An Affordable Model for Enduring ISS
Mission Operations With Increased
Scientific Productivity
Donovan Torgerson1, Josh Berk2, Jeremy Straub1 and Anders Nervold3
1Department
of Computer Science, 2Department of Space Studies, 3Department of Entrepreneurship
University of North Dakota
Page 1
Overview:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Introduction
Background
Proposed Model
Methods
Analysis
Conclusions
Questions
International Space Station (Image Courtesy NASA)
Page 2
Introduction:
• ISS Under-Utilization
• Numerous Possible Management
Paradigms
• Proposed Model Based Off United
States Governments Model For
Maintenance of Public Infrastructure
Page 3
Background:
• Current NASA Study of Operations
Architecture is Outdated
• Development Stage – Intensive Research
Phase
• 14 Modules Currently, 15th Added This
Year
• Total Cost of USD$150 Billion (€112.21
Billion)
Page 4
Background:
• Cost per Module is Roughly USD$10
Billion (€7.48 billion)
• Management by Flight Crew and GroundBased Operators
• Utilization, Operations and Maintenance
Lumped Together
Page 5
Background:
• Current Model of Operations Preventative,
Unplanned and Corrective Maintenance
Actions
• Clean or Replace Filters
• Replace or Recalibrate Sensors/Tools
• Inspect Parts for Wear and Tear
• Change-out Expendable Consumables
• Replace or Repair Failed Hardware
(Unplanned)
Page 6
Background:
• Follow up Evaluation for All Unplanned
Events
• Daily Tasks i.e. Waste Removal and
Hygiene (of The Station) Maintenance
• Negative Effect on Research Conducted
Page 7
Proposed Model:
• Pass Management of Maintenance Related
Tasks Off to Specialized
Companies/Vendors
• Provide an incentive to the Contractor to
Optimize as Much as Possible in Order to
Maximize Profits and Minimize Cost
Page 8
Proposed Model:
• Onboard Employee/Robots
• Simplify Tasks/Use Structures/Equipment
That Require Less Maintenance
• Use of a Brain-to-Brain Interface
• Fixed Mass Allocation For Uplift/downlift
• Fixed Uplift/Downlift Seats
• Fees/Penalties for Overages
• Vendor Can Sell Any Unused Seat/Mass
Page 9
Proposed Model:
• With Contractor Responsible for Day-toDay Operations, No Need to Involve
Numerous Agency Staff in Updates on
Progress/Issues
• Contractor Responsible for Deliverables
Being Available On or Before Date
Specified in Service Level Agreement
Page 10
Proposed Model:
• Contractor Would Provide a Date By
Which An Additional Amount of
Workspace Would Be Available
• Progressive SLA Created by International
Partners with vested interest in the ISS.
• Create a financial structure in order to
ensure the vendor delivers goods and
services in a timely manner.
Page 11
Proposed Model:
• Include Incentives/Penalties Based On
Performance and Encourage a High
Percentage of On-Time Task Completion.
• Freedom to Maintain, Operate, and/or
Update/Upgrade ISS As Needed
• Progressive Nature of SLA Encourages the
Vendor to commit to updates/upgrades in
the early phases of the contract.
Page 12
Proposed Model:
• Vendor Would Be Paid Back Over The
Remaining Contract Term For
Updates/Upgrades.
• Costs Would Be Fixed To Facilitate More
Certainty In Budget Appropriation And
Allocation For All Partner Nations
Page 13
Proposed Model:
• One consolidated management facility.
• 7 Operations/management sites in US
• 15 facilities worldwide that play key
roles in ISS management/operations for
partnering countries
• Ability to Select An Optimal Contractor
Page 14
Proposed Model:
• Examples:
• Bigelow/NASA BEAM
• Equally Beneficial
• Nauka (Using timeline only)
• 1% profit reduction for each month late
the deliverables are
• Would Currently Be 68 Months Late
(Using a Date of Dec. 31, 2007)
• Profit Would Be Reduced By Over Half
(68%).
Page 15
Proposed Model:
• Routine Activities Are Potentially
Disruptive To Experimental Schedules.
• Dedicated Service/Support Crew Frees Up
Astronauts To Concentrate On R&D
• Some Redundancy Is An Absolute
Necessity
Page 16
Methods:
• Stratified Selection Process
• Stratum Consists of 6 Consecutive 6month (Jan - Jun & Jul - Dec) Periods
With 2 Dates Chosen Arbitrarily From
Each Period.
• 15 Total Dates Selected and 1/1/13,
1/27/13 and 7/21/13 Were Excluded Due
To Being Crew Rest/Off-Duty
• At the time of retrieval no past July 31,
2013 Available
Page 17
Methods:
• Radiogram of ISS Timelines And On-Orbit
Status Reports Were Obtained For Each Date
• On-Orbit Status Reports Were Only Used In
Aiding The Categorizing Process
• Tasks Relating To Crew Members (pre/post
sleep, sleep, breakfast, lunch, exercise, etc.)
Were Not Included.
Page 18
Methods:
• Timelines Were Broken Down Into 3 categories:
• Maintenance – All Items related to HW/SW
Setup & All Facilities And
Equipment/Spacecraft Maintenance
• Research - Directly Related To Research/Data
Collection
• Items Not Effectively Classified As 1 Of The
Foregoing – Unclear Items With Not Enough
Information To Categorize As Maintenance
Or Research
Page 19
Methods:
• Morning Inspections Placed In Maintenance Due
To Occurrences Of Inspection Of H/W,
Computer Reboots, etc Being Described As Part
Of This Activity.
• All work prep/evening work prep items were
categorized as a research related topic.
• May Be An Overly Favorable Categorization;
• Placed Here Due To The Occurrences Of H/W
And S/W Setup Being Listed/Labeled
Separate
Page 20
Methods:
• Where Research/Experiments Were Listed Along
With Setup/Teardown of H/W Items Were
Included In Research
• Once Categorized, The Aggregate Time Of Each
Category Was Calculated
• Each Item Was Multiplied By Number Of People
Assigned To Task
• Averages Were Calculated
Page 21
Analysis:
• Averages For Each Half Show 68% Of The Time
Is Spent On Maintenance Related Activities
• Leaving Only 31% For Research
• The Proposed Model Would Transfer This 68%
To The Contractor/Vendor
• Contractor Also Responsible For Setup/Tear
Down of Hardware (Experiments, conferences,
Etc)
Page 22
Analysis:
Average Time Spent on Each Task
Period
Maintenance
Grey
Research
Jan – Jun 2011
13:07:30
0:40:00
9:20:00
Jul – Dec 2011
Jan – Jun 2012
Jul – Dec 2012
Jan – Jun 2013
Jul – Dec 2013
14:47:30
25:25:00
23:10:00
23:42:30
31:05:00
0:40:00
0:45:00
1:02:30
0:00:00
0:00:00
5:10:00
9:40:00
12:55:00
10:07:00
12:35:00
Page 23
Conculsions:
• May Be Extremely Beneficial To The Scientific
Community
• Meaningful return on investment is virtually
unobtainable
• The Proposed Plan Offers A Significant
Improvement In The Amount Of Research And
Experimentation Produced
• May Justify The Extension Of End Of Life Of
The ISS To 2028.
Page 24
Thanks for Your Attention.
Any Questions?
Presentation of this paper at the 2013 International Astronautical Congress
was supported by an Advanced Undergraduate Research Award (AURA)
from North Dakota EPSCoR (NSF # EPS-814442) and the UND
Intercollegiate Academic Fund, administered by the Office of the Provost.
Page 25