Operations Data File Control Board Meeting #65
Meeting Minutes
10 – 14 May, 2004 in Bremen, Germany
Attendees:
Rob Banfield, ODFCB Chair
Jack Compton, ODF Manager
John Bearley, Procedures Management Office Representative
Chuck Moede, Procedures Management Office Representative
Mike Hurt, SODF Manager/ U.S. SODF Board Member
Lisa Payne, Procedures Management Office Representative
Nicole Bolinger, Procedures Management Office Representative
Robert Curbeam, Crew Office Board Member
Michelle Rowland, Crew Office Representative
Perry Bennett, Safety Board Member
Lauren Hastie, Safety Office Representative
Lawrence Vezina, CSA Board Member
Mikael Wolff, ESA Board Member
Peter Granseuer, ESA Board Member
Helmut Luttmann, EADS Representative
Gerd Hajen, EADS Representative
Joachim Dőpkens, EADS Representative
Kagan Kayal, ESA Representative
Paolo Ariaudo, ESA Representative
Simon Challis, ESA Representative
Uwe Brauer, ESA Representative
Rose Lindsey, US PODF Board Member
Mercedes Galloway, US PODF Representative
John Wade, US PODF Representative
Masao Nakai, JAXA Board Member
Cari Goulard, EADS Intern/NASA Assembly & Checkout Officer Representative
Attendees via telecon:
Alexander Kotov, RSA Board Member
Charlotte Beskow, ESA ATV Representative
John Venditti, NASA Procedures Management Office
1. Welcome/Introduction/Logistics
The sixty-fifth ODFCB meeting was held on May 10 - 14, 2004 in Bremen, Germany. EADS/H. Luttmann welcomed everyone to Bremen and the EADS facility, and provided information on the locations of various facilities. He noted there will be a social event for the Board on Tuesday evening.
Mr. Luttmann stated that since the Columbia accident there has not been much activity and noted the delay to the schedule for Columbus.
EADS/G. Hajen identified the several meetings that will be occurring this week and their locations. Mr. Hajen noted that everything should be in placed to set up the telecon for tomorrow’s meeting. He explained locations in the building of offices and secretarial support, and arrangements for lunch.
Mr. Hajen also mentioned the scheduled tour of the EADS facility tomorrow afternoon and briefly discussed the integration work being done.
2. Meeting Overview
NASA/R. Banfield, Chairman, opened the meeting by welcoming everyone and briefly discussing the agenda for the meeting. The agenda and action items are available for view on the ODF Home Page. The presentations are linked to the agenda and are available at the following URL:
The participants in the iPV Splinter moved to their meeting following the introductions.
3. CSA PODFCB Status
On Monday, the presentation by CSA/ L. Vezina was deferred.
On Tuesday, Mr. Vezina presented the PODFCB status. He noted there have been no changes to the Management Plan and Annexes 1 & 2. Mr. Vezina announced there will be Board changes due to CSA reorganization, and that he will be leaving the Board. The new CSA PODFCB representative will be Real Palardy, the CSA SODF representative will be Ken Podwalski, and the CSA SODF Coordinator will be Frederic Poinlane. He summarized there will be a low level of activity until Shuttle returns to flight, and mentioned CSA might decide it’s not worth setting up a system to support only 4-5 payloads, but rather would work with MSFC.
There was discussion on assignments of CRs in Workflow. NASA/J. Compton will assign Real Palardy and Ken Podwalski to ODF Management document CRs and NASA/M. Hurt will assign Ken Podwalski and Frederic Poinlane to SODF procedure CRs.
4. ESA ODFCB Status
At the Monday session ESA/M. Wolff presented the status of the ESA ODFCB and summarized the items covered at the most recent meeting in March. He noted there have been on-going telecons regarding ODF schedule, validation, and ground-flight commonality. With regard to ground-flight procedures, he stated that ESA expects to submit a CR to the ODFCB on presentation of applicable steps.
ESA/Peter Granseuer commented that the approach to ESA Safety is a simplified process based on the NASA OCAD plan, and the intent is to put this into the ESA ODF management plan. For next multi-lateral ODFCB ESA expects to be ready to present the hazard control process. NASA/P. Bennett asked if this process is also applicable to ATV and ESA payloads, or just the Columbus module. Mr. Granseuer responded that Columbus reports to an Operations Control Board (OCB) and that ATV reports to their own OCB. Therefore, ATV representatives do not come to the ESA ODFCB and do not have representation on the ODFCB. NASA/R. Banfield asked about having ESA/C. Beskow become an ODFCB member for ATV and Mr. Wolff agreed this was a good idea and indicated further discussions would be necessary. NASA/M. Hurt noted that ATV was different than Shuttle since the Shuttle reports through the SODFCB, and that having ATV representation on the ODFCB made sense.
