Mary.faller

John F. Kennedy Space Center
LAUNCH SERVICES PROGRAM

Help Us Help You -
Spacecraft Lessons Learned From a Launch Vehicle
Technical Integration Perspective

Mary Faller
VA-G2
Mission Integration Branch
Fleet and System Management Division
Launch Services Program
321-867-8943
mary.k.faller@nasa.gov

1

Agenda

• Purpose
• Who we are
• Why you need this information
• Spacecraft system design considerations – lessons from
integration
• Summary
• Contacts

2

Purpose

• Heighten awareness of the impact launch vehicle integration and
launch has on your spacecraft
– Sustaining mission operations may not be the harshest environment
you need to design to
• Transmit recurring lessons learned to those who actually design,
build, or procure spacecraft – YOU!
• Ensure our expertise is transmitted early enough to make
a difference
– Wonderful – Pre-AO response
– Ideal – prior to awarding any instrument or SC bus contract
– Great – SRR
– Good – PDR
– Ok – CDR

3


Who we are:

Launch Services Program (LSP)

4

Experience

• Why are we telling you (aka “the experts”) about spacecraft
design considerations?
– Over 50 SC launched
– Experience on all commercial fleets
» Atlas II, Atlas III, Atlas V, Delta II, Delta III, Taurus, Pegasus, Delta IV
– Experience with Risk Category Class A to Class D payloads
– Multiple launch sites
» KSC, VAFB, Kodiak LC, Kwajalein

Been there, done that

5

Launch Services Locations

Dulles
Denver WFF
VAFB
VAFB Pueblo

Huntington
Beach
Chandler

Decatur/MSFC

KSC
ELV Resident Offices CCAFS
Launch Sites

Kodiak, Alaska
Kwajalein
6

Launch Services Program Charter

• Launch Services Program (LSP) resides at Kennedy Space
Center (KSC)
• Charter: Provide the commercially available Expendable Launch
Vehicle (ELV) launch services acquisition and management
functions for NASA and its customers
• Objectives: to ensure ELV mission success, provide the lowest
cost services on-time, and maximize customer satisfaction
• Established in 1998 (consolidation of functions across the
agency to KSC)

7

NPD’s for ELV Launch Services

• NPD 8610.23, Technical Oversight of Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV)
Launch Services
– This Directive establishes the NASA policy for Government technical
oversight (insight and approval) of ELV launch services provided by
commercial launch service providers

• NPD 8610.24, Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV) Launch Services Pre-
Launch Readiness Reviews
– This directive standardizes the Launch Services Program (LSP) pre-launch
review process for all NASA acquired/managed launch services missions
deemed necessary to fulfill Space Operations responsibilities for assuring
launch readiness certification for NASA payloads/missions

• NPD 8610.7, Launch Services Risk Mitigation Policy for NASA-owned or
NASA-sponsored Payloads
– This directive addresses the process that enables NASA to take advantage of
the full range of available launch capability while ensuring that the risks
associated with access to space are consistent with the risk classification
approved for individual payloads and missions

8

LSP Primary Functions

– ELV Launch Services Contract acquisition/management
– Launch Services Budget development/execution
– Mission Integration Management (AO Process through launch)
– Core vehicle engineering, production, test, and operations insight
– Mission Analysis
– Engineering services, studies and technical services
– Communications/Telemetry (Hangar AE)
– Program and business management support
– Launch Site Integration Management
– Safety and Mission Assurance
– Advanced Missions Planning

9

LSP Engineering Mission Objectives

• To aid the Spacecraft customer in achieving total mission
success by
– Ensuring that all interface requirements are identified and met
through production, assembly, analysis and test (verification)
– Developing and implementing technical risk mitigation for the
Expendable Launch Vehicle
– Certifying the launch vehicle
– Actively participating in the launch operations campaign

We are launch vehicle environments, operations, test experts

10

LSP Engineering Responsibilities

• Implement KSC Documented Procedures (KDPs) for
requirements development, engineering reviews, requirements
verification, etc.

