Attachment A - InSPA Best Practices Lessons Learned and Items of Note.pdf

Attachment A: InSPA Best Practices, Lessons Learned, and Items of Note

Where applicable, proposals should consider the following best practices, lessons learned and items of note when developing implementation strategies, schedules, and cost estimates for the purposes of ensuring mission success (not listed in priority order).

1. ISS NL Commercial Service Providers (CSPs) – Flight demonstrations may be possible using existing commercially owned microgravity research facilities available through ISS

NL Commercial Service Providers (CSPs). Agreements for use of CSP flight facilities should be via business-to-business arrangements. For a list of ISS NL CSPs, reference the

ISS NL Implementation Partners website.

2. Hardware Quantities – Consider the quantity of ground and flight units required to support thorough ground and flight testing, including production of ground controls. A second flight unit or flight-like Engineering Development Unit (EDU) is recommended to support data collection from ground or parabolic/suborbital testing and troubleshooting, especially in Phase 2. Experience has shown that proposers who build a second flight unit, or a high-fidelity EDU have more success.

3. Prudent Use of ISS NL resources – Develop your concept with consideration for optimizing the use of ISS NL resources, especially highly constrained resources, while still achieving all demonstration objectives. The most highly constrained resources are downmass and stowage (including conditioned stowage), as well as upmass for larger items. With the current configuration with enhanced power generation and four crew operating on the

United States Operating Segment (USOS), the utilization of onboard crew is recommended for either nominal or off-nominal payload operations to maximize mission success and minimize use of upmass and downmass. Proposers who enable ISS crewmembers to assist in troubleshooting, iteration, and reacting to unexpected events are more successful. Note:

demonstrations requiring less crew time are more easily accommodated in the crew’s schedule.

4. Minimize Return Volume – Return volume is a highly constrained resource, and is prioritized by the sponsor for each flight, so consider the possibility that flight hardware may not be returned in a timely manner, and in some cases may need to be trashed, affecting cost and schedule. Consider designing flight units such that smaller removable inserts with flight product/samples can be returned rather than the entire unit.

5. In-Situ Monitoring – Consider including in-situ monitoring capabilities and/or making use of onboard analytical capabilities and facilities to provide accelerated learning and enable additional iteration cycles without waiting for sample return. Reference Space Station

Research Explorer for a list of available facilities.

6. NASA Due Diligence –NASA intends to seek the support of subject matter experts from within NASA, from Other Government Agencies, and from CASIS where necessary as part of due diligence when evaluating proposals and for monitoring the results of work during execution. Proposers should clearly identify Intellectual Property content within the proposal.

7. NASA Insight – The NASA team are dedicated to assisting your project to succeed but will need insight into aspects of your concept in order to make informed suggestions. Consider the cost and schedule impacts of developing products to support the Government’s need for insight. Examples of deliverables are periodic status reviews, design reviews as needed, https://www.issnationallab.org/implementation-partners/?_sft_vertical=commercial-service-providers https://www.issnationallab.org/implementation-partners/?_sft_vertical=commercial-service-providers https://www.issnationallab.org/implementation-partners/?_sft_vertical=commercial-service-providers https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/explorer/ https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/explorer/ https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/explorer/ https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/explorer/ https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/explorer/ documentation of science/technical goals and objectives, and pre-flight ground and flight test plans and associated reports including post-flight reports.

8. Preflight, Inflight, Postflight Handling – Many payloads, especially biological payloads, require special environments and equipment for optimum performance. Consider the environments the payload will encounter during all phases of payload implementation, from preflight storage, through launch stress, to stowage in the ISS environment, to the re-entry, landing, and recovery environments. Proposers who are less familiar with the International

Space Station (ISS) may come across unexpected environments that affect experiment outcomes if not assessed and considered early.

9. Read NASA SSP 57000 (Pressurized Payloads Interface Requirements Document:

International Space Station Program Rev T or later) and the associated documents to view allowable materials and protocols. Be sure to use the most current version.

10. The microgravity environment offers a substantial edge for a payload when it is provided the best conditions achievable in space. However, microgravity cannot overcome poor design, build errors, poor laboratory practices, substandard controls, process mismanagement, or inadequate testing.

11. Some features of microgravity enable important outcomes. Other features (or the same ones in different situations) can be difficult to manage and are often unexpected by first fliers.

