missions. This type of solder wire represents a compromise 

between void formation and ease of use appropriate for most repair tasks. In industry the amount of 

acceptable voiding depends on the function and criticality of the overall product, and each manufacturer 

must make this decision separately, with very few rules of thumb to guide the decision. Where 

applications require more extensive void mitigation, NASA may require additional void mitigation 

techniques and materials, such as the use of solid solder wire and external liquid rosin flux. However, 

such techniques will require additional training and practice by the crew.

Today, lead-free solder is becoming commonplace in commercial electronics industry as a result of 

the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS) put in place by European environmental 

legislative actions (Ref. 13). At the time this document was written, NASA was still using Pb-based 

solders for high reliability electronics in space applications. However, it is expected that NASA and DoD 

will ultimately be pushed to lead-free solders for space applications. The CLEAR project has collected 

only limited data on lead-free solders and further work is required to ascertain its affects on in-situ 

electronics repair. Other projects have begun evaluating lead-free soldering in space (Ref. 14).

3.2.3.2 Flux

Some types of flux, such as rosin active (RA) or rosin mildly active (RMA), are acidic and can, over 

time, damage the solder joints. Additionally, the flux residue can, with many conformal coating materials, 

interfere with the adhesion between the circuit board and coating material. Therefore, such residue must 

be removed after soldering and usually requires large amounts of solvent, typically alcohol which use is 

very limited in spacecraft environments (see below).

Therefore, the CLEAR team recommends a no-clean type of flux to minimize the need for cleaning 

the circuit board post soldering. Residue from this type of flux would not damage the circuit boards or 

joints, reducing or eliminating the need to clean the joint areas. In many cases, the residue may be safely 
NASA/TM—2011-216933 12

covered with conformal coating. During the CRE-1 experiment (Ref. 12), astronauts successfully 

conducted soldering operations using a no-clean type of flux.

3.2.3.3 Alcohol

Processes that minimize or eliminate the use of alcohol for cleaning are recommended for in-space 

repairs. Currently, only 1 cc of alcohol may be evaporated daily into the volume of the ISS without 

causing problems for the environmental control systems. It is anticipated that such limitations will exist 

with future space environmental system (R.M. Bagdigian, personal communication, October 3, 2008). In 

addition to the environmental concerns, handling the fluid can be difficult in reduced gravity. If alcohol is 

ultimately required then controlled methods of dispensing will be required. Such methods could include 

dispensing syringes, pens, or swabs; containment; and/or reclaiming evaporated alcohol.

3.2.3.4 Solder Wick

There are two primary ways for removing solder from circuit boards: vacuum pumps (solder suckers 

or extractors) and solder wick. Each technique has specific areas when they are used although both 

techniques can accomplish solder removal in similar applications. However, solder wick is ideal for use in 

removing solder from surface mount applications. Solder wick is typically made from copper and often 

contains some flux material. Care must be taken to specify a no-clean type flux in the solder wick 

otherwise the board may require solvents to clean.

3.2.4 Specialty Tools and Repair Kits

The tool recommendations discussed in this paper focus on the removal and replacement of electronic 

components using primarily soldering. Other electronics repairs may arise which require specialty tools or 

dedicated repair kits. Such kits would include not only the material required for such repairs but also 

“how to” instructional information. Examples of dedicated electronic repair kits include those needed for 

the repair and modification of traces, lands, contact fingers, SMT pads, plated hole connections, and PCB 

base board material.

For the example of trace or land repair on a circuit board, a rotary hand/abrasion tool may be required 

to excavate around the trace or access an internal trace. Furthermore, chemicals are needed to clean or 

bond replacement parts, requiring tools to apply and handle the chemicals. While some tools, such as the 

rotary hand tool, may be available as a part of a general tool kit, most other tools for this or similar tasks 

will not, and must be included in a dedicated electronics repair tool kit. The amount of epoxy required to 

perform conductor repair, both surface and sub-surface, may be too much for the closed environment of a 

spacecraft to handle. For some repairs, common terrestrial based practices may require substitute 

procedures for operations in space. As a potential alternative, surface conductor repair can be attempted

by soldering the replacement in place and applying conformal coating to secure the repair.

Such repair tool kit require further evaluation for use in a spacecraft environment.

3.2.5 Containment Enclosure and Visual Aids

The existing containment enclosure, used with the MWA on the ISS, has a number of shortcomings 

that are specific to conducting component-level repair of electronics. The following recommendations 

focus on design considerations for a new containment enclosure. This discussion will also examine visual 

aids which may be included in a future containment enclosure, or as stand-alone instruments with 

applications beyond electronics repair.

Perhaps the single most important recommendation is to have an enclosure which will allow crew 

members to comfortably see and manipulate small parts within the enclosure. Terrestrially, technicians do 

not normally use an enclosure and are typically within 12 in. of the circuit card. With regard to the 

physical characteristics, the containment enclosure should have rigid sides, to avoid problems with 

visibility through the current soft sided enclosure, and a clear window to allow easy viewing of the CCA.

The enclosure should still be collapsible to aid in stowage although less setup time would be highly 
NASA/TM—2011-216933 13

Figure 8.—Setting up a video camera to record a soldering process.

The camera view screen is used as a visual aid.

desirable as the current design requires at least 30 min for setup. As with the current design, the enclosure 

should have electronic feedthroughs and holes for a vacuum cleaner. The enclosure should be sized to 

accommodate most, if not all, circuit boards a crew member would work on, with enough volume to 

accommodate the soldering tool, board clamp or other tools and instruments that may be necessary.

Visual aids can improve the visibility for the crew while performing a repair. Many of the component 

legs and circuit card pads manipulated in a repair task are small, and working with these small parts may 

be difficult and taxing on the crew member, if using only the naked eye. Visual aids that can alleviate or 

eliminate these problems include magnifying lenses, which can be used in a standalone fashion, as part of 

the enclosure wall, incorporated in lighting, as a visor the crew member wears, or in other ways. Low 

power microscopes (on the order of 20 X magnifications) are commonly used in ground laboratories and 

workshops, and can be used with the flat sides of an enclosure in a space vehicle or habitat setting. Video 

cameras with macro lenses may also be used to magnify the work area, shown in Figure 8 for example, 

with the benefit of recording the repair session for future analysis. Mission planners should include 

multiple choices among the visual aids as well, allowing crew members to be flexible in terms of using 

the appropriate magnifier for the task at hand, available light levels, transmitting or recording video, and 

personal preference.

