NASA Contractor Report 3751

Analysis of Large Space

Structures Assembly

Man/Machine Assembly Analysis

CONTRACT NAS8-32989

DECEMBER 1983

ii_:!j i: ̧ ̧

!

25th Anniversary

1958-1983
NASA Contractor Report 3751

Analysis of Large Space

Structures Assembly

Man/Machine Assembly Analysis

Essex Corporation

Huntsville, Alabama

Prepared for

George C. Marshall Space Flight Center

under Contract NAS8-32989

N/ A

National Aeronautics

and Space Administration

Scientific and Technical

Information Branch

1983
r

FOREWORD

This Man/Machine Assembly Analysis (MMAA) was developed by Essex

Corporation for NASA's George C. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC)

under contract NAS8-32989. This revised and updated edition of the MMAA

provides a means for evaluating three modes of Large Space Systems (LSS)

Assembly -- manual, remote and automated -- and comparing the relative

costs and efficiencies provided by these assembly modes. The MMAA

includes information from very advanced technologies like robotics and

artificial intelligence in which we can expect significant changes

during the next several years. It also contains historical data on

extravehicular activity (EVA) assembly techniques from actual missions

and from simulations conducted at MSFC. The cost and productivity data

are provided to allow LSS mission designers to decide the most appropriate and effective means to accomplish LSS assembly. The analytical

techniques will eventually require the use of an interactive computer

due to the volume of data available for well defined missions and the

increased information available from advancing technologies.

Questions and comments concerning this assembly analysis should be

addressed to Harry Watters, NASA/MSFC at (205) 453-4430 or to Nicholas

Shields, Essex Corporation at (205) 883-7471.
TABLEOFCONTENTS

FOREWORD

KEYWORDSANDABSTRACT

TABLEOFCONTENTS

LIST OFFIGURES

LIST OFTABLES

ACRONYMSANDABBREVIATIONS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Backgroundand Purpose

1.2 Instructions to Users

1.3 Man/MachineAssemblyAnalysis Major Steps and Flow

Step 1.0 - Description of ProposedLSSMission

Step 2.0 - Prepare Functional Analysis

Step 3.0 - Prepare AssemblyScenarios

Step 4.0 - Prepare Task Descriptions

Step 5.0 - Develop AssemblyCosts

Step 6.0 - Integrate and CompareAssemblyAlternatives

1.4 Evolutionary Approachto the Developmentof LSSAssembly

Techniques

2.0 DATABASEDESCRIPTION

2.1 Data BaseA - Manual AssemblyTechniques for Large Space

Systems

2.2 Data BaseB - Remotely Controlled AssemblyTechniques for

Large SpaceSystems

2.3 Data BaseC - AutomatedAssemblyTechniques for Large Space

Systems

2.4 Data BaseD - STSCost Element Descriptions

3.0 PREPAREFUNCTIONALANALYSIS

4.0 PREPAREASSEMBLYSCENARIO

4.1 Manual AssemblyScenario

4.2 RemoteAssemblyScenario

4.3 AutomatedAssemblyScenario

5.0 PREPARECANDIDATETASKDESCRIPTIONS

5.1 Task Flow Worksheets

5.2 Task Description Worksheets

6.0 REFERENCES

7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDIXA - Science and Applications MannedSpacePlatform (SAMSP)

AssemblyAnalysis

APPENDIXB - EVADesign and Operations Guidelines: Lessons Learned

Through Zero-Gravity Simulation

Page

i

ii

iii

iv

v

vi

I-i

i-i

i-i

1-4

I-4

i-6

I-6

i-6

I-7

1-7

i-7

2-I

2-2

2-21

2-44

2-55

3-1

4-i

4-4

4-5

4-7

5-i

5-I

5-i

6-i

7-1

A-I

B-I

iii
Number

I-I:

1-2:

2-1:

2-2:

2-3:

2-4:

2-5:

2-6 :

2-7:

2-8 :

2-9:

2-10:

2-11:

2-12:

2-13:

2-14:

2-15:

2-16:

2-17:

2-18:

4-1:

4-2:

4-3:

5-1:

5-2:

LIST OF FIGURES

General Relationship of Data Bases and Process Analyses

for the MMAA

Man/Machine Assembly Analysis Flow Diagram

Escalation Indices by FY for Space System Development

EVA and RMS Large Space Structure Deployment

EVA Assist of Major Assembly Aid

Standard Orbiter External Lighting Locations

EVA Removal of an Equipment Module

EVA Translation Along a Structure Column

EVA Assembly Aid Being Locked into Position

Transfer 3m Cube with RMS to EVA Crew

EVA Assisted by RMS in Deploying Two Modules from Frame

Maneuvering System Teleoperator, Basic Configuration

Multi-Armed Teleoperated Servicing Spacecraft

Artist's Concept of Early Teleoperator Manipulator

Spacecraft

SRMS Mechanical Arm General Arrangement

SRMS System Concept

Orbiter Aft Station - Location of SRMS Equipment

Automated Beam Builder (MSFC's Development Model)

Teleoperator Space Spider Machine

Automated Orbital Servicer Simulator

EVA Subjects Completing 9-Beam Large Space Structure

EVA Time and Motion Assembly Analysis

Advanced SASP

Example Task Description

Assembly Alternatives - Comparative Worksheet

Page

1-2

i-5

2-I

2-4

2-5

2-8

2-12

2-14

2-16

2-17

2-20

2-27

2-30

2-31

2-32

2-33

2-34

2-50

2-52

2-54

4-2

4-3

4-11

5-7

5-8

iv
i-I:

2-1:

2-2:

2-3:

2-4:

2-5 :

2-6 :

2-7:

4-I:

5-i:

LIST OF TABLES

Evolutionary Development of LSS Assembly Techniques

Orbiter Provided Lighting for Space Construction

Crew Support Equipment Cost Summary

EVA Performance Times by Task Element

Earth-Based Automated Assemblers/Part Handlers

Assemblers/Part Handlers ist Unit, Flight Qualified

Production Costs (Estimated FY855)

Automated System Application of Sensor Subsystems

Standard Space Shuttle Price for Dedicated Users

(through 1985)

LSS Assembly Cost Estimating Work Sheet

Task Flow Work Sheets

Page

i-9

2-7

2-10

2-11

2-46

2-46

2-47

2-56

4-17

5-2

v
ACRONYMSANDABBREVIATIONS

ABB

AFC

AFD

AFDO

AFI

AI

AJ

ALSE

ALSS

AM

AOS

ARAMIS

ASASP

ASSY

ATP

AUTO

B&W

Bhd

BTU

Bu, B/U

CB

C&D

CCTV

CCW

CDA

CELSS

CID

CMA

CMD

c/o

CPU

CRT

CTS

CVR

CW

DOF

EB

ECLS

ECLSS

ECS

EDL

EOS

EPS

ESA

ESOC

AutomatedBeamBuilder

Automatic Flight Control

Aft Flight Deck

Aft Flight Deck Operator

Automatic Fault Isolation

Artificial Intelligence

Assembly Jig

Astronaut Life Support Equipment

Airlock Support System (Subsystem)

Actuator Mechanism

AutomatedOrbital Servicer

Automation, Robotics and Machine Intelligence Systems

AdvancedScience and Applications SpacePlatform

Assembly

Acceptance Test Procedure

Automatic

Black and White

Bulkhead

British Thermal Unit

Backup

Cargo Bay

Control and Display

Closed Circuit Television

Counter clockwise

Commandand Data Acquisition

Controlled Ecological Life Support System

ComputerInterface Device, ChargedInduction Device

Construction Manipulator Assembly

Command

Checkout

Central Processing Unit

CathodeRay Tube

Communicationsand Tracking System

Configuration Verification Review

Clockwise

Degrees of Freedom

Electron Beam

Environmental Control and Life Support

Environmental Control and Life Support Subsystem

Environmental Control System

Electric Discharge Laser

Electrophoresis Operations in Space

Electrical PowerSubsystem

EuropeanSpaceAgency

EuropeanSpaceOperations Center

vi
EMS

EMU

ESM

EST

ET

EVA

ETVP

FAB

FFTO

FRUSA

FSS

FT

FT2

FT3

F/S

FIT

FUR

FWD

FY

GEO

GEOSEPS

GMT

GPC

GSFC

HAL

HDQ

HDWE

HEUS

HPA

HPSP

HRS

HW/SW

IAA

IMU

IR

IUS

IVA

JSC

Kg

Km

KSC

kw

kybd

LARC

LASS

LEO

LEPS

LERC

LM

ACRONYm.S AND ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)

Electronic Mail. Satellite (antenna form)

Extravehicular Mobility Unit

Earth Science Module

Estimate(d)

External Tank, Event Timer

Extravehicular Activity

Engineering and Technology Verification Platform (Rockwell)

Fabricate, Fabrication

Free-Flying Teleoperator

Flexible Rolled-Up Solar Array

Flight Support System

Feet

Square feet

Cubic feet

Feet per second

Flight Unit

Facility Utilization Request (JSC)

Forward

Fiscal Year

Geosynchronous Orbit

Geosynchronous Solar Electric Propulsion Stage

Greenwich Mean Time

General Purpose Computer

Goddard Space Flight Center

High-Order Assembly Language

Habitability Module

Headquarters

Hardware

High Energy Upper Stage

Handling and Positioning Aid

High-Performance Spaceplane

Hours

Hardware/software

International Aerospace Abstract

Inertial Measurement Unit

Infrared

Inertial Upper Stage

Intravehicular Activity

Johnson Space Center

Kilogram

Kilometer

Kennedy Space Center

Kilowatt

Keyboard

Langley Research Center (Hampton, VA)

Large Area Space Structures

Low Earth Orbit

Laser Electric Propulsion System

Lewis Research Center (Cleveland, OH)

Logistics Module

vii
LSAT

LSM

LSS

LSU

LTPS

Man

MDC

MDF

MET

MESA

Min

MIT

MAA

MMS

MMU

MNVR

MRL

MRWS

MSFC

MTM

NASA

NBS

NBS

NLS

NO

NRCC

0CP

0CSE

OIM

OMS

OOA

ORB

OSS

OTV

P/L

PAM

PAM-A

PAM-D

PCU

PDP

PDRS

PEP

PIDA

PIF

PFMA

POCC

PNEU

PRCS

PRS

PSI

PSP

R&D

ACRONYMNS ANDABBREVIATIONS(Continued)

Large SpaceStructures AutomatedAssen_ly Technique

Life Science Module

Large SpaceSystem(s)/Structure(s)

Life Support Umbilical

Laser Thermal Propulsion System

Manual

Main Display Console

Manipulator DevelopmentFacility

Mission Elapsed Time

Module Equipment Storage Assembly

Minutes

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Man/MachineAssemblyAnalysis

Multimission Modular Spacecraft

MannedManeuvering Unit

Maneuver

Manipulator Retention Latches

MannedRemoteWork Station

Marshall SpaceFlight Center

Methods-Time-Measurement

National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration

Neutral BuoyancySimulator

National Bureau of Standards

Normal Line of Sight

Number

National ResearchCouncil of Canada

OpenCherry Picker

Orbital Construction Support Equipment

Orbital Interface Module

Orbital Maneuvering System

0n-Orbit AssemblySpacecraft

Orbiter

Orbiting SpaceStation

Orbit Transfer Vehicle

Payload

Payload Assist Module

PAM,Atlas-Centaur Class Spacecraft

PAM,Delta Class Spacecraft

Pressure Controller Unit (to be worn with EMU)

PlasmaDiagnostics Package

Payload Deployment and Retrieval Systems

PowerExtension Pack

Payload Installation and DeploymentAid

Payload Integration Facility

Proto-Flight Manipulator Arm

Payload Operations Control Center

Pneumatic

Primary Reaction Control System

Payload Retention Subsystem

Poundsper square inch

Payload Signal Processor

Research and Development

viii
RAT

RAU

RCS

RDT&E

REM

RF

RHC

RMS

ROBSIM

ROM

ROSS

SA

SADE

SAMSP

SASP

SBS

SCAFEDS

SCE

SCEDS

SCSAS

SEC

SEPS

SIMFAC

SM

SMA

SMM

SOC

SPEE

SPS

SRMS

SRS

SSA

SSUS

ST

STDN

STEM

STS

s/w

SYN

SYS

TBD

TBS

TDRS

TDRSS

THC

TRS

TV

UV

VCRS

VDU

VLBI

ACRON_@_S AND ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)

Radio Astronomy Telescope

Remote Acquisition Unit

Reaction Control System

Research Development Test and Engineering

Remote Engagement Mechanism

Radio Frequency

Rotational Hand Controller

Remote Manipulator System

Robotics Simulator Computer Program

Rough Order of Magnitude

Remote Orbital Servicing System Concept

Solar Array

Structural Assembly Demonstration Experiment

Science and Application Manned Space Platform

Science and Application Space Platform

Satellite Business Systems

Space Construction Automated Fabrication Experiment

Space Construction Experiment

Space Construction Experiment Definition Study

Space Construction Systems Analysis Study

Seconds

Solar Electric Propulsion Stage

An RMS Computer Simulation Facility at JSC

Support Module

Slave Manipulator Arm

Solar Maximum Mission

Space Operations Center

Special Purpose End Effector

Solar Powered Satellites

Shuttle Remote Manipulator System

Self Replicating System

Structural Support Assembly

Spinning Solid Upper Stage

Space Telescope

Spacecraft Tracking and Data Network

Storable Tubular Extendible Member

Space Transportation System

Software

Synchronous

System

To Be Determined

Task Breakdown Structure

Tracking and Data Relay Satellite

Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System

Translation Hand Controller

Teleoperator Retrieval System

Television

Ultraviolet

Vernier Reaction Control System

Visual Display Unit

Very Long Baseline Interferometer

ix
w/o

w/s

WBS

WETF

ZGT

ACRONYMNS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)

Without

Workstation

Work Breakdown Structure

Weightless Environment Training Facility

Zero Gravity Trainer
1.0 INTRODUCTION

i.I BACKGROUND ANDPURPOSE

As access to the space environment increases, more space

applications wil] be identified and a wider range of users will be

committing resources to participate in orbital operations. Production

and processing faci]ities will evolve from the current experimental

modules and the scale of these facilities will inaugurate the era of

large space systems (LSS). These large space systems will be orbital

operating platforms on which both individual and cooperative payloads

will share the finite supporting resources of power supplies,

communications, navigation and orientation, and the physical limits of

earth orbit. The systems which are currently under consideration, or

for which proposals are being developed, are structurally more fragile

and larger than any previous payload placed into orbit and as such will

require assembly in space.

The intention of the Man/MachineAssembly Analysis (MNAA)is to

develop a technique for analyzing assembly alternatives for Large Space

Systems and an analysis process which can be supported by data bases

across a range of assembly alternatives. This documentis an expansion

of the original work as a result of modifications to the analysis

techniques and additions to the supporting data bases.

k

The purpose of the document is to provide a means for analyzing a

particular space structure in terms of assembly requirements and the I

economies of assembly alternatives applied to those requirements. I

1.2 INSTRUCTIONS TO USERS

This assembly analysis is functionalIy divided into two major

sections, the data bases and the processes for stepping through an

assembly of a particular structure using the data bases. In addition to

these is some background material on human factors considerations in

space and the use of the shuttle as an assembly support system.

There are four data bases: one each for manual assembly techniques,

remote assembly techniques, automated assembly techniques, and cost

element descriptions for the Space Transportation System (STS). Additionally, there are four process descriptions: one each for preparation

of the system assembly scenario; preparation of the functional analysis;

preparation of task descriptions; and development of the Man/Machine

Assembly Analysis (MMAA). The general relationship for these elements

is shown in Figure i-i.

For the purpose of analyzing the assembly alternatives for LSS, a

logical order of procedure is to:

i-i
I

(0

z_5

:00 I

w

oD

00

r_

m

bW ._

z_ _

"l-

\w- _

Z _ --

<ZCOZ

I

!

m

z

"_-- _o

w

co

m

a

sD

I

OD

OD

m o

(D_Wa

w noD 0

(I) _¢)

cO r_

co

I

_j I

t-o)

z_.l

b_z

(D'_

._1

4_

o

_._

,-q

cy

o

(8

c_

o

,H

0

.H

I

,H

1-2
I •

2.

3.

.

5.

Define the mission structure

Define the mission functions/objectives

Define an assembly scenario which addresses the requirements

of the structure and the functions

Define the detailed tasks involved in the scenario

Compare structure, functions, scenarios and tasks for cost

effectiveness.

This will give the analyst an organized insight into what has to be

accomplished in order to meet the structure assembly requirements. The

determination of the most effective and economical means to carry out

the assembly comes after these processes are accomplished and the

analyst determines comparative costs and performance times from the data

bases.

A general strategy which has proved to be effective is to start

with a basic understanding of the STS payload capabilities. The constraints imposed on STS payloads are volume, weight and on-orbit time.

There are also limits on EVA and RMS operations, orbit characteristics,

revisits to specific sites, payload support limits and communications

limits. The STS costs at flight time, payload unique services and

charges, ground support and similar financial considerations can also be

viewed as limits or constraints. These are detailed in Data Base D, but

genera] familiarity with these is helpful as a first step toward

assessing LSS concepts. Once the shuttle capabilities are understood,

it is best to develop a thorough appreciation and understanding of the

proposed LSS in terms of functions and objectives rather than just the

hardware. The reason behind this suggestion is that an LSS concept is

already constrained by the delivery via STS, so functions and objectives

are necessarily tailored to STS criteria. Additional hardware

constraints should not be imposed at the beginning of a mission

description or concept formulation.

The description of the hardware and possible alternates to hardware

configurations can be considered in light of the STS capabilities and

the mission objectives. The LSS concept can be divided into components,

subsystems, stock material, payloads, etc. in line with the STS payload

bay capacity and the assembly logic of the LSS. From this point a

packaging plan can be developed for the required shuttle flights and a

deployment and assembly plan can be developed for each shuttle flight•

Modification to the packaging plan can be made as necessary to accomplish one of several objectives: higher density of LSS materials,

components and systems to reduce the number of delivery flights,

organizing all EVA requirements into a single mission to reduce crew

workloads and costs, and early manifests for remote or automated

assembly support systems to increase productivity of the LSS assembly

process. These exercises are a necessary part of the assembly analysis

for they permit identification and assessment of a wide variety of

alternatives in LSS program planning. It does place upon the analyst

the responsibility for being familiar with the STS, the proposed LSS

concept, and the mission objectives• But it also gives to the analyst

the flexibility of studying options and proposing changes before mission

definition is committed to hardware.

I-3
Once the several program alternatives have been developed and

studied, the assembly analysis permits the analyst to exercise each

alternative through three major routes (or modes) of the MMAA:manual

assembly, remote assembly, and automated assembly. The details of each

of these paths are presented in their respective data bases and are

summarizedin Section 1.3.

The object of exercising an LSS concept or concept alternatives

through each path is to determine which assembly tasks can be performed

most productively by which mode, and what modemix yields the lowest LSS

assembly cost. Cost, in this sense, can be dollars, time, probability

of success, or someother appropriate dependent measure.

1.3 MAN/MACHINEASSEMBLYANALYSISMAJORSTEPSANDFLOW

The organization of the MMAAis based on the requirement to integrate information from several data bases into a predictive model for

mission assembly costs and levels of productivity. Figure i-2 shows the

interactive flow for deriving a low cost, high productivity assembly

model.

Step 1.0 - Description of Proposed LSS Mission

The analyst will usually find a variety of information on a particular structure. Concept papers, study reports and engineering drawings

are desirable types of information, but less formal data can also be

used to augment this information. This would include technical discussions and presentations and information on advanced concepts which

have no real definition and for which the analyst might have to rely on

historical information based on other, but similar, structures.

It is fair to say that the degree of information maturity will vary

from one LSS concept to another, but the MMAA does not require any

particular level of concept development before it can be applied.

The first step is to gather as much information as is available and

organize it into hardware descriptions, mission functional descriptions,

STS support requirements, etc., for the convenience of the analyst.

Lists of hardware can be developed and identified by physical data --

weight and length -- to make sure that the STS capacity is not exceeded

for a structure packaging and delivery plan.

The purpose of gathering this information is to get as clear a

picture of the structural components and the operations of the LSS

mission as is possible. These are the data which can be manipulated

during the assembly analysis to extract the most effective LSS assembly.

The principal source of data will usually be the concept developer

or sponsoring activity, and where possible, the analyst should seek

additional information directly from these sources.

I-4
W

CO<m<<

c_Z000

Iii

I-<0

I--- <I

(.)

&<

....JI....

0

\

_00

tOmm<

Ill

-r-II

1-5
Step 2.0 - Prepare Functional Analysis

Derived from the primary data which describes the mission, i.e.,

the concept papers and study reports, the functional analysis serves as

a guidepost for the LSS mission. While hardware, procedures and

assembly details can be altered, the integrity of the mission functions

must be maintained. During the preparation of the functional analysis,

the analyst can develop different levels of mission functions such as

primary and secondary functions or critical and non-critical functions.

The mission functions do not need to be compared with other information

such as the common Data Base D since the functional objectives of a

mission are treated as "stand alone" information. Other data bases, on

the other hand, are compared against in functional analysis.

The purpose of the functional analysis is to document thoroughly

what must be accomplished during the assembly. This documentation will

act as a bench mark during the analysis in light of the fact that the

mission functions cannot be manipulated or changed by the analyst. The

idea behind the MMAA is to derive the most economical way of accomplishing the objective by manipulating how it is done, not to manipulate

what is accomplished in order te be most economical.

Step 3.0 - Prepare Assembly Scenarios

In preparing any of the assembly scenarios, data from the common

data base, the LSS mission description and the functional analysis, are

brought together as the basis for developing the assembly approaches.

The assembly scenario, whether manual, remote or automated, is a sketch

of the assembly mission which incorporates STS capabilities and limitations, the mission description and hardware definition into a time

ordered layout of the mission. A minimum of three scenarios should be

developed, one each for manual, remote and automated assembly approaches.

Where defined alternatives exist within a particular mode, more than one

scenario should be generated. Each scenario should be developed from

those activities which are distinctly manual or remote or automated. A

time to mix modes occurs later in the assembly analysis.

The assembly scenario provides the analyst the opportunity to

develop an end-to-end assembly script, the purpose of which is to lay

out the assembly chronology and assembly interactions. It is

particularly useful as a basis for developing the more detailed task

analyses.

Step 4.0 - Prepare Task Descriptions

Using a detailed task sheet, the analyst now makes a step-by-step

progress through each of the assembly scenarios. The analyst needs to

identify the smallest increments of the assembly tasks that make up the

assembly sequences. The detailed task sheets permit the identification

of the task cue, the actual task, who or what performs the task, the

tools or support required, and the expected task output or results.

Because the performance capabilities among the three assembly modes vary

greatly, the task descriptions will reflect this variance. The variance

in output, performance time, costs, technology, etc., will be the basis

i-6
for deciding the most appropriate assembly mode from amongthe alternatives. The product of the task descriptions is a detailed listing of

what is to be accomplished, by whom, with what and when, during the

assembly of an LSS. The task level information Js the most useful for

determining assembly costs and performance times.

Step 5.0 - Deve]op Assembly Costs

For each sssembly alternative, a cost figure can be arrived at only

after considering each of the following: packaging, stowage and support

structures, predeployment operations, jigs, fixtures and accessories,

fabrication, structural erection or deployment of frame, in process

quality verification and operations monitoring, attachment of major

elements and subsystem modules, and final checkout. Aside from these

delivery and operation costs, there are technology development costs

associated with advanced assembly techniques such as automated assembly,

and costs for maintenance and repair. The delivery and operations costs

associated with each of the assembly alternatives are based on the task

descriptions and the cost and productivity information in the data

bases. Having completed this, the analyst can now assign cost figures

to a particu]ar assembly mode or assembly task sequence. The objective

is to find the relative cost differences between a strictly manual,

strictly remote or strictly automated assembly approach for a given LSS

concept. Further, the cost summary will yield information on what

particular sequences of the assembly process can be accomplished most

effectively using either manual, remote or automated systems. Effectiveness is measured by production rate (particularly if shuttle based),

power or energy consumed, reliability, and component and mission costs.

These segments can then be compared in Step 6.0 to develop a best case

assembly scenario.

Step 6.0 - Integrate and Compare Assembly Alternatives

The final step in the assembly analysis is to take those assembly

sequences which are comparatively low cost/high productivity sequences

and combine them into an assembly scenario which is a best combination

of the three separate approaches. This may yield a mission scenario

which will be more efficient and economical than one accomplished solely

by manual, remote or automated techniques and can be used to predict

overall mission costs, new technology requirements, training requirements and hardware or system requirements.

1.4 EVOLUTIONARY APPROACH TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF LSS ASSEMBLY TECHNIQUES

The effectiveness of manual operations in space has been demonstrated for planned, contingency and emergency operations, and the

effectiveness of remote and automated operations has been evaluated for

planned space operations. Our ability to plan for future LSS operations

is based in part on our historical success in these areas and partly on

advances in technology planned for the remote and automated systems.

Current planning points in the direction of more autonomous operations for repetitive assembly tasks on very large structures and less

I-7
reliance on EVAoperations. This is being done to reduce the risks to

crew membersto provide an assembly mode for environmental situations

not easily adaptable to EVA, such as geosynchronous orbits, and to

increase the productivity rate for the assembly of large space systems.

Placing the humanat a space based worksite has not been done without

significant costs and risks, and the development of "surrogate" humans

-- in terms of cognitive and manipulative capabilities -- is the focus

for muchof the current teleoperation and robotics research.

The ongoing programs in orbital assembly and platform construction,

however, cannot be held in abeyance while we await the outcome of the

research and development necessary to provide autonomously operating,

artificially intelligent machines to replace EVAassembly. Most probably, we will follow along an evolutionary path which incorporates

elements of the three major approaches to space operations -- manual,

remote and automated operations -- building the technological base on

precedent experience until we are capable of replacing most humanskills

and knowledgethrough machines.

Table I-i presents an evolutionary model which progresses from

manual through remote to fully automated operations, listing the

strengths and risks for each of the model's 12 transitional stages.

I-8
TABLEI-1: Evolutionary Developmentof LSSAssemblyTechniques

I. ManualAssembly

2. ManualAssemblywith Minor Tools and Aids

3. ManualAssemblywith Major Tools and Support Systems

4. ManualAssist of Machine Systems

5. RemoteAssemblywith Proximate Control

6. RemoteAssemblywith Distant Control

7. RemoteAssemblywith PreprogrammedSubroutines

8. RemoteAssemblywith ComputerizedTask ManagementOperator Supervision

9. AutomatedTasks with Operator Override

I0. AutomatedAssembly, Preprogrammed

11. AutomatedAssemblywith Alternative Logic

12. AutomatedAssemblywith Artificial Intelligence

i • MANUAL ASSEMBLY

STRENGTHS RISKS

A. Historical data from Apollo

and Skylab

B. Ease of simulation in neutral

buoyancy simulator and KC-135

C. Comparatively low cost

D. Decision maker at work site

E. Dexterous manipulation

A. Human risk during EVA

B. Limited duration

C. Limited mobility

D. Limited masses moved

E. Large support requirement

in training, ground,

logistics

EXAMPLES: o Non-Power, General Tool Kit

o Film Changeout, ATM

o Set Up Lunar Experiments

, MANUAL ASSEMBLY WITH MINOR TOOLS AND AIDS

STRENGTHS RISKS

A. Historical data and proven

assembly capability

B. Ease of simulation

C. Comparatively low cost

D. Decision maker at task site

E. Dexterous manipulation

F. Increased output using power/

special tools

A. Human risk during EVA

B. Limited duration, mobility

C. Large support requirement

D. Damage using power tools

E. Limited masses moved

EXAMPLES: o Power Tools, Special Tool Kits

o Skylab Thermal Shield (MSFC)

o Solar Maximum Repair Mission

i-9
TABLEI-1: Evolutionary Developmentof LSSAssembly Techniques

(Con't.)

6 MANUAL ASSEMBLY WITH MAJOR TOOLS AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS

STRENGTHS RISKS

A. Relative increase in mobility

B. Increase in masses moved and

manipulation

C. Decision maker at task site

D. Amenable to NB simulations

E. Multimodal/cooperative

technique (RMS, EVA, MMU)

A. Human risk during EVA

B. Limited duration

C. Untethered operations

D. Limited historical data

E. Limited simulation data

F. Dual/shared control systems

for support

G. Logistics requirements

EXAMPLES: o RMS with EVA, MMU

o Lunar Rover, Apollo

o Solar Shade - Skylab (JSC Parasol)

o Open Cherry picker

, MANUAL ASSIST OF MACHINE SYSTEMS

STRENGTHS RISKS

A. Larger masses moved

B. Increased mobility

C. Multi-modal/cooperative

D. Increased work output due

to remote system

E. Decreased EVA workload

No

B.

C.

D.

E.

EVA in proximity to large

mobile hardware

System failures

Shared control of major

subsystems

Limited duration

Untethered operations

EXAMPLES: o Teleoperator

o RMS Shuttle Operations

o Closed Cherry picker

o Automated Beam Builder

o Langley - Structures Assembly Platform

. REMOTE ASSEMBLY WITH PROXIMATE CONTROL

STRENGTHS RISKS

A. Direct viewing possible

B. Real time control of

mobility/manipulator

C. Large mass capability

D. Insertion/servicing

A. RF link failure

B. Visual system failure

C. Payload damage

D. EVA backup/augmentation

EXAMPLES: o RMS on Shuttle Operations

o Teleoperator via AFD

o 30m ASASP Construction Manipulator

I-I0
TABLEI-1: Evolutionary Developmentof LSSAssemblyTechniques

(Con't.)

0 REMOTE ASSEMBLY WITH DISTANT CONTROL

STRENGTHS RISKS

A. Large mass capability

B. Operator safety from ground base

C. Logistic support available at

control site

D. Extended operations over long

period of time

E. Insertion/servicing/extraction

capability

A. Transmit/time delay

B. Payload damage

C. RF/visual link failure

D. Transmit shadow

EXAMPLES: o Teleoperator via TDRSS

o Viking Mission - Soil Sampling

Q REMOTE ASSEMBLY WITH PREPROGRAMMED SUBROUTINES

STRENGTHS RISKS

A.

B.

C.

D.

Preprogrammed routines can be

conducted during transmit shadows

Extended operating capability

Operator safety at ground base

Reduced operator workload

A. Program failure/faults

B. Payload damage

C. Transmit/feedback time

delay

EXAMPLES: o On-0rbit Approach and Docking

o Beam Fabrication, Unmanned

o Space Spider

So REMOTE ASSEMBLY WITH COMPUTERIZED TASK MANAGEMENT - OPERATOR SUPERVISION

STRENGTHS RISKS

A. Reduced operator workload

B. Operations during transmit shadow

C. Extended operating time period

D. Enhanced operator safety

A. Program failure

B. Payload damage

EXAMPLES: o Time Delay in Communications

o Experiment Management on "Flyby" Missions

o Housekeeping Operations on Platforms

, AUTOMATED TASKS WITH OPERATOR OVERRIDE

STRENGTHS RISKS

A. Minimum operator interaction

B. Operator can command during

emergency conditions

A. Transmit/feedback delays

B. Program failure

C. Tasks limited to program

"competence"

EXAMPLES: o Orbital Emergency Override

o Mitsibushi Steel Processing Plants

i-ii
TABLEi-i: Evolutionary Developmentof LSSAssemblyTechnique

(Con't.)

i0. AUTOMATEDASSEMBLYPREPROGRAMMED

STRENGTHS RISKS

A. No operator in loop

B. Small logistics requirement

A. No operator in loop

B. Program failure/faults

C. Task site anomalies not

anticipated in program

EXAMPLES: o Munitions Assembly - U.S. Army

o Automobile Assembly - Unimation Robots

o Space Spider - Proposed, NASA

ii. AUTOMATED ASSEMBLY WITH ALTERNATIVE LOGIC

STRENGTHS RISKS

A. No operator in loop

B. Small logistics requirement

C. Some anomalies corrected

A. No operator in loop

B. Program failure/faults

C. All task site anomalies not

anticipated in program

D. Software development

EXAMPLES: o

O

Experimental/Laboratory Models

Automated Machine Shop - Proposed National

Bureau of Standards Prototype

12. AUTOMATED ASSEMBLY WITH ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

STRENGTHS RISKS

A. Decision maker at work site

B. No human risk

C. Extended operational time

D. Large mass capability

E, Small logistics support

requirement

A. Hardware/software failure

B. High cost of R&D

C. Delay in data relay due to

transmission distances

D. We might find out that"we"

are not indispensable

EXAMPLES: o Experimental/Laboratory Models

1-12
2.0 DATABASEDESCRIPTION

Four data bases are presented in this section to provide information on the costs, capabilities, support requirements, and timelines

for specific assembly modesand for the basic STSdelivery system. The

data are current at the time of publication, but the user should augment

any of the data bases with updated information or with data unique to

his or her particular LSSconcept or with unique STSutilization requirements. In addition, if there is significant information which, as a

user, you feel would be useful to other analysts and designers, you are

encouraged to submit the data to ELI5, George C. Marshall Space Flight

Center, Marshall SpaceFlight Center, Alabama.

