NASA CR-

/ "/,o3z,_

"_

_-

__-

=_

[r

- CONTENTS

""

-_

" )i.0

I"-

INTRODUCTION

1.1

Introduction

1.2

Objectives

1.3

Study

Groundrules

1.4

Study

Approach

[_

|
"

SECTION
CONCLUSIONS

:_

2.0

SIGNIFICANT

[i

3.0

PROGR/_IN/_AGENNNT

'I I

3.1

Manufacturing

3.2

Improved

_
8

SECTION

-F_

III

Documentation

Configuration

and

t_,

Government/Contractor

3.4

Program Phasing Philosophy

3.5

_stronaut

3.6

Business

3.7

Organization

r
[_

and

,
4.0

Management

Option

Management

Reports

17

-"

Manpower

32

42

Item

Control

System

SECTION

-_

Management/Control

3.3

Field

11
Control

Methods

[i"

48

55
Summary

66

IV

;_
&._
i

ENGTNEERING

71
.&

4.1

Interface

Control

4.2

Contract

4.3

Field

4.4

Organization

End

Documentation

72

Item=Bpecifications

88

98

Operations
and

Manpower

Summary

105
%

SECTION
5.0

i.._.

QUALITY

5.1

Traceability

[i

5.2
5.3

Inspection
Organization

128

andandIn-Process
Manpower

--

129

Verification
Summary

135
162

_ ;

_.
:o

C
;

s.s
074
i01
I_

L
FORE_qARD

Apollo/Skylab

Study

Duration

Study

Team

Suit

Program

December

Management

17,

1973

Systems

through

Study

April

30

1974

Members:

!
I.

C
[j

Program

Control

Configuration
Engineering

M.

Management

{ _

J. D' Andrade
G. Amey

Control

Quality

Prepared

by:

i_

T. Pribanic
J. McMullen

[._
Resources

McNiff

R.
K. McGahey
Deamer

z-\

f-

_.

([

--u-

;"

Michael

McNiff_

Program

Control

[.i

Approved

_ohn McMullen
_:anager, Space

W
Manager

by:

& Environmental

Systems

[_
"<

Prepared

for

the National

Contrac_

NAS

9-6100

Aeronautics

Space

Agency

-iii-

_ !
.|

I_
I,

SEC?ION
INTRODUCTION

"
Jr

B,

_J

1.0

'_
_

.-

_[

INTRODUCTION:
A management

programs

was

_!

Industries,

through

April

contract

NAS

r_
i

syst_ns

conducted
Inc.,

by

during

30,

study

9-6100,

ILC Dover,
the

1974,

for

in

calendar

by

spacesuit

a division
period

response

issued

future

to

NASA

SA

of

of

606S

Johnson

ILC

December

17,

(Schedule

IV)

1973,

Spacecraft
S

I__.

Center
(JSC).
study
included
past
suit
programThisrequirements
and

_[_

addition

to

[_

-the most

cost

spacesuit
-its

new

modified

effective

programs.

systems

methods
This

in

for

report

order

use

to

during

highlights

ofin

identify

future

the

effort

and

findings.

Past
to

and

the investigation
management
systems

comply

NPC

space

with

200-2,

the

NPC

encompassed

suit

programs

overall

250-1,

NASA

and

development

have

NPC

and

required

program
500-I_

the

contractor

requirements
These

production

of

of

requirements
all

hardware
%.

r_

ranging

i_

yet

each

crew

class

protective

of

manufacturing

of

requirements

these

for

gear

hardware

testing

staffs
i_

from

program

was

and

to

total

unique

in

inspection

necessitated
compliance.

launch

vehicles,

design,

development,

criteria.

The

significant
Inevitably,

complexity

contractor
extraneous

redundant_
areas
of documentation,
data and
control
were
generated.
The identification

_
and

program
management
of a set of

r -

requirements

specifically

considered
!:

essential

It

is

set

associated

systems

of

of

As

approaches

in

control,

to

achieve

recognized,

a complete

expensive.

tailored

for

a result,

both

to

from

that

program

future
this

space

suit

cost

the

establishment

requirements

study

investigated

the

least

implementation

would

costly

and

of

and

programs

has

is

reductions.

spacesuit

determine
an

the

significant

however,

specialized

order

to

be
alernate

method

operational

standpoint.

Past

"

with

the

were

increasingly

and

and

emphasis

maintain

programs
_.

spacesuit

will

balances.

with

have

concentrated

on

more

and

the

require
To

programs

fully

complex
advent
fewer

of

mission

extremely

each

the

dynamic

assurance.

expensive

controls

realize

been

to

Systems

develop

new

program.

Future

and

redundant

checks

inherent

reduction

of

-2........

'_

L_

Ib_

2_

("

overall
the

program

management

structured
major
_
'

[.

systems

a.

systems

Significant
section

and

_-

investigated

used

during

the

Topics

to

in

I"
(:

the

past
be

important

of

applicable

be

several

Apollo,

II:

Skylab,
_ithin
"-

This

conclusions
from

these

integrity,

must

discussed

Section

resultii_g

the

study.

conclusions
portion

of

is

i _i

Sections

VI.

Management

Sections
the

the

item

programs

report

explanation

through

Program

future

end

This

recommendations

III

I_

III

various

Engineerina.

through

V:

difficulties

This

and

Quality

section

experienced

discusses
with

the

systems
and procedures
that controlled
the
inter-relation
of these
groups.
Recommendations
or

'

guidelines

also
c.

for

future

spacesuit

programs

are

included

Organization
section
future

_
i2

these

Conclusions

contained

b.

[_

compromising

summarizes

detailed

["

_i
_

for

accordingly.

management

I_
_

without

and ASTP
spacesuit
programs.
this report
include:

(-,
I
I_

costs,

forecasts

and

Cost

discusses

the

space
the

suit
Cost

Summary

Section

recommendations

program

organization

VI:
for

This

and

savings.

:'

v,
r

2-

'

_1
I

i. 3

STUDY

used

The following
items include the basic ground
to establish
the guidel_aes
or recommendations

(i_

a.

GROUNDRULES

The

ILC Management

Systems

in effect

rules
discussed

during

the

ATLB Program were used as study baseline,

in Sections
II Savings
and III are
through
VI:
b.
Cost
identified
in terms of reduced

I h

man months
(by skills)
on future programs_

_,

,_

c.

Recommendations
future programs.

d.

Proposed

I_

e.

efforts

as guidelines

are based

in suit

similar

are presente_

guidelines

advancements

to perform

designs

used
The

on future programs.
rate is assumed
delivery
suit every 20 working day@.

for

"

on state-of-the-art
expected

be

to

to be

one

(i) space
i

[_
_

[[

f.-

projected
g.

I""_

The
to

h.

On future programs,
only one (I) cycle Qual is
assumed
to be performed
using the worst case
mission(s)

requirements
future

of NHB

program

Minimal

change

support

will

through

5300.4

quality

activity

be required

the

life

will

be

of

the CEI.

applicable

systems.
and minimal
for

future

depot

flight

suit

programS.

"

'

I. 4

STUDY

,J

At

_ ("

Suit

_-_

major

I [.

APPROACH
the

groups.
with
the

i ["

respective

around

{ _
I_

Apollo,

key

personnel

were

formed

representatives
Quality

Each of
history

the
and

groups.

priorities
i

'_ "

_i

of

the

and

from
the

problem

list

of

areas

each

of

th_

a study

team.

Program

Management,

Business

The

Management

thoroughly
familiar
utilized
by his

specific

were

a',d ASTP

from

as

participants
was
scope
of systems
A

Skylab

study

identified

tasks
as

were

areas

within

list.

The

among

the

each
list

five

Program
I"

established

and

to

descipline

was

to

the

starting

least

two

selected

for

the

final

specific

tasks

!includes

divided

follows:
CMO,

Documentation

I_(

Improved

[_

Government/Contractor

Configuration

Program
Phasing
Astronaut
Field
Business

[!

at

as

that

in
level

Business

Management

Control).

Manufacturing

{
_ I_

13

1 areas

Management

Program

were

reduced

function.

insure

centered

base.
Items
within
this list were
assigned
priorities
accordance
with
theil
potential
dollar
savinus.
Second

9-6100,

CMO,

known

of

groups

consisted

i i_
I

"

NAS

functional

Engineering,
i

conclusion

Contract,

team

and

Systems

Management/Control
Management

Philosophy
Option
Item

Management

Control

Methods

Reports

Control

System

Engineering
Interface

Control

Contract
End Item
Field
Operational

Iii

Inspection
Organization
The
the

initial

baseline

identifying

"

Specifications
Documentation

Traceability
Quality

II:

Documentation

baseline

any

organization

effort

system

system.

and

In-Process
of

each

(Apollo/Skylab

cost

related

Flowcharts,

charts,

and

other

Verification
task
A7LB

problems
standard
pertinent

consisted
Mc4ei

of

defining

Suit)

associated
operating

with

and
the

procedures,

documentation

were

_
_4
li

{
r

_,
_""

used

to

then

analyzed

Advantages
were
team

,
I_
-

support

to

and

made
to
meetings

Guidelines
identified

this

phase.

comply

alternate

disadvantages

of

that

some

NASA

ILC

means

each

measure
effectiveness
were
used
to
resolve

for futur_
programs
problem
area.
When

with

individual

identify

proposed
guidelines
were
requirements,
these
were
deviations
were presented.
revealed

Each

problem
of

were

was

optimization.

identified,

surveys

of each alternate,
final
selections.

were presented
implementation

for
of

and

each

in violation
of known
NASA
program
identified,
and proposed
requirements
In several
cases,
the study

baseline

program

systems

requirer

nts.

did

not

These

completely

were

_
}_

_S

also
:2

identified
evidence
I_
group

and
of

where

their

their

advantages

Cost
effectiveness
was
by comparing
a baseline

proposed
future
organization
guidelines.
The individual

_.

were

retention

then

combined

into

were

was

proposed,

given.

measured
in
organization

_
each functional
(A7LB)
to a

having.implemented
proposed
functional

a total

supporting

program

,i

the suggested
organizations

organization.

E
?&

I"

'
Z_

-i

I)

- SECTION
SIGNIFICANT

II CONCLUSIONS

._,

2,

2.0

SIGNIFICANT

CONCLUSIONS:

,4

NiDe
the

completion

also

:
_

(9) major

These

programs

will

The major

i ii

within

study.
each

result

} [_

resulting

--

|'

this

this

of

spacesuit
savings.

study

include:

FACI the first production

qualification
item.

c.

Qualify

d.

the first
Reduce
the time.
drawing

to the

CEI worst

item

f.

Allocatesufficient

case

by

requirements

using

for configuration

and
100%

subassembly
in-process

time

early

efficient

systems

g.

Perform

astronaut

fit checks

h,

Streamline

the

data

reporting

centralize

the

data

collection

program

management

the new

mission

requirements

develop

with

ttlan t_e

Increase component
testing to reduce

of reduced

rather

instructions

e.

this

the ATLB

program.

1565

months.

['
j

"

in program

to

and procedures.

savings

in each

manpower

required

guidelines

acceptance
inspection,

at user's

s_te.

requirements

and

system.

control functions.
study area were reflected
to

operate

implemented.

th_

These

respective

individual

new

man

organization

with

This

the

total

one

in effect

potential

at

saving

_
<

ILC during
amounted

to

In retrospect,
this study stresses
the importance
of allotting
sufficient
time e_rly in a program to develop

[i

and verify

_
[_

Many cost saving in_ovations

to ILC systems were developed
and implemented
during the Apollo/Skylab
programs.
_he

[
k

from

cost

sections

groups were then combined

into a total program organization.
A measure of total potential
savings was obtained
by comparing

program

are

b.

in terms
areas

on future

at

Place
the qualification
of subassemblies
rather emphasis
than the onentire
spacesuit
assembly.

i.
Consolidate
Potential
cost

auidelines

subsequent

if used

resulted

a.

i L
i

Additional

in a major

manufacturing
control.

or guidelines

of the

guidelines,

guidelines

__,
,

of this

discussed

report.

conclusions

efficient

and compatibiemanagement

systems.
_

i
: ["
[ _"

fact that
the
bears
tribute

I,
-

during

[_
![:

that

had

Several

!i
_

k:
_i_

[_

of

_f: the

i'_:l

co_it_ent

in

management

to

in

proven

early

il :I _

NASA

for

being

conditions

an_

ILC

made

became

more

discussed

in

aware

cost
this

when
_odify

a more

qualified
_ -exis_.ng

program

systems

m_npower

areas

effective.

report

program

systems.

and
must

was

manageme:_'-syst

costly

operational

the

of

are

in

In the early
phases
of the program,
the
of perso**.lel that were
technica].ly
qualified

program,

resulted
the

_"

both

potential
the

ended
inderrun"
condition
and
II.Cin
cost an saving
efforts.
However,

to analyze
and modify
the systems
were
deeply
technical
and
production
activities.
In the

_.

_ _

program,

this category.
limited
nmnber
:

";

the

contract
to NASA

impact

On

existing,
be

analyzed

proven
for

available,

_an

future

involved
in
later
phases

to

woult_

continue

programs,

systems
cost

must

li
have

il

with

new

i[_

be

effectf>eness

"

1
.

2.c

:
.

'

)
f.

[2
2-

_j

D
3.1

[,

'-

"

_LANUFACTURING/PROGR2hM

DOCUMENTATION

CONTROL

OBJECTIVE:

k_,
To

evaluate

documentation

the possibi]$ty

related

to the

fabrication

Contract
End Item_
(CEI).
by elimination
of unnecessary

LL

of reducing

drawings

program

costs

and control

of

and redundant

Identify
documentation
utilized
fabricating
the all
A7LBdrawings
Spacesuitand Assembly.
Eval'Jate
the
r

" redundancies

L
s

the

requirement

data.
future

could

PROBLEM :

P
!

per

cases

BACKGROUND:

be

possible

documentation

consolidation

and

of the

investigate
remaining

which could be implemented

estimate
the cost savings

I_
on

.
NAS

was

9-6100

required

MIL-D-1000,

superfluous

li
:

["

to the

|
generation

Type

E, Form

table-of

of drawings

B, which

operations

in many

(TO's).

.....

Federal

Sepcification

"Engineering

MIL-D-1000,

drawings

in this

Type

E, Form

category

shall

B,
provide

original

drawings
_

['

parts

generation

i
.

design."

of all

of the

CEI were

i
' [_

_
_

of

this

sub-assemblies

prepared.

This

requirement,

and

comPonent

stipulation

caused

the
185

drawings
were actually
required drawings
to fabricate
an A7LB
suit
assembly.
The remaining
were utilized

space
only

and

prepared

It was
manufacturing
q

a result

_!

drawings.

were

li

As

assemblies,

st_bsequent

as a *configuration
_

'_

procurement,
without additional
design activity
of an item
that duplicates
the physical
and performance
characteristics
Of the

Ii
[<
Ix

the necessary
design,
engineering,
manufacturing
and quality
support information
directly
or by reference
to enable the

_*

existing

realized.

specification

states,
i.

for

Contract

[ "

the

Develop a .sample system

space suit programs and

which

_:

within

in

control

to meet
determined
personnel

the

updating

vehicle

of

5,2_0

(See Appendix

requirements
_

"A")

and

of MIL-D-IO00.

U"

very early in the program that

could not reliabiy
use softgoods

drawings
to manufacture
softgoods
items.
Drawings
which
contained
all the detail needed for engineering
definition

i?

-12-

_
were

L_
so
.

complex

not

and

unwieldly

understand

Table

of

or

use

Operations

necessary

for

requirements

operational

them.

To

(TO's)

the
of

that

was

fabrication,

the

CEI.

personnel

resolve

this

prepared

for

inspection

The

TO

problem,
each

and

consisted

could
a

major

sub-

traceability

of

manufacturing

7
?

assembly
and
instructions
_he

L_

Manufacturing

area
.

"

and

did

numbers,
The
was

assembly.
The TO contained
and Fabrication
Inspection
instructionsoremained

not

sizing

all the instructions

Route
Sheets
(FIRS).

reference

any

information,

FIRS package,
which
the portion
of the

in

the

information

inspection

Production

such

as

part

requirements,

etc.

consisted
of approximately
800 pages,
TO which
contained
this
information.
.

.
[i_-

-,
Early
in the program
_,e TO's and drawings
released
for the first
CEI
(FACI baseline).
A

were
dynamic

_
i

program
was encountered
concerned,
and a dual

changes
were
was required
-

one

for

Any

Class

the

other.

used

for

the

by

TO's

I and

II

Since

each

new

and

was developed
to the system

or

increasingly'redundant
system

f_

not

situation

was

_i

trade-off

study

drawings

maintain

two

the

to

changes

and

field

the

TO's

sites

allowed

of

to

which

paper

system.

were

in

existence

by

other

indicated

in

prepared
The

TO

system

These
improvements
to become

and

a result
be

than

were

However,

would

rather

be

the

being

contractors.

as
it

a change

designs.

TO

inefficiencies

to

iterations.
the drawings

continue

3.1.i).

procedures
had

existing

Figure

caused

the

but
to

system

(see

documentation
sets

to

drawings

one

through
several
gradually
caused

!-_

at

for

different

I_

only

one

changes

system,

designs

as far as configuration
change
control
procedure

of
less

toal

utilized

:
%

This
a cost
costly

implementing

to

a new

system.
_

Upon
design

:
_

receipt

resolution

achieved

and

released

to

classified

require

Suit

of

between

a Change
authorize

as
the

a Contract

Type

Action

to

and

III

make

of

Authority

the

Request.

revision

customer's

Contractor

NASA

Change

documentation
approval.
ohan_es

TO's.
and

This
to

contractor

Notice

the

the

(CCA),

as

system
TO's

was

(CARN)
TO's
such

was

>

were
did

not

permi%ted
without

!_

the

awaiting

NASA
i_

,_'|

process

[ ....

of

-i

_.

formal

_:pp_-oval of

allowed

the

the

design

the

associated

contractor

change

on

to

items

in

practical
preclude Co1_current
progra_n
or
retrofit to costs.

:"

Engineering
the
by

Change

drawings.

Ord

The

approximate.ly

formal

three

ECO

weeks

p]:oce_'d with
production

delays
with

(ECO)

ECO/drawing.

was

soon

generated

generally

to

followed
of

as

was

additional a formal
rework
effort,

being

because

incol-poration

as

and
t_is

This

the

the

revise
eARN

'

document-ation

' r-:

and

approval

RECOMMENDED

"_

is

E,

Form

Type

'_'"

reference

3 be

drawings

sub-assembly
_

prepare
assemble

:?
:[:
!

used)

_
_

are

of

I_
t

This
cannot
goods

approach
(TO's)

government

drawing

indicates

which

savings
_,

as

for

follows

the

drawings

by

as

of

major

for
the

that
Type

suit

soft

goods

need

c0uld

these

and
in

Space

the

to
and
TO's
of

Suit

Con'tractor's

changes.

Section

Suit
be

to

I documentation

revisions

A7LB

the

requirements

discussed

size

preparation

the

require

of

Contracts

to manufacture
(patterns
and

satisfy

used

MIL-D-1000,

3.2

(Appendix

deleted.

drawings

of

"A")

The

would

be

Hours
--

Drafting

:_
_:

This
spent

in

._.:_

L_

{'_

210

EC0|s

K_

50%

of

Support

7,090
28,364

total
the

During

deleted,

were

savings

updating
the

these

21,274

TOTAL

eliminate

the

Mission

_I".

will

are

_I.

requirement

be

for

on

the

approval

list

Suit

(TO's)

will

500-1.

of

Space

be used
equipment

to

NPC

requirements

future

delete

needed

Operations

The

only

in

Additional
recommendations
this report.

f_

and

This

requiring

the

and

PROGRAMS:

Operations

draftings.

MIL-D-1000.

-'

of

drawings
which
the suit
soft

and

Table

that

revised

Table

MIL-D-1000

__'OR FUTURE

recorr_nended

the

"assembly

of

GUIDELINES

It

._t_

.-_

requirements

period
processed

of

the

of

affected
of

not

reflect

4,192

the

unnecessary

September
to

changes
savings

does

blan flours

revise

drawings
man

hours

l_ours

drawings.

1969
525

man

to-September

draftings

wl_ich
cou._d

could

1970,

Assuming

De

result.

"-I4-

F
L

PROBLEM:

i" [ '-.._'
_ ["

configuration
Various
"

subsequent
several

[
[

consolidation

Tilis was

individuals

of

and

duplicated

was

performed

not

by

reviewed

for

possible

for

various

early

data.

controlling
of

program

the

were

Apollo

Program.

generated

FACI

Program,

with
and

baseline

space

the

formats

traceability
suit

additional

and

being
generated
developed,
it
the

end

of

'

etc.

)
'_ _

assembly.

by
or

by other
continued

the

for

requirements

perpetuated
utiiizing

various

modifying

existing

departments.
through
the

Apollo/Skylah

Program,

50

different

CMO

. . .

'

In
of
[i

associated

shop

addition,
orders

this

and

sheets

documentation,
release,

IL

revision
been

documents

system

compiling

that

of

TO's.

the

,,,

RECOMMENDED

and
of

of

were

being

the

,,,

gone

inspection
,

FOR

early

with

not,

assembled

equipment

as

Even

FUTUR_

in

and

the

this

other
was

_ result,

error

initiation

traceability

operator

As

required

mass

than

using

the

equipment

from

obsolete

undetected
per

at

th e
of

i
:

original

latest
have

manufacturing
the

FIRS.

<
_

,ROGRAMS:

program

of

_ould

until

the

inspection

For each CEI, this meant

accumulation
of thousands

did

the

and

GUIDELINE

Determine

also

paper..

system

verify

manufactured

completion
[i

of

the

instructions

additional

. .

records
on various
form_ts.
processing
, duplication
and

[i

over

prepared.

emphasis

as:
retrofit
status
reports,
charts,
retrofit
kit deliveries,

considering

At

Apollo

configuration

generated

without

the

operational,

encountered;
such
number
progression
documents

of

were

the

became

reportsthiswhich
were
Once
situation

[i:

stages

documentation

departments

-.
_.

the

manufacture

New
E

on

the

were
dash

I [ii
_

During

As

changes.

BACKGROUND:

the

;
4

engineering
different

. placed

,.

of
the Contract wasEndgenerated
Item and toto verify
control the
documentation

as

is

practical

operational.
information
should
funneled
a group
which
informationThis will
be required
when be the
program to becomes
which
has been delegated
authority
for all the data

r_

r':
i

designed
collection taking
and
In

addition,

all control
dissemination.

all

requirements,

i
. I-

should
requested
of
data bedissemination.

i I"

discussed

in

Section

infoz]nation
A system
for

through
this
Additional
3.2

of

this

into consideration.
could
then be

additional

information

group
to insure
recommendations

optimization
are

,"

report.

J"

" [i

-16-

3.2

I["._-._

OBJECTIVE:

IMPROVED

CONFIGURATION

MANAGEMENT/CONTROL

Propose

an

Configuration

which

would

["

System

Assurance,

Program

APPROACH:
A review
departments
consolidate

! i..
[_

Authorized

of

was
the

manufacturing,

Control

CMO

the

data

Traceability

Product

data.

:_

requirements

performed.
following

. formats:
As-designed

and

consolidate
and

SYSTEMS

of

each

of

A goal
established
data
on a was
minimum
number

the
to
of
_

vs.

As-built

Authorized

Configuration

Classification

Qualification
_

I].

Status

Interchangeability
Bills
of Materials

. .

).
.

Softgoods
Sub-Assembly
Modification
Kit Status Drawings

_.

Traceability
[]

Delivery
INTRODUCTION

At

_
}

the

outset

controls

established

Assembly

concept,

of

the

were
that

based
an

on

a total

ITLSA,

EV

from

i !_
'

the

top

[-

the

tested

separable

300

(PGA)

comprise
and

component

removal
of some details
:_effectiveness
was proven
it

easier

to

series

did

Glcves,

IV

drawing

use.

_ach

a PGA:

and

as

control

created

of

the

Garment

together
make
the
control

at

existing

list.

certainitems
components
asof those
they

a separate
more

could

unit.
paperwork,

top assembly
of shipment

components

Gloves,

components

however,

shipped

from the
at time

Helmet

simplify

change
caused were
the defined
removal
components

collectively

functionally
'

A7LB

assembly

methods.Separable
This

Ii_

of

and

configuration

Pressure

formed
a space
suit assembly.
The decision
to
transition
to separable
component
configuration
beginning

Boots,

the

;_ [i
_

the

Lunar

program,

Suit

i_

Instrumentation,

is

Apollo

_ _"

which

Schedule

were

be
Although
its

drawing
making
and it caused

individually

_-

controlled

by

part

number

and

corresponding

assen_._ly drawing.

_ ["
L

The

ITLSA

top

d._s<.m:._.]y
d1-n,...,ing
fo_- example

did

not

reflect

%k

serial
"

numbered

effectivities;

therefore,

a components

[..

list - a parts list of critical

parts and asse_lies,
depicting
authol-ized and as-built
conditions
was initiated

_'
:

to compliment
the drawing and Table of Operations
(TO's)
system.
Tlle components
list defined
the dash number which

-.

t :

'

_"
!
_--

applied

r_

gloves, etc.) were controlled

by an Authorized
Cllange List (ACL)
and/el" _D250 identification
of the drawing.
The ACL identified

Other

to a given
separable

serial

numbered

component

suit

for

configurations

each

(i.e.,

of the

ITLSA's.

helmet,
,)

the components
|!

condition
Change

"

['

[_

authorized

along

Order.

This

Quality

Assurance,

time

initial

of

contractor

had

,
.

required
and NASA

a mixture

ILC

"as built"

each

verification

and

inspection

words,

categories

of

:_

applicable

to the Apollo

'

Both

series

A7LB

suit

different

ITLSA's;

of suit

program,

the A7LB

were

of

cont_.-olling
each had
configuration

two distinct

600

programs

respectively.

were

based

;/

suit

and A7LB

and Skylab

configurations

at the

types
data

there

300

Engineering

the space

engineering

management,

the configurations
of various
components
of which
its own unique rules.
Also to further define the
of the

_.__/_

applicable

configuration

In other

configuration

and

of

of several

complexity
.

number

a description

shipment.

authoritative
I"
[

with

part

series

on the

same
o,

con%men top
period,
dash
(

assembly

twenty-three

01 through

(76) Class

dash

of

I!
[
_.

[.

_
;

I:

of

Integrated

by this

dash

modifying

Torso

drawing

sixty-seven

(671.