3.2.6 Diagnostics to Support Manual Repair

Diagnostics tools are essential to performing any electronics repair in order to isolate the failed 

component or components requiring replacement as well as to begin determining the root cause of the 

failure. The diagnostic instruments already found on the ISS (see Figure 4 for some of these instruments) 

represent only a subset of tools required for component-level electronic repairs of CCAs. Other 

documents (Ref. 2) generated by the CLEAR team recommended equipment and strategies to address 

fault diagnosis and functional test. These include a combination of increased BIT capabilities, signature 

analysis devices, and synthetic instrumentation which can be programmed to meet a specific diagnostic 

and test needs.

3.2.7 Component Repair Experiment-1 Tool Kit

An image of those tools sent to the ISS for the CRE-1 experiment is shown in Figure 9. The tools 

provided were a subset of those recommended here due to volume constraints for launch. CRE-1 

successfully operated in 2009. However, these tools remain aboard the ISS for future potential repairs. As 

shown in Figure 9, a small white fabric pouch stores the tools when not in use.
NASA/TM—2011-216933 14

Figure 9.—A set of small tools, used for electronics repair, sent to the ISS as part of the CRE-1 

experiment which operated in 2009.

The tool kit included two sizes of cutters (standard and fine) and three types of tweezers (standard, 

curved with fine tips, and reverse action with rounded tips). The tool kit contains a fiberglass stick and 

dental pick to remove conformal coating. The kit also contained ESD safe tape to help with conformal 

coating removal. However, the crew generally found this not to be helpful. The kit contained a spool of 

standard solder wick; a spool of eutectic solder wire with a Kester 245 no-clean flux core; and a syringe 

with Kester 958 no-clean liquid flux, which is added to a joint area to help remove and clean the original 

solder. The final items in the CRE-1 tool kit were two tips for the US Soldering Kit soldering iron, a 

Weller PTA6, a 1/8 in. screwdriver tip, and Weller PTP6, a 1/32 in. screwdriver tip; both were limited to 

600 °F. More details of these tools, including additional discussion on the effectiveness, is presented 

elsewhere (Ref. 12).

3.3 Crew Training

While there are many hardware and tool changes necessary to provide a reasonable manual 

electronics capability, none will be truly effective without crew training and support. This training takes a 

number of forms, including hands-on instruction and practice prior to a mission, training videos produced 

both before a missions for general techniques and expected repairs as well as videos made during a 

mission for upcoming work, and provisions for practice with realistic circuit boards and components 

during a mission.
NASA/TM—2011-216933 15

3.3.1 Preflight Training

Crew training prior to a mission should focus on establishing a basic skill set appropriate for most 

electronics repair tasks. This basic skill set should establish and reinforce the fundamentals of handling 

circuit boards and electronics components, heating solder to flow for removing or forming solder joints 

without damaging the circuit board or components, and working with mechanical aspects of repairs such 

as crimping pins and wires, removing and replacing conformal coating, and potentially including more 

advanced tasks such as repairing damaged circuit board lands and traces.

A study performed by the U.S. Navy (NAVSEA, Crane, Indiana) showed this training can be 

accomplished with as little as 16 hr of intensive instruction, even for crew members with little or no 

previous electronics or soldering experience. A curriculum was developed by a group of experienced 2M 

electronic repair technicians and instructors that are on staff in the 2M Project Office. Topics were 

selected by consensus on the basic concepts and skills that are required for an individual to perform 

successful electronic rework and repair tasks. It was assumed that the tools and hardware presented earlier 

in this document were available. The technicians conducted a feasibility study for providing basic 

soldering training to two Electronic Engineers with no previous soldering experience. The two trainees 

were instructed individually, one-on-one, by experienced 2M Instructors. Each training topic and 

rework/repair task was timed and the results of the training weighed heavily in the selection of training 

topics and tasks that were chosen in the final draft of the curriculum. The trainees proved to be fairly 

proficient in their tasks after training, the actual time taken by the trainees to perform the rework/repair 

tasks was quite longer than anticipated. After the results of the training sessions were compiled, the 2M 

Project group reviewed the results and provided recommendations on what topics and tasks to retain, 

taking into consideration the time factors of the training.

Table 2 shows a list of recommended training topics from this study along with the minimum time 

allotted for this study. A detailed training syllabus is included in Appendix B. The duration for each 

training topics is presented assuming an overall training duration of 2, 4, 8, or 16 hr. While 16 hr is the 

recommended duration to cover all tasks, the authors understand that there are tremendous demands on 

crew training time so shorter duration courses are suggested. While all crew members should receive 

training, the previous experience, background, and aptitude of individual crew members should be 

exploited, expanding the crew’s overall ability to handle electronics repairs.

