Minutes for November 28, 2000 EVA AIT

To: Distribution

From: XA/Nancy J. Patrick

Subject: Minutes for November 28, 2000 EVA AIT

The EVA AIT met at the Johnson Space Center on November 28, 2000. Boeing/Lou Ramon and XA/Nancy Patrick co-chaired the meeting. Representatives from CB/Flight Crew Operations, XA/EVA Project Office, NC/Flight Systems Safety and Mission Assurance, DX32/EVA Systems/Mission Operations, OM/ISS Mission Integration, ES/Engineering Structures and Mechanics, OZ/ISS Payloads, and Boeing-Houston (EVA, External Carriers and Safety) were present. Representatives from the Kennedy Space Center, Marshall Space Flight Center and Boeing Development Centers supported by telecon. Copies of presentations can be obtained from XA/Bill Rollins, Building 1, room 661, (281) 483-1416.

1. Introduction/AI Review Boeing/Lou Ramon

D-00046B: Spar Dexterous Handling Target Sharp Corners

PG1-P3-400: EVA Bolt Torque Value

Decision: This PIDS exception was approved

The Following Decision Package was dispositioned (not distributed prior to the EVA AIT):

NCR-EVA-FPP-01: Floating Potential Probe does not meet EVA kick loads requirement

Decision: This NCR was approved out of board. The EVA AIT concurred with the Structures and Mechanisms team that it was acceptable if FPP demonstrated that the WIF load alleviator would allow the FPP to give before bending or breaking if kicked. Subsequent structural analysis demonstrated this and the NCR was signed out of board.

AI-542: This action remains open and will be addressed again on December 12. There was no report.

AI-543: This action remains open and will be addressed again on December 12. There was no report.

AI-546: This action remains open and will be addressed again on December 12. There was no report.

AI-547: This action remains open and will be addressed again on December 12. There was no report.

AI-551: This action was CLOSED. The SARJ trundle bearing maintenance task is affected by the new payload envelope if a WIF is required (vs. SSRMS based as currently planned), however the EVA AIT felt that the risk is small that this would be required (SSRMS would most likely be fixed prior to attempting a SARJ trundle bearing task). Additionally, the payload could be temporarily moved if required, to provide the required clearance. Payload representatives agreed to consider this and determine if there is any issue with that position.

AI-555: This action remains open and will be addressed again on December 12. There was no report.

AI-556: This action remains open and will be addressed again on December 12. There was no report.

AI-560: This action remains open and will be addressed again on December 12. Mr. Price reported that Huntington Beach is now pursuing a design fix for the SSAS, therefore the worksite analysis for the EVA override is no longer an issue, and it has been done to some extent anyway. The EVA AIT requested that the investigation into the process continue, to ensure that Huntington Beach’s intent is to do worksite analysis for all required tasks.

AI-561: This action was CLOSED. Mr. Pruett has done some preliminary investigations and it does not look like the early comm cable has Ethernet capability and therefore probably won’t work. Mr. Pruett will track this from his tiger team rather than through the EVA AIT.

AI-562: This action was CLOSED. The following are the points of contact: XA/Steve Broussard, DX32/Oscar Koehler, CA/Clayton Brown.

AI-563: This action remains open and will be addressed again on December 12. There was no report.

AI-564: This action remains open and will be addressed again on December 12. There was no report.

AI-565: This action remains open and will be addressed again on December 12. Mr. Guirgis reported prior to the EVA AIT that the NBL run is tentatively scheduled for the first week of December.

AI-566: This action was CLOSED. MOD and the crew office reported that the current level of training is adequate for the secondary translation path load capability. The crew is not specifically trained to be careful, however the load requirement for the secondary path is more than adequate for normal EVA operations.

WALK-ON

Follow on to 11/7 EVA AIT discussion. Mr. Orosco explained that when he took forward the proposal to finalize the HTV PDGF location on Node 2 to the SSPCB, the board requested that the team evaluate an option to use the JEM PDGF instead. Mr. Orosco requested EVA AIT evaluation of the proposal. The JEM PDGF is not fully outfitted to act as an SSRMS base (lacks video) since it was only designed to provide keep-alive power and data during JEM mating and activation. The PDGF would have to be retrofitted with an externally routed cable from the JEM PDGF to the Node 2 PDGF live connector at the Node2 Nadir to Lab interface (the same live connector that support the PM PDGF). This route attaches the cable along the ISS primary translation path handrails on Node2 and the JEM (Option 1)

LMES/John Donnellan reviewed the cable routing along Node2, and there aren’t any concerns with the installation tasks along Node2. However the installation along the JEM has not been analyzed, nor has anyone looked at the impacts to JEM assembly and maintenance tasks due to the presence of the cable. During the discussion, Mr. Donnellan suggested another option (Option 2) that connects the JEM PDGF to the PM connectors at the Node2 forward endcone, which is a more direct route to the JEM PDGF. Mr. Donnellan felt that the Node2 portion of the routing could have TA clamps pre-integrated to aid in cable installation. However in order to use the more direct route, the JEM portion of the cable would have to be pre-integrated since there is no EVA translation path available along this part of the JEM. No one present knew whether this was possible. Using this path, however should pose no threat to JEM assembly and maintenance tasks since the cable is not routed along EVA paths or through EVA worksites.