For planning purposes, the cost data are presented in FY 1985

dollars. Conversions to FY855have been made in accordance with the

Escalation Indices for Space System Development, developed in 1980 by

the NASAComptroller. A portion of the cost matrix is presented in

Figure 2-i for use with user-supplied cost data.

FROM FY :

TO FY:EIZI_

75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

75 1.000 1.090 1.207 1.301 1.426 1.590 1.785 1.982 2.172 2.367 2.580 2.812 3.066 3.338

76 .917 1.000 1.107 1.194 1.308 1.458 1.637 1.818 1.992 2.171 2.368 2.579 2.811 3.062

77 .828 .903 1.000 I 1.078 1.181 1.317 1.479 1.842 1.799 1.961 2.117 2.330 2.539 2.765

78 .768 .838

79 .701 .765

80 .629 .636

81 .550 .611

82 .505 .550

83 .460

84 .422

85 .388

86 .356

87 .326

88 ,300

.759 .818

.676 .729

.609 .657 .719

.920 1.000 1.O96 1.222 1.372 1.523 1.669 1.819 1.983 2.161 2.356 2.565

.847 .913 1.000 1.115 1.252 1.390 1.523 1.660 1.810 1.973 2.150 2.341

.897 1.000 1.123 1.246 1.366 1.489 1.623 1.769 1.928 2.100

.799 .891 1.000 i.ii0 1.217 1.326 1.445 1.575 1.717 1.870

.502 .556 .599 .656

.461 .510 .550 .602

.423 .468 .504 .553

.388 .429 .463 .507

.356 .394 .425 .465

.327 .362 .390 .427

.802

.732

.672 .754 .836

.616 .692 .768

.565 .635 .706

.519 .582 .647

.476 .536 .594

.901 1.000 1.096 1.194 1.302 1.419 1.547 1.684

•822 .913 1.000 1.090 1.188 1.295 1.412 1.537

•915 1.000 1.090 1.188 1.295 1.410

.842 .917 1.000 1.090 1.188 1.294

.772 .842 .917 1.000 1.090 1.187

.708 .772 .842 .917 1.000 1.089

.651 .709 .773 .842 .918 1.000

Figure 2-i: Escalation Indices by FY for Space System Development

2-1
2.1 DATABASEA - MANUALASSEMBLYTECHNIQUES, EQUIPMENTANDTIMESFOR

LARGESPACESYSTEMS

The validity of employing EVAin space operations has been demonstrated for lunar and orbital operations, and manymissions' success can

be attributed directly to the capabilities of humansto perform planned

maintenance and contingency repairs in space. Used as a technique for

LSS assembly, EVA can bring the unique combination of cognitive and

manipulative skills of the humanto a complex work site. While EVAcan

be extremely exhaustive on the astronaut and is fairly limited in

duration, it is in some cases the technique of choice for performing

difficult servicing and repair tasks.

Productivity of EVA can be increased by providing the astronaut

with tools and support mechanismswhich can, to someextent, compensate

for the physical and temporal limits of EVA. For the purposes of

defining primarily manual modes, this data base includes four levels of

manual activity as described below.

Manual Assembly - situations in which an EVA astronaut goes about

an assembly operation using only his or her own manipulative skills

for translation, stationkeeping and worksite activity. Assembly

aids are limited to a non-powered general tool kit, preinstalled

hand rails and foot restraints for mobility and support.

This approach might be preferred for one time, complex assembly tasks of short duration and requiring small masses or critical

tolerances. It is often preferred for off nominal and emergency

situations.

Manual Assembly with Minor Tools and Aids - where the EVA astronaut(s) employs specialized manual or powered tools to assist in

task accomplishments, but the primary means of getting to the task

site and bringing the tools to the task site reside with the EVA

crew member(s). Task management, tool application, mobility and

other task functions are the respensibility of the human operator

who is aided by tools to increase task productivity.

The use of specialized tool kits implies that the elements of

the task are fairly well understood, at ].east well enough to have

designed a special tool, and the use of power tools suggests that

the task site is prepared and that the forces or torques imparted

by a power tool are compatible with the task equipment.

This mode of assembly would be preferred in situations requiring precise tolerances of several assembly pieces, varied forces

and torques being applied by power tools to different fixtures,

manipulation in complex spaces, and conditions where the task site

and task elements are not fully detailed prior to a mission, such

as emergency operations or unexpected failure recovery.

2-2
Manual Assembly with Major Tools and Support Systems - bring

together the power of mobility aids, holding or manipulating

fixtures and the intellectual and manipulative skills of the human

at the task site. The human now has major support from systems

like the Remote Manipulator System (RMS) or the Manned Maneuvering

Unit (MMU) to move isrge masses over longer ranges, but the advantage of having the task manager at the task site is retained,

albeit with some increase in hazard due to the size and dynamics of

the support systems.

This assembly mode would be preferred in cases where a significant mass had to be moved from the Orbiter bay to a nearby assembly location, or where an EVA astronaut had to make many movements

during an assembly sequence. Figure 2-2 shows an assembly approach

using the RMS and two astronauts in a cooperative operation to

deploy a LSS module from a deployment frame.

Manual Assist of Machine Systems - in manual assembly modes there

is a point at which the relative contributions made by the human

and the machine toward the accomplishment of a task change, and

even though the human is in control of the machine operations, it

is evident that the human is carrying out tasks based on the

machine's capability. A concept for assembling large space

structures is shown in Figure 2-3 where a movable assembly jig has

two workstations for EVA astronauts, but the movement of the

workstations is controlled by an operator at the shuttle aft flight

deck (AFD) and the operations of the humans are only to support the

assembly and deployment of the LSS. Note that the operator is

still at the task site, but rather than having the human using a

tool, we now have a very large and productive machine "using" a

human for dexterous assembly tasks.

The increase in productivity would, of course, have to justify

the increase in costs for the assembly fixture and EVA support

equipment.

Manual Assembly Crew Support Equipment

Whenever a proposal has been made to employ manual assembly modes

in the erection of large space systems, the first consideration is the

requirement for EVA crew support.

Crew Support Equipment

For the purpose of this document, crew support equipment is defined

as all general purpose equipment, procedures or services required to

support the crew members during the performance of the LSS assembly

tasks. This includes tools, handrails, foot restraints, crew procedures, pressure suits, time on-orbit, consumables, etc. Equipment

directly related to a specific LSS configuration such as alignment

fixtures is not included. Equipment used by the crew but available as a

standard shuttle service is identified, but costs are included in

standard services and not further burdened against the mission.

2-3
Figure 2-2: EVAand RMSLarge SpaceStructure Deployment

2-4
0

._::_lEST SUBJECTS N

WORK PLATFO

II II II

.----- STORED STRUTS _ '

-.K

RAILS-,,...

0

Figure 2-3: EVA Assist of Major Assembly Aid

2-5
Extravehicular Activity - Each shuttle flight is capable of supporting two 2-person EVA operations with up to 6 hours duration each.

The $258,000 (FY855) cost e_ EVA crew member for an EVA session also

includes the use of:

o Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU pressure suit)

o Remote manipulator system to support EVA

o Standard support equipment such as tool kits, restraints and

orbital bay lights

o Voice communications, video communication to the AFD

o _U (i)

o Crew training (other than payload specific).

Extravehicular Mobility Unit and Related Services - The charges for

the EMU pressure suit and related services such as stowage, resupply and

servicing are included in the $154,800 to $258,000 per person, six-hour

EVA. Additional charges may be required if more than two EVA's are

required.

EVA Crew Aids - This category of crew support equipment contains

all the mobility aids, crew restraints, tools and other aids required by

an EVA crew member performing a typical EVA task. Payload specific crew

aids are not included.

Handrails - EVA handrails are estimated to cost $5,160 per meter

for design, fabrication, testing and installation on the STS or LSS

equipment. Handholds will likely cost about $5,160 each (FY855) for

fabrication, testing and installation. Crew-installed portable foot

restraints are estimated to cost $38,700 each. Available foot

restraints may possibly be rented at a reduced rate.

Tethers - Tethers for EVA operations are estimated at $12,900 each

(FY855) although the cost will depend on length of tether and the type

of tether hooks used.

Lights - Lights are available on the cargo bay interior to support

EVA operations which are outlined in Table 2.1 and depicted in Figure

2.4. If additional lights are required, the estimated cost for each

light is $25,800 (FY855). Local lights are supplied on the EMU helmet

for EVA work.

Cameras and Monitors - The cargo bay nominally contains a forward

and aft camera and two monitors in the aft cabin. Additional cameras

can be attached to the two bulkheads and along the cargo bay sill. The

cost for an extra set of cameras and monitors is estimated at $516,000

(FY855). The CCTV weights 7.3 kgs. The system consists of a camera, a

power cable, the monitor, the monitor cable, the lenses (a 6-125 mm zoom

and a 3 to 19 mm wide angle zoom) a camera bracket, a video interface

unit, console monitors and a video tape recorder for the P@IS camera.

Images from ten cameras can be processed and then any two of these

images can be monitored from the AFD. All ten can be downlinked to

earth via S band. Locations for television mounts are shown in Figure

2-4.

2-6
TABLE2-i. Orbiter Provided Lighting for SpaceConstruction

(After Roebuck, 1980)

DESCRIPTION

Watts Lumens/

Item Qty (Each) Watts Type Beam

Cargo Bay Floodlights

in Side Walls

Docking Floodlight on

576 bulkhead,

facing aft

Rendezvous/Docking

Light, facing upward

RMSWrist Light

EMUMounted/Portable

Light

MannedRemoteWork

Station Floodlights

6 200 40 ARCDischarge 135°cone

minimum (Metal or square

halide)

1 200 40 ARCDischarge 120° cone

minimum (Metal

halide)

1 130 12 Incand. 120° cone

minimum

1 150 12 Incand. 80°

(per minimum

arm)

1 (TBD) Battery (TBD)

3 60 (TBD) Incand.

2-7
C_0

ca r-_ om\

_J©

\

hxm

o0

c_

c_

E_o

0

'\\

\

1

IIII

\I

\I

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

I

01

IIIIJ

_eq

oo

o

,,.o g

,..Ho

omo

u-ho

c-q

oo

__u'h

o

Pq

Pa

p.., <

bO

,--_

"aOO

,-H

II S

.<0

u3.

_qOZ

OC

¢)

"aO

,-H

O_ O

,-4

CJ

CJ

.H

¢J

,-H

_DO

b0

'a

.HOO

,-C

b0 ,--_

-H

•HO

cJ

,4

©

.HO

00

,.c

O,0

_D

4J

Dq

(D

4.JI

c_

2-8
Portable Workstation - A proposed baseline portable, crew-installed

workstation with a foot restraint, handrails, lights and tools is

estimated to cost $645,000 (FY855). Assuming that this device is

developed for flight use, this price will vary tremendously with the

capability of the workstation and types of equipment needed.

RMS Mounted Foot Restraints - The RMS end effector can support foot

restraint work platform. This will provide an operations station that

can be moved throughout this RMS working envelope and take advantage of

the EVA capability. The P_S foot restraints will cost an estimated

$124,000 (FY855).

Translation and Positioning Aids in the Orbital Bay - Two reel-type

slidewires 14.5 m each run along the longerons, one on each side. A

crew member can use these as a hand-over-hand translation aid or an

"anchor" with an auxiliary tether. Hand holds and foot restraints are

a]so installed at the forward aft bulkheads. These are provided as

standard shuttle services. Access to any of these aids is not

restricted by use of the Spacelab pallet.

Crew Tools - The cost for EVA tools will depend on their

uniqueness, complexity, similarity to commercially available tools and

modifications required for EVA use. The range of tool costs is from

$5,000 for simple manual tools which are based on existing space

qualified designs to over $2,500,000 (FY855) for newly designed special

purpose powered tools operated by the EVA crew.

A summary of crew support equipment is given in Table 2-2.

2-9
TABL. 2-2: CrewSupport EquipmentCost Summary

CREWSUPPORTEQUIPMENT COST (FY 85 $)

EVA Mobility Units and Resupply $ 154,800 to $258,000

(FY 855)

EVA Crew Aids

o Handrails (per meter) $ 5,160

o Foot Restraints

- Permanent $

- Portable $

o Tethers - wrist, waist, reel-type $

o EVA Lights - fixed, portable $

o Cameras & Monitors - fixed, handheld $

o Portable Work Stations $

o RMS Mounted Foot Restraint $

EVA Tools

o Manual

o Powered

- New design

- Existing tool

Time On-Orbit

Assembly Procedures & Checklists

Food and Other Consumables

Communications Equipment

25,800

38,700

12,900

25,800

516,000

645,000

124,000

$ 5,160 to $ 25,800

$1,290,000 to $2,580,000

$ 51,600

$ 516,000 to $774,000/day

$ 5,200 to $ 38,700

Included in other charges

Included in other charges

Standard items which exceed the standard shuttle supply - more than two

EMU's for instance - are chargeable to the user as part of the payload

charge.

2-10
EVA Tasks and Performance Times

Aside from dollar costs, we can employ performance measures such as

error rates, production rates, expended energy rates, etc., as indices

with which to compare assembly modes. Simulations of LSS assembly tasks

have led to the development of an EVA performance time list for several

classes of tasks. The times given for each EVA task element are mean

times from several dozen trials across several types of simulations.

The data cannot be considered conclusive since the number of trials

during task elements varied, there was a wide range of subject experience and skill levels, and the data collection was a secondary objective

of a primary simulation. The data are fairly consistent, however, and

represent a "best available" listing of EVA task times.

The performance times are presented in the following pages as Table

2-3.

TABLE 2-3: EVA Performance Times by Task Element

EVA TASK ELEMENT TIME

HRS :MIN: SEC

1.0 REMOVE

I.I Equipment module from receptacle (Im xlm x.6m - push/

pull, no latch)

1.2 Structural connector from stowage box

1.3 Structural connector from stowage post

1.4 Pin from post

1.5 Column from stowage rack

1.6 Waist tether from handrail

1.7 Wrist tether from union

1.8 Wrist tether from equipment module

1.9 Module from base plate pins - critical alignment

(Figure 2-5)

I.i0 3m cube deployable from holddown fixture

i.ii End cap from stowage

1.12 Small module from stowage

00:00:21

00:00:07

00:00:I0

00:00:05

00:00:08

00:00:12

00:00:15

00:00:13

00:00:15

00:03:10

00:01:05

00:00:20

2-11
i•,._

Figure 2-5 : EVA Removal of an Equipment Module

2-12
EVA TASK ELEMENT TIME

HRS:MIN:SEC

2.0 TRANSLATE

2.1 Along sill i0 ft.

2.2 Along sill 20 ft.

2.3 Over sill from outrigger

2._ Over si]! from cargo bay

2.5 Up assembly aid pole 15 ft.

2.6 Down assembly aid pole

2.7 Up assembly aid pole 15 ft. with equipment module

(3'x3'xl-2')

2.8 20 ft. with columns using MMU

2.9 30 ft. with columns using MMU

2.10 20 ft. using MMU

2.11 30 ft. using MMU

2.12 Body 90 °

2.13 Body 180 °

2.14 i0 ft. along straight handrail

2.15 I0 ft. along curved handrail

2.16 i0 ft. along column with column

2.17 I0 ft. along column without column (Figure 2-6)

2.18 EVA translate from forward workstation to construction

frame or frame to workstation (30 ft.)

2.19 EVA translate 3m of a cell of a module

2.20 EVA translate a module cell diagonal (i0 ft.)

2.21 Translate 25 ft. w/MMU and install beam or column

2.22 Translate 50 ft. w/MMU and install beam or column

2.23 Translate 75 ft. w/MMU and install beam or column

2.24 Translate i00 ft. w/MMU and install beam or column

00:00:24

00:00:49

00:00:21

00:00:Ii

00:00:22

00:00:22

00:00:44

00:00:25

00:00:35

00:00:20

00:00:30

00:00:I0

00:00:20

00:00:12

00:00:15

00:00:20

00:00:13

00:00:59

00:00:20

00:00:26

00:01:i0

00:01:40

00:02:01

00:02:37

NBS-MMU TRANSLATION AND ROTATION TIMES FROM NBS DEMONSTRATIONS

Average forward translation

Average upward translation

Average downward translation

Average sideways translation

Average reverse translation

Average yaw

Average roll

1 fps

1 fps

1 fps

•58 fps

•36 fps

1.7 sec per 90 °

9.5 sec per 90 °

3.0 POSITION BODY

3.1 To ingress foot restraint

3.2 To ingress leg restraint

3.3 To attach waist restraint

3.4 To attach or verify union connection

3.5 To verify column connection

3.6 To receive union

3.7 To receive column in leg restraint

3.8 To receive column in foot restraint

3.9 To receive column w/o leg or foot restraint

00:00:19

00:00:29

00:00:23

00:00:22

00:00:23

00:00:08

00:00:07

00:00:05

00:00:17

2-13
Figure 2-6: EVA Translation Along a Structure Column

2-14
EVA TASK ELEMENT TIME

HRS:MIN:SEC

4.0 INGRESS

4.1 Foot restraint using one hsndrail

4.2 Foot restraint using two handrails

4.3 Leg restraint using one handrail

4.4 Leg restraint using two handrails

00:00:21

00:00:13

00:00:37

00:00:35

5.0 EGRESS

5.1 Foot restraint using one handrail

5.2 Foot restraint using two handrails

5.3 Leg restraint using one handrail

5.4 Leg restraint using two handrails

00:00:08

00:00:05

00:00:14

00:00:14

6.0 ATTACH

6.1 Waist tether to handrail with foot restraint

6.2 Waist tether to handrail w/o foot restraint

6.3 Union to own wrist tether

6.4 Union to other crewman's wrist tether

6.5 Waist tether to Simulated Experiment Module

6.6 Module to clothesline hook

6.7 Wrist tether to clothesline module

00:00:16

00:00:20

00:00:17

00:00:12

00:00:12

00:00:12

00:00:15

7.0 TRANSFER

7.1 Assembly aid to vertical position (i or 2 crewmen)

7.2 Assembly aid to locked position (Figure 2-7)

7.3 18 ft. column I0 ° using foot restraint

7.4 18 ft. column 60 ° using foot restraint

7.5 18 ft. column 60 ° using no foot restraint

7.6 30 ft. column 10 ° using foot restraint

7.7 30 ft. column 60 ° using foot restraint

7.8 30 ft. column 60 ° using no foot restraint

7.9 Module on clothesline 20 ft.

7.10 I0 ft. column 90 ° without foot restraints

7.11 I0 ft. column 90 ° without foot restraints

7.12 I0 ft. column i0 ft. with foot restraints

7.13 10 ft. column i0 ft. without foot restraints

7.14 3m cube from holddown fixture to deployment frame

with RMS (Figure 2-8)

00:00:33

00:00:26

00:00:12

00:00:49

00:00:43

00:00:24

00:00:96

00:01:49

00:00:35

00:00:14

00:00:22

00:00:13

00:00:22

00:03:40

2-15
_:_......... i___

@

Q

/

Figure 2-7: EVA Assembly Aid Being Locked into Position

2-16
/

Figure 2-8: Transfer 3m Cube with RMS to EVA Crew

2-17
EVATASKELEMENT TIME

HRS:MIN:SEC

8.0 MATE

8.1 Assembly aid clamp to pole

8.2 Union to pedestal - critical alignment

8.3 Columnto union - critical alignment

8.4 Equipmentmodule to union - critical alignment

8.5 Union to column - mediumalignment

8.6 Columnto cluster - mediumalignment

o with foot restraints

o without foot restraints

8.7 Union to pedestal - coarse alignment

8.8 Columnto union - coarse alignment

8.9 Equipmentmodule to union - coarse alignment

8.10 Union to assembly pole clamp

8.11 Union to column - coarse alignment

8.12 Tighten ball joint jam nut

8.13 Module to base plate pins - coarse alignment

8.14 3m cube to deployment frame

8.15 3m cube to deployable card table interconnect

8.16 Orthogonal beams(2) with lap joint union

8.17 Beamswith shuttle _ill latches

8.18 RMS/EVAorient a 3m-module for lock on/mate

8.19 EVAlock on a 3m_odule with 4 drogues

8.20 EVAcollapse 9 3m cell for stowage 8.21 EVAdemate 3m cell from a cell or deployment frame

00:00:56

00:00:28

00:00:31

00:01:35

00:00:17

00:00:12

00:00:43

00:00:23

00:00:09

00:00:34

00:00:55

00:00:09

00:00:12

00:01:30

00:01:45

00:03:00

00:07:10

00:02:10

00:02:04

00:02:00

00:01:27

00:01:27

9.0 VERIFY

9.1 Assembly aid pole clamp secure

9.2 Assembly aid union clamp secure

9.3 Union mated to pedestal - critical alignment

9.4 Columnmated to union - critical alignment

9.5 Union mated to pedestal - gross alignment

9.6 Columnmated to union - gross alignment

00:00:30

00:00:35

00:00:20

00:00:36

00:00:I0

00:00:15

i0.0 HANDTOOLUSE

I0.i Grasp tool

10.2 Position ratchet on bolt

10.3 30° ratchet stroke*

10.4 45° ratchet stroke*

10.5 90° ratchet stroke*

10.6 180° ratchet stroke*

10.7 Release bolt clip

10.8 Engagebolt clip

10.9 Translate 2' betweenbolts

*Less than 5 ft-lbs torque

00:00:17

00:00:09

00:00:03

00:00:04

00:00:06

00:00:i0

00:00:20

00:00:25

00:00:i0

2-18
EVATASKELEMENT TIME

HRS:MIN:SEC

ii.0 DEPLOY

ii.] Deploy i single fold module, i EVAw/RMS,from frame

(3m_)

11.2 Deploy 2 single fold modules, 1 EVAw/RMS,from frame

(3mJ esch) Figure 2-9

11.3 Deploy 1 double fold module, 1 EVAw/RMS,from frame

(3mJ)

11.4 Deploy 2 single fold modules, 2 EVAw/RMS,from frame

(3mJ each)

11.5 Deploy I double fold module, 2 EVAw/RMS,from frame

(3mJ)

11.6 Deploy 2 single fold modules, 1 EVAw/P_IS,from bay

(3mJ each)

11.7 Deploy 2 single fold modules, 2 EVAw/F_S, from bay

(3mJ each)

11.8 Deploy 2 double fold modules, 2 EVAw/RMS,from bay

(3mJ each) (Figure 2-9)

11.9 Deploy 2 double^fold modules, 1 from bay, 1 from frame,

2 EVAw/RMS(3m3 each)

ii.I0 Deploy 2 single fold modules, 1 from bay, 1 from frame,

with interconnect, 2 EVAw/RMS(3m_ each)

00:23:48

00:31:16

00:42:12

00:45:29

00:49:50

00:29:29

00:33:17

00:52:35

00:47:40

00:38:50

*Deployment time includes module unstow, transport, attachment to deployment

frame and deployment.

12.0 RETRACT *

12.1

12.2

12.3

12.4

12.5

Retract 2 single fold modules, 1 EVAw/RMS,from frame 00:38:13

Retract 2 single fold modules, 2 EVAw/RMS,from frame 00:23:51

Retract 2 double fold modules, 1 EVAw/RMS,from frame 00:34:39

Retract 2 double fold modules, 2 EVAw/RMS,from frame 00:35:00

Retract 2 single fold w/interconnect, 2 EVAw/RMS 00:37:33

*Note: Retract time includes module unlock, fold against deployment frame,

demate from frame and transport to stowage rack at midbay.

2-19
Figure 2-9: EVAAssisted by RMSin Deploying

TwoModules from Frame

2-20
2.2 DATABASEB - REMOTELYCONTROLLEDASSEMBLYTECHNIQUESFORLARGE

SPACESYSTEMS

Remotesystems for LSS assembly, as used in this document, include

systems for fabrication, manipulation, assembly or mobility of

structures. These systems are physically independent of the control

site but are under the operational control or immediate supervisory

control of the flight or ground crew. As in the case of other LSS

assembly modes, there is a developmental line within remote assembly

modewhich bridges the region between manual modesand automated modes

of structures assembly.

When we consider remote systems we are including each of the

fol]owing types of systems:

o Remote,with proximate control (e.g., from AFD)

o Remote,with distant control (e.g., through TDRSS)

o Remote,with preprogrammedsubroutines (e.g., object approach

and avoidance routines)

o Remote,with computer managementand operator supervision (e.g.,

transmission delay due to larger distances).

These categories would encompassthe shuttle RMSoperation, te]eoperator

maneuvering system (TMS), remote satellite servicers, and operator

supervised deep space or planetary based assemblers. The advantages

inherent in remote operations are freedom from human life support

systems which are expensive and short lived, the ability to perform

assembly or servicing at somedistance from the shuttle, the capability

to simu]taneously employ several distinctly different assembly systems

at the samerate, and the capability to perform supervised assembly at

great distances from the operator's station or in "blind" spots in the

communicationlink.

Regardless of the degree of remote operation autonomy, it is useful

for the analyst to consider the following generic tasks and the

operational parameters usually associated with remote manipulation.

Generally, at ]east two of the three parameters should be defined before

making cost or productivity estimates or assumptions. If the

information is not available, the analyst should take this as an

indication of the reliability of any subsequent estimate, i.e., the less

that is known about the system, the less reliable will be the assembly estimates.

Some considerations to be taken up when evaluating remote

operations, particularly remote manipulation, are shownin the following

list. The type of tasks being performed will generally drive the

manipulator requirements, and consequently the costs associated with the

overall remote approach.

2-21
GENERIC

TASK

Positioning

Orienting

Align axes

Track attach

point

Avoid obstacles

Grapple attach

point

Despin

Stabilize

Configure for

fine manipulation

Configure for

return

Remove module

cover

Stow cover

Align with module

Grasp module

REMOTE MANIPULATOR OPERATIONAL

CONSIDERATIONS AND PARAMETERS

MANIPULATOR

CONFIGURATION

MANIPULATOR

ACTUATION

Variable within

reach envelope

Gross manual

VariabIe within

working envelope

Fine manual

Control law

dependent

Fine manual

vs. programmed

Control law

dependent

Determined by

working envelope

Automatic vs.

manual

Automatic vs.

manual

Variable within

working envelope

Mass and control

law dependent

Automatic vs.

manual

Automatic program control

Mass and control

law dependent

Variable within

working envelope

Variable within

working envelope

Bilateral

Operations

Variable within

working envelope

Variable within

reach envelope

Fine manual

Fine manual

Gross manual

Fine manual

Pick and place

Fine manual

translation

Fixed Automation

command

WORKING

END EFFECTOR

Tip position

vs. joint

control

Tip control

vs. joint

control

Tip control

vs. joint

control

Target

dependent

Tip control

vs. joint

control

Close and

apply forces

Increase

force

application

Gripping/

torque sensing

Proximity

sense

Gripping/

force sensing

Grasp, wrist

roll

Grasp, orient,

transfer

Orient, open

Close

2-22
GENERIC MANIPULATOR MANIPULATOR WORKING

TASK CONFIGURATION ACTUATION END EFFECTOR

Unlock module

Break connections

Free module

Retract module

Stow module

Align module

Insert module

Mate connections

Lock module

Install module

cover

Bilateral - 2nd

arm

Bilateral - 2nd

arm

Limited by module

Limited by module

Variable within

working envelope

Variable within

working envelop

Limited by module

Limited by

connectors

Bilateral - 2nd

arm

Bilateral

operations

Fine manual

Force/torque

application

Force and

translation

Translation

Pick and place

Fine manual

translation

Force/torque

application

Force/torque

application

Force/torque

application

Fine manual

Dexterous

manipulation

Dexterous

manipulation,

force sensing

Gripping,

force sensing

Gripping

Grasp, orient,

transfer

Gripping

Gripping,

force sensing

Dexterous

manipulation,

force sensing

Dexterous

manipulation,

force sensing

Grasp, align,

wrist roll

2-23
Remote assembly with proximate control is an assembly approach

which involves the co-location of the human operator and the remote

assembly machine. The Shuttle RMS (SRMS) is a good example of this

concept; the operator is located at the aft flight deck and has a

direct view of the shuttle arm as it is commanded through task

sequences. Operations are conducted in real time, the aid of a major

machine system permits large masses to be moved and controlled, the

operator is permitted to work in a shirt-sleeved environment, and

several shifts of operators can be scheduled for extended operational

sequences. The reduction in human workload and the increase in available assembly time will generally more than compensate for the increase

in the time to perform a given task sequence using remote systems. This

mode of assembly is performed for missions where large masses are to be

moved or positioned, and the overall space structure configuration does

not interfere with the shuttle configuration. In assembly operations

that do result in a structure which would interfere with the shuttle, it

is desirable to employ a remote system in proximity to the shuttle such

as a teleoperator. This approach still provides direct feedback of

assembly operations but permits more latitude in assembly operations.

Having moved slightly away from the shuttle, we now have transport time

from the shuttle to the structure that reduces the overall time engaged

in actual production. Proximate teleoperator control in the immediate

shuttle area is probably more efficient for servicing structures or for

moving assembled structural components from the shuttle to a construction site.

Remote assembly with distant control provides an assembly approach

wherein the remote system is located out of direct viewing of the

operator or at great distance or a short time delay from the operator.

The most often cited advantage for distant control is that it does not

rely on the Shuttle crew for operations management. The Shuttle moves

into orbit, discharges the structures payload and remote assembler, and

then the assembly operations are controlled from a ground station, most

probably through TDRSS. This permits a dedicated assembly crew, working

through a command link, to perform assembly operations via a distant

teleoperator. The shuttle and its crew are free to carry out other

parts of their mission which can result in significant savings on

structures assembly. Also if required, multiple shifts of operators can

be scheduled for controlling the assembly around-the-clock in a normal

earth-based environment. We will realize an increase in the daily level

of assembly and a decrease in the labor overhead, but distant control

has some critical limitations. The first severe limit is the command

and feedback time delay inherent in the control of distant remote

systems. Without adequately compensating for this delay, the operator/

machine performance level can degrade very quickly. Additionally, the

removal of the active operator from the task site means that direct

viewing is out of the question, so the operator's understanding of the

task environment is limited to that information which is gained by

remotely located sensors. The fact that the assembly system and its

supplies are located away from any emergency or contingency "help" means

that considerable reliability must be built into the system. This

additional cost must be considered when evaluating this assembly

approach.