TABLE 2.—RECOMMENDED TRAINING TOPICS FOR PRE-FLIGHT 

CREW TRAINING GIVEN AVAILABLE TRAINING DURATION

No. Training topics 2 hr 4 hr 8 hr 16 hr

1 Safety 0:10 0:10 0:10 0:15

2 Soldering Characteristics 0:03 0:05 0:06 0:10

3 Flux Characteristics 0:03 0:03 0:06 0:10

4 Cleanliness 0:02 0:02 0:03 0:05

5 Soldering Iron 0:08 0:15 0:15 0:15

6 Soldering Iron Tip Maintenance 0:04 0:05 0:05 0:05

7 Heat Bridge 0:20 0:20 0:20 0:25

8 CCA Preparation - 0:20 0:20 0:20

9 Component Preparation - 0:20 0:20 0:20

10 Lead Forming - 0:15 0:15 0:15

11 Component Terminations - 0:15 0:15 0:15

12 Solder Application and Post Solder Connection Cleaning - 0:35 0:35 0:45

13 Wire Stripping and Tinning 0:15 0:15 0:15 0:20

14 Terminal Preparation 0:10 0:10 0:10 0:15

15 Wire Forming and Termination, Wire to Terminal Soldering 0:30 0:35 0:35 0:45

16 Conformal Coating Identification and Removal 0:15 0:15 0:15 0:20

17 Component Through-Hole Component Orientation, Forming, Positioning 

and Installation

- - 0:45 0:45

18 Radial Capacitor, Vertical Radial Mount with Standoffs, Semi-Clinch - - - -
NASA/TM—2011-216933 16

TABLE 2.—RECOMMENDED TRAINING TOPICS FOR PRE-FLIGHT 

CREW TRAINING GIVEN AVAILABLE TRAINING DURATION

No. Training topics 2 hr 4 hr 8 hr 16 hr

Terminations on Single-Sided CCA

19 Continuous Vacuum Extractor Maintenance and Use, DIP Installation - - 1:20 1:30

20 Discrete Component Installation Session - - 1:20 1:30

21 Cut and Pull Component Removal - - - -

22 Component Removal using Continuous Vacuum Extraction - - 0:30 0:30

23 Vision Enhancement - - - -

24 Wire Stripping and Tinning - - - -

25 Hook Terminal Preparation, Wire Forming, Termination and Soldering - - - -

26 Pierced Tab Terminal Preparation, Wire Forming, and Termination and 

Soldering

- - - -

27 SMT Introduction and Land Preparation - - - 0:25

28 Chip Component Installation - - - 0:50

29 Chip Component Removal - - - 0:20

30 SOIC Installation - - - 1:00

31 SOIC Removal - - - 0:20

32 PQFP Installation - - - 1:00

33 PLCC Installation - - - 1:00

34 Conformal Coating Identification - - - 0:30

35 Manual Conformal Coating Removal - - - 0:25

36 Thermal Conformal Coating Removal - - - 0:25

37 Conformal Coating Replacement - - - 0:30

Total Time 2:00 4:00 8:00 16:00

3.3.2 In Flight Training and Practice

Training videos serve two main purposes for electronics repair. First, the video training should 

reinforce the basic repair training already received. These videos will act as a reference and refresher for 

the crew, because a repair task could occur months or perhaps years after initial training. Refresher videos 

will help bridge this gap between training and repair and help crew members remain current in their skills.

Second, training videos can provide more depth in terms of operations for specific repairs. These videos 

can show the use of various tools and how to perform techniques beyond those taught in the initial 

training course. These videos may be provided prior to launch for expected tasks, or recorded and 

uploaded from the ground as needed during a mission. These task specific videos expand the capabilities 

of the crew beyond the basic levels of the initial training, and allow crew members to recover from a large 

number of faults, failures, and component life-cycle effects with a relatively small training level.

Practice boards are a “hands-on” analog to training videos. The practice boards will be similar, but 

not necessarily duplicates, to real boards in terms of component types, sizes, and spacing, internal board 

layers, and in other characteristics. Initially, practice boards will be provided specifically for that purpose, 

but boards from instruments no longer used in the mission may eventually be added to the practice board 

compliment. Crew members can use these boards to maintain basic skills competency, as well as for 

practicing a specific task prior to actually attempting a repair. Hands-on refresher and practice will add to 

crew competence and increase the chances of a successful repair.

3.4 Design and Manufacturing Recommendations for Electronics Assemblies

Design and manufacturing choices can affect crew repairs, both positively and negatively, years 

before the astronaut attempts to repair a faulty assembly. These choices include accessibility, component 

layout, and choice of conformal coating.
NASA/TM—2011-216933 17

3.4.1 Accessibility

In addition to the layout of a circuit board, designers must also consider the layout and design of the 

enclosure and internal components. This includes both mechanical as well as electrical or electronic 

aspects. First, the enclosure must be designed to be opened by crew members in reduced gravity.

Historically, a small number of ORUs on the ISS or Space Shuttle have riveted enclosures, preventing the 

crew from accessing the interior. Other enclosures use screws to assemble the enclosure; while these 

screws allow the crew to access the circuit boards within the ORU, loose small parts in reduced gravity 

can pose additional problems if a part is lost or becomes lodged in a nearby device. Finally, the enclosures 

should use a minimum number of fasteners to avoid extensive crew time needed for disassembly.

Designers should consider the tools and environment available to the crew during a repair task when 

mechanically designing an ORU enclosure. Designers must also consider aspects of the interior design as 

well. This includes designing the circuit card mounting, connections, and spacing so that crew members 

can remove the circuit boards without further damage to the faulty circuit board or any other internal 

components. This includes minimizing soldered connections between a circuit board and other parts of an 

ORU. Finally, heat sinks and cold plates can pose access difficulties during crew repairs. Crew members 

must be able to remove or work around heat sinks and cold plates, which not only hinder removing a 

circuit board or other part from an ORU, but could make soldering and other repairs to a circuit board 

difficult if the heat sink is still in place. Designers must take all these factors into account when designing 

ORU enclosures and internal layouts.

3.4.2 Component Layout

The layout and component selection for circuit boards directly affects the ability of crew members to 

remove and replace components when faults occur. Electronics manufacturers strive for ever smaller 

devices, leading to ever smaller components placed closer and closer together. NASA engineers take 

advantage of these small components as well, to reduce the volume and mass of the devices and modules 

they build for use in space missions. These small components and close spacing, however, require 

increasing training and skill, more specialized tools, and eventually machines such as solder reflow 

stations for assembly and repair. For an in situ repair plan to be feasible, the crew must have the 

appropriate training and tools to work on these increasingly difficult parts. Designers must know in 

advance the level of training, tools, and any other resources available to the crew so appropriate design 

choices can be made to allow in situ repair. This is not to say that all electronics must be designed for 

repair by crew members. Designers may have valid reasons to use components and layouts beyond the 

crew's repair capabilities, but should be aware of these limitations and the implications of designing 

outside, as well as within, the crew's capabilities.

Adding test points on the circuit board are another design change that can greatly aid crew members 

performing electronics repair during a mission. The test points are pads on the circuit board which allow a 

user to probe a circuit with a multimeter or oscilloscope without requiring the probes to contact small 

areas, such as component legs or traces on the circuit board. This makes diagnosis of a circuit board 

easier, and as a consequence more accurate, by increasing access to vital areas of a circuit. These test 

points would not only make diagnosis tasks easier for the crew, but would also make the tasks easier to 

configure and conduct on automated probing equipment.

