CR/SSCN 009593Aimages.spaceref.com/news/2005/CR_SSCN_009593A.pdfThis presentation was reviewed / dispositioned at the following: Meeting Date Outcome/Direction PICB ULC/ExP Concept

Authorization to Proceed withULC / ExPRESS Pallet Development

Sponsoring Org/Office Code: Program Integration / OM

10/12/05

OM6 / External Carriers Office / Rodney Nabizadeh 281-244-7255

CR/SSCN 009593A

Page No. 2

CR/SSCN 009593AWWW.NASAWATCH.COM

Purpose

The purpose of this presentation is:

Request for Technical Concurrence

Request for Partial Implementation

Request for Early Release of Program Documentation

Request for Full/Final Implementation

Information Only/Management Direction

Response to an Action Item

This presentation was reviewed / dispositioned at the following:

Meeting Date Outcome/DirectionPICB ULC/ExP Concept Out brief 4/20/05 Informational

SSPCB ULC/ExP Concept Out brief 4/26/05 Informational

PICB ULC CR Initiation 8/17/05 CR Initiation with “Tallboy” Option

Program Manager Status 9/28/05 Proceed with GSFC CR

PICB 10/12/05

SSPCB 10/18/05

Page No. 3


Change Definition

• What is the problem/issue?– The demand to launch and stow unpressurized cargo exists and

has significantly increased due to Shuttle retirement

Current carrier fleet does not have the volume or massefficiency required to launch and stow enough cargo tomaintain the ISS through 2015 The more carriers in the cargo bay, the more integration hardware

(mass overhead), the less usable cargo

Current carrier fleet does not have the capability to meetpayload requirements

• Who/What is impacted?– GSFC/HST Carrier Development Office

– OB/Logistics & Maintenance

– OZ/Payload Office

– Various organizations within ISS and SSP who will need to reviewand incorporate the combined ULC/ExPS Carrier into theirimplementation plans

Page No. 4


Change Definition (cont)

• What are the consequences of not implementing thischange?– The ISSP will not be able to launch and resupply enough

unpressurized cargo (including critical spares) to the ISS beforeShuttle retirement which could result in an inability to meet ISSfunctionality requirements through 2015 OB5/L&M Strategic Planning and Integration has identified:

Pre-Positioned Critical Spares: ~24 ORUs (43 FRAM Equivalents(FE)) Required to be launched by the Shuttle prior to retirement Required to maintain two-fault tolerance on SSRMS

In addition, a LON maintenance of ~20 FE sites / year Roughly translated, in the two years prior to Shuttle retirement,

L&M alone requires 83 FE

Page No. 5


Technical Solution

• Characteristics– ~14.25 ft by ~16.5 ft

– Est. tare weight of ~2800 lbs– 2 Grapple Fixtures, ROEU, Avionics

• Capabilities– Deployable, horizontal cross bay carrier

– 12 FRAM-based carrier with direct mountcapabilities Up to 2 ExPRESS Pallet Adapters

per carrier for science payloads

FRAM Compatible via adapter plates

– Planned to carry 11500 lbs of attachedpayload/cargo mass

– Avionics System

– Currently sized to meet all EVA/EVRclearances for payload removal

– Representative ORU manifests haveyielded configurations of 13 FRAMEquivalents

• Build ULC / ExPRESS Carrier System

Page No. 6


Strategic Plan

• Plan is to perform a phased implementation to deliver subsystemsbased on cargo demand

– Phase 1: Deliver Cargo Carrier This CR will design and deliver the ULC/ExPS fleet of carriers (5) Will include an Electrical System to provide survival power for heaters

Modular design to provide upgrade capabilities for payload requirements

Scar carriers for utilization power and data requirements (harnesses)

Design and qualify a ExPRESS Pallet Control Assembly (ExPCA)Experiment Control Module (ECM) and associated GSE hardware Develop Utilization user guides, ExPCA ICDs, etc.