• Assist spacecraft (SC) with inputs to integrated analyses, tests
and procedures

• Actively participate in working groups, design reviews, test
planning, and tests/operations to ensure requirements are
defined and met

• Launch Services Contractor (LSC) factory insight for production
– hardware built to meet requirements

• Core vehicle configuration insight – fleet issue resolution

• Engineering verifications for launch campaign and
readiness reviews
11

NASA Launch Services Technical Oversight

• NASA Policy: NPD 8610.23, “Technical Oversight of Expendable Launch
Vehicle (ELV) Launch Services”

• NASA’s technical oversight approach seeks to ensure the highest
practicable probability of launch success by involvement in, and control
of, the launch through technical oversight
– Technical Oversight – Combination of focused approvals and technical
insight of contractor launch activities
– Insight – Acquiring knowledge and understanding of contractor’s actions by
monitoring of selected metrics and/or milestones through watchful
observation, documentation review, meeting attendance, reviews, tests, and
compliance evaluations
– Approval – Providing the contractor authority to proceed and/or formal
acceptance of requirements, plans, tests, or success criteria in
specified areas

• NASA retains the right to non-concur with the contractor’s proposed
actions based on knowledge obtained through insight

• Policy applies to all NASA managed launches

12

NASA Launch Services Technical Oversight (cont’d)

• Specific areas requiring government approval are focused on the
interface with the spacecraft
– S/C to LV Interface Control Documents (ICD’s) and drawings
– Resolution/closeout of Mission Integration Working Group (MIWG), Mission
Readiness Review (MRR) and Flight Readiness Review (FRR) action items
– Mission unique hardware/software design, analyses, manufacture and test
– Top level test plans, requirements and success criteria for integrated vehicle
systems and for tests that verify the integrated vehicle interfaces
– Integrated spacecraft handling procedures and deviations
– Integrated spacecraft to launch vehicle mate, test and closeout procedures,
as-run procedures and deviations
– Anomaly resolutions that affect the integrated spacecraft to launch
vehicle assembly
– Launch commit criteria and launch GO/NO-GO

SC to LV Integration Expertise
13

NASA Launch Services Technical Oversight (cont’d)

• Specific areas open to government insight are widespread
– Baseline vehicle design, analyses and configuration management
– Production: Including reviews, plans, schedules, tests, post-test
data, MRB’s and critical flight hardware pedigree
– Major system and integrated systems tests
– Post-test data, anomaly resolution/closeout, failure analysis
– Launch Site schedules, plans, vehicle preparation, closeout data,
walkdowns, operations and procedure discipline
– Post-launch data and anomaly investigations/closeouts

Vehicle Expertise

14

SC to LSP Interfaces

• Programmatic
• Technical

15

Mission Flow - Example
Spacecraft
Services
SC/LSP Launch
Gates

Pre
SC
MCR MDR PDR/NAR CDR/SIR Mate FRR L+5 Mon
Preship
Review

•GEC •Midex •GOES-P** •GOES O** •AIM •THEMIS •STEREO
•JWST** •Geo ITM •MMS •WISE •SDO •CALIPSO*
•GOES R •Geo RBM •AQUARIUS* •NOAA-N’ •CLOUDSAT
•LISA •TDRS •MSL •NPP
•ConX •AMS •ST-8 •GLAST
•LDCM •New Millennium •LCROSS •GLORY
•RBSP •New Frontiers •IBEX
•LRO GSFC
•JUNO JPL
•SIM •STSS DOD
•STSSB201 Other
•ST-9 ARC
•ESSP 0
•DAWN *International
•GPMC** **Potential Advisory
•Discovery •PHOENIX Underline is Competed
•LPRP •OCO Update as of 10-30-06

•Mars Scout •OSTM* 16
•SMEX •KEPLER

Launch Services Communication Paths

Spacecraft Customer
Launch Services
Policy
Manifesting Program
Status
Mission Directorate & Funding
SOMD AAA or Designee
Program Exec Mgr

Launch Service Contractors (LSC)
LSP Program Mgmt
SC Progr Mgr PM/Dep PM
SC Progr Mission Manager Information Mission Mgmt, Eng, Etc.