This

problem

Apollo

A7L

different
than

the

PGA

L_mb

during

by

existing

o_]es

Suit

suit

ranging

approximately

In each

affected

the

Apollo/Skylab

the

creating

The

Assen_blies

seventy-six

case,

either

from

total

(ITLSA's)
programs

same

-':

a _ew

?.

number

'i

controlled

was

_:

"
is further

phase

number

were

-:

demonstrated

whe_'e one hundred

configurations
total

from

changes.

was

this A7LB

configurations

23 evolved

drawing

number

Throughout

(23) unique

I engineering

top assembly
I _

drawing.

created

by

and
on

the

earlier

fifteen

(i15)

_.

drawing.

manufact_,red.

_
_

the same

of P<,,..]
_._' (96) actually

"

The

statistics

referenced

reflect

_-

assembly

drawing

The

many

variations

L.

not

only

made

["

but

als_

became

[_

"_

!-

large

one
was

different

the

ITLSA

supplemented

revised

and

upon

an

on

user

when

from

the

study

engineering

drawing

task

configuration

hundred

effects

the

configuratons

for

for

of

multiple

a time-consuming

drawing

portion

pyramid

_rom

difficult

drawings

describing
drawing

of

this

and

resultin%

one

assembly

_'J" sized

volume

it

differentiate
- top

L.

the

in

of

(122)

approximately

of

to

four

(4)

materials

items.

fifty-wo

Atypical

consisted

twenty-two

drawing

interpret,

had

another.

a list

one

to

one

with

changes.

This

times

same

which
L

["

" [_
,. _"

included

at

listings

and

change.

Reports

Section).

_were

_I [
_J [/

the
one

and

These

the

as

same

redraw.

evolved

Ntunerous

with

each

status

same

listings

with

in

abstracts.

each

change

engineering

:_

engineering

Government-Contractor

drawing

complicated

separable
was

generation

of

component
proven
more

Manufacturing
,

also

(Reference

serve

This

"
:

complete

Management

most
The

cases
end

results

. . . a mountain

drawings.

of

Throughout

program
the contractor
was constintly
trying
to create
piece
of paper
that provided
a complete
description
of

each

_!

to

always

paper

one

matrices

drawing

attempted

:, _

least

additional

configuration.

to

be

an

than

50

different

and

Product

documentation

for

impossible

task

CMO

after

reports,

Assurance

the

matrices,

originated

traceability

and

accountability

I_

requirements.
PROBLEM:

'

o . 0

Configuration

_q

levels
[_

identification

I
'

time
of

occurring

consuming

paper

configuration

block

conf_/ration

included

component

searches

when
was

or

lowe)

the
required.

ror m,
oorm
control

existed

where
ohar_s
were made
to "like"
its top assembly
or (part number)
this

at

differences

0urn

I.

_
-

created

changes

(9)

ITLSA's

(serial

but

only

to

items
without
identity.
An
numbers

00!

the

extent

affecting
example
of
009)

which

/
i
1

**

were
['
Ii

'" 1 _"

configured

to

an

Change

Order

prescribes

change

occurs

A7LB-100000-01.
a change

A Class

for

all

I Engineering

nine

suits

and

the

k-

\
'i

The

top

changes
lower

a lower

level

assembly

remains

an

(or dash

01

level

shipment
to

at

of

the

(ITLSA
dash

a dash
" list

01

was

i_
_,

this
were

were

versus

of

a major

at

drawing

This

!0

because

it created

a Class

II

_hich

considered

good

problems

change

was

not

At

at

time

were

not.

any

comDcncnt

modifications
all

would
The

of

indicate

the

_xact

the

suit.

and

should

have

a part

number

change

of

tracking

required

to

been

Furthermore,

these

but

items,

recorded

There

reflected

management

be

components

with Class
I changes
II engineering
changes

configuration

the

of

five

indicated

condition

I nature
by

sort

records

was

itself
Class

level

assemb]y).

incorporated,

it

as-built

a Class

r [-

is not

were

theoretically

this

there

traceability

document

top

however,

drawing.
if

four

list only
concerned
cases
of significant

which

example),

and

only

of

assembly

only

data

the

as-authorized

_:_

and

when

top

than

A7LB-100000-01;

modifications)

for

01

configuration

r-

the

(other

on

was

not.

practice
since

any

configuration
some

Class

and/or
II

reports

ECO's

Using

I change

1
L

nine suits, then

for the affected
now

exist,

many
by

was

with

76

_equired

nine

ITLSA's

01 and

dash

Class

I ECO's

of dash numbers.
PROBLEM:

be

records

shown

on

as an example,
only

and

yet

various

if a Class

a portion

of the

a new dash number was created

(-02)
suits
Two unique configurations
would

level

II ECO's
identify

data

to

affecting

lower

Assurance

were

implemented

a dash

inherent

23

the

Quality

02 with

changes
and

the

possibility

Multiply
several

this

significant

of

condition

Class

ahd it becomes a difficult

task to properly
configuration
differences
between
any combination
_
%

No defined
policy existed
using causing
acceptable
alternate
(interchangeable)
parts for
without
a configuration

_;

change.
J_

BACKGROUND
The
_ C

and

definition

Skylab

of

program

as

stated

_ _

had

to

be

designed

components

[-

interchangeable

component,

F.

assembly

I_

This
and

_-

[-

involve

was

be

_ I_

implemented

, |_

improvements)

to

used
an d

practices
:

Apollo/Soyuz
classified

A7LB

arm

["

not

for

an

acceptable
without

FUTURE

Consolidate

the
thus

new

any

not

implementation.

occur

drawings

due
if

to

(with

was
arm

part

configuration

hardware

was

latest

to

the

that

program

philosophy
A7L

design

used

on

bearing
for

the

was

the

optimum

impact.

PROGRAMS:
information

reducing

contained

the

manpower

on

various

required

and

_L
)

i [
_

associated
visibility.

costs

and

still

provide

sufficient

controls

and
;
%

As early as possible, a drawing family tree should

_be

I_
[_

generated.

Ii

report.
be

"

The

which
subassembly
in the Table
of
should

be

drawings
Operations.

similar
The

identified

A7LB,
etc.
identified

contractor

to

remaining
by

Those
by the

the

that

would
would
The

shown

items

and

d&termine

be redundant
to
results
of this
on

which

appropriate

review

information
review

Appendix

"A"

required

drawings

model

prefix,

items
not requiring
drawings
contractor's
numbering
system

of

this

,_
R

would

i.e.,

A6L,

would

be

'

(
!

prescribed

'

hardware

used

deviations

alternate

to

qualified

austerity

the

complete

difficulties

hardware

where

affected

would

an

This

Project

was

that

available,

Test

FOR

flight

:_

(or top

prior

major

potentially
to

change

and

Garment

other

subassembly

of

As

all
Each

the

that

Apollo

changeout
only
for
number.
Each
component
with

the

the

Pressure

changc

category

funding

bearing

documentation

fact

accepted.

as

GUIDELINES

One

a suit.

was

were

to

changes

in

A7LB

nun_er.

was

ECO

the

a spares

configuration

part

for

re-identification)

data.

costly

_J

replaceable

same

an

was

in

the

a configuration

number

configuration

remained

in

prescribed
same part

which

required

occurred

be

the
part

part

would

that

to

having

PROGRAM:

interchangeabili_y

Assembly
CEI specification
those
components
with
the

SUIT

_ [
_
'

APOLLO/SKYLAg

-21-

Ir
i
i

A follower
Ii

document
i.

_"

r_

tag would

is two-fold:
Replace drawings,
inspection

L.

2.

Provide

TO

one

for

vehicle

" An

The

authority;

C.

Description
the

_i

the

to use,

- each

assembly

would

D.

Operation

Number:

assigned
I

arms

the

I'
I L,

to to, so, 010

appropriate

revision

item

to
<

number,

go-ahead,

"

etc.

to complete

i.e.,

for

!
_
<

charge

be noted,

cure,

of

3 2.1

of this

required

detail,

required

in Figure

join

install

arms
wrist

an operation

to each

and

an organized

order

detail

this

the components

and

production

time

which

to torso, cure, install boots,

di3connect,
inspect, etc.

"

number

example

etc.

would

005 - join

and would

manufacturing

be

or inspection

for the particular

operation.
Authority:
if the operation

I.

is a manufacturing

function

i I

completing

of inspection,
column
accept
DR, MRB, etc.
F.

!
! f-_

!-

G.

" :_- H.

note

or

quality

Bill

the

scheduled

task

would

item

and

being

would

the

stamp

be

the

where

time

authority,

applicable

representative
lapse

of Materials:
pa_ts

In the case

dispositioning

government
inspection.
Hours:

individual

initial.

inspector

Acceptance_

piece

[i

the

- the

would

Government

the

the detail

_,

identify

instruction
to use
Accept/Reject/Rework

S.

i i
1

subassembly,

nomenclature,

order,

of

of materials.

to indicate

fabrication

purpose

traceability

manufacturing
flow.
sample of a format is illustrated

spares
F

orders,

explanation
of the form is as follows:
A.
The part number and serial number
be fabricated.
B.

the

for

The

and bills

the operation

required

shop

records

to fabricate

be generated.

would

in hours

!
,_

the
verify
-

to compl_te

noted.
all

assemblies,

raw materials
fabricated

_,ubassemblies,

required

would

to complete

be listed,

i_
(

i
r_

,. .

I.

,
i

_<
C

J.
K.

i L

L,
,

The
maiDtain

The

part

number

and

amount

and

of each

nomenclature.

line

item

required.

Quantity
per unit,
quantity
pen lot - traceability
the number
Lot
and Serial
Numb e_:
the material
either by serial number
verified
and noted.

or

Operation

numbers

operation

where

line

item

Tag:

could

the

"Follower
a fast

release

- the

lot number

is utilized
be

system

should

number
would

a Type

would

be

or nmbers
listed.

III document

the program

be

_o

dynamics

["

dictate

it.

documentation
;

However,

this

should

should

be changed

be

by

the

the

exception.

Procedures

of

the

Engineering
Change Order and the class established
accordingly.
A control
and verification
document would also be

L
L_

required.
could
be an The
"Au]_orized
and
Delivery A sample
Schedule"
(ACDS).
purpose
would be two-fold:

The

replacement

Components
[k

of the

following

C,_,figuration
of
this form

documentation:

List

Authorized
Change List
Supplemental
Change List

[_
"

.C?mponent
Li_t Progression
Chart
configuration
Identification
index

_
_-.

Configurati0n
Status
Open Engineering
and
2.

Listing
Retrofit

Provide a configuration
status for NASA as well
for

all

contractor

Report

mechanism
and qualification
as an active document

departments.

The ACDS would be initiated

at the deliverable
CEI
level, or could be initiated
at an intermediate
level as a

. result of a NASA review of the drawing

ACDS' would be identified
by the model

I_
L

require follower
tags
on drawings
should be
of information

)
_

All

,
_

with

family tree.
All
prefixed
and would

and drawings.
However,
the details
kept to a minimum
to avoid duplication

the T0's.

Ideally,

they

could

_
?

be

outline drawings
since the configuration
of the components
comprising
tile assembly wou_d be controlled
by the ACDS.

r:}____.

"

23

:;

$-

" -"

"

r.,

A samole

[._
_

An

of

this

format

is illustrated

in Figure

3.2 2

explanation
of the form is as follows:
A.
Dawing n_mber and name.

[..

B.

Custom - identification
of
article is custom sized.

! i [',

C.

Class

I ["
" ! ["

D.

Size - in the case of sized parts, i.e., boots,

arms, the app/opriate
size would be noted..

{
I

List

-.,_
I:_

...._.......
--4_.
_ .

- indication

of Materials

the astronaut

of classification

-. the

I, II or III.

assemblies,

subasse/_blie_

"w..n',_.sC-'
_, I _i
L -xZ,_:_._.___eI,T.%;-_<

would
be identified
by part
and piece
parts required
to number&"
assembly

As-authorized/as-built

F.

show

[-:":

_-_'_w_
__

any

incorporated

authorized

given

"

Delivery
each C_I

ACDS

would

Schedule - the
or modification

be released

- this

would

the present

could

be relative

receipt

A CCA

is received

i_

CEI's

The

authorized.

a change

3.2.3.)

:_

of a production
"

operate,

i
!

scheduled
ship date for
kit would be indicated.

how

(See Figure

would be compiled
from the follower
and scheduling
section.
To indicate

simulated.

I'

to

information
requireu
tags and theplanning
would

i
,

configuration._

[.
_

the system

those

article

order

("

for only

upon

the

go-ahead

and

change

aCEI.

H.

_-.'-"

latest

situations

A_F__%_
]i*_

the

if the

cycle

will

be

for an arm

assembly.

Nine

units

have been delivered

and a Class I change _o
is received to add a pressur e relief valve.

the lower arm

This change

i"
_

revises the part number of the'lower

arm assembly
from a
-01 to -02 with an effectivity
of S/N 001, O05, 009 by
i

_ ! C

"

I _

and

Qualification

_i

retrofit

go-ahead
Ul

has

contractor
(see Figure

,
e"

S/N

010 and subsequent

status
been

chaP4es
3 2.4)

is not

received
the

"in-line"

effected
for

lower

and

incorporation.

production

21 arm assemblies.

arm

The notation

assembly
AR01

humber

is placed

under

005 and
listed.

the modification
these CEI's are

|_

as a -02 configuration,
that the present
configuration
_01 and the proper delivery date for the modification

...

The

I_
_

t_

009 and the delivery

date for
This informs
the reader that

part

order

_.

SN001,
is
authorized
is
kit.

-24-

[
_

L_/'"
k. :

When

the

the

Symbol

changed
006

if

to

future

kit

the

-02

is noted

under

NA01

008

indicating

program

S/I_'s

010

Concurrent

"

incorporated

AD0!" and

the

requirements

necessary
for any of
without
qualification

is

A replaces

through

under

modification

the CEI's
testing

through
with

"

002,

003,

configuration

dictate

that

this

004

is

and

and

change

i
is

015.

3.2._)

This

the

and

would

015A
d to

be

above,

the

manufacturing

be

changed

change
the

the

addition

is

I04002-01
would
be
the

part
of

arm

number
the

and/or

explanation

shown

by

is

as

changing

follows-

the

numbers

from

revision
of the

block
piece

would
affected,

104002-02Land
only
drawing

the
which

to 010B
show the

021.

an

Figure

the change
may be incorporated
The Symbol
A remains

(see

010A and
be change

S/N'S

5)

the
production
CEI'sas would
be revised
would
be modified
necessary
and

in
this valve
case
relief

3.2

configuration

present

as-built

figure

the
"follower instructiOnSg
ta " for
inspection

and
-

(see

and
new

assembly
and

015B.
The
part number

changes
added.

to
The
and

revision

pressure'relief

_.

this

revision-may

block

and

pressure
would

_"_
_"

only

illustrate

valve.

"j"

f
)

_O1:Tr,.

_'_

-_

9INAL PAGE IS ........

-,,.
.......
:-,,,,_---'_PC_),R
"f I

d,,

"

;
k...

I"
_(:

[-

AUTI-IO;I,U].'*,,."
T". O.
LOT SIZE
START

I,O.

P':_

o3o
n,.'scon.ec-f
O35A

i-

'

I ..

[:

1- $,q,-

i:

-juJ

- 1- -]> _i

._

I_)ART NAME

--_

J.

............
,,

_.-

(...

I"--, I-

. ...i

......

.,

,-

"

r-

.....
72;o
!.

.... -045A

-.

_'

_"
'l

....__m --I

..ors:,
]

Store

..,i.

Ab':_!. !.h'.-._-T
III_C,.ICZ,:XI

...o.,.,-_.
....
InslallWrist

.:.

!l.}-':

Asst'_._io L."":CZ Arm I-*_,

__ ...L,_.._._

_]

ACO':-r_

]qUh.ID?-_E.ATLL_-I'.u:_."..:-:,:
-_

NO.klEIqC].ATU
SIN
O01

CO_.IPL_TE

D:'ZO:ZPTTO':

--

REV
PART

OXm t

""

FOT_,I..Ov<E.'.
r, "I'AC

l0

IUN IT

_N

_ - F
J _

i
_

OPERATION hL".,,B!.,_q

It

t,

i_

Ill

[_

&

%
'>

-t

1'i

Up.p=e,
lrl
Arm Assy.

_'T-190043-04

Adhesive

_TII_T0'_'0'

(-

.=

302-104003201

""

_'_,r_-_d

'

302-I040910-0 :;rl
st Di_connect

---

014

020

AIR

---

N/A

010,

020,

A/R

''"

O'

020

.....

---

vzCUii:
/

026

O.

035

035

'I

_.l'.lll'_'

Illih ram,Ill
HI. I_o,],.(Lqlll_iP,:l

2:

[-

3.3

_ ,

GOVERNMENT

TO

REPORTS

consolidate

Reports

_NAGEMENT

OBJECTIVE:

_ L

- CONTRACTOR

as

as

possible

repetitious
APPROACH
:

many

Government

under

activities

one

and

- Contractor

control

data

in

order

to

eliminate

files
%
/

!"

Methods

of

Contractor
r-

"

management

Apollo,

Skylab

tion

new

to

controlling

and

the

quantity

documentation
ASTP

concepts

programs

of

of

used
were

control

./

Government

to

support

examined

These

in

concepts

_i

the
addi-

were

evaluated

_.

for

necessity

-_

Cost
savings
Skylab
and ASTP

!:

centralization

,_

GROUNDRULES

i.

The

cost

effectiveness

data was developed

by comparing
programs
to the recommended
new

Apollo,
data

techniques.
USED

space

1973

and

FOR

suit

was

used

STUDY:

program
as

I_
_
i '_

for

the

study

the

period

of

1970

through

baseline.

INTRODUCTION:

Large
quantities
tation
were
prepared

;:

programs

'i_

the

As

suit

;:
_.

;.

,
,

a result,

program

preparation

of configuration
management
during
the Apollo,
Skylab

of

the

office

organizational

similar

different

functional

have

been

examined

for

future

suit

duplication

reports
groups

in

this

programs

and

which

files

and

documentation
These

with

will

the

problems

in

a cost

! _.
14

reduction.
PROBLEM:

I_

Duplication

of

files

within

the

Program

Office

structure.

I_

ii
During
.

_roups
prepared,

Similar,

the

wiehin

Apollo
the

approved
and

in

and

program
and

some

Skylab

suit

office

organizational

functioned

cases,

the

in
same

programs,

a_cordance

several
structure
with

documentation.

-32L2
I
1

:_

by

recommendations

result

:_
?

within

structure

occurred.
report

of

documenand ASTP

I,

I!

_'

"_

As

:
-:

_.I(.....
,

own

r"

a result,

created

and

maintained

and

produced

sepa_'ate

identified.

{_

of

files

the

in

each

systems

of

study,

the

only

files
at
similarly

the suit
related

contractor's
data.
For

"data files,
additional
requiring
a large
work

deals

This

I_
[}

status

)_

Some of the
listings,

listed

in
Many

separate

typical
management
etc.,
investigated

Figures

3.3.2.

factors

contributed

files

at

reorganization

functions
maintain

the

and

suit

the

contractor's

relocation

(ii)

_
_

working

evolved,
thereby
all the data.

reports,
included

towards

with

facility
containing
each of the separate

clerical
force
to

similar

configuration
management
customer/col_tractor
reports.
It is estimated
that there
were at least
eleven

[_

,
_

blocks

however,

";

their

set of files
to perform
their
duties.
This group
organizational
structul:e

section

group

" "

i_

!
"_

each

various

is

considered

matricies,
those
items

generation

facility.

of

i!

of
The

interdepartmental

:,

._

i I {
'
'

groups

throughout

the

program

of the
larger

generation
departments

of separate
within
the

the

files.
When
Apollo/Skylab

prime

some of
program

cause

!,

the
structue

i
'_

.,%

_:'

[i
-

were
dividedadopted
into
new areas

I'

reorganizaticn or
department

_
If
.....
_..t_,"
/
_ _2-J' i

i__._._._
_"
_.
'' _
_J'"

__

_:

with

the

[,
(.i
"}

for

When

this

department
their

own

occurred,

head

and

reference

the
the

whencontractor's
the DCASR
the

files
Another
was

all

report

originator

of
the

personnel
facility,

This
data

a
area

:.

of

remained

activity

would

to

the
at

, :
,

file.

were
another
a newrelocated
file was to
established.

method

establish

techniques
to the duplication
used
for
resulted
his

own

in

the

distribution

-3:3-

,:-

_i .i

records
kept
the contractor's

resident
engineer's
the same data file;

factor
the random
which distribution
contributed

various

files

these

file.

duplication
was
agencies
located

dissemination.
of

existing

relocated

, facility;
the DCASR
and the NASA
; At one time,
both agencies
shared

of
--

the supervision
keeping.
Often

portion
involved of the
thatphysical
department
re-location
to anotherof

One example
of file
the two governmental

_however,
part of

i_i
..

,"_
_

plant.

generate
[
1

the

smaller
their
owngroups,
file

requirements.
i
[I

used
t

with

technical

and

[-

Since

r-

engineering

_.

internal

EM's

were

each

distribution.

control

board

for
was

a PD during
approximately

!i

instances,
severa!
copies.
This was

[i

of
Thispersonnel
desire

served

program

governed

of the Apollo
(30) in-house

resulting
for
copies

in
of

the

part

the

customer.

and
his

own

mangement

contained

by

The

people
from the
partially
due to

to

which

established

They

(CCBD's).

the peak
thirty

by

management

as

were

Project

conveyed

originator

not

directives

was

departments.

instructions

and

documentation

different

PD's

tovarious

program

the

by

techniques

(EM's)

daa

generated

personnel,

directives
suit

EM's

contractural

were

distribution

Memorandums

(PD's).

I-

[,

random

Engineering

Directives

Typical

normal

average

pertinent
change
distribution

and Skylab
programs
copies.
In some

same department
received
the constant
change-over

new
oncoming
needs. in
separate
filespe_sonnel
is prevalent

any

industry_
During

latter

of

the

A7LB

suit

program,

_,

review

l
! !

was
As

of

all

conducted
a

a
were

only

the

an

GUIDELINES

FOR

during
is

reduce
was

reproduction

employed.

sending

copies

department.

of

SUIT

and

Apollo

and

Skylab

programs.

control
and will
result
in a considerable
A detailed
discussion
of the reco_nended

Similar
suit
_

did

ease

stop

data

(EDP)

be

list
As

centralization
used

to

and
data

cost-savings.
electronic
data

presented

in

this

prepared

by

the

enhance

guideline.

PROBLEM:

{
[

be

not

distribution

that

processing

will

did

data

electronic

(EDP)

reports

effort

processing

costs.
distribution

PROGRAMS:

files

reconmlended

data

This

result

data

Data

somewhat;
however,
it
of the routed
copies.

of
the

distributions

it

by
each

FUTURE

Proliferation

to

system

of

costs
copying

respective

effort

reduced
head

reproduction
additional

occurred

their

router

I
_.

in

result,

listings
to

data'and

contractor

reports
and

were
even

by

different

government

and

the

inter-departmental

_
,

groups,

i[

1
'

-34g

I!4
.

'
;

_ i
_
\.

'

BACKGROUND:
A problem
duplicagion
of
and
key

inherent
to the aeros_ace
efforts
of data
management

dissemination
factors
were

I"
_

I.
2.

by
the

Ill

review

These

'!
_
i

documents
lack
of
a

reports.

Examples

occurrence

since

understood

each

Some
existed

I'

in

existence
of

3.

QA

The

"

similar

Action
Profile

These

the
!

similar

requirements
(

reports.

few

reports

central

and

data

Card

data
of

and
the

CMO personnel
a normal

difficulty

generation

to

which

commonality)

include:

Components

List,

Log.

Open
Engineering
Flight
Readiness
Status

Engineering
and

Drawing

over

pro_eriy
the

contract

Status

cases

of

a period

by

data

providing

::

Log,

administered
same

and
Review

Report.

Change

illustrate

meet

& R personnel

Serialization

Retrofit

evolved

control

duplicated

Check
List and contents,
ARD-001,
Matrix,
Configuration
Status

File,

that

or

many

QA

had

Report,

Status,
Schedule,

examples

validity.

operations.

report
due

its

counterparts

and

other

& R Component

ARD-004,

Index

of

combination

Package,

related

caused

contractor

operations

Listing,
Waiver
Incorporation

_.I"

:'

and

to

explanatory

customer's

Historical

Program
Mission

."
t

_v

other's

Component

2.

as

fostered

the

formal

disseminated.

distribution.
data
source

customer

examples

and

i_

after
central

being

no

questionable

usually

include

the

(shown
1.

I'
_--

is

to

has

the contractor
reports
and customer
their
countezparts
data.
This was

understanding

which

prior

data

corrective
The

data

itself

uncontrolled

favoring
favoring

data

|%..,

is

concurrence

the

Two

paper
data source

paper

and/or

Therefore,
I

the customer
and contractor.
cause
of this problem;

Uncontrolled
No central

Uncontrolled

industry
is the
report
generation

Drawing
Listing.

multiple

of

several
could

!
years.

combine

management
fewer

consolidated

t "

, ;-_

'._(,
,

GUJDELINES
It

FOR

FUTURE

SUIT

is recommended
to reduce
and

be

used

of

similar

data

and

as

PROGRAMS:

that a data
centralization
system
a goal eliminate
the preparation

reports

by

different

contractor

and

customer

groups.

f-

[.
follows
I"

The
:

objectives

of

A.

To

and

monitor

a central

data

control

all

source

data

would

be

as

distribution

!.
,_
i_

relative

to

contract

needs.

the data
requirements
established,
the data

I_
L.
_

[-

the

number

of

[:

Also

any

requests

["

have

To

copies

to

organize

._

encompass

service
i '_

data

L_

be

C.

To

the

control

monitor

and

surveillance

discourage

D.

TO

data.

--

t._l
(iii'

_
T

during

the

Since

files

and

files

became

of

any

data

data

was

for

toward

the

A7LB

complete

minimal.
cost

savings

in

Elimination

of

!and instituting

copy

counts

separate

should

file

keeping

the

central

point

for

the

central

data

source

and/or

generates

requested

- ELECTRONIC

documentation

Apollo,

of

as

to

department

policies
Xerox

order

all
from

data,

this

source

current.

manufacture,

quantity

area

RECOMMENDATIONS

Manual
material,

be

of

be

cases,

administers

status

will
SUPPLEMENTAL

many

current

the

CMO

material

of

one

either

!_

data

and administrative

efforts

reproduction

in

the

reproduction.

designate

all

I''

data

in

liaison

would

effect

daily
__

of

CMO

door"

'

area

by

"open

would

central

source

source

transition

il

distributed.

copies

the

data

centra?

|*_

by

Since

the

the

_-

approved

functions.

and

additional

central

reproduced

CMO, engineering

program,
i I

_:

once

and distributions
are
control
group
would
control

for

the

essentially

that

office.
B.

means

first
_

This

Skylab

documentation

continuous
a major

control
ship

and

and

was

trace

ASTP

activity.

and
As

used
each

PROCESSING'

to

receive

Contract

programs.

previously

updating

DATA

Due

discussed,
referral
a

result,

End
to

Item

the

la_'ge data

back
the

to

these

methods

.of

<

Electronic

|_,
: I "
;
_

this

study.

raw

material

shipment,

'
;

Data

The

t"

An

EDP

throuqh

subsequent

common

A colmnon

(EDP)

Sy.;teln is

receipt

and

Processing

data

base

base

investigated

recommended
the

QA

data

was

R and

approach

approach

is

f_om

fabricat.ion

and

during
tile tJ.m_ of

phases,

f_nal

CHO monitoz-ing.
for

EDP

a computer

is

recommended.