Mr. Wolff stated that the next ESA ODFCB is planned for early July and hopes to have an updated Management Plan by late summer. NASA/J. Compton asked if payloads flown on Soyuz and/or Progress were part of this group or separate, and Mr. Wolff indicated they are separate and worked with the Russians. When questioned about the visibility of these payloads, Mr. Wolff explained that science performed in the Russian Segment is covered by RODF procedures and the ESA ODFCB won’t see them. NASA/R. Curbeam noted it had been difficult to obtain information for the ARGES and Heat payloads, and NASA/R. Lindsey stated that the information was received very late.
NASA/R. Lindsey asked if the ESA ODF for payloads is controlled separately from the ESA Systems. Mr. Wolff explained that at ESA Payloads are controlled by the same ESA ODFCB that controls systems.
ESA/G. Hajen presented the Columbus Flight ODF status and noted the preliminary content has been defined for all the books, including the input to the SODF-maintained books. Mr. Hajen mentioned development of Strategy Documents and clarified for the Board that these are bilateral documents between ESA and NASA.
Mr. Hajen reported that validation of layout and correctness of IFM and MSM procedures will be performed via desktop review. Feasibility has already been verified in the 1g test campaigns. Validation of multi-element procedures will be performed by NASA during joint tests and NBL simulations. During Bilateral Test #3B tests will be conducted at the Software Verification Facility (SVF). One objective of test will be validation of operational products.
Mr. Hajen presented a schedule for preparation of Columbus ODF and reviewed the various milestones and need dates. The training at the European Astronaut Center will be dedicated to Columbus systems training and thus will not need any multi-element SODF procedures. Preliminary Columbus ODF is needed in September 2004 with the basic required in January 2005.
March 2006 is a management launch date. ESA is keeping an artificial launch date for a dress rehearsal in February 2006 so that things will be ready for the eventual launch date. ESA need dates will likely be earlier than the need dates for SODF publication and this is being discussed at the EJOP in June.
Mr. Hajen noted that ESA delivered their hazardous commands to NASA’s hazardous command list, and processed them the same as NASA does. There was significant discussion on hazardous commands, SPNs and designation in procedures. Mr. Wolff noted that the ODF Management Plan does not require review of hazardous commands which ESA has properly implemented.
Summary:
- Consider adding ESA/C. Beskow as a member of ODFCB (see Agenda Item 32 for further information).
- Safety should ask ESA/C. Beskow about the ATV process for OCAD.
5. JAXA ODFCB Charter/Status
On Monday JAXA/M. Nakai-san presented the status of the JAXA ODFCB and summarized the items covered at the most recent meeting.
Nakai-san explained that the development group and operations group were consolidated when NASDA became JAXA. The JAXA ODFCB functions are performed at the “Operations Technical Coordination Board” and ODF related management level decisions are made by “JEM Project Control Board” including approval of ODF Management document and procedures. Nakai-san noted that Payload procedures are also controlled basically in this manner. So, at this time JAXA does not have its own ODFCB.
Nakai-san noted that further bilateral coordination is needed with NASA to update the JAXA Charter and presented two options for how to update the charter.
Nakai-san noted that a total of 96 ODF procedures were developed from FY2002 through FY2003, with plans to be completed with preliminary versions of the assembly and activation procedures for 1J/A and 1J in FY2004. 1J/A and 1J malfunction / contingency ODF is planned to be developed in FY2004 through FY2005.
NASA/R. Lindsey asked about Payload procedure development plans. Nakai-san noted that the charts presented do not include payload procedures.
NASA/J. Compton asked about HTV. Nakai-san noted that the HTV operations team belongs to the JEM project team. The JEM Project Control Board is responsible for HTV operations matters.
Nakai-san identified new members, himself as ODFCB rep, with support from JAXA/M. Ohama-san and JAMSS/T. Kajitani-san
6. PODFCB Component and Status
In the Monday session NASA/R. Lindsey presented the U.S. PODFCB documentation status, noting that an Engineering Change Request (ECR) to revise the U.S. Payloads iPV Ops Concept is out for review and that it will be reviewed at the next PODFCB meeting scheduled for May 27, 2004. Ms. Lindsey also stated that other ECRs are in work. One ECR is to Baseline the ODF Standards Annex E2 and others address updates to the PODF Management Plan.
Ms. Lindsey announced that MSFC will not be utilizing the Workflow system because of budget constraints. Instead, ECRs will be reviewed via the Payload Information Management System (PIMS) that is also used in real-time for Operations Change Requests (OCRs). With the movement to PIMS, the ECRs will be changing to be termed OCRs.
Ms. Lindsey asked that all ODFCB members who wish to review U.S. Payload products complete the HOSC forms which were attached to the agenda and submit them to her during this face-to-face meeting.
Ms. Lindsey was asked whether PIMS was operational and she explained that the PIMS system is currently used in operations. Upon questions from NASA/P. Bennett, Ms. Lindsey explained that all partners who currently have access to PODF ECRs will need to submit new paperwork and will be required to have static IP addresses.
Upon questioning, it was identified that the PIMS system would also be a repository and in order to view any procedures access to PIMS will be required. ESA/M. Wolff requested that PODF publish their procedures on the ODF web page to allow greater access. Ms. Lindsey will review this request and respond at a later ODFCB.