Information Mission Integration
SC Project Manager Requirements
Launch date
Manager

SC Business Mgmt Funding Program Integration
nt s
(Prgr/Proj) me
uir
e Manager
Req
LV and LSC-provided
Systems Eng &/or Launch Integration Engineer
launch site requirements
Vehicle Integrator &/or
ATLO Mgr LSP-provided launch site Launch Site
requirements Integration Mgr
Safety/Quality/Mission Safety requirements Safety and Mission
Assurance Assurance 17

Technical Integration

• SC Technical Interface is via Mission Integration Team
– Mission Manager (Project functions)
– Integration Engineer (engineering and integration)
– Launch Site Integration Manager (facilities and operations support)
– Program Integration Manager (funding)
– Safety and Mission Assurance

18

LSP Mission Integration Team

NASA
HQ

KSC
LSP
S/C
LSC Customer
PM / MM NASA / KSC
PM & LVI
MM

NASA / KSC NASA / KSC NASA / KSC NASA / KSC
IE LSIM SMA PIM
SHIA
LSC
Engrg

KSC Resident
Engrg Office
KSC PPF Range LSC NASA NASA
& Safety SMA Contracts Budget
KSC KSC
Services
Mission Vehicle
Analysis Systems S/C S/C
Comm. LSC
Launch Business
S/C LSC & Contracts
Site Manager
Syst. Eng. Launch Telemetry
LSC Team
LVI Site
Launch
Site
19

Requirements Documents

• Interface Requirements Document (IRD) (aka SC Questionnaire)
– IRD is the document to provide your requirements to the launch vehicle (LV)
– SC-owned document
– Usually used as the requirements in a LSC competition (launch service task
order (LSTO))
– Write your requirements, not LV design solutions
• Interface Control Document (ICD)
– The ICD will be agreed to and signed by LSP, LSC, and SC
» LSP must follow LSP-P-330.07, Interface Control Document (ICD) Development,
Change and Approval Process for LSP Missions
» Requires Engineering Review Board (ERB) prior to LSP signature
– If LSC provides it, it must be in the ICD
– KSC will process a Waiver request following LSP Interface Control Document
(ICD) Waiver Process (LSP-P-333.11)
– Waivers are usually only granted in extraordinary circumstances, LSP usually
requires SC or LV perform the necessary action meet the original ICD
requirement

IRD and ICD are critical documents for SC and LV design,
LSP has rigorous review process
20

Interface Verification Flowdown (con’t)

• This independent verification task is a LSP responsibility (LSP ICD
Verification Process, LSP-P-333.08)
– Typically utilizes the same documentation for verification closure as the LSP
process, but may require additional / different supporting documentation
– Documentation supporting compliance with the requirements must be official
documentation (i.e. Plan, Procedure, Analysis Memo, Test Data Summary).
Nominally, a memo stating “we comply with…” is inadequate. LSP requires
data, analysis, test, inspection to show compliance
• Every requirement in the ICD is identified for verification
– Both launch service contractor and SC are required to provide supporting
documentation to LSP showing compliance with the requirements
• Incremental verifications are performed for many items
– e.g. Drawing, released procedure, fitcheck, flight mate, as-run procedures
– e.g. Test Plan, Test Results, Test Summary
• LSP verification matrix is coordinated with SC customer and LSC

LSP has a Vigorous Interface Verification Process
21

LSP ICD Verification Process
Participants in the
LSP engineering
I/F Control process:
Document (ICD) -Mission Analysis
- Electrical
Reviews: - Mechanical
PDR, CDR, DCR, MPDR, - Systems
Verification MUDR, MM/MAR Engineering
Matrix & Integration
- Ground
Processing
Resident Office
ERBs

Verification
Analysis*: Documentation Lower Level Reqs:
Analyses & PRD, LSSP, Comm Matrix,
Reports DMR Annex

Test*:
Verification
Plans, Reports
& Procedures Review

Demonstration*: Inspection*: Verification
Procedures & Walkdowns, Drawings
Fitchecks & Build Paper
Complete

* LSP performs ICD verification of SC/LV interfaces using both SC and LSC data and documentation 22

Integrated Operations

• LSP has approval for integrated operations - final step in ICD
verification process
• At the SC factory
– Fitcheck
– Test adapters for testing
– Harnesses
– Pathfinders
• At the launch site
– Touch and go
– SC mate to adapter
– Fairing installation (occurs at processing facility or Pad depending
upon vehicle)
– SC transport to pad (ground or flight)
– Integrated electrical tests
– SC closeouts

23

Who We Are: Summary

• We know the vehicle from tip to tail
• We are involved through SC separation
– from the beginning of vehicle production
– from the beginning of your SC project
• We are continuously involved with vehicle evolution and
anomaly resolution
• We have proven expertise to integrate your payload successfully

24


Why do you need this information?