3.4.3 Conformal Coating

The choice of conformal coating on a CCA can facilitate or inhibit component-level repair of 

electronics. Conformal coatings are intended to provide electrical insulation and environmental 

protection. There are five basic categories of conformal coating: acrylic resin, epoxy resin, parylene, 

polyurethane resin (urethane), and silicone resin. Parylene and polyurethane resin are typically used for 

space applications which see a vacuum environment.

The ability to remove a conformal coating depends on the tooling available. Manual removal of 

conformal coating requires abrasive tools. For coatings other that silicone, a sharp tool such as a dental 
NASA/TM—2011-216933 18

pick is also required. In addition, a controlled heat abrasion (perhaps with a heat gun) can ease the 

removal. Finally, some conformal coatings such as acrylic can be easily removed with isopropyl alcohol.

However, alcohol evaporation into the cabin atmosphere is not desired for a spacecraft environmental and 

life support systems. Thus, non-chemical means (or special containment enclosures) are recommended for 

use in spacecraft. With such constraints, Table 3 lists the preference of conformal coatings in terms of 

ease for manual removal starting with the most repairable. This preferred order is based on an 

interpretation of data presented in NAVAIR 01-1A-23 (Ref. 15) as well as experience gathered in the 

development of the CRE-1 SDTO. Armed with only an orangewood or fiberglass stick, silicone is the 

only coating, which can be removed repeatedly without heat, chemicals, or a sharp metal tool.

TABLE 3.—RANKING OF EASE OF MANUAL REMOVAL OF CONFORMAL COATING

Ranking Conformal coating Removal method

1 Silicone Resin Cut/scrape and peal method

2 Acrylic Resin Abrasion

3 Parylene Abrasion

4 Polyurethane Resin Abrasion (thin applications, heat required for thick)

5 Epoxy Resin Abrasion (thin applications, heat required for thick)

With the exception of silicone resin, all conformal coating thicknesses should adhere to the standards 

set forth in NASA-STD-8739.1A (Ref. 16). According to NASA-STD-8739.1, all coatings shall have a 

thickness of no greater than 0.008 in. Based on our experience with CRE-1, cut and peal peel methods are 

easier to perform with thicker uncured (unprimed) conformal coatings. Therefore, we recommend 

unprimed thicker coatings (0.015- to 0.025-in.) for silicon resins to facilitate manual component-level 

repair, if possible.

Although some exceptions may occur, it is likely that CCA will require a reapplication of conformal 

coating to protect the affected area of the CCA post repair. In general, the desired approach is to reapply 

the same material post repair. With the exception of parylene, most conformal coatings require spray or 

brush method and simple tools. Parylene is vapor deposited and cannot be applied in the field without 

specialized equipment. In the U.S. Navy, field units replace removed parylene with acrylic resin, epoxy 

resin, or polyurethane resin. If there are a multitude of conformal coatings that are used on CCAs in future 

spacecraft, then it would be desirable to find a “universal” or a least a limited number of acceptable postrepair conformal coatings. For the CRE-1 SDTO, RTV silicone was the conformal coating. While the 

post-repair reapplication was de-scoped from the experiment due to weight limitation for launch, RTV 

silicone would have been used to replace the removed conformal coating. However, silicone offgasses 

causing contamination in a vacuum environment and is likely a poor choice for a “universal” patch 

conformal coating. Another potential option for CCAs is to consider an ESD safe tape/patch which may 

be sufficient in some applications (including a vacuum). In all cases, a “universal” patch conformal 

coating requires further development and additional testing.

There are other issues associated with conformal coating. One such issue for a post-repair (uncured) 

conformal coating is shelf life. Typical uncured conformal coatings have a shelf-life, which is about a 

year. For long duration missions, shelf life is an issue that requires further work. In addition, probing of a 

conformal coated CCA will likely be an issue while diagnosing a fault. Sharp probe tips are commonly 

used to probe through the coating to establish electrical contact. However, this method leaves holes, 

which may or may not require recoating. If patching is not desired (i.e., it increases crew time), the 

different technology solutions are required. Possible alternatives include a self-healing conformal coating 

or developing diagnostic methods that do not require direct electrical contact (Ref. 17).
NASA/TM—2011-216933 19

4.0 Summary

Long duration missions to the Moon and Mars pose a number of challenges to mission designers, 

controllers, and the crews. Among these challenges are planning for corrective maintenance actions which 

often require a repair. For repair of electronic, future mission planners must consider many factors when 

choosing the appropriate level of repair. For component-level electronics repair, these factors include the 

accessibility to the failed components, types of circuit boards and components to be repaired, diagnostic 

and test capabilities, tools and hardware required, and crew skill level and training.

This report provides recommendations to help enable manual replacement of electronics at the 

component-level. This report discussed the current ISS repair capabilities followed by recommendations 

for future missions. These recommendations include hardware and tools such as soldering equipment, 

hand and dental tools, materials and supplies, as well as containment enclosures. Also presented is a 

detailed crew training curriculum based on a study conducted by the U.S. Navy. Additionally, this report 

outlines some design and manufacturing considerations for electronic assemblies that support componentlevel repair. Fault diagnostic and post-repair functional test are discussed elsewhere. These 

recommendations were based on a study performed by the U.S. Navy and two Station Development Test 

Objectives (SDTOs) conducted by a project investigating component level repair of electronics repair for 

future space missions.
NASA/TM—2011-216933 20
NASA/TM—2011-216933 21

Appendix A.—List of Acronyms

2M Miniature/Microminiature

BIT built-in test

CCA Circuit Card Assembly

CLEAR Component-Level Electronic Assembly Repair Project 

CRE-1 Component Repair Experiment 1

DIP dual-inline package

DoD Department of Defense

ESD Electro Static Discharge

IC integrated circuit

ISS International Space Station

MDM Multiplexer-Demultiplexer 

MELF metal electrode leadless face

MWA Maintenance Work Area

NAVSEA Naval Sea Systems Command

ORU Orbital Replacement Unit

PCB Printed Circuit Board

PLCC Plastic leaded chip carrier

PQFP Plastic Quad Flat Pack

R Rosin Only—flux category

RA Rosin Activated—flux category 

RMA Rosin Mildly Activated—flux category

RTV Room Temperature Vulcanization

SMT Surface Mount Technology

SOIC Small Outline Integrated Circuit

SoRGE Soldering in Reduced Gravity Experiment

SDTO Station Development Test Objective
NASA/TM—2011-216933 22
NASA/TM—2011-216933 23

Appendix B.—Detailed Crew Training Syllabus Developed by the U.S. Navy

Table 4 shows a detailed training syllabus recommended for crewmembers who plan on conducting 

manual component-level electronics repair with the tools presented in this document. The details of the 

study are presented in Section 3.3 of this document. The syllabus was developed the U.S. Navy’s 2M 

Electronic Repair program in Crane, Indiana.