2-24
Space structure assembly involving distant control of a remote

assembler is the preferred mode for situations where there is known high

reliability of the remote assembler components and known high reliability of the command and control link. It is an approach which is

best suited for long duration assembly operations -- those which exceed

the on-orbit time of the Shuttle -- and can be carried out without

complex interactions between the operator's ability to compensate for

time delays and limited sensory feedback.

Remote assembly with preprogrammed subroutines is an alternative

which can compensate for some of the problems found in distant control

of remote assembly systems. In this particular evolutionary stage, the

primary decision maker is still the human operator, and his tool for

assembly is still a distant machine system. But we can provide the

machine with on-board cyclical logic and feedback so that simple and

repetitive machine operations can be carried out without step-by-step

human command. By integrating computerized commands for specific task

sequences in the assembler, the human is now free to initiate those

sequences when the conditions are suitable for the execution of that

routine. This approach relieves the human of the task of constantly

commanding the assembly progress while retaining the decision making

authority.

The system now has become slightly more autonomous and as a result,

assurance of high reliability must be designed into the hardware and

software of the assembler. This will increase the system costs which

can be traded against increases in assembly productivity and decreases

in human labor.

Remote assembly with computerized management and operator supervision is a direct next step in the automation of space structures

assembly. It is an extension of preprogrammed subroutine assembly, but

now a complete assembly sequence can be carried out with the human

performing in a supervisory capacity. The operator can make adjustments

to the system, interview in off-nominal conditions, review progress and

perform status monitoring. This represents a significant reduction in

human workload and labor hours required and a considerable advance in

the state of space application of software managed machine systems.

With the computerized management of assembly tasks, other advantages

accrue such as being able to continue operations in portions of the

orbit that are shadowed from radio communication or having several

remote assemblers working for one human supervisor.

The introduction of remote assemblers into space has been made with

the inaugural flight of the S_dS, and planners of future space

structures missions will be able to base assembly scenarios on data

derived from the performance of the SRMS.

Remote System Concepts

Several concepts for remote management of large space systems

assembly have been proposed with some fundamental studies having been

completed. These are presented below and represent a sample of specific

remote systems concepts being considered.

2-25
Teleoperator - The teleoperator system envisioned for LSS activities is derived from the Teleoperator Retrieval System (TRS) which was

being developed for reboost/deorbit of Skylab, which in turn was based

on study findings from the MSFC Teleoperator Technology Development

Program.

The basic teleoperator is a mobility module which incorporates

sensory and manipulative subsystems for the purpose of extending the

human operator's skills and cognitive capabilities into hostile or

remote environments. The teleoperator system encompasses all major RMS

subsystems.

Initial development costs of the TRS were computed to be $68

million (FY855) with a production flight version costing an estimated

$65 million (FY855). These cost figures represent the necessary subsystems such as the control/display station, communications, mobility,

manipulation and docking, and also reflect an accelerated development

and production effort. It is possible, therefore, that other teleoperator concepts such as the Teleoperator Maneuvering System (TMS) will

cost less. Estimated production costs for a basic TMS are given as $48

million (FY855). In addition to the basic TMS, costs for development,

qualification and testing and the first production unit of a bilateral

TMS manipulator system are estimated to be $23 million (FY855). This

type of system would be preferred for dexterous manipulation during "two

handed" tasks. The projected user fee for the proposed TMS is

$3 million (FY855). Figure 2-10 shows one concept for a TMS being

proposed for Shuttle missions.

Remote Construction Module and Large Construction Manipulator -

This concept provides for an operations cab attached to a beam structure

which is mated to an interface on a large space structure. The large

manipulator is connected to the operations cab and can be operated by an

EVA crew member from inside the cab or remotely from a remote operations

station. The cab has at lesst 360 ° rotation about its attachment to the

beam and can translate along the beam. The beam has up to 180 ° (±90 °)

rotation about its point of attachment to the large space structure.

The manipulator arm has shoulder, elbow, wrist and end effector

movement; however, engineering design criteria are dictated by specific

applications.

Remote Structure Fabricator - For LSS assembly beyond the orbit

capabilities of the Shuttle, a structure fabricator could be placed in high

earth orbit to convert raw material into beams or other structural elements.

This concept is similar to the shuttle-attached automated beam builder (ABB)

developed for MSFC by Grumman, but its operations are controlled from a

remote operations station.

The remote fabricator could be resupplied on-orbit by a teleoperator, or

it could rendezvous with the Shuttle for resupply. Major operational control

of the remote structure fabricator would be accomplished with preprogrammed

subroutines since it is assumed that the final LSS design is thoroughly known

prior to construction. Operator control could be exercised at specified

points along the assembly timeline, while operator supervision of the

fabricator would be full time.

2-26
Figure 2-10: Maneuvering System Teleoperator, Basic Configuration

2-27
For structures that will be used in orbits beyond the current STS

capability (altitude or inclination angle), remote devices such as the

teleoperator should be considered in lieu of Shuttle OMS kits or special

propulsion systems such as the Solar Electric Propulsion Stage (SEPS).

Principal Remote Subsystems

Propulsion Subsystem - Propulsion will provide mobility from the

launch vehicle to a work site, including the transport of equipment and

materials from the Shuttle to a large space structure assembly area.

Communications Subsystem - Communications are required for guidance

and control of the remote system and relay of data back to the control

station, including control of vehicle and manipulation subsystems during

space structure assembly. Communications and data systems demands

fluctuate with the needs of payload specific operations on any given

mission. The standard orbiter systems are as follows: a

radio-frequency system, a general-purpose computer, processing links

between payloads and radio frequency systems, television and tape

recording systems. The processors or payload signal processors are

important for assembly as they handle data from newly deployed payloads,

which then down!ink to a ground base. Free-flying payloads link directly

with ground base. From the AFD, crew can power up, checkout control one

payload at a time through the radio frequency (RF) link, or up to five

payloads through umbilicals to the cargo bay.

Sensor Subsystem - Sensors will provide visual and infravisual

scene feedback to the control station. This may include a television

view of the task site, range and range rate information for mobility

control, force feedback data for manipulator control and similar transformation of environmental data into operator control information.

Cost estimates for flight qualified video components and visual

systems can be derived from current and proposed programs. The data

from the teleoperator retrieval system and the space transportation

system (STS) indicate the following visual system costs can be used in

computing remote system costs.

SENSOR/VISUAL SYSTEM COST (FY855)

Visual Sensor/TV Camera System

Modified Graphics Display with

Visual Scene Information

Visual Display (CRT)

Multi-Camera Multi-Display

Systems with Switching,

Remote Camera Control and

Lighting Subsystem

Dual CRT Display with Command

Keyboard

Continuous Wave Frequency

Modulated Ranging Radars

Ku Band Rendezvous Radar

$ 645,000 - $ 774,000

$1,032,000 - $1,290,000

$ 77,900 - $ 129,000

$20,640,000

$1,548,000 - $1,935,000

$ 5,160,000

$20,640,000 - $25,800,000

2-28
Manipulator Subsystem - Manipulators will be employed for handling

large space system components such as beams and joints. This will

include securing components for transportation to the task site,

dexterous manipulation at the work site, and support of assembly operations. Manipulator subsystems can be highly specialized or genera]

purpose, depending upon applications.

Manipulator subsystems and their widely varying characteristics and

applications are very difficult to cost estimate, but several well known

systems such as the Protoflight Manipulator System (PFMA) and the

Shuttle Remote Manipulator System (SRMS) can provide some insights into

subsystem costs.

_NIPULATOR SYSTEM

Long Member (20 m) - Articulated

with General Purpose End Effector

Medium Member (5 m) - Articulated

with General Purpose End Effector

Short Member (i m) - Bilateral

System with General Purpose End

Effector

Special Purpose End Effector

COST (FY855)

$9,907,200

$1,290,000 - $2,580,000

$2,068,000 - $5,160,000

Application-Specific

Remote Manipulator Spacecraft System - Early proposals by General

Electric for a free-flying manipulating spacecraft provide some insight

into costs associated with free-flying teleoperators. The teleoperator

proposed was primarily dedicated to manipulative tasks as can be seen in

Figures 2-11 and 2-12. The cost of system research and development is

given as $65,267,400 (FY 855), with the first flight unit costing

$15,579,000 (FY 855). The isometric, bilateral manipulator arms

depicted at the top of the spacecraft will cost $9,420,000 to develop

and space qualify for the first flight unit.

Additional Shuttle Remote Manipulator System - The standard SRMS

costs are included in the optional or bidder services costs.

A kit providing a second SRMS arm can be located on the starboard

side of the cargo bay opposite the baseline SRMS. The cost for using

this arm is $278,898 (FY855). A maximum additional charge for

installing and removing the arm is set at $2,554,200 (FY855) although

this fee may be reduced by the terms of the launch agreement. The SRMS

features are portrayed in Figures 2-13, 2-14 and 2-15.

The SRMS as a payload standard service is mounted at X 679.5 on

the port side. The reach from the shoulder is 50 feet and si_ degrees

of manipulator freedom are provided through joints at the shoulder,

2-29
_RENDE_VOUS

/

/

/

/

\

Figure 2-ii: Multi-Armed Teleoperated Servicing Spacecraft

2-30
Figure 2-12: Artist's Concept of Early Teleoperator

Manipulator Spacecraft

2-31
O

I

_-__.

fr- O

k.- o

U.l

u.

u_

iii aZ

>. I-z

I-- --

_O

-1- o

FEz

nr

_:O

wO

O

_1

O

}o

n,"

rr

13.. DI

¢.¢..

a:O

,,,O

O_ e¢_

13_

I-- Z

_5

O

O0

>-

oO

nnZ0

cO

HI

I--

if)

E:I

I.-I

rr"

n.-

uJOI

...I

rr"

U.l O

_JI

I-- Z5IO

I-- O

._1

er

rr"

l..u

G_ DI

IO

I

_3Z

Z

ZO

oV-

_zO '"

n,- rr O O

33D

_

0_ D_ Z Z

_N

II II

WO

oG]

G:

L;J

.JDO

"IGO

w

00

G]

GO

uJO

_z

CO

-D

(ow07

Z6

]Z

f_wn

_J 0I

00

ZoZoZ0

G_

u_0

l-Z

qg_ -') m >-

z

_O

nn

n"Z

O0

,_J

,IJ

¢)0

cJ

(D

;4I

_a0

-r..t

2-32
n_ LU

o rn

F-.-

o, ,,, _ , __

q

z _-

w I-- ___ : Z

_ D

g° ;

< O,,,i uIOn-F- 0

<,,,

CD,,

z_<

Z

0

(_9>-

.-<

t)

o_ _-o-_- a,,, -'- \ o/ \__ > _\ /

\

k

\

a

<

w

iv

_A

K

o : __

I

, /

___-_

/

/

o

u.l

C_

.... _ Z

, 000

I

i

i

i

,,©

I "

I.-

<

-Z_d__

d_zu

_°OOC,

k. (..2_,.2Z

Z

gg_g_

D<_ O<

s- -- b- o0 0 0

,,,o_<_ _,,,

Z

w _ CD

(Y

0

@

oD

D3

I

(-q

@

_0

2-33
rr" O

b- 0>

I,-.-

(.2\

._.1 O

rr-_

Z<

o

_.1rr" Z z

_<C3

_Z

c0C.)

<

Om+z

a:<-_

n U")_

__1 O

c12 ZO

(..) ZO

I--- '_

4-J

.HU

r..rj

U'I

t-Moo

.T-t

4_1 ooMIo

.M

4_

4-1

4-1

q--4 <

¢/

._

1.4 o&I

I..4

013

.H

k-

(..2

C_<O

2-34
elbow and wrist. The weight of the unit is 410 kilograms which includes

a wrist mounted CCTV with lights. An elbow mounted CCTV is also

available which adds another 13 kg.

The S_IS is capable of deploying payloads of up to 29,483 kg;

however, nominal payloads to be retrieved should be limited to ]4,515

kg.

There are four modes of operating the SRMS, each with its special

capabilities and applications:

Direct Drive Mode - This is a hardwired command mode which bypasses

the normal RMS software routines. Control is through the RMS control

and display panel, and the results of the commands are displayed on the

CRT. A backup direct drive mode is also available as a backup hardwire

system with no display integration. This is not a nominal control mode.

Single Joint Drive Mode - This is an operator controlled movement

of the SRMS on a joint by joint basis through joint switches on the AFD

control and display panel. The SRMS software monitors give warnings to

joint angle limits and controls the joint drive speeds. It also

provides joint position feedback on the displays.

Manual - Augmented Mode - Control of the RMS is initiated by the

RMS operator from the AFD using the rotational hand controller (RHC) and

the translational hand controller (THC). The hand controller inputs are

passed to the RMS software in the general purpose computer and the

software resolves and integrates the commands into end effector position

and location for the RMS.

Automatic Mode - Control in this mode is via commanded positions

stored in the general purpose computer. The SRMS is commanded to follow

either selected trajectives or to arrive at a specified destination

given the terminal coordinates. Operator initiation is all that is

required for manipulator movement; the RMS software commands the routine

following the selection of the automated routine.

In addition to the controlling modes, there are two rates of

movement for the RMS, coarse and vernier. For a 14,500 kg payload, the

maximum translation and rotation rates are as follows:

Maximum Rate Coarse Vernier

Payload Translation

Payload Rotation

0.2 fps

0.0083 rad/sec

0.01 fps

0.00415 rad/sec

The rates can be premission specified, or if necessary, they can be

adjusted while in flight.

Special SRMS End Effectors - Special end effectors for the SRMS may

be required to handle the beams or columns as well as the unions,

joints, conduits, experiment hardware, solar blankets, etc. For

comparison, we can use the estimated costs for the standard SRMS end

effector and a special purpose end effector (SPEE) developed for Goddard

2-35
Space Flight Center (GSFC) for the Multimission Modular Spacecraft

(_4S). The user should note that more than one type of end effector may

be required for a single LSS assembly flight and the user may be

responsible for the costs of several end effectors.

Software Subsystems - Computer software will provide for remote

systems logic such as tip position control of a manipulator subsystem or

computer resolution of a site sensor subsystem. Software can support

virtually all subsystems but may be required for some, again depending

upon applications. Software support should be considered in view of

power requirements, development expenditures and reliability, which may

indicate a less costly approach ($500,000 - $12,500,000 FY855).

Operators Station - The operators station will provide an integrated console for control of the remote system by the human operator.

The operators station can be in proximity to the remote system or

removed by some great distance, but should provide for complete control

of all remote subsystems and a comprehensive display of the task site or

remote environment. The operators station serves as the "flight cabin"

of the remote systems and, as such, must be equipped with control and

monitoring equipment for all task functions ($40,000 - $I,000,000

FY855).

Task Site - The task site is any location or station used for the

performance of a remotely controlled operation. Obviously, during the

assembly of a large space structure, there are many tasks to consider,

such as the unstow/deploy site, transportation route and terminate/-

assembly site. Task sites can also be viewed as being prepared or

non-prepared, depending on operations. Visual targets, grappling

fixtures, manipulator adaptable fittings, work site lights, and docking

modules would be examples of prepared work sites. Remote contingency

operations might involve non-prepared task sites such as retrieval of

free floating debris around a large space structure.

Remotely managed systems are truly in their element when they have

been designed to enhance and extend the human operator's capability

while relying on the human's manipulative and cognitive control

expertise. Remote systems can be designed to exceed the human limits of

strength, endurance, size, speed, mobility, sensing, stress, storage and

retrieval capacity and isolation. As such, they enable the operator to

perform LSS assembly functions which far exceed the capacity of EVA, but

not without cost.

Remote System Performance Times

Remote system times from simulations and engineering models can be

useful to the assembly analyst even though the times are given in rather

large operational blocks. The following selections provide representative timelines from simulations and models. They are organized by

major mechanism or task model.

2-36
REF.

i0

i0

13

13

13

13

13

33

33

33

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

24

24

24

24

24

25

25

25

25

25

25

28

28

REMOTETASKELEMENT

1.0 TRANSFER/MOVE

1.1 _MS from payload to precradle

1.2 RMS from uncradle to payload

1.3 RMS from cradle to midbay

1.4 RMS orient and capture grapple fixture

1.5 RMS release grapple fixture

1.6 Stow RMS in cradle and secure

1.7 Release from cradle and checkout RMS

1.8 TMS moves from 1000m to 200m of target

1.9 TMS moves from 200m to 25m of target

1.10 _,IS moves from 25m to dock with target

2.0 FINE PLANAR MOVEMENTS

2.1 Move 2-9 cm to .7 cm terminal target

2.2 Move 2-9 cm to 1.0 cm terminal target

2.3 Move 2-9 cm to 1.3 cm terminal target

2.4 Move 2-9 cm to 1.6 cm terminal target

2.5 Move 2.2 cm with tolerance from .7 to 1.6 cm

2.6 Move 4.4 cm with tolerance from .7 to 1.6 cm

2.7 Move 6.6 cm with tolerance from .7 to 1.6 cm

2.8 Move 9.0 cm with tolerance from .7 to 1.6 cm

3.0 WORKING TIP/EFEECTOR ORIENTATION

3.1 +i0 °, -i0 ° Yaw, joint control

3.2 +i0 °, -i0 ° pitch, joint control

3.3 +i0 °, -I0 ° yaw, integrated control

3.4 +i0 °, -I0 ° pitch, integrated control

3.5 +10 °, -i0 ° roll

4.0 WORKING TIP/EFFECTOR POSITION

4.1 +i0 cm, -i0 cm Z joint control

4.2 +10 cm, -i0 cm X joint control

4.3 +i0 cm, -i0 cm Y joint control

4.4 +I0 cm, -i0 cm Z integrated control

4.5 +I0 cm, -I0 cm X integrated control

4.6 +i0 cm, -i0 cm Y integrated control

4.7 Effector jaw open +I0 cm

4.8 Effector jaw close -10 cm

TIME

HRS:MIN:SEC

00:03:00

00:05:00

00:01:30

00:02:00

00:00:30

00:19:45

00:09:00

00:15:25

00:11:45

00:11:45

00:00:15

00:00:12

00:00:11

00:00:i0

00:00:18

00:00:26

00:00:27

00:00:30

00:00:01

00:00:01

00:00:01

00:00:01

00:00:01

00:00:I0

00:00:16

00:00:16

00:00:02

00:00:04

00:00:04

00:00:02

00:00:02

2-37
REF. 5.0 INSERTIONS FOR DEXTEROUS MANIPULATION HRS:MIN:SEC

19

19

19

19

19

19

21

26

26

i0

i0

3

3

I0

II

ii

21

21

21

21

21

2

2

2

5.1 Pin in hole, 0 ° alignment offset

5.2 Pin in hole, i0 ° alignment offset in yaw

5.3 7.9 mm pin in 9.5 mm hole

5.4 11.1 mm pin in 12.9 mm hole

5.5 14.3 mm pin in 15.9 mm hole

5.6 17.5 mm pin in 19.1 mm hole

5.7 Install 1.0-.5 kg block over index pin

5.8 Docking probe ± 5 cm, ± 5° capture

5.9 Docking probe latch

6.0 POSITIONING/ORIENTATION

6.1 Align effector at 10 cm

6.2 Terminal movement from i0 cm

6.3 Grasp handle larger than gripper

6.4 Grasp handle smaller than gripper

6.5 Release/remove effector to 10 cm

6.6 Orient with horizontal strut

6.7 Orient with vertical strut

7.0 OPERATIONS MASTER/SLAVE

HRS:MIN:SEC

7.1 Turn valve open 180 ° cw

7.2 Turn valve closed 180 °ccw

7.3 Install 2 prong plug

7.4 Remove 2 prong plug

7.5 Insert locking pin

7.6 Remove locking pin

7.7 Connect payload umbilical

7.8 Changeout antenna feed

00:00:ii

00:00:13

00:00:13

00:00:08

8.0 DEPLOY

8.1 RMS deploy pallet

8.2 High gain antenna

8.3 Contamination control shroud

9.0 RETRACT

9.1 Solar panel - I0 m

9.2 High gain antenna

00:00:20

00:00:23

00:00:38

00:00:32

00:00:28

00:00:29

00:05:10

00:00:05

00:00:20

00:00:30

00:00:15

00:00:15

00:00:30

00:00:20

00:00:45

00:01:00

RESOLVED RATE

00:02:02

00:02:36

00:03:20

00:02:36

00:03:00

00:02:00

00:06:48

00:23:00

01:01:00

00:16:00

00:20:00

00:25:00

00:16:00

2-38
REMOTEOPERATIONSDATA FOR DEPLOYMENTAND REBERTHING

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATIONMONITOR*(REFERENCE12)

OF INDUCED

Deployment and Reberthing of Payload (Induced Environment

Contamination Monitor) in Bay with Direct Vision and the Following

CameraConfiguration

PRTand STBDAft Bulkhead, Elbow and Forward Port

Bulkhead Cameras

Without PRTAft Bulkhead Camera

Without Elbow Camera

Without STBDAft Bulkhead Camera

Without Either Aft Bulkhead Camera

Without Port Forward Bulkhead Camera

HRS:MIN:SEC

00:07:05

00:07:13

00:07:04

00:06:56

00:05:40

00:03:57

PRT and STBD Aft Bulkhead, Elbow and Forward Port Bulkhead Cameras

with Single Joint Control, Berthing Only 00:04:41

REMOTE OPERATIONS DATA FOR FLIGHT SUPPORT SYSTEM OPERATIONS (MMS

TYPICAL)

Close Spacecraft Retention Latch (lock)

Close Berthing Latches

Electrical Umbilical Drive (mate/demate)

00:00:24

00:00:18

00:00:i0

Position FSS

Pivot (pitch) 90 °

Rotate (roll) 180 °

(Typical for major positioning tasks)

00:i0:00

00:01:40

SOLAR MAXIMUM SIMULATION DATA

RMS Berthing with S_ and Stow in FSS

(Data for 29 trials)

00:56:30

REMOTE OPERATIONS DATA FOR OPEN CHERRY PICKER (OCP) MANEUVERING

TIMES (REFERENCE 32)

(E_ample given for critical RMS Movements)

Move RMS from Park to Grapple with OCP

Move OCP from FSS to AFD window

Reberth OCP using:

integrated controllers

single joint controllers

Reberth SP@IS using:

integrated controllers

single joint controllers

* IECM is im x Im x 1.3m and 37 kg.

00:03:43

00:15:41

00:16:14

00:39:45

00:11:12

00:18:50

2-39
PAYLOAD DEPLOYMENT AND RETRIEVAL SYSTEM (PDRS)

BACKGROUND

On Orbit Checkout

Power Up/Uncradle

OPERATIONS FOR DEPLOYMENT

Move, Orient and Grapple Payload in Bay

Maneuver Payload from Berth until Clear of Bulkhead

Maneuver Payload from Hover Position to Deploy

Release Payload and Maneuver RMS to Precradle

Cradle/Powerdown

Deployment TOTAL Operation

OPERATIONS FOR RETRIEVAL

Move and Orient RMS for payload capture

Proximity Operation (despin, etc.)

Grapple Payload

Maneuver Payload from Capture to Hover Position

Berth Payload

Release Payload

Maneuver RMS to Precrad!e

RMS Cradle/Power Down

mission

Retrieval TOTAL Operation Time

HRS:MIN:SEC

00:20:00

00:i0:00

00:05:00

00:I0:00

00:i0:00

00:03:00

00:i0:00

01:08:00

00:05:00

dependent

00:02:00

00:i0:00

00:15:00

00:00:30

00:01:30

00:i0:00

01:14:00

2-40
OPERATORIN THELOOP,REMOTESYSTEMSASSEMBLYTIMELINE

MODULEEXCHANGE, 2 Arm, task site unprepared

Background

Control/display power up

Control/display verification

Control/display calibration

Operations

Maneuver to 50 meters

Station keep/inspect

Orient for approach

Close from 50 to i0 meters

Orient for docking

Null out roll rates °i/sec

Null out cone rates °i/sec

Null out nutation rates

Close from i0 meters to capture

Activate capture device/dock

Despin i°/i0 sec.

Stabilize

Unlock #I manipulator arm (3m type)

Uncradle #i manipulator arm

Deploy manipulator arm

Verify manipulator operation

Orient for grapple of access panel

Position over grapple fixture

Grapple

Verify-visual/instrument

Unlock #2 manipulator arm (3m type)

Uncradle #2 manipulator arm

Deploy manipulator arm

Verify manipulator operation

Orient arm for panel release

Position arm for panel release

Mate with panel release screws/locks (move 30 cm)

1st panel screw/lock unfastened, {_ turn

Nth panel screw/lock unfastened each

#i arm remove panel (move i00 cm)

#2 arm orient for module grapple

#2 arm position for module grapple

#2 arm grapple module fixture (move 30 cm)

Verify - visual/instrument

#2 arm withdraw module (61 cm x 91 cm x 61 cm)

Verify module clear

Transfer module to storage 120 °

Stow old module

Orient for grapple of new module

Position for grapple of new module

Grapple new module

HRS:MIN:SEC

00:05:00

00:05:00

00:i0:00

00:20:00

mission dependent

00:06:00

00:01:30

00:03:37

00:01:45

mission dependent

mission dependent

mission dependent

00:05:28

00:02:00

mission dependent

dependent on masses

00:01:00

00:01:30

00:01:30

00:05:00

00:00:45

00:00:30

00:00:15

00:00:30

00:01:00

00:01:30

00:01:30

00:05:00

00:00:45

00:00:30

00:00:53

00:00:12

00:01:35

00:00:50

00:00:30

00:00:25

00:00:41

00:00:30

00:01:00

00:00:30

00:00:25

00:01:00

00:00:45

00:00:30

00:00:41

2-41
Operations (continued)

Transfer module 120 °

Position and orient for insertion

Align and insert new module

Verify completed insertion

#2 arm release module

#2 arm move clear of access area

#i arm transfer panel

#i arm align panel with access

#i arm position panel over access

#2 mate with panel locks

#2 lock ist panel screw, _ turn

Nth panel lock secured, each

Cradle #I arm

Cradle #2 arm

Module Exchange, orbital servicer, i arm fixed trajectory

Operator in the loop:

30 TV frames/sec

5 TV frames/_ec

i TV frame/sec

Automated orbital servicer computer controlled

exchange of a single module

HRS:MIN:SEC

00:00:25

00:00:50

00:01:30

00:00:45

00:00:05

00:00:15

00:01:00

00:00:45

00:00:30

00:00:53

00:00:12

00:01:35

00:i0:00

00:i0:00

00:29:00

00:31:30

00:33:45

00:10:00

2-42
Remote system reliability is a major cost consideration; critical

component failure can lead to loss of assembly activity, structure

damage or mission failure as a worst case. The research and system

development necessary to prepare for a prototype system is another

significant cost, and depending upon the new materials and technologies

used in remote systems, space qualification can also effect costs. One

means of reducing the R and D costs is to build upon the existing

technology base that has developed around earth-based remote systems

used in assembly and materials handling.

2-43
2.3 DATA BASE C - AUTOMATED ASSEMBLY TECHNIQUES FOR LARGE SPACE SYSTEMS

Our experience with automated assembly in space is, at best,

limited. While automated missions have been flown for planetary exploration and fly-by, and automated experiments have been part of all of

the major science missions, automated assembly of structures has

remained earthbound. There are proposals for automated and semi-automated assembly missions, and there have been components for automated

fabrication and assembly designed and demonstrated in research laboratories. To date, however, our assumptions about space-based automated

assembly have been predictive and based upon data from earth-based,

automated assembly systems.

The cost for automated assembly systems depends on several factors

relating to the specific device and the particular structural assembly

application. The primary cost driver will be the research and development required to develop the system to the point where it can be

fabricated. This cost includes preliminary design, mockup development,

testing, reviews, redesign, and preparation of flight unit fabrication

drawings. Fabrication cost will be a second major cost factor and will

include test, checkout, qualification, and preparation for flight.

Launch and return costs are a function of size, mass, number of flights

and special handling provisions. The fourth cost factor, orbital

operations cost, includes crew time, supplies and shuttle utilities

(i.e., electrical power) and will be a function of the size of the

automated system and the structure to be fabricated or assembled.

When one considers the costs and benefits of employing automated

assembly systems, it is recognized that precise predictions cannot be

made. Rates of production, reliability, servicing, refurbishment, and

system safety must be garnered from available engineering data or even

less well defined concept papers. Costs can be predicted from similar

space qualified systems or from operating earth-based systems, with an

appropriate "unknown" as part of the costing equation to account for

unique system characteristics or for qualification for space flight.

Automated tasks with operator override is a step in the evolutionary progress which advances the art of assembling space structures

to the point that we have begun to realize in earth-based assembly and

processing plants. The assembly tasks are initiated by the human, but

the assembly process is carried out without any requirement of human

intervention. As long as the assembly process continues within limits,

the human is free to stand to other tasks which need not be related to

the assembly mission. This approach would be ideal for missions

involving uncomplicated assembly which could be carried out over a long

period of time, such as a spinning operation for antennas. It is

generally recognized, however, that single tasks are most appropriate

for this level of automation, similar to auto body welding by robots on

earth. More complex assembly processes require a much higher order of

software control.

Automated assembly preprogrammed is a method of assembly which can

be designed to carry out multiple tasks on the basis of software control

of the machine system. The software issues preprogrammed instructions

2-44
and then monitors the mschine system performance. At predefined points

in the assembly sequence, the software can issue new commandsand have

the system perform new functions. An example of such an approach would

be to (i) extrude assembly besm, (2) cut beam to specific length,

(3) fit beam end with end connector, (4) join beam end connector to

space structure, (5) verify correct connection and geometry, and (6)

repeat (i). Each step is commandedand monitored by the onboard

software, and there is no requirement for human supervision. The

assembly program has to be clearly defined and verified in order for

this approach to be effective. Systems such as the automated space

spider and the automated Orbital servicer are examplesof preprogrammed

automated systems, but it must be well noted that these are only

proposed systems. We are not far enough along the developmental train

of automated assembly systems where the systems are at the conceptual

stage or at the laboratory and experimental level.

Automated assembly with alternative logic presents us with an

intelligent assembly machine capable of deciding among alternative

assembly modes based upon system performance, structural requirements,

malfunctions, environmental circumstances, and other operating parameters. The software development requirements for the necessarily

complex merchandise assembly program are very significant, but can be

justified in terms of assembly reliability, the ability to integrate

many functions in one machine system, and failure diagnosis and

recovery. Even earth-based systems at this developmental level are only

in the conceptual/experimental stages. So, while the potential applications are good, the source data are highly speculative.

Automated assembly with artificial intelligence is essentially the

stage at which we began this developmental path, with a singular

critical difference--the human is totally removed from the system

definition. The responsibility for decision making, commanding, manipulation, sensing, diagnostics and similar human capabilities resides

with the autonomous machine system in cooperation with its software

systems. While no system exists that can accomplish these requirements,

research is pressing upon the boundary between human and machine, and

for exotic and hazardous environments, humans generally agree they would

rather have machines there. So this assembly alternative, while not

developed, is the end point for many of the advanced concepts being put

forth for the next century and as such should be included for advanced

assembly systems.

Automated System Costs

There are several classes of automated systems from which we can

draw data based on automated terrestrial systems. Since space-based

automated LSS assemblers have not been qualified, this earth-based

information seems to be an appropriate starting point. Table 2-4

presents the data for the earth-based units, while Table 2-5 extrapolates data for space qualification on an estimate basis.

A suggested approach to costing space-qualified automated systems

includes the determination of the costs of a similar or related

ground-based function, e.g., assemblers, sensors, transport, etc. Such

costs for consideration appear in Tables 2-4 through 2-6. Others may be

2-45
Table 2-4 : Earth-Based AutomatedAssemblers/Part Handlers

MODEL

ASEAIRB-6

ASEAIRB-60

GN-FANUC-I

Industrial

Automates 9500

Modular Machine

(MOBOT)

Rim Rock 195

SEIKO7000

Unimation/Puma

EARTH IG TIP WT.