For Increment 9, PODF is still planning to fly the backup PODF MPV library CD on 15P since it has been over a year since the CD was updated on orbit.
Summary:
- Applicable ODFCB members complete and submit HOSC forms during this ODFCB.
- NASA/R. Lindsey will review the ESA request to publish the PODF to the ODF web page.
7. SODFB Status
On Monday NASA/M. Hurt stated that PCNs to the Emergency and Handover books were launched with the Expedition 9 crew. He reported another Emergency Book PCN and two backup CDs are planned for 14P.
Regarding hybrid SODF books, Mr. Hurt stated all CRs except for the EVA Book have been approved. He discussed the issue of scheduling crew time to implement the books and that the Station Program had approved the request for time.
Mr. Hurt reported on the FCOH update to document the Real-time CR Process for SODF. He described how this process accelerates processing for certain types of changes. He noted the system is in use with positive results so far, with the average processing time from initiation to publication being 19 days.
JAXA/Nakai-san asked about ODF Management Plan requirements for CR required for any change. Mr. Hurt explained that the console review has been augmented to include the same requirements that are used for workflow CR review. Once a change is approved on console, the record of the console review is attached to a CR. The SODF Manager reviews the CR to verify that the required review was completed and if the same review was performed, the CR is approved.
Mr. Hurt discussed the conversion of procedures to XML for iPV. He noted that authoring of the procedures is proceeding ahead of schedule, but that review of the procedures is behind. Mr. Hurt explained that the editors author the procedure and the book managers review the procedure and then the flight controllers also review the procedure.
Mr. Hurt reported the Status Sheets have been updated to provide data on uplinked procedure to ensure that flight controllers are in sync on what version of the procedure to use.
.
8. Ops Data Set Blank Book Status
On Monday NASA/J. Compton reviewed that the ODFCB previously approved the ODF portion of this document at ODFCB #43. He noted that when the SSCN was released for review there were no comments against the ODF part, though JAXA submitted comments against other sections and ESA comments have not yet been received. Mr. Compton reported the SSCN is expected to be signed in August and at that time the ODF content will be moved to the ODF Management Plan, per agreement at ODFCB #43.
Mr. Compton clarified that this is only for systems and it represents the requirements between partners and MOD.
9. ODF Schedules
On Monday NASA/J. Compton presented the upcoming schedule milestones on the ODF Template, based on Interim Assembly Sequence Revision F, dated October 27, 2003. NASA/R. Banfield asked if the Columbus ODF milestones discussed in the ESA ODFCB presentation should be added. ESA/M. Wolff agreed that once ESA has finished the schedule discussions, that those milestones should be added to the schedule since the milestones involve multi-element procedure requirements.
Summary:
- Add Columbus milestones to schedule once ESA completes schedule discussions.
10. ODF Procedures Enhancement with Color and Graphics
On Monday NASA/L. Payne presented the status of Action Item #408.
Ms. Payne explained that a small group had been formed and the group has met several times with representatives from the crew, training, systems, crew systems, MSFC and medical systems organizations. Ms. Payne stated that for Photo/TV procedures the team had explored using different colors to show various items such as where a particularly troublesome cable is connected or how a scene setup is different than the nominal configuration.
One proposal considered was to use different colors to designate different levels of indentation for nested “if” statements. Ms. Payne noted that the SODF IFM group was proposing to exempt IFM procedures from the standard use of Red and Yellow so that if a cable was yellow it could be indicated by a yellow line in a diagram.
To support additional use of color in procedures, testing was conducted to determine colors that reproduced consistently in the various simulators, workstations, and printers used for SODF. The presentation lists the colors that reproduced consistently. Ms. Payne explained that testing would continue to identify additional colors. NASA/R. Lindsey asked if there will be testing on iPV and NASA/M. Hurt clarified the test process and that the results should be hardware independent.
ESA/M. Wolff asked if the results of the color testing had been reported to IDAGS/G. Pennington. Mr. Hurt explained that the results had not yet been reported to the SODFCB and thus had also not yet been reported to IDAGS.
Future work is to finalize the results from the test of the use of color in the SODF and bring to the ODFCB for discussion on whether this can be expanded for use in the ODF. The team will continue to review the proposals discussed previously and will bring them forward to the control board if the team decides they merit further consideration. Ms. Payne expects by the next ODFCB face-to-face meeting to have a Standards CR for Color and Graphics, which will close the action.
11. Waivers for Standards and OpNom
OpNom Waivers
In the Monday session NASA/J. Compton gave a presentation reviewing the current waiver process for OpNom and proposed some modifications to that process. Mr. Compton noted that sections 3.4 and 7.0 in the OpNom Main Volume discuss the waiver process and that a presentation was made at ODFCB #40 for establishing permanent waivers. Mr. Compton proposed adding a definition of permanent waivers to the document to prevent confusion. Permanent waivers would be defined as “a waiver for an article that is planned to stay on the ISS for the lifetime of the Station with no plan for replacement.”