TABLE 4.—RECOMMENDED TRAINING TOPICS (DETAILED) FOR MANUAL ELECTRONICS REPAIR

Training topics 2 hr 4 hr 8 hr 16 hr

1 Safety 0:10 0:10 0:10 0:15

Explain personal safety

Explain hot and sharp tools

Show handling of soldering iron tip

Explain solder hazards

Show solder

Explain flux hazards

Show flux

Explain isopropyl alcohol hazards

Show isopropyl alcohol

Explain tool safety

Explain workpiece safety

Explain additional damage

Explain ESD hazards

Show mat and wrist strap

Show ESD protection system set-up

Perform ESD protection system set-up

2 Soldering Characteristics 0:03 0:05 0:06 0:10

Explain tin/lead alloy

Show solder

Explain melting point

Explain wetting

Explain contaminates inhibit good wetting

Explain differences in 1g and 0g soldering

3 Flux Characteristics 0:03 0:03 0:06 0:10

Explain flux removes oxidation and promotes good wetting during 

soldering process

Explain proper flux application

Explain excessive flux adds to connection porosity

Show proper flux application

4 Cleanliness 0:02 0:02 0:03 0:05

Explain cleaning pre-soldering promotes good wetting

Show cleaning parts

Explain cleaning post-soldering removes unwanted active elements

5 Soldering Iron 0:08 0:15 0:15 0:15

Explain soldering iron safety

Explain soldering iron

Show soldering iron

Explain tip selection

Explain tip matches mass and size of connection elements

Explain tip as large as possible without overlap of pad

Show proper size tip on pad

Explain proper insertion of tip into soldering iron

Show proper insertion of tip into soldering iron

Explain soldering temperature

Explain rapid heating

Explain dwell time

Explain consequences of excessive heat

Explain measling and delamination

Explain appearance of reliable solder connections

Show reliable connection
NASA/TM—2011-216933 24

TABLE 4.—RECOMMENDED TRAINING TOPICS (DETAILED) FOR MANUAL ELECTRONICS REPAIR

Training topics 2 hr 4 hr 8 hr 16 hr

6 Soldering Iron Tip Maintenance 0:04 0:05 0:05 0:05

Show cleaning old solder

Show thermally shocking tip

Show seasoning the tip

7 Heat Bridge 0:20 0:20 0:20 0:25

Explain heat bridge enables efficient transfer of heat

Explain soldering iron tip and solder are applied at the same time

Explain apply heat bridge at intersection of parts to be soldered

Show making proper heat bridge on CCA

Explain more mass equals more time for parts to heat

Show making proper heat bridge on turret terminal

Perform proper insertion of tip into soldering iron

Perform cleaning old solder

Perform thermally shocking tip

Perform seasoning the tip

Perform making proper heat bridges

8 CCA Preparation - 0:20 0:20 0:20

Explain wicking material purpose and use

Show filling pads with solder and using wicking material to remove 

excess solder from pad(s)