APPLICATION CAPACITY

Parts handling

Parts handling

Parts handling

Parts handling

Parts handling

Parts handling

Assembly

Assembly

6 kilos

60 kilos

20 kilos

4.5 kilos

200 kilos

27 ki]os

.5 kilos

2.2 kilos

NON-SPACE

QUALIFIED FY855/KILO

COSTS

(FY855)

86,700 $14,450/kilo

130,000 2,170/kilo

43,300 2,170/kilo

17,300 3,840/kilo

21,700 108/kilo

86,700 3,180/kilo

11,500 23,000/kilo

50,600 23,000/kilo

Table 2-5: Assemblers/Part Handlers Ist Unit,

Flight Qualified Production Costs

(Estimated FY855)*

PART

HANDLERS ASSEMBLERS

Design/Development 15% 6.5 23% 54.4

SystemEngineering 4% 1.7 6% 14.2

Software 3% 1.3 17% 40.2

SystemTest 12% 5.2 14% 33.1

GSE 10% 4.3 2% 4.7

Mansgement 5% 2.2 5% 11.8

Structure Subsystems 51% 22.0 33% 78.2

100% 43.2 mil. 100% 236.6 mil.

*Estimated costs based on data extrapolated from Robotics

International, Society of Manufacturing Engineers.

2-46
Table 2-6: AutomatedSystemApplication of Sensor Subsystems

DEVELOPER

National Bureau

of Standards

National Bureau

of Standards

Massachusetts

Institute of

Technology

APPLICATION

Target sensing through optical

arrays mountedon manipulator

effector

Pattern recognition in visible

spectrum (target recognition)

synthetic vision

Visual display of manipulator

tactile information

NON-SPACEEST. SPACE

QUALIFIED QUALIFIED

COST SYSTEM COST

(FY855) (EYS5$)

$ 65,000 $210,000

$122,000 $350,000

$ 52,000 $260,000

Machine Pattern recognition in $ 81,000 $290,000

Intelligence visible spectrum (target

recognition)

obtained from the various manufacturers of ground-based robots

performing the required function. Once costs are determined for all

necessary functions, they should be added together. An additional cost

for integrating the fumctions should be assessed. Since most groundbased robots are quite large, additional costs will be necessary for

packaging the assembly robot within the Space Shuttle dimensional

constraints. Lastly, a cost is necessary for space qualifying the

integrated system.

Automated System Software Development

The hardware systems for automated assemblers can be direct

extensions of existing hardware, but the software for autonomous

assemblers will have to be derived from research and experimental models

being developed in artificial intelligence laboratories. One example of

a hierarchical software system for the data based management of an

assembly system comes from a prototype automated machine shop being

developed by the National Bureau of Standards. Development cost

estimates for controlling, scheduling, operations, diagnostic and

interactive communications software are based upon labor effort needed

to develop the software system. The FY85 dollar cost is projected to

$1.45 million for the controlling software programs.

Automated System Sensor Development

Most automated system processes are based upon indexing the pieces

being assembled. Other sensor systems under development are optical

arrays, radars and visual recognition systems. Developmental information is presented in Table 216.

2-47
Performance of automated systems is strictly dependentupon design.

Unlike human systems involved in the manual and remote assembly

scenarios, the design engineer can specify speeds, limits, tolerances

and other parameters for automated systems. Consequently, a description

of tile task elements and their times is a function of the specific

engineering requirement. Sometypical ranges are provided below from

earth-based automated assembly systems, but these are times taken from

systems where production speed is important, and this is not necessarily

the case for earth-based systems. Reliability of the automated system

is assumedto be muchmore important than speed.

Automated Task Element Space-Based Module (From Automated Servicer

Simulation and Operating Criteria) HRS:MIN:SEC

1.0 ORIENT ASSEMBLY ARM

i.I Axial Orientation through 90 ° 10°/sec

1.2 Radial Orientation through 90 ° .l°/sec

1.3 Axial Orientation through 180 °

1.4 Radial Orientation through 180 °

1.5 Shoulder Roll through 90 °

1.6 Shoulder Roll through 180 °

1.7 Wrist Roll per 90°/continuous

1.8 Elbow Pitch per 90°/±135 °

1.9 Wrist Pitch per 90°/±90 °

00:00:09

00:01:30

00:00:18

00:03:00

00:00:08

00:00:16

00:00:07

00:00:05

00:00:09

EARTH-BASED MODEL (Automated Assembler)

I.i0 Maximum Radial Velocity

1.11 Maximum Vertical Velocity

1.12 Maximum Rotational Velocity

1.13 Wrist Axes, Maximum Velocity

1.14 Radial Arm Motion (shoulder yaw)

1.15 Vertical Arm Motion (shoulder pitch)

1.16 Rotary Arm Motion (shoulder roll)

1.17 Wrist pitch

1.18 Wrist yaw

1.19 Mass handling

2.0 TRANSFER - EARTH-BASED DATA, MAXIMUM AVAILABLE

RATES WITH 60 kg MASS

.76m/sec

1.27m/sec

ll0°/sec

110°/sec

1.00m/sec

1.35m/sec

90°/sec

90°/sec

150°/sec

60 kg

2.1 10 feet X, Y, Z - gantry mounted asse_Dler

2.2 15 feet X, Y, Z - gantry mounted assembler

2.3 20 feet X, Y, Z - gantry mounted assembler

2.4 40 feet X, Y, Z - gantry mounted assembler

2.5 60 ° radial shoulder, 60°/sec

2.6 120 ° radial shoulder

2.7 180 ° radial shoulder

00:00:04

00:00:05

00:00:07

00:00:13

00:00:01

00:00:02

00:00:03

2-48
STORED TRAJECTORY TRANSFERS

2.8 Fore/aft range and velocity

2.9 Vertical range and velocity

2.10 Sweep (radial) range and velocity

2.11 End effector range and velocity

2.12 End effector pitch

2.13 End effector roll

800mm at 80mm/sec

180 ° at 18°/sec

340 ° at 17°/sec

50mm at 5mm/sec

200 ° at 33°/sec

340 ° at 34°/sec

Proposed Space Systems/Automated Assemblers

While earth-based systems provide one indication of automated

system costs, proposed space systems can give us another. The costs are

based upon design criteria and mission experience with similar systems,

and as such are subject to some variance around the cost figure given.

Automated Beam Builder - The automated beam builder (ABB) is a

metal or composite forming device that takes rolled sheet stock and

prefabricated structural components and forms an open, triangular beam

on-orbit. Since the structural beams are fabricated from materials

stored in high density rolls or stacks, the overall packing density may

be higher than with ground fabricated beams or columns.

System Description - Tile following paragraphs describe the ABB's

physical characteristics, power requirements, material requirements and

the crew interfaces.

a. Function - The ABB, shown in Figure 2-16, is a one-G development

model built to demonstrate the beam fabrication concept. The ABB forms

the three beam caps from rolls of sheet stock and then attaches preformed vertical and diagonal braces with spot welds. The end product is

a stiff beam 1.15 m on each side with bays 1.5 m long. Joints for

attaching beams to each other or to other equipment are separate cost

items.

b. Size and Mass - A flight type ABB would probably be about 3 m long

and 1.5 m wide and would weigh about 1200 to 1800 kilograms.

c. Power - Power requirements for spot welding the beam diagonals and

cross pieces to the longerons would be quite high and not realistic for

a flight beam builder. Instead, pierce and fold devices are being

considered to satisfy the fastening requirement. Power requirements for

this technique have not been defined.

d. Material Used - Both composite material (epoxy graphite) and .016

in. aluminum stock have been considered for ABB application.

e. Crew Interfaces - An ABB will likely be controlled by a payload or

mission specialist. An EVA crew member may be required for joint

installation, beam handling and ABB reloading.

2-49
FEED

SPOOL

RAW MATERIAL

STOCK

/

RANSFORMERS

ROLLING

M ILLS

CUTOFESHEARS

VERTICAL

BRACE

DIAGONAL

BRACE &

DISPENSER

TRANSFORMER

CAP

MEMBER

DIAGONAL

BRACE

Figure 2-16: Automated Beam Builder (MSFC's Development Model)

2-50
Cost Data - The cost estimates presented below were based on the

MSFC/Grumman ABB and may be quite different for automated beam machines

using another material or designed to build beams of a different size.

a. Research and Development Costs - Total cost for developing an ABB

up to the point of fabrication and assembly is estimated to be

$25,800,000 (FY855).

b. Fabrication - Fabrication and checkout costs for an ABB is

estimated to be $38,700,000 (FY855).

c. Launch and Return - The cost for flying an ABB by itself will be a

function of the size and mass. However, any LSS payload is likely to

require a dedicated flight and consequently, the total flight cost would

apply.

d. Orbital Operations - Cost for the payload or mission specialist is

included in the charge for optional payload-related services.

Space Spider - The Space Spider (Figure 2-17) is a rail-guided

automated fabricator which is capable of converting rolled stock

material into a spiral frame about a central hub. Several Space Spiders

working together can construct a spiral frame and cover this frame with

a designated material to construct antennas, solar reflectors or a

protective shell.

System Description - The following points highlight the capabilities and requirements of the proposed Space Spider systems.

a. Function - The Space Spider is designed to convert rolled stock

into strut and rail braces around a central hub. In doing so, it

produces a spiral frame structure about the hub. This frame can be used

as a mounting platform for orbiting payloads, or it csn form the basis

of large antennas or other reflectors/receivers. The proposed system

tracks its progress and maintains its translation by guiding itself

along its previously fabricated roll braces.

b. Size and Mass - The proposed flight version of the Space Spider

would be 15,000 ibs. The platform central core would be 2,500 ibs.,

leaving 47,500 ibs. for material to produce a 600 ft. diameter platform.

c. Power Requirements - The power requirements for a flight type Space

Spider have been estimated to be 4.3 kw of peak power and 1.46 kw

average power. Power requirements for a 600 ft. diameter platform would

be 130 kw hours.

d. Crew Interfaces - The Space Spider will be under remote operator

supervision, but primary control will be through autonomous on-board

logic; consequently, no crew interface is anticipated for ongoing

nominal control. EVA is proposed for deployment assist from the payload

bay, assembly of the platform crew and module installation operations.

Five 2-man, 6-hour EVA's are identified for a structure on the order of

the geostationary platform.

2-51
Cost Data - The cost data presented are assumptions based on the

proposed Space Spider Program and are taken from MSFCProgram descriptions, although no attempt was madeto firmly cost the system during its

study phase.

a. Researchand DevelopmentCosts - The required development costs and

cost of research to advance remote systems technology are estimated to

be about ten times the proposed cost of a demonstration model, or

$85,1_0,000 (FY855).

b. Production and Checkout Costs - The costs associated with the

production of a Space Spider are estimated to be greater than those of

R&D, or $105,780,000 (FY855).

Figure 2-17: Teleoperator Space Spider Machine

c. Launch and Return - Total flight costs are assumed to apply for low

earth orbit operations.

d. Orbital Operations - Dedicated flights already include payload

specialist costs. Assuming fully automated operations, orbital operations would be costed in production and R&D costs. EVA operations are

estimated to be between $1,290,000 and $2,580,000 (FY855).

2-52
Automated Orbital Servicer - The orbital servicer is envisioned as

a general purpose on-orbit satellite servicer which is transported to

orbit by the shuttle and then remotely piloted and docked to a satellite

needing refurbishment or repair. It can also be used to automatically

service payloads on large space structures.

System Description - The following sections detail some of the

significant features of the Automated Orbital Servicer (AOS).

Figure 2-18 shows an AOS concept.

a. Function - The functions of the AOS are to approach and rendezvous

with a satellite using a power module such as the teleoperator maneuvering system or the full capability Space Tug. The AOS then closes and

docks with the satellite, using the AOS docking probe and the

satellite's capture mechanism. Once docked, the AOS manipulator arm

extracts serviceable modules from the satellite/orbiting payload and

replaces them with fresh modules contained in the AOS. These functions

can be carried out in operator supervised or operator controlled modes

with the potential for autonomous control.

b. Size and Mass - The current size is a 15-ft. diameter stowage rack,

approximately 4 ft. thick, with the unloaded stowage rack frame and

module changeout mechanism weighing approximately 8,000 ibs.

c. Power Requirements - To be fully defined at s later date.

d. Crew Interfaces - A control pane] with integrated hand controllers

or joint-by-joint controllers will be located in the aft flight deck.

Visual feedback will be via TV systems and direct viewing.

Cost Data - Based upon the MSFC/Martin Marietta integrated orbital

servicing survey, the following costs for development and production are

presented.

a. Research and Development Costs - Costs for development and evaluation of the AOS are estimated to be between $77,400,000 and

$85,]40,00O (FY855).

b. Production - Production costs are between $36,120,000 and

$46,440,000 (FY855).

c. Launch and Return - The AOS does not require a dedicated shuttle

flight and can operate from the orbiter bay, in which case partial

flight charges would be levied depending on weight and volume of the

mission. The AOS can also be placed into higher orbits with an orbital

transfer vehicle (OTV), in which case the mission would be dedicated and

the additional costs for the OTV would be included. These factors give

rise to a cost range of $77,400,000 - $159,960,000 (FY855).

d. Orbital Operations - The operations costs cited by Martin Marietta

range from $774,000 - $2,580,000 (FY855) and include on-orbit maintenance costs and servicing operations.

2-53
o

._

.,q

>

_q

.,q

0

o

!

2-54
2.4 DATABASED - STSCOSTELEMENTDESCRIPTIONS

The delivery of structures, components, stock material, assembly

tools and humanlabor to a LSS assembly site depends on the STScapabilities. While the actual orbital delivery is not part of the assembly

costs, how the cargo is manifested, the required STSassembly support,

requirements for STSmission unique services, an additional RMS, and

similar Shuttle-provided services which are directly related to LSS

assembly can be considered in the MMAA.

This data base provides a summaryof STS capabilities and limitations and costs associated with LSSassembly. Dependingupon the mode

of assembly, STS related costs can be expected to have a significant

influence upon the overall assembly costs.

Flight Operations

The cost data presented in the paragraphs below were derived from

the several NASA documents listed below. The user is encouraged to

obtain and use these documents if the information presented in this

report is insufficient for a particular application.

Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 14 - January 21, 1977, Chapter V,

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Part 1214, Reimbursement for Shuttle Services.

Space Transportation System Reimbursement Guide, Civilian U.S.

Government and Non-U.S. Government, National Aeronautics and

Space Administration, JSC-I1802, May 1980.

Space Transportation System Reimbursement Guide, Civilian U.S.

Government and Non-U.S. Government, National Aeronautics and

Space Administration, JSC, (no document number or date).

o Space Transportation System Determination of Charge Factor,

National

Aeronautics and Space Administration, JSC, (no document number),

May 1977.

o Space Transportation User Handbook, National Aeronautics and

Space Administration, JSC, (no document number), July 1977.

o NASA Management Instruction, Utilization of and Funding for

Space Transportation System (STS) Elements and Services for NASA

and NASA-Related Payloads, NASA Headquarters, NMI 8610.12,

June 8, 1979.

o NASA Management Instruction, Reimbursement for Shuttle Services

Provided to Civil U.S. Government Users and Foreign Users Who

Have Made Substantial Investment in the STS Program, NASA

Headquarters, NMI 8610.9, February ii, 1977.

Reimbursement Categories - Shuttle users will be in one of three

classes with flight costs calculated differently for each class. These

three classes of users are:

2-55
I. Non-U.S. Government

Private individuals or organizations in the United States

or territories and public organizations which are not

part of the Federal government

Private individuals, public or private organizations, or

governmentsof foreign nations or international organizations. Exceptions qualifying for lower flight prices are

governments of Canada and of nations participating in

Spacelab development

Agencies of the U.S. or Canadian governmentsor the

EuropeanSpaceAgency (ESA)

2. Civilian U.S. Government

3. Department of Defense.

Table 2-7 lists the costs for the four user classes described

above. This table assumesa dedicated LSS flight with no costs shared

with small payloads.

Table 2-7: Standard SpaceShuttle Price for Dedicated Users

(through 1985)

COST(FY855)

Transportation Use Fee

USERCLASS Charge (Constant)

Non-U.S. Government

Civilian U.S. Government

Department of Defense

Exceptional Program

$46,440,000 $11,090,000

$46,440,000 N/A

$31,476,000 N/A

$28,380,000-$36,120,000 N/A

Special consideration is given to users having an experimental, new

use of space or having a first time use of space that has great potential public value. This is called an "exceptional determination." A

dedicated flight with this classification will cost in the range of $20

to $30 mission (FY855) as determined by the NASAAdministrator.

The cost for assembling a large structure in space will be a

function of the costs associated with the particular structure, the mode

of assembly, and the cost of using standard STS services. The costs

incurred because of the specific LSS design can be categorized as follows:

2-56
O Flight Operations

- Standard flight charge

- Optional services

o Labor

- On-orbit EVA and intravehicular activity (IVA)

- Crew training

- Ground support

O Crew Support Equipment

- Pressure suits (EMU)

- Tools

- Manned maneuvering units (MMU's)

- Handrails and foot restraints

- Tethers

- Workstations

o LSS Hardwsre

- Beams and columns

- Joints

- Assembly fixtures

- Tools

o Remote Systems

- Manipulators

- Teleoperator

o Automated Systems

- Automated assemblers

- Automated fabricators

- Autonomous robots

Standard Flight Charge - The price charged to users for standard

shuttle transportation will be based on anticipated costs accrued over a

12-year period. The price will be fixed (excepting inflation adjustment) for flights in the first three years of operations. The cost for

LSS flights after the third year of STS operation will vary significantly from the costs defined in this document. The FY85 dollar figure

used for this document is $46,440,000 per flight. Projected estimates

from the Office of Space Transportation Operations put the Shuttle

operation charges at $97.5 million in 1985, $106 million in 1986, and

$116 million in 1987.

Schedule Options - Several schedule options that can impact the

flight price are available to the STS user. A fixed price option for

future f_ights in a given year beyond the three-year fixed price period

will be made available to users already contracting for STS launch

services. NASA will be reimbursed the user's flight price compounded at

8% for each year beyond the fixed price period. The fee for this option

is $2,580,0OO (FY855).

Several other schedule options exist but are not likely to affect

the cost of a LSS payload flight. These options are short term call up,

accelerated launch date, postponement, and cancellation.

2-57
Calculation of Reimbursements - The total price for STS launch

services can be determined by summing the charges for:

I •

2.

3.

4.

Standard STS services

Optional flight systems

Payload-related optional services

Special fees such as schedule options•

Generally, NASA's responsibilities under the standard shuttle

services agreement are:

i •

2.

Be

4.

.

Furnishing STS/user interface specifications

Providing for preparation and checkout of the STS for each payload

launch

Managing the Shuttle/payload integration

Regulating access to and operation of the payload from delivery

at the integration facility through separation in-orbit

Conducting all launch services as agreed with the user.

Under these same agreements, the STS user will be responsible for:

Estimates of

Percent Cost

Contribution

i. 49%

2. 9%

3. 4%

4. 4%

5. 12%

6. 2%

7. 2%

Delivering the payload to the launch site in a readyto-fly configuration

Providing payload ground support equipment and

personnel to prepare the payload for launch

Providing to NASA all mission requirements and constraints

Assuring compatibility of the payload with all STS

interfaces

Providing to NASA payload design specifications and

flight qualification test plans

Providing to NASA information regarding hazardous

equipment or crew operations

Providing payload-specific training to the NASA EVA

RMS crew and to Payload Operations Support Center

personnel

8. Provide program management 6%

9. Refurbishment 2%

i0. Contingency and fee 10%-30%

The percentile cost contributions are based on historical data for

mechanized, unmanned space missions and are estimates of costs only.

The sum varies from 100% to 120% depending on item i0, which is a

contingency holdback. Generally, the newer technologies will require a

large contingency pool, while space experienced technologies will

require a simpler contingency.

2-58
Launch Site Services - Services available at Kennedy Space Center

(KSC) that the STS user may require include transportation, aircraft

support, ground handling support equipment, office space, test equipment, calibration and technical shops. Costs are mission specific and

negotiated with KSC.

Flight Planning and Operations Support - Flight planning and

operations are provided as part of the standard Shuttle transportation

charge. Three crew members are provided under the basic charge with up

to one day of on-orbit payload operations for deploying or erecting the

structural assembly. Preflight planning and training necessary for

normal STS operations are included. LSS-specific training will be

charged to the user. The charge also covers the preparation of a flight

data file for the assembly operations.

Standard real-time support services include one or two flight

controllers who will assist the user with flight plan and crew procedures changes. STS users are encouraged to use simulation facilities

at the various NASA centers for pretest planning, timeline development,

and hardware evaluation. These facilities include MSFC's Neutral

Buoyancy Simulator (NBS) and JSC's zero-G aircraft. Costs for using

these facilities are not defined.

Assembly Procedures and Checklists - Assembly diagrams, part lists,

crew procedures and checklists required for the LSS assembly tasks will

likely cost from $5,160 to $38,700 (FY855) depending on the amount of

paper required on-orbit. However, any assembly mode will require some

supporting documentation and the cost of providing this material may be

the same for the different modes.

Payload Specialist and Training - The estimated cost of $193,500 to

$258,000 (FY855) for training a payload specialist and providing him

on-orbit is based on a seven day flight. This will likely depend on the

complexity of the crew tasks associated with the IVA operations associated with the LSS assembly. If a trained payload specialist makes

repeated flights, the cost for later flights may be reduced.

Additional Days of STS Support - Only one day of mission operations

is included in the standard services to a payload. Any situation

involving the need for more than one day of on-orbit time will dictate

the purchase of this option. Each additional day will cost $516.000 to

$774,000 (FY855). The maximum number of days on-orbit with the current

STS configuration is seven.

It is anticipated that deployable structures may be assembled in

one or two days while erectible structures may take several days to

assemble.

Payload Revisit - LSS assembly projects requiring more than one

shuttle flight will have to pay $774,000 to $1,032,000 (FY855) for each

revisit option in addition to the other launch costs.

2-59
Payload Operations Control Center - The Payload Operations Control

Center (POCC) enables the user to support real-time on-orbit operations

with voice communications, video, data analysis, etc. The charge for

use and services of the POCC will be based on four cost categories as

follows:

l ,

2.

3.

.

Cost for NASA personnel required for POCC support

Use charge for office space, facilities and services

Cost for manpower and facilities to accommodate unique POCC training and simulation activities

Cost for specialized services such as voice transcripts, video

tapes, etc.

Because of the variable nature of the POCC requirements for different types of LSS payloads and the developmental state of this cost

policy by NASA for these services, specific cost estimations cannot be

made.

Optional Flight Services

The STS optional flight services most likely to be required by a

LSS user are Spacelab pallets, an additional RMS additional power and

Orbital Maneuvering Subsystem (OMS) delta-V kits. The costs for these

items are discussed below.

Experiment Pallets - LSS's with experiments mounted to the structure will likely use some type of pallet(s) experiment hardware mounting. The Spacelab pallets can be used at a cost of $3,828,720 (FY855)

each. However, these pallets may not be ideally suited for LSS applications. The cost of providing pallets of another design is dependent

on the specific design.

Teledyne Brown Engineering produces a 32-inch pallet which is

considerably less expensive and may have applications for some LSS

operations. The short pallet is $430,000 (FY855) without keel or

trunnion fittings, which are furnished for $234,000 (FY855).

Spacelab Pallets - Use of the pressurized Spacelab module is not

anticipated for any LSS assembly mission. However, Spacelab pallets may

be used for mounting column stowage containers, assembly fixtures or

other deployment hardware.

The price charged a Spacelab (i.e., pallet) user will be the sum of

the shuttle standard transportation flight price, the Spacelab standard

operations price, any optional services required by the user, and the

Spacelab use fee, if applicable. The standard costs will be fixed for

the first three years of the STS operations and will be updated annually

for the remaining years.

The available cost descriptions all assume the use of experiment

hardware on the pallet and do not lend themselves to calculating of

specific costs for LSS type payloads. However, it appears a pallet plus

igloo will cost $2,296,200 (FY855). The price for pallets without the

igloo is not defined. Additionally, the use fee for each pallet is

$62,952 for shared pallets, and $185,760 for dedicated pallets (FY855).

2-60
Orbital Maneuvering Subsystem Delta-V Kit - up to three Orbital

Maneuvering Subsystem (OMS) auxiliary propulsion kits can be added to

the integral OMS propellant tanks. Each kit produces an additional 152

m/sec (500 ft/sec) velocity to the shuttle in orbit and could be used to

deliver payloads to higher than standard orbits or to orbits beyond the

standard inclination angle. The two standard orbits are:

o 160 NMi altitude, 28.5 ° inclination, 29,483 kgs.

o 160 NMi altitude, 57.0 ° inclination, 25,401 kgs.

The installation and removal cost for each OMS kit is $1,044,900

(FY855). The cost of using one, two or three kits is listed below.

OMS KIT

COST - Includes Use Fee

(FY855)

1 Tank $222,000

2 Tanks $3]2,000

3 Tanks $401,000

ORBITAL TRANSFER VEHICLES (OTVs)

The shuttle is the major vehicle in the Space Transportation System

but must operate in orbits under i,ii0 km. For LSS designed for geosynchronous orbits of 35,900 km, supplementary transport systems are

used. Three versions of these are presently operable: PAM-A, PAM-D and

the IUS.

Payload Assist Module (PAMs) are transfer vehicles designed by

McDonnell Douglas. At present, the Atlas or PAM-A to boost payloads up

to 2,000 kgs and the Delta or PAM-D boosts payloads up to 900 kgs into

geosynchronous orbit. Each have their own cradle into which they fit

during shuttle transit. An intermediary module, the PAM-D2, is currently under development and will have a 1600 kg initial capacity, growing

to 1800 kgs. Flight readiness is planned for May 1985.

For the Department of Defense, TRW and Boeing have developed a

2,300 kg Inertial Upper Stage of IUS, which is deployed with the RMS.

It has a 15 year life expectancy.

Fairchild has developed the concept of a space bus based on an MMS

or Multi-Mission Modular Spacecraft. The basic design has already been

used on the Solar Maximum Mission and Landsat 4. Leasecraft, the

commercial bus, is an integral modular system having its own power

propulsion communications and payload modules. It remains with the

payload in a Lower Earth Orbit until it decays to the shuttle orbit

where it is serviced by the RMS. Pam A & D have three additional power

modules making a total of six which surround a central propulsion

module. A space transport system for lease by commercial ventures which

will subsidize scientific payloads. Such a system could transport fresh

reels, struts, or other construction replenishments from the shuttle to

a higher orbit and supply the power source necessary to integrate these

into the platform. Fairchild itself plans a small platform in LEO as a

business venture and would be self-sufficient in servicing it.

2-61
A first level is planned for 1986. Leasecraft would occupy only

five feet of the cargo length. Once in orbit it could be controlled

through the Tracking Data and Relay System, TDRS,Payload exchangeis to

be accomplished in part, with the aid of three motor driven jack screws,

a step toward automation.

Docking Module - The optional docking module will provide a means

for other orbiting vehicles to hard dock with the orbiter. The

projected price for this option is $41,280 (FY855).

Docking adaptors can be fitted to the spacecraft in order to secure

a LSS and bring it within the reach envelope of the RMS. Docking of two

spacecraft at a docking interface is achieved with the aid of reaction

control thrusters. Interfaces on space docking adaptors, space system

modules and orbital transfer vehicles should be standardized.

Optional Payload-Related Services - Optional payload-related

services are specific tasks performed for the user by NASA utilizing

existing capabilities. These services are outside the scope of

currently defined STS services and include functions such as EVA,

payload specialists and their training, additional time on-orbit and

payload revisit. Unique optional services which are custom tailored to

the user's specific mission needs are listed below.

Common Optional Services

OPTIONS PRICE RANGE (FY855)

EVA

Payload specialist & training

Additional days of STS support

Payload revisit

JSC Payload Operations Control

Control Center (POCC)

Launch site services

- Spacecraft optional services

package

- SSUS-D optional services

package

- SSUS-A optional services

package

- Vertical processing facility

$154,800 to $258,000 each/6 hours

$193,500 to $258,000 each

$516,000 to $774,000 per day

$774,000 to $1,032,000 per flight*

To be negotiated

$851,400

$193,500

$219,300

$12,900

*Estimated incurred costs only (launch costs and other unique

optional services not included).

Unique Services - Several unique payload-related optional services

may be performed by NASA if the user chooses not to perform these

services himself. The services most likely to be needed by a STS user

and the estimated charges are listed below.

2-62
UNIQUE OPTIONAL SERVICES

OPTIONS PRICE RANGE (FY855)

Engineering analyses

- Thermal loads analysis

Initial

Subsequent

- Structural dynamic loads

Shuttle models and forcing

functions

- Electromagnetic interference/

compatibility analysis

- Special studies

$ 258,000 to $ 387,000 each

$ 129,000 to $ 193,500 each

$ 103,200 to $ 193,500 each

$ 51,600 to $ 129,000 each

To be negotiated

Data analysis and seftware support

- Nonstandard inclination

(dedicated) - initial

- Nonstandard attitude - initial

- Data software modification

- End-to-end data tests

$1,032,000 to $1,548,000 each

$1,032,000 to $1,548,000 each

$ ]54,800 to $ 258,000 each

$ 258,000 to $1,290,000 each

Unique integration hardware To be negotiated

2-63
3.0 PREPARE FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS

Each LSS mission is proposed, developed and flown to accomplish one

or more mission objectives, and the ones of interest in this document

are the assembly objectives. How these assembly objectives are reached

is the product of a series of assembly functions being performed during

the mission. To determine how these assembly functions can most productively and economically be carried out is the purpose of this Large

Space System Man-Machine Assembly Analysis.

The primary purpose of the mission functional analysis is to

securely tie down all of the functions which need to be accomplished

during an assembly. The assembly and mission functions are the elements

which the analyst cannot manipulate; consequently, they must be clearly

identified so that any alternatives in operations suggested by the

analyst completely fulfill the functional requirements. This gives the

development of the functional analysis a special importance in the MMAA

in that it defines the mission more clearly than even the hardware

characteristics of the mission and is the standard against which

scenarios and tasks are compared.

Beginning with the overall mission objective--e.g., to orbit a

large geostationary communications station--we can identify the classes

of operations and activities which as a whole contribute to the system

assembly objectives. These might be to deploy and orient a large

antenna array or assemble and orient a large antenna array, fabricate a

support beam or assemble a support beam and deploy, deploy LSS material

with the remote manipulator system or deploy LSS material with MMU

equipped EVA crew members. Each of these functional blocks is fairly

arbitrarily defined, and certainly should be at the discretion of the

analyst, for they are the "chunks" of a mission which can be moved about

and appropriately repositioned without disrupting the overall assembly

objective. It should be noted that the functions are classes of activities and not the specific operations themselves, as in "travel" being a

functional descriptor and "go by ship" being a task descriptor. You can

see that "travel" allows a lot more analytic latitude (all of your

travel options are open), but it also involves more work than limiting

one's self to "go by ship."

Another important aspect of functional analyses is that they are

not dealing with, nor define, equipment or personnel. They are concerned with what is to be done and not who does it, nor with the particular means to accomplish it. This is an important consideration in that

it precludes a premature decision concerning how a function is carried

out prior to a more appropriate analysis, such as task or cost analysis.

A brief functional block diagram is given below as an example.

