Lee Zook Engineering Specialist United Space Alliance Engineering & Integration 321-867-4919

1. Agency-Wide Part Management System Space Shuttle Lessons Learned on Lifecycle ManagementNASA Technical Standards Working Group MeetingJune 11-12, 2007 Lee Zook Engineering Specialist United Space Alliance Engineering & Integration 321-867-4919 Lee.M.Zook@usa-spaceops.com

2. Agenda • USA Parts Management (Common Part) Experience • Why Does NASA Need A Parts Management System? • Success Example – Navy Contractor • Moving Forward

3. USA Common Parts Effort • USA was formed in 1996 to operate Space Shuttle Program (SSP) • Consolidation of approx 20 contractors supporting primarily 3 NASA Centers • Reduce costs through reduction of duplication • Administration • Logistics • Inventory consolidation identified significant quantity (7,888) of duplicate (common) parts • SSP Specific – 800 • Industry Standard – 2748 (additional technical requirements applied to 134 items) • Commercial – 4340 • USA Formed a Element-NASA/Contractor Working Group • Developing common specifications for items used across multiple elements • Stocking common parts/material as single items • Result • Each Program Element had different Taxonomy for the same part! • Unable to make significant progress for SSP Specific and Industry Standard parts

4. Taxonomy The practice and science of classification Taxonomic classification is the act of placing an object or concept into a set or sets of categories (such as a taxonomy or a subject index), based on the properties of the object or concept. • What would be the important criteria? • Item Type • Fastener • Valve • Alloy sheet • Physical properties • Strength • Density • Composition • Specifications • Design controls • Testing • Dimensions • Configuration Management • Critical process requirements • Procurement requirements • Inspection • Documentation • Others

5. Part Examples • NAS 1587 washers • Flat washer, stainless steel, passivated, ¼” ID, countersunk for use under bolt heads • Used by 5 Elements at point of hardware integration • USA tasked with supplying part • 5 sets of requirements • 5 different inventory unit part costs – ranged from $0.09 – 3.00/washer • MS20995 Lock Wire • 0.020” dia. Stainless steel alloy 302 or 302 wire, in 1 pound rolls • Used by 5 Elements at point of hardware integration • 5 sets of requirements • Unit costs vary from $0.05/ft to $19/lb • Minimum of 3500 remaining duplicate parts

6. Why does NASA Need Parts Management? • Constellation – Exploration Program Structure • Design/Product Lifecycle Management - 15 – 30 year program • Decentralized Project - 10 NASA Centers have responsibility for various projects/systems designs which will be integrated at KSC • Space Logistics – On orbit/Moon/Mars equipment maintenance – how much stuff do we have to bring to keep everything operational • Cost of duplication – Can NASA afford to pay all their contractors for duplicate efforts? • Costs of Duplication • Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) 1997 study on the 5 year cost of adding a part to a design = $20,000 • SSP Example 3500 parts X $20,000 = $70,000,000 • For a single set of duplicates • Facility and ground support systems/hardware • Same arguments hold as for flight/CxP

7. Success Example – Navy Contractor Specification and Technical Part Management • Specification Effectivity Management System • Contractual requirement • Controls all specifications to the revision letter • Uses database as engineering to identify acceptable revisions, applicable programs, and use restrictions • Incorporates assessment of changes between revisions to substantiate acceptance of new revisions • Tied into the part technical data in their Common Part Catalog • Common Part Catalog • Cooperative product of 3 companies/shipyards • Established taxonomy for all parts used for Navy vessels within the participating companies/shipyard • Part commonality/equivalency • Part standardization • Part data configuration management • Control part selection for new designs/programs

8. Success Example – Navy Contractor • Control of Part Proliferation • Fastener selection for design • Navy Contractor CPC contains over 5000 fasteners • Latest vessel design limited standard selection to 400 (no limit in the past) • Significant long term cost avoidance • Issues from Specifications • Tracking specification revision and monitoring changes necessary in long life programs • Efficient methods to incorporate technically interchangeable revisions is essential • CPC Program Cost • Estimate approx $5 million over 8 years

9. Moving Forward NASA Common Parts Taxonomy System • “Plus Up” proposed by Intergraph • Based upon prior work performed under DoD contract • 3 year program • Establish Taxonomy • Design and build the structure for a NASA wide system • Initial data population • Establish processes to maintain system and control technical data • ARES I Project opportunity • Offered support for the Plus Up

10. Moving Forward Establish Agency Part Management • Use Plus Up and ARES Project • Establish Taxonomy for agency • Mandate use of parts management throughout ARES design efforts - exceptions approved through review board • Control hardware items through selection lists to limit total part count across project • Expand to other programs/projects as system matures • USA Strengths could support a Parts Management Initiative • Past experience with establishing common requirements • Operator of SSP heritage hardware designated for ARES/CxP • Established Specification Management Program for SSP responsible designs

11. Moving Forward USA Specification Management Program • Findings related to SSP • Designs let specification revision “float” allowing for the use of the most current revision allows opportunity for all to misinterpret SDO actions – revisions, cancellations and suggested replacements • Issues identified when parts are procured – difficult to quickly change engineering • Duplication of effort to resolve as each occurrence identified • Violation of configuration baseline • USA has developed tools for specification monitoring and tracking • Includes assessment of specification changes • Planning in work to make data available to SSP organizations • Process includes engineering design activities and problems associated with specifications identified during procurement