Show evaluation of pad preparation

Perform pad preparation

Perform evaluation of pad preparation

9 Component Preparation - 0:20 0:20 0:20

Explain lead straightening process

Show straightening leads

Explain tinning process

Show tinning leads

Show evaluation of component preparation

10 Lead Forming - 0:15 0:15 0:15

Explain safety related to lead forming

Explain lead forming

Show forming leads

Show installing component in mounting holes

Show evaluation of component mounting

11 Component Terminations - 0:15 0:15 0:15

Explain safety related to terminating components

Explain straight-through, semi-clinch and full clinch lead terminations

Show terminating leads with semi-clinch termination

Show evaluation of component terminations

Perform lead straightening

Perform lead tinning

Perform evaluation of component preparation

Perform discrete component lead forming

Perform component installation in mounting holes

Perform evaluation of component mounting

Perform semi-clinch component lead terminations

Perform evaluation of component terminations
NASA/TM—2011-216933 25

TABLE 4.—RECOMMENDED TRAINING TOPICS (DETAILED) FOR MANUAL ELECTRONICS REPAIR

Training topics 2 hr 4 hr 8 hr 16 hr

12 Solder Application and Post Solder Connection Cleaning - 0:35 0:35 0:45

Explain safety related to solder application

Explain proper heat bridge

Explain forming fillets

Show discrete component soldering

Explain letting project cool

Explain post solder connection cleaning

Show cleaning project

Explain appearance of reliable connection

Explain appearance of defective connection

Show evaluation of completed component installation

Perform component soldering

Perform cleaning of project

Perform evaluation of completed component installation

13 Wire Stripping and Tinning 0:15 0:15 0:15 0:20

Explain wire stripping process

Show stripping wire

Explain tinning wire

Show tinning wire

Show evaluation of stripped and tinned wire

Perform wire stripping

Perform wire tinning

Perform evaluation of stripped and tinned wire

14 Terminal Preparation 0:10 0:10 0:10 0:15

Explain safety related to terminal and wire preparation

Show adding solder and using wicking material to remove excess 

solder from terminal

Show evaluation of terminal preparation

Perform terminal preparation

Perform evaluation of terminal preparation

15 Wire Forming and Termination, Wire to Terminal Soldering 0:30 0:35 0:35 0:45

Explain safety related to wire forming

Explain wire forming

Show forming wire to terminal

Explain wire termination

Show terminating wire on terminal

Show evaluation of wire forming and termination

Explain safety related to solder application

Explain proper heat bridge

Show proper heat bridge

Explain forming fillets

Show turret terminal soldering

Explain letting project cool

Explain post solder connection cleaning

Show cleaning project

Show evaluation of completed turret terminal project

Perform wire forming on terminal

Perform wire termination on terminal

Perform evaluation of wire forming and termination

Perform wire to turret terminal soldering

Perform cleaning of project

Perform evaluation completed turret terminal project
NASA/TM—2011-216933 26

TABLE 4.—RECOMMENDED TRAINING TOPICS (DETAILED) FOR MANUAL ELECTRONICS REPAIR

Training topics 2 hr 4 hr 8 hr 16 hr

16 Conformal Coating Identification and Removal 0:15 0:15 0:15 0:20

Explain safety related to conformal coating identification and removal

Explain conformal coating and solder mask

Explain silicone resin conformal coating

Show CCA with silicone resin conformal coating

Show silicone resin conformal coating removal

Show evaluation of conformal coating removal

Perform silicone resin conformal coating removal

Perform evaluation of conformal coating removal

17 Component Through-Hole Component Orientation, Forming, 

Positioning and Installation

- - 0:45 0:45

Explain safety related to component orientation, forming and 

positioning

Explain mounting hardware/insulation material

Show removal and replacement of component with mounting 

hardware/insulation material

Explain component orientation

Show component orientation

Explain component forming and alignment

Explain single-sided CCA pad preparation

Show single-sided CCA pad preparation

Show evaluation of pad preparation

Show forming and mounting axial resistor in mounting holes using 

horizontal flush mount and semi-clinch termination

Show evaluation of component mount

Show soldering discrete resistor

Show completed discrete resistor project evaluation

Perform single-sided CCA pad preparation

Perform evaluation of single-sided CCA pad preparation

Perform horizontal flush mount of axial resistor with semi-clinch 

termination

Perform evaluation of component mount

Perform soldering discrete resistor

Perform completed discrete resistor project evaluation

18 Radial Capacitor, Vertical Radial Mount with Standoffs, Semi-Clinch 

Terminations on Single-Sided CCA

- - - -

Explain orientation and mounting radial capacitor

Show mounting radial capacitor in mounting holes using vertical 

radial mount with standoffs and straight-through termination

Show soldering discrete capacitor

Show completed discrete capacitor project evaluation

Perform vertical radial mount (with standoffs) of discrete capacitor 

with straight-through termination

Perform soldering discrete capacitor

Perform completed discrete capacitor project evaluation
NASA/TM—2011-216933 27

TABLE 4.—RECOMMENDED TRAINING TOPICS (DETAILED) FOR MANUAL ELECTRONICS REPAIR

Training topics 2 hr 4 hr 8 hr 16 hr

19 Continuous Vacuum Extractor Maintenance and Use, DIP Installation - - 1:20 1:30

Explain continuous vacuum extraction

Explain continuous vacuum extractor maintenance

Show continuous vacuum extractor maintenance

Explain double-sided CCA pad preparation

Show proper extractor tip to meet application

Show double-sided CCA pad preparation using continuous vacuum 

extractor and shotgun pattern

Show evaluation of double-sided CCA pad preparation

Show forming and mounting DIP

Show soldering DIP using shotgun pattern

Show completed DIP project evaluation

Perform continuous vacuum extractor maintenance

Perform double-sided CCA pad preparation using shotgun pattern for 

DIP installation preparation

Perform evaluation of double-sided CCA pad preparation

Perform forming and mounting of DIP

Perform soldering DIP using shotgun pattern

Perform completed DIP project evaluation

20 Discrete Component Installation Session - - 1:20 1:30

Explain discrete component installation session

Perform forming and semi-clinch termination of five discrete 

components, match the components previously formed and terminated 

on the double-sided CCA

Perform double-sided soldering of the ten formed and terminated 

components

Perform evaluation of ten completed discrete component installation 

projects

21 Cut and Pull Component Removal - - - -

Explain safety related to component removal

Explain cut and pull method

Show cutting leads on discrete resistor and DIP

Show heating and removing leads remaining in CCAs

Show removing remaining solder from mounting holes

Perform cutting leads on discrete resistor and DIP

Perform heating and removing leads remaining in CCAs

Perform removing remaining solder from mounting holes

22 Component Removal using Continuous Vacuum Extraction - - 0:30 0:30

Show preparation for continuous vacuum extraction

Show DIP removal using continuous vacuum extraction

Show evaluation of completed continuous vacuum extraction

Perform preparation for continuous vacuum extraction

Perform DIP removal continuous vacuum extraction

Perform evaluation of completed continuous vacuum extraction

23 Vision Enhancement - - - -

Explain use of vision enhancement system

Show vision enhancement systems

Show soldering project using vision enhancement system

Show evaluation of completed project

Perform soldering project using vision enhancement system

Perform evaluation of completed project