25

SC Design Considerations

• Cost
• Schedule
• Does it do what we said it would do?
• Cost
• Schedule
• Cost

The launch vehicle portion of your costs are significant. Delays for
redesigns cost everyone money.

26

We want to talk to you here

Courtesy of Small Satellite Home Page http://centaur.sstl.co.uk/SSHP/

If We Succeed Today….

• Use our experience for “elegant” design – simple, yet robust
– Meets your needs
AND
– Meets standard interfaces or “easy” changes
• Use our experience for timely design
– Reduce potential for redesign post-CDR
– Reduce surprises during launch campaign
– Increased focus on integration instead of firefighting
• Use our experience for least “cost” design – best value
– If it seems too good to be true….
– Easiest (to you, right now) is not necessarily easiest for you in the long term
– Increase the best value for government
– Increased focus on spacecraft build and test instead of team’s focus on
external issues / coordination

28


Spacecraft System Design Considerations –
Lessons from Integration

“Top ~10 List”
“Top 11 Areas of Concern”

29

Lessons Learned Summary

• SC customers need to implement or be aware of the following to ensure
mission success and smooth integration effort:

– Lesson #1 – call us

In no particular order:
– Using planner’s guides
– Thermal Analysis
– Air Conditioning
– Contamination
– Designing to the max
» Allowable envelopes
» Mass to orbit performance
– Vehicle controllability
– Loads / Verified Loads Cycle timing
– EMI/EMC/RF/Electrical
– Access at the launch site
– Operations at the launch site

30

Lesson #1

• Call us (see contacts at end of presentation)

Launch vehicles continually evolve

Always coordinate with LSP prior to implementing PPG, previous
missions, historical environments and knowledge – your team’s
assumptions may not always be correct

31


• SC customers need to implement or be aware of the following to
ensure mission success and smooth integration effort:


32

Using Planner’s Guides

• Not always accurate or up to date
– Living document, updated infrequently
– Examples of errors/out of date info/omissions
» Acoustic
» SC static envelope
» Shock levels (clampband tension)
» Sine vibe levels
» EMI/EMC levels

33




34

Thermal Analysis

• Need for Reduced Thermal Model for Integrated Thermal
Analysis (ITA)
– SC must provide a reduced thermal model to launch service
contractor (500 nodes maximum)
– Models have to be converted to launch service contractor format –
takes time and money (e.g. TRAYSYS)
– SC must provide nodes of interest & max/min allowable thermal
design limits (critical thermal items)
– Pre-launch (including AC requirements)/launch/ascent
– If done only at final trajectory delivery timeframe (results at L-6 m),
then it is too late to modify hardware/mitigate problem. ITA during
preliminary trajectory (results at L-12 m) timeframe is an option

35




36

Air Conditioning

• At the launch complex
– SC prop vs. Batteries vs. LV prop
– August is hottest month - contingencies or alternate operations if
lowest AC setting does not provide adequate cooling
» But if you are launching in December, you may slip to August! So,
design to worst case hot/cold
– If low end of cold capability required, need requirement early on
(LV prop, performance), actual AC (as run) must be within
analytical limits
– Conflicting requirements between SC and LV (e.g. LV Prop
load temps)
– Outages happen – contingency planning