3-1
First Level Functional Analysis

Large SpaceSystems

Mission Objective: EmplaceGeostationary CommunicationsPlatform

1.0 Prepare Structure

Componentsfor

GEOInsertion

2.0 Deliver Structure

Componentsto GEO

3.0 Deploy/AssembleI

Structure I

Components I

4.0 Prepare Payload

Componentsfor

GEOInsertion

7.0 Mate Payload

with Structure

5.0 Deliver Payload

Componentsto

Structure

6.0

Rendezvouswith I

Structure

8.0 Connect Payload

Utilities to

Structure Power

Supply

9.0 Activate/Checkout Payload

These blocks represent very large chunks of mission activities

arranged in chronological order. The details of the first level functional analysis can be broken out in second and third level analyses or

to whatever level of detail is required by the particular mission, but

the samecaution concerning attention to the "what is to be done" is in

order without defining who or what accomplishes the activity. The

assignment of roles for specific tasks comesduring the preparation of

task descriptions discussed in Section 5.0.

If we wish to take the functional analysis to a greater degree of

detail, we can do so by treating any functional block as an end item and

then defining the functional elements needed to satisfy that new end

item. A second level functional analysis using 7.0, Mate Payload with

Structure, is shownin the examplethat follows.

3-2
SecondLevel Functional Analysis

Large SpaceSystems

Mission Objective: EmplaceGeostationary CommunicationsPlatform

Function Objective: 7.0, Mate Payload with Structure

7.1 Unstow

Payload

7.4 Transport

Payload to

Structure

7.7 Demate

Payload &

Transporter

7.2 Perform

System

Checkout

7.5 Orient

Payload w/

Mating Device

7.3 Deploy

Payload

7.6 Attach

Payload to

Structure

7.8 Perform

System

Checkout on

Payload

As the blocks cometo represent smaller and smaller units of work,

we can begin to get a clear picture of what functions have to be satisfied and in what order these functions must be accomplished. This leads

to the development of the detailed assembly scenarios in which we can

review assembly options while still satisfying the mission functional

objectives.

3-3
4.0 PREPAREASSEMBLYSCENARIO

This is the point at which the analyst's knowledge of the assembly

options, the STS capabilities, the mission objectives, and the LSS

concept being studied comestogether. It is the focal point for exploring the available alternatives in packaging, delivery, deployment,

fabrication, assembly, and payload attachment. This is also the point

at which the MAA departs from conventional costing algorithms, engineering analyses, and structural assessments. For the assembly

scenarios are not developed to drive out a dependent measurefor a fixed

structure, but rather to employ "what if" strategies for several configurations of a structure and hopefully yield more productive and more

economical assembly approaches. A recent example from LSS simulations

conducted at MSFC_will help to illustrate this point.

Using precut lengths of automated beam builder (ABB) triangular

beams, two A7LBsuited subjects were required to assembly a large space

structure mockupacross the Orbiter bay. The objective of the task was

to test for man/systemperformance differences in two types of structural attachments used to assemble the structure. Figure 4-1 shows the

completed structure as it was assembled in the Neutral Buoyancy Simulator (NBS). Obvious questions of procedure arose during assembly, such

as:

o What is the role of the SRMS?

o Shall the test subjects work together or on their own special tasks?

o What are the optimum translation paths?

o What is the task order?

and similar questions. During one step of the operations it was necessary to have a subject on each side of the shuttle bay followed by a

step which required they both be on the same side of the bay (Figure

4-2). From the preliminary assembly scenario, it was proposed that

Subject i moveacross the bay to the new location and Subject 2 remain

at his workstation. This was accomplished in about 200 seconds as shown

in the heavy, dark translation route in the figure. It was later

suggested that a shorter translation route was a diagonal path across

the structure, although this route did not afford handholds and would

presumably require MMUsupport. This would save approximately one

minute in the structure assembly process, but even greater savings can

be obtained by having both crew members simultaneously move to new

stations as shownby the dashed routing lines. Since the translation is

repeated over and over again during the assembly of this LSS concept,

the savings becomemultiples of the i00 seconds.

This simulation example points out the flexibility of the MMAA--in

that several assembly alternatives can be reviewed prior to defining

assembly tasks. The objective is to work toward a minimumtime, maximum

productivity assembly scenario which maintains the sanctity of the

mission functional objectives.

4-i
4-2

.IJo

1.4

Im

c_I

.rloomI

..l-w
(i00 sec) X

(i00 sec)

r{Z] G,----- _

I _ XXXX

I xxxx>_

I _4O._e_ /

ID<X

Dx_ px_p_ XP<L

L..E] "

(_) .-

©

X_

2x (200 sec)

x = Comparative Time

Figure 4-2: EVA Time and Motion Assembly Analysis

4-3
The purpose of the simulation was to makesure that the LSS assembly was being accomplished with the most productive use of EVAtime. By

developing different translation routes, we have reduced the task

assembly time, reduced EVA idle time for one EVA crew member, and

permitted the EVAcrew to translate about the structure without the aid

of the MMU. The net result will be an increase in production rate and

reduction in direct and support costs.

The variables of interest at this point will be gross times, idle

times, support requirements, probability of success/failure, labor

requirements and similar large variables like rates of assembly throughout the scenario. Detailed task variables are to be identified in the

development of the task descriptions.

Similar savings can be realized by changing the flight packaging

plan for LSS structures, with the potential for reducing the required

number of flights, or for recommendingengineering design changes to

take advantage of automated systems which can continue assembly or

fabrication operations between shuttle missions. The objective of the

several assembly scenarios is to take full advantage of the weight,

volume and on-orbit capabilities of the shuttle and to identify potential engineering concepts which meet these capabilities.

4.1 MANUALASSEMBLYSCENARIO

The first assembly path we want to explore is assembly using EVA.

This is based on the fact that we have data from previous missions on

the capability of EVAand on the safety and productivity limits of EVA.

The constraints of EVAare principally that two EVAcrew memberscan

work only for a period of six hours per day on LSS assembly tasks and

that all LSSequipment must be EVA-compatible based upon MSFC-STD-512A,

"Man/System Requirements for Weightless Environments," and JSC 10615,

"Shuttle EVADescription and EVACriteria." Using the Data Base A and

the description of the LSS componentspackagedwith a shuttle flight, we

can work through an assembly scenario using only EVAmethods. This will

enable us to see what assembly steps are easily accomplished by EVA,

which ones need additional support and which steps are not feasible for

EVA. For example:

4-4
TASK TIMEOROTHERMEASURE

0. EVAPreparation

I. Egress Airlock

2. Translate to Workstation

3. Ingress Workstation (foot/leg restraints)

4. Unlock AssemblyComponents

5. Deploy AssemblyComponents

6. Orient AssemblyComponents

7. Install Mating Elements

8. Mate AssemblyComponents

9. Install Componentsin AssemblyFixture

i0. Deploy Utility Subsystem

II. Install Structure Utilities

12. Mate Utility Unions

13. Deploy LSSExperiment Packages

14. Orient Experiment Packages

15. Align Experiment Packages

16. Mate Experiment Packages

sec

sec

sec/m

sec

sec/forces

sec/forces

sec/stability

requirements

sec/tolerances

sec/forces/tolerances

sec/tolerances

sec/forces

sec/m

sec/forces/tolerances

sec/forces

sec/forces/feedback

sec/tolerances/feedback

sec/tolerances/forces.

These steps might reflect the tasks and criteria for assembling a simple

LSS with a powered experiment module. As each step in the assembly

scenario is addressed, we can determine approximate time to complete,

forces and torques required, special EVA actions such as orientation and

stabilization, tolerances, and similar dependent measures. Where total

time exceeds six hours of operating time, we know we must reevaluate our

assembly approach. Where forces and torques exceed EVA capability, we

know we must provide tools or other support. Where tolerances are too

fine for EVA operations, we know we may suggest engineering changes in

the mating or assembly equipment. Where LSS components exceed masses

which can be adequately controlled and managed by EVA crew members or

where LSS components cannot be made compatible with EVA requirements,

then we must assign alternative assembly techniques to these portions of

the assembly scenario.

4.2 REMOTE ASSEMBLY SCENARIO

The next assembly path we may want to explore involves remote

operations, since some potentially applicable remote systems are part of

the shuttle's standard services, i.e., the shuttle remote manipulator

system (SRMS). An end-to-end assembly scenario should be developed

which is totally remote so that we can identify tasks which are particularly appropriate to remote manipulation, and those which exceed current

remote systems capabilities. This will yield a better understanding of

what roles remote assembly should play versus what tasks should be

allocated to some other assembly mode and it will also drive out technology needs in the area of remote assembly applications.

4-5
An exampleof remote assembly of a LSSwith an experiment module is

as follows:

TASK MEASURE

I. Activate SRMS

2. Unstow SRMSfrom Launch Brackets

3. Position and Orient SRMSwith Respect to

LSSComponentStowageRack

4. Release Locks on LSSComponents

5. Orient SRMSwith Respect to LSSComponents

6. Capture Probe

7. Deploy LSSComponents

8. Translate LSSComponent

9. Orient and Position Componentin

AssemblyFixture

10. Release Probe

ii. Reposition SRMSto #3 and Repair

12. Position and Orient SRMSwith Respect

to Utilities Assembly

13. Grasp Utilities Assembly

14. Deploy Utilities Assembly

15. Moveto Structure, Orient

16. Attach Utilities to Structure

17. Connect Utilities

18. Moveto Experiment Package

19. Orient, Grasp Experiment Package

20. Deploy Package

21. Moveto Structure, Orient

22. Connect Experiment Packageto Structure

23. Stow SRMS

stability/feedback/sec

tolerance

forces/torques/sec

stability/feedback/sec

sec/feedback

sec/stability

sec/accuracy

sec/accuracy/stability

sec/feedback

sec/accuracy

sec/stability

sec/accuracy

sec/forces

sec/stability/feedback

sec/accuracy/feedback

sec/accuracy/feedback

sec/stability

sec/accuracy

sec/forces

sec/accuracy

sec/accuracy/forces/

feedback

sec/automatic.

There are more demandsbeing placed on the remote system since the

decision maker/operator is now removed from the immediate task site.

There are requirements of accuracy, stability, feedback and operations

sensing which must be built into the RMSand LSS equipment to provide

the operator with sufficient information and latitude to successfully

complete the assembly tasks.

With the replacement of the operator at the worksite with the SRMS,

we have reduced the risks inherent in EVA, madeit feasible to moveand

control larger masses, and enlarged the working envelope around the

shuttle bay. By employing the SRMSwe can expect an increase in available operating time over manualmodessince comparatively little time is

involved in preparation for operations. Also, it is possible to operate

more than one shift per day. It is possible for dedicated remote

assembly missions to be designed for 24 hour a day operation if

required. This increased time-on-assembly compensates for generally

lower rates of assembly involved in remote systems.

4-6
Again, as was the case with the manual assembly mode, we want to

proceed from start to finish with an assembly scenario totally carried

out by remote systems. This enables us to identify those sequenceswell

suited for remote operations and those which exceed remote capabilities

and require additional technological capability or a different assembly

approach.

At this point in the developmentof the assembly scenarios, we have

two parallel paths to accomplish the same assembly objectives and we

have identified sequenceswithin those paths which are strong candidates

for a particular assembly mode. It is possible to review these two

paths and see the areas of potential cooperation between manual and

remote assembly modeswhich would yield a more productive, more economical modeof LSSassembly. But before we formally develop this combination, we need to work through an assembly scenario which is totally

automated in operation.

4.3 AUTOMATEDASSEMBLYSCENARIO

Fully automated assembly operations require a significant progress

in space technology before we can start to build a valid data base from

on-orbit and ground based demonstrations. However, much research is

ongoing in the development of earth-based automated assembly systems and

as this technology develops and space-basedproof of concept demonstrations are initiated, it is envisioned that automated systems will become

the preferred assembly mode by reason of safety, productivity and

economics. Evidence for this position is found in automated medical

laboratory testing, parts inspection and quality control, welding and

spray painting operations on assembly lines, and electronic component

assembly. Additionally, as of 1980, approximately 3% of existing

automated systems were designed to accomplish assembly tasks, but 40%of

the long range orders for robots were for assembly systems. This

indicates the developing importance of automated assembly systems and

why we should strongly consider this assembly option for LSS assembly

tasks.

Automated systems will carry the burden of research and development

costs, but autonomyof operation and rates of assembly productivity per

24 hour period should recoup these costs during the operating life Cycle

of the automated system.

The typical LSS example which we have been using for the development of manual and remote assembly scenarios which involves a structure,

utilities and an experiment package, could be automatically assembledas

follows:

4-7
TASK MEASURE

i. Preparation for Automated System Deployment

o Open bay doors

o Unstow/deploy SRMS

2. Activate Automated Assembler

o Power on

o Instrumentation check

3. Grapple Assembler with SRMS

4. Release Launch Restraints on Assembler

5. Deploy Assembler from Bay

6. Complete Systems/Functions Test on Assembler

7. Release Assembler and Stow SRMS

8. Shuttle Retreats or Assembler Thrusts into

Assigned Orbit Position

9. Automatic Assembly Procedure Initiated

go/no go

see/accuracy

see/from AFD

see/stability

go/no g9

see/forces/

stability

see/accuracy

go/no go

With the assembler operating away from the Orbiter, the question of

materials resupply must be addressed. One option is to have a resupply

teleoperator shuttle materials from a storage area to the assembler.

The two vehicles--teleoperator and assembler--would mate and the transfer of materials and resupply of any consumables would be accomplished.

Another option would be to have all stock materials delivered to the

appropriate orbit as part of the assembler payload. Since one of the

shuttle payload constraints is weight, the integration of assembler and

materials could be accomplished as a single payload element.

The employment of either option would depend upon the specific

mission, but once in orbit with material, the assembler would proceed

with the structures assembly on an automatic basis with failsafe systems

and self- diagnosis of problems as part of the assembler package. The

assembly operation would then only require monitoring or supervision by

a human to assure that all assembly operations were proceeding according

to schedule.

The advantage of a free flying assembler is that it can proceed

with assembly activity in the absence of shuttle support, but there are

proposals for automated assemblers which are deployed in the shuttle bay

and operate directly from the shuttle. The shuttle serves as a storage

and utilities platform for the assembler, and the assembled structure is

built out from the payload bay.

4-8
An automated assembly scenario which retains the assembler in the

payload bay would include someof the following elements:

TASK MEASURE

i. Preparation for AutomatedAssembler

Activation

o Openbay doors

o Unstow/deploy SRMS

2. Activate AutomatedAssembler

o Power on

o Systemcheckout

3. Position and Orient Assembler in Work

Attitude

o With SRMS

o Or, on tilt work platform

4. SecureAssembler in WorkAttitude

5. Complete Systems/Functions Test on

Assembler

6. Begin Production and Assemblyof LSS

7. LSSAssemblyProceeds at a Given

Production Rate for the Particular

Assembler Until the Stock Material Is

Expended

8. Deactivate Assembler

9. Return Assembler to StowedPosition

and Lock DownLaunch Restraints

go/no go

sec/accuracy

go/no go

go/no go

sec/failures

sec/accuracy

The advantages of having an automated assembler in the payload bay

are:

o Having the SRMSavailable to support operations

o Utilities and consumablesderived from the Orbiter

o Potential for EVAassistance/repair

o Proximate supervision of operations and immediate

system performance feedback to the AFD.

The disadvantages of having an automated assembler in the payload

bay are:

o Restricted working envelope for deploying structural elements

o Limited on-orbit time

o Cost of maintaining shuttle in orbit to provide services to the

assembler

o Potential for inadvertent damageto shuttle by automated system.

For both free flying and attached concepts of automated assembly,

it has been assumed that the structure's utility system has been

designed as an integral part of the structure and the assembly process.

Whennot so designed, the following steps will be required in the

automated assembly scenario:

4-9
TASK MEASURE

I. UnstowUtilities Package

2. Mate Utilities to the LSSand Route

Utilities

3. Unstow the Experiment Package

4. Mate Experiment Packageto LSS

5. Experiment Activation and Checkout

sec/accuracy

sec/accuracy/

stability/feedback

sec/forces/torque

sec/accuracy/

stability/feedback

go/no go

Now that we have outlined three distinct modes for assembly, we can

check to see what steps present technological problems or production or

safety problems, and we can begin to derive an assembly approach which

combines the best elements of each assembly path while reducing problems, costs, times, etc.

The assembly scenarios developed at this point represent the

broadest definition of structural assembly for a particular assembly.

The details of assembly are taken up in the task descriptions of assembly. It is at this task level that discrete activities are assigned to

manand machine for operational responsibility.

An exampleassembly scenario from the AdvancedScience Applications

Space Platform (SASP) is presented below for a remote assembly operation. This example is based on combined manual and remote assembly

operations. Times for either modealone were found to be three to four

times greater.

ASSEMBLYSCENARIOFORTHEADVANCEDSCIENCEAPPLICATIONSPACEPLATFORM

(SASP)

ITEM MMAAFUNCTION

1.0 Description of Structure

and Components

"T" shaped basic structure

(160 m x 82 m)

Box shaped strongback sections

form "T" and two diagonal

braces

Two shuttle berthing interfaces

Construction platform

Construction module with manipulator

Scientific berthing stations (5)

Ku band antennas (2)

Propulsion module

50 kw power system

Four experiments proposed (not

considered as part of LSS)

Serves as a consolidated descriptin of the LSS mission hardware.

Required to establish the orbital

system baseline, which should not

change as the assembly scenarios

are developed. See Figure 4-3.

4-10
O

u_

I--

,=Z

._1

ID_

Z

O

I--

kt_

0

ZO

0o_

U9 ,"," U-I

>- I--- ._

t,') U") :D

'--'OO

U9 C.) _"

,w'

O

I--

D

ID_

_o_

,.O

Z

_v

I--

(.._ >-.

I--_"

oOU-I

Zu9

OU9

_9

Z

I--

,-,.-

ILl

I:m

>- I.ul

_Z: (..)

'=Z'_

_--q L*..

...-I _

t--._ I_ul

Xl---

_Z

,::_ ,-,

'=Z

E

O

eO

>- O

_" I--- CD

,=_ Z O0

OO_+1

E

_ZZ k

_O X

°lm

N

/ _ / / /

/ _

_0_

0

E

0

i,i

I--

_ua

__-_

O0

<

I

00

.,-I

4-11
ITEM MMAA FUNCTION

2.0 Assumptions:

I.

.

.

.

,

.

.

°

.

i0.

Box beams used as the

primary triangulated "T"

structure are 3 m on a side

and fold to 3/4 m square

cross section. They do not

compress longitudinally.

Sections up to 3 bays long

can be carried in the cargo

bay (45 ft.).

Three-bay sections are

joined using an "end-to-end

box joint."

Rotary joints, payload berthing stations, and Orbiter

berthing interfaces have

built-in attachment joints.

The two triangulating elements are joined to the basic

"T" structure with "angle

joints."

Construction platform is

13,000 ft. , constructed of

120 prefabricated columns

each 15 ft. long.

Manipulator control capsule

with 30 m arm is available

for operation after Flight I.

EVA required for operation of

30 m manipulator from control

capsule.

Manipulator capsule is attached using the auxiliary berthinf station immediately aft of

the 50 kw power system.

RMS available for supporting

construction manipulator.

3.0 Shuttle Packaging Plan

Flight Cargo

i 50 kw power system

50 kw berthing interface

2 3-bay sections

Rotary joint

3 end-to-end box joints

Construction module/

aux berthing station

Construction manipulator

and boom

2 2-bay angle box joints

Compliments 1.0 where firm data

are not available. Serves to

document any variations between

assembly alternatives.

Used to demonstrate that structure

components do not exceed Shuttle

capability, while most effectively

using the capacity of the Shuttle.

4-12
3.0 Shuttle Packaging Plan (Con't.)

cargo

Orbiter berthing station

2 l-bay angle box joints

3 2-bay sections

12 3-bay sections

12 end-to-end joints

4 scientific payload

stations

6 3-bay sections

4 end-to-end joints

I propulsion module

2 rotary joints

Construction platform

columns & joints

4-13
4.0

o

o

o

o

O

Major Assembly Steps

Flight i:

Operations

Deploy 50 kw power system

Deploy/attach berthing station to

50 kw power system

Deploy aux berthing module/attach

to solar viewing station

Deploy/attach construction boom

to aux berthing station

Deploy/attach construction module

to construction boom

Deploy 30m arm to construction

module

Deploy/attach 3-bay section to

50 kw berthing station

Deploy/attach rotary joint to

3-bay section

Deploy/attach #2, 3-bay to rotary

joint

Deploy/attach 2, 2-bay angle joints

to port and starboard #2, 3-bay

Deploy/attach 3 end-to-end joints

to beam ends

Potential Mode

RMS

EVA/MMU

RMS

EVA/MNU

RMS

EVA/MMU

RMS

EVA/MMU

RMS

EVA/MMU

RMS

EVA/MMU

30m/RMS/EVA

30m/RMS/EVA

30m/RMS/EVA

30m/RMS/EVA

30m/RMS/EVA

Est. Time

25 min

18 min

20 mln

60 mln

85 mln

55 mln

45 mln

i0 mln

15 mln

i0 mln

20 mln

15 mln

360 min

4-14
Flight 2:

Operations

Deploy/attach #i, 3-bay #I end-toend, #2, 3-bay, #2 end-to-end and

#i, 2-bay to center beam

Potential Mode

30m/RMS

Deploy/attach 4, 3-bays and 4 endto-end joints for port diagonal boom30m/RMS

Deploy/attach 4, 3-bays and 4 end-toend joints for starboard diagonal

boom

30m/RMS

Deploy/attach i, 2-bay, I end-to-end

joint and i, 3-bay to port of center

boom

30m/RMS

Deploy/attach i, 2-bay 1 end-to-end

joint and i, 3-bay to starboard of

center boom

30m/RMS

Deploy/attach angle joint at port

junction of diagonal and "T" boom

30m/RMS

Deploy/attach angle joint at starboard 30m/RMS

junction of diagonal and "T" boom

Deploy/attach Orbiter berthing station 30m/RMS

at "T" intersection

Reposition aux berthing station at

"T" intersection

30m/RMS

Est. Time

45 min

65 min

65 min

25 min

25 min

I0 min

i0 min

50 min

60 min

335 min

4-15
Flight 3:

Operations

Deploy/attach starboard payload

berthing station to end of "T" beam

Deploy/attach port payload berthing

station to end of "T" boom

Deploy/attach rotary joint, 3, 3-bays

and 2 end-to-end joints to port

berthing station

Deploy/attach rotary joint, 3, 3-bays

and 2 end-to-end joints to starboard

berthing station

Deploy/attach end port beam scientific

payload station

Deploy/attach end starboard boom

scientific payload station

o Deploy attach propulsion mode

o Deploy/secure construction platform

columns and joints to beams

2nd Day

Assemble construction platform

Potential Mode

RMS /30m

RMS/30m

RMS/30m

RMS/30m

RMS/30m

RMS/30m

RMS/30m

RMS/30m

RMSIEVA/MMU/

30m

Est. Time

25 min

25 min

80 min

80 min

25 min

25 min

30 min

70 min

360 min

360 min

4-16
Table 4-1: LSSAssembly Cost Estimating Work Sheet

ALTERNATE/3FLIGHTSCENARIOREMOTE

COSTELEMENTS COST(FY855)

1.0 FLIGHTOPERATIONS

- Standard Flight Charge

• Transportation Charge (3 Flights) . .

• Use Fee ...............

- Optional Flight Services

• Spacelab Pallets ...........

• Additional RMS ............

• OMSDelta-V Kit ...........

- Optional Payload-Related Services

• EVA(Includes MMU) ..........

• Payload Specialist & Training .....

• Additional Days On-Orbit • ......

• Payload Revisit ............

• POCC ...............

• Launch Site Services .........

2.0 LABOR

(Covered in charges for EVA,Payload Specialist

& POCC)

3.0 CREWSUPPORTEQUIPMENT

- EVACrewAids

• Handrails ..............

• Foot Restraints ............

• Tethers ................

• Lights ................

• Cameras& Monitors ...........

• Portable Work Stations ........

- EVATools

• Powered ................

• Manual ................

- Procedures & Checklists ...........

$139,320,000

0

0

0

0

1,548,000

258,000

903,000

774,000

0

0

90,300

25,800

12,900

0

0

0

25,800

4-17
Table 4-1: LSSAssembly Cost Estimating Work Sheet (Con't.)

(ALTERNATE/3FLIGHTSCENARIOREMOTE)

COSTELEMENTS COST(FY855)

4.0 LSSEQUIPMENT

- Special MMUBeamHandler ..........

- Beams& Columns*...............

- Joints & Unions*...............

- Assy. Jigs & Fixtures* ............

- Assy. Aids & Tools* .............

- Special RMSEnd Effector ..........

- Automated Devices ..............

- Automated Device Materials .........

- RemoteSystem Launch & Return ........

- RemoteSystem Communications ........

- RemoteSystem GroundSupport ........

- RemoteSystem Use Cost ...........

- RemoteSystem R&DCost ...........

- RemoteSystemProduction Cost ........

TOTALASSEMBLYCOST

$1,935,000

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

$150,040,000

(FY855)

*Include if costs are unequal for various assembly modes.

4-18
5.0 PREPARECANDIDATETASKDESCRIPTIONS

The development of the Man/MachineAssemblyAnalysis to the point

where we have a justifiable basis for allocating specific activities to

specific system components leads us to the execution of the test

descriptions. The task descriptions are the most detailed level of the

assembly analysis and tie the user, the hardware, the software and the

functional objectives together in such a manner as will accomplish the

mission objective. The test description further serves to assign roles

and responsibilities within the system assembly definition.

The significant difference within the MMAAtask description versus

convenience task descriptions is that we have the three alternate

assembly modes (paths)--manual, remote and automated--on which to base

the tasks. The analyst is free to complete the task description through

each path or to be selective amongthe three paths, taking blocks of

activities from the most appropriate path based on an assessmentof the

functional analysis flow developed in 3.0.

5.1 TASKFLOWWORKSHEETS

Someadvantages can be gained by completing a task flow which

provides a general timeline of activities for a particular flight.

Table 5-1 shows a chronological flow of work for a third flight in the

assembly of the ASASP. While not necessary prior to completing the task

descriptions, for complex missions it provides a simple means for

keeping track of a great deal of information.

5.2 TASKDESCRIPTIONWORKSHEETS

In order to organize the task information into a useful format, one

that identifies who does what, with which and at what time, the analyst

will find it helpful to have a task description worksheet. The particular format is not critical but the information requirements are. Each

task description should contain the following:

o Function Heading - a major title which identifies the functional

objective addressed by the task

o Task Name - the identity of the task and the classified for all

related subtasks

Subtask - the specific activity being undertaken. This is the

most detailed description of an activity and may not be appropriate in all cases of analysis.

o Task Cue - identifies the activity which occurs immediately

before this required task and serves as a stimulus for task

initiation

o Required Action - the behavior required to complete the task

5-1
Table 5-1: Task Flow Worksheets

Flight 3, Assemblyof ASASP

I.

2,

3.

a

Do

1

0

So

.

i0.

Flight Number 3 berths at Orbiter interface module (OIM) at head of

vertical "T" section.

Operation Mode Est. Time

Cargo bay doors open Auto on CMD

RMS controlled from aft flight

deck control station:

Unlock

Unstow

RMS Operator

EVA crew member egresses airlock

Translates to cab via construction module beam

Ingress to cab

C/O 30m arm, position 30m

EVA

15 min

I0 min

RMS grapples #i angled box joint

Release #i angled box joint

Unstow

Handoff to 30m

RMS

Auto

RMS

RMS/30m

i0 min

30m translates along beam to

position angled box joint

aft of vertical structure

rotary joint

Cab/30m 6.5 rain

Attach angle box joint to vertical structure, port beam

Translate to pickup station

Grapple #I, end-to-end joint

Release #I, end-to-end

Unstow

Handoff to 30m

30m

Cab /30m

RMS

Auto

RMS

RMS/30m

5 min

6.5 rain

While 6 & 7 are

in progress

(8 min)

2 rain

Translate #I, end-to-end to

construction platform beam angle

box joint

Attach

Translate to pickup station

30m 6 rain

5 rain

6 rain

Grapple #i, 3-bay structure

Release #i, 3 bay

Unstow

Handoff to 30m

RMS

Auto

RMS

Rms /30m

While 9 is in

progress (8 min)

2 rain

5-2
Table 5-i: Task Flow Worksheets (Con't.)

Ii.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Operation

Translate and attach #i, 3 bay

to construction platform beam

Translate to pickup station

Grapple #2 end-to-end joint

Release

Unstow

Handoff to 30m

Translate #2 end-to-end joint

to construction beam #I bay

Attach

Translate to pickup station

Grapple #2, 3-bay structure

Release

Unstow

Handoff to 30m

Translate #2, 3-bay to #2 end

joint

Attach

Translate to pickup station

Grapple #3 end-to-end joint

Release

Unstow

Handoff to 30m

Translate #3 end-to-end joint to

construction beam #2 gay

Attach

Translate to pickup station

Grapple #3, 3-bay structure

Release

Unstow

Handoff to 30m

Translate #3, 3-bay to #3 end

joint

Attach

Translate to pickup station

Grapple #4 end-to-end joint

Release

Unstow

Handoff to 30m

Mode Est. Time

Cab/30m Trans. 6 min

Attach 5 min

30m 6 min

RMS During ii

Auto

30m 5.5 min

RMS

Auto

RMS

RMS/30m

30m

RMS

Auto

RMS

RMS/30m

30m

RMS

Auto

RMS

RMS/30m

30m

RMS

Auto

RMS

RMS/30m

5 min

During 13

2 rain

5.5 rain

5 min

5.5 min

During 15

5 min

5 min

5 min

During 17

2 rain

5 rain

5 min

5 min

During 19

2 min

5-3
Table 5-1: Task Flow Worksheets (Con't.)

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

Operations

Translate #4 end-to-end joint

to construction beam #3 bay

Attach

Translate to pickup station

Grapple #4, 3-bay structure

Release

Unstow

Handoff to 30m

Translate #4, 3-bay structure to

#4 end joint

Attach

Translate to pickup station

Grapple #5 end-to-end joint

Release

Unstow

Handoff to 30m

Translate #5 end joint to construction beam #4 bay

Attach

Translate to pickup station

Grapple #2 angled box joint

Release

Unstow

Handoff to 30m

Translate #2 angled joint to

position between #5 end-to-end

and the port side "T" extension

immediately inboard of the rotary

joint

Attach to #5 end-to-end

Attach to port side "T"

extension

Translate to pickup station

Mode

30m

RMS

Auto

RMS

RMS/30m

30m

RMS

Auto

RMS

RMS/30m

30m

RMS

Auto

P@IS

RMS/30m

30m

Est. Time

4.5 min

5 min

4.5 min

During 21

4.5 min

5 rain

4.5 min

During 23

2 min

4 min

5 min

4 min

During 25

2 rain

4 min

5 min

I0 rain

4 rain

TIME TO COMPLETE PORT CONSTRUCTION BEAM 233 min

Repeat #5-#27 for starboard

construction beam

TIME TO COMPLETE STARBOARD BEAM 208 min

5-4
i

I

Table 5-i: Task Flow Worksheets (Cont'd.)

Operation Mode

28. Stow 30m arm; secure construction EVA

cab

29. EVA crew egress cab

Translates to airlock via

beam

Ingress to airlock

EVA

Est. Time

i0 min

15 min

TOTAL ESTIMATED TIME

7.77 hours

466 min

Once the construction platform beams are installed, placement of the

construction platform columns and joints can begin which will complete the

construction platform. Due to the requirements for joining columns and

joints prior to assembly, and the terminal accuracy required for mating

joints, remote operations are not currently being considered.

TOTAL PLATFORM CONSTRUCTION TIME UTILIZING EVA/RMS/MMU

i0.0 hours

600 min

5-5
o Feedback - the indication that the task has/has not been

successfully accomplished

o Potential Errors/Failures - identifies the probable sources of

task error/task failure

Task Time - is simply the designed time to successfully complete

the task. More complex times can be generated such as mean

times, necessary versus allowable times, time range, etc.

