From: XA/Nancy J. Patrick
Subject: Minutes for May 29, 2001 EVA AIT
The EVA AIT met at the Johnson Space Center on May 29, 2001. Boeing/David Read 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, ES/Engineering Structures Division, OC/ISS Operations Office, OZ/ISS Payloads Office, Lockheed-Martin, and Boeing-Houston (EVA) were present. Representatives from the 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/Dave Read
The Following Decision Package was distributed for review June 19, 2001:
NCR-PG2-002A: PV Module Protrusions Noncompliances
The Following Decision Packages were discussed (distributed May 8, 2001):
PNCR-ISS-067: Stage 8A EVA Translation Path Protrusion Non-Compliances
5/29 status: NC requested additional rationale for some of the protrusions identified. NC agreed to work with B-Hou/Joe Thomas to update the NCR. The NCR will be scheduled for review again on June 19.
The Following Decision Packages were discussed (originally distributed April 10, 2001):
NCR-PG1-062: Commercial and Purchased Parts
4/24 status: The EVA AIT requested a revision to this NCR to provide specific information on what hardware is included in the NCR. Additionally, the EVA AIT requested that the NCR include statements that the hardware will be swatch tested, and that Boeing will address anything that fails swatch testing. B-Hou/Joe Thomas agreed to coordinate the change and provide a revision to Ms. Patrick for approval. The NCR will be approved out of board once it contains the information requested.
5/8 status: The NCR has not yet been revised. Mr. Thomas will address it as time permits.
5/29 status: No report. Ms. Patrick decided not to schedule the NCR review again until Mr. Thomas has updated it.
NCR-PG1-056: Trailing Umbilical System (TUS) Interface Umbilical Assembly (IUA) Corners and Edges
4/24 status: EVA AIT withheld approval of this NCR pending MOD approval. MOD reported after the EVA AIT that the flight unit should be swatch tested, and the NCR indicates that the qual unit was swatch tested. MOD will coordinate with SVITO and determine whether the flight unit is scheduled for a swatch test.
5/8 status: No report on swatch testing or revising the NCR to reflect the swatch testing. The EVA AIT also requested that specific information should be included in the NCR to indicate which hardware fails to meet the sharp edge design requirement. Mr. Thomas agreed to address the open work and re-submit the NCR.
5/29 status: No report. Ms. Patrick decided not to schedule the NCR review again until Mr. Thomas has addressed the open items and updated it.
The Following Action Items were reviewed:
AI-543: This action remains open and will be discussed again on June 19. It was deferred pending finalization of the EMU extended contact limits.
AI-556: This action was CLOSED. Mr. Adams reported that there arent any tasks in the only cold and hot areas for the flights.
AI-580: This action remains open and will be addressed again on June 19. PG1/Steve Gray reported that the PG1 believes the ETVCG will be a single unit taken out through the ISS airlock and installed. They are awaiting the results of an NBL test in July, that will determine whether the ORU will fit in the airlock as a fully assembled unit.
AI-581: This action remains open and will be addressed again on June 19. Mr. Gray reported that the ITCE IRB agreed that the alternative options were not feasible and the PRD contingency should be analyzed. The IRB approved funding for both EVA worksite analysis and structural analysis to determine where and how the PRDs could be used to mate two truss segments. Mr. Gray did not know the schedule requirements and agreed to look into it. NC/Stephanie Loyd agreed to look into the SRP review schedule for 9A to make sure Huntington Beach provides their assessments to meet the SRP schedule.
AI-590: This action was CLOSED. The sharp edge inspection was performed, however the A&B fittings since they werent installed at the time so they will be inspected at a later date. This is part of normal on-going work and issues will be addressed if they come up.
AI-593: This action remains open and will be discussed again on June 19. It was deferred pending finalization of the EMU extended contact limits.
AI-595: This action remains open and will be addressed again on July 10. Mr. Zipay referenced an email from ES/Trevor Kott that indicated the requirement is a minimum of 240 in-lbs and a maximum of 1200in-lbs. DX32/Michelle Hollinger reported that the B-HB 8A hazard report stated the requirement is 310 in-lbs, ±30 in-lbs, which is beyond the capability of any of our tools even if they fit. Ms. Hollinger agreed to submit an issue to the hazard report, and Ms. Patrick will confirm with Mr. Kott that Boeing can sign up to the numbers in his email.