_,rien_-ed

central

information
for
:

use

system

by

all

available
in
["

a time3y

planning

of

and

accurate

rather

than

o_

programs

matrix,

,,

by

the

need

yet

flexible

only

for

I
ECO

_.,

!..

at

which

both

It

are

its
by

is

a data

makes

useable
and

for

the

processing

of inter-related
data,
direct
access
methods,
methods

to
to

be

meet

components

to

update

source

other

current,

the

and

of

the

system

does

not

which

Through

was

used

utilization

data

basis

of

the

reconunended

the

computerized
The

system.
proper
data

inputs

reports.
satisfies

maintainable

mu] c"ple

is
how

the

on

CCA

management
system

users.

requires

base

as

information

used

capturing

req_]...._'e
re-entry

3 3 3 illustrates

pertinent

:.

._

for

areas.

a conunon

Figure

of

was

list,

easily

needs

operating

as

the
it

,'se of

was

support
various
data generated
during
the the
Apollo
programs.
As illustrated
in this
table,
ECO

ii I

files

oper,_tional

ARD-004
and COMPHIST
data
this structured
information

example

system.

data

':
_,

data

contractor.

sequential

information

uses

which

generated

needed

One

for

together
files
information
by

enough

once,

various
_

the
files

manner

traditional

ARD-001,
The use of

Information
}

of

non-duplicated

technique,

,"

{.
I

structured

purposes.

technique
of yping
is used tc retrieve

the

areas

set

[i.

.'

integrates

operating

A chaining

_.

which

for

ECO

of

numerous
EDP

would

part

be

used

to

,,

and Skylab
contained

other

documentation.

methods,

' :_
;?
! "

the

provided

number,

the

the

serial

number,

;'

' I

effectivity,

authorizing

each

referral

back

:.

I. .

If

exisgs

'_

(-

r,

;:

doubt

easily

!.

cross-referenced

checked

through
with
with

to
the
the
the

CCA,

and

the

other

data
EDP

master

and

other

pertinent

will

enable

provide

information,
record

files

data,
easy

quick
it

information.

could-then
since

the

be
ru_-off
)

......... v-- ....

/

could
_ i
....
L
\_

reference

output.
Additional

{"

for future

_-

program

r-

suit

{_

a structured

!,

CEI separable
2.

considered

the

final

_ _

to be desirable

and O_tainable

Component

from

Listing

component

list

component

this

EDP

generated

expanded

by

for

in the assembly

each
sequence,

authorized

configuration

to that

which

was

i _
1

built.

configuration

reference

3.
r_

Additional
manner:

[-

a.

The

ACL

Report

[_

its

_-

[-(
....

generated

any
!

CCA

by

c.

Vendor
could

f,
h.

master

respect

to

listing

to

and

the use of
reduction
of

or the

show

are

included

the

expansion
end

item

techniques

i_

provide

use of a co_iputer base

a comprehensive

management
..

reporting

vehicle

when

pertinent

into

the

to serve

information
for

the

timely

customer

vendor

common

system

_-

concept

'

I-

is to first

of EDP

_"

secondly

to centralize

I"

accurate

reports

critical

times

f "

flight

!.

An a major

reduce

the

control

number

applications,

flight
and

savings.

for

and

data

accurate

as well

future

of reports

the data

in a timely
(i.e.

! _

I
iI _
I

data

as the
-.

cost

I '

will

contracuor's_needs.
The

i
!

base.
The

t
i _

rating

implemented

i_

I _'

o_ effectivity,

be

files

follo_ing

and ECP's

traceability
also

noted.

inquiring

with

to its components

used

be

in the

provided

of each

component

structure

!i
_ .

will

is possible

ECO's

assembly

of any

recognized,

records

kcan be

status

are

The common data base facilitates

inquiring
devices
to display the

-_

i_
I
_"

CCA

traceability

as to the

b.

differences

to existing

,-_

*,

to provide

The Fabrication
List (trace data) is a structured_
list of components
(as built) which compares
the _

programs

used

_ -

As

,_

information

An Authorized

[
,

documentation

are:
I.

"i.;_
_ _,
_

all

source.

fashion,
readiness

formal
The

The

and

production

reviews,

will

application

and matrices

especially

design

goal

suit

reviews)

of

during
actual
will

be to service

result
material

-38-

:,

., _ -_

. _#_._,_

...._ .....

,_

_-_

.....

. ....

-_ ....... ..= _ _

_-_++

........

.......

_.........

...........

_.-,,._i_,_-_--__'_

_.

I:

inventory
production

i |. C,

managem,_nt,

-"

_-

control,
configuration
control
and status
listings,
and delivery
scheduling,
traceability,
cost
and

retrofit

requirements

all

rom

one

data

_
_
.

source.

t_

In

F:
I_
F:
L

conclusion,

this

recommendation

for

processing
the system

is the result
of an investigation
feasibility
for future
space
suit

a_ditional

detailed

.of .an analyst

and

"is recommended

to

of

all

necessary

study

involving

a programmer.
completely

a systems

(approximately
create

and

EDP

control

and

to determine
programs.
An
teasn,
nine

implement

consisting
months)

the

control

data.

._

-._

?:
-g

5
"

_,'

-39-

I.

[_

DOCUMENT
Component
CCA

{'_"

TITLE
lli_torical

STA_DAP_12" DT_TRI_UTION

Report

Matrix

-16

Components

List

(CL}

15

ARD-001
!"

_RD-004

i ['"

3"

Program

_'

Action

"23

Review

Status

[_

Formal

Reiv_w

Chit

Change

Co_ponents

List

Engineering

23

Formal

Engineering

23

Open

r_
:

Section

Open
Engineering
A_-licable
Mission
Close
In Flight

!%

23

Checklist

Documentation
ti.

.17

23
or

RID

Status

23

Log

23

Progression

Chart

15

(,

Co_figuration
""

Mission

_.

Au_,orized

._.

in

_/
[_
"'"

Mission

ConfigurationMatrlx

J
!'"
"

t',

Change

List

Authorized
Change
Change

Order

Waiver
Field

Deviations
Operations

I.

Systems
Safety
Field
Optional

'

_.

"
J

i ,_]

-,

Drawing

Index

Status

Retrofit
Status
ECO Review
EC0

(SACL)

-.
_:

10

(ECP)

11

As
30
Schedule

Package

(FOB}

Hotice
Item List

Lis_

,.
"V

Required
Min.

<
--

14
12

't

lO
12

':_'

"12
I0

(FOIL}

"

lO

FOIL

Card

'_

ii
12 Min.

Record

Bulletins

:__

11

Incorporation
Matrix

Review

8
10

(PECP}
(EM's}

.i,torioal tatu

.Drawing

List

(CCR)

Magnitude

_. Stetus

Supplementary

._

Change

Record
Proposals

of

_"
.'

! 1;.

9
Ii

(ACL}

Supplementary

Readiness

10

Notice

Flight

li

(CII}

10

Status

Open
Engineering
and
Equipment
Allocation

t._, ,

Index

PGA TLSA
Sizing
Adjustment
Pro_ect
Directives

-6

Waiver

Prel_inary
ECP's
Engineering
Memorandums

"
)

'_:

waiver
status
Log

Rough

("

21

Classification

Status

Engineerin_

..

20

Status
List
(CSL)
Progression
Chart

Configuration

(AMCI)

Board

Identification

Authorized

Control

Conflguration

:_ ' I'(

6
13

Component
Flight
I, II &III
Gear}

Configuration
Dash Number

Status

CEI/Separable
List
(Class

Waiver

i.

Account

Matrix

Minutes
& Agenda
Change
Directives
(CCBD)

:_
-_

Change

Profile

File

(CMO)

AS

& ERRC

i:

Required

}o_

6
8
5

Report

21

Di_rlbu_ion

FIGURE

3 3.2

I:

-40-.
R_

....
t

CO._.ION DATA

SOURCE
%

_
_

\'"

- ENGINEERING

t.

The

ECO

provided

data

'_

Component

CCA

Components

_ {-

CHANGE

ORDER

(ECO)

for:

Historical

Report

Matrix
List

ARD-001

ARD-004
Program

Action

Engineering

i"

CL

Check

Changa

Progression

List
Log

Chart

AMCI

;:

_,

!"

CII

r-

Dash

t._

ACL/SACL

i'(
t

("

_:

_-

Number

Progression

CCR
=

ECP

Drawing

Index

Drawing

Status

Retrofit

List

Status

|_

Report

t j

I-

I-

I{ _,

Figure

3.3.3

?-

-41-

._
e,

t.:

"

3.4

TITLE

f-

Proglam

_ (-

Phasing

Philosophy

OBJECTIVE:

\L

I"

TO

program

%_.

overall

impact

Design
i

reduce

of

program

engineering

Verification

Testing

costs

by

changes
and

minimizing

occurring

the

during

Qualification

Testing.

BACKGROUND:

Durin_
_
t

Suit

the

program,

Apollo

and

schedules

Sk_ab

were

phases

very

of

tight.

the

The

Space

program

would

it.
not

allo_

enough

time

for

the

start

the

completion

of

Qualification

i [-

" Testing

i"

prior

Changing

"

mission

additional

_'j

with

_ ._.

the

_ '

to

to

profiles

requirements

the

redesigns

of

manufacturing

were

constantly

of

to

meet

the

suit,

the

enlarged

space

suits.

demanding

which

in

conjunction

requirements,

caused

qualification
15 months

testing

on

the

phase

A7LB

to

space

extend

from

four

months

suit.

PROBLEM:

I_

Design
the

Verification

fabrication

!"(

Qualification

L.

production

of

Testing
space

The

the

DVT

Testing

(DVT)

qualification
was

was

space

parallel

to

concurrent
suit

the

with

and

fabrication

of

suits.

and

Qualification

[_

mission

requirements

than

comFonents.

!._

BACKGROUND:

of

an

Programs

entire

space

were
suit

based

on

assembly

the
rather

_4

by

This
[L
.

especially
Testing.

&

not

only

formulated,

but

until

was

significant

cost

now

retrofit.

reached.

The
[

on
_

,_i,-'

the

impact

DVT

and

FOR

problem,

items

Qua!_fication

level

contractor,

as

the

and Qua]ificatic_
space
suit was

with
the

could
the

delay

produced

be

government
had

that

a
would

PROGRAMS:
programs

depicted
in

being

FUTURE

delays

resolution

concurrence

the
on

program

of the DVT
the entire

a design

design

GUIDELINES

a component

enable

significant

until

Compounding

require

RECO_4ENDED

caused

in the initial
phases
If a failure
occurred,

"impounded"

>

situation

in

event

should

Figure
of

3.4.1.

a failure,

be

based
This
to

would

proceed

to

Qualification

subject
_

the

required

should

be

etc.

!.

DVT

this

["
!__

PROBLEM

and

Qualification

:
The

proiect,

and

[-

engineering

project,

of

units

programs
to

situation

excess

am.ount

rather

than

exerts

a considerable

of

DVT

and

provide

the

'"

tuning"

changes

often

_"

formal

very

to

change

time

that

the

to

and

permit
time

to

the

allotted
These

to

unit,

caused

at

to

engineer

goal

time,

fabrication
is

to

"fine
could

process

the

very
the

redesign

schedule

Pre-delivery

factor

an

the

changes

coordinate

often

design

his

but

results

spend

during

Since

for

problems

The

units.

DVT

design

The

engineer

influence

one

the

delays.

Acceptance

contributed

to

was

significantly

problem.

The
management

'_

any

this

that

studies.

engineers.

incorporated.

configuration

consuming,

insure

in

to

tasks.

of

within

schedules

insure

train

manufacturing

design

in

legs,

training

design

amount

paperwork

the

RECO_IENDED
!

are

to

trade-off"

designed

quality

the

design

to

adequately

"cost

supporting

incorporated

Verifying

best

release.
arms,

program

written

sufficient

known

design

incorporated

be

qualification

production

time

solving

!
I

be

of

with

suit.

should

cause

design

engineers:_rior

were

and

for

the

not

without

allocate

the

space

allow

approved

quality

changes

manufacturing

this

meet

DVT

also

component,

are
and

would

than

unanticipated

ready

in

rather

commence

each

could

and

tuning"

Future

the

qualification

of

early

engineers

of

is

reflected

manufacturing

fabrication

item
life

of

could

procedures

is

design

"Fine
|
{

cycle

It

event

testing
the

component

del_ys.
the

established

flexibility

another

undue
in

until

The

to

Qualification

component

[_

of

_lexibility

problems.

program

significant

slave

Testing

GUIDELINES
appropriate
should

end

items.

and

sufficient

This

FOR

time

PROGRAMS:

engineering

control
can

FUTURE

only

the
occur

allocated

disciplies

fabricati0n
if
prior

these
to

of

and

program

all

contract

groups
any

are

available

fabrication.

-43-

L/

PROBI,EM:
!"

Significant

t ("

testing

[_

of

BACK_ ROIIND :

awaiting

design

'

contract

encountered

changes

during

authorizing

Qualification
incorporation

"_

was

suit.

This

of

drawings.

the

are

changes.

FACI
_

delays

performed

signified

on
that

However,

the

first

the

CEI

one

of

qualification

met
the

the
main

space

design

requirements

problems

was

the

( -

i..

time delay
from
submittal
ECP baseline
for changes

<
_f

f'"
_"

/
_:
:

"delay
caused
in

I_

GUIDELINES

_!.

!/"
i

._

program

qualification
delays
and

of CCA.
The
FACI.
Thus,
this

of the PGA's.
This
associated
increases

costs.
FOR

Qualification

final

emphasis

FUTURE

assure

and

component.
on

;.

_=7_
PROGRAbIS:

/_
Depending
on the
/
,
contractor
could
commit

i,i

"i

occurred
during
the
significant
program

(a

[i.;

of ROM. to receipt
is established
at

the

FACI

agreement

contractor

successful

a FACI

a summary
This

_<

circumstances
to

and
after

upon
would

during

completion

of

the

negotiations,
completion

design

the

:
<

of

availability
place

._

of

the
<

additional
phase

Qualification.

to

However,

""

_
2

k_'development

such

areas

as

NASA

phase,

approval
etc.

would

of

changes,
require

duration

of

,_

the

re-evaluation
_

";

C.

.)

["
.

I L.)
''

_.
q
,?

_
_.____
_t,m,am_..w.J_.JtJ.all:tlllliROJmhl_eJ.'tL_l,_p'._lIlv_.__

-,
>

r I
'

{ "

_I

_---I-Z.]__j.
J i ;--12[-,

...... :--_ , , _ ........ '_,--t-_

'i,
.

"

_-". -

,'

'
_--_-:,

___._

i I- I i - ,

----l--

--"
,._

_:,
_"

---:,_.T._._---Z::_.

e..

--..---._

i-

"

;-.

L.
.-. le

B
m

,_

l:::::1N

.__j

--

, :1

..
I !

---

, _ i

"

....--_--_---....
----- ,I
:___i__J --____:_
..........

i--I

---J---:--

' "-o

_
--_
_.__:______L_G_
"
......

!....

".

.._:_i' ,

!__J--_-4--, ....
_

i-:'l
,_

_,"
--

.....-..=.... ,,,

I-

It

"......

l__.z',"_-."
: :_

..... "--']'---

j i

,-,---,I _J
....
..,.-..,..=..._
_-_' ---_---'I--"_,_.,
''"1
i

......

-_"

,I l_l._J
.....
L_.'__..___.,'
I
!: t ,
I L_.L_--'._.__I__J_-__.L_._.-_: --1
-

-,_

.:

i_.

'".

_,

I.:.

,S _

::::E..i_i
::
i

O"

I_

_
u_

, _

-:
i:

i-_

__,
'

>

_.._ _

_
.,--lid
'

, _:

_t 1-1

'

'_:_._

_
--,

, O_

, ,

f_,
B

,-

_o

[
-45-

' [i

'
1

_oJtl

_ell:tlUlillmO]all.ll.O];4n._l_zr._i.-,_II,,l_,o..i_

f I

-46-

.... 6

[: r

3.5

TITI.E:

:"

['
(

Astronaut

:.
[) [_
_

TO
control

Field

mechanisms,

I[

BACKGROt]ND
Many
plus

field

modifications

[
[..

of the following
discomfort
caused
value,

fit

field

saving

optional

for

future

item

suit

to

his

suit

fit

and

department

separable

['"

suit

i_

,..

no

real

of

FOI's.

as

crew

of

components

During

the

controls
The

various

as

required".

tO

properly

revised

'

a unique

request

shipping

Each

the

It was

_t

system

to

NASA

papers,

of

the

would

that

asually

request
for

etc.

some

were
by

initiated
the

thirty

FOI's

each

GloVes,

This
of

program,

there

creation

FOI's

and

pads

in

usually

controls
. 0

suit,

prior

to

DD250.

the

indicated

(in detail)

all

expressed

to

notation
"install

established
new

and/or

a..desire,

request

was

for

first

incorporation.

r_sponsibility
on

that

then

this

were

referred

was

o ,

implementation

(originally

an_J.guous

the

.helmet,

of

the

at

CMO

(30).

for

I_/EV

The

Garment.

a crewman

notation

doffing,

of

his

Form

the

FOI's

Cooling

FOI

contractor's
via

check

was

control

to

The

Liquid

were

time

customer

the

of

and

during

component

ITLSA,

the

comfo_'t

modification
to

part

items)

identify

items.

exposed

CEI

"/efinition

or

and

program

governing

FOI's

fit

monitored

a PGA;

earlier

files.

evolved

9-6100.

FOI's

and

and

perference

NAS

listings

of

instrumentation,

(FO!'s)

donning

suit

separate

historica]

separable

defined

the

tracking

physical
abnormalities,
personal
points
on the suit,
cosmetic

controlled

during

includes

of

configuration

additional

initial
or

reasons;
by hard

nun_,er

checks,

items

at

impact

PROGP_:!S:

contract

a cre_cman

approximate

for

of

which

massive

SU_T

simplification

count

of

optional

checks

when

_'

cost

revisions,

APOLLO/SKYLAB

[.-

i.

for

modifications

generation

resulted

:_

_:

and

!.

in

drawing

200

guidelines

result

optional

'"

sound

will

multiple

'

i :"

estab).ish
which

change,

Control

program.
PROBLEM :

(_ _![_

Item

o JEc vE.
i _

.,
_

0ptional

Field

the

affected

After

the

to

relay

this

components
reque:._t for

the

or

new

FOr

I (

granted,

was

apl,roved

by

NASA,

and

contractural

authorization

the

i.

CMO

r,
i

2.

i
i .

to

causing

occurred:

configuration

change

specification

a Field

separable

Change
drawing
Optional

component.

configur&tion

liner

*_

creation

3.
[

at

the

CMO

updates

and

initiates

affected

a comfort

new
i

4.

I
_
"

PGA Contract
nature,
each

a formal
End Item
separate

configuration
suit

connectors

of

program.

the

addition

drawing,
part

Item

FOIL

number

scheduled
to

see

The
for

if

List

for

DD250'd.

crewman

him

when

in

for

FOI's

all
new

(FOIL)
suits

he

_.

FOI

retrofit

after

desires

the

the

had

the

exhaust

specification

the

from

option
most

of

in
required

the

Apollo
of

"orientation

gas

positioning

comfortable
This

the

and

orientation

lines.

as

in

and were
similar
suit configurations

be

orientation

and

described

differed

would

crewman

were

Incorporation

Skylab

example

02

CEI

of

Specification
category
of

the

attaching
the

list

FOI!s

where

"lock-locks"

in

be

and

Optional

requirements.

One

the

noted

example

package.

configuration

drawing

The insertion
and verificatioi_
of the new FOI
requirement
in applicable
component
accepLance
data

unique

the

be

typical

item

change.

Although

i
_

been

would

end

assembly.

Field

have

an

assembly

a supplementary

that

consulting

pad

ITLSA

master

requirement
I

top

to

adding

the torso
limb
only.
This would

involve

of

by

could

i_

the

Order.
affected

and

change
pad on
Skylab

to

notice,

One

of a new unique
comfort
suit liner
assen_ly
for
a change

control

change

Item

change

;f

of

events

Engineering
applicable

revising

and/or

<

of

directive,

subsequent
Revision
or

chain

initiation

board

"

following

to

item
of

was

gas

,,

connector

particular

I
-_

for

the

locks
FOI
Command

for

all

required
Module

Apollo,
different

Pilot

as

Skylab

and

clocking
compared

ASTP

suits.

This

configurations
to

clocking

for

th_

'2
v

-49-

EV

crewman's

_ (. .

PGA's

I_

The specific
a forthcoming
fit

['-

was

were

suits

since

the

gas

connector

locations

on

the

different.

tasks
check

involved
in the preparation
for
and subsequent
fit check
action
/

as

follows:

Crewman

i_

i.

I_

Ii

Initial

(First

Preparation

of

the

various

options

and

CEI's

submitted

Suit)

_o

be

to

the

total

Fit
FOI

fo_

Check.

package

the

fitchecked.
Fit

sho_ing

separable
This

Check

all

components

package

Engineer

the

is
day

,_

before

2.

,
[_

"

3.

4.

fit

check.

The

Fit

Check

optional

items

using

the

as

FOIL

The

crewman's

FOIL

package

CMO

generates

of

and

the

is

5.

After
submits

L.

If

I-

the

are

then

or

on
ACL

the

CMO.

selected
to

fit

check

:_

on

the

_
_

Directive
and

which

S
j_

incorporation

options.

the

"

This

shipment

of

the

'_

affected.

FOIL

to

the

does

not

_
Quality

CMO

get

annotates

separable

which

noted

incorporated,

CMO

the

at

are

fabrication

prior

FOI

crewman

Project

components

a requested

list

for

a verified

depo,

to

Check

crewman

FOI's

difference
,

returned

conducted

the

various

,_

selections

details

CEI/separable

the

the

guidelines.

a Fit

various

discusses
with

FOI

the

action
I

Engineer

field

directs

for

Assurance

close

out.

incorporated

this

at

i_

configuration

components/CEI's

ever

is

applicable.

a FOI

is

made

parts

!.

6.

If

a request

in

the

CEI

specification,

CMO

that

was

would

not

then

to advise
the customer
of this new request
for

Approval

back

to

the

chain

of

of
a FOI

events

defined

initiate

a new

paperwork

revert

for

request.

would

described

in
i

the
Crewman
i.
(

previously

mentioned

Items

S_bsequent

Fit

(Second

About
fit

4-5
check,

(with
QA

_eeks

Fit

& R,

CMO
Check

and

Check

prior
would

to

the

initiate

Engineering,

Manufacturing

1 -

next

4.

and

Suits)

forthcoming

a FOIL
Program

review)

_ub

to

package
Control,

_;
CM0,

manufacturing

_
_

q _k

!
i

['"
{

"

;'_

for

incorporation

requested
i

by

have
the
identical

.
2.

After

[-,

the

"

was

prescribed

efforts.

If

to

FOI's,

CMO as

advise

done

to

the

a FOI

Quality

results

did

not

of
gct

I-

Engineering
3.

The

of

Fit

ChecJ-."

the

options

any

discrepancies.

Eng;neer

would

I;

of

duril_g

the

suit's

I'

point,

the

crewman

I.'

his

{L

suit

and

not

want

some

during

the

advise

initial

phase.

some

suit

usually
of

crewman

At

;'

this

experience

as was

the

Fit

the

incorporated

fabrication

first

would

incorporatednot

had

to

be

incorporated
by manufacturing
due to schedule
problems,
then the'CMO
_.ould advise
Fit Check

_:
-i.

This

i.

i_

crewman.

of

would

FO]'_., previously

l_ext production
suit
previousb,..., shipped.

incorporation

manuf_.cturing's

,_
:

all

same

crewman's'
to that

Assurance

of

the

options

Check.

on

case,

he

reque_;ted

The

next

,.

step

would
L

be

to

I ,

_Ii

Therefore,

varied

with

Results

of

by

the

4.

A
,_

"

new

numerous
The

"

of

cerain

_.

as

a typical

POl's,

To

depot

1
i
ID

problem
the

optional

counteract

review

each
prior

each
the

any

desired

of

his

second

for

suit

fit

appropriate

instances

each

would

action
steps

suits

were

the

depot

and

arm

Checks
crewm_;;

the

and

be

taken
one

when

caused

the

Fit

reflect

suits.

mentioned

at

and

subsequent

baseline

surfaced

citing

not

received

'

to

repeat

_J

six.

through

undcrgoinfield

sites.

alteration

leg

or

adjustment

removal

, :

changes

example.

discomfort,

some

crewman

field

FOI

operations

wore

the

the

CMO and

crewman

_{

FOI's
on

previously

in

This
i

the

these

desires

problem

rework

'_

new

rework

_-

remove

this

wouldn't
_it.
but

This

until

condition

caused

loss

item

configuration

type

of

CEI/separable
to

show

rework.

the

next

time

not

only

produced

of
and

quality

controls.