Support trades for power and data requirements Determine key decision points for Phase 2 implementation

– Phase 2: Add ExPRESS power and data functionality and associated GSEhardware Future CR will add additional ExPCA ECMs, ExPRESS Pallet Adapters

(ExPAs), Suitcase Test Environment for Payloads – ExPRESS Pallet(STEP-EP), and associated GSE

Page No. 7


Electrical System Description

• ExPCA Description– Consists of a Power Module and up to two Experiment Control Modules– Modular chassis based on the HST EPDSU chassis– Two of the supported FRAM locations on the ExPS shall be capable of

supporting ExPA payloads– One ExPS Power Module (EPM) provides heater power for the ExPS and

the 12 FRAM locations

• ExPS Power Module– Distributes power for heaters in the ExPCA, EBCS, ExPA and ORU

locations to maintain survival temperatures

• ExPCA Experiment Control Module– Distributes 120 Vdc and 28 Vdc operational power, MIL-STD-1553B

command and telemetry communications, Ethernet data communications,discrete I/O and analog input services to a single ExPA location

– The ExPCA ECM shall be configurable as either a master or slave module When only one ECM is in the ExPCA, the module will be configured as

a single module master When two ECM’s are installed, one will be configured as master, and

one as slave– Note: Flight units are not included in cost ROM summary

Page No. 8


What This CR Provides

• GSFC Hardware– (5) ULC / ExPRESS Pallets with electrical systems (chassis & power

modules)– (1) Designed and qualified Experiment Control Module– (5) Passive Common Attach System (PCAS)– (60) Passive FRAM Adapter Plates– (60) Passive FRAMs (TBD)– (1) DMT Trainer– Factory Support Equipment

• GFE Hardware– (1) NBL Trainer– (60) PFRAM Connectors (new purchase)– (5) FRGF (in inventory)– (5) PVGF (in inventory)– (5) ROEU / PDAs (in inventory)– (5) EBCS (in inventory)– (20) H-Fixtures (in inventory)– (5) UMA (3 in inventory, 2 new purchase) – Requires Boeing impact– Handrails and WIFs (new purchase)

Page No. 9


What Is Not Included in CR

• Flight ExPRESS Pallet Control Assembly (ExPCA)Experiment Control Modules (ECMs) including spares

• ExPCA software

• ExPS Avionics Flight Equivalent Unit

• KSC ExPS simulator

• Suitcase Test Environment for Payloads – ExPRESS Pallet(STEP-EP)

• ExPRESS Pallet Adapters (ExPAs)

• ExPA Shipping / Storage Containers

• Flight integration tasks via CMC

• Payload integration

• Boeing software support

Page No. 10


Top Issues

• The ULC / ExPRESS Carrier development schedule is veryaggressive

• Depending on the flight manifest, the hardware deliveryschedule may not support KSC’s on-dock need dates– KSC need dates for first two deliveries are L-9.5 and L-7 months

Best effort schedule has carriers being delivered atapproximately L-5 months

Current schedule shows Carriers 1&2 11/30/07 for assumed launch date of April 2008 Carriers 3&4 4/30/08 for assumed launch date of September 2008 Carrier 5 10/30/08 for assumed launch date of April 2009

• Current budget does not allow for providing full payloadcapabilities across all pallets

Page No. 11


Other Impacts

• NASA– ExPCA ECM deferral impacts planned NASA utilization for the ExPRESS

Pallet in FY08– Also impacts other agencies planning to utilize the ExPRESS Pallet in FY08

Department of Defense

• ASI– ExPCA ECM deferral impacts planned ASI utilization for the ExPRESS Pallet

in FY08– NASA / ASI MOU states:

9.1.(b) In exchange for ASI's provision of the three MPLM flight units, . . .. . 0.85 percent of accommodations for external payloads; and 0.85percent of utilization resources

Equates to one ExPA site for the EUROPA payload

• CSA– ExPCA ECM deferral impacts planned CSA utilization for the ExPRESS

Pallet in FY08– NASA / CSA SPDM Arrangement and Supporting Services and Utilization