The EVA AIT provided the following conclusions:

Routing the cable along the ISS primary translation path is unacceptable because this could impede the crew’s ability to return to the airlock in an emergency. It is also much more likely that the cable will be kicked and manhandled since it is routed along the primary path.

Option 2 would be acceptable if the JEM portion of the cable could be pre-integrated.

A side issue that came out of the discussion is that even if there is a dedicated PM PDGF, EVA is still required to switch video routing between the PM and the HTV PDGFs. This means that while we won’t have to relocate an entire PDGF and its cable harness, we will have to swap connector locations every time you switch between the HTV PDGF and the PM PDGF. This will be addressed in later discussions.

Decision: The EVA AIT concluded the Node 2 location for the HTV PDGF is preferable; however option 2 for the JEM PDGF location is acceptable if required.

3. SSCN 3370 — RS Laptop Cables EV/Dave Pruett

Mr. Harless was not available to support the discussion and provide routing options. Mr. Pruett and the EVA AIT reported the following on the remaining open work:

• 
  
  Mr. Pruett has briefly looked at using the ECOM cable for part of the routing, but he thinks that the ECOM cable does not provide the Ethernet line required. He will continue to look at it but it doesn’t look promising.


• Mr. Pruett will address the manifesting and stowage requirements as well as the NBL test requirements for the cable as part of the CR process.


• Mr. Harless will present the routing options at the December 12 EVA AIT

The tiger team will address the remainder of the open items through the normal CR definition process. The following EVA team members were identified: DX32/Oscar Koehler, CA/T. Clayton Brown, XA/Steve Broussard. The following are the issues to be addressed:

• Investigate alternative cable attachment options that don’t affect the use of the EVA handrails.


• Make a determination of whether a cable caddie is required


• Conduct NBL testing of the routing path and attachment methods proposed.


• Address manifesting and on-orbit stowage for the cables provided

The EVA AIT agreed that no further discussion or tracking is required through the EVA AIT — the CR team will develop the options with EVA support. Any integration issues that arise can be brought back to the EVA AIT.

Action Item Closure: AI-561, 562 were CLOSED, 563, 564 remain open

Mr. Graybeal summarized the current state of affairs (conclusions from previous EVA AIT discussions and various design reviews) and reported that the first tiger team meeting was scheduled for December 14.

Mr. Millard requested EVA review of the ESP2 installation on to the airlock procedures to highlight some non-standard EVA techniques. Mr. Millard believed that the UTAS mechanisms provide no soft dock feature for the ESP2/ESP Attachment Device (ESPAD) and therefore the attachment scenario requires an EVA crewmember to align the shear pins, hold the ESPAD in place and engage the center bolts of the UTAS by turning the UTAS knobs to engage the center bolts. If this were not acceptable, ESP2 would have to incorporate a soft dock feature on their hardware, which would likely be complex and costly. The EVA AIT understood that the UTAS mechanisms would provide a soft dock feature for all UTAS’s installed after those installed on Z1, P6 and the Lab (based on the EVA AIT discussion on July 11, 2000). The EVA AIT agreed that ESP1 installation without a soft dock feature is acceptable, but any other tasks without a soft dock would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

The EVA AIT addressed the operations required for ESP2 installation without a soft dock and concluded that a soft dock feature is required. The driving consideration is that there is no way to release the ESP2 if there are problems in attaching it, if there is no soft dock feature. Because of the size of the ESP2, it is unreasonable to assume that a crewmember could continue to hold it in place indefinitely. The EVA AIT agreed that EVA personnel will support the ESP2 design review (currently scheduled for December 12, 13) with a RID on the lack of a soft dock feature, and Mr. Millard agreed to confer with OM/Doug Drewry to determine which side of the interface should include the soft dock.

Decision: The EVA AIT concluded that the soft dock feature is required for the ESP2/ESPAD mating onto the airlock UTAS.