AI-596: This action was CLOSED. Ms. Hollinger reported that all the worksites were evaluated and that from a worksite standpoint, either the combination of torque wrench or PGT with a TM is acceptable. Once the torque requirement is defined, the tools will be selected. The wild card is if the hazard report has the correct requirement (ref action 595) because this torque would require use of the PGT alone to come close to the precision required. The PGT alone might be difficult to fit. PG1/John Bonuan agreed to check whether the PGT will fit on a WSA.
Actionee: PG1/Jon Bonuan
Due Date: July 10, 2001
Method for Closure: Report to EVA AIT
AI-598: This action remains open and will be addressed again on June 19, 2001. Mr. Bonuan reported that Huntington Beach cant do this without a CR to do a drawing change. Ms. Patrick agreed to look into it from the NASA side.
AI-599: This action remains open and will be discussed again on June 19. It was deferred pending finalization of the EMU extended contact limits.
AI-600: This action remains open and will be discussed again on June 19. It was deferred pending finalization of the EMU extended contact limits.
AI-602: This action remains open and will be addressed again on June 19. There was no update.
AI-606: This action remains open and will be addressed again on July 10. Mr. Chambliss presented some information on plans for the stowage bag. See minutes below for additional information.
AI-607: This action was CLOSED. Mr. Broussard reported before the EVA AIT that the handrails and trunnion locations on the airlock are well defined and well known, and as long as the bag attachment has some play, it should be fine without a fit check.
AI-608: This action remains open and will be addressed again on June 19. There was some confusion on the action, so Ms. Patrick clarified that the reason for the request is to identify underlying hardware that may exceed the EMU capabilities, which would be indicated by the handrails that exceed current requirements. Ms. Loyd agreed to address the request.
AI-609: This action remains open and will be discussed again on June 19. It was deferred pending finalization of the EMU extended contact limits.
AI-610: This action remains open and will be discussed again on June 19. It was deferred pending finalization of the EMU extended contact limits.
AI-611: This action was CLOSED. The UCCAS/UMA issue has taken a life of its own and this action was OBE. See minutes below for additional details.
AI-612: This action was CLOSED. Mr. Price reported that the CETA cart had indeed been re-positioned for some of the worksites. Mr. Tanner reported, however that for all S1/P1 attachment bolts except one corner, worksites were available from S0. Since only 3 corners are required before the crew is allowed to work on the incoming segment, the last corner can be installed after the CETA cart is nominally relocated if required.
2. SSAS Contingency Bolt Task Assessment Status PG1/Steve Gray, CB/Joe Tanner
Follow-up discussion from May 8. There was no presentation material for this topic. Mr. Gray reported that the SSAS contingency bolt worksite analysis was complete and available on the B-HB EVA WSA web site. Mr. Gray reported that acceptable, if not optimum, worksites were available for all the bolts. Some of the worksites involved use of the CETA cart, including those on S1, when the CETA carts are delivered. However Mr. Tanner reported that the S0 worksites look good for S1 or P1 attach, except for one corner, which can be done at any time during the S1/P1 assembly assuming the other corners can be attached from S0.
Mr. Gray also reported that the ITCE IRB reviewed the technical recommendations for the workarounds for the case where the capture latch cannot pull the truss segments within the bolt capture envelope. The ITCE IRB agreed with the technical community that the capture bar release was not feasible and therefore approved funding to address using the PRDs to pull the elements together. Mr. Gray agreed to check on the schedule for completing the analysis. NC/Stephanie Loyd agreed to determine when the SRP plans to review the issue for 9A.
Mr. Nguyen reported prior to the EVA AIT that the SSAS contingency bolt torque would be determined by the results of the recently approved qual testing. The qual test plan and schedule has not yet been developed, so the date for when the torque will be available is TBD. The EVA AIT will wait to hear from ES on this final question concerning the issue.
Decision: The EVA AIT determined that the SSAS contingency bolt tasks are acceptable and assuming the torques required are within EVA tool capabilities, the tasks can be accepted by EVA.
Action Item Closure: AI-581 remains open, AI-612 was closed.