Agreements states CSA will receive a total of six ExPA years

Page No. 12


ROM Cost Summary

Task Title FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 Total

Total Budget for Carrier Dev / Integ 19.1 38.0 28.1 19.2 15.9 120.2

Total Potential Cost of GSFC ULC Project Note 1 18.7 42.4 30.7 11.6 3.5 106.8

GSFC DDT&E Costs (CR 9593 Costs) 18.3 34.5 18.5 1.3 0.0 72.5

GFE DDT&E Costs (Impacts to CR 9593) Note 2 0.5 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2

Estimated I&O Costs (Not included in CR 9593) 0.0 6.1 12.2 10.3 3.5 32.1

Proposed Reserves for ULC-ExPRESS Project 0.3 7.2 3.6 2.2 0.0 13.3

GSFC Reserves (7.5% of Budget) Note 3 0.2 3.6 1.8 1.1 0.0 6.7

JSC Reserves (7.5% of Budget) Note 3 0.2 3.6 1.8 1.1 0.0 6.7

Delta to Existing Budget w/o Reserves 0.3 (4.4) (2.6) 7.5 12.4 13.3

Delta to Existing Budget with Reserves 0.0 (11.5) (6.2) 5.3 12.4 0.0

Note 1: Not include in totals are Payload I&O, Boeing sofware I&O or any additional ORU FSE / copies

Note 2: Used OM6 ROM projections for some items while waiting for formal impacts

Note 3: GSFC / JSC agreed reserves of 15% would be shared equally.

Amounts shown assume 15% of cost requirements, not budget, with no FY06 reserves

Page No. 13


Cost Estimates for Follow On Options

1.5Spare ECM (Refurbished qual unit)

19.0Total ExPCA ECM Costs (10 + Spare)

1.75Recurring Costs (per unit)

$M ExPCA Experiment Control Modules

5.0Total Cost for 10 units

0.5Per unit cost

$MExPRESS Pallet Adapter (ExPA) estimates

– Cost estimates for the following not yet available: ExPCA GSE (STEP-EP, KSC Sim, FEU, Ship Containers KSC GSE Flight integration tasks via CMC Payload integration tasks Boeing software support