37



– Contamination

38

Contamination

• Cleanliness is difficult to achieve and maintain
– Provide protection (through launch) for your instruments – e.g. deployable
doors/ covers, etc.
– Plan cleaning into your I&T schedule and for contingencies
– Charred paint from fairing nose – may be an issue depending upon trajectory
(worst case 0.17% obscuration )
– Keep sensitive instruments away from the clampband installation zone and
away from bolt cutters (small debris)
– Avoid having sensitive instruments pointing forward of SC (or have
deployable covers if you do so)
– Out-gassing materials are present in the fairing and on adapter
– Contamination requirements are sometimes violated
• T-0 purge, design for outages, and recovery options
• Ensure requirements are written as a specification (e.g. MIL-STD) NOT a
cleaning process (e.g. VC-6) to ensure a proper cleanliness level that is
verified by sampling and maintained
• EELV pads were not designed to be clean – no whiteroom

39



– Contamination

40

SC Envelope

• Do not design to max volume
• SC stay out zones change over time
– Ensure you understand static and dynamic envelopes
– Stay clear of the stay out zone below the sep plane
» Clamp band installation is difficult, keep sensitive instruments away from
the clampband installation zone – potential human damage
– Fairing envelopes – these can change over time
» Coupled loads analysis
» Clearance analysis

41



– Contamination

42

Flight Design

• Do not design to max performance
– All trajectory analyses provide a max mass (current best estimate)
capability for performance
– LV models can change reducing performance
– Tested and guaranteed values and reserves required can change -
reducing performance
– Know the contract performance number - LSP contract (mission
success) values is usually LESS than the planners guide number!
» The only guarantee of performance is listed in contract or
reference mission
» Deviations of original target request are responsibility of SC to not
exceed contract mass (launch service task order)

43



– Contamination

44

Vehicle Controllability

• Slosh models required by launch service contractor
• Ensures vehicle controllability
• 3-stage missions
– If spinner, get professional help in designing tank layout
– Nutation time constant (NTC) sensitivity, prop tank design and need
for testing
» NTC also caused by items that are in motion during flight (gyros, heat
pipes, fluids)
– Spinning, non-spinning, de-spun (each option has different mass,
design impacts)

45



– Contamination

46

Loads

• Loads
– Coupled loads issues may drive design changes. Recommend
Preliminary Design Loads Cycle prior to PDR
– Test as early as possible to gain confidence in your coupled
loads modeling
• Verified Loads Cycle (VLC) timing
– VLC is required to be performed 12 months prior to launch (results
feed into other analyses). Verified model can only be provided after
environmental testing (usually later than L-12)
– Schedule disconnect requires additional mitigation for SC
» modal testing, earlier environmental testing

47



– Contamination

48

EMI/EMC/RF/Electrical

• E-field levels from LV antennas have been found to be greater
than the advertised
• Provide adequate EMI protection
• Ensure you understand if margins are included in
advertised levels
• Goddard Environmental Verification Specification (GEVS) does
not encompass launch site environment – use NASA-STD-7002A,
refers to MIL-STD-461
– hand held devices
– uncontrollable sources
• Provide damage and interference levels as a deliverable to LSP
for your SC receivers
– Ensures proper protections are in place for sensitive frequencies
• Critical circuits (EEDs, deployables) – must show 6dB margins to
LV environment
49

EMI/EMC/RF/Electrical (cont’d)

• Don't expect high data rates connecting to your spacecraft with
the LV umbilicals
– Not broadband Ethernet, only what is required during the launch process
should be used
– Lab environment and launch complex / pad environment are very different
» Distance
» Wiring
• LV umbilical and LV complex do not provide lightening protection
– Design lightening protection into your SC bus
– Induced currents – provide for circuit protection on umbilical wiring on
SC side
– Recommend use Section 22 out of RTCA/DO-160E as a guideline for
lightening hardening of cable interfaces LC level 3
• Limited access / space at launch complex / pad
– Drag on cables (for pad processing) should be worked early
– Special EGSE
– Operational limitations (pad clears, RF environment/ordinance installation)
• There is a max, per pin, liftoff current – no communications at liftoff
• Think twice before using timers prior to separation

50



– Contamination

51

Access at the Launch Complex

• Minimize access needs
– Its dirty out there - See contamination section
– Post SC encapsulation –Interleaved SC and LV operations – a dance
and compromise
» Platforms, workstands, clean tents are expensive
» Self contained atmospheric pressure ensemble (SCAPE)
• SCAPE access isn’t easy!
• Fill and drain valve access
through the fairing
– Increased access, increases chances for damage