Bubbles, Marangoni convection, thermal hot spots in IC boards, Galactic Cosmic Ray events that fry a critical circuit, are just a few of many potential examples. Working with

Technical Monitors and Payload Integration Managers can help address issues in the experiment design.

12. Include a small lightweight camera for the investigation to see into tight places. Capturing video of phenomena in microgravity is recommended. Videos and adequate sensors are vital to determine causal relationships inflight and postflight. Most payloads have insufficient sensors and video. As a caveat, instrumentation can be overdone to the point of compromising the science. This should be avoided. Working with Technical Monitors can help find an appropriate balance.

13. Calibrating sensors on the ground and inflight is highly advised. Many systems behave differently in space when compared to the ground. Anything generating heat, such as a furnace or IC board, will affect the payload in space differently than was observed on the ground.

14. Proposers who prototype fast and iterate through learning are more successful than those who do not.

15. Proposers who fly and test their experiments on parabolic or future suborbital flights are more successful than those who do not.

16. Hardware may need to fit in the Microgravity Sciences Glovebox (MSG) or Life Sciences

Glovebox (LSG) or one of the glove bags for servicing (if the payload will be implemented in an EXPRESS rack). Your Technical Monitor can facilitate discussions with the experts on those facilities to assess compatibility and operations, including post-run facility cleanup.

17. Flight qualified parts should be purchased early to prevent supply chain delays from affecting timelines. Conducting inspections and tests on the purchased parts and components to catch any quality control issues from a supplier is recommended.

18. The first flight of hardware, or substantially redesigned hardware, is unlikely to work perfectly the first time. The goal is to get as close as possible. It will take numerous learning cycles to work out hardware bugs and to fine-tune the in-space production environment sufficiently to achieve payload goals. Multiple learning cycles can be achieved in a single flight. Vibration testing, parabolic flights, and other assets offer other learning opportunities.

19. Providing cooling for electronics including computers is recommended. For general hardware design. Hardware should be designed to allow the crew to swap out boards and extra boards should be developed.

20. Be sure to practice with the exact preflight storage, launch, and flight conditions as often as possible. This includes vibration testing of hardware under launch conditions. Emulating power conditioning, ambient environment, etc. on the ISS is recommended.

21. Drawing on subject matter experts (SMEs) and guides like Space Hardware Experts for

Research Production and Applications (SHERPAs) and involving them as early as possible in reviewing the experiment design and hardware in recommended. Reaching out for their support during inflight operations is also recommended.

22. It is possible to change task orders, contract details, or flight operations strategies, based on learning. Payload Integration Managers, Integration Teams, Research Portfolio Managers

(RPM), Contracting Officer Representative (COR), and Technical Monitors (TM) should be informed as soon as issues arise.

23. Conduct numerous live, practice runs with the technical support teams on the ground, parabolic flights, or suborbital flights before committing to launch. Invite Technical

Monitors to witness all flight operations.

24. Include alignment tools and aids if it is important to the outcome. Color coding components to assist crewmembers in knowing which parts they should or should not handle is recommended. Follow the established color code rules. (SSP 57000 section O.3.4.5.2.2). It is difficult for the crew to do alignment in space for multiple reasons.

25. Proposers who conduct vibration testing on their payload or EDU are more successful.

• Designing vibration testing to emulate launch conditions is recommended. While conducting vibration testing on a flight unit, some parts could weaken sufficiently that they will break the next time flight stress is applied. Which will be during the launch to

ISS.

• Conducting tests on the EDU and not the flight unit may not verify that the actual flight unit will withstand real flight stresses. The actual flight unit may behave slightly differently than the EDU because of fine differences and mistakes in construction quality.

• The vibration test values given in SSP 57000T are likely much higher than what a soft stowed payload will experience with a properly packaged payload. Integration Partners can help define launch conditions in the payload packaging.

26. Confirm correct installation before starting ops. Someone from the payload needs to supervise installation to ensure the crew has done all the necessary procedures prior to turning on the instrument.

27. Using contrasting colors to observe payload phenomena more effectively is recommended.

28. Using the shoulder camera is an effective diagnostic tool.

• Capturing video using both an overhead and closeup view is recommended. An overhead view is best for procedures to see how the unit is installed and operates inflight.

• Closeup views are recommended for the actual materials processes as they are occurring in space to inform the strategies for the next iteration.

• Camera angles are crucial to scientific observation. Asking for better angles, if necessary, is encouraged to gain alternate perspectives.

• Acquiring video and imagery of the product after it is manufactured in space is recommended to determine causal relationships.