Page No. 14


Implementation Schedule

ID Task Name Duration Start Finish

1 SRR 0 days Thu 12/15/05 Thu 12/15/05

2 PDR 0 days Tue 5/16/06 Tue 5/16/06

3 Order Materials 0 days Fri 9/1/06 Fri 9/1/06

4 PEER Reviews 12 days Mon 10/2/06 Tue 10/17/06

5 CDR (GSFC/JSC Combined) 0 days Tue 1/16/07 Tue 1/16/07

6 Qual Unit 257 days Wed 10/18/06 Thu 10/11/07

7 Fabrication 5.4 mons Wed 10/18/06 Fri 3/16/07

8 Assembly 89 days Mon 3/19/07 Thu 7/19/07

9 Test 3 mons Fri 7/20/07 Thu 10/11/07

10 FCA/PCA 5 days Thu 11/8/07 Wed 11/14/07

11 Flight Unit 1 217 days Thu 2/1/07 Fri 11/30/07

12 Fabrication 5 mons Thu 2/1/07 Wed 6/20/07

13 Assembly 65 days Thu 6/21/07 Wed 9/19/07

14 Test 6 wks Thu 9/20/07 Wed 10/31/07

15 Ship Flight Unit 1 0 days Fri 11/30/07 Fri 11/30/07

16 Flight Unit 2 217 days Thu 2/1/07 Fri 11/30/07


18 Assembly 3.25 mons Thu 6/21/07 Wed 9/19/07

19 Test 6 wks Thu 9/20/07 Wed 10/31/07

20 Ship Flight Unit 2 0 days Fri 11/30/07 Fri 11/30/07

21 Flight Unit 3 205 days Thu 7/19/07 Wed 4/30/08


23 Assembly 3 mons Tue 12/11/07 Mon 3/3/08

24 Test 6 wks Tue 3/4/08 Mon 4/14/08

25 Ship Flight Unit 3 0 days Wed 4/30/08 Wed 4/30/08

26 Flight Unit 4 205 days Thu 7/19/07 Wed 4/30/08


28 Assembly 3 mons Tue 12/11/07 Mon 3/3/08

29 Test 6 wks Tue 3/4/08 Mon 4/14/08

30 Ship Flight Units 4 0 days Wed 4/30/08 Wed 4/30/08

31 Flight Unit 5 (Refurb Qual Unit) 202 days Wed 1/23/08 Thu 10/30/08

32 Fabrication 5 mons Wed 1/23/08 Tue 6/10/08

33 Assembly 3 mons Wed 6/11/08 Tue 9/2/08

34 Test 6 wks Wed 9/3/08 Tue 10/14/08

35 Ship Flight Unit 5 0 days Thu 10/30/08 Thu 10/30/08

36 Prototype Science I/F Module 520 days Mon 10/3/05 Fri 9/28/07

37 Design 13 mons Mon 10/3/05 Fri 9/29/06

38 Development 13 mons Mon 10/2/06 Fri 9/28/07

SRR 12/15

PDR 5/16

Order Materials 9/1

10/2 10/17

CDR (GSFC/JSC Combined) 1/16

10/18 3/16

3/19 7/19

7/20 10/11

11/8 11/14

2/1 6/20

6/21 9/19

9/20 10/31

Ship Flight Unit 1 11/30

2/1 6/20

6/21 9/19

9/20 10/31


7/19 12/5

12/11 3/3

3/4 4/14


7/19 12/5

12/11 3/3

3/4 4/14

Ship Flight Units 4 4/30

1/23 6/10

6/11 9/2

9/3 10/14


10/3 9/29

10/2 9/28

A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Page No. 15


Requested Evaluators

Distributed for Evaluation Date:_8/18/05 (10/3/05 Rev A)_ Evaluation Due date: _10/10/05_________

I. NASA ISS Program Office CAM Disposition DA/Mission Operations Directorate Concur

w/Comments

KSC/Payloads Processing Directorate TBD OB/Vehicle Office Concur

w/Comments OC/Mission Integration & Ops Office Concur

OD/Avionics Office TBD OE/Safety & Mission Assurance Office Concur

w/Comments OM/Program Integration Office Concur

OH/Program Planning and Control Office Concurw/Comments

OX/External Relations Office No Response OZ/Payloads Office Concur w/ Mods

XA/EVA Project Office TBD

II. NASA JSC Organizations CA/Flight Crew Operations Directorate Concur EA/Engineering Directorate Concur w/ Mods

MA/Space Shuttle Program Office SA/Space & Life Sciences Directorate

I. NASA ISS Program Office CAM Disposition DA/Mission Operations Directorate Concur

w/Comments

KSC/Payloads Processing Directorate TBD OB/Vehicle Office Concur

w/Comments OC/Mission Integration & Ops Office Concur

OD/Avionics Office TBD OE/Safety & Mission Assurance Office Concur

w/Comments OM/Program Integration Office Concur

OH/Program Planning and Control Office Concurw/Comments

OX/External Relations Office No Response OZ/Payloads Office Concur w/ Mods

XA/EVA Project Office TBD

II. NASA JSC Organizations CA/Flight Crew Operations Directorate Concur EA/Engineering Directorate Concur w/ Mods

MA/Space Shuttle Program Office SA/Space & Life Sciences Directorate

III. Other NASA Organizations DispositionGRCMSFC (Identify Office)GSFC/HST Carrier Dev. Office ConcurIV. International PartnersASI-NodesASI-MPLM No ResponseCSA No ResponseESA TBDINPEJAXARosaviakosmosRSC-EV. ISS ContractorsARES

BarriosBoeingNAS15-10000 (ISS Sustaining Engineering)

TBD

NAS9-02099 (ISS Payloads Integration Contract)NAS9-02098 (40 Battery ORU Contract)

Lockheed Martin Concur w/Comments

III. Other NASA Organizations DispositionGRCMSFC (Identify Office)GSFC/HST Carrier Dev. Office ConcurIV. International PartnersASI-NodesASI-MPLM No ResponseCSA No ResponseESA TBDINPEJAXARosaviakosmosRSC-EV. ISS ContractorsARES