3. Vent Tool Stowage Device Status EC/Joe Chambliss, EC5/Gary
Nickel, XA/Greg LeStourgeon
Mr. Chambliss briefly reviewed the vent tool stowage container design status. Mr. Chambliss reported that EC5/Gary Nickel is working on the design requirements and is ready for a concept review to kick off formal design work. Mr. Chambliss reported that he approached the assembly team regarding manifesting and was told that since the hardware is launched internally, the assembly team does not address manifesting. Mr. Chambliss was told to contact XA/Steve Doering to determine where EVA time is available to determine when the hardware should be installed. Ms. Patrick requested that Mr. Chambliss get with the manifest team to determine when middeck or MPLM space is available, since that will most likely drive when the hardware is manifested. The EVA team can then schedule the EVA tasks at any time after the hardware arrives and before the tools are used on 12A.1. Mr. Chambliss then reported that he presented to the GFE Control Board in November to obtain funding, and they requested more detailed planning information and that he present first to the EC CCB, then EA. Mr. Chambliss did not have a schedule for accomplishing that.
EC5/Gary Nickel then presented a design status. He presented an overview of requirements for the bag, design overview, issues and schedule. Most of the issues are just questions which can be resolved with a concept review. Mr. Nickel indicated that he could be ready for a concept review in June if funding is approved.
Significant discussion not included in the presentation material:
Ms. Patrick noted that the bag is rapidly becoming time critical, given the 24 week start to finish schedule. Ms. Patrick requested that Mr. Chambliss attempt to get manifesting information and request funding as soon as possible. A concept review in June is unlikely, since many of the contacts are leads for 7A (airlock) and wont be available until after the flight. Ms. Patrick requested that Mr. Chambliss report back to the EVA AIT on June 19 with funding status. Ms. Patrick requested that EVA AIT members review the existing requirements and provide comments to Mr. Nickel by July 10.
Action Item Closure: AI-606 remains open
Actionee: EC/Joe Chambliss
Due Date: June 19, 2001
Method for Closure: Report to EVA AIT
Due Date: July 10, 2001
Method for Closure: Report to EVA AIT
4. S3/P3 ULCAS/UMA Deployment Interference Status
There was no presentation material for this topic. Mr. Larsen was not present, however Ms. Patrick summarized the status for the EVA AIT members. Ms. Patrick reported that the issue was presented to the VSIP on May 24, however no EVA AIT members were aware that it was going forward, so no one was present. Huntington Beach recommended a redesign option to minimize the EVA impact of the problem. The VSIP did not approve the recommendation due to cost, and requested that the cost of the EVA workaround options be assessed first. Ms. Patrick requested that Huntington Beach keep the EVA AIT informed of discussions on the topic before it goes back to the VSIP. At the time of the AIT, the specific VSIP actions and date for return was not known.
Subsequent to the EVA AIT, the issue went to the VSIP on June 7. The VSIP evaluated the options and determined that the safest and most cost effective approach was to work with the existing design. The EVA AIT requested design support for NBL testing of the proposed operations workarounds.
5. EVA ICD Status LMES/Ivan Cavenall,
Mr. Cavenall reported the following on ICD PIRNs:
Mr. Cavenall reported that PIRNs 93 and 95 are in review within LMES.
Ms. Patrick expressed her appreciation for the progress made on the EVA ICD over recent months. LMES has worked hard to incorporate the changes required to the ICD.
6. Upcoming Events/Future Agenda Review XA/Nancy Patrick, All
Ms. Patrick reviewed the preliminary EVA AIT agenda for June 19, 2001. Presenters were requested to confirm agenda topics by COB Thursday, June 14.
PG2/Scott Boller reported that it was recently discovered that the ESP1 on-orbit lost power about a month ago and the DCSU and PFCS had been without heaters since that time. An Anomaly Resolution Team has been convened to determine whether the ORUs are usable.
The Following Presentation was Deferred and will be rescheduled upon notification by the presenter:
Use of Loctite on EVA Bolts test results ES/Katherine Davis
Report results of loctite/bolt testing that was scheduled to be complete in spring, 2001. The purpose of the testing is to ensure that use of Loctite is acceptable on EVA bolts as a launch restraint, including EVA force requirements and usability of bolts after initial removal. (Related to action AI-522: "Report on the ISS program plans to resolve questions with the use of Loctite on EVA bolts. Include test plans and proposed completion dates." Closed on 12/12/00)
Decision Required: EVA AIT concurrence with test conclusions
Required Attendees: XA, Boeing-Houston, DX32, EC5, CB, ES, NC, KSC/SSHIO, PGs, SLP, MSFC
Ms. Davis reported that the testing had just begun and she will report back when it is complete.