Task Criticality - identifies pivotal tasks on which mission or

functional success depends. A degree of criticality can be

assigned to tasks based on a probability model if this will help

with the assembly analysis.

Task Classification - identifies mode (manual, remote or automated) being employed to accomplish the task and what component

task is assigned to human, human/machine, machine system. The

specific human or machine components (i.e., teleoperator

servicing system, operated by mission specialist at aft flight

deck) can also be identified to aid in task definition.

Task Output Interaction - the output of each task may interact

with one or more tasks in the system. The identity of these

interactions will provide the task cue for the next task

descriptions. We can proceed with this cycle until we

successfully accomplish the functional objective.

It is recognized that for advanced technologies and concepts beyond

the current state-of-the-art, complete task descriptions will be difficult to obtain. However, the analyst can use these "blanks" in the

assembly analysis to identify nontechnology requirements and advanced

procedure requirements which can serve as the initiative for new concept

studies.

An example task description worksheet is presented in Figure 5-1,

but system requirements might indicate a more or less detailed sheet

which can be developed by the assembly analyst. Figure 5-2 shows a task

description from a hypothetical mission involving RMS/EVA deploying an

experiment module.

A means of comparing tasks carried out by one of the three assembly

alternatives is to use the task descriptions and assign an appropriate

dependent measure to each task element. As each task worksheet is

proposed for each assembly mode, the separate tasks can be transferred

to a comparative worksheet such as Figure 5-2.

5-6
oo

o .H

o

o

o_

o

oZ

,-M• ,-M _ °r"t

Z_

ZZ

o

"--._ oo

z_<

_Z_

oMm

< ._

44

ZO

t-t

o_Z

o

ZoHH

r._H

._ U'_

Oa

_ I-4

_D

_ F-4 o [..,...1

_o

[._) <

C_

h..1

u%

z

<o

E-_

o

(D

,-I o

,-I

I• ,-_

N,-_

(Do

o 4J

"_ .H

No

_oo "_._

I

"C

o

o ._

_-_

o_ C_ o o • }.4

OOOO

CO

4..I

c_

_1I

•, (D 'J_

•00•

o__o

_ o__

o_

o

4_o

0n n_

•,-IO

H ¢xl

_D g)

oOOO

_D (D u'_ tD

{DH (n

O

•H (=O q-_ ._OO

O00OO_ nD "_•

o_ I> .u,'_ ,-_

,--I .H0 ,-elH n=l t--I !=l

•_O _'__•O_O

oH0 .H

OIO IDOO

O F_ c00_ l_ l>D

,-I

nD

•_O

•M_O

_ _1o r_

_-_._ C___ .Mo "c)

ooo___ _._• r-H

o_ on_o r-H_ _l r-q l__

_-4 CO n_"O e.I U) nD_O n_ _l _l

_O_ l_C_O•

•____ c___ r-( r-_

o_oo -H_.o•• I_oo

l>_ nD_ on I_ l>_ -H_ n_

o

.H

4J

.M00

_D0NI

u'3

5-7
<Z>

i,.-I 0

F._ 0Z

r.n <

,..c:

r_0>

,.l.J oI

oJ>

.rl

4J <+

r/l <I

5-8
6.0 REFERENCES

i. McDonnell Douglas Corporation: Mid-term Briefing: Conceptual

Design Study Science and Applications Space Platform (SASP).

Report Number MDC 68295. McDonnell Douglas Corporation, Huntington

Beach, California, 1980.

0 Pruett, E.C., Kirkpatrick, M., Malone, T.B. and Shields, N.L., Jr.

Development and verification of Shuttle payload extravehicular

activity (EVA) requirements, Report Number H-76-4. Essex

Corporation, Alexandria, Virginia, under Contract NAS8-31454, March

1976.

. Brye, R.G., Henderson, D.E., Pruett, E.C., Shields, N.L., Jr., and

Slaughter, P.H. Earth orbital teleoperator systems evaluation,

1977 year end report. Essex Corporation, Alexandria, Virginia,

January 1978.

. Roebuck, J.: Shuttle Considerations for the Design of Large Space

Systems. NASA Contractor Report 60861. Rockwell International,

Downey, California, 1980.

o Bertsche, W., et. al.: Operator Performance in Undersea

Manipulator Systems: Studies of Control Performance with Visual

Force Feedback, Final Report. Report Number WHO 1069-6. Woods

Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, 1977.

. Miller, J.: Looking at Regenerative Systems. In Astronautics and

Aeronautics, Pages 38-41. American Institute of Astronautics and

Aeronautics, New York, March, 1983.

. Olstad, W.: Targeting Space Station Technologies. In Astronautics

and Aeronautics, Pages 28-32. American Institute of Astronautics

and Aeronautics, New York, March 1983.

o Scott, W.: Electronic Displays Dominating Designs. In Aviation

Week and Space Technology, Pages 231-235. McGraw Hill, New York,

March 14, 1983.

. European Space Agency: Spacelab Payload Accommodation Handbook.

Report Number SLP/2104. European Space Agency/National Aeronautic

and Space Administration, Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama,

1978.

i0. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Johnson Space

Center: FUR 342. Report of PDP/REM Deployment and Berthing

Evaluation.

11. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Johnson Space

Center: FUR 309. Report of the Definition of the PAS-01, Berthing

Aids for STS-7. Document EW5-81-138M, 1981.

12. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Johnson Space

Center: FUR 339. Report of IECM, REM Deployment, Berthing

Evaluation, 1981.

6-1
13. Spar Aerospace,

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

SPAR, Quick Look Report on STS-2 Flight Data.

Ontario, Canada, 1981.

Brye, R.G., Frederick, P.N., Kirkpatrick, M. and Shields, N.L., Jr.

Earth orbital teleoperator manipulator system evaluation program,

Report Number4. Essex Corporation, Alexandria, Virginia, January

1977.

Shields, N.L., Jr., Kirkpatrick, M. and Malone, T.B. Manipulator

evaluation criteria. Proceedings of the Sixth Congress of the

International Ergonomics Association. International Ergonomics

Association, July 1976.

Freddy, A., et. al.: The Application of a Theoretical Learning

Model to a Remote Handling Control System. Management Information

Services, Detroit, Michigan, 1970.

Barbera, A.: An Architecture for a Robot Hierarchical. Control

System, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards,

Washington, D.C., December 1977.

Dunne, M.: An Advanced Robot Assembly.

in Detroit, Reference Number M577-756.

Engineers, Dearborn, Michigan, 1977.

In Robots II. Conference

Society of Manufacturing

Kirkpatrick, M., Shields, N.L., Jr., Malone, T.B., Frederick, P.N.

and Brye, R.G. Manipulator system performance measurement.

Proceedings of the Second National Conference on Remotely Manned

Systems. University of Southern California, 1975.

Nevins, J. and Whitney, D.: Assembly Research and Manipulation.

In Proceedings of the 1977 Institute of Electrical and Electronic

Engineering Conference on Decision and Control, Pages 735-742,

IEEE, New York, 1977.

Vertut, J.: Control of Master-Slave Manipulators and Force

Feedback. In Proceedings of the Joint Automatic Control

Conference, Pages 172-184, IEEE, New York, 1977.

Munson, G.: Foundaries, Robots and Productivity. In Industrial

Robots, Volume 2, edited by W. Tanner, Pages 109-124. Society of

Manufacturing Engineers, Dearborn, Michigan, 1979.

National Aeronautic and Space Administration: Space Shuttle

Program: Level II Program Definition and Requirements. Space

Shuttle System Payload Accommodations. Document JSC 07700,

Volume XIV, Revision G. Johnson Space Center, Texas, 1980, (with

updates included through 1982).

Malone, T.B., Kirkpatrick M. and Shields, N.L., Jr. Manipulator

system man-machine interface evaluation program, Report Number

H-4-3. Essex Corporation, Alexandria, Virginia, under Contract

NAS-28298, January 1974.

6-2
25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

Shields, N.L., Jr., Brye, R.G., Henderson, D.E. and Slaughter, P.H.

Earth orbital teleoperator systems evaluation, 1978 year-end

report. Essex Corporation, Alexandria, Virgnia, February 1979.

Brye, R.G., Shields, N.L., Jr. and Kirkpatrick, M. Earth orbital

teleoperator mobility system evaluation program, Report Number I.

Essex Corporation, Alexandria, Virginia, January 1977.

Shields, N.L., Jr., Pruett, E.C., Loughead, T.E. and Neal V.

Neutral BuoyanceSimulation NB-19 fabricated beamassembly of large

space structures. Essex Corporation, Huntsville, Alabama, March

1981.

Shields, N.L., Jr. and Henderson D.E. Earth orbital teleoperator

systems evaluation, 1979-1980 report. Essex Corporation,

Huntsville, Alabama, February 1981.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Research and

Technology, Annual Report. Marshall Space Flight Center, Research

and Technology Office, Alabama, 1981.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Research and

Technology, Annual Report. Marshall Space Flight Center, Research

and Technology Office, Alabama, 1982.

Middleton, R.: Quick Look Report. National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, Marshall SpaceFligh t Center, 1982.

Johnson, FUR302. DocumentNumber582-2693. Report of OpenCherry

Picker, Satellite Servicing, 1982.

Martin Marietta: Skylab Boost Mission, Space Shuttle Program and

Teleoperator Retrieval System, 1978.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration,

Center: FUR 175. Evaluation of the REM for

(unpublished internal note.)

Johnson Space

the PDP, 1980.

Inagaki, K., et. al.: A RemoteInspection System for Nuclear Power

Plants. In Proceedings of the 25th Conference oN RemoteSystems

Technology, Pages405-410. American Nuclear Society, La GrangePark,

Illinois, 1977.

Rieger, H. and Abt, B.: Antenna for CommunicationsSatellites. In

Dorier-Post (English Edition), Pages 23-26, November2, 1981.

Crawford, P. and Kasulka, L.: Science and Applications Space

Platform (SASP) End to End System Study, Final Report, Report

NumberMDCG9372. McDonnell Douglas Corporation, Huntington Beach,

California, 1981.

6-3
38. Greenberg, M.S.: Development of Deployable Structures For Large

Space Platforms, Interim Report, Volume I. Report Number

SSD-820121-I. Rockwell International, SpaceOperations/Integration

and Satellite SystemsDivision, Downey,California, 1982.

40. Bement, L., et. al.: EVA Assembly of a Large Space Structure

Element. NASATechnical Paper 1872. National Aeronautic and Space

Administration, Scientific and Technical Information Branch,

Washington, D.C., 1981.

6-4
7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Albus, J.: Proximity-Vision System for Protoflight Manipulator Arm,

Final Report, Report NumberNBSIR78-1576. National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C., 1978.

Albus, J., et al: National Bureau of Standards/Robot Institute of

America Robotics ResearchWorkshop. Library of Congress Catalog Card

Number80-600192, proceedings of the NBS/RIAWorkshopon Robotic

Research, held at the National Bureau of Standards, 1979. National

Bureau of Standards, Industrial SystemsDivision, Washington, D.C.,

1981.

American Institute of Astronautics and Aeronautics: TowardPermanent

MannedOccupancyof Space. 2nd AIAA Conference on Large SpacePlatforms

held in SanDiego, California. American Institute of Aeronautics and

Astronautics, NewYork, 1981.

American Society for Testing Materials: Adhesion on Cold Welding of

Materials in SpaceEnvironments. ASTMSpec. Tech. Publ. No. 431,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1967.

Armstrong, W., et. al.: Large SpaceErectable Structures, Building

Block Structures Study, Final Report. Report NumberD-180-20607-2,

prepared for Johnson SpaceCenter. Boeing Aerospace Company,Seattle,

Washington, 1977.

Astrophysics Explorer Missions Study, Final Report. AerospaceReport

NumberATR-79(7678-02)-I. The AerospaceCorporation, ProgramsGroup,

Satellite SystemsDivision, E1 Segundo,California, 1979.

Autofact: Computer-Integrated Manufacturing: Its HugePotential for

U.S. Industry, Conference Report. In ModernMaterials Handling, Cahners

Publication CompanyIncorporated, Boston, January 6, 1982.

Aviation Weekand SpaceTechnology: Boeing AerospaceWins IUS Contract.

In Aviation Weekand SpaceTechnology, Page 22. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New

York, February 14, 1983.

Aviation Weekand SpaceTechnology: External Tank Depicted as Space

Station Element. In Aviation Weekand SpaceTechnology, Page 246.

McGraw-Hill, Inc., NewYork, September6, 1982.

Aviation Weekand SpaceTechnology: LockheedDevelops Solar Wing Array.

In Aviation Weekand SpaceTechnology, Page 247. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New

York, September6, 1982.

Aviation Weekand SpaceTechnology: MannedOrbital SpaceStation

Studied. In Aviation Weekand SpaceTechnology, Pages 57-61.

McGraw-Hill, Inc., NewYork, August 23, 1982.

7-I
Battelle: Low Energy Deployment and Retrieval Analyses, Final Briefing.

Report NumberPF14/79-4. ColumbusLaboratories, Columbus,Ohio, 1979.

Bevilacqua, F. and Pasta, M.: Large Platforms for Future Telecommunication Applications: EuropeanConceptual Approach. Report No. A81-47321,

presented at The 32nd Congress of the International Astronautical

Federation in Rome. PergamonPress, NewYork, 1981.

Black, J.T. Cellular Manufacturing Systems: The Japanese Advantage.

Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, UAH, Huntsville,

Alabama, 1982.

Boddy, J. and Wiley, L.: Space Construction System Analysis, Final

Report, Space Construction Experiments Concepts. Report Number SSD

80-0040. Rockwell International, Downey,California, 1980.

Bodle, J. Space Construction Experiment Definition Study Part I Final

Report, GDC-ASP-81-OI0. General Dynamics, Convair Division, San Diego,

California, 1981.

Boeing Aerospace Company: GEOConstruction/Electric OTVConcept. In

Solar Power Satellite System Definition Study. Boeing Aerospace

Company,Seattle, Washington, 1976.

Boeing Aerospace Company,General Electric, Grumman,Arthur D. Little,

Inc., and TRW: Solar PowerSatellite SystemDefinition Study. Document

Number D180-24735-I. Boeing Aerospace Company, Seattle, Washington,

1979.

Boeing Aerospace Company,General Electric, Grumman,Arthur D. Little,

Inc., and TRW: Solar Power Satellite SystemDefinition Study, Phase 2,

Interim Report. Document Number D180-25381-I. Boeing Aerospace

Company,Seattle, Washington, 1979.

Boeing Aerospace Company,General Electric, Grumman,Arthur D. Little,

Inc., and TRW: Solar Power Satellite SystemDefinition Study, Phase 2,

Part i, Midterm Briefing. Document Number D180-25402-I. Boeing

Aerospace Company,Seattle, Washington, 1979.

Boeing Aerospace Company, Hamilton Standard and Grumman: Space

Operations Center System Analysis Study Extension, Final Report, Volume

3, Book 1 of 2, SOCSystem Definition Report, Revision A. Document

Number D180-26495-3. Boeing Aerospace Company, Seattle, Washington,

1980.

Boeing Aerospace Company, Hamilton Standard and Grumman: Space

Operations Center System Analysis Study Extension, Final Report Volume

3, Book 2 of 2, SOCSystem Definition Report, Revision A. Document

Number D180-26495-3. Boeing Aerospace- Company, Seattle, Washington,

1980.

Boeing Aerospace Company, Hamilton Standard and Grumman: Space

Operations Center System Analysis Study Extension, Executive Summary,

Final Report, Volume i. Report Number D180-26785-1, prepared for

Johnson Space Center. Boeing Aerospace Company,Seattle, Washington,

1982.

7-2
Boeing Aerospace Company, Hamilton Standard and Grumman: Space

Operations Center System Analysis Study Extension, Programmatics and

Cost, Final Report, Volume 2. Report NumberD180-26785-2, prepared for

Johnson Space Center. Boeing Aerospace Company,Seattle, Washington,

1982.

Boeing Aerospace Company,Hamilton Standard and Grumman: Space Operations Center System Analysis Study Extension, Final Report, Volume 4,

SOCSystem Analysis Report, Book I of 2. DocumentNumberD180-26785-4.

Boeing AerospaceCompany,Seattle, Washington, 1982.

Boeing Aerospace Company,Hamilton Standard and Grumman: Space Operations Center System Analysis Study Extension, Final Report, Volume 4,

SOCSystemAnalysis Report, Book 2 of 2. DocumentNumberD180-26785-4.

Boeing Aerospace Company,Seattle, Washington, 1982.

Boeing Aerospace Company,Hamilton Standard and Grumman: Space Operations Center SystemAnalysis, Final Report Volume 3, Book i of 2, SOC

System Definition Report. DocumentNumber D180-26495-3, Revision A.

Boeing AerospaceCompany,Seattle, Washington, 1982.

Boeing Aerospace Company,Hamilton Standard and Grumman: Space Operations Center System Analysis, Final Report Volume 3, Book 2 of 2, SOC

System Definition Report. DocumentNumber D180-26495-3, Revision A.

Boeing AerospaceCompany,Seattle, Washington, 1982.

Boyer, W. (Ed.): Large SpaceSystemsTechnology, 1981. NASAConference

Publication 2215 Part i. Third Annual Technical Review held at Langley

Research Center. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Scientific and Technical Information Branch, Washington D.C., 1981.

Boyer, W. (Ed.): Large SpaceSystemsTechnology, 1981. NASAConference

Publication 2215 Part 2. Third Annual Technical Review held at Langley

Research Center. National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration, Scientific and Technical Information Branch, Washington D.C., 1981.

Bowden,M. and Akin, D.: NB-42BTest Report: Neutral Buoyancy Simulation of EVA Assembly. Document Number SSL 23-81. Massachusetts

Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1981.

Britton, W. et al.:

Number MCR-79-522.

Colorado, 1979.

Design Study of Teleoperator Space Spider. Report

Contract NAS8-32620. Martin Marietta, Denver,

Brown, J.: Test Report FUR 175, Evaluation of Release Engagement

Mechanism(REM)for the PlasmaDiagnostics Package (PDP). Report Number

JSC16969. National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration, JohnsonSpace

Center, Texas, 1980.

Brown, J.: Test Report FUR 216, Solar MaximumMission/Multimission

Modular Spacecraft (S_/MMS) Berthing/Stowing. National Aeronautics and

SpaceAdministration, Johnson SpaceCenter, Texas.

7-3
Burke, B.: Radio Telescopes Bigger than the Earth. In Astronautics and

Aeronautics, Pages 44-52. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, NewYork, October, 1982.

Burns, G.: Space Platform Advanced Technology Study, Final Report.

Report Number MDC G9346. McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company,

Huntington Beach, California, 1981.

Campbell, H.: Materials Processing in Space Free-Flyer Study Economic

Benefits Analysis, Final Report. Report NumberNAS5-26551,prepared for

Goddard Space Flight Center. The Aerospace Corporation, E1 Segundo,

California, 1981.

The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc.: Post Flight Analysis STS4

Flight Data Analysis. The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Cambridge,

Massachusetts, 1982.

Clarke, M. and Preston-Anderson, A.: Color Coding of Televised Task

Elements in RemoteWork: A Literature Review with Practical Recommendations for a Fuel Recycle Facility. Report NumberORAU-190,UC-86. Oak

Ridge, Tennessee, 1981.

Covault, C.: Mission 6's EVAto Verify Capability. In Aviation Week

and SpaceTechnology, Pages 47-49. McGraw-Hill, Inc., NewYork, January

3, 1983.

Covault, C.: Planners Set Long-TermSpace Goals. In Aviation Weekand

SpaceTechnology, Pages 75-78. McGrawHill, Inc., NewYork.

Covault, C.: Soviets Plan Larger Space Assemblies. In Aviation Week

and Space Technology, Page 55. McGraw-Hill, Inc., NewYork, October 9,

1978.

Covault, C.: TDRSSDeployment Involves ComplexOperations. In Aviation

Weekand Space Technology, Pages 88-100. McGraw-Hill, Inc., NewYork,

January 17, 1983.

Covington, C., and Piland, R.: Space Operations Center, Next Goal for

Manned Space Flight? In Astronautics and Aeronautics, Pages 30-37.

American Institute of Astronautics and Aeronautics, NewYork, September,

1980.

Deutsch, S.: Teleoperator Technology Development Program. National

Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration, Office of Life Sciences Bioengineering Division, Washington, D.C., 1975.

Disher, J.: Planning for Large Construction Projects in Space. In

Using Space, Today and Tomorrow, proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth

International Astronautical Congress, Volume i, Pages 79-123. Pergamon

Press, Oxford, 1979.

Duscai, S.: MannedManeuvering Unit. Technical Briefing at Johnson

SpaceCenter. Martin Marietta, Huntington Beach, California, 1980.

7-4
Eike, D. and Malone, T.: HumanEngineering Design Criteria for Modern

Control/Display Componentsand Standard Parts, Final Report. Technical

Report Number RS-CR-80-1, prepared for U.S. Army HumanEngineering

Laboratory Detachment, Systems Engineering Directorate. U.S. Army

Missile Command,RedstoneArsenal, Alabama, 1980.

Engel, S. and Granda, R.: Guidelines for Man/Display Interfaces.

Technical Report NumberTR00-2720. IBM Poughkeepsie Laboratory, Poughkeepsie, NewYork, 1975.

Essex Corporation: Assembly/DeploymentScenario, GDCand Comsat LSTT

Geostationary Platform, Alternative #i, Platform #i. Essex Corporation,

Huntsville, Alabama, 1980.

Essex Corporation: Assembly Scenario. For McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company, Advanced Science and Applications Space Platform

(ASASP). Essex Corporation, Huntsville, Alabama, 1980.

Essex Corporation: Earth Orbiter Teleoperator Manipulator SystemEvaluation Program. Test Report Number4. Essex Corporation, Huntsville,

Alabama, 1977.

Essex Corporation: EVA Manipulation and Assembly of Space Structure

Columns. Contract Number NAS8-32989. Essex Corporation, Huntsville,

Alabama, 1979.

Essex Corporation: NB-37 Test and its Inverse, Test 4.

ancy Experiments at the Marshall Space Flight Center.

ation, Huntsville, Alabama, 1980.

Neutral BuoyEssex CorporEssex Corporation: Quick Look Test Report NB-19, Fabricated Beam

Assembly. Neutral BuoyancyExperiments at Marshall SpaceFlight Center.

Essex Corporation, Huntsville, Alabama, 1980.

Essex Corporation: Quick Look Test Report NB-37, Erectable Concepts for

Large Space Systems Technology. Neutral Buoyancy Experiments at Marshall Space Flight Center. Essex Corporation, Huntsville, Alabama,

1980.

EuropeanSpaceAgency: Spacelab Payload AccommodationHandbook. Report

NumberSLP/2104. European Space Agency/National Aeronautic and Space

Administration, Marshall SpaceFlight Center, Alabama, 1978.

Fairchild Space & Electronics Company: Spacecraft Services for LowEarth-Orbit Missions, Proprietary Information. Fairchild, Space &

Electronics Company,Germantown,Maryland, 1982.

Foldes, P. and DienemannM.: Large Multibeam Antennas for Space. In

Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Volume 17, Number4, Pages 363-371.

The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, New York,

July-August 1980.

7-5
General Dynamics: Space Construction Experiment Definition Study

(SCEDS)Part i, Final Briefing. Report NumberGDC-ASP-81-007.General

Dynamics, Convair Division, SanDiego, California, 1981.

General Dynamics: Space Construction Experiment Definition Study

(SCEDS),Part i, Final Report, Volume i, Executive Summary.Contract

Number NAS9-16303. General Dynamics Convair Division, San Diego,

California, 1981.

General Dynamics: Space Construction Experiment Definition Study

(SCEDS),Part 1, Final Report, Volume 2, Study Results. Contract No.

NAS9-16303. General Dynamics Convair Division, San Diego, California,

1981.

General Dynamics: Space Construction Experiment Definition Study

(SCEDS), Part II. Final Report, Executive Summary. Report Number

GDC-ASP-82-003,submitted to National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Johnson Space Center. General Dynamics Convair Division, San

Diego, California, 1982.

General Dynamics: Space Construction Experiment Definition Study

(SCEDS), Part 2, Final Report, Study Results. Report Number

GDC-ASP-82-004. General Dynamics Convair Division, San Diego,

California, 1982.

General DynamicsConvair Division and ComsatCorporation: Geostationary

Platform Systems Concepts Definition Follow-on Study, Task 2, LSST

Special Emphasis. Report NumberGDC-GPP-79-009. Convair Division of

General Dynamics and Communications Satellite Corporation, San Diego,

California, 1980.

General Dynamics Corporation: Geostationary Platform Systems Concepts

Definition Follow-on Study, Final Report, Task 2, LSSTSpecial Emphasis.

Volume 2A. Technical Report NumberGDC-GPP79-010.Convair Division of

General Dynamics and Communications Satellite Corporation, San Diego,

California, 1980.

General Electric Company: A Study of Teleoperator Technology Development and Experiment Programs for MannedSpaceFlight Applications, Final

Report, Volume i, SummaryVolume. Report Number71SD4202. The General

Electric Company,SpaceSystemsOrganization, Valley Forge SpaceCenter,

Pennsylvania, 1971.

Gerlach, R.: A Maneuverable Subsatellite for Shuttle. National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration, JohnsonSpace Center, Texas, 1982.

Gevarter, W.: An Overview of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics -

Robotics, 2. Report NumberNBSIR82_2479, prepared for National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration. U.S. Department of Commerce,National

Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C., 1982.

Gevarter, W.: An Overview of Computer Vision. Report NumberNBSIR

82-2982, prepared for National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

U.S. Department of Commerce,National Bureau of Standards, Washington,

D.C., 1982.

7-6
I

Gomersall, E. (Coordinator): Life Science Research and the Science and

Applications SpacePlatform. AmesResearchCenter, Biosystems Division,

Moffet Field, California, 1982.

Graves, J. (Ed.): Space Power SubsystemAutomation Technology. NASA

Conference Publication 22B. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Marshall SpaceFlight Center, Alabama, 1981.

Greenberg, H.: Third Monthly Report Development of Deployable Structures for Large Area/Linear Space Plat_orms. Prepared for Marshall

SpaceFlight Center. Rockwell International, Downey,California, 1982.

GrummanAerospace Corporation: Systems Definition Study for Shuttle

Demonstration Flights of Large Space Structures, Volume 2. Technical

Report Number DRD-MA-04,prepared for Marshall Space Flight Center.

GrummanAerospaceCorporation, Bethpage, NewYork, 1979.

GrummanAerospace Corporation: Orbiter-Based Construction Equipment

Study - 4th Progress Report. Report NumberSA-0B-RP-005,prepared for

Johnson Space Center. GrummanAerospace Corporation, Bethpage, New

York, 1981.

GrummanAerospace Corporation: Systems Definition Study for Shuttle

Demonstration Flights of Large Space Structures, Final Review. Report

Number NSS-LS-RP0020,prepared for Marshall Space Flight Center.

GrummanAerospace Corporation, Bethpage, NewYork, 1979.

GrummanAerospace Corporation: Space Fabrication Demonstration System

(SFDS), Operation and Maintenance, Volume i. GrummanAerospace Corporation, Bethpage, NewYork, 1978.

Hall, S.: Neutral BuoyancyFacility, NB-19 Test Plan, PD24. National

Aeronautics and Space Administration, Marshall Space Flight Center,

Alabama, 1980.

Harmon, L.: Touch-Sensing Technology: A Review. Technical Report

NumberMSR80-03.Society of Manufacturing Engineers, Dearborn, Michigan,

1980.

Hart, R. and Myers, H.: Space Construction System Analysis, Part 2,

Platform Definition, Final Report. Report NumberSSD80-0037. Rockwell International, Downey,California, 1980.

Heard, W. et al.: Mobile Workstation Concept for Assembly of Large

Space Structures (Zero Gravity Simulation Tests). In Large Space

Systems Technology, Third Annual Technical Review, Part i, held at

Langley Research Center, Pages 193-204. National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, Washington, D.C., 1981.

Heer, E.: Automated Decision Making and Problem Solving, Executive

Summary,Volume i, NASAConference Publication 2180. National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration, Washington, D.C., 1980.

7-7
Herling, W.: In-Orbit Test Requirements for Initial Large Space

Structures (LSS) Demonstration flight. SAWEPaper No. 1289. Index

Category N30. Los Angeles, California: Society of Allied Weight

Engineers, Inc., 1979.

Holloway, P. and Garrett, L.: Utility of and Technology for a Space

Central Power Station. In Space - Laser Power Transmission System

Studies, NASAConference Publication 2214, Proceedings of a Symposiumat

Langley. National Aeronautics and SpaceAssociation, 1981.

Ibrahim, A. and Misra, A.: Altitude Dynamics of a Satellite During

Deploymentof Large Plate-Type Structures. Journal of Guidance, Control

and Dynamics, Volume 5, Number 5, Page 442. American Institute of

Aeronautics and Astronautics, NewYork, September-October1982.

Interian, A.: A Study of Teleoperator Technology Development and

Experiment Programs for Manned Space Flight Applications, Summary

Volume, Final Report. Report Number 715/04202. Contract Number

NAS9-II067. General Electric Company,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1971.

Johnson, R.: Solar Power Satellite : Putting it Together. In Spectrum,

Volume 16, Pages 37-40. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, September1979.

Katz, E., et al.: SpaceConstruction SystemAnalysis, Final Resolution.

Report Number PB80-39. Rockwell International, Downey, California,

1980.

Kirkpatrick, M.: Appendix A, Role of Man in Flight Experiment Payloads - Phase 2, Final Report, prepared for Marshall Space Flight

Center. Essex Corporation, Huntsville, Alabama, 1975.

Kopriver, III, F. (Ed.): Large Space Systems Technology - 1980, Base

Technology. NASAConference Publication 2168. National Aeronautics and

Space Administration, Scientific and Technical Information Branch,

Washington, D.C., 1980.

Kopriver, III, F. (Ed.): Large Space Systems Technology - 1980, Base

Technology. NASAConference Publication 2168. National Aeronautics and

Space Administration,Scientific and Technical Information Branch,

Washington, D.C., 1980.

Kunz, K.: Orbit Transfer Propulsion and Large Space Systems. In

Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Volume 17, Pages 495-500. American

Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, NewYork, November-December,

1980.

Lenda, J.: MannedManeuvering Unit (MMU)Capabilities. Presented at

Space Shuttle-Payload Accommodations/Applications, UCLA Extension

Course, co-sponsored by University of Maryland. Martin Marietta,

Denver, Colorado, 1979.

7-8
Lenda, J.: MannedManeuvering Unit Report. SpaceOperations Simulator

Run Report Number5. Report NumberMMU-SE-17-32-05. Contract Number

NAS9-15999. Martin Marietta, Denver, Colorado, 1982.

Lenda, J.: Manned Maneuvering Unit User's Guide, Contract Number

NAS9-14593. Martin Marietta, Denver, Colorado, 1978.

Lenorovitz, J.: French Plan UnmannedSpace Station. In Aviation Week

and Space Technology, Pages 49-51. McGraw-Hill, Inc., NewYork, August

3, 1981.

Lillenas, A.: Erectable Large Structures Concept Evaluation and Tradeoff Studies, Task 2, Final Report. Report Number79MA0376. Rockwell

International, Downey,California, 1979.

Lockheed Missiles and Space Company: Automated Installation of LargePlatform Utilities, Second Annual LSST Program Technical Review.

Prepared for Langley Research Center. Lockheed Missiles & Space

Company,Sunnyvale, California, 1980.

Loughead, T. and Pruett, E.: EVAManipulation and Assembly of Space

Structure Columns. NASAContractor Report 3285, prepared for Marshall

Space Flight Center. National Aeronautics and Space Administration,

Scientific and Technical Information Office, Washington, D.C., 1980.