BarriosBoeingNAS15-10000 (ISS Sustaining Engineering)

TBD

NAS9-02099 (ISS Payloads Integration Contract)NAS9-02098 (40 Battery ORU Contract)

Lockheed Martin Concur w/Comments

Page No. 16


MOD Evaluation Comments

• Comments– Per DT/Tom Kaiser, 281-244-7357

– The SSTF PAS/UCCAS simulation may require modificationpending a MSFC/TST requirement to support power and datatransfer from ISS core systems to payloads attached at the PASand UCCAS sites

• Disposition– Agree

Page No. 17


OE Evaluation Comments

• Comments– Applicable ISS Safety and Quality requirements documents should

be followed in the design of this hardware and addressed in afuture CR (i.e., SSP 41173, Space Station Quality AssuranceRequirements; SSP 30223, Problem Reporting And CorrectiveAction for the Space Station Program; SSP 50021, ISS SafetyRequirements Document; etc.)

– Applicable ISS Safety and Quality requirements will need to bedefined in the ULC/ExPS Pallet requirements document prior tothe design and development of this new ISS hardware


Page No. 18


OH Evaluation Comments

• Comments– The cost estimate is in work. The OH3 POC is Grace Martinez.

• Disposition– Will provide additional data, as requested

Page No. 19


ESA Evaluation Comments

• Comments– Implementation of this change will enable NASA to be able to fulfill

their obligation to ESA to provide for the launch and returntransportation service of 5 external European payloads, part of theCupola barter arrangement

– The procurement of 6 of these elements might be consistent withthe available number of planned Shuttle flights prior to itsretirement in 2010, but so long as the obligation to ESA is fulfilled,any over-planning in this respect has no impact to ESA

• Disposition– Comments are still based on baseline version of CR

– Do not expect any changes

– Agree

Baseline Comments

Page No. 20


CMC Evaluation Comments

• Comments– Impacts during the carrier development may require direct mount FSE be

re-certified or modified for integration onto the ULC/ExPRESS carrier– CMC assumes the mission specific planning and impacts due to using the

ULC/ExPRESS with current FSE will be impacted on another CR– CMC is the ISS sustaining engineering contractor for the PFRAM– CMC will need to establish a MRB process with GSFC and its associated

contractors As requested by NASA, CMC is producing a ROM to include the

fabrication of these units along with the Sustaining Engineering costs This ROM is expected by October 14, 2005

– Summary: CMC cost impacts will be provided by 10/14/05

• Disposition– TBD– Recommend to defer decision until 10/14/05 to assess PFRAM build until

CMC ROM is received

Page No. 21


KSC Evaluation CommentsCost Impacts

• Comments– CAPPS will provide advanced planning support to the design and development of

flight hardware and associated GSE in accordance with the existing SOW, with thefollowing additional cost:

One CDR to be attended by one CM analyst and one QA engineer

One each FCA/PCA/AR for 3 hardware deliveries to be attended by one CManalyst and one QA engineer

Carrier/ORU integrated assembly buildup, including unique GSE, are not includedhere. An additional CR will be required for all impacts associated with KSCprocessing.


– Expect to receive updated evaluation 10/14/05

43.036.76.3 Grand Total

20.717.73.1Launch Site S&MA337-44-11

21.518.43.2Launch Site ConfigurationManagement337-44-08

0.80.60.1Launch Site Management &Administration337-44-07

($K)($K)($K)

Total FY 08 FY 07UPN DescriptionUPN

Baseline Comments

Page No. 22


KSC Evaluation CommentsIssues / Concerns

• Issues / Concerns:– KSC has no work stand capable of accommodating the ExPS for

processing without detailed assessments and/or modifications,which will require additional funding

Work stand options under consideration

– Planned hardware delivery dates do not support KSC processingrequirements prior to launch

Processing durations indicated in the CR, and GSE quantities,may be inadequate, depending on manifested missioncomplements

– Carrier and GSE sustaining and maintenance after final deliveryhas yet to be defined

• Disposition– Comments are still based on baseline version of CR– Expect to receive updated evaluation 10/14/05