52


• SC customers need to implement or be aware of the following to ensure
mission success and smooth integration effort:

– Contamination
– Operations at the launch site

53

Operations at the Launch Site

• Don’t forget processing, pad operations and countdown in your
design trades. These are usually afterthoughts and sometimes
drive launch delays and very expensive changes after the fact
– Mechanical
» Fill and drain valves accessible by a reach of a standard person in
SCAPE through a standard fairing door
» Remove / install before flight items accessibility during/after fairing
installation (special hardware i.e. diving boards)
» COPV’s require lower manloading in procedures
– Electrical/EMI/RF
» RF needs two *independent* inhibits on pad or analysis showing
personnel exposure level meets Range Safety requirements
» LV EMC levels may drive to more inhibits
» SC Transmitter may be too powerful to allow testing in fairing - RF
hat access
– EWR 127-1 no longer governing document. New Range Safety
Document is AFSPCMAN 91-710
– New and onerous Li Ion Battery monitoring requirement from Range
54

Conclusion

• This is not a comprehensive list of lessons learned – call us – see
Lesson Learned #1!
• Robust SC design
– Must consider launch site integrated processing
– Must consider “the ride”
– Goal is to minimize SC testing / access once integrated

55

Were We Successful Today?

• Heighten awareness of the impact launch vehicle integration and launch
has on your spacecraft
– Sustaining mission operations may not be the harshest environment you
need to design to
• Transmit recurring lessons learned to those who actually design, build,
or procure spacecraft – YOU!
• Ensure our expertise is transmitted early enough to make a difference
– Wonderful – Pre-AO response
– Ideal – prior to awarding any instrument or SC bus contract
– Great – SRR
– Good – PDR
– Ok – CDR

PM Challenge 2008 – Excellent!

56

Contacts and Information

If you need help during early spacecraft design, the following Launch Services Program mission
management will put you in contact with the right technical personnel:

Program(s): Mars, TDRS; Center(s): JPL; External Agencies: None
Tammy Harrington, Mission Manager, Flight Projects Office
(321) 867-4984 Tammy.L.Harrington@nasa.gov

Program(s): Explorers; Center(s): GSFC; External Agencies: NOAA
Cheryl Malloy, Mission Manager, Flight Projects Office
(321) 867-3778 Cheryl.A.Malloy@nasa.gov

Program(s): Discovery, Lunar; Center(s): MSFC, JSC; External Agencies: None
Ron Mueller, Mission Manager, Flight Projects Office
(321) 867-2599 Ronald.G.Mueller@nasa.gov

More info:

LSP Home page:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/launchingrockets/index.html

57


Questions?

58


Back Up Slides

59

Resident Office Support

• Resident Offices provide localized support to the Program
– Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB)
– Chandler (Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC))
– Decatur (United Launch Alliance (ULA))
– Huntington Beach (Delta - ULA)
– Denver (Atlas/Delta – ULA)
– Dulles (Pegasus/Taurus - OSC)

60

Mission Analysis

• Overall objective is to decrease mission risk through review and
verification of mission unique requirements/analyses and relevant
fleet issues

• Baseline approach is to review Launch Service Contractor analyses
and documentation

• Intend to obtain and/or develop launch vehicle models as practicable
in all mission analyses areas
– Philosophy is to get the models, learn to run the models, so we don’t always have to
run the models
– Detailed knowledge of models enables effective review of analyses
– Models and enhanced systems knowledge will help solve technical issues in
conjunction with the LSC
– Use models for verification of critical mission unique requirements
– Current status of model capability is a result of vehicle maturity and
GSFC/GRC heritage

61

Interface Requirements Document (IRD)
(aka SC Questionnaire)

• IRD is the document to provide your requirements to the launch
vehicle (LV)
• SC-owned document
• Usually used as the requirements in a LSC competition
• Write your requirements, not LV design solutions
• LSP will help you with your IRD inputs
• LSP requires an ERB be held for your IRD to ensure technical
feasibility and assess risk
• Used as input to the Interface Control Document
• Once ICD is created, IRD is no longer used