NASA/TM—2011-216933 28

TABLE 4.—RECOMMENDED TRAINING TOPICS (DETAILED) FOR MANUAL ELECTRONICS REPAIR

Training topics 2 hr 4 hr 8 hr 16 hr

24 Wire Stripping and Tinning - - - -

Explain wire stripping

Show wire stripping

Show evaluation of stripped wire

Explain wire tinning

Show preparation for wire tinning

Show wire tinning

Show evaluation of stripped and tinned wire

Perform wire stripping

Perform evaluation of stripped wire

Perform preparation for wire tinning

Perform wire tinning

Perform evaluation of stripped and tinned wire

25 Hook Terminal Preparation, Wire Forming, Termination and Soldering - - - -

Explain hook terminal preparation

Show hook terminal preparation

Show evaluation of hook terminal preparation

Explain wire forming for hook terminals

Show wire forming on hook terminal

Show evaluation of wire forming

Explain wire termination on hook terminals

Show wire termination on hook terminal

Show evaluation of wire termination on hook terminal

Explain hook terminal soldering

Show preparation for hook terminal soldering

Show hook terminal soldering

Show post-solder connection hook terminal cleaning

Show completed hook terminal project evaluation

Perform hook terminal preparation

Perform evaluation of hook terminal preparation

Perform wire forming on hook terminal

Perform evaluation of wire forming

Perform wire termination on hook terminal

Perform evaluation of wire termination on hook terminal

Perform preparation for hook terminal soldering

Perform hook terminal soldering

Perform post-solder connection hook terminal cleaning

Perform completed hook terminal project evaluation
NASA/TM—2011-216933 29

TABLE 4.—RECOMMENDED TRAINING TOPICS (DETAILED) FOR MANUAL ELECTRONICS REPAIR

Training topics 2 hr 4 hr 8 hr 16 hr

26 Pierced Tab Terminal Preparation, Wire Forming, and Termination and 

Soldering

- - - -

Explain pierced tab terminal preparation

Show pierced tab terminal preparation

Explain wire forming for pierced tab terminal

Show wire forming on pierced tab terminal

Show evaluation of wire forming

Explain wire termination on pierced tab terminal

Show wire termination on pierced tab terminal

Show evaluation of wire termination on pierced tab terminal

Explain pierced tab terminal soldering

Show preparation for pierced tab terminal soldering

Show pierced tab terminal soldering

Show post-solder connection pierced tab terminal cleaning

Show completed pierced tab terminal project evaluation

Perform pierced tab terminal preparation

Perform wire forming on pierced tab terminal

Perform evaluation of wire forming

Perform wire termination on pierced tab terminal

Perform evaluation of wire termination

Perform preparation for pierced tab terminal soldering

Perform pierced tab terminal soldering

Perform post-solder connection pierced tab terminal cleaning

Perform completed pierced tab terminal project evaluation

27 SMT Introduction and Land Preparation - - - 0:25

Explain introduction to surface mount technology (SMT)

Show SMT CCA and SMD components

Explain SMT land preparation

Show SMT land preparation

Show land preparation evaluation

Perform SMT land preparation on lands

Perform land preparation evaluation

28 Chip Component Installation - - - 0:50

Explain land prefilling

Show land prefilling

Explain chip component placement

Show chip component placement

Explain chip component soldering

Show chip component soldering

Show post-solder connection chip component cleaning

Show chip component installation evaluation

Perform land prefilling

Perform chip component placement

Perform installation of four chip components

Perform post-solder connection chip component cleaning

Perform chip component installation evaluation

29 Chip Component Removal - - - 0:20

Explain SMT chip component removal

Show preparation for chip component removal

Show chip component removal w/ chisel soldering iron tip

Show post-component removal cleaning

Perform preparation for chip component removal

Perform removal of chip components using a chisel soldering iron tip

Perform post-component removal cleaning
NASA/TM—2011-216933 30

TABLE 4.—RECOMMENDED TRAINING TOPICS (DETAILED) FOR MANUAL ELECTRONICS REPAIR

Training topics 2 hr 4 hr 8 hr 16 hr

30 SOIC Installation - - - 1:00

Explain SOIC installation

Explain land preparation

Show SOIC placement

Show tack soldering opposite corners

Show SOIC soldering using the point-to-point soldering method

Show post-soldering cleaning

Show SOIC installation evaluation

Perform land preparation

Perform SOIC placement

Perform tack soldering opposite corners

Perform SOIC soldering using the point-to-point soldering method

Perform post-soldering cleaning

Perform SOIC installation evaluation

31 SOIC Removal - - - 0:20

Explain SOIC removal using the lead cutting method

Show cutting SOIC leads and using a soldering iron to remove the 

parts of the leads remaining on the lands

Explain evaluation of SOIC removal

Show evaluation of SOIC removal

Perform removal of SOIC by cutting the leads and using a soldering 

iron to remove the parts of the leads remaining on the lads

Perform evaluation of SOIC removal

32 PQFP Installation - - - 1:00

Explain PQFP installation

Show PQFP placement

Show tack soldering opposite corners

Show PQFP soldering using drag soldering method

Show post-soldering cleaning

Show PQFP installation evaluation

Perform PQFP placement

Perform tack soldering opposite corners

Perform PQFP soldering using drag soldering method

Perform post-soldering cleaning

Perform PQFP installation evaluation

33 PLCC Installation - - - 1:00

Explain PLCC installation

Show PLCC placement

Show tack soldering opposite corners

Show PLCC soldering using drag soldering method

Show post-soldering cleaning

Show PLCC installation evaluation

Perform PLCC placement

Perform tack soldering opposite corners

Perform PLCC soldering using drag soldering method

Perform post-soldering cleaning

Perform PLCC installation evaluation

34 Conformal Coating Identification - - - 0:30

Explain conformal coating types

Show example of conformal coating types

Explain conformal coating identification

Show conformal coating identification

Perform conformal coating identification
NASA/TM—2011-216933 31

TABLE 4.—RECOMMENDED TRAINING TOPICS (DETAILED) FOR MANUAL ELECTRONICS REPAIR

Training topics 2 hr 4 hr 8 hr 16 hr

35 Manual Conformal Coating Removal - - - 0:25

Explain safety related to conformal coating removal

Explain manual conformal coating removal

Show manual conformal coating removal methods

Show conformal coating removal evaluation

Perform conformal coating removal using manual methods

Perform conformal coating removal evaluation

36 Thermal Conformal Coating Removal 0:25

Explain thermal conformal coating removal

Show thermal conformal coating removal using a soldering iron tip

Show conformal coating removal evaluation

Perform thermal conformal coating removal using a soldering iron tip

Perform conformal coating removal evaluation

37 Conformal Coating Replacement - - - 0:30

Explain safety related to conformal coating replacement

Explain replacement conformal coating selection

Explain conformal coating curing

Explain conformal coating application

Show epoxy conformal coating application using the brush method

Show conformal coating application evaluation

Perform epoxy conformal coating application using the brush method

Perform conformal coating application evaluation

Show silicone resin conformal coating application using the toothpick

method

Show conformal coating application evaluation

Perform silicone resin conformal coating application using the 

toothpick method

Perform conformal coating application evaluation

Total Time 2:00 4:00 8:00 16:00
NASA/TM—2011-216933 32

References

1. “NASA’s Implementation Plan for International Space Station Continuing Flight,” Vol. 2, Rev. 1, 

January 30, 2004. http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/56217main_stationCFT1.pdf, accessed January 20, 2011. 