Baseline Comments

Page No. 23


OZ Evaluation Comments

• Comments– Include the design, fabrication, assembly, test, and delivery of two

Experiment Control Modules per carrier (for a total of ten ECMs)and ground test equipment

• Disposition– Do not concur

– Current budget does not allow for fully outfitted carriers to includepayload capabilities

– Recommend OM/OZ to pursue separate CR to provide ECMs

Page No. 24


OB Evaluation Comments

• Comments– The ULC power architecture being proposed in this CR will not

provide monitoring of the power provided to the individual FRAMsites on the ULC

– The telemetry will only show the power being drawn by the entirepallet it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to determine which

individual FRAM site had failed

The ORU on that failed FRAM site might then exceed its non-operational temperature limits and neither the crew nor theMCC would know about it.

– Given all the budgetary constraints facing the ISS program, theVehicle Office opinion is that the cost to provide the on-orbit powermonitoring is greater than the potential risk and recommendsapproving this CR


Page No. 25


ES Evaluation Comments

• Comment– PTCS recommends modification to include power monitoring at

the individual ORU/FRAM-level

If this feature is not incorporated, PTCS has identified thefollowing impacts and risks to future R&R of critical sparesconsidering that stowed ORU will be exposed to full range ofthermal environments over time

The most significant impact is the possibility that an ORU R&Rmay be performed with an at-risk ORU due to an indeterminatethermal certification condition

Installation of a suspect/failed ORU may cause other failures tooccur

Another impact is the additional PTCS analysis required tomanage the condition of the pallet for planned power downs

• Disposition– Do not concur

– The ExPCA Power Module design proposed is consistent withexisting and planned External Stowage Platforms

Page No. 26


EV Evaluation Comments

• Comments– C&T concurs with the understanding that an activity will be

performed prior to launch of any C&T external ORUs that may belaunched using this HW to verify that C&T ORUs will not besubjected to launch loads and other environments that are outsideof their certification


– Do not expect any changes

– Agree with comments

– Mission unique configurations will be assessed by CMC duringmission integration processing schedules.

Baseline Comments

Page No. 27


ER Evaluation Comments

• Comments– MSS SYSTEM MANAGER IMPACTS:

System design support costs areincluded in current workplan, exceptfor travel (DDTE responsibility hasbeen re-assigned from JSC to GSFC)

FY 06: $4K (travel) FY 07: $4K(travel)

– Under the Electrical System Description onp. 3, is the ExPCA required to be EVR andEVA compatible as well as modular? If so,this should be stated along with themodularity.

– Under the Cost Assumptions on p. 4, it isnoted that the qual unit will be refurbishedto become the final unit. Does this mean itwill be the 5th unit or the 6th unit? Furtherconfusion arises under the Schedule on p.4: the last item lists delivery dates forcarriers 5 and 6, although the CR specifies5 carriers.

– Under the Schedule on p. 4, does theCarrier PDR include the PDR for theAvionics? (The Avionics PDR was crossedout).

– GFSC Tasks references Phase 2implementation. This is not noted in theschedule and needs to be clarified.

• Disposition– Do not concur.– Travel should be in scope with supporting

activities

– Agree. EVA / EVR requirements will beaddressed at the planned SRR. Currently,the ExPCA is required to be EVA/EVRcompatible.

– Agree. The 6th carrier delivery in theschedule was inadvertently not deleted.The qual unit is planned to be refurbishedto be the 5th flight unit.

– Yes

– Phase 2 Implementation will be determinedat a later date

Page No. 28


Boeing NAS15-10000 Evaluation Comments

• Comments– As a result of Boeing's technical review of this change the data provided appears to

be technically correct

– Boeing will provide NASA a Proposal, describing the changes in Contract ValueCosts. The Tasks, by Team and WBS will be listed in the SSCM, as an attachment tothe Proposal. The Proposal will be completed for presentation to NASA on or before10/21/05. Upon final negotiations and definitization of the Proposal both the Contractand I&O Work Packages will be updated.