6. MISSE Keep-out zone requirements OZ/Bob Miley,

Mr. Miley reported on the results of MISSE analyses that have been performed since the MISSE manifest request for 7A.1 was approved. MISSE does not meet inadvertent contact load requirements (kicked), and if MISSE is at its hardstop when subjected to this load, it can induce damage into the underlying secondary structure on the airlock (where MISSE is mounted). The structures and mechanisms team objected to this and MISSE proposed a keep-out zone for MISSE to resolve the issue. The EVA AIT concluded that if there is a significant risk of kicking the MISSE, then this is not sufficient, because EVA cannot guarantee that we won’t kick them. The EVA AIT agreed to evaluate the MISSE locations in NBL training runs starting in February. If the NBL evaluations result in a significant risk that they will be kicked, then the EVA recommendation will be to either move MISSE or delete it from the manifest. The EVA AIT will revisit the issue in late February and report to the ISS program.

Mr. Miley then discussed the payload integration process to address the concern that MISSE was manifested without this keep-out zone being identified. Mr. Miley explained that the ISS manifest process requires that an item be manifested before anyone is allowed to assess it (presumably to keep random assessment requests from bogging down those who have to assess for impacts). Therefore MISSE had to be manifested before anyone could evaluate the impact of its being there. Once on the manifest, however, it takes an active effort from someone to remove it, regardless of the outcome of the assessments. There is no "hook" in the system that requires all assessments to be complete and evaluated at a specific time, and reviewed by any organization, to determine if the manifest decision was correct. Ms. Patrick requested that Mr. Miley bring up this issue within ISS program management, and Ms. Patrick agreed to do the same.

Decision: The EVA AIT did not recommend incorporating a keep-out zone for MISSE unless NBL evaluations determine there is no risk of kicking it, since ISS damage could result.

The following status was reported

3. 67B: All (including EC5) have signed except possibly Huntsville — Mr. Ramon will let the EVA AIT know when Huntsville has signed.


4. 72: In revision by Huntington Beach — revision due 12/1


5. 73: In revision by Lockheed based on CP comments, should be ready to submit by next week


6. 74: In revision by Lockheed based on CP comments, should be ready to submit by next week


7. 75: All parties have signed, Ms. Patrick will sign and forward to OB


8. 76A: Revision B is ready for submittal, wanted to explain why some of CP comments weren’t included prior to submitting, will submit by 12/4 if can’t reach CP/Curt Carlton by then


9. 79: Still open for most parties

Action Item Closure: AI-566 remains open, the Actionee was changed to EC5/Chi Minh Chang

Ms. Patrick reviewed the preliminary EVA AIT agenda for December 12, 2000. Discuss major fit checks, design reviews, and testing scheduled in upcoming weeks. Presenters were requested to confirm agenda topics by COB Thursday, December 7.

The following topics were deferred until December 12

Present impacts to ISS if acceptable EMU temperature range is held to -145°
F to +240°
F — provide assessment of which parts of ISS exceed this range most of the time. Propose a temperature range that will allow ISS tasks with extended EMU contact most of the time.

Decision Required: Information only

Required Attendees: XA, Boeing-Houston, DX32, CB, NC, EC5, KSC/SSHIO, PGs, SLP, MSFC

Action Item Closure: 546

Present results of 7A, 7A.1 task analysis, comparing the extended contact tasks against their thermal environments. Report tasks that may require extended contact and when they exceed the -145°
F to +240°
F envelope. Discuss any available operations workarounds to deal with the temperature exceedances. Report on assembly, contingency and critical maintenance tasks (tasks for which spares are available for those flights/increments). Report critical maintenance tasks for 5A, 5A.1 and 6A

Decision Required: EVA AIT concurrence with acceptability of flight plans.

Required Attendees: XA, Boeing-Houston, DX32, CB, NC, EC5, KSC/SSHIO, PGs, SLP, MSFC

Action Item Closure: AI-556

Present proposal for pre-flight reporting of EVA tasks for a cargo element that may require extended contact with the EMU (other than boots, gloves). Include maintenance and contingency tasks associated with the cargo element. Include program forum(s) where the information will be presented. Describe how MOD requests real time and near real time thermal analysis for tasks that were not scheduled pre-flight/increment. Include discussion of where the requirement to initiate the analysis is documented.

Decision Required: EVA AIT concurrence with process and procedures

Required Attendees: XA, Boeing-Houston, DX32, CB, NC, KSC/SSHIO, LMES,

Action Item Closure: AI-542, 543

Present charts for VSIP, addressing PG1 assessment of various options for resolving the interference issue, including launching UMAs in place and removing prior to deploying the CAS’s, and launching the UMAs separately and installing after CAS deploy. Provide recommendation for resolution and future plans and forward work for developing a final resolution.

Decision Required: EVA AIT concurrence with VSIP recommendation

Required Attendees: XA, Boeing-Houston, DX32, CB, NC, KSC/SSHIO, PG1, SLP