Lowrie, J. et al.: Evaluation of Automated Decision Making Methodologies and Developmentof an Integrated Robotic SystemSimulation, Study

Results. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Langley

ResearchCenter, Virginia, 1982.

Lowrie, J., et al.: Evaluation of Automated Decision Making Methodologies and Development of an Integrated Robotic System Simulation,

Appendices B, C, D, E. Contract Report Number165977. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Langley Research Center, Virginia,

1982.

Malone, T. et al.: External Operational, Maintenance and Repair (OMR)

Mode Selection Criteria. Report NumberH-76-5, prepared for Marshall

SpaceFlight Center. Essex Corporation, Huntsville, Alabama, 1976.

Mandell, H.: New Technology Cost Estimating Relationships. National

Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration, JohnsonSpace Center, Texas, 1977.

Martin Marietta Corporation: Attached Manipulator System Design and

Concept Verification for Zero Gravity Simulation, Final Report._ Report

NumberJSC08021, prepared for Johnson Space Center. Martin Marietta

Corporation, Denver, Colorado, 1973.

Martin Marietta Corporation: Integrated Control/Display Station for

Teleoperator and Experiments (Aft Crew Station of Orbiter), Informal

Midterm Briefing. Contract NumberNAS8-31147. Martin Marietta Corporation, Huntington Beach, California, 1975.

7-9
Martin Marietta Corporation: Integrated Orbital Servicing StudyFollowOn, Design Acceptance Review. Prepared for Marshall Space Flight

Center. Martin Marietta Corporation, Denver, Colorado, 1978.

Martin Marietta Corporation: MannedManeuvering Unit User's Guide.

Report Number MMU-SE-17-46. Contract Number 15999. Martin Marietta

Corporation, Denver, Colorado, 1982.

Martin Marietta Corporation: Manned Maneuvering Unit System Design

Specification, Revision A. Report NumberMCR-75-398. Martin Marietta

Corporation, Denver, Colorado, 1975.

Martin Marietta Corporation: Orbital Assembly and Maintenance Study.

Contract Number NAS9-14319. Publication Number MCR-75-319. Martin

Marietta Corporation, Huntington Beach, California, 1975.

Martin Marietta Corporation: Orbital Construction Support Equipment,

Final Report. Report NumberMCR-77-234. Martin Marietta Corporation,

Huntington Beach, California, 1977.

Martin Marietta Corporation: Skylab Boost Mission (Teleoperator

Retrieval System) Preliminary Design Review. Report Number TRS-CM-04

(PDR-2B). Contract Number NAS8-32821. Martin Marietta Corporation,

Huntington Beach, California.

Martin Marietta Corporation: Space Shuttle Program Teleoperator

Retrieval SystemMission Operations Requirements, Skylab Boost Mission,

Revision. Report Number TRS-OP-04. Martin Marietta Corporation,

Huntington Beach, California, 1978.

Martin Marietta Corporation: Space Shuttle Program Teleoperator

Retrieval System, Software, Skylab Boost Mission. Preliminary Design

Review. Report Number TRS-CM-04-4DR-SS-4-4. Martin Marietta Corporation, Huntington Beach, California, 1978.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Monthly Progress Report, Number

3, Automated Techniques for Large Space Structures, An Expansion to

Space Applications of Automation, Robotics, and Machine Intelligence

Systems (ARAMIS), Phase 1. SSL Report Number 39-81, submitted to

Marshall Space Flight Center. Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

SpaceSystemsLaboratory, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1981.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Department of Aeronautics and

Astronautics, SpaceSystemsLaboratory, MNBF- MIT Underwater Simulation

of EVA Assembly, NB-32B. Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1980.

McDonnell Douglas Corporation: Evolutionary Science and Applications

Space Platform (Characterization of Concepts) (Tasks A and B), Final

Briefing (DR-3). Report NumberMDCG9766. McDonnell Douglas Corporation, Huntington Beach, California, 1982.

7-10
McDonnell Douglas Corporation: Evolutionary Space Platform Concept

Study, Volumei, Executive Summary.Report NumberMDCH0072/DPD-610/DR-4.

McDonnell Douglas Corporation, Huntington Beach, California, May 1982.

McDonnell Douglas Corporation: Evolutionary Space Platform Concept

Study, Technical Report Part A - SASPSpecial Emphasis Trade Studies,

Volume 2. Report Number MDC-H0072. McDonnell Douglas Corporation,

Huntington Beach, California, 1982.

McDonnell Douglas Corporation: Evolutionary Space Platform Concept

Study, Volume 2, Technical Report, Part B - Manned Space Platform

Concepts. Report Number MDCH0072. McDonnell Douglas Corporation,

Huntington Beach, California, 1982.

McDonnell Douglas Corporation: First Quarterly Briefing: Conceptual

Design Study of a Science and Applications Space Platforms (SASP).

Report Number MDCG8257. McDonnell Douglas Corporation, Huntington

Beach, California, 1979.

McDonnell Douglas Corporation: Mid-term Briefing: Conceptual Design

Study Science and Applications Space Platform (SASP). Report Number

MDC68295. McDonnell Douglas Corporation, Huntington Beach, California,

1980.

McDonnell Douglas Corporation: Third Quarter Briefing: Conceptual

Design Study Science and Applications Space Platform (SASP) Report

Number MDCG8543. McDonnell Douglas Corporation, Huntington Beach,

California, 1980.

McDonnell Douglas Corporation: LSST System Analysis and Integration

Task for an AdvancedScience and Application SpacePlatform. McDonnell

Douglas Corporation, Huntington Beach, California, 1980.

Middleton, J.A.: SPAR STS-3 Quick Look Report. Report Number

SPAR-RMS.R.558.Spar AerospaceLimited, Weston, Ontario, Canada, 1982.

Miller, R. and Smith, D.: Fabrication Methods for Construction from

Lunar Materials. Report Number A79-53304, presented at the 30th

Congress of The International Astronautical Federation in Munich.

PergamonPress, NewYork, 1979.

Miller, R., et al.: Space Applications of Automation, Robotics and

Machine Intelligence Systems (ARAMIS),Volume 2. SpaceProjects Overview, Phase i, Final Report, prepared for Marshall SpaceFlight Center,

Alabama. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1982.

Miller, R., et al.: Space Applications of Automation, Robotics and

Machine Intelligence Systems (ARAMIS),Phase i. Monthly Progress Report

Number6. SSL Report No. 38-81, submitted to Marshall Space Flight

Center. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1981.

7-11
Miller, R., et al.: Space Applications of Automation, Robotics and

Machine Intelligence Systems (ARAMIS),Phase I. SSLReport Number3-82.

Contract NumberNAS8-34381,submitted to Marshall Space Flight Center.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Space Systems Laboratory,

Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1982.

Miller, R., et al.: Space Applications of Automation, Robotics and

Machine Intelligence Systems (AF_IIS) AMARMISOverview, Phase I. Final

Report, prepared for Marshall Space Flight Center. Massachusetts

Institute of Technology, Space Systems Laboratory, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1982.

Miller, R., et al.: Space Applications of Automation, Robotics and

Machine Intelligence Systems (ARAMIS)Application of ARAMISCapabilities

to SpaceProject Functional Elements, Phase i. Final Report, Volume 4,

prepared for Marshall Space Flight Center. Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1982.

Miller, R., et al.: Space Applications of Automation, Robotics and

Machine Intelligence Systems (ARAMIS) Supplement Appendix 4.3:

Candidate ARAMISCapabilities, Phase i. Final Report, Volume 4, prepared for Marshall Space Flight Center. Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1982.

Mitchell, J.: Test Report, FUR 302, Open Cherry Picker Satellite

Servicing, Part 2. National Aeronautics and Space Administration,

JohnsonSpace Center, Houston, Texas, 1982.

Mitchell, J.: Test Report, FUR309, Definition of the SPAS-OIBerthing

Aids for STS-7. National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration, Johnson

Space Center, Houston, Texas, 1981.

Mitchell, J.: Test Report, FUR339, IECM/REMDeployment and Berthing

Evaluation. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Johnson

Space Center, Houston, Texas, 1981.

Mitchell, J.: Test Report, FUR 342, PDP/REMDeployment and Berthing

Evaluation. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Johnson

SpaceCenter, Houston, Texas, 1981.

Modern Materials Handling: Industrial Robots - NowThey CanSee, Think,

and Feel, Robots 6 Report. In Modern Materials Handling, Pages 50-62.

CahnersPublishing Company,Incorporated, Boston, Massachusetts, May 6,

1982.

Molloy, R.: Space Shuttle Program Teleoperator Retrieval System,

Revision A. DocumentNumber TRS-SE-02. Martin Marietta, Huntington

Beach, California, 1978.

Nathan, A.: A Near Term Space Demonstration Program for Large

Structures. In the Industrialization of Space: Proceedings of the

Twenty-Third Annual Meeting, Part I, Pages 57-77. Report Number

AAS77-202. American Astronautical Society and Univelt, Inc., SanDiego,

California, 1978.

7-12
National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Assessment and Sensitivity Analysis of the Vought Corporation's Low Energy Stage Study

ProgramDevelopment. Marshall SpaceFlight Center, Alabama, 1978.

National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration: Experimental Geostationary Platform. Marshall SpaceFlight Center, Alabama, 1980.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 15th Aerospace Mechanisms Symposium, NASAConference Publication 2181, held at Marshall

Space Flight Center. Scientific and Technical Information Branch,

Washington, D.C., 1981.

National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration, Flight Activities Branch.

Flight Operations Directorate: Final OFT Shuttle Flight Operational

Manual, Payload Deploymentand Retrieval System. Report Number16-PDRS.

JohnsonSpace Center, Texas, 1981.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Fourteenth Annual

Conference on Manual Control NASAConference Publication 2060, held at

the University of Southern California, Ames Research Center, Moffet

Field, California, 1978.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration: The Human's Role in

Space. From the New Directions Symposium,WoodsHole, Massachusetts,

1980.

National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration: Large SpaceStructures,

Program Summary. Office of Space Transportation Systems Advanced

Programs, Washington, D.C., 1981.

National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration: Large SpaceSystems/Low

Thrust Propulsion Technology. NASAConference Publication 2144, information exchangeheld at Lewis ResearchCenter. Scientific and Technical

Information Branch, Washington, D.C., 1980.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Large Space Systems

Technology, 3rd Technical Review. Langley Research Center, Virginia,

1981.

National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration: Machine Intelligence and

Robotics: Report of the NASAStudy Group, Final Report. Washington,

D.C., 1980.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration: NRCC/LehighReal Time

Photogrammetry System Demonstration. Report Number FUR257. Manipulator Development Facility at Houston, Texas. Johnson Space Center,

Texas. National ResearchCouncil, Ottawa, Canada, 1980.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Payload Integration

Plan, Space Transportation System and Teleoperator Retrieval System,

Preliminary. Johnson Space Center, Texas, and Marshall Space Flight

Center, Alabama, 1978.

7-13
National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Preliminary Payload

Element Schedules and Characteristics for Space Platforms Concept

Studies. Office of SpaceScience, Washington, D.C., 1979.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Remote Teleoperator

System (RTS) Program Definition Activities. Marshall Space Flight

Center, Alabama, 1979.

National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration: Research and Technology

Annual Report. Research and Technology Office, Marshall Space Flight

Center, Alabama, 1980.

National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration: Research and Technology

Annual Report. Research and Technology Office, Marshall Space Flight

Center, Alabama, 1981.

National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration: Research and Technology

Annual Report. Research and Technology Office, Marshall Space Flight

Center, Alabama, 1982.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Satellite Services

Workshop. Report NumberJSC-18201, sponsored and conducted by Johnson

SpaceCenter. Engineering and DevelopmentDirectorate, Texas, 1982.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Satellite Services

Workshop, Volume2. Johnson SpaceCenter, Texas, 1982.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 16th Aerospace Mechanisms Symposium,NASAConference Publication 2221 held at KennedySpace

Center, Florida. Scientific and Technical Information Branch,

Washington, D.C., 1982.

National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration: Solar MaximumMission/

Multimission Modular Spacecraft (SMM/MMS),Berthing, Stowing Simulation

(FUR216), VolumeI0, Number17. Johnson SpaceCenter, Texas, 1980.

National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration: SpaceSystemsTechnology

Model, SpaceTechnology Trends and Forecasts, Volume2. Office of Aeronautics and SpaceTechnology, Washington, D.C., 1981.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Space Transportation

Systems Advanced Concepts, Large Space Structures. Washington, D.C.,

1981.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Spacecraft Technology

Plan, SecondDraft, Plan Overview and Methodology, Volume i. Office of

Aeronautics and Space Technology, Space Systems Division, Washington,

D.C., 1981.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Spacecraft Technology

Plan, SecondDraft, Detailed Tasks and Requirements, Volume 2. Office

of Aeronautics and Space Technology, SpaceSystemsDivision, Washington,

D.C., 1981.

7-14
i

!

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, S/E Chief, Life Science

Project Division: Strawman Payload for 30-Day Mission. Johnson Space

Center, Houston, Texas, 1979.

Naumann, E. and Butterfield, A.: Large Space Systems Technology,

Volume i. NASA Conference Publication 2035, proceedings from an Industry/Government Seminar held at Langley Research Center. National

Aeronautics and Space Administration Scientific and Technical Information Office, Washington, D.C., 1978.

Pratt, R.: Orbiter Based Construction Equipment Study - 5th Progress

Report. Report Number SA-OB-RP-007, prepared for Johnson Space Center.

Grumman Aerospace Corporation, Bethpage, New York, 1981.

Pruett, E., et al.: Extravehicular Activity Design Guidelines and

Criteria. Report No. H-76-6. Contract NAS8-31454, prepared for Marshall

Space Flight Center. Essex Corporation, Huntsville, Alabama, 1976.

Pruett, E., et al.: Structural Attachments for Large Space Structures,

Report No. H-80-04. Essex Corporation, Huntsville, Alabama, 1980.

Puckett, P.: PDRA 2102 Payload Deployment and Retrieval System Workbook. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Johnson Space

Center, Crew Training and Procedures Division Flight Training Branch,

Texas, 1979.

Rockwell International: Development of Deployable Structures for Large

Area/Linear Space Platforms. Report Number SSD 82-0009, prepared for

Marshall Space Flight Center. Rockwell International Space Operations

and Satellite Systems Division, Downey, California, 1982.

Rockwell International: Satellite Power System (SPS), LSST Systems

Analysis and Integration Task for SPS Flight Test Article (Exhibit E),

Final Review. Prepared for Marshall Space Flight Center. Rockwell

International, Downey, California, 1980.

Rockwell International: Satellite Power Systems (SPS), Final Report

(Exhibit E). Report Number DCN I-0-PP-00935. Space Operations and

Satellite Systems Division, Downey, California, 1980.

Roebuck, J.: Shuttle Considerations for the Design of Large Space

Structures, Amendment Modification 4S. NASA Contract Report Number

160861, researched by Rockwell International Corporation, Space Operations and Satellite Systems Division. National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, Johnson Space Center, Texas, 1980.

Roebuck, J.: Space Construction System Analysis, Part 2, Final Report.

Report Number SSD 80-0038. Rockwell International Satellite Systems

Division, Space Systems Group, Downey, California, 1980.

Santeler, D.J., et al., Vacuum Technology and Space Simulation. Report

Number Sp-105. National Aeronautics and Space Administration,

Washington, D.C., 1966.

7-15
Sater, B. and Moore, T.: The Use of Ion BeamCleaning to Obtain High

Quality Cold Welds with Minimal Deformation. Report Number NASA

TM78933. Lewis Research Center, Ohio, 1978.

Schrock, S.: Teleoperator Maneuvering System/Mark II Propulsion Module

Study, Monthly Progress Report. Report NumberTMS-MA-01-02,prepared

for Marshall Space Flight Center. Martin Marietta Aerospace, Denver,

Colorado, 1981.

Schrock, S.: Teleoperator Maneuvering System/Mark II Propulsion Module

Study, Briefing Material, Mid-term Review, Report NumberTMS-SE-01-03.

Contract NumberNAS8-34581. Martin Marietta, Denver, Colorado, 1982.

Schwartz, J. and Hilchey, J.: The MannedPlatform as an Evolutionary

Meansto Achieve a PermanentMannedOrbital Operations facility. Report

NumberAIAA-81-0462, presented at a Conference on Large SpacePlatforms:

TowardPermanentMannedOccupancyof Space, 2nd. American Institute of

Aeronautical Astronautics, SanDiego, California, 1981.

Sheppard, A.: Aerospace Physiology (T-37/T-38) Life Support, Flying

Training, Undergraduate Pilot Training, Study Guide/Workbook. Report

NumberP-V4A-B/D-AS-S. Air Training Command,1976.

Sheridan, T. & Verplank, W.: Humanand Computer Control of Undersea

Teleoperations. Contract Number N00014-77-C-0256. Massachusetts

Institute of Technology, Department of Mechanical Engineering,

Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1978.

Sheridan, T. (Ed.): Performance Evaluation of Robots and Manipulators.

NBS Special Publication 459, report of a Workshop held at Annapolis,

Maryland, 1975. U.S. Department of Commerce,National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C., 1976.

Shields, N. & Pruett, E.: HumanFactors and SpaceTechnology: Notes on

Space Related HumanFactors Research and Development, History, Facilities, and Future Requirements. Report NumberH-82-04. Prepared for

Dr. Melvin Montemerlo of National Aeronautics and Space Administration

HumanFactors and Simulation Technology Division. Essex Corporation,

Huntsville, Alabama, 1982.

Shields, N.: HumanOperator Performance of Remotely Controlled Tasks:

A Summaryof Teleoperator Research Conducted at NASA's Marshall Space

Flight Center between 1971 and 1981, Executive Summary. Report No.

H-82-01.I, prepared for National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration.

Essex Corporation, Huntsville, Alabama, 1982.

Shields, N.: Spacelab Display Design and CommandUsage Guidelines.

Report NumberMSFC-PROC-711A.National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration, Marshall SpaceFlight Center, Alabama, 1980.

Shultz, J., et al.: Deployable Antenna Phase Study, Final Report.

Contract No. NAS8-32394, prepared for National Aeronautics and Space

Administration. GrummanAerospace Corporation, Bethpage, New York,

1979.

7-16
i

Singer, A. and Rony, P.: Controlling Robots With Personal Computers.

In Machine Design, Pages 78-82. Penton/IPC, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio,

September 23, 1982.

Skelton, R., et al.: Order Reduction for Models of Space Structures

Using Modal Cost Analysis. In Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, Volume 5, Number 4, Page 351. American Institute of Aeronautics

and Astronautics, New York, July-August, 1982.

Slysh, P. and Kugath, D.: Large Space Structure Automated Assembly

Technique. In Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Volume 17, Number 4,

Pages 354-362. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, New

York, July-August 1980.

Smith, D.: Space Manufacturing Studies for SPS. In Space-Enhancing

Technological Leadership, pages 229-246, proceedings of the TwentySeventh Annual Meeting. American Astronautical Society and Univelt,

Incorporated, San Diego, California, 1981.

Smith, H.: Micro Accurate Weld Arc Guidance Controls Development. M&P

Discretionary Fund Project Review. National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama, 1979.

Shoddy, W.: Space Platforms for Science and Applications. In Astronautics and Aeronautics, Pages 28-36. American Institute of Aeronautics

and Astronautics, New York, April 1981.

Solomon, S.: Miracle Workers. In Science Digest, Page 38-44. Hearst

Magazines, New York, December 1981.

Soviets Show Assembly of Space Station Units. In Aviation Week and

Space Technology, Page 21. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 1981.

Space World Staff: Satellite Servicing NASA holds back.

World, Pages 36-37. Palmer Publications Incorporated,

Wisconsin, October 1982.

In Space

Amherst,

Spar Aerospace Ltd.: Quick Look Analysis of STS-2 Flight Data. Report

Number SH/S EN-2. Weston, Ontario, Canada, 1982.

Stein, D., et al.: Space Station Needs, Attributes and Architectural

Options. Grumman Aerospace Corporation, Bethpage, New York, 1982.

Stratton, D. and Butt, C.: Application of Shuttle Remote Manipulator

System Technology to the Replacement of Fuel Channels in the Pickering

Canada Reactor. Spar Aerospace Limited, Toronto, Canada, 1982.

Teledyne Brown Engineering: Space Platform Mission Information Document, Technical Report. Report Number SP82-MSFC-2623, prepared for

Marshall Space Flight Center. Contract Number NAS8-34586. Teledyne

Brown Engineering, Huntsville, Alabama, 1982.

7-17
Tewell, J., et. al.: Future MannedMachines and Operations in Space. In

Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress on Theory of Machines and

Mechanisms, Volume i, Pages 78-81. The American Society of Mechanical

Engineers, NewYork, 1979.

TRW: Large Space Structure Control Technology.

SystemsGroup, RedondoBeach, California, 1981.

Defense and Space

TRW: Payloads Requirements/AccommodationsAssessmentStudy for Science

and Applications SpacePlatforms, First Quarterly Review. Prepared for

Marshall Space Flight Center. TRWDefense and Space Systems Group,

RedondoBeach, California, 1980.

TRW: Payloads Requirements/AccommodationsAssessmentStudy for Science

and Applications SpacePlatforms, SecondQuarterly Review. Prepared for

Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama. TRW,RedondoBeach, California,

1980.

Treer, K.: Automated Assembly.

Dearborn, Michigan, 1979.

Society of Manufacturing Engineers,

Turci, E. and Portelli, C.: Joint Technologies and Junction Concepts

for Large SpaceSystems. Report NumberA81-47486, presented at the 32nd

Congress of the International Astronautical Federation in Rome.

PergamonPress, NewYork, 1981.

Truszkowski, W. and Moe, K.: Automation Program. Report Number

506-54-66. GoddardSpaceFlight Center, Maryland, 1982.

URSCorporation: URS/Matrix Company,MannedManeuvering Unit Mission

Definition Study. Final Report, Volume 2, Modification Number 15

(Appendices to the MMUapplications analysis), prepared for Johnson

Space Center. URS Matrix Company, Life and Environmental Sciences

Division, Huntsville, Alabama, 1975.

URSCorporation: URS/Matrix Company,MannedManeuvering Unit Mission

Definition Study. Final Report, Volume 3, Modification Number 15 (MMU

Ancillary Support Equipment and Attachment Concepts), prepared for

Johnson Space Center. URS Matrix Company, Life and Environmental

Sciences Division, Huntsville, Alabama, 1975.

URSCorporation: URSMatrix Company,MannedManeuvering Unit Mission

Definition Study. Final Report, Volume I, Modification Number15 (MMU

Applications Analysis and Performance Requirements), prepared for

Johnson Space Center. URS Matrix Company, Life and Environmental

Sciences Division, Huntsville, Alabama, 1975.

URSCorporation: URSMatrix Company,MannedManeuvering Unit Mission

Definition Study, Final Review, Modification Number 15, prepared for

Johnson Space Center. URS Matrix Company, Life and Environmental

Science Division, 1975.

U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command:GuidebookSupplement for Hedge.

HumanFactors Engineering Data Guide for Evaluation. U.S. Army, 1974.

7-18
Vernon, R.: Automated Installation of Large Platform Utilities. In

Large Space Systems Technology, 1980, Second Annual Technical Review.

Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, Incorporated, Sunnyvale,

California, 1980.

Von Tiesenhausen, G.: An Approach Toward Function Allocation Between

Humans and Machines in Space Station Activities. NASA Technical Memorandum 82510. Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama, 1982.

Vought Corporation: Development of Deployable Structures for Large Area

and Linear Space Platforms, First Quarterly Review. Prepared for

Marshall Space Flight Center. Vought Corporation, Dallas, Texas, 1982.

Vought Corporation: Erectable Concepts for Large Space System Technology, Executive Summary. Report Number 2-51400/0R-LSS-01, prepared for

Marshall Space Flight Center. Vought Corporation, Dallas, Texas, 1980.

Vought Corporation: Erectable Concepts for Large Space System Technology, NB-37. Neutral Buoyancy Facility, Neutral Buoyancy Experiments at

Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama, 1980.

Vought Corporation: Development of Deployable Structures for Large Area

and Linear Space Platforms. Prepared for Marshall Space Flight Center,

Vought Corporation, Dallas, Texas, 1980.

Vought Corporation: Erectable Concepts for Large Space System Technology. Contract Number NAS8-33431. Vought Corporation, Dallas, Texas,

1980.

Vought Corporation: Erectable Concepts for Large Space System Technology, Final Program Review. Vought Corporation, Dallas, Texas, 1980.

Vought Corporation: Low Energy Stage Study, Executive Summary, Report

Number 2-55910/8R-3483, prepared for Marshall Space Flight Center.

Vought Corporation, Dallas, Texas, 1978.

Vought Corporation: Teleoperator Maneuvering System Mission Requirements and System Definition Study, Formal Review. Report Number

2-30400/0R-52611, prepared for Marshall Space Flight Center. Vought

Corporation, Dallas, Texas, 1980.

Vought Corporation: Teleoperator Maneuvering System Study Mission

Requirements and System Definition Review, Executive Summary. Report

Number 2-32500/IR-52821, prepared for Marshall Space Flight Center.

Vought Corporation, Dallas, Texas, 1981.

Vought Corporation: Teleoperator Maneuvering System Study Mission

Requirements and System Definition Review. Report Number

2-32500/IR-52961, prepared for Marshall Space Flight Center. Vought

Corporation, Dallas, Texas, 1981.

Watters, H. and Stokes, J.: Construction in Space, Toward a Fresh

Definition of the Man/Machine Relation. In Journal of Astronautics and

Aeronautics, Pages 42-63. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, New York, 1979.

7-19
Wiesner, P.: SpaceSoyuz6 and the Welding Process, Welding Experiments

During Flight of Soyuz 5, Number i, Pages 54-57. Translated into

English from 215-MIT, Halle, East Germany,1970.

Wheatley, T: SMETechnical Report, Proceedings of NBS/Air Force ICAM

Workshop on Robot Interfaces. Report Number MSR80-06. Society of

Manufacturing Engineers, Dearborn, Michigan, 1980.

White, J: LSST System Analysis and Integration Task For an Advanced

Science and Application Space Platform, Final Report. Report Number

MDC-G8533,prepared for Marshall SpaceFlight Center. McDonnell Douglas

Astronautics Company,Huntington Beach, California, 1980.

Williams, M. & Conway,E. (Eds.): SpaceLaser Power Transmission System

Studies. NASAConference Publication 2214. National Aeronautics and

SpaceAdministration, Washington, D.C., 1981.

Woodcock,G.: Space Settlements and Extraterrestrial Resources - What

Benefits to SPSConstruction? SpaceSolar Power Review, Volume3, Pages

167-192. PergamonPress, NewYork, 1982.

Zuech, Nello. Vision SystemsAre Here. Control Engineering Conference

and Exposition, Proceedings of Control Expo/82. Optical Recognition

Systems, 1982.

7-20
APPENDIX A

SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS MANNED SPACE PLATFORM (SAMSP)

ASSEMBLY ANALYSIS
1.0 INTRODUCTION

The ManMachine Assembly Analysis (MMAA)was exercised using the

McDonnell-Douglas Science and Applications MannedSpacePlatform (SAMSP)

as a test case. The exercise was performed to evaluate the assembly

analysis as a tool for identifying assembly hardware such as restraint

fixtures, manipulator, and crew aids as well as predicting assembly time

and assembly cost. The analysis also forced consideration of alternate

modesof assembly to identify the low cost option.

The exercise also provided or detailed analysis of the SAMSP

proposed hardware, assembly plan, and crew procedures.

2.0 RELATEDOCUMENTATION

SAMSPreports and related documentation used in this exercise is

listed below.

O Evolutionary Space Platform Concept Study. McDonnell Douglas

Corporation, MDC H0072, DPD-610, DR4.

- Volume I - Executive Summary (May 1982)

- Volume II - Technical Report (May 1982)

- Volume II - Programmation (May 1982)

- Final Briefing (February 1982).

o Evolutionary Space Platforms, Space Transportation Systems

Advanced Concepts, NASA MSFC, August 1982.

o LSST System Analysis and Integration Task for Advanced Science

and Application Space Platform, Contract NAS8-33572, McDonnell

Douglas Corporation, MDC G8533, July 1980.

3.0 SAMSP SYSTEM COMPONENTS

Several SAMSP concepts have been considered by MDAC and range from

a basic platform with a few experiment pallets to several larger configurations with spacecraft servicing parts, large structure assembly

fixtures, teleoperator docking hangars and numerous science payloads.

The concept selected for this MMAA exercise was a basic configuration

that could be expanded later. The selected configuration consists of

four major system components and four payload components as listed

below.

Major System Components

o 25 KW Space Platform

o Central Module

o Habitability Module

o Logistics Module

A-I
Payload Components

o Solar Terrestrial Payload - Pallet

o Earth Sciences Payload - Pallet

o Life Science Laboratory - Can

o Electrophoresis Unit - Can (Optional)

Also, optional system components can be provided to increase the

platform capability. These components are the payload support beam for

earth science payloads, and a supplemental crew module. The major

system components are shown in Figure I.

SpaceP,at,orm 

Terrestrial

Payload ,'_-

Life Science

Lab

Electrophoresis

Unit

Logistics Module

Habitat/Payload/

Control Module

(Two Man)

Supplemental Earth

Crew Module Science

(Two Man) Payload

(Io-4 o'r;('.o_ _1,,o,.,,,_)

FIGURE i - MAJOR SYSTEM COMPONENTS

A-2
4.0 BASELINEASSEMBLYPLAN

The MDACreports describe two assembly methods for the SAMSP. In

the concept study Volume II, Section 6.1 - Overall Configuration, a

four-flight assembly sequence is described. In Section 6.13 - Mass

Properties, a three-flight assembly sequence is described. The threeflight option was selected for more detailed evaluation. The shuttle

manifests are shownin Table 1 for each option.

TABLEI - Flight Manifest

(Ref. Vol II, Part B)

FLIGHT

NO.

Section

SHUTTLEMANIFEST

6.13 MassProperties Section* 6.1 Overall Configuration

25 KWPowerModule

Solar Terrestrial Pallet

Central Module

Habitability Module

Logistics Module

Earth Science Pallet

Life Science Can

4 None

25 KWPowerModule

Solar Terrestrial Pallet

Central Module

Electrophoresis Unit

Earth Sciences Pallet

Payload Support Beam

Logistics Module

Supplemental CrewModule

Habitability Module

Life Science Can

* Selected as baseline configuration

The major assembly steps required to construct the SAMSPare shown

in Table 2 along with the proposed assemblymethod for each step.

A-3
i,

2.

3.

o

o

o

o

1

TABLE 2 - Functional Analysis Major Steps

Deploy Space Platform

Erect Solar Arrays, HGAs & Radiator

Deploy Solar Terrestrial Pallet & Berth to

Space Platform (-Y)

Deploy Central Module & Berth to Space

Platform (+X)

Deploy Habitability Module & Berth to

Central Module (+Y)

Deploy Logistics Module & Berth

to Central Module (+Z)

Deploy Life Science Payload & Berth to

Central Module (-Y)

Deploy Earth Observation Payload & Berth

to Central Module (+X)

Prime Mode

RMS

Automated

RMS

RMS

RMS

RMS

RMS

RMS

A-4
Using the proposed three-flight assembly plan as a baseline, launch

weights were determined for each flight based on the weight of components to be flown and the shuttle support hardware required for each

flight. These data are presented as Table 3.

TABLE3 - LaunchWeight Summary

FLIGHT WEIGHT(LBS)

NO. PLATFORM& PAYLOAD SHUTTLESUPPORT* TOTAL

I 37,118 6,748 43,866

2 32,244 6,410 38,634

3 35,074 6,571 41,645

*Shuttle support includes berthing arm & payload restraints

Noneof the total flight weights exceed the shuttle capability.