– As further information and knowledge about this change is obtained, Boeing will takethe action to alert NASA if this initial assessment needs to be changed

– The ULC/ExP as currently proposed violates several Attached Payload IRD(SSP57003) requirements

Baseline Comments

Page No. 29


Boeing NAS15-10000 Evaluation CommentsOn-Orbit Operational Envelope

• Comment– The ULC/ExP as currently proposed violates several Attached Payload IRD

(SSP57003) requirements 3.1.3.1.1.1 On Orbit Operational Envelope

ULC/ExP currently exceeds operational envelope. Of particular concern is thepotential hard interference between cargo items when ULC/ExPs are installed onadjacent S3 sites.

• Disposition– The upper portion of on-orbit operational envelope will clearly be violated– Recommend pursuing a waiver once all required analysis has been conducted on

future design iterations– Rationale:

Preliminary MAGIK analysis showed the SRMS to SSRMS handoff to installthe ULC/ExPS to the PAS/UCCAS sites were kinematically feasible

Analysis also showed the SPDM had acceptable access to the FRAM sites Originally, the upper dimension of the envelope was limited due to cargo bay

dimensions (assuming a CAS/Keel arrangement similar to AMS or previousdesign) which is not applicable in this configuration

Other considerations were to limit the heights to ensure nadir/zenith viewingangles were maintained Preliminary analysis shows payload viewing requirements will be met by the

ULC/ExPS Also performed additional analysis with the shortened height to assess AMS star

tracker interferences which showed promise

The only impacts identified are that the exceedance will violate the RoboticTranslation Corridor, therefore translation across the stack on the MCAS willbe prohibited due to interferences with the CAM.

Baseline Comments

Page No. 30


Boeing NAS15-10000 Evaluation CommentsOn-Orbit Operational Envelope Interferences

• Comment– 3.1.3.1.1.3 EVA/Robotics Operational Envelope

When ULC/ExPs are installed on adjacent S3 sites, EVA and EVR translation corridorsbetween the carriers are violated and the ability to remove cargo on one side of each carrier isquestionable (see attached figure).

• Disposition– Preliminary MAGIK analysis recommended some dimensions to offset the carrier to allow for

adequate spacing between the carriers– These carrier-to-PCAS offset dimensions will be evaluated as the design matures to allow for

adequate spacing between PAS sites on P3.– A preliminary structural math model with a 10 inch offset identified below presented good results

with respect to the PAS interface loads– Recommend continuing down the path to separate carriers as much as possible and evaluate

EVA/EVR clearances with mission unique analysis when the actual ORUs are manifested.

Possible cargointerference with nocarrier-to-PCAS offset

Baseline Comments

Page No. 31


Boeing NAS15-10000 Evaluation CommentsOn-Orbit Operational Envelope Interferences

• Comment– If the PCAS to carrier dimension is shortened to reduce the z c.g. offset,

EVA translation corridors around the CAS interface will be violated. Thisnon-compliance cannot be deemed acceptable until NBL testing isperformed.

• Disposition– Agree– However, NBL testing of the PCAS and an ESP3 has been performed with

similar if not more interferences. For those runs, the EVA community evaluated the configurations to be

acceptable

~30”

Baseline Comments

Page No. 32


Boeing NAS15-10000 Evaluation CommentsOn-Orbit Mass and Center of Gravity

• Comments– 3.1.3.1.2.2 Mass and Center of Gravity

Conceptual designs of the ULC/ExP exceed the z c.g.requirement. "Quick look" analyses with preliminary ULC/ExPmodels does not show exceedances of the CAS interface loadrequirements. However, compliance with the loads requirements cannot be shown

until mature models have been assessed. Loads are currently being assessed.