CMO

component

ADP

upon

the

"

over

the

compared

*:

confidence

problem,

CMO

the

was

tasked

receipt

original

to
at

the

baseline

!T

F"
_

FOIL
'_

to

unique
Test

identify

f"

gas
of

verified

changes

r_

> [, i..

the

FOIL

derived

Preparation
the

It

;
_
/
_

Assurance

rt

was

_[.

requirements,
Department,

restored

tu

all

field

incorporated
r&views
same

i
{ _

on

CMO

the

wiLh

dfferences

noted

and

on

a FOI

responsibility

to

pad

requiren_ents,

TPb.

the

is then logged
There
were many

the

cre%_an

FOI

shipments

_ i

The

addJtiona!

i _

each

i.e.,

UpoD

aid

of

'

completion

the

Quality

comfort

pad,

pads,
The

This

induced

_-

the

component

across
}iii

the

Drawing

One
I!
"

|_

for

of

each

for

of

the

his

meant
that if
a dash number

[..

built"

dash

re-shipment.

fit
checks.
amounted

were

'_
,

for incorporation
this
incorporated

there

problem

were
pads,

each

component

Assurance

changing
of

proposed

whether
FOI's

or

suit.
produced

controls.

standard

For

FOI' s,

wristlets,

glove

or

due
or

to
not

progrm_
o .
to

add

the

the

rule,

dynamics.

re-identify

change

suits.
was

applicable
number
part

usually

generated

Specification

Changes
to

FOI

by

to

install/not

he did
change

not want
and was

and

ACL's,

install

ECO's,

etc.
of

list to agree
a crewman
the

FOI that
the FOIL,

indicating

"

revision,

r.e-identification

a certain
noted
on

progressed

new

FOL

on a components
number
was when

option

was

with

;
_

etc.

were

all

shipped

Quality

pape_orkwere

hu,_er

suit

who
in turn
The change

is authorized
Verification.of

device,

new

the "as-built"
part
with the "authorized"

to

they

CEI/separable

preference

rules

the

consecutive
this
period

to the CMO,
engineering.

comfort

FOI's

for

that

prior

before

were

and

liner

anoher

Changes,

exercised
(i

suit

latter

"mountains"

FOI's

component,

board

The

with

valsalva

rules

status

periods
CMO duringof

same,

configuratiop

chin

fact

in and monitored
by the CMO.
FOI's
that,
regardless
of whether

desired

CEI/separable

L, :

..

during
by the

the

FOI

concurrence
and
field
site.

not

original

chenge

}i

its

Lad to be reported
with deput
project

_- [

were

comfort

incorporated

receives
depot
by the
applicable

! .=
i

CMO's

re-verified

to
full-timeinvolved
task
The a efforts
Also

_ i _"
"-_ ,

wa{

All

....

, L;

_ i

ADP

etc.,

ADP.

the

dimensions,

clocking,

retrofit

the

from

Sheet.

exact

connector

in

FOI.

:
'_

This

affected
the "as-

incorporation.

..

!_ ,
,i

! .)_

By looking at the components

li._;tyou could not determ.ine
whether
or not the change actually was instal led, but only

.-

that

*
_

! :

crewman

It was

exercised

obvious

Optional

due

or negative

o this

colaplex system

accountability
that a more practical
and economical
system
could be devised.
Belovz are some recolamendations
for

PROPOSED FUTURE SUIT

Recommendations

o ,

follow

_-_ i

these
_I.

I"
"

"_

prev'ious FO!

metilods add

2.

and

continuous

controls.

L:

PROGP_t4 METHOD:
for future, program

FOI

control

should

guidelines:

Conduct all fit checks

the re-verification
of
the crev.,man upon

i
[

control,

of

i _
_ }

_ _.

identification,

option.

Field

enhancing

Item

that

a positive

_:, ":
_;

the

in the field; this permits

field optional
items with

completion

of FOI

installation.

Install. all FOI's in the field.

This
elimin'ate FOI reporting
to tile depot,
allow

of the

FOI.

f
_ , ;

lation
by the

of eomfo_-t pads and suosequcnt

acceptance
crewman would save many manufacturing,
CMO

":-_
i

and
3.

In most

Quality

Do not

cases,

Assurance

change

or revised

evaluate

action would
as well as

....

the cre_nuan to better

the

the

effects

temporary

instal-

!:
'_
_

hours.

configurations

FOi's.

as a result

If a crewman's

of new

desire

for change
4

affects

the qualification

separable
_

as
"

4.

"

p:-oposed
Type

internal

change

;
}

_'

II document

level
detail

1'*
I_"

which

of acceptable
component
would

be

It would

controls;

of ch_n%,e.
each

be

or

classified
requires

:.

authorization.

"cookbook"

_CO

of a CEI

it should

I engim.ering

a "cookbook"

;_

Create

then

at the CEI/Separable

a Class

contractural

'
2

component,

status

This

c_:ange, all

FACI.

as defined

This

classified

as a

be subjected

to

however,
same

FOI's

book

necessary

at the Class
wculd

define

II
in

manufacturing

i
and fabrication
instructions
for installation,
methods of tracking,
and the procedures
involved

with each fit check operation

This book would

.:
*
;:

i
I

eliminate

the

listing,
I

and

CMO.

the

I
_i

Provide

It

a part
FOI's

the
activities

of

of

the

only

CEI

FOI
end

when

specification
.

conducted

installation
item

FOI
by

the

should

ADP.

specifically

requested

by

crewinan

is

estimated

CMO
check.relative The
under forthe each
new fit
method

[
F"

expended
experienced

by

would

approximately

be

for

numerous

Verification

remain
5.

need

that

36

a minimum

hours/fit

of

40

hours

was

cost
to
thesavings
CMO effort

check.

_c

:|c
&

,_,

; '

"54--

i [

3.6

TITLE:

' _

Business

Menagement

System

PROBI,_I:

_ _

During
significant
business

the

performance

problems

I.

The

I !

system

533

NAS

encountered

management

of

to

in

the

two

the

operation

was

not

most

of

the

%;ere:

reporting

relatable

9-6100

format

ILC

internal

cost

directly

control

methods.

t
_

This
q_

_
_
:

as
in

the

533

significantly

an internal
management
the construction
and

.,"

redundant

of

2.

as

533

cost

The

cost

the

with

rendered

non-utilitarian

the

and

'

through
of

Breakdown

of

WBS's

employed

did

of

to
-

BREAXDOWN
At

WBS

was

WBS

found
shown

to

meet

it

was

"

internal
i

i _

each

change,

for

to

served

(533
data

various

went
stages

implementation

inefficiencies
a

loss

as

in

and

continuous

important,

provide

the

1
various

significant

establish

meaningful

management-information

planning

report)

relative

efforts.

WBS

has

STRUCTURE:

the

outset

employed

is
_

at

not

which

BACKGROUND:
WORK

future

changes

as

data

[WBS)

collection

Equally

relationship
'

well

data.

reporting

produced

data.

segregation

for

At

re-education

management

monitoring

cost

contract.

track

ILC

Structure

developing

as

non-reflective

provide

skeleton

inaccuracies
-

to

significant

the

system,

manpower

basic

for

and

report,
and

Work

control

tool.
This-resulted
administration
of a

in
in

of

which

program

3.6

The

management
blended

in

Schedules

'
approx_ma.ed

applications.
1

reporting

applied.

9-6100,

closely

textbook
Figure

NAS

This

quite

WBS

The

however,
data

satisfactorily

the

of

the

never

served

with

a
type

the

WBS

information

during

available

II,

classic

facsimile

provided

requirements

reports,
tool.

I and

period

from
the

adeauate

as

an

this..'!

general

-55-

terms
_ I

established

analysis.
must

The

be

in

the

previous

failings

sufficiently

in

this

section's
_S

computerized

are
and

historical

cost

th,it a Contractor

oriente_

towards

# -

government

cost

systems

as

well

as

being

of

thic

propcr!y

organized

to
:
J

attain

the

cross-matrJxing
becomes
is

|.
[

at

to

all engineering
Item
(CEI) and

5:

Development,
Field

by

that

_L

functions.

1 Task.

never

used

In

in

The

any

data

use

of
At

to
_

was

the

was

to

significant

now,

!_

and

into

the
in

been

the

operation
was

day-to-day
is

occurring
of

SA

for

I Tasks
relate

on
433

July

proposal

and
retained

repo_ting

I,

the

framework

essentially

were

WBS

be

have
not

the

had

useful
program.

_t
be

and
was

This

of

manpower

attempted

The

primary

close

as

ILC.

_nd

internal

was

felt

This

the

This

was
budgets

then,

and

early

negotiation

program

through

instituted.

WBS

established

_hrough
the

WBS

of

as

alignment

of

was

to

1971

IVB.

continuity.

phase

form

the

and

for

should

and
WBS

_
C

completion

of

;_

management

revised

organizationally.
framework

was

known.

Schedule

negotiated

_"

segmented

time

within

operation

not

further

this

of

studies

of

Management

determined

formation

organizational

from

were

cost

NASA

date

that

a basic

retained

of

in

meaningful

which

time

by

to

arranged

that

concept

data

Level

however,

possible

had

in

start

the

produce

in

separation

this

a CEI

data

Contract
End
Component

at

to

shown

were

philosophy

data

abandoned

provide

Program

Costs

the

historical

ILC

this

to

negotiations

retain

aim,

the

a milestone

following
This

in

to

to

WBS

and

was

the

etc.

identified

functions

at

value

concept

constructed

rerospect,

The

way

be

timely

o_ientation

unde2

exceptions.

compiled

information.

limited

was

manageluenh

should

or

WBS

Soares,

were

The

costs

essential

I_S

Production,

Level

correct

This

The
information

useful

and manufacturing
costs
by
Level
1 Task_;
i.e.,
Design,

Support

all

without

-'_.....

resource

and

Schedule
IV.
was performed

This

i_
_
J

of
IVA

_"
app_lc_t

and

handle

system_.

inception
Schedule
3.6.2.

to

derive

computer

the

and

organizational

cumbersome

difficulg

Figure

of

quite

adequate

full
h_,_f4_
...........

-56-

the

program,

one

establishzhenh
Janua_;y
i

i,

of

continued

i
.

ground

Schedule

WBS
{

and

rules

the

wes

bccn

all

D_BS, the

_gBS's

in

throughout
is

resources

vari_,us

adhering

Level

and
In

l Tasks.

the

which

form

under

the

varied

performance

_'ere
the

addition

that

applied,

at

to

during

found

noted

1 Tash

the

Previously

program.

also

was

closer

en,ployed

same

occur

a Level

in

are

the

the

it

did

infor;_ntion.

fe,,: items

retained

varying

as

j nc]udc.d

the

very

that

a_,othc:r step

budgeted

had

IV,

levels

to

Support

and

Reviewing

'
"","
Ai_..ion
This

Support

_-

change

]973.

to negotiatcd
Mission

of

notable

to

other

in

same

the

axis

its

format
/

and
!
:_
-

content

labor

_,

through

categories

Schedule

these,

data

produce

previous

IV,
in

for

to

useful

h_S's

provide

the

WBS.

ease

such

that

533

REPORT

data

It

in

and

burdens

fol" the

historical

cost

were

not
and

rules

In

Neither

of

workable

management

did

readily

they

analysis

sufficiently
applying.

seemed

in

<

the

was

resulted

from

be

clearly

cannot

exist.

detailed
WBS

continually

undoubtedly

should

of

report

the

and

lack
on

data

via

to

internal
data

information
to

reorient

of

of

take

by

"gray

area"

defined

element

to

caused

data

be

533

Report

Very

few

management

being
it

and

data

need

the

instabilit_

in
be

each

aligned

for

from

of

program.

the

facilities

Both

parties,

better

served

placed
the
I_

533 _

from

the

reconstruction.

departments
in

the

report

volume

of

inputs

_
Z

significant

government

the

the

fallout

the

the

an

of

inclusion

with

strictly

facets

a once-a-month

data

coupled

was

a natural

was

input

the

computer

manpower
would

the

preparation.

report

necessary

contractor,

provided
nor

areas"

reorientin_
the

_BS.

level.

monitoring

equally

relevant

involved
This

ILC,

the

II

business

was

of

I and

than

daily

level
detail

interpreting

WBS's

"gray

were

Rather

Schedule

program

"his
but

Future

exercise

at

ground

Reporting

_k

in

and

WBS's

the

themselves

reclarification.
in

were

In

section.

descriptions
{t

detail

application

day-to-day
data

program.

%.;ere the

functions

the

The
_'

the

and

the

i_

organizational

-57-

alignment

and

the

cost

systems

in

place

at

the

contr_.ctor's

facility

were

governing

factors

in

the

e:;tabJishment

of

533

reporting
i_

the

_"

correct

reporting

formats.

formation
WDS

of
should

This
the

problem,

correct

also

however,

_;ifS.

produce

The

the

is

relatable

solution

solution

to

of
the

te
the
533

problems.

i :
:

0
1

[-a

i
i-

.)
2

!' ,l

,r

L.
9

, ,

-k

"]

{_

_:

{.,
t

-58.................

GUTD]/;LINE:-_ - FUTURE
r

PROGRA;.I RECO'.:!dENDATION._;:

At

cost
,

the

studies

Prior

program

Development,
Spares,

as

existent

1-ypicai

in
be

the

fer

constructed
'

described

be

to

all

suit

the

each

costs

segments

of

and
',

Engineering

Development

i
support
the

design
at

concepts.

Level

of

2 to

formal

Design

also

prcgrams

c0st

into

function

1 task

with

1 tasks

would

which

the

major

and

the

Program

activities

functions.
recommended

Management
performed

by

organization.
Design,

combine

include
as

all

quality

to

Component

encempass

segregate

Development
Verification

models
cost

costs

engineering

assurance

engineering
Indi%idual

Component

functions

Development

the

total

..-

such

fabrication

major

be

and

Level

- would

effort

should

suit

- Level

function.

Design

the

the

would

office

Tasks

suit

_'_3S which

program

Development-

sl_ould

a recommended

major

associated

the

syste_n,

l,e

follows:

:._anage_ent

include

wou!_:

(_qES), being

on

of

each

Management,

which

future

Structure

i is

of

functions

manage_,:.ent of

management

to

_h_.pport were

These

space

as

Program

program:.

segregation

are

Field

criter:"

functions

Support,

information

of

majol:

the

%.:el'e

significant

The

and

9-6100,

sections

criteria

for

typical

NAS

meaningful

Exhibit

to

Program
would

the

description
of

the

business

above.

contents

study,

Repair,

produce

provide

A brief

previous

"" -_-Brea]:down

applicable

would

the

blission

basis

the

Program,

determined.

being

The

skeleton

the

and

establishcrl

Apollo

in

to

were

Retrofit

therefore

the

Production,

programs.

of

presented

performed.
a suit

close

of

reliability

could

design
include

prototypes

other

verification

accounts

- would
Test

and
for

each

and

and
of

be

established

activity.
fabrication
and

of

Qualification

Test

units.

Qualification
within

this

Formal
Testing

1-

Verification

would

also

be

Testing

Level

and

2 activities

task.

E_n_inee_ing
Engineering

Design

Design

Tasks

- would

tasks

authorized

accumulate
by

Work

costs
Request

on

all
Forms

(WRF's).

-59-

I
I

t
L

Individual

cost

accounts

PRODUCTION
under

the

would

- All

Level

be

assigned

l_roduction

1 task

costs

Production.

to

e;_ch _'IRF.

would

be

Production

included

would

be

l-

defined

as

including

labor_- directly
End
as

Items.

associated

[.:anufacturin

a production

segregated
be

cost.

at

].evel

separately

_.

.manufacturinc

7 and

with

fabrication

of

9 Engineeri,,g
Level

3 into

SUPPORT

performed

by

personnel

shall

would

that

perform

the

CEI's

CEI's

as

quality

Contract
be

be

considered
further

determined

space

to

suit.
with

mission

Mission

engineering,

also

associated

designated

inspection

the

would

future

costs

included.

would

various

on

- All

personnel
be

2 task
the

identifiable

MISSION

only

effort

support

support

personnel

assurance

and

reliability

activities.

RETROFIT
at

Level

Depot

the

following:

Retrofit

articles

already

returned

to

_,

depot

the

under

,
;

this

Level

the

single

and

inspection

of

_ _

Level

be

will

segregate

performed

customer

depot

would
could

but
be

be

on

retained

or

considered
assigned

as
for

each

totally

spares

labor

individual

by

- all

WRF's

costs

would

associated

be

accumulated

task.

1 task

an

FIELD

work

the

tasks

authorized

- all

orders

retrofit

}'it Fabrication

spares

have

1 task

task.

SPARES
_

Level

to

Individual

& R effort

- all

contractor's

Modification
M

- This

delivered

retrofit.

with

REPAIR

2 into

retrofit
_

AND

would

included

Spares.

All

materials

be

cost

synomomous

woul_be

entitled

and

SUPPORT

costs

utilized

included.

Each

collection

- the

Level

with

the

within

manufacturing

in

the

Spares

completion

Order

would

code.
1 task

function

Field

Support

would

Field

Support.

:
>
_

All
9

costs

associated

field

would

site
_

of

with

field

be
Level

support

with

the

included.
3 if

support
Level

desired

activity,

of

the

space

2 segregatior

further

segregaling

suits
could
the

in
be

the

by

types

i_

i '

L.

In
.; ,

program

as

internal
:

space

fur_he_

"_:ek,
ie_ of

well

as

the

meaningful

rc:vJ.-.i:tg,the

management

of

_;u''_. co_;Lracto_:

to

n,,(.l_,,,:,of _:,contractor

cos.',:s,it
would

criteria

was

decidec]

that

"_,.:
- o-.,.:._i.
. _ ] into

for

the

the

typical

following

primary
!

should

L_

provide

[--

"a typical

_.

be

the

Brief

i i

Program

(_fice

WBS

and

activity

EngJ.neering

time

of

by

of

].abet

level

coding

Exhibit
would

the

be

detail

to

1 portrays

used

level

in

of

the
_

the

organization

individual
these

as
as

seen

would

represent

be

by

the

i_'

sum

of

organization.
further

Engineering,

fit

the

The

Management
could

Systems

under

coding.

codes

Program

- Engineering

or

detail

follow:

have

alignments

segmented

Design

Engineeri_g,

organization

at

the

performance.

segregate

the

as

through

Engineering

would

su_'ve

which

an

total

and

established.

sun,mary

Manufacturing
;

be

Reliability,

O1-ganization

would

the

Test

case,

- Each

accumulated

such

the

Management

data

into

and

accordingly.
could

the

bei._g

definitions

Program
,-

data

1.]anacAcment , Engineering,

Assurance

organizatien
to

This

summarized

this

adjunct
WBS.

Program

Quality

Support.

_'

,.
_

divisiohs:

Manufacturing,
Field

labo_:

- The

and

fabrication

Manufactul-ing

identify
group;

organization

at. a minimum

all

inspectien

group

the

activity
and

performed

manufacturing

engineering.
Quality
organization
Engineering,
-

and

could

more
be

and

Reliability-

The

QA

& R

;_

would
include
such groupings
as Qua]ity
Reliability
Engineering,
Technician
Support

Documentation

deemed
""

Assurance

Support.

satisfactory

inserted

here

Other
at

as

the

well

organizational
time

as

of

in

alignments

contract

all

other

performance
primary

labor

,.

divisions.
Field
for

Operations

segregation

ope._:ations.

of
The

- Each

Field

organizational

above

Site

would

information

reco_endations

are

be
for

directed

the

basis

field
towards

specific

i,-

suit

a_'eas

program.

needing
In

attention

addition

some general recon_endations

to

at
the

which

the

above,
should

outset

of

however,
definitely

the

next

there

are

be

-6_ -

,!

i"

[
inc.luded
,

in
i.

the

planning

for

the

a WBS,

prefcrrably

described

above,

early

in

all

needs

of

the

that

it

will

it

will

meet

management

system;

or

adaptable

accounting

through
2.

readily

Make

{
-

3.
!

pogram;

be

business
be

in

contractor's

retain

the

_o..cu__._n__
internal

same

WBS

system

a useful

tool

to

NASA.

Do

tracks

that

data

or

not

are

have

_:equire

not

no

both

establishment

readily

use

to

drawn

the

management

system.

k_,en the

is

solidified,

establish

application

. . . allow

clear

WBS

finally

guidelines

gray

to

areas.

Do

the
not

change

ground

rules

in

mid-program.
The

in

nature

however,

above
and

we

establishment,
programs.

i
Q

lines

contractor's

no
I

the

the

are:

program.

and

contractor

They

along

the

tAen

reporting

information

from

to

entire

contractor

of

and

system;
the

the

the

I.

prog_-am.

Establish

sure

next

recommendations

in

feel

others,
that

operation

are

more

they

specific.

will

and

in

be

of

analysis

some
In

cases
either

benefit
of

future

in

genera].
case,
the

space

suit

'

Apollo

NAS

9-6].00 Schedules

I & II

lqork Brc.,hdo,..-._
Structure
l
%
L

.[

[-

Level
0

__
I

Schedule

_
-

i[..
I

'

Contract
PGA End

Items

I
,

LCG

_;. i

TMG

ft

'

, it

_ "

EV

Visor

Garment

Accessories

Program

Manager.,ent

Project

Engineering

Systems

Integration

--

Manufacturing

}I
1

Quality

'

_'

Schedule

Assur.%nce

and

Reliability

II

Sustaining

"

Engineering

Field

Engineering

Support

I.

Off

On

Site
Site

Spares
(-

i "

Spares

Program

Spares

Orders

Management

(
,

FIGURE
!.

3.6.1
-63-

dl/dtOJliligll_dillnaOJal',l_uJ,'qLell_r:

_,:_

N'OiJO
;

:,

_'I_'[J'-fi_Ptt'_,'_

,rz?A[-_ZrlJ: IV

_].

_ls f,t_l'J;.+lt_l_[lt:l_ n +'_111

l,l.".,'}:J,-] l:lla _:latlt't_rilarql_tll]t:

]_-1--:.... i.... pa_;a;e_ ,v:w'_:_::;'

i
I

_21-.I----_----O7-_?;,.wI
_ iz,':.:,:fh:':._..w! ', UjAIA'FIW_T]C_:
872-_- --_=---p!'.,'_L;l'Ir,,'l
(:,'JJ':_
& ;:CIUIJ_.'L
L;JJI[I-2.?:I')
823-_-------P.
_-i :;:I:;:
':
]!:I::';
T;,"
"_Lq0]'_')

" '

tJ24--[
.... L---m-_Uc,':' n':':_:'n'

'

INll'-'t',,ll_lkg,J,lll_

f_-I

_.

826_----4-/

_-'v"

D',r_

O..'a::_'.':;R

!,

]'.,_/_

t"ztl.'i4 f.:_ lal_._ r'_ti_I,I_,_fi_-_i"

-........

_,"

-- i ' tW.(;C;' 2'/P:'O:_

P,29-,-

L. -._,.;.I

......

" ._l,

(_,...,liI

....

[II,)

.................................................

_"
",

. __L_- __ .......

-420._ t, :.,\:,';\_..,_R

---1.........
"

......

X04-1

::_
:-

:.

r ......

["
'

"-(?'.C':,

:
,

{
[.

,' P.; _op

.1.,

_)

A'_:.T,YSIS

.t_aZ-_

"

10:a

:'

x09-b---4-......'.... s_..-:.:._,'_
;,cr_'o_:'_

----' ....
---7-- I_Vl'a;_
.... O,_.........
La.AiJt,',. s

_34.7___

FILYD
F '.Ii_

-_c

OPEP.:,T]O::S
OP_r'iTIOXS

_
..

:
?

t ---I;,,NC-12dY SUPPC.,tT

ixsz_----4 .... ,t----mu_/m's eca "

xs, .... --_r----,t-.--,_c_
.:_
X53 ....

-4----____
....

X54 ....

X58x59 ....
x60 ....

'

:
,i

IX31@------F--!-'e._C
IXn--_---t-;

"_

?W,/.':_:7::;['

X06-_t " i ---C_._,IC-J_,.-uO.. , ,-,.......

_
XOT-_----_-V---P;-_.r_,q;J,3
_ _r_.P, TR;G

Ix30"4"-"_

,)i:k:".'.l

:-7"b'.7;2" 22"

Ii :.;A

_,

:-= -"

_---_--- -l.'tS -

].
-l-_.

_ _I'S

:"-

_- _ "----_,
_.(I"JX.CI
PdC,:_
-,, _JP,__&v%v[_
i:.___:_p
}_vcrr:_o.b
}t.',_:F,SS

x61--2_-L--_---dm t_'_;-rr.a
Z52"_'.-"--_---'.:::Lg'g_NI[L
D!_s:'_ ff:!_:!,_ .s'._)
s[:p;,p:d,r.,_
co:,:.:
v,:__wrs
,

:.

.............

x71-if---i------.'
---rr_s,_-hv

xn-t-----_---ff--rv

i
,

_;,_

rs
__.._=-:-_--.--.-.m:o-_i..m:,,..ss .._

I
--

x-5.-GV--';b,L-.:L
,.&-u...,:,_,
{P_b.,_
L,...:::._
/_2+'-......
"....... :.2 .::"':.
' ..... 7 .7
W"_':"

it

""

pI%iLX_[c S:JPi:OP,._
"_

XlX-_---t Feb\.GFS_'
i,
t

:
"

'

X3X------SPt_J_E
& /.$.YI_RTAL
IDEh'TLPIC?_IO:_
XPX'- ....
FI!:_D PN_q'S
:.L2rA_'IC_\TIO:I,,%'AI2,'TE2.D::C/_..
& RF.P_R & AL\.'f'AZ,_2N_]ITfY
XIX-----CP4_'I
MISSICtl SUP.-PO_'ZI?
X5X-r"_ -_ ;GF,'_I;_LR/:
:G SUPPO!_

l
I
l

XTX-,----ZE_9 '!G"AIlF/SLq_FCICf

.........................

XSX------ADV_.qC_IDPR.'I,RP_',.'.Ib',._)IDI_
X9X .... AT_'_IJ,9 ,\PPl,tCr:Tl"?:S
Sb?F_aRT

_X "2-._'--i

6 ii:};d'"I.':;._"

"'D
''t_.
.... i, ,'Ia
,'J,,.,

'_'f"

,i

'1

i:"'

,I

'-

, ,

XXfl-_---_L_OLINC;

!.

[
I

XXg-P ....
F'I 17.,D ::tl IT 'I'}_IHICIN_
'XO+-- - I'J:I,bV; I L['I%'
X_l-i- ---t,I'YH :tLIN,

}.

)O_S-_----SUI f.'tq IH_ .Ci'ING

X_>P--.4,_X:I'IVV2t
l AI,t)R

_..4-h---!::Sl'il21'rc21

XX5-F.-u-F:\:'ILFC,%TIO;!
XX6-F ....t.-%,:!:' __1,
X:FI-P---TI;
;i":;G

'

,.
"_

"*......................................

FIGURE

3,6.2--

R.\'I'-I ....TI_',VI
:h
_----O11,':11
DIItlX'['

.
"6 4 -"_

GLOSSARY

COST

ELI_;HENT - the

'-

Burden,

etc.

FUNCTION

- a

type

of

cost,

e.g.,

Labor,

costs

into

Materia],

MAJOR
_

generic

functions

tasks

Support,
;

separation

of

typical

of

suit

are:

Production,

Prog_.-am

Management,

Maintenance

and

Repair,

pr, jram-_.

The

Dcve].opl.ient,
Field

and

meaningfu]

Mission

Support,

Spare..s.

"

_ !"