The componentson each flight are sized to occupy almost all the 15

ft. diameter and 60 ft. long cargo bay so flights cannot be combined to

reduce the transportation charge.

For each flight, the system to be handled and its weight are listed

in Table 4. All hardware is too massive for EVAor EVA/MMUhandling but

is within the range of RMScapabilities so the RMSis the logical choice

for handling the components.

All latches & connectors will be remotely operated devices with EVA

overrides.

TABLE4 - AssemblyTechnique Selection

SYSTEMTO WEIGHT BESTHANDLING

FLIGHT BE"HANDLED" (LBS) METHOD

1 SpacePlatform 29,887 RMS

Solar Terrestrial Pallet 7,231 RMS

2 Central Module 16,112 RMS

Habitability Module 16,132 RMS

Logistics Module 20,333

Life Sciences Payload 9,600

Earth Observations Payload 5,141

RMS

RMS

RMS

A-5
5.0 DETAILEDASSEMBLYTASKDESCRIPTION(RMS)

The detailed assembly steps are described in Appendix A-I for the

baseline assembly method (RMS). This particular timeline represents the

best of a series of iterations and had the lowest assembly time of any

of the RMSassembly methods considered. The time required for each

step, each task, and each of the three missions is also defined based on

_IAA task element data from NBSsimulations, RMSsimulations at JSCand

simulation data from SPAR. The assembly time summaryfrom this timeline

analysis is shown in Table 5. The table identifies the total time for

RMSoperations, automated operations and system checkout for each flight

and each task. The summaryshows that for each flight the cargo can be

assembled in one day, thus avoiding the cost for additional days on

orbit.

TABLE5 - Assembly Time Summary

- TIMEREQ'D(MIN) - TOTAL

RMS AUTO SYSTEM TIME

FLIGHT TASK OPERATIONS* OPERATIONSCHECKOUTMIN HRS DAYS

1 92 - - 92 1.5

2 - 30 - 30 .5

3 87 - 120 207 3.5

4 303 - 120 423 7.1

5 68 - 240 308 5.2

6 144 - 30 174 2.9

7 144 - 30 71 1.2

8 156 - 240 396 6.6

* Someautomated & system checkout operations are included in the RMS

operations but are generally less than 5 min. duration.

6.0 ALTERNATEASSEMBLYMETHODS

The three primary assembly methods and an assessment of their

application to SAMSPassembly is presented below. Although RMSassembly

is the most obvious assembly candidate, EVAsupport of the RMSoperations could reduce the assembly time and cost.

ManualAssembly m

m

Automated Assembly -

Remote Assembly

RMS considered most appropriate assembly method

RMS with EVA assistance should be considered

Not practical because of non-repetitive tasks

Not considered - all tasks are performed in and

around cargo bay

Use of TMS would add expense of additional

shuttle flight

A-6
A detailed task analysis for RMSwith EVAsimilar to the RMS-only

task analysis was performed and the costs associated with each method

were identified from the MMAAData Base D (STS Cost Elements). The

costs for the two assembly techniques are included as Appendix A-2 and

are summarizedbelow.

BASICMPS

ASSEMBLYCOSTSUMMARY

Assembly Cost

Method ($M)

RMS 149.7

RMSwith EVA 152.2

Remote N/A

Auto N/A

7.0 SUMMARY

The assembly analysis of the SAMSPindicated no deficiencies in the

MMAAstructure or data bases except for RMSoperation time data. This

information was solicited from JSCand SPARand was used to develop the

task analysis times for RMSassembly. These task element times have

been addedto the MMAAdata base.

The "manned" section of the MMAAforced consideration of manned

assembly methods and provided data for their evaluation in terms of time

for task completion and assembly cost. The "remote" and "automated"

sections were not exercised in detail becauseof the nature and location

of the assembly operations.

The only recommendationsfor improving the MMAAis to upgrade the

EVA and RMStask element time data bases as more STS experience is

gained through such tasks as Solar Max Repair Mission EVA and RMS

operations, Space Telescope servicing, and deployment of various pay- loads with the RMS.

A-7
APPENDIXA-I

MSPTASKDESCRIPTION

A-8
FLIGHT

I.i

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

1.10

I.II

MANNEDSPACEPLATFORMTASKDESCRIPTION

NO. 1 - DEPLOYSPACEPLATFORM& SOLARTERRESTRIALPALLET

TASK/SUBTASK

DEPLOYSP

PRIME

MODE REMARKS

RMS

Deploy Orbiter berthing arm Auto

& verify latch operation

Powerup/warmup/uncradle RMS RMS

Checkout RMS RMS

MoveRMSto SPgrapple fixture RMS

Adjust position & alignment RMS

Attach RMSto grapple fixture RMS

& verify

Release keel & trunnion AUTO

latches & verify

Pull SPout of cargo bay & RMS

moveto berthing arm

Adjust position & alignment RMS

Berth SPto berthing arm, RMS

secure latches

Release RMS& moveto cradle RMS

position

TOTAL

TIME

(MIN.)

i0

i0

20

5

2

2

I0

20

92

A-9
2.1

TASK/SUBTASK

DEPLOYSOLARARRAYS,HIGH

GAINANTENNAS& RADIATOR

Deploy solar arrays (2)

Deploy HGAs(2)

Deploy Radiator

PRIME

MODE

AUTO

AUTO

AUTO

AUTO

REMARKS

TIME

(MIN.)

Sequestial deployment assumed

TOTAL

10

i0

i0

30

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.8

3.9

3.10

3.11

3.12

3.13

3.14

DEPLOYSOLARTERRESTRIALPALLET

MoveRMSto pallet grapple RMS

fixture

Adjust position & alignment RMS

Attach RMS& verify RMS

Release keel & trunnion AUTO

latches &verify

Pull pallet out of cargo bay RMS

& moveto SP-Y payload port

Adjust position & alignment RMS

Berth pallet to port, secure RMS

latches, verify

Release RMS RMS

MoveRMSto SPgrapple fixture RMS

Adjust position & alignment RMS

Attach RMSto grapple fixture RMS

& verify

Release Orbiter berthing arm AUTO

latches

MoveSPto deployment position RMS

Release SP RMS

2

2

i0

20

i0

2

A-10
NO.

3.15

3.16

3.17

TASK/SUBTASK

MoveRMSto cradle position

Cradle RMS,power down

Checkoutall SP/payload

systems

- DEORBITPRIME

MODE

RMS

RMS

REMOTE

REMARKS

TIME

(MIN.)

5

ii

120

TOTAL

FLIGHT1 -

207

329

A-II
FLIGHT NO. 2 - DEPLOY CENTRAL MODULE & HABITABILITY MODULE

TASK/SUBTASK

DEPLOY CENTRAL MODULE

PRIME

MODE REMARKS

RMS

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

4.10

4.11

4.12

4.13

4.14

4.15

4.16

4.17

4.18

Deploy Orbiter berthing arm AUTO

& verify latch operations

Power up/warm up/ uncradle RMS

RMS

Checkout RMS RMS

Final rendezvous with SP

Move RMS to SP RMS

Adjust position & alignment RMS

Attach RMS to grapple fixture RMS

& verify

Move SP to berthing arm RMS

Adjust position & alignment RMS

Berth SP to berthing arm, RMS

secure latches

Release RMS & move to SP +X RMS

payload arm

Adjust position & alignment RMS

Attach RMS to arm grapple RMS

fixture & verify

Pull arm to deployed position, RMS

verify latched

Release RMS & move to Central RMS

Module

Adjust position & alignment RMS

Attach RMS to Central Module RMS

grapple fixture & verify

Release keel & trunnion RMS

latches & verify

TIME

(MIW.)

I0

I0

20

15

5

2

2

20

5

2

5

2

5

6

2

2

i0

A-12
NO.

4.19

4.20

4.21

4.22

4.23

4.24

4.25

4.26

4.27

4.28

4.29

4.30

4.31

4.32

4.33

4.34

4.35

4.36

PRIME

TASK/SUBTASK MODE

Moveto SP+Xport RMS

Adjust position & alignment RMS

Berth Central Module to SP+X RMS

port, secure latches

Verify interfaces REMOTE

Release Orbiter berthing arm AUTO

latches

MoveSPto parking position RMS

StowOrbiter berthing arm AUTO

MoveSPto position Central RMS

Module berthing port over

Orbiter berthing port

Adjust position & alignment RMS

Berth Central Module to RMS

Orbiter berthing port, secure

latches

Crewenter central module

and perform checkout of all

systems (shirtsleeve)

Release berthing port AUTO

latches

Lift Central Module away from RMS

port

Rotate 90° so module +Y port RMS

faces aft

Move module to Orbiter RMS

berthing port

Adjust position & alignment RMS

Berth Control Module to RMS

Orbiter berthing port, secure

latches

Release RMS, move to Habit- RMS

ability Module

DIRECT

REMARKS

A/L press/depress

required, checkout

time assumed

TOTAL

TIME

(MIN.)

20

5

i0

60

i

I0

2

20

5

I0

120

i0

6

423

A-13
5.3

5.4

5.7

5.8

5.9

5.10

5.11

5.12

5.13

TASK/SUBTASK

DEPLOYHABITABILITYMODULE

Adjust position & alignment

Attach RMSto grapple fixture

& verify

Release keel & trunnion

latches & verify

Pull module out of cargo bag

& moveto Central Module +Y

port

Adjust position & alignment

Berth Habitability Module,

secure latches

Checkout Habitability Module

System. Crew exist MSP&

ingress Orbiter

Release Orbiter berthing port

latches

MoveMSPto deployment

position

Release MSP

MoveRMSto cradle position

Cradle RMS,power down

Checkout all MSPsystems

- DEORBITPRIME

MODE

PSIS

RMS

ILlS

AUTO

RMS

RMS

RMS

DIRECT

AUTO

RMS

RMS

RMS

RMS

REMARKS

TIME

(MIN.)

i0

20

A/L press/depress

required, checkout

time assumed

120

I0

2

5

ii

120

TOTAL

FLIGHT 2

308

731

A-14
FLIGHTNO. 3 - DEPLOYLOGISTICSMODULE,LIFE SCIENCESPAYLOAD& EARTH

OBSERVATIONPAYLOAD

6.1

6.2

6.3

6.4

6.5

6.6

6.7

6.8

6.9

6.10

6.11

6.12

6.13

6.14

6.15

6.16

TASK/SUBTASK

DEPLOYLOGISTICSMODULE

PRIME

MODE REMARKS

RMS

Deploy Orbiter berthing port AUTO

& verify latch operations

Powerup/warmup/uncradle RMS RMS

Checkout RMS RMS

Final rendezvouswith MSP

MoveRMSto MSP RMS

Adjust position & align RMS

Attach RMSto grapple fixture RMS

& verify

MoveMSPto berthing port RMS

Adjust position & alignment RMS

Berth MSPCentral Module to RMS

Orbiter berthing port, secure

latches

Release RMS,moveto Logistics RMS

Module

Adjust position & alignment RMS

Attach RMSto grapple fixture RMS

& verify

Release keel & trunnion RMS

fittings & verify

Pull Logistics Module out of RMS

cargo bay & moveto Central

Module +Z port

Adjust position & alignment RMS

RMSmayuse Central

Module grapple fixture

TIME

(MIN.)

i0

10

20

15

5

2

2

20

5

2

i0

20

A-15
NO.

6.17

6.18

6.19

TASK/SUBTASK

Berth module to +Z port,

secure latches

Verify interfaces

Release RMS& moveto Life

Sciences Payload

PRIME

MODE

RMS

REMOTE

RMS

REMARKS

TOTAL

TIME

(MIN.)

30

6

174

7.0 DEPLOYLIFE SCIENCEPAYLOAD RMS

Adjust position & alignment

Repeat 6.12 - 6.18 for Life

Science Payload

RMS

TOTAL 71

8.0 DEPLOYEARTHOBSERVATION

PAYLOAD

RMS

8.1

8.8

8.9

Release RMS& moveto short

payload beamat SPparking

port

Adjust position and alignment

Attach RMSto beamgrapple

fixture

Release parking port latches

Movebeamto Central Module

+X port

Adjust position & alignment

Berth beamto +Xport, secure

latches

Release RMSand moveto Earth

Observation pallet

Repeat 6.12-6.18 for pallet

(mount to short beam)

RMS

RMS

RMS

AUTO

RMS

RMS

RMS

RMS

RMS

1

20

71

A-16
NO.

8.10

8.11

8.12

8.13

8.14

8.15

8.16

8.17

8.18

8.19

PRIME

TASK/SUBTASK MODE

Release RMS and move to MSP RMS

(or Central Module) grapple

fixture

Adjust position & alignment RMS

Attach RMS to grapple fixture RMS

& verify

Verify all MSP & payload

system

Release Orbiter berthing port AUTO

latches

Move MSP to deployment RMS

position

Release MSP RMS

Move RMS to cradle position

Cradle RMS power down

Checkout all MSP & payload

systems

- DEORBIT -

REMOTE

REMOTE

REMARKS

TIME

(MIN.)

2

2

Verification time

assumed

120

i0

Checkout time

assumed

TOTAL

FLIGHT 3

2

5

11

120

396

641

A-17
SAMSPASSEMBLYCOSTESTIMATES

o RMS

o RMSWITHEVA

A-18
ITERATIONNO. 1

- RMSONLY

LSSAssemblyCost Estimating Work Sheet

COSTELEMENTS COST ($)

1.0 FLIGHT OPERATIONS

- Standard Flight Charge

o Transportation Charge ........... 139,320,000

o Use Fee .................. 0

- Optional Flight Services

o Spacelab Pallets .............

o Additional RMS ..............

o OMS Delta-V Kit .............

7,657,440

0

0

0

1,161,000

0

1,548,000

0

0

- Optional Payload-Related Services

o EVA (Includes MMU) ............

o Payload Specialist & Training .......

o Additional Days On-Orbit .........

o Payload Revisit ..............

o POCC ...................

o Launch Site Services ...........

2.0 LABOR

(Covered in charges for EVA, Payload Specialist

& POCC)

3.0 CREW SUPPORT EQUIPMENT

- EVA Crew Aids

o Handrails .................

o Foot Restraints ..............

o Tethers ..................

o Lights ..................

o Cameras & Monitors ............

o Portable Work Stations ..........

- EVA Tools

o Powered ..................

o Manual ..................

- Procedures & Checklists ............. 41,600

A-19
LSSAssembly Cost Estimating Work Sheet (Continued)

COSTELEMENTS

4.0 LSSEQUIPMENT

- Beams& Columns* ................

- Joints & Unions* ................

- Assy. Jigs & Fixtures* ............

- Assy. Aids & Tools* ...............

- Special _S End Effector ............

- AutomatedDevices ................

- AutomatedDevice Materials ...........

- RemoteSystemLaunch& Return ..........

- RemoteSystemCommunications ..........

- RemoteSystemGroundSupport ..........

- RemoteSystemUse Cost .............

- RemoteSystem R&DCost .............

- RemoteSystemProduction Cost ..........

COST($)

TOTALASSEMBLYCOST $243,400,040

* Include if costs are unequal for various assemblymodes.

A-20
ITERATIONNO. 2

- RMSWITHEVAHELP

LSSAssembly Cost Estimating Work Sheet

COSTELEMENTS

1.0 FLIGHTOPERATIONS

- Standard Flight Charge

o Transportation Charge ...........

o Use Fee ..................

- Optional Flight Services

o SpacelabPallets .............

o Additional RMS ........ , .....

o 0MSDelta-V Kit ..............

- Optional Payload-Related Services

o EVA(Includes MMU) ...........

o Payload Specialist & Training .......

o Additional Days 0n-Orbit .........

o Payload Revisit ..............

o POCC ...................

o Launch Site Services ...........

2.0 LABOR

(Coveredin charges for EVA,Payload Specialist

& POCC)

3.0 CREWSUPPORTEQUIPMENT

- EVACrewAids

o Handrails .................

o Foot Restraints ..............

o Tethers ..................

o Lights ..................

o Cameras& Monitors ............

o Portable Work Stations ..........

- EVATools

o Powered..................

o Manual ..................

- Procedures & Checklists .............

COST($)

928,800

1,548,000

A-21
LSSAssembly Cost Estimating Work Sheet (Continued)

COSTELEMENTS

4.0 LSSEQUIPMENT

- Beams& Columns* ................

- Joints & Unions* ................

- Assy. Jigs & Fixtures* .............

- Assy. Aids & Tools* ...............

- Special RMSEndEffector ............

- AutomatedDevices ................

- AutomatedDevice Materials ...........

- RemoteSystemLaunch & Return ..........

- RemoteSystemCommunications ..........

- RemoteSystemGroundSupport ..........

- RemoteSystemUse Cost .............

- RemoteSystemR&DCost .............

- RemoteSystemProduction Cost ..........

COST($)

TOTALASSEMBLYCOST $2,476,800(1)

* Include if costs are unequal for various assemblymodes.

(1)Additional cost to basic MPSassembly cost, Iteration No. i.

A-22
APPENDIX B

EVA DESIGN AND OPERATIONS GUIDELINES

LESSONS LEARNED THROUGH ZERO GRAVITY SIMULATION
1.0 INTRODUCTION

The following guidelines and recommendationsare provided as an

output of many large space structures (LSS) zero-gravity simulations

(conducted since 1975). The majority of the simulations were conducted

in the MSFCNeutral BuoyancySimulator, with several additional tests

performed aboard the NASAZero G aircraft. All tests were performed

after Skylab and, in somecases, verify the lessons learned during the

Skylab EVAs. The enclosed data, though derived from LSS simulations, is

also applicable to SpaceStations and other mannedprograms.

2.0 HARDWARE DESIGNGUIDELINES

2.1 Structural Elements

A long column (up to 30 ft) can be manipulated by an EVA crewman in

a foot restraint with a tip placement accuracy of ± i in. in the up/down

left/right directions.

Opposed jaw end effects on a remote manipulator arm are less than

optimal for handling columns due to rotational forces exerted by the

jaws during grasping.

Triangular beams fabricated from .016 in. aluminum and the associated joints are difficult for EVA crewman to handle and are susceptible

to damage during assembly. Likewise, sharp edges can damage pressure

suit gloves.

Latching of from three to eight latches on each joint on the

fabricated beam (59 in., each side) is not possible from one foot

restraint location and requires crew translation over the structure

before it is rigidized by the joints. This can lead to damage to beams

and joints.

Graphite/epoxy columns are easily damaged during assembly simulation by inadvertent contact with the EVA crew, especially from side

loads.

EVA crewmen and structural components should be tethered during all

assembly operations.

2.2 Connectors and Joints

Locking mechanisms for structural joints should have positive

visual indication of locking.

Ball/socket insertion is possible from 15 ft away if alignment

guides are provided on the socket and if the crewman is secured in foot

restraints.

B-I
Different types of similarly appearing LSSjoints should be color

coded to prevent confusion.

Ball/socket joints are less sensitive to structural alignment than

other types of joints and mayresult in lower assembly times.

Manual dexterity of suited crewmanis limited. Connectors and

joints should be designed so tactical feedback and fine manipulations

are not required.

Locking devices should be color coded to indicate lock/unlock

status.

"Sensitivity to structural alignment" is deemedan important

consideration for connector design because it has been determined in

neutral buoyancy testing that connector segmentsrequire somefree play

wheninitially mated in order to prevent overloading of the partially

madeconnector by the operator or by the structure members. The less

the flexibility between componentsduring mating and demating, the

greater is the risk of damagingor failing the connector.

A connector should be assembledin a two-step process. The

componentsshould be initially restrained together, but with alignment

flexibility amongthe components. Oncestructure final alignment is

complete, the connector componentsshould be lockable.

Joints or connectors should be completely safe for crew operation.

A design goal should be that no stored energy shall exist in any of the

componentsprior to, during, or following mating of components. If

stored energy componentsdo exist, the energy level should be kept to a

minimum.

Connectors requiring mating by a crewmanshould be hand-operated

without the necessity of tools. Likewise, release of the device should

be by hand, or, at the most, a simple tool. Assembly should require one

hand only. Connector mating should occur without the need for additional crew restraints or assembly aids.

Componentsshould be attachable without critical alignment being

a requirement. As a design goal a connector should be capable of being

madewith limited or no visual access.

Since pressure-suit gloves are very bulky and difficult to

operate, a connector should require very low effort by the crewmanto

attach the components.

The crewmanshould have a positive indication that the connector

has been mated, through feel, visual access or both.

If a connector has a cluster of similar components,it should be

immediately obvious to the crewmanwhich componentsproperly mate.

B-2
Design consideration should be given to transporting groups of

connectors so that they can be easily controlled without harming the

crewmanor damagingeither the connector or the surrounding hardware,

and be removable from the storage apparatus in order of need.

Connector operation should be intuitively obvious, and require

minimal crew training.

Forethought should be given to connector design if the connector

will be exposedto multiple cycles or harsh environments, such as

chlorinated water. Data gathered from the test environment or as a

result of test conditions maynot be directly applicable to one-time

assembly in space, resulting in over design.

2.3 Assembly Aids

Remote manipulators and EVA capabilities are complimentary to each

other.

Strut restraint devices should permit easy removal/stowage of

struts by a restrained crewman using one hand. Individual struts should

be presented to the crew in order of use.

It is possible for the EVA crew to install portable grapple fixtures for interfacing with remote manipulators. Such devices reduces

hardware envelope and complexity. This is especially useful for hardware that may be jettisoned as part of a contingency task such as Solar

Array jettison on Space Telescope.

Storage provisions are required for all loose EVA equipment.

Assembly jigs which mechanically locate and position connectors at

an EVA worksite can increase assembly ease and accuracy and reduce

damage potential to struts.

2.4 Crew Restraints

Workstation geometry should comply with suited crewman reach data

provided in MSFC-STD-512A or similar EVA man/system documentation.

Loop leg restraints and waist restraints do not give adequate

restraint for LSS assembly operations. Standard EVA foot restraints are

preferable.

Foot restraints should be located at each assembly work site and

should position the crewman at an optimum position for the assembly

tasks. A goal is to permit the crewman to perform the task without

egressing the foot restraints.

Foot restraints should locate crew operated equipment at chest

level. The optimum work envelope for both hands is a circle in front of

the chest approximately 1 ft in diameter.

B-3
Handrails and foot restraints are recommendedand most often

required for all crew tasks.

Comparisonof EMUand ATLBpressure suits does not indicate a

substantial increase in workable reach envelope for the EMUsuit.

Foot restraints are more effective and safer than handholds-only

for large ORUhandling.

Analytical (MSFC-STD-512A)determination of foot restraint location

followed by zero gravity simulation verification is an effective method

of locating foot restraints in an optimumconfiguration.

Onerestraint method, stabilization of one EVAcrewmanby a second

crewmanis marginal for EVAtasks. Permanentor portable crew restraints should be provided for planned EVAtasks.

All accessible hardware within reach of crewmanmaybe used for

handholds. All equipment near EVAworkstations and translation paths

should be designed for crew loads or should be guarded.

Properly located handholds are needed for foot restraint ingress

and egress.

As a goal, several EVAtasks should be performed from one foot

restraint location to minimize numberof foot restraint or attachment

devices.

Handrails are required adjacent to all crew operated mechanisms.

2.5 Tools

EVAtasks that do not require use of hand tools are preferable to

tasks that do.

Counterclockwise rotation of shafts, fasteners or other crew

operated mechanismsshould result in a loosening, removal or jettison of

the equipment.

All tool operated fasteners or mechanismsshould be sufficiently

strong to take shear side loads as well as rotation torques since one

hand wrench operations are expected.

Ratchet crank mechanismsare an effective method for an EVAcrewman

to extend/retract boomsand antennas. For ratchet wrench operation the

work area should be designed so that the ratchet is approximately at the

crewman's chest height. Foot restraints are desirable but not absolutely required if handrails are properly arranged to allow adequate

resolution of the forces resulting from the cranking motion. Any

retractable or jettlsonable equipment that is subject to damage if

touched by the crewman (e.g., solar array panels) should be jettisoned/

retracted prior to EVA operations if at all possible.

B-4
Mating of socket or extension to ratchet should be positive and not

subject to accidental release.

Ratchet drive receptacles on sockets or extensions should have ball

detent holes or grooves in all four positions to insure that the ratchet

is always locked in position. Clearance should be provided for ratchet

strokes of approximately 35 degree arcs and the power stroke should be a

pulling motion for the most likely task. For example, retracting a

failed boomelement is a more likely task than extending a failed

element. Therefore, the ratchet mechanismshould be designed so a

pulling motion is required to retract the element.

For failed-extended equipment jettison, cutting tasks are feasible

but highly undesirable because crew effort required and the potential

damagefrom sharp edges. If possible, designers should consider some

manual release technique for extended elements to avoid the possibility

of cutting operations. For safety reasons, during an jettison

operation, the crewmanshould be tethered to somestable structure in

addition to being in foot restraints. A crewmancan effectively

maneuverand jettison large massive equipment if handrails or other

structure suitable for gripping with the EVAglove are positioned to

allow application of the forces through the center of mass.

Sockets mountedto extensions cover 6 in. long should have wobble

drives that allow at least ± I0 ° misalignment. Sockets should be spring

loaded to center position.

Fasteners should have 8-10 in-oz back drive torque to facilitate

ratchet wrench operations.

Fasteners should have hard stops at the fastened and loosened posltions. Crew should not be required to count the numberof turns to

determine status of fastener.

25 ft-lbs is acceptable for 3-5 turns if adequate handholds and a

foot restraint are provided (using a ratchet wrench with a 14 in.

handle).

A power tool is recommendedto makeOrbital ReplacementUnit (ORU)

changeout tasks faster and easier for the crew and to minimize the

numberof foot restraints because of an extended useable work envelope.

A crewmancan operate contingency hardware using an EVAratchet

wrench requiring a high numberof turns (e.g., 130) but will experience

fatigue, glove wear, wrist chaffing and long task time (e.g., 70 min.).

2.6 Attachable Hardware

EVA installed equipment should be designed so critical alignment

and mating are not required by the EVA crew.

Fluid recharge EVA tasks can be almost trivial if adequate crew

access, crew restraint and EVA compatible support equipment are provided.

B-5
Large (e.g., 4' x 4' x 1.5') modules can be exchangedby the EVA

crew with RMSassistance. Likewise, two pressure suited subjects can

handle a massof 1500 Ibs if no critical or fragile componentsor

mechanismsare exposedto impact forces.

ORU'sshould have alignment indicators, especially for larger

units.

A 1.0 in. hex fastener height for a wrench socket interface is

preferable to a 0.5 in. hex height. Taller hex prevents tool from

slipping off fastener.

A visual indicator should be used to indicate lock/unlock status of

module fasteners.

Solar array blanket box changeout can be accomplished in

approximately 15 min. exclusive of crew and equipment transfer. Twoman

operations are preferred for solar array box changeout.

Positive indication of release should be provided for jettison

hardware.

For failed extended payload elements, retraction operations are

preferred over jettisoning operations, although the forces and total EVA

time required for retraction operations might necessitate going to a

jettison mode.

Protective covers should be used on modules susceptible to damage

or contamination and equipment that could injure the crew.

Alignment/insertion guides should be used on all crew installed

equipment.

Crew operated latches should be spring loaded to "open" position

until locked by crew.

Access doors should have positive stops in full-open position and

be secured open until closed by the crew.

ORU'sshould be held in place by a temporary storage/locator device

while crew secures permanentlock/latches/fasteners.

All manual electrical and fluid connectors should have back shells

with alignment marks.

Index marks should be provided on jettison clamps and should be

visible from the anticipated EVAwork position.

Handles and tether rings are required for all ORU'sand equipment

that could be jettisoned.

Labels are required on all manual override mechanismsto indicate

rotation convention and numberof turns required to release or attach

the equipment to its mounting provisions.

B-6
2.7 CrewMobility Aids

Handholds should be located adjacent to hardware operated by the

EVA crew (e.g. connectors and joints).

A track-mounted mobile workstation can accomplish some crew translation and restraint requirements for some LSS assembly tests and reduce

time for translation and equipment handling.

Assembly techniques that require only limited, simple, routine

tasks from the EVA crew can lead to rapid assembly of truss structure

when using the mobile workstation (e.g., 38 seconds per strut).

The RMS Manipulator Foot Restraint is a valid approach for solar

array or box changeout if the RMS not required for equipment handling.

Coordination between an EVA crewman and the remote manipulator

operator are possible using verbal directions from the EVA crewman.

2.8 Translation Routes

All hardware along the EVA translation path should have sharp edges

and corners removed to prevent wear to the pressure suit or damage to

the hardware being transferred.

Handrails in transfer tunnels should be 180 ° apart to permit

translation by two crewmen.

Tunnel lights should be at least 15 in. away from tunnel handrails

to prevent elbow contact by translating crewmen.

3.0 OPERATIONS GUIDELINES

Slow rate of travel of the NBS remote manipulator negates effect of

water drag during underwater simulations. Approximating Shuttle RMS

velocities with simulation manipulators meets this criterion.

Two double-cell deployable modules of I0 ft struts can be assembled

in 45 min. using two EVA crewmen and the remote manipulator. Modules of

smaller length struts can be assembled in less time.

The remote manipulator is very time consuming relative to EV crew

performance for assembly of individual LSS elements. If time is the

only consideration, EV assembly is the more efficient.

An EVA crewman can translate along LSS structural elements with up

to four columns attached to one wrist or two columns attached to each

wrist, provided the structural elements or surrounding equipment cannot

be damaged by loosely restrained items.

Assembly procedures should minimize crew translation. Crew movement along a beam restrained on only one end can overload and damage the

restraining connector or the beam.

B-7
Deployable structures are preferred over erectables for ease of

assembly and assembly time required.

Gloved hand access should be provided for all crew operation of

manual equipment.

One-handoperation is preferred over two-handed operation of EVA

equipment

Wherevisibility is limited and visual alignment is necessary, two

EVAcrewmembersare required.

B-8
B

1. REPORT NO. 2. GOVERNMENT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NO.

NASA CR-3751

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Analysis of Large Space Structures Assembly -

Man/Machine Assembly Analysis

5. REPORT DATE

December 1983

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE

'7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT #

H-83-03

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

ESSEX CORPORATION

Huntsville Facility

3322 South Memorial Parkway

Huntsville, Alabama 35801

"1'2. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS

National Aeronatics and Space Administration

Washington, D. C. 20546

10. WORK UNI T NO.

M_429

11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO.

NA$8-32989

13, TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

Contractor Report

i4. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Technical Monitor: Jack W. Stokes, Jr., George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, AL.

16. ABSTRACT

This document outlines procedures for analyzing large space structures assembly

via three primary modes: manual, remote and automated. Data bases on each of the

assembly modes and a general data base on the shuttle capabilities to support structures assembly are presented. Task element times and structure assembly component

costs are given to provide a basis for determining the Comparative economics of

assembly alternatives. The lessons learned from simulations of space structures

assembly are detailed in Appendix B.

17. KE_ WORDS

Assembly Costs Teleoperation

Automated Assembly Remote Sys Assy

EVA Assembly Space Deploy. Sys.

Human Factors Space Erectable Sys

Large Space Platforms Space Fabrication

Large Space Structures Shuttle Payload

Large Space Systems Capabilities

19. SECURITY CLASSIF. (of this repoct_ 20. SECURITY CLASSIF. (of this page)

Unclassified Unclassified

18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

Unclassified - Unlimited

Subject Category 12

21. NO. OF PAGES 22. PRICE

171 A08

For sale by National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 2 21

NASA-Langl ey, 1983
National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Washington, D.C.

20546

Official Business_,

PenalW for Private Use, $300

SPECIAL FOURTH CLASS MAIL

BOOK

J

Post_ LANGLEy RE E

s_

NAS 3 1176 00189 6712

POSTMASTER: If Undeliverable (Section 15 8

Postal Manual) Do Not Return