Baseline Comments

Page No. 33


Summary / Recommendation

• Summary– An unpressurized carrier design and development effort must

begin in FY06 and be accelerated in order to be delivered in theCY 07/08 timeframe and utilized effectively prior to Shuttleretirement

• Recommendation– PICB to authorize GSFC to build ULC / ExPRESS pallets– Full CR implementation is pending resolution of

KSC Impacts CMC PFRAM builds Boeing impacts

• Follow-on Actions– Baseline Joint Project Management Plan between JSC and GSFC

detailing this plan– Initiate and sign FY06 ITA with GSFC

Page No. 34


Backup Charts

Page No. 35


ULC Power and Data System Options

• Low Level Avionics Option– Survival power

120 Vdc on ISS

28 Vdc in shuttle

Fused services

– Controls/Monitoring None

– Supports

UMA for on Station power only

PDA for Shuttle 28 Vdc poweronly

PVGF 12 FRAM locations for ORUs

Berthing Camera System

– GSE

None required

• Mid Level Avionics Option– Survival power

120 Vdc on ISS Programmable/re-settable circuit

breakers

28 Vdc in shuttle Fused services

– Control/Monitoring

ISS MIL-STD-1553b ISSInterface

Voltage, Current, Temperature,Status

– Supports UMA for on Station power and

MIL-STD-1553b services

PDA for Shuttle 28 Vdc poweronly

PVGF

12 FRAM locations for ORUs Berthing Camera System

– GSE

None required

• GSFC has provided two options to serve as the ULC Power and Data System

Page No. 36


Tall Boy Preliminary Evaluations

SPDM Access to +/-Z FRAMs

EVA Translation Corridors

Tall Boy in Vertical Erection Facility (VEF)

Only requires the single workstand

All operations were feasible but require more evaluation as design matures.All operations were feasible but require more evaluation as design matures.

~30”

* Courtesy of XA/Boeing MSER

* Courtesy of KSC/UB/CAPPS* Courtesy of OM7/MAGIK

Page No. 37


Changes Since Concept Review

• Some changes are envisioned to the concept design due toimprovements that can be made to further enhance & refine the design

– On-orbit C.G. improvements

Reduce the Deck to PCAS dimension

Look at moving the keel structure closer to the CAS interface Moves mass closer to the Truss.

– Improve clearances between ORUs/Payloads due to adjacent carriers on S3.

Assess Deck to CAS offsets to increase the clearances between ORUs/payloads

~30”

* Courtesy of OM7/MAGIK* Courtesy of XA/Boeing MSER

Page No. 38


Test Case ORU layouts(Not real manifests)

Meets ISS on-orbit c.g. requirementsMeets ISS on-orbit c.g. requirements15Total

FRAM –E64

5

Manifest• SPDM Arm (Direct Mount)• Pump Module (Direct Mount)

• 5 Payloads (SAPA)

SPDM Arm

Payload#1

Payload#2

Payload#5

Payload#3

Payload#4

PumpModule

+ Y Side - Y Side

- XEdge

Shuttle Static andDynamic Envelopes

Page No. 39



Payload#6

Payload#7

Payload#8 Payload

#9

ATA

NTA

PumpModule

+ Y Side - Y Side

- XEdge


14Total

FRAM –E24

24

Manifest• ATA (Direct Mount)• Pump Module (Direct Mount)

• NTA (Direct Mount)• 4 Payloads (SAPA)

Meets ISS on-orbit c.g. requirementsMeets ISS on-orbit c.g. requirements

Page No. 40



CMG CMGATA

SGANT

EJODFHRC

LDU

+ Y Side - Y Side

- XEdge


13Total

FRAM –E

214

312

Manifest

• ATA (Direct Mount)• FHRC (Direct Mount)• 2 CMG (SAPA)

• 3 EJOD (Direct Mount)• LDU (SAPA)• SGANT (SAPA)


Page No. 41




BCDU

HP Tank O2

MBSU

LEE

MT/TUS

DCSUCTC

+ Y Side - Y Side

- XEdge

10Total

FRAM –E

114

111

1

Manifest

• MBSU (SAPA)• BCDU (SAPA)• HP Tank O2 (Direct Mount)

• CTC (SAPA)• DCSU (SAPA)• LEE (Direct Mount)

• MT/TUS Reel (Direct Mount)


Documents

CR/SSCN 009593Aimages.spaceref.com/news/2005/CR_SSCN_009593A.pdfThis presentation was reviewed / dispositioned at the following: Meeting Date Outcome/Direction PICB ULC/ExP Concept