PIIA___IE
- - refers

-_

divisions

_ !"

to

of

through

,'

'
[

PRIMARY

LABOR

the

14,

various

the

total

Apollo

DIVISION

applications

contract
th1"ough

- a separation

components,

i e.,

Managen_ent,

Quality

Field

15

suit

relative
17,

of

Manufacturing,
Assurance,

Skyiab

labor

and

time

to

Apu]lo

an_

into

Engineering,
and

Reliability

AS_i'P.

organizational
Program
and

Support.

!-

"

-65-

3.7

TITLe: :

f-

_-

Frogram

14anagement

Organization

and

Manpower

Su_.,_ary

OBJ I._'CT
!VE :
Evaluate

l
existed

Deter,_ine

'

implementation

f!
L_

presented

the

The
the

comparative
maPgement

'

_ }

required

summary

this

of

these

The

_
DISCUSSION
.

[.i

.-

k .
I

of

programs.
the

progrmus

as

this

section.

which

was

suit
was

supported

used

as

then

1973

Emphasis
required

was
was

management

section

3.4

organization
management
to

1973

197_

to

1973

organizations,
estimated

the

figure

(See

rate.

In

the

program
The

of

the

period

study

reducing

the

to

schedule

for

future

of

management

on

of the
d_ ring

rate

factored

required

for

as

this
program
the period

of

average

compare

was

of

manloading
an

section

structure

level

p_'ograms

this

properly

manpower

was

The

_.,as based

order

the

program

manpower

3.7.3).

:ion

for

on

compared
to the level
that existed
at ILC

production

levels

as

paragraphs

3.7.2

Figure

organiz;

a comparison

organization

guidelines

preceeding

was then
organization

1970

production

of

recommended

in

by

manpower.

program

in

the

used
placed

presented
:

in

the

1/5

these
to
a

reflect

1/20

-66-

................................
nmn._
--,m

resulting

determin,:d

organization

the

the

manpower

STUDY:

support

in

The

organiza'Lions.

through

of

ree_u_nended

program.

management

proposed

hbe

to

illustrated

the

programs

manloaded

discussed

resulted

_Y

1970

Implementation
as

L_

THE

program

Th_

::

FOR

level

i "

3,6

formulate

savings

baseline.

I {_

to

management

USED

of

future

whi._h

from

o_ganization

suit

a future

manpower

_' !

! ;

suit

resulting

through

ASTP

used

program

I.

ASTP

for

management

and

support

of

savings

3.1

program

were

to

GROUNDRULES

and

guidelines

paragraphs

section

, L

the

organization

hsseline.
Guidelines
identified
as program
manpower
savings
in paragrephs
3 ] through
3 6 of

2.

[
_'

Skylab

manpower

Sk_,lab

of

ILC

Apollo,

:_

._

"manage_ent

Apollo,

total

in

the

program

APPROACII:

f....

i_

d_ring

(-

the

_ [- __ [_ _ .

production
rate
a total
manpower

Comparison
savings
of

of
480

these
two programs
man montJls.

revealed

--,

,t-

.
--

r/

_"

I '

l.!
l

_"

2":

t;

i, i

e O

'_

a,

,,.lllalllhmo]|Tn.lL.U,j..L,..
'
"J"."

f.

"_"'ml_'

lib ii

" V_

!]

!"

4) 4J

ii t,

---

__

f_

-,_" I_

"

_.._.____.

-o
0 rj

"

4J-lJ
U_

rJ
I,,I

"

r_,-

1_

r,-

&

O_

r_,)

U "_..

"_rO,,P
"_
Oi_

,_

:_

04J

["

0
Id

_
l.q

IO

_ "

t
.

C
.IJ
-*.I--

_.,..

"

_,0_

_.'4.r4
_9 4,.,P

},,o_

:
J

;.
;:

-_o-

p
!

i.
.

SECT I0:_ IV

ENGINEERING

[_

4.0

ENGINEERING

4.1

TITL_

"

Interface

port

of

OBJECTIVE:

control

future

docu.n-.._icn,_"_
"

space

Establish

the

suit

most

(ICD)

for

_up-

program.

efficient

and

least

costly

method

of

controlling

government
!

APPROACH

and

the

to

new

of

future

furnished

space

and

cost

Cost

space

suits

with

equipment.

of

interface

programs

were

control

used

examined

in

on
ad-

control.

were

evaluated

for

efficiency

and

effectiveness.

savings

and

suit

ASTP

concepts

concepts

associated

Skylab

of

Skylab

These

contractor

methods

ApOllo,

dition

interfaces

The
_

the

ASTP

data

was

Programs

to

developed
the

by

comparing

recommended

new

Apollo,
interface

technique.
i

GROUND_

RULES
i.

The

It

FOR

space

1966
2.

USED

was

will

that

the

f_

tation

techniques

"

the

mentation

of

was

_lat
used

majority
not

for

used

a new

the

as

the

space

for

future

of

existing

be

Apollo,

period
study

suit

suit

of
baseline.

configura-

progra:z_

interface

and

documen-

useable.

interface

Skylab

of

interfaces.
performed

tiations
among
would
intervene

1_

additional

was

for
On

the
the

then

If
the

ASTP

were

programs,

used

by

both

identification
Apollo

practically

themselves.
to resolve

effort

and

control

contractors

I_
i

be

will

the

associate

contractors

1973

program

During

ICD

assumed

tion

INTRODUCTION

suit

through

STUDY:

all

program,
the

a stalemate
contractor

continued

among

various
NASA

and

and

docu-

the

associate

interface

nego-

occurred,
differences

NASA
and

contractors.

I
r

t"

'

-72-

During
\
_-

this

_
program,

contractors
maintain

and

NASA

acted

scheduled

a punctual

as

a med!,.to._
r "=
,- among

frequent

resolution

meetS

of

ngs

in

interface

_L,i_
_,

order

to

',

problems.

This

type

of

came

less

effective

"A"

ICD's

still
[

were

acted

without

program

_
!-

tion

during

suit

interfaces

existing

will

were

this

report,

the

of

This
on

Jn many
the

_
J

NASA

_
,

cases

contractor

The

ASTP

,_{

coordJna-

contractor
occurred

prior

Level

negotiated

equipment.

amount

existed

the

the

problems

Apollo,

'_'_Lh

recommendations

problem

a cost

study

of

be-

since

all

programs,

the

_:

therefore,

used.

during

in

assistance

program.

already

ICD's

result

and

as

program,

actively

centers

least

suit

program

this

also

manufactured

Each

The
areas

or

interfacing

Skylab

During
but

examined.

sented

the

NASA

the

the

experienced
were

and

involved

In
:

other

knov.'icdge

designed

contractor

during

mediator,

with
the

associate

introduced.

as

interfaces

who

clu_e

of

suit

Shylab
of

and

group

for

of

future

interfac'e
ASTP

is

programs

prr
which

reduction.

encompassed

'

pro_'_,,.,_

problems

suit

control

_-

investigation

of

the

following

a.

b.

Tl,e impact

of

and

end

item

The

use

of

flight
weight

Level

effectivities,
changes

"A"

ICD's

on
on

part

the

numbers

ICD' s.

advanced

"_
_

suit

pro-

_.

grams.
c.

The

duplication

quired
"

d.

e.

on

many

The

difficulties

due

to

Cost

and

Apollo,
in

the

Skylab

information
and

handling

ASTP
of

re-

ICD's.

some

ICD's

s_ze.

considerations

control

unnecessary

are

if

new

methods

of

_'-

interface

utilized.

-73-

i
PROBLEM
!;,"

Flight
_

weight
Document

ges.

provided

BACKGROUND:

life

being

!_

This

in

all

changes

support

vehicle

numerous
ASTP

Apollo

suit
were

on

to

Skylab

during
4-1-3

4-1-2

ILC,

Grumman,

and

and

Rockwell

by

which

ICD

total
the

chan-

previously

NASA

suit
and

31

ASTP

mission

and

nearly

"effectlvity"
alone.

examples

International

ve-

resulted

program

illustrate

and

and

what

changes,

of

as

Skylab

reassignments

suit
A

processed

4-1-1,

identify

mission

been

Apollo,

ICD.

chan_es.

gures

all

on
and

Control
(IRN)

required

configuration

the

item

document.

system

and

ICD

control
done

illustrated

Flight

r_

was

had

another

were

end

Notice

information

notes

and

Interface

Revision

in

configuration

ICD's.

was

this

effectivity

numbers,

numerous

cases,

Flight

or

in

Interface

_ contractor

of

hi_le

most

part

end

to

method

[
I

_esulted

(ICD)

In

ASTP

effectivities,

changes

I
%

ICD

of

Fitypical

effectivity

changes
In

(
effect
the
:-

all

any

costs

Notices
more

were

one.

the

of
to

for

much
and

time

changes

most

cases,

part

number

callouts

part

number

was

tion.

hardware

Since
number

of

since

the

the

part

vehicle

appeared

the

on

to

reduce

shill

actually

Revision
in

to

groups

expended

meetings

changes,

many

dimensions

suit

In most cases,
these
changes
sub-system
changes
which
did

signature

ICD's

were

neces_ay

numbers
or

not

Interface

was

effectivity

number

some

did

of

in

complete

were

and

required.

for

the

noted,

nu_er,

IRN's.

not

were

changed,

part

the

ICD

In
Identi-

interface

proprietary

each

and

time
had

of

informa-

the

dash

to

change.

resulted
from component
not effect
the interface.

and
:

changes.

dash

by

effort

attending

"effectivity"
flight

an

changes,

transmitted

However,

changes

In

these

memorandums

approval

effectivity

interface.

transmitting

(
I

suit

(IRN's)

fication

'

these

processing

Similar

:
_

real
of

than

_.

(
i
t

cases,

-74-

/,

_)&

c"

P
I

u o EI_

.-t

_I-+,

'nO

I C.'

fa

_1.5__
_

'

("_

'----_'"

,--_

I
I)

,_

"_

(.

o
.p.

+ I?

"-"

'

(_

I+

++., _

"0

++ +

,-

"+

C,|,v

P +I_<
_.<__ _
+ i
o,-,
: _+

'+

(_

lIiO]t(Ll11+.r.

JRl:JIIIIInOJIIl,

I ++_,_

.+__.,,., =

III._

L:

.,,:k

,_

"_

_!

t+

-,

IJ

,,

: P

t-<

t,_

..

_+,

I 1

'-

..., .....m,
"-it?<..

_,,+_'

t_

t/_

:+ I_ ."-,
:._
.-_ . _ +
,

_-_

o'
+.. _

_ _

,_

I,_
_

r_
_

_o _
coo

,,_

......

....

P.!

ra
C:
"_

++
....
"--

"

i+.
J

.-_

'_' _I
_,
i

_I

,,,,-, ; 01.."
-,,

'"'

i,-

+, -.,

C *, -'

..

"_":.;-L

r,2
I_

._
S C
.r,+

<>

=. + .+

i+,

+.,,.

....

-_

.,

:;5 ....

_ +
i"

,+

.................................

++<_

Unlihe

. !

numbers
Since

flight

provide
the

effectivity

absolutely

interface

no

notes,
useful

dimensiol_s

and

configuratiol-

inforlaation
other

dash

on

necessary

the

ICD.

info]-mation

!,

i%

2rovided,

associc'_te
- _

and

the

contractor"

r_ur_er

does

nothing

unfamiliar

with

of

on

but

the

confuse

suit

an

sub-systei,_

components.

The
,;

dash

the

itemizing

interfacing

weights

contractor

of

the

tDe

ICD

!a_est

served

suit

to

and

advi_,e

suit

equipment

f-

-in the

(LEVA,

SEVA,

structural

gloves,

design

helmet,

of

the

changing

of

for

flight

etc.)

vehicle

or

weights
the

for

use

o.'eration

of

maneuvering

unit.

The
_.

abnormal

have

frequent

occurrence

occurred

has

due

most

hardware.

may

be

an

However,

! i

weight

design

changes.

changes
An

_ ' ,
i

suit

design

change

eight

hour

mission.

b.

Nume_.-ous

ii

crew

continually

being

On

device,

and

others

the

Skylab

were

documented

stowage

list

was

'

weight

In

c1_ange

addition,

perform
_

the

formal

The

flow

,"

suit

weight

il

released.

review
chart

change

as

authorized
suit

on

or

this

on

the

illustrates
the

some

Skylab

suit

Skylab

each

contractor
ot

of

suit

Lunar

EVA

the

crew

program

an

were

basic

quantity

of

and

equipment

suit

suit

This

CEI

to

gloves,

pockets

List

change

required

what

the

comfort

ccjntractor

stowage

suit

to

optional

pads,

a contract
was

numerous
Apollo

to

Stowage

changes

the

on

added

comfort

the

the

hour

used

wristlets,

on

updated

was

a four

revised

program,

weights

J.ncluded

items

special

valsalva
many

from

Examples

included

necessitated

example

optional

configul'ation.
items

to:

substantial

weights

not a.beenChanges
the cc._e
pres_ure
suits.
Frequent
dn with
missionthe requirements
resulting
in

:i I

hardware

specification

authorization.
periodic_%lly

list
happened

to

after

the

an
CCA

approved
was

-78-

3
r
I

t4As/.x
(i

Ce>-,

'
i

_Y'Ec_

"

"

_F'_ f"l
--

_11

_'-:s} CxAJ: :-';-, ---4.-_-,

Or

ki.1,tl T"

I [

r,., ,.,.._,,......._,

i
'
:

The
_-

the

OWS

design

document
! "
;
_ "
<.

the
Thi_

with

stowage

the

list

suit

weight

system

was

a contract

change

the

ICD

GUIDELINES
i.

"
I

FUTURE

Although

the

the
the

by

be

the

part

each
of

the
the

Apollo

to

prog_.-an_ or

Skylab

suit

and

_e_

contractor

changed

the

to
suit

Configuration

they

flight

received

sui

'

weight,

intended

for

programs
of

it

the

p'_rsunnel

did

serv_

could

on

ICD's

prepared
list._ng

report

no._ directly

to

recommended

be

be

use

is

Tl-is

status

which

ICb's

individual

contractor.
a monthly

the

mission(s)

effectivities

documentation

used

or

and
.

other

as

as:_ociated

proc-ram.
part

various
system,
hardware,
should

required.

_'

was

listing

_
Y

n_,ed

notation'_-; on

t_e

respectiw,

information

2.

no

ICD.

,_ctivity,

futare

separate

similar

of

equipm-cnt
for

their

could

with

which

change

reader

maintained

,;

the

effectivity

advise

and

time

was

to

:?]_OC.R2_,iS:

numerous

that

on

requirements

there

the

during

contractor

caused

which

result,

used

each

design

a change.

Therefore,

not

as

on

authorization

required
FOR

As
changes

Con_r_dnd Module
A.'-a result,

served

contractor.

programs

"

also

numbers

sub-system
be omitted

and

dash

number's

of

the

and component
suit
from the ICD's
when

net

7I "

_ "

-79-

'

3.

progr_:m

used

stowage

list

effectively,

method

of

is

or

other

the

provic_ing

similar

qu].c,.co_
" '..... anu

a suit

weight

document,
ea'_:icst

change

to a

vehicle
:

contractor.

a contractu.'-al

it

will

an

ICD

the

change

PROBLEM

ICD

if

long

requirement

eliminate

approved.

As

the

each

as

tile stowage

for

need

the

to

The

suit

v,,ights

the

stowage

vehicle

process

tlr,.=
" ,_ a suit

is

transmit

change

not

is

contractor,

and

weJ.ght

should

list

list

bu

is

.'oted

on

used.

:"

Interfaces
negotiated

identifie_

between

kno:.ledgc

or

BACi:GROUND

NASA

on

Level

centers

assista._,,:e of

"A"

-.n_ in

:he suit

ICD's

many

were

cases

activel

witl'3ut

l"

the

cont,:actor.

:_
i
_

_>

Le,,-"

Apollo

equipment

anc_ Skylab

Center
to

b.

Su-.t and

c.

Juit

to

Rover

T020

suit

F3ot

_.

Suit

PGA

Restraint

The

ICD's

were

approved

NASA

center.

each

of

these

NASA

center

It
to

was

the

then

(b),

directly

the

betweer,

manufacture._-

-_t the

coordinate,_

(Preliminary

the
suit

dnd

defined.

Interface
were

not

by

NASA

ICD's

JSC

were

JSC

to

from

and

and

the

the

the

the

interfacing

ICD.

In
was

9WS

one

of

performed

vehicle
This

changes

Notices)

were

initiated

with

suit

contractor

the

suit

interfacing

program.
later

the

initiate_,

coordination

However,

Revision

coordinated

of

Unit

- Skvlab

_re I a',-ing the

commencement

- Apo.!lo

- Skylab

(MSFC)

transmitted

contractor

Johnson

M_neuvering

JASA

interface

the

3ky]:-tb

"A"

from

contractor

the._e interfaces

only

Level

%'as trahsmitted

center.

which

Foot

(MSFC)

the

inclu_;ed:

(MSFC)

Controlled
Center

to

than

inter_aces

to _,,"
_.S

on

l**_e_
f_ce._ with
" ".....

suit

other

Veh._cle

c m_t?ment
-..

utilized

the

c_nter

These

Lunar

were

define

Reseaxci_

NASA

NASA

to

/_angley

Whe,

well

ICD's

a NASA

(JSC).

Suit

information

to

a.

interfacing
:'

Intercenter

programs

supFlied

_.pzceci'aft

"A _ or

ICD
or

was

PIRN's
by

until
k

fter

N,_SA approval

had

been

made.

-80-

In
were
.

of

never
the

All
p-._rson_el

of

en
a.

th_s

bei::g

;
b.

the

Love]

suit

docum_nt.

fo-; a ].evel

details

approved

other

"A"

"A"

ICD's

coi_tractc-r

(ite_,s a and

until

It, addition,

ICD

in

some

after

the

cases

receipt

approval

rcqui',-ed

d)

ti::_e

several

months.

two

revie_:,ed by

NASA

requi,-e_
!

addition,

less

the

ICD.

The

suit

the

ICD.

Even

re_:1_'ited in
concerned
This

when

resulted

the

Many

PIR_'s

the

the

of

suit

.because:

-its

they

ICD

accuracy

stair contractor

memoranduu,
without

contractor

into,of ace

discrepan

NASA

suit

ebout

contractor

engineering
by

the

were

on
-n

personnel

did

attempted

to

Level
most

reco_endcd

"A"

not

sigr,

itemize

ICD's

cases

signed

by

corrections.

e.

_
?

:
;

In

were

review

since

on

suit.

the

sunlmary,

approved

NASA

NASA

without

cc.nsidered

assumed

the

the

them

to

s11it ccntractor's
have

responsibility

no

for

ip_pact

insuring

proper
well

an

as

the

Apollo

and
i

inte._:fac_s

the

vehicle

designed

:
i-

to

Based

on

Level

"A"

is

un_e_iroble

an

ICD's

If
it

is

directly
agreement

use

of

this
these

or

suit,

and

other

the

suit.

approval

Love].

th_

"A"

S_ylab

hardware

ICD's

as

program

were

easily

was

generally

used
defined

DD_r'_'c.

on

the

method

of

it

Skylab

ICD's
the

and

the

affected

sheet

to

be

interface

ICD

an

suit

are

_ubse_uent

believed

for
is

help

that

for

suit

future

used

PIRN's

expedite

interfaces

programs

in

future

coordination

sheet.

the

used.

contractors,

approval
to

is

program

control

designed

that

signing

the

interfaces

Shylab

used

"A"

by

the

experience,

Level

between

Since

past

a newly

basic

on

(PIP_N's).

if

recon_ended

initial
,I
(

fit

provided

FOP. FUTURE

espec%ally

changes

configured

GUIDE!,INES

were

be
with
NASA
later

programs,
for

the

coordinated
each

indicating

centers

can

then

NASA

approval

ICD's.

I
I

-81-

PI_OBLE_-i:
"-

During
interfaces
This

were

rcnultcd

Apollo,

S):y]._:band

ASTP

documen-_ed

separite]y

in

in

information

the

and

dupl_cation

of

inL_

difficult

handling

ICD's

the

programs,
lieu

of

individual

groul._.

_'z_c_'s,unnecessary

due

to

the

quantity

of

the

[
"_

ICD 's.

BACKGROU:'D

The
used
J

the

separo

philosophy

This

resulted

suit

";elated

internal
ICD's

..

each

Skylab

individual

and

ASTP

interface

in

total

ICD's.

memos
to

the

add unnecessary
paper.

by

98

duplication

programs

be

documented

of

in

suit

different

ICD

order

size
fo1_nat.

Sky!ab

ASTP

large

tc

interfaces

_:

a "C" to roll
specification
and

31

amounts

status

interfaces

associate

traditionally

massive

these

of

information

57

requiring

release),

were

from
in

Apollo,

memoraP, iums,

ICD

Duplication
prepamed

of

Besides

for

interfaces

which
ranged
were documented

(engineering

led

A:_ollo,

,._echanical

documented
on a drawing
while
functional
ICD's

that

addition,

paper%::ork
_

for

rely.."
In

..

suit

of

reports,
quantities

and
fill

the

the

occu,-red

contractors

of

need

to

drawing

between

and

the

ICD's

_"

su_t

contractor.

" '

This

illustrating

hardware

of

the

with

identical
,

occurred

when

one

interface

of

the

view

of

suit
the

while
suit

contractor

prepared

a specialized
a second

piece

contractor

interface

_:'ith his

an

ICD

of

his

preen, red

an

specialized

.piece

hardware.

"

Prior

to

ICD

preparation

by

an

associate

contractor,

'_

i
[

the

suit

contractor

illustration
:

which

uf

occurred

the

was

required

various

during

the

suit
phases

_o prepare

and

transmit

configurations
of

each

and

program.

an

changes
As

result,
was

the

further

_
:

_
!

illustrations

'_

contractor

duplication
compounded
which
responsible

of
by

were

effort
the

then
for

between

different

preparation
copied

preparation

or

of
traced
of

the

the

contractors
initial

by

the

associate

ICD.

t"
"

!
-82-

"

"

If

One

cau3e

"py. amid"
;--

$'.._enan
NASA

or

cases,

placed

or

this

traced

"each

li:_tcd

official

on

proaram.

such

Skylab

as

Level

connectors,

requirements
between

suit

documented

on

contractor

and

sketches

and

a Level

"A"

t_e

vicws

NASA

the

NASA

his

"A"

from

then

copied
on

twice

was

system

occurred

the

with

suit

JSC).

existing

interfaces

doc_unented

contractors
the

primarily

functional

previously

between

-_

the

used

on

area_,

vehicle

already

the

most

contractor

duplication

(NASA

on

effort.

interfaces

contractor

this

listed

was

perforned

interface

ICD

_"

In

higher

higher

mounting

JSC

pyramid.

which

:_,o,-kwas

for

point

Level

suit

the

ICD's.

preparation

the

shetch

the

contractor_,

ICD

the

of

Apollo

more

on

Duplication

_ince
and

by

interface

"I"

hard

etc.,

the

NASA

of

or

or

below

or

s_ae

use

the

of

highest

ICD

the

source

"Intercentcx'"
the

two

a drawing

charging

Another

with

t"'
....contractor

a result,

contractor

i
:

As

an

the

responsibility

prepare

onto

was

used

betwqgn

the

required
to

pyramid.
".

system

contractor

contractor
[

pcc_.ing

situatJ_en

_.... required

system

associat_

th_s

.'4 r

ICD

of

were

NASA
As

ICD's

:"

again

MSFC

vehicle

i"

a result,
were

copied

onto

ICD.
"t

ICD's

IDA02-1004-11,

IDA04-1031-11,

HDA02-715618-11,
t

HDA02-729670-11,

MH01-21021-136,

illustrate

an

illustrate

how

occurred
Skylab

on
and

was

to

past

duplication.

of

the

p_ogram

suit

views,
in

examples

dimensions

describe

ICD

suit

and

These
connector

was

carried

and

13M13524

examples
inte_face
over

to

the

programs-.

ne"-essary
Two

views,

Apollo

ASTP

contained
not

of

duplication

the

During
which

example

MII01-2i048-136,

the

p;:ograms,

numerous

dimensions
defining

of
and

the

ICD's

of

other

were

prepared

information

which

interface.

which

notes

interface

and

ICD's

contained

equipment

numerous

which

was

detailed

not

required

included:
1

a.

IDA02-1022-Ii

b.

HDA02-729629-!I
Buddy

Many
available
document

other
at

the

reveals

SLSS

'!A7LB

to

ICD's
writing
the

PGA

Pocket

"Mechanical
A7LB

PGA

existed&
of

this

and
but

and
A6L
these

report.

Accessories
Functional

Interface"
ICD

LCG"
two

were

Inspection

readily
of

each

following:

-83-

a.

IDA02-I022-II
feet

long).

This

ICD

on
..

the

ATLB-hV

the

list,

and

case

have

pen,

dimensions

[erso;_.al
to
of

show

items

As

_espcnsibility

of

the

the

dimensioned

envelope

dimc:'sions

the

responsibil_ty

NASA

th_.t pocket

properly

2 of
in

this

iCD

words

should

by
be

added

by

profits
were
All

could

that

this

ICD

the

suit

contractor

since

all

the
in

separate

contract

a_ded

Revision

"A"

change

wos!d

the

be

the

the

to

insure

e_:ch

particular"

internal
3.CD, it
items

woa]d

placed

be
in

been
the

others

like

"level
to

Sheet

were

the
of

It
information

it

was

not

additional
suit

contracto;"

effort

2 and

directed

Sheet

an.;. discusse(

drawing.

ho obtain
by

on

deleted

add3 tional

efforts

under

details

itemized

and

ICD

illustrating

i]].ustl_ated

the

in

accomplished
of

to

all

been

fit.

all

notes

interface

the

items

have

adding

notc_d

contained

the

have

pocket

Lhat

n[:m]_;:v

pocket.

_.:ithin each

on

each

requiring

con_nactor

the

each

sunglasses

could

fit

listed

Additie.,ally,

part

individual

it

suit

with

would

ui:der

without

without

items

Likewise,

only

chec].l ....
_,

penlight,

result,

pocket.

out

n:me,

detailed

v.'o_._n

poc._ets

sc;_sor:_

the

the

these

the

called

dosimet._r

pockets.

of

of

dimensions

the

The

by

views

and

any

pocket

listed

Separate

of

each

conf_c_u:-ations,

been

envelope

of

3 1/2

pocket

of

suit

..h_,;_J - each

PCA's.

the

illustration

"

of

detailed

illustrated

'"

CMP
for

an._ utility

inside

A7L!_

dir]-unsions

the

could

pouch

and

envelope
in

pocket

szzed

illustrated

detail,
daha

roll

co.'.[:ail,
s illu._:tratior's

dimensions
are

;.