62

Interface Control Document (ICD) & Waivers

• The ICD will be agreed to and signed by LSP, LSC, and SC
– LSP must follow LSP-P-330.07, Interface Control Document (ICD)
Development, Change and Approval Process for LSP Missions
– Requires Engineering Review Board (ERB) prior to LSP signature
– If LSC provides it, it must be in the ICD.
» Some items were previously documented in the Launch Site Support Plan
• KSC will process a Waiver request following LSP Interface Control
Document (ICD) Waiver Process (LSP-P-333.11 – draft)
– A written authorization to accept an item in the event that a discrepancy or
violation of an ICD requirement is identified in as-built hardware, an analysis,
an as-run procedure, or in the event of a special test or emergency procedure
but nevertheless is considered suitable for use "as is" or after repair by an
approved method.
– Differs from a requirements change (SCN) usually due to timing of the non-
conformance, but not always.
– Waivers are usually only granted in extraordinary circumstances, LSP usually
requires SC or LV perform the necessary action meet the original ICD
requirement.

63

IRD Article (LSP Newsletter, Dec 2004)

64

ICD Article (LSP Newsletter, Jan 2006)

65

Engineering Review (ER) Process - K-ELV-02.6

• Establishes criteria for documenting and evaluating certain technical issues that
require engineering disposition
• Process results in technical recommendations to the Launch Service Program
• Rationale exclusively considers technical adequacy
– Does not consider cost or schedule
– Process goal is to establish a “technically adequate” solution, not the “best” solution
– May consider multiple courses of action as required due to cost and schedule
considerations and evaluate each independently on technical merit
• Documented process released in Dec 2000 characterizes results of evolution
since program consolidation in 1998, and adds near term improvements:
– Engineering Review Sheet and database to facilitate issue documentation and
information management
– Additional attention to mission unique requirements
– Tie between launch service provider design reviews and the Engineering Review Board

• ER items are tracked in a NASA-managed database called ERBIS (Engineering
Review Board Information System)

66

Engineering Review Board

• Engineering Review Board (ERB) is a NASA GRC/LMA-heritage
tool adapted by KSC ELV following consolidation
– Expanded by Launch Service Program into a more-global process for
engineering review
– Used to disposition and provide technical recommendations and
rationale for a subset of engineering issues

• ERB Membership
– Chaired by LSP Chief Engineer
» May designate alternate chair from permanent board membership
– Permanent board membership consists of Engineering Division
Chief and Branch Chiefs
» Systems Engineering skills and a particular area of expertise required
» Each permanent board member may designate an alternate as required

67

ERB Participation

• NASA Vehicle Systems Engineer, Integration Engineer and cognizant
engineers are typically responsible for presentation of material

• ERB is a completely open process
– Launch Service Contractor attendance always invited, either in person or
by telecon
» Visibility encourages higher quality
» Purely engineering discussion needs no “government caucus”
– Launch Service Contractor representatives are free to ask questions and
recommend actions

• Launch Service Contractor participation in an ERB is never interpreted
to indicate contractor agreement with ERB recommendations
– Preserves freedom of the team to achieve maximum benefit from
technical interchange

68

Engineering Review vs. ERB Trigger Criteria

• Engineering Review Trigger Criteria • ERB Trigger Criteria
– Any flight observation or anomaly occurring – Any flight anomaly occurring on any ELV
on any ELV providing NASA providing launch services to NASA
launch services

– Qual status change for any component – Qual status change for any component

– New or upgraded component expected to be – First Flight Item if expected to be used on a
used on a NASA mission within the first NASA mission within the first 6 flights
6 flights
– Major non-conformance of any component
– Significant non-conformances, test to a degree that may threaten
anomalies or process deviations that mission success
warrant investigation
– Mission “Turn On” and ICD release
– Mission-Specific technical requirements
– Mission-Specific PDRs, CDRs and DCRs
– Class I change, deviation or waiver to a
mission-specific requirement

69

Mary.faller

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to Mary.faller

Similar to Mary.faller (20)

More from NASAPMC

More from NASAPMC (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Mary.faller