2. Struk, P., and Oeftering, R. “Approach to In Situ Component Level Electronics Assembly Repair 

(CLEAR) for Constellation,” AIAA SPACE 2009 Conference and Exposition, 2009. AIAA–2009–

6472 or NASA/TM—2010-216784.

3. Grugel, R.N., Cotton, L.J., Segrè, P.N., Ogle, J.A., Funkhouser, G., Parris, F., Murphy, L., Gillies, D., 

Hua, F., and Anilkumar, A. V. “The In-Space Soldering Investigation (ISSI): Melting and 

Solidification Experiments Aboard the International Space Station,” 44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences 

Meeting and Exhibit, 2006. AIAA–2006–521.

4. Pettegrew, R.D., Struk, P.M., Watson, J.K., and Haylett, D.R. “Experimental Methods in ReducedGravity Soldering Research,” 2002, NASA/TM—2002-211993.

5. Pettegrew, R.D., Struk, P.M., Watson, J.K., Haylett, D.R., and Downs, R.S. “Gravitational effects on 

solder joints,” Welding Journal Vol. 82, No. 10, 2003, pp. 44–48.

6. Struk, P.M., Pettegrew, R.D., Downs, R.S., and Watson, J.K. “The Effects of an Unsteady Reduced 

Gravity Environment on the Soldering Process,” 42nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 

2004. AIAA–2004–1311 and NASA/TM—2004-212946.

7. Struk, P.M., Pettegrew, R.D., Watson, J.K., Down, R.S., and Haylett, D.R. “The Influence of Gravity 

on Joint Shape for Through-Hole Soldering,” 43rd Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 2005. 

AIAA–2005–0541 and NASA/TM—2005-213589.

8. Watson, J.K., Struk, P.M., Pettegrew, R.D., and Downs, R.S. “Experimental investigation of solder 

joint defect formation and mitigation in reduced-gravity environments,” Journal of Spacecraft and 

Rockets Vol. 44, No. 1, 2007, pp. 174–182.

9. Easton, J., Struk, P., and Rotella, A. “Imaging and Analysis of Void-Defects in Solder Joints Formed 

in Reduced Gravity Using High-Resolution Computed Tomography,” 46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences 

Meeting and Exhibit, 2008. AIAA–2008–824.

10. Easton, J., and Struk, P. “Current Space Station Experiments Investigating Component Level 

Electronics Repair,” AIAA SPACE 2009 Conference and Exposition, 2009. AIAA–2009–6798 and 

NASA/TM—2010-216784.

11. Easton, J.W., and Struk, P.M. “Soldering in Reduced-Gravity Experiment (SoRGE),” NASA 

Technical Memorandum, 2010, in preparation.

12. Easton, J.W., and Struk, P.M. “Component Repair Experiment -1: An Experiment Evaluating 

Electronic Component-Level Repair During Spaceflight,” NASA Technical Publication, 2010, in 

preparation.

13. “Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on the 

restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment.” Official 

Journal of the European Union, 2003, pp. L37/19–23.

14. Kessel, K., and Krivdo, G. NASA-DOD Lead-Free Electronics (Project 2). 2010, URL: 

http://www.acqp2.nasa.gov/NASA_DODLeadFreeElectronics_Proj2.html, access January 20, 2011.

15. NAVAIR. “Standard Maintenance Practices Miniature/Microminiature (2M) Electronic Assembly 

Repair, Revision 3,” 2006, NAVAIR 01-1A-23.

16. NASA. “Soldered Electrical Connections. NASA Technical Standard NASA-STD-8739.3.” National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1997.

17. Izadnegahdar, A., and Anderson, E. “Noncontact Coupling Techniques for Performing Signature 

Analysis,” NASA/CR—2011-216980.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188 

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 

burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. 

Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

01-01-2011 

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Memorandum 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Recommendations for Enabling Manual Component Level Electronic Repair for Future Space 

Missions 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

Struk, Peter, M.; Easton, John, W.; Funk, Gregory, P.; Latta, Gary, S.; Ganster, Andrew, W.; 

Estes, Brett, E. 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

WBS 431767.04.01.03 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135-3191 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

E-17532 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

10. SPONSORING/MONITOR'S

 ACRONYM(S)

NASA 

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING

 REPORT NUMBER

NASA/TM-2011-216933 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified-Unlimited 

Subject Categories: 12 and 33 

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

This publication is available from the NASA Center for AeroSpace Information, 443-757-5802

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

Long duration missions to the Moon and Mars pose a number of challenges to mission designers, controllers, and the crews. Among these challenges are planning for 

corrective maintenance actions which often require a repair. Current repair strategies on the International Space Station (ISS) rely primarily on the use of Orbital Replacement 

Units (ORUs), where a faulty unit is replaced with a spare, and the faulty unit typically returns to Earth for analysis and possible repair. The strategy of replace to repair has 

posed challenges even for the ISS program. Repairing faulty hardware at lower levels such as the component level can help maintain system availability in situations where no 

spares exist and potentially reduce logistic resupply mass.This report provides recommendations to help enable manual replacement of electronics at the component-level for 

future manned space missions. The recommendations include hardware, tools, containment options, and crew training. The recommendations are based on the work of the 

Component Level Electronics Assembly Repair (CLEAR) task of the Exploration Technology Development Program from 2006 to 2009. The recommendations are derived 

based on the experience of two experiments conducted by the CLEAR team aboard the International Space Station as well as a group of experienced Miniature/Microminiature 

(2M) electronics repair technicians and instructors from the U.S. Navy 2M Project Office. The emphasis of the recommendations is the physical repair. Fault diagnostics and 

post-repair functional test are discussed in other CLEAR reports.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Soldering; Maintenance; Tools; Microgravity; Flight training; Astronauts 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF

 ABSTRACT

UU 

18. NUMBER

 OF 

 PAGES

42 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

STI Help Desk (email:help@sti.nasa.gov) 

a. REPORT

U 

b. ABSTRACT

U 

c. THIS 

PAGE

U 

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code)

443-757-5802 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18