(two

prog_-am".

all
by

changes

four

authorizations.

?
-84-

I
!

b.

III)A02-7296::9-]I
feet

long)

This

ICD

(one

ro!]

sized

sheet,

sex-cn

,.'_

Buddy
.

seconOary

and

the

:
:

bag

flat

and

on

another

in

effect
two

ICD's

The

use

of

location

and

design

PDR

or

ICD

and

contractor

of

leverage

for

only
In

such

as

no

was

An

and

ICD's

water

illustrated
was

ICD's

has

for

shown

several

ICD

necessary

The

for

the

bags)

In
method
was

dimensional

in

which

contained
dimensions.

functional
stowage

cases,

the

softgoods

accepted

on

information

interfacing

::....

the

ocu_red

interface

these

both

occurred

interface

or

ICD

as

document

ICD's

of

NASA

required.

This

this

dimensions

illustrated.

if

contained
to

formal

an

used

later

ICD.

Rockwell

noted.

was

always

were

through

were

to

expedite

early

increase

the

to

before

rushing

cost

a technical

order

obnain

contractor's

envelope

duffle

to

the

on

only

as

mounting

in

exception

were

not

by

American

system,
the

was

dimensions

responsibility
(foam

multiple

which

contractor

p_'ocedure

associate

requirements
bag

to

changes

interface

North

this

In

related

hard,;are

object

hardware

an

the

flight

a program

illustration.
several

suit

information

approval,

accepted

when

dimensions

already

dimensions,

approval

After

location

the

the

the
The

change.

even

PG_

Expe:'ience

added

by

other

CDR.

of

typical

was

freeze

the

It was

was

information.

the

to

sides

or

the

include:

document

or
b.

which

of

time.

information

of

detailed

HDA02-71390_-I3

represent

unnecessary

]ocation

unnecessary.

suit

marks

ICD,

that

was

"of the

the

detailed

crewmen,

hocks

alignment

Apollo
at

thi[: ICD,

9::c I;LSS and

BSLSS

connector

two

"

GFE

b(:iween

syste'.n (BSLSS)

suited

on

t]-e views

unnqocessary

a.

NASA

In

the

addition,

contain

reasons,

stowage

i.utc:rface

sui_port

PCA.

BSLSS

These
which

Apol]o

of

the

the

life

illustrations

of

illustrateu

by

North

stowage
American.

85- "

Another
'

difficulty

documentation

used

on

experienced

past

_:ith

prcgram_

was

the

the

handling

roll nized
d_'awings
as well as all interface
general.
Some of these
problems
included:

i"

a.

ICD

"

b.

Reproducible

copying

delays

due

to

the

interface
of

dz-awings

size

of

large

i.

the

drawing.

;-

were

kept

c.

ICD's

for

_.

This

to

prevent

files.

mylar

mailing

'

contractors

I.

special

of

preclude

GUIDELINES
I.

and

FOR
It

tc

ICD's

special

storage

damage.
cont,'actor

associate

required

prepared

contractors

the

prenaration

of

drawings.

originals

fol" signature
dra':ing

mailing.

to

associate

required

the

tubes

protect

to

Mailing

d_livery

_i

was

by

use

of

>

the

registered

frequently

done

_o

loss.

_:UTURE
is

"of suit

drawing

special

related

required

reproducible

dra_,:ing during
mail

suit

drawing

This

cardboard

all

transmitted

their

The

co oies

were

special
d.

file.

Reproducible

:
r-

of

en

facilities
[

copies

_.

PROGI_H_:

reconam,ended

th_i

all

suit

interfaces

on

future

.
'

programs

be

documented

prepared

on

standard

paper.

This

ICD

in

a single

8 1/2

document

ii

ICD

inch

would

be

which

is

specification

similar

to

suit
I_

;.

include

'
"

systems

(SEVA,
"

all

would

interfaces
'

!-

and

suit

would

of

the

be

part

the

to

the

with

an

An
ICD

all

could

be

similar

and

equipment

etc.)

suit

be

sheet

signed

and
the

by

add

used

the

suit.

the

NASA

current

side

would

all affected

NASA

by

NASA,
suit

which

de_.ining
initiated

This

contractor

describe

approval

and

to

related

FCS,
the

and

contractors

would

document

IRN

LCG,

illustrate

contractors

ICD

suit

associa

interface.
of

_ specification

other

Kit,

all

only

associate

and

include

to

_ontractural
I

interfac

Maintenance

document

level

as

or

the
Changes

a contractor

'

procedures

similar

Aircraft

systems
for

the

level
Lunar

ICD
Roving

was

prepured

Vehicle

by

Boeing

(LRV)

during

{
,,

!
-86-

V
!

Apo]!o

prog_:am.

hardware

with

document

for

should
r

2.

_-ork

LRV

n_merous
the

noted

_n

on

8 1/2

X ii

inch

standard

of

co_,plex
A

is

piecc

of

similar

possible

c_nd

program_..

the

ICD

should

be

to

reduce

expel,ses

pa]_er

reproduction

convenience

il_terfaces

futu_-e

.item I,

was

Jnte_-fau.s.

su_.t

for

As

mailinc,

The

and

carrying

storage

the

prepared

and

in

permit

the

e_._..:en.lr
_',_ _'_ within

briefcase..

'

<

COST

CO'/SIDERATIONS

By

implementing

estimated
ICD

that

programs

support"

'

for

savings

of

the

duration

later

used

would

one

associate

'

cost

savings

mailing,

estil,_ated
and

of
at

be

test

or

(I) man

a one

the

the

from

from
an_

NASA
the

"level

decrease
changes

provide

of

effort

represents

one

man

program.

during

that
Additional

specification

of

excessive

required
the

suit

utilized

systems

is
at

storage

definitely

and

]?eriods

tl-ave!
or

were

is

future

This

Skylab

the

during

contractor

that

p_-ogram

it

support

program.

men

of

interface

would

to

Apollo

engineers

resulting

to

two

start

guidelines,

required

of

available

when

but

the

the

reproductioiA

schedule

reduced

approximately

was

activity

recommended

manpower

be

phases

systc:ms

the

can

early

or

the

the

support

to

more

s_me

time.

in

drafting

could

a savings

than

The

not
in

effort,
be
cost

time.

&

-87-

4.2

TITL_ '"

Contract

E'_.d Itc_m

Dcterm.ine
End

Item

future
and
i

(CEI)

Specifications

optimization.

T_ 7%_

rb "rr,_1

improver_ents

specifications

space

least

and

_;'hJ.chcan

method

made

to

Contract

as._5ociz:ted maintenance

_ "_ proaram'_: which

_Ul_.

costly

be

_,{13

of

control.

Specifications

used

provide

systems

the

most

for

efficient

App}_,OACH :

The

CEi

["

ASTP

suit

p_o,j.._u._-_'.,
'nave becn

'

have

been

examined

can

_;

frequent

change

time

expense

deletio.1

be

to

deleted.

Apollo,

These

which

items

resulting

Sky!nb

in

and

snecif[cations

requirements

specification

activity

the

stuCind_

determine

Those

on

or

which

excessive

information

experienced

:'!

maintenance

and

or

An
proposed
L

%_ere

identified

as

prime

candidates

for

possible

change.

estimate

of

the

manpower

deletions

or

revisions

saved

in

by

future

implementing

suit

the

specificatSons

is
i
'
i

provided.

GROUND

RULES
i.

USED
The

FOR

CEI

spec'tfications

through
some
to

2.

,
:

INTRODUCT

1973

cases,

new

end

item

was

this

space

_sed

used

earlier

support

Any

as

the

periods

fo_- the

period

study

baseline.

of

activity

1970
In

were

used

study.

suit

programs

will

require

new

contract

specifications.

7_ON:

Duri:_g

I
t

STUDY:

Item

(CEI)

NASA

"Apollo

past

space

suit

specifications

w._ , preFared

Configuration

requirements

for

were

on

the

programs,

Management

format,

the

Contract

in

accordance

Manua].,"

contents

and

NPC

change

En_
with
500--1.

the
All

procedures

imposed

flexibility

I
I

during

and

(,i

was
study

the

Apollo,

reconm_endations
is

suit

contractor

by

this

manual

and

little

permitted.

This

maintenance

programs

the

considered

of
for

Skylab
these

several
and

ASTP

rigidly

improvement

problems
suit

programs

controlled
during

experienced

future

in

the

preparation

specifications,
space

suit

provided

-88.

_ _-_

.......

"I

i
L:
,'

PROBLEM

:
Frc_q_._._:ut
chan_;e_

Interface

:
[.

Control

specification
BACKGROUND

to

Docunien[-o

a-] ,,cl"

spec:_ _'
;.lc,,. -_.....c,n
:weigl,ts

suit

(ICD)

resulted

in

nume2:ous

CEI

changes.
:

Frequent
changes
to the p_-ez_urc
.qa_cellt asseJ_,bly
separablc
comj_onent
specification
_,,_igh_s have occur_-ed

'. "

because

..

_:

:
a.

Changes

in

resulting

mission
in

numerous

:_

Apollo

suit

mission

to

b.

design
an

crew

configuration.

}
{

items

val,_alva

device,

and

others.

weight

the

weight

the
to

should

Apollo,

profit

contractcr

actual

component

specification

of

generally

the

I
|

ILC

by

change

new

NASA

greater
Contract

than

cases

weights

when

and

one

factor

in

in

an

This
maximum

the

agreed
were

system
weight

not

the

upon

add

cases,

during

include

a result,

safety
the

some

As

maximum

factors

suit

actual

system
weight

:,ieJght were

This

appJ:oxim_tely

provided
weight.

was

instituted

reduce

this

initiated

maximum

of

specification

requirement

,r.ade resulting

not

contractor.

control

was

In

weighc_;

establishi_.._

to

in

of
did

pockets

cent:col

maximum

effort

of

t._e addition

progr6uns

basic

coT:]fo_t gloves
.

change.

did

the

optional

re._u_t_d

specification

weight

crew

to

a pound.

suit

EVA

suit

of

a pound.

of

1972

changes

the

lunar

tenth

a result,

the

half

on

method

activity.

specification
:

suit

within

safety

in most

As

from

the

the

added

qua_-tity

.as a

suit

for

weight.

largest

plan

of

the

comfc'i't pads,

weight

that

ASTP

or

requirement

little

noted
and

inceutative

suit

a I%

be

as

hour

the

mission.

reviewed

resul_ing

nece_s':;.tated

included

u_:cd on

wristlets,

design

by

EVA

Examples

specification

Skylab

'

'

CEI
changed

It
the

or

changes

example

items

special

change

item

corr,:spending
'

incl_.dc'd

requirements

f'?om a four

hour

being

many

An

optional

suit

der;ign

design

change

eight

continually

optional

symptom

substantial

were

Each

and

',..'eight
changes.

Numerous

crew

and

by
to

specification
incl-easing

one

half

specification
in

minor

through

weight

the

;_ pound

(1%)

value.
inc._'eases

i
-89-

'"

to

the

system

, ,

file

exceeded.

[.

approved

to

one

pound.

until

the
At

half

change

In

this

shall:

its

the

the

half

were

pound

V_-_.ue an

reduced

NPC

the

February

physical

of

design

";as

altd

additional
of

As

Exhibit
the

or

of

the

procedural

equipment/facilities".

requested

number

19 67,

d_rectly

and

o_:

weight

"ApollolConfiguratior,

P_ragraph.3.2.1

the

kept

significa,_tly.

500-1,

either

and

specification,

specification

dated

on

the

in

w_s

with

imposed

rucorded

authorization

system

. . specify,

functional,

pounds)

specifications

states

".

other

time,

Manual",

requirements

one

This

to

Requzrement3

less

excess

accordance

Management

c.

or

increase

SCN's

"

(0.i

If,

CEI

"Interface

specification

by

reference,

CEI

because

of

relationships

a result

of

this

to

requirement,

all

Interface

item
:.

were

Since

(by

or

were

tabulated

by

the

or

revision

letter)

correspchding

(SCN)
of

of

an

approval

or

during

reduced

the

GUIDELINES
I.

was

was

th(

Skylab

paperwork
FUTURE

Two

percent

were

the

The

above

the

agreed

weight

value

should

the

This

excessive

the

CEI
NASA

formal

changes

individual

to

conform

deleted

it

since

during
is

to

will

the

ICD's

that

approval

in

decrease
change
changes.

Paragraph

Exhibit

maximum

permitted

weight

approval.

and

be

in

reconunended

letter

upon

specification

by

Reguirement"

revision

itemized.

the

eventual

of

increase

contractor

possible,

CEI

the

other

Program.

th_

"Interface

the

the

formal

the

caused

be

since

during

requirement

should

and

the

changed

either

confining

specification.

drastically

2.

to

and

PROGRAMS:

system

activity

end

specification.

date

required

with

the

document

requiring

This

CEI

change

colrd_ined

Program.

specification
.

ICD

t{uthorization

somewhat

FOR

an

Proposal

I Document

changes

each

to

approval

This

Change

Change

a Type

these

time

necessary.

Engineering

a Contract

specification

('.

noting

each

receipt

within

letter,

initiation

"referenced"

pertaining

revision

Specification

'

(ICD's)

ICD

IRN

ECP's

Documents

tabulated

these

l&test

Control

II
are

<

3.2.1
to

NPC

500-1

signed

Zf

this

as

a minimum,

dates

is

by

not

not
:_

be
,'
f

:,

-_0a

I
f

i
_,

..

PROB] oEM :

,i

During

the

specig_-_c'-,_

[_
i

This

"boiler
plate"
BAC]_G;<CUIgD-:

''
[ [
'
,?
i

CEI

resulted

type

"Boi].ec

Skylal._ and

ASTP

suit

end

item

_.'._,_ prc,p._.r_d re)- each

equi_ment).. .

._

Apollo,

the

constant

._ep,'_ating of

information

in

was

accorda**ce

with

contained
the

500-1.
Sections
such
environments)
induced

materials,

processes

parts,

safety

"boiler

provisions

plate"

and

selection,

and

many

in

each

par_:,
.
r.apbs
.

"of NASA Document

NPC
environments
(ground
parts

(prime

information.

plate"

sp e_'''c_t
-tl _. ion

in

programs,

E_._].blt
"'"" "

a_ natural
environments
standard

other

of

_fl_..gnt)
_

and

paragraphs

commercial

cons;:ituted

information,

"Boiler

plate"

information

represents

approximately

60%

of

a typical

ranged

from

figures)

19

CEI
to

depending
Separate

individual
,

NPC

500-1.

water

to

connector

were
for

boiler

in

this

the

was

of

assembly
a

the

tables

end

were

prepared

pl-cpared

in

requirement,

Apollo

numerous

items

total

of

program,

for

each

accordance
as

CEI

seven

with

the

._.separate
12

and

item.

such

r_quire6

specifications

ir_formaticu
some

cases

Specifications

were

and

to

compliance
changes

_.n each,

of
the

MSCM
in

one

8080

all

the

hanges

change

changes

and

LCG

CEI

Specifications

for

the

changes

required

repeatability

required

Skylab

and

to

design

use

effecting
to

two

all

tabulation

standard

specifications

the

same

one

others.

throughout
the

of

An

example

the
of

CEI

applicability

requrements

which

se:,,,_,_:al
times

during

program.
To

to

plate

document

the

each

specifications

(excluding

complexity

a result,

for

length

the

ASTP.
Due

of

and
this

As

p_epared

I
-

the

adapter

specification.

in

where

specifications

item

Due

pages

on
CEI

end

specification

70

compound

contract

end

Proposal

(ECP)

different

item

CEI's.

this

problem

required

even
As

if

Ii

the

further,

a se,._arate

the

individual

En'jineering

saw_e change

a result,

each

MSC:4

effected
8080

Change
several

boiler

plate

-91-

specification
to

NASA

changcs

for

approval

Therefore,
resulted
some
,

:_

'

in

extensive

manpower

to

manpower

was

and

Board

type

the

<

approval,
even

_-

or

can

CEI

so

cal,lcd

"level

of

required

the

ECP

be

transmitted

changed.
"no

st"

changes

effort"

man]_cn_rs

Be_idcs
_

re=_uJt'ing

the
to

chan_e

original,

review

achu_lly

to

complete

addJ_Jonal
_ .

o-- "_ icai.J ons,

._p_:c]._

each

propos_Is

separate

(ECP_s)

Contractor's

in

the

have

diagrams

activities

_ small

for

uhe

of

CEI
in

to

c,_,-,",ge,

NASA,

Configuration

initial

order

duri_g

to

process

Control

that

that

and

were

number

It

of

the

illustrat,

can

in
be

d_iring

maldlo'u_s

of

the

seen

specification

produce_

on

4-2-2

involved

Specifications.
the

that

chanc e.,_
the

program

s_pport

a program,

PkOGP_AMS:

reduce

preparation

reconm_.ended

ILC

effect

I,'OR FUTURE

In

",?igures 4-2-1

specifications

a sioni[icant
required

ia
within

reduction

nuni_er

GUIDELINES

is

flow

route

manpower

. "I

also

s" )arate

(CCB)

various

each

an(_ process

_=upport

The
i"

s.._.plu
__, changes,

engineering

sCN's
'

for

these

extremely

submit

required

r(.qu_zed
"_ ,_ "

_,.... manpower

and

maintenance

one

CEI

of

CEI

specification

to

support

the

specifJ.catio_:s,
be

prepared

it

to

.'"

describe
reduce

all
the

t,,

_
. ',_'

It

should

of

NASA

change

future

f_ture
of
suit

suit

required

the

noted

Document

requirements
on

and
be

on

space

manpower

preparation
!
!.

the

later
that

NPC
space
NASA

end

J.tem ].equiremcnts.

i:o support

maintensnce
this

500-1.
suit
Document

both
o_

the

re:onm_endation
if

the

programs
NPC

the

This
Jnitia]

documentation.
is

in

violation

implementation
J.s desired,

500-1

would

should

of
the
not

be

this
applicab]._
imposed

contractors.

-92-

t_

PROBLEM:
[
L.

Tile confiquration

/ "

_=

specification

approval

incorporating

equipment

_:

BACKGROUND:

"_

During

program,

r{
I

to

Per

an

approval

extended
necessary

"

complexity

of

the

time

of

SCN

the
this

standards
Each

<

SCN

'

on

(ECP)

separate

In
to

NPC

500-1,

As

recommended
a result,

same
SCN

referred

to

the

these

SCN's
Of

ECP's

longer

the

and

the

and

the

item

specs

ECP

SCN's
the

of

state

and

and
would

This

issued

Exhibit

VII

original
from")

("changed

and

to").

against

different

latest

others.

change

the

prepared

approved

one

were

("changed

were
to

list,

(CCA's)

6.1.1.5
to

of
!

table)

changes

CCA's,

the
each

specification
SCN

was

be

occurred

approved

rejected

"changed

control

engineering

paragraph

latest

requirements

Examples

interface

changed

due

specification.

ILC

from'the

optional

SCN's

stated

the

affected

required

and

of

the

each

Paragraph

once

to

authorizations

being

due

NASA

design

same

by

500-1.)

requiring

several

different

paragraph
the

(ECP)

(process

several

remaining
no

to

replacement

Therefore,

NASA_

paragraph

;,

when

specification

paragraph.

new

was

specification.

field

was

(SCN)

when

separate

paragraph

to

occurred

SCN

with

submittal

submittal

resulted

to

same

on

with

each

specification
the

the

change

accordance

accordance

This

and

This

weights,

contract

prepared

system.

submitted

since

Skylab

were

changes

proposal

system.

documented

the

require

months.

also

manufacturing

was

proposal
I

of

six

chancj;:s made

listing,

of

in

many

approval

of

in

SCN's

in

problem

paragraph

in

Pare.
6.1,distribution
Exhibit
VII atof the
NPC
to their

change

NASA

approval

occurred

document

the

SC_;'s were

same

to

a CEI

delays

(SCN)

change

tile preparation

additional

different
{

for

up

part

notices

resulted

of

created

and

all

(Ref.
prior

engineering

An

500-1,

s_stem

time

i:

program

specification

NPC

required

changes.

change

depot.
agency

approval

program

which

design

Apollo

a CEI

contractor's
.the
procuring

i,

system

specification

500-1.

This

the

document

NPC

i_

management

by

since

from"
because

-95-

approval

of

affected

paragraph.

In
revised

the

an

effort

the

plan,

t,

by

to

revised

resolve

Exhibit

contains

upon

SCN

Skylab/Apol]o

881270043D.
,_

first

ILC

and

Engineer,

based

on

"

Technical

Monitor

SCN

Subsequent

in

I'_

by

an

the

V-A

and

approval

problem,

management

ILC

plan,

F of

the

system

agreed

_,
NASA

with

designee),

will

the

to

ECP

which

will

not

reflect

approval

be

made

Resident

NASA/JSC

approve

submittal/approval
officially
released

related

SCN

the

concurrence

(or his

additional

"

paperwork

implementation,

t econ

changes,

of

NASA/JSC:

by signature,
prior
to ECP
instances,
the SCN will
be
f

wording

configuration

following

expediency

this

].202, Paragraph

the

Dover

"For

the

In
and

will

part

the

of

SCN,

these
implemented.

be

implemented

the

original

I,

_.

"SCN's

ti_e
i

of

which

ECP

do

submittal

ECP

is

approved

for

obtaining

release

When

When
NASA

and

will

the

SCN

occurred

one

,
I
'"

approved

SCN

problems

experienced

this

five

the

disapproval

by

a procedure

was

Exhibit

modified,

release,

action

_,

the

this

the
one

approval

time

responsible

prior

to

with

this

received,

to

the

ECP

eliminating

It

should
the

in

ILC

CCBD

be

of

remote

Document

Engineer
will

be

risk

this

same
This

approximately

was

Recognizing

"

was

approval

drawback,

Resident

applicable

be

accordance

past.

incorporated

NASA

the

will

stating
the following:
event
an SCN is subsequently

after

until

SCN."

approval

in

NASA/JSC

CMO

in

submitted

contain

1202F
"In the

normal

then

at

subsequent
SCN's
changing
the
new
"changed
from"
paragraph.

Once

was

did

approved

any
the

days

sytem

since

the

approval

implemented

Engineer
of

was

be

occurs,

implementation

"

this

Resident

system,
it permitted
paragraph
to reflecL

to

not

signatory

the
the

noted

that

ECP
possibility,

881270043D,

disapproved/

approval
revised

to

and

offical

identy

required."
"SCN's

incorporating

will

never

be

modifications

revised.
or

Subsequent

retracting

,-

changes

a previous

SCN

-96-

i
t

f
_-

(in total)

will

retracting,

the

with

the

The

change

and

other
In

customer

_'%

I_

"'
.
: /
!"
f.' '

I F

(SCN)

SCN

added

log

will

nuri_er
be

updated

required

data."

actuality,

less

time

FOR
is

was

of

FUTURE

procedure

should

NASA

procedure

discussed

this

new

for

involved

in

schedule

savings

approval

time

to

,
!

CEI

SCN

new

be

re-activated

datu

changed.

latest

S_

approval

SCN's

due

and
to

ECP.

a specification

that

discussed

be

future
used
in

will
the

the

will

the

that

on

This

manpower

of

total

Release

reflect

prepara

the

to

utilized

procedure

the

of

PROGR;9._S:

similar
be

to

1%

cases
pages

and
to

than

used

recommended

system

881270043D

in

In

latest

disapproval

It

SCN.

superseded

GUIDELINES
C_

a new

previously

preparation
tT

require

space

in

NPC

result

lieu

in

SCN's.

of

notice

Document

programs.

the

>

recommended

Utilization

of

signification

review
In

ILC

suit

500-1.

preparation,

rewriting

in

change

and

addition,

cost

copying

savings

time

a definite

L .

six

a similar
is

suit
IL .

by

since

change

the

submithal

proposals

could

discussed

and

and
extend

CONSIDERATIONS:

implementing
rate

of

that

(i) man
of

function

the

change

specification

a savings
this

result

engineering

COST

estimated

one

also

months.

By

it

for

SPECIFICATION

!:

will

activity

as

manpower

required

maintenance

for

one

the

guidelines

the

man

during

activities

duration

over

the

most

of

in

of
level

the

past

programs,

to
can

Apollo

and

:.

support
be

a program.
required

assuming

performed

This
to

future

represents

perform

Skylab

programs.

-97-

4.3
_

TITLE:

Field
OBJECTIVE:

_
Ii

Contract
["
L_

Operating

_:

To review the systems and philosophy

used during
NAS 9-6100 for preparation
and maintenance
of Field

Operating
Procedures.
be employed
on future
effectively

_._

Procedures

Operating

reduce

To identify
guidelines
that might
space suit programs
that would

costs

for preparing

Procedures.

and

maintaining

Field

'

APPROACH:

l_,

Fiel_

Operating

contract
requirements,
use and effectiveness.

I"

Procedures

were

analyzed

in terms

of

format, methods
of change, ease of
Level of detail of these documents
?

was
_

I_

compared

determine

was
,

Procedures

_
iL

level

study

i:

,.

that

program

could

cou]_

areas

guidelines

are

(TO's)

to

be:implemented.

Emphasis

within

the Operational

to

cost

be modified

of effort

for

future

effect

recommended

savings.

in areas

of

potential

programs

employing

_le recommended

Field operational
documents
as referred
consisted
of the following
documents:
Maintenance

.
i

Illustrated
Parts
At the initiation

Manual

Breakdown
(No. 8819700713)
of this study, the Chamber

Pre-installation

I
[

Pre-installation
Test Procedure
were to be
analysis of field operational
procedures.

Acceptance

preliminary

survey

with

These

them.

Test_rQcedure

identified
documents

incorporate

to in this

(No. 8819700712)

:_

on identifying

of Operations

guidelines.
INTRODUCTION:

I.
i

Table

cost savings.
Potential
savings
are presented
by comparison
of level of effort required on NAS 9-6100 and projected

o
i

depot

if cross-utilization

placed

Future

to the

very
were

related

prior

problems

:_

to the

Skylab

through

several

(
I' _

these documents
expressed
overall
satisfaction
with the
format and adequacy.
On the basis of the results of this

I;

preliminary

these

two

use.

documents

had

I
[

of successful

that

evolved

Personnel

were

"4

in the
a

to

survey,

sequence

included
However,

cost

revised

th_ Fl_,ght

program

years

a test

few

and

_!

using

i _

deleted

-98-

from

the

k
: !
|

The
pages)
space

i I"

study.
Maintenance

technical
suit

Manual

publication

equipment

effectiv_

use

'i

and

inc_'_dJng
I

and

overhaul

The
I

Js a two

containing

systems

(1,0].3

descriptions

with

operational

volume

of

instructions

for

instructions,

maintenance

instructlons,

illustrated

309
illustrations

(_4)

and

_"

_ol_me,

pages,

Maintenance

Manual

assel_ly

Parts

Breakdown

parts
list
mod!:_ication

and

is

parts

lists

(IPB)

with

is

a single

supplements
instructions.

which

used

primarily

supporting

the

for

spare

parts

definition.

iI _

evolved

_!}"I

_
i

The MM and
from
four

included

many. _eviews

the

required

and

understandable

quality
_

CEI

indicated

its
of

I
: I

a);high

in

associated

basis,

I_

throughout
maintenance

is,
the
of

other

and

the

most

required
part
of

time

the
were

an

users
meeting

publications

were

to

prepare

and

operational
average

use

charged

program
to support
any
technical
publications

of

of

in

of

were

of

an

program.

personnel

current

document

suit

and

performance

expensive

space

activity
required

the

were

format

A survey

technical

such

documents

throughout

that

as

to

this

with

the

for

field.

These

and

relation

with

the

NAS 9-6100
activity
which

a complete,

necessary

satisfaction

objective.

to

Having
is

in

a technician

maintain

"

detail.

maintenance

Contract
support

modifications

document

These

engineers,

and

of

standard

documents.

to

level

general

intended

maintain

!
I

IPB resulting
from
years
of continued

illustrator

Labor
on

two

costs

a level-of-effort

maintained

tasks
associated
and their
time

with
was

not
PROBLEM:
charged

!
i

prepare
'

i
_,

to

contract

The Maintenance
and maintain

changes.

The
encompassing

I "'(
i

technical

'_

Manual
and
IPB were
expensive
to
throughout
the space
suit program.
_.

BACKGROUND:

Maintenance
document
detail

The

Manual
was
and contain
text

is

required
to
a very high

concise,

be an
level

comprehensive,

[:

all
of

,!
and

-99a

....

,........

!6..

SO
[

worded

as

to

school

graduate

theory

_nd

be

understandable

with

to

knowledge

technical

terms

of

used

a high

the

in

school

applicable

the

space

with
some practical
experience,
art
work
such
as
graphs,
photographs,

Illustration_
charts,

[.

drawings
used
in

text.
detail

on
["

drawings.

view,

["

At

of

required

are

not
of

current

readily
the

hours

of

use

contract,

time

had

to

be

the

of
a

An
to

full

three

average

and

of

and

front

quarter

from

_M

and

illustrations
normally
found

trans[errable

drawings.

IPB

contained

illustration

:i
->

prepare.

descriptions

all current
maintained.

usu_lly

field

consisting
diagrams,

The
than

required

illu_trations.

Technical
concerning
had to be

are

illustrations

185

30

i_

drawings

the

completion

a total

!
[

of

which

the

the
more

While

many

profile

torequired
support

service

general

suit

i"

used
theare manual

or

and

illustrated

details

Class
I and Class
II
All space
suit models
included.

At

one

configurations
that were
in

time

during

A7LB

Skylab,

the
P

program,
.

Command
(ASTP).
only

this

included

Module

Pilot

space

suits.

technical

the

A7LB

Apollo,

(CMP)

and

the

Since

the

Maintenance

publication

in

use

Apollo-Soyuz

by

Test

Manual

Project

is

field

personnel,

non-testing

technical

the

it

serves

"catch

directions.

I I
I

Notices
and Standard
into the document
as

i i"

for

all

Operations

Bulletins,

Repair
Procedures
part
of routine

System

general

section

complete
both

Cleaning
Although

I.

Class

I'

not permitted.
Notes
and warnings
had to be repeated
References
to other
existing
operational
procedures
throughout
the document
instead
of including
them
in the

showing

.(

incorporated

were

the

Safety

had to b_
maintenance.

and

referring

to

them

when

applicable

If design
and
did notchanges
obsoleteaffected
the current
one section
configuration,
of an

Field

all"

i [e
!

i:
_

as

not

redrawing
approved

instructions
complete
and

I documentation,

of

the

illustration,

configurations

on

same

were
contained
throughout
current
procedures
existed
reference

to

these

illustration
it required
rather

the

;_

than
illustration.

the
in

procedures

manual.
other

were

permitted.

:_

- 00-

1
,..

k
[r

Separate
used by
similar

manufacturing

starts

from

contained

I_
i

all

operating

space

new

zero

flow.

instructions

sequences,

materials

all

Disassembly

associated

TO's

were

tailored

are

normally
with

work

instructions

difficulty

are

are

assembly

operators

assembly.

of an end

that

instructions

and

not

do

not have

working

not prepared

on a

in

Maintenance
Manual
format because the sequence of work
not compatible
with maintenance
activities.
When CEI

was
"

[-_
''

modifications
were performed
at the depot, rework i_structions,
prepared
in the TO format, were used in lieu of the Maintenance

'

Manual

Additionally,

the pressures

specifications,

identifications
The

were

performed
many
step-by-step

fabrication

Production

the

suit

the

a suit.

of all

with

describing

and material

in TO's.

to contend
total

contain

to fabricate
use

!_

instructions

points

to the

k'

inspection

I"

They

required

different

the depot and field even though they

activities.
Depot TO's are detailed

item.

I.

and

of

the manufacturing

_,

schedules

never

permitted

sufficient

time

to insur_

that

.?

!
!

i '
I

TO's were written

field activities.

rework

particular

_
I_i
i

instructions

was

useable

was

never
A.

_
_:

'

i"
t

in a format useable
for both depot
Less time was required
to address

job

in-flow.

at the
considered
Depot

I
t

rework

of

nearly

members
Manual

prevailed

the Maintenance

in some

because

that

instances,
the

i/

a TO

to fit

attempt
.

more

utilization

work

on

and

particular

to update

of the space suit.

The
did not address
itself to the

expeditious
the

reasons:

involved

Since most of the instructions

rework were already contained
it was

the

Manual

complete

following

always

for

rework of structural
seams since it was
authorized
field maintenance
aztivity.
B.

,(

Although

depot

structural
Maintenance

to the conditions

and
the

existing

not

an

needed to perform
in existing TO's w

economical
rework

to change

problem

Maintenance

than

Manual

instructions.
CEI

design

changes

were

excessive

during

certain

periods of the space suit program

This caused a high
turnover
on Maintenace
Manual changes.
During 1971 and

-i01-

:
_,

i_
!.

L_

{
r
}
t,

1972,
Manual

a total
of
and IPB.

80 changes
were
processed
to the Maintenanc(
These
changes
required
modification
of

2,378

text

and

standards,
,

man

Maintenance

change

--

with

on

though

increased.

and
to

i.

maintaining

the

the

regard

for

created

a situation

Maintenance

Manual

associated

maintaining

the

the

experience

This

required

level

The

directed
Customer

established

initially
of

field

long-term

stand3rds,

technicians

extension

FOR

FUTURE

of

had

i
'

required

Future

PROGRAMS:

CEI

should

place

and

..i

appropriate
instructions
in
This guideline
will
probably

preparation
but

field

designs

maintainability.
all

repair

will

costs

to

should

_"

in

a minimum.

I.

2.

! -

to

of

TO's

assembly
I

3.

Use

of

consider

objective.
could

A
be

returning

at

and

(TO's)

the

the

be

overhaul

depot

costs

to

utilized

field

describing
to

CEI's

as

preparation

subsequent

provided

Maintenance

Initial

section

CEI

tooling

should
in

Manual.
initial

program

Major

practical.

use

as

*.

disassembly

supplement

TO

instructions.
references

Maintenance
Manual
which
is developed
perform

of

performed

instructions

should

procedures

be

Incorporate

less

cost

logistics

Operations

whenever

a major
'

to

maintenance

publications,

modification.

keep

assembly

the

should

the Maintenance
increase
the

considerably
to

programs

and

maintenance

compared

continue

Manual
of

in

emphasis

modification,

personnel

of

for

more

Future

of

field

cost

depot

order

Table
the

by

when

the

levels

result

/_
i
L

12,000

whereby

was

costs.

authorize

IPB

of

method

on

: ,

established

over

on

required

personnel.

GUIDELINES

!"

i
_

Bascd

changes

I:

Ha_ual

little

support

these

level-of-effort

direction

insisted

[
l

illustrations.

of

hours.

even

173

processing

The

I.

pages

other

should

be

permitted

when
practical.
and maintained

related

activities

within

the

Documentation
specifically
to
should

be

-i02-

#o

"

k.

referenced

in

the

verbage

actual

Notes,

lieu

of

incorporating

in

the

cautions,

etc.

section

'of the

Maintenance

should

be

Manual.

contained

in

I I

general

_"

repeated

I-"

When
simple
design
differences
assemblies
or sub-assemblies,

i.

one
['"

in

the

body

document,

illustration

when

to

4.

The

!,

working

I'_-"
L_

to

days

complied

the

Delays

of

exist
between
allow
the use

both

perform

of

authorized

a Customer

sh_ _id be

with,

release

necessary.

requirement

20

only

absolutely

depict

configurations.

and

allow

change

change

the

enforced

and

contractor

without
release

review
when

not

to

further
create

in

delay.

a pyramid

effect

r"
i.
_

and causes
maintaining

expensive
a current

Maintenance
handled
on

Manual
change
a CCA instead

basis.

_ ,,

before

['

5.

:
_-

of

changes

techniques
I'
!

will

requesting

necessary.

_
_

This

thing

proper

changes

that

would

caused

by

of

on

forethought
are

eliminate
personal

manner

delays

activity
should
be
of a level-of-effort

insure

This

or

in

b_cklogs
and
_ecument.

not

absolutel_,

a high
desires

percentage

when

presentation

is

the

only

of

Publications

question.

COSTING:
_'_ I_

Preparation

I
I'_

was

performed

NAS

9.6100.

on

I'
" _L

this

part

of

on
As

effort

preparation
information

and

a level-o'f-effort
many

the

initial

limited.

As

developed

in-house

When

the

seven

certain

the

design
ATLB

the

art

work

Company

program

and
model

and

people

were

phases

of

was

during

utilized
the

performed

capabilities

writers

full-time

program.

by
in

additional
bec_ne

associated

manufacturing

space

was

suit

Contract

Initial

very
little
technical
as groundwork.
A large

matured,
the

Technical

basis

costs
were
high since
was available
for use

since

suit

as

during

contracts

the

maintenance

outside

this

area

capability
more

introduced,

familiar

were
was
with

techniques.
the

publications

-103,_ i .__._.__------_
......
v_:'
:_,',':_
_'_---'
,'
.;_-'_,....... ......"_'-_7_:
.......
-_':. :,'
_ '_",,,"--'
........
i '",i ;'

-:_.... _::
_ :_:_i
_::::-:::
;;

,o

[
>

group

[ "_

technical

..

maintained

until

out.

Cost

data

the

contract

had

stabilized

to

writer

one

and
early

a level

of

illustrator.

1972

compiled

when

from

(September

two

the

July

1973)

engineers,

one

T_is

was

level

illustrator

1971

reveals

was

through

that

the

a total

phased
end

of

of

85

man

months

was

expended

on

to

slightly

over

equates
I.

["

" the

ASTP

required

were

preparation

of

hours

the

or

bulk

over

would

in
be

It

is

per

During

month.

required

qualification
savings
phases

an

of

that

of

of

design

ASTP

total

the

to

time

period,

used

in

result

one

full-time

publications

20

man

in

3,400

is

apparent

most

of

of

cost

have
after
would

months

per

illustrations

on

further

the

that
and

is

savings

with

reductions.

part-time
the

resulted
during

cost

guidelines

establishment

year

relatively

support

cost

technical

text

maintained

have

standards,

a program

person

This

and

new

that

would

could

pages

incorporating

changes,

this

spent
it

This

incorperated
change
for

approximately

Incorporation

baseline.
17

established

required
the

ext

Thirty-seven

On

illustrator

technical

of

new

models.

herein

I_

165

new

eliminated.

of

of

was

for

probable

support

basis

the

support

terms

recommended

i.

support.

pages.

change

90%

during
of

other
the

this

illustrations
stable

[ _

323
On

publications

men

approximately

to

required.

man

"

3.1

publication

period,
three
major
changes
were
processed
which
the CMP,
Skylab,
and ASTP
configured
suits.
The

modification

I"

technical

the

of
in

the

operational

program.

I
L_
f

'_ [ ,
/

-104-

I
LL

'

[_

4.4

TITLE:

!"
__

Engineeri_,g

[..
'
L.

["

and

OBJkCT'[VE :
Evaluate

the

engineering

during

and

ASTP

space

result

in

the

changes
still

I-

Orgmization

Summary
,

A7LB

that

Manpower

would

providing

an

org_,nization
suit

programs.

reduced

efficient

and

that

RecoI_end

overall

effective

existed

costs

while

engineering

-i

organization
in effect
programs
is used as a

operation.

APPROACH:

"

The
the

during

ILC functional
A7LB and ASTP

[_

comparative

baseline.

engineering

costs

toidentify
[

are

on

presented

[.

,
:

to

are

of

the

form

problem

proposed

that

contributed

identified.

for

means

in

each

Areas

reasons

made

engineering
space
suit

excessive

reducing
of

area

costs

chart

areas
and

associated

future

Cost

organization

These

excessive

are

reviewed

recon_T,endations

costs.

program

These

g_idelines

savings

are

that

compared

is

to

relative

reflected

in

to

are

a factored

-'

A7LB

,,.

organization

GROUND
i

RULES
i.

chart.

USED
The

FOR

engineering

through

1973

In

cases,

some

were

used

placed
The
-

2.

The

support

section

structure

I_'

of

for

the

the

study

of

level

supporting
was

period

of

periods

Emphasis
required

personnel
assumed

to

program

of

was

proportional

this

organization
schedule

report

(See

was

presented
Figure

manloaded
in

4.4.2).
,'

INTRODUCTION:
In

the

an
and

aerospace

program,

responsibilities

contractor.

concerning

'

engineers.

:'

engineering

3.4

(draftsmen,
be

4.4.1).

the

1970

baseline.

earlier

trade-cffs.
the

etc.)

proposed

to

{_

on

Figure

as

activities

reducing

effects

(See

used

support

technicians,

I.

organization
was

to

on

:,

STUDY:

..

'

'

engineering

Very

are

few
are

engineering
principally

specific

imposed

organizational

on

the

operational
the

Contractor

responsibility
requirements
Exceptions

-I05-

!
[-

are

requi1:e_,ents

ii .

imposed
the

d_rinc].

he

feels

will
is
In

to

be

In

this

an_

to

the

Project

the

costs

de_,ign

requi.-ements

qualification

problezs
been

identified

_:

J n the

Direction
of

of--

has

c:r,janiTe

form

hove

phase:

Manager

to

best.

several

excess
of

in

and

him

done

always

causes

the

allow

job

report,

of

and

cases,

the

nearly

causes

nature

most

get

drawings

devc]opment

flexibility

Customer

provide

the

program.

s_fficient

to

from

manner

the

r c_m,n
ations
e --'De d
_.
chat were
considered

identified.

problems

The

are

varied.
i

" Some

were

dynamics

i"

r"

efficient

a means

_,
;

i,
i

man

once
'

if

report,

based

the

the

on

that

existed

of

1/5

proposed

are

a measure
this

the
ILC

the

report.

BACKGROUND

OF

A7LB

the

be

of

during
1970-1973

be

on

the

of

this

and

the

savings

See

Figure

In

phase

that

will

be

is

organization
to

1973.

was

based

Manloading

differences

the

factored

associated

to

this

organization

1970

1/20th

::_y new

t/_e included

organization

rate.

_,

management

engineering

period

after

On

proposed

most

,_

IIowever,

development

is

solvers

lower.
force

based

department.

problem

required.

of

the

as

higher.

the

or

how

engineering

will

study

level

organization
of

of

will

all

level

production

the

of

of

reduced

a function

engineering

after

most

on

organization

manpower

to
at

loading

a large

In

as

realized

his

engineering

implementation

compared

average

of

of

the

more

give_

costs.

prim_.rJ ly

costs

develop
are

terms

because

savings

costs

performed

level

The

of

organize

trade-off

engineering

then

man

for

complete,

be

these

primarily
to

some

tim:,' to

Jn

amount

and

guidelines

reducing

complete,

need

must

an

case,

engineering

a manpower

guidelines.

use
is

is

determine
r

be

elects

to

feels

the

would

development

objectives

are

However,

elects

he

each

allow

identified

Manager

program,

"

In

didn't

savings

development

program

direction

or

program

he

contr<ct

eliminating

hours.

Project
If

the

oi

systems.

the

future

[
'
[

of

of

cases,

(
!

a result

with

the

The
on

an

between
organization

recon_nendations

4.4.3.

ENGINEERING

ORGANIZATION:

'

u.

_-

The
reported

Apollo,

directly

Skylaband
to

the

ASTP

Program

Engineering

Manager.

The

Organization

'

engineering

-106-

!_

sQ

organization
!.

total

tho

program

and

program.

directly

operated

as

was

"line"

involved

It w_,s managed

to

tl_e Program

for

the

Apollo

for

all

other

_unction

in
by

nearly_

He

total

had

and

personnel

the

aspect

engineer

group

engineering

every

a chief

Manag6r.

engineering

throughout

of

who

reported

responsibility

functional

responsibility

supporting

the

Apollo

group.
The

organization

consisted

of

personnel

assigned

[.

directly

to

.support

"
{?

Project

i
,.

major

Garment,

Each
.-

CEI's

of

thesa

company

by

of

CEI's

were

then

Contract
of

are

End

Item

made

the

project

(CEI)

,z

responsibilities

flight

'"

definition

support,

all

a prime

of

a project

engineers

;"

in

accordance

with

"

these

through

long

from

concept

people

responsibilities

'

development,

that

were

stage
of

a design

production

manufacturin

engineering

drawings,

and

instructions,

in

CEI

which

the

coordination,

requirements

to

project

engineers

expertiso.

were

their

involved

engineer
retrofit
tooling

Historically,

space

knowledge

the

CEI

Typical

were:
problem
design,

change

suit

with

production.

engineering

CEI's

support.

gained

through

every

a group

were:

assigned

and

engineers

responsibility

activity,

respective

experience

its

Sol,_e typical

engineer
change

had

by

on

effecting

contributor

analysis

their

the

gloves.

Since

decisions
or

EV

project

as

was
Meteoroid

emphasis

engineers.

engineer

was

failure

junior

major

associated_in

engineer
Themnal

and

sub-divided

were

through

assigned

engineering

and

Design

lead

was

project

engineer

were

the

engineer,

by

the

to

groupc.

was

that

associated

or

of four engineering
and documentation

Assembly

Additional

assigned

a project

Visor

engineers

non-Apollo

responsibility

_roups

requirements.

or

CEI's

"

other

engineering

Extravehicular

thermal

were

supplemented

some respect.
As an example,
one project
assigned
responsibility
for the Integrated

_'_
1

from

group

The organization
primarily
consisted
disciplines;
design_
project,
systems

into

"_

Apollo

personnel

_.
.

the

CE_

design

and

support,
fitcheck

activity,

support,
and

testing.

-i07-

;
j

for

It included
all manned testing,
final CEI acceptance
testing,
The system enqineering
group was primarily
rez_)nsJ.b!e
fitchecks,
qualification
testing,
interface
coordination
and

!.

system

level

!
_

of all

The documentation
non-system
level

engineering

group.

process

procurement

:_

"
q

all

activities

and

.operational

l.
i
t

Some

materials
!

planner

!
:
i

because

by all

system.
|

and

'

and a test

the

test

and

gzoup

directing

was

generation

of

trouble-shooting

consisted

whose

space

group

included:

testing,

costing

engineer

this

directly

the organization.

production

scheduling,

orders,

field

reported

from

this
and

change

instructions.

within

organizations

performed

coordinating

of

for the majority

in the

drafting,

group

sub-gro_pc

evaluation

remaining

who

spacesuit

engineering

support

responsibilities

was

of an engineering

and

activity

prime

suit

responsibility

test

activities

in

labs.

PROBLEM:

engineer

coordination,

included

engineering

specifications
The

total

and modification

selection,

material

the

specifications,

material

required

typical

with

group was responsible

documentation
generated

This

documents

to the chief

dealt

documentation.

_ small

usually

that

Throughout
I

support

tasks

associated

functions

were

with

i
"

making

ILC

which

assigned

space

were

to the

these

the engineering
BACKGROUND:

the

suit

program,

primarily

several

performing

engineering

production

organization.

non-engineering

tasks

were

Costs

charged

to

department.

The

functions

and

test

The

glove

included

glove

modelmaking,

pattern

technicians.
model

maker's

major

responsibility

relative

.w

to the
I
I

,_

suit

manufacture

!
1

making

program

of custom

a master

it to make the
were developed
(_

consistent
exception

was

mold

development

gloves.
from

of molds

This

the

astronaut

custom manufacturing
early in the program

regardless
of a few

of the

design

task

size

used

for

consisted

of

hand

and

cast

the

using

mold.
Time standards
and were fairly

of the

improvements,

hand.
the

With

techniques

the
used

-lOS-

by

!
!

.
\

'

the

glove

tile program
which

primarily

The
glove

very

relatively

deve]op:_ent

early

in

a manufacturino

assigned

were

Following

occurred

been

modelmakers

making

modclmaking

function

the

molding

program,

tl_is was

supp0_'t

function

and

to

that

function

was

in

terms

department.
very

of

similar

to

enc;.neering

I"
_-

for the intended

design.
From
that point
on, his major
responsibility
is developing
cu._tom and sized
patterns
to
meet

production

this

was

should
|

in

requirements

primarily
been

Test

technicians
of

for

the

assigned

a suit

program.

to

large

An

to

_:

Again

department.

of

make

_'

and

that

variety

attempt

necessary

function

organizationally
a

of

astronauts.

support

perform

phase

patterns

assigned

a manufactt_ring

have

support

develops

<

versus

program,

maker

th,: development

the

pattern

s.ho_nld h_ve

manufactu_-in,
the

During

technJcue:;,

3 support

of

throu_;hout

the

organizationally

pattern

unchange.]

functions

a realistic

eshimate

and

i
.

of

that

associated

since
it
However,

varied
several

readily

These

tasks

included

and

equipment

that

were

t
&
'.

primarily

'

the

of

the

of

be

identified

material

structure

of

and

responsibility

of

the
of

engineering

impractical,

production-associated.

of

adhesive

properties,

standard

a function

with

_.:ould be

as

testing

calibration

as

associated

to the dyna1_ics
of the progrsm.
performed
by the technician

daily

relatively

load

manufacturing

according
functions

could

testing

work

with

group

weekly

technician's

fitcheck

repair.

These

in

of

the

terms

organization,

were

in

routines

and

rate.

the_e
and

support

time

production

engineering

samples,

varied

Because

function-s

many

cases

were
couhs

IJ

associated

I
'

This was especially

true
nature
of the particular
prime

_.

with

example

manufacturing

these

functions

occurred
problem

were

charged

to

engineering.

when
idle time occurred
or when
job was difficult
to identify

during
when

the

detailed

trouble-shooting
direction

of

of

the

the
A
'

a
technician

,o

was

usually

charged
,

'

to
With

and

provided

by

engineering
the

coordination,

possible

an

engineer.

rather

than

exception

reassignment

of

This

time

was

normally

_/
:.,

manufacturing.
of

improved

functions

communication

:
%
:

identified

-109-

'

w ,
|-.

herein

would

However,

from

assignment
program
in

px-obably
the

would
costs,

smaller

costs".

GUIDELINES

not

result

standpoint
result
in

this

share

of

total

FOR

FUTURE

Personnel

of

in

and

in

a new

cost

a more

program

management,

realistic

situation
cost

saving:.
*

distribution

wou]d

being

proper

have

of

resulted

identified

as

"engineer__ng

PROGRam, S:

supporting

the

manufactuxing

process

should

be

assigned

department
{-

responsible
their

or

tile manufacturing

for

the

department

financial

mission

management

requirements

ii

qualificati,_n

activity

'

of

engineering

continuous

BACKGROUND
L

manufacturing

should

of

be

tasks

suppo_:ting

In

a period

Febxuary

1972,

prog_-ess

for

month

! _!

time

which

in

caused

turn

continuous

dictated

a high

level

support.

was

extending

active
29

period

cycle

months

(see

or

Table

utilized

in

from

February

qualification
approximahely

i).

1968

through

testing

was

70%

Approxin_tely

testing

to

meet

of

the

72%

new

or

of

in

49

the

redefined

test
mission

requirements.
The remaining
time was spent
for a combination
of equipment
failures
and

in qualifying
design
changes

such

disconnects.

as

Fifteen
_.

the

PROBLEM:
Changing

to

effort.

oxganizationally

adding

arm

months

were

remaining
noted

time

on

include

spent

4.4.6

_dditonal
and

and

expended

was

Table

procedures

bearings

on

final

wrist

on

the

A7LB

the

A7L

suit.

The

test

time

reflects

time

large

active

spent

in

reports.

suit

preparation
For

all

while

the

elapsed
and

of

times

does

test

practical

not

plans,

purposes,

it

can

be

progress

stated
throughout

that

qualification

the

total

test

activity

was

in

period.
{

Since
organization,
total
:

cost

A7L/A7LB

of

suit

this

task

no

attempt

the

deals

only

will

be

qualification

program.

The

with
made

the
herein

activity

objective

engineering

of

to

performed
this

_
i

develop

during

section

is

the
to

{
-IIO-

identify

engineering

costs

associated

with

quaiif_cation

\.
I

testing

and

recommend

costn.

Through

methods

a review

of

of

red'acing

program

these

engineering'

engineering

charges,

it

'

has

been

support

was

testing
support

regardless
consisted

of what
phase
of a con_ination

pattern

designers

and

does
I

that

required

nc,t include

_xpendc:d

:_

on

include

estimdt_d

to

the

the

CEI

ti'ne spent

four

r: n months

support

systems

in

of

of

the

start

failure

of

in.
This
hardgoods,

This

and

DVT

but

does

a:_d preparation

of qualification
documentation
such as plans,
procedures,
TRR's
and report's.
On this basis,
it is estimated
that

;
D

minimum

in

_
!
t

year period.
requirements

of

direct

196

man

support

months
of

If
had

of

engineering

qualification

time

test

complete
and correct
been
available
prior

support

_
_"

"
/

time

testing,

redesigns

engineer__ng

qualification

engineers.

development

to

qual

month

month

the program
was
of softgoods,

test

design,
prior

each

per

was

activity

expended
in

A7L and A7LB

to the start

a four

mission
of
?

o_

testing,

it

M_ssion

can

test

be

assumed

programs

that

would

only

have

the

been

Mission

necessary.

and

These

:_

two

progran_s

required

seven

and

On

basis

of

nine

months

of

elapsed

time
_

respectively.
engineering
test

expended

I
,_

4 [
(7 + 9) +
The attainable
months

}"

'

preparation,
for

of

reflecting

show
month

these

two

attached

of

period.

flow

months/month

40%

increase

contingencies;

programs

would

have

to

total

of

cover
time

been

:'
man

by

preparation,

final
[7 X

0.4

chart

requirements

allowing
report
(7)

4-4-4),

a future

program

program

takes

in

total

a 40%

increase

in

39.2

man

months

seven

advantage

minimize

contingencies,

program,
a

to

and
] =

(Table
for

a qualification

subassemblies

Again,

loading

Th._s p_e_osed

time.

be

and

man

0.4
(7 + 9) ] = 89.6 man months
of effort.
savings
would
have been
196 - 90 or 106 man

performance

qualification

would

allowing

reports

engineering

and

four

engineering.

The

:
_

support

the

qualification

time
total

of

of

for

test

time

effort.

-iii-

"

It

I
:,

attained

I :
t

to

by

savings

similar
i

is

obvious

that

minimizing
of

savings

qualification

direct

test

qualification

engineering

of personnel
bench
tests.

considerable

savings

needed

to

test

%zill

perform

be

time.

DVT

addition

time,

by

and

be

In

_upport

realized

delta

can

the

reduction

component

GUIDELINES

FOR

i.

Cycle

I
_"
"

"

_
2.

,_t"
i ,','
L " '_

,.r

for

all

CEI
CEI

being
should

If

PROGRAMS:

requirements

must

possible

testing

"
(-'

FUTURE

the item
classified

missions

establish

failures

trade-off

thoroughly
that

occur

its

useful

during

should

be

the

utilize

the

no_ possible,
endurance

the

life.

qual

performed

defined

might

qualified.
_f this is
be subjected
to cycle

to

be

testing,

to

determine

if

/
1
t

that
(

3.

should
be redesigned
as a limited
life

cycle

testing

Subassembly
3.4

had

been

qualification

should

be

and
item

to

"

completed.
as

utilized

retested
or
to the extent

reflected

preclude

in

test

section

delays

?
if

a failure

failure
/

termination

i_.

analyzed

4.

!.

and

of

On

the

testing

past

CEI

until

corrective

programs,

required

the

action

on

the

such

was
CEI

as

complete

failure

defined

expensive
could

the

astronaut

and

have

Rocks"
resulted

been

In

precluded

mobility

A7L/A7LB

were

for

redesign.

allowable

._

made

and

CEI

prevented.

factors

"young's

the

be

during

safety

allowance

1"

should

occurred

initial

on

part

of

Overtesting
that

any

occur.

was

and

_-

implemented.

I
i

to

should

"i

set
g"

programs

were:

high,

versus

caused

i/6g

latter

no
effects

techniques

undue

a test

the

examples

too

mobility

in

Several

stresses

failure
case,

by,definition

and
redesign
of

techniques.

PROBLEM:
I
(

Astronaut
L.'

part

of

the

significant

fitchecks

pre-delivery
amount

of

'
#

were

performed

acceptance
engineering

..

test

at
which

the

depot

as

required

support.

I_

Ii
-112-

i["
i

BACKGROUND:
Because

'

_ _

space

at

the

depot.

_"

it

was

imperative

r
!

addition

could
the

suits,

of

to

cause
cables

(ITMG)

. necessary

_.

it

and

necessary

order

to

that

cable

premature

failures

correct

fitcheck

by

softgoods,

!
_
}

preparation

required

the

CEI,
In

lengths

mobility.

Since

Meteoroid

fittings,

of

Ccver

it was

established

integration

of

an

average

hardgoods,

engineers.

supporting

A7LB

and

the

ITMG

and

maDhours

of

testing.

Each

manufacturing

of

Thermal

be

and

performed

cable

permanent

to

be

restrict

lengths

prior

A7L

correct.

improper
and

with.

the

fit

were

Integrated

cable

installed

! {
f

the

attached

optimum

lengths
fit,

of

fitchecks

obtain

suit

were

design
that

affecting

acceptance

support

of

In

that

_ ;
II

was

integrated

wei:e beneath

permanently
final

the

systems,

This

supporting

support

hardware

personnel

and

of

the

52

project

and

consisted

and

of

facilities,

actual

pre-fitchecks,
coordination

fitcheck.

This

52

:I

hours

fitcheck

discrepancies.

_ _

procured

on

did

of

in

_
[

the

__
J

of

1
%

do

accomplish
'

adjustments

I
I

cables,
should

time

this

required

It

resulted

during

the

in

this

technicians,

training

FOR

not

FUTURE
a design

make

this,
should

which
are
be reduced

is
in

life

estimated

of

report
quality

200

10,400

the

in

correcting

PGA's
manhours
that

elimination

the

elimination

have

inspectors

equipment
with
more

one

of

contract.

would

of

Other

been
and

realized
program

to
support
efficient

utilization

time.
PROGKAMS:
requirement

fitcheck

that

initial

a requirement

a modularized
be

the

roughly

support.
have

required

basis,

cost
of facilities
and
and savings
associated

Impose

areas

GUIDELINES

On

reflected

astronauts'

i.e.,

not

personnel;
fitchecks;
of

would

engineer

savings

engineering

9-6100

fitcheck

fitchecks

full-time

include

NAS

engineering

not

considered.

suit

of

with
Use

of

one of the prime

reasons
or completely
eliminated.

fitchecks

PDA.

To

simplified

sizing

permanent

sizing

for depot
fitchecks,
With modularization,

-113-

slave
I_
L

selection.
be

sub-assemblies

could

Ideally,

preselected

on

the

be

used

only

the basis

for

pre-ma_ufacturing

sub-assemblies

of slave

that

units

size

would

could
be

not

the

[ii

gloves.
The
to the depot

few
times that
suit might
for rework
as a _result
of a require
fitcheck return
problem

[[.

would

less

be

commute

far
to

expensive

than

having

the

astronauts

the depot.

PROBLEM:
]"

.:
Limited

L L

the company
[_

required

In terms
company.

to speciality

[.

than

space

gear.
of

i
i

_J

and

resources

_utside

the

suit

program

was

not

of the

required

such

and

engineers

could

employed

by

products

protective

an average
pool

was

a large

the

and

non-suit

Company

the

need

engineering

quality

for design

hired
_
amount

and

specialists

of

in

areas such as softgoods,

materials,
hardware,
human factor_,
_mnned testing and patterning.
Many of the required
skills

are

not

taught

but

are

learned

In
1
|

-_ requiring
_"

through

large

support.

were
his

no

engineering

curriculum,

experience.'
necessary

longer

companies

required.
he

could

such

"
'_

design

engineering

the company
engineering
department
to the engineering
department
when

expertise,

Small

a classical

companies,

WOU_
be drawn from
needed and returned
services

of

reliability

i.

as part

Therefore,

were

unique

dictate

80%

the

supported.

The high

.i

o_ _ngineering

limited

not be

of

expertise.

otL_r

personnel

expressly
for working
on the space suit program.
A space suit program
requires
an extensive
engineering

limited

inflatable

The

that

been

shields,

program,

NASA.

was

a small

i_
[-

i
5

miscellaneons

line

has

face

with

product

line

helmets,

suit

within

to maintain

is considered

product

was

most

_
_

ILC

or company

space

groups

skills.

business

requirements

__"

the

group

Examples

were

other

engineering

su_t

ILC's

staff

_.

its

items.

During

company
[

of employees,

suits

structures

space

engineering

Historically,

of other

the

" minimum
of critical
BACKGROUND:

resources

In the

event

be recalled

as ILC,

not

talent
when
his

i_

_
:_;

of problems

for

having

short-term
the surplus

resources

available,

'

requirements

of

conditions,

the

must

the

hire

to meet

the

program_.

Under

these

individual

personnel

engineer

must

be

suppo_.ted

for which

they

were

almost

entirely

_'-

by the

program

committments
support

resolution

throuahout
!

[_
l_-.
-

f_
I_

require

the

retain

as many

costly

but

that
of

the

is the

FOR
i.

FUTURE

NASA

should

that

the

company

This

be made

can be

in order

to

leave

no

other

alternahives

supply

services

specialist

associated

skills.

An

with

example

certain
of

testing

probably

i
_

development
and change activity but in a progr_,
with limited change activity,
it could result in

_.,

2.
,6t_,'

I,

.
I.

t._,'

NASA

/_

and

result

could

contractor

by mission

organization
facilities

I
_

Another

responsibility

system

flow

time

failure

primarily

for

qualification

would
for

Excluding

requirement

personnel

option

must

engineering
activity
failure
changes,

be retained

all

resources

avaialable

of product
retrofits

levels

that

would

redesign
and nod

is completed

with

the most expensive

design
that occurs after qualification.

to handle
and

analysis

of

exist

allow this _unction to be performed

considerably
less expense.

(_

all

approval.

Qualified

iil
'

This

in increased

perform

it

specifications.

analysis
is probably
engineering
activity

! [

analysis whereby
NASA could
in the form of analysis,

savings.

caused

_ |

:'

occurring

this would be in stress

supply complete
support

"

must

to

Iii

a net

_.

prepared

as practical.

that

contractural

PROGRAMS:

engineering

problems

"experts"

for schedule delays, usually

for a small contractor.

[!

be

it is imperative

trade-off

When

insure theft the talent is available

when required.
The
dynamics
of a space suit program,
with its cost].y penalities

OPTIONS

_i

contractor

any design

program,
of

the

hired.

kit

and

be

in the
failure.
at NASA

might

by

at

them

for NASA

use

the

fabrication

The

to retain

Contractor
once

|',

L
PROBLEM:
[_'._

Manufacturing

-_-

engineers

responsibility.

This

significant

amount

were

not

in

design

resulted
of

time

given

enough

engineers

supporting

spending

production

floor

problems.

):_;

In
_'_

few

t '

of

"
_

_
_:

the

early

personnei

were

the

[;_

_,

space

suit.

These

were

the

suit

well

as

and

making
This

were

delegated

I-i

they

gained

<

i..

Eventually,

_:

full-time

:,

consisting
_

was

_
_

!.

However,

additional

responsibilities.
design
engineer

_l'

_P

and

_ _ "_
}

I'

during
GUIDELINES
the

expensive

I.
_

t" '
_

I
%,

tl

_"

_,--

_"'l 4.,."
!

_'t

basis.
and

was

experience

reduce

caused

engineers

decisions.
engineer

by

quality

support

engineer

manufacturing
inefficient

matured,

the

manufacturing

were

delegated

required
was

not

only

lengthy,

allowing

training
should

manufacturing

the

committee

was

process

when

effective,

and

techniques
costs

to

transition

development

recommending

manufacturing

a design

and

was, then

detailed

design

until

program,

program

engineers

writing

the

area

Manufacturing
CEI

the

solve

technical

assign

of

PROGRAMS:
phase
for

_he

in

area.

the

This

to

for

supervisors

make
to

as

manufacturing

production

development
FOR
FUTURE

or

the

although

as

acquired

"as-needed"

4,

system,

the

resulted

decisions

to

fabrication

required

manufacturing

engineers

I-

modifications

design

production

and

_i

.i,

the

This

costly.

in

qua_:ter

a design,
to

developed

schedules

production

activities.

The

of

who

documentation

of

very

engineers

necessary

last

program,
and

experience

became

the

because

role

suit
design

technical

occurred

the

assigned

If

key

the

Through

all

program

enough

to

with

design

of

the

it

tile space

engrossed

Tight

problems.

I.

the

preparaLion

engineers

of

familiar

were

production.

I!

days

to

ol

on

an

inefficient

_dequate

time

personnel.

get

involved

the

extent

instructions

that

will

expedite

CEI

goes

into

during
of
and
flow

production.

-i16-

2.

Discrepant
must

be

clearly

caused
_

conditions

by

and

defined

generating

the

level

of criticality

te preclude

unnecessary

lost

time

discrepancy

reports.
3.

Manufacturing

[_

tooling

responsibility

requiremeDt

of manufacturing

Participation

should

be

|
|

the

engineers.

of manufacturing

engineers

_
during
U

I
(.

the development
process will reduce the number
of "one-time
only" tools made for the purpose
of

checking

I_

4.

out

design

phase

has

started.

They

an as-needed-basis

PROBLEM:

i
I

that

responsibility

by

other

Engineering

'

only

in the

engineering

change

orders

title

implies,

group

documentation
periods

Liaison

that

was

originally

CMO

of extensive

be given

on

"

!:
_

increased

of discrepancies.

the engineering
been performed

group

group
as

the

_5

the

program

change

As

their

between

office.

the

engineering

design

for engineering

functions

to process

for

within

responsible

liaison

and

formed

required

problems

specifications.

performed

drafting,

the

when

a small

and operational
they

be used

groups

was

organization

engineering,
was

program

as a support
production

only

disposition

Activities
were performed
by
were redundant
and could have

effectively

i $

and

should

are one of a design nature.

Manufacturing
engineers
should

5.

!
_.

Design engineers
should serve only
function
to manufacturing
once the

I_

concepts.

The

engineering

changes.

activity,

<

During

it was

the

determined

:_
,.

that.project

"

amount

of

The

requirements

and

their

majority

iI

" [""

suit.
as

to processing

of MIL-D-1000

A change

seven

time

engineers

of the workload

of assemblies,
_

design

levels

was
which

sub-assemblies

and

were

devoting

change
created

documentation.
by

necessitated
component

to a simple

piece

part

of drawings

in addition

an extensive

could

the

contractural

total
parts

documentation

of the

affect

to process,

i'

as many
procurement

-I17-

........

....

and

test

specifications.

_:_:

backlogs
occurred
and
were being overlooked.

identif_

all

that

changes

all

As the

workload

became

excessive,

changes
to second level documentation
Liaison
engineers
were tasked to

documents

affected

were

by

completely

a change

and

and

correctly

to insure

The necessity
of this group was justified
under the circumstances
that existed during the Apollo program_
However,
if drawing

F
_I

requirements
are reduced
(see Section 3.1) on future programs,
the need for an engineering
liaison group would be reduced.

" The
resPonsibilities
divided
between
the
Configuration
of

!
A

[;

Management

technical

would
$

performed
engineering

documents

remain

byorganization
this group

Organization
such

could
and thethen

(CMO).

as process

and

be

Preparation

test

specifications

the

responsibility
of engineering
while the
of
documentation
and
processing
coordinating
engineering
change
would be performed
by the CMO group.
This transfer of
responsibility
is considered
feasible
since
check-and-balance
and coordinating
activity

much of the
performed
by

the

to activities

Liaison

Engineering

performed
by
A flow

the CMO
process

of one

Group

was

redundant

group,
chart is presented

of the

savings

by

transferring

[i

liaison group to CMO.

By merely transferring
the functional
responsibility,
the elimination
of coordination
and transportationl

from

could

as

rz

responsibility

that

4.4.5)

example

ECO

cost

(Figure

an

the

be realized

engineering

time amounts to a savings of 52 minutes per ECO.

Although
52 minutes
seems insignificant,
when multiplied
by the

average 700 ECO's that were processed

per year, this amounts
to a savings of over 600 man hours per year.
This same

r_

savings

would

I;.

documentation.
flow chart
to perform
that

be

attainable
Additional

on other
savings

not

result by the use of less

the same function.
Other

occurred

between

control

o_ changes

of specification

.i

review

board,

and

CMO

and

notices,

maintenance

and

on the

il

expensive
personnel
areas of duplication
Liaison

participation

were=
control

instructions,

control

of change

reflected

Engineering

to manufacturing
change

types

ii
_

il

Ill

'

documented.

I_

_.

on the

change

of component

lists.

-I18-

F"

Total

[ -k

transferred
the

responsibility
to

[
)

size

the

people

during

During

these
new

"

on

the

_.

_t

on

existing

[,

_,

_'.

estimated

groups

_!

level

;
!

man

:"

the

with

CMO.

further

of

of

the

one

During
reduced

was

changes

the

contract.

program.

remaining

in

to

40%

one

is

other

of

the

is,

could

in

of

CMO

the

CMO

manpower

the

be

phase,

person

to

to

five

reduced

engineering

operational

occurring

reduced
It

That

Program

five

generated
were

was

of

of

phases.

being

group

Apollo

the

varied

a level

The

reduction

A7LB

the

group

responsibilities

a net

during

people,

be

in

during

required

to

part

be

affecting

development

concurrent

models.

later

result

Skylab

while

or

reached

aocum_--ntatlon

a transfer

required

could

suits

liaison

group

and

new

operational

would

reporting

"r

model

that

three

Apollo

periods,

easily

group.

engineering
The

can

hindering

the.cnginc.cring

the

the

functions

without

program.

during

people
to

of

A7LB

these

group

of

during

" one

o CMO

effectiveness
The

;:

for

and
the

two

level

group.

[,

GUIDELINES

.,_

Expand
change
the

.,

FOR

the

activity

engineering

FUTURE

PROGRTW._S:

responsibility
functions

which

are

the

normally

group

to

performed

perform
by

group.

[
t.

//

_.

: _

-I19-

'

I'

:i

|1

-120-

...................
.

ill

nil

Ini

- ........

- i

i
',.

.,-I @

__

f,) _

4J-,-4

_.

0-,-t

t'-

g
_

..

f
;
i

f"

"

_"

- _

._

_-'_
l

I_
_

,.41J
_

14 1,4
_ _

-r"_,,-I
O_

_ _

-,-I _
I:_ _-I

..I.I _
_

-r-_-.-I
O_

_,_"

" -

__

._
_ _
._.a

__.,,_

_ -a
-H
4-)

_'_
_

!
_-

._ _
1o-,O
_r_
1.1o

:
(

- "

f .

m 14

0
U .a

k_

0
,a
__...

;
c_

'I-I
"'_%

un

I II

--

,
I

II
_
-121-

'
f

I -,2 I

; "_?_,

:"

_"

--_ r_
I -

'

_S

--

I-----

-c-

'

I._.
.

t -_

I*-'
_

--

-"

,_ _ _-'_

_'_

o .a',

"

"--_

_ , .:

......

>_

"_.

. ".-"_._'_"- ""

f_

el

"-, ,_ _'_._

+............

:.?.

"__

i. t`'-

i
:...............

(_

,_

-.

P_
(_

":_._--'-:._L_

:" ............
e _.....e
-4,

--- _"_ -.

L_
,1_.

--".......

.--

('
('J

_'_!
_'_

_'_f
_

---:- ....

_'_'
cJ_j

;___

.................

'

_ : ......

;_._,

"_

_'_-I-,

",.

_._L___ _ _'_ _ +

':_]

_"

;_,._;

"*i'

--. cq k_ "-. N

.I

_I--

J,

. _

.,j

'

--"-'

"... ..

{:,6.

'

.....

_ . -+'_'-

r_ I',. ,,. _

..

o 1,1 .I _.

__
...........

.....................

_I

".

'

"
'

'

'%---|

"

; "_I

"

-a ....

_:R,

"',"

_: -.. N'

_'
?

_..

_"

_,-

'
.

I .f "I

_v,,

;el.

"_

:,

I
I

.._=:.... _,-.._..,...:
-.t

r ..................

-4-- .............................

,J ,,|

, '

_ , _._.

I. ''/--

1"" t ............

.... _

.e,"....
_" _
i lJ"

_..-_,

,_:
"_"_,_"

_. -- | .....

.............

...... .............
.....
,_,._,
..........
I!
lllJa
;

,_

_- _P_ N' N

_ ** *, --A---,--

,_;-............................
_ ..............................
',

_I N

"i ......

" ,,.
,o

:,.q

.,..

--_--.*

,,_.--_--4,_._

..............................
I..' '.q
J

........

"_'--'---.....................................

,_.m

".

'

-.

_- "- _'_ "_ _

G ......................

"J_

_'

_.

! :" ,<:>"J

....

; ..............

" ...._

.......................

_ "J'- -,,.

"6 .

t..._

".'------1--'-I
..,J

_.|

,'-

....

.t

_L_
_':_"
.

_:

.....
_-" "-

"'--N

--t
I

_.

--_

"

"

a:

"_;" ---7-t, _ ' B'I X_" _

:.

_=1

"%:

I_ _

t----T-H--. _...............
i"-;_
i" ''e_........
_ _
, -

Z_
...,

,_,

..............
..........
............

':..,..

.....

_ <>

'..--a

'. VI

"- .........................

o
o

t "-" _"'lt_ fa,l"_"_ _'-_

;
,

_"

t lq , _' m

- _ o ,
;

"

--,-A....J
- - -

_,_

..............
........................

_.

Il

! "-

."'

-"

1" , i,_i..................................._"...._, "

,,-_

..

T_,
_

<'>3

I:

li

.._,
:

; ............

'

uf

c_ ,: _

II

"

_ _I _I

,..,L.m;_.,.L...L..1 ,, .,--.J... J,...*...,! .... I.... t..,/,..L-

-4

Iiiii
;

I ..I...L...J.

,..J.,..J

.. :

r"

FIGURE

4.4.6

.
%

J
"

QUALIFICATION

["

A7L

ITEM

PGA

REASON
FOR
QUALIFICATION

DATES

Mission

1/25/68

ELA2SED
TIN_
(_._O_T.IS)"'_
7.0

8/29/G8
|'"

Fluorel

Boot

Soles

Qual

new

material

8/1/68

1,5

9/19/68

) ..

,-

A7L'PGA

Mission

C Prime

10/15/68

0.25

10/22/68.
A7L

F
L_

A7L

PGA

Lunar

Surface

Mission

11/12/68

1.0

Mission

2/4/69
6/12/69

4.5

Requirements

3/13/69
3/17/69

0.25

Requirement

4/24/69

12/12/68

,'-"

L_rge
Wrist
(Apollo
ll)

r"

Disconnect
-

New

".

Arm
[

Bearing

(Apollo
Boot

I
|-

.New

i!)

0.24

4/29/69

Bladder

Flight

(Apollo
13)
Arm Assembly
and
EV Glove
(Apollo

14)

failur_

Redefinition
of
Cycle
requirements

1/9/70

0.25

1/14/70
9/22/70
10/14/70

0.75

I
I

Redesigned
Convolute

i"

Thigh
(Apollo

Qual

ATLB
PGA
(Apollo
15)

i
.

'

A7LB
PGA
(Apollo
16

Mission

& Skylab)

Total

Period-

Total

Time

Calendar
I

in

Time

Boots

1.5

9/21/70
6/25/71

9.0

9/3/71
2/21/72

5.75

SEVA

months

Qualification
in

and

12/3/70
1/14/71

Testing

Qualification

Testing

32
-

months
29 months

""

i
"

49

New Requirements
(Young's
Rocks)
SL

Failure

14)

--

.
'

-127-

',

-128-

B,

5 1

TITLE

Traceability
_
In

To

determine

i,

manpower

,.

Apollo/Skylab"

: I-

An

realized

in

through

traceability

evaluation

performed
can

be

by

an

Quality

and

evaluation

Reliability

of

the_

system.

flow

charts

reduce

described

It was

the

of

field

all

same

as

and

in

in-house
data,

Flow

was

also

determine
and

been

if

modifications

manpower

without

sites

discrepancy

in

center,
as

and

that

which

central

<

DR's,

and

contained
CEI

file.

maintaining

delivered

rework

reporting

the

center,

TPS's

for

a manual
Identification
requirements
of NPC-200-2

QI"

used

filing

generated

in-house

Chart

documentation

historical

field

to

has

capabilities.

is

trace

system

pape_ork

and

processed
I

traceability

The traceability
syste_
was
Data Retrieval
System
meeting

the

of

to

systcra

The

use

the

and

L
_

the

of

implemented

affecting
BACKGROUND:
[i

be

a reduction

[
J

can

if

APPROACH:

OBJECTIVE:

'

System

and
end

This

functioned
items

retrofit

systems.

copies

could

through
system

F
the

be

TPS

also

provided

L-.

trackin

9 of

Class

II

as

I
(
_

Documentation
documentation

Center
clerks,

I
["

documentation
technicians

engineer
and several

amount
10%

of

for

time

a CEI

well

as

Class

I changes.

The

utilized
full-time
traceability/
documentation
group
leader,
and

related
delivery

In addition,
23
quality
engineers
to

the

rate

of

every

,_

inspectors,
5
spent
a significant

traceability
one

system
three

(approximately

days).

PROBLEM_
i
3'

A
,

maintain

$1gnificant
the

amount

traceability

of

manpower

system.

was

required

to

--

,J,

'

129

I
?

BACKGROUND:
.-

i.

Tile system

developed

trace

system

and

r-_
L

(Ref.

NPC-250-i)

from

reliability
to

one

"

received
CEI
.

and

all

:
_

a total

capability.

field

data

historical

update

and

files.

and

provided

this

could

reduced

and

2.

>

be

store

data.

manpower

retrieving

if
data

task

could

be

requiredthe

many

& R department

manpower
of

of

treated

assigned

parts

and

equally

materials

with
An

Identification
of
must be completed

evaluation

critical
as early

to effectively
all
data
during
the reduce
production

"

However,

with

criticality

flow

(Ref.

evaluation

still
be
received

loop

A
_

This

non-critical

25%

system

Flow

in

has

Chart

such

decrease

significant

/_

parts

on

CEI's

to

material

of

past

trace

d_ta

has

also

revealed
the

described

respect

items
order

that

i
_

even

traceability

in

under

Flow

requirements
to

non-critical
phase
of the trace
contract.

Q1 ) structure

trace

.!

items
need
inspection.

a manual

improved.
The remaining
trace
would
still
require
a closed
as

in

were

and non-critical
as possible
in

definition,

.system
can not be
of parts/materials

categorized.

used

regards

i. "

[_ i

storing
to

shown
that approximately
25% of the
not have been
traced
past receiving

'
[

requirements

filing,

"_

requirements.

'_ I"
i _'-

j_

materials.
All

i_

several

receive,

Q & R would
data being

not

tracking

to

The

These

the

central

required

clerks

by the centr_l
department.
Parts
and materials
were

or

maintained
This

Central
Data Department.
responsible
for verifying

center

providing

traceability/documentation
file,

quality

Ref. Flow Chart

VI - As the flow chart
indicates,
the contractor
quality
documentation
center

data

of

historical/verification

a standard

time

Chart
will

required

QI"
be

to

-130-

w_

L_
"
|
L "

transfer,

log,

accumulate,

cross-post

and

file

data.

An

List
in

f_
'

early

would

establishment

also

performing

items

that

assure

be

invaluable
surveys,

long

lead-times

are

fully

a Critical
to

vendor
are

they

of

_)arts

quality

engineering

especially
or

dcceptable

for

sole
to

those

source

meet

to

long

|-.

I_

term requirements
of the contract.
greatly
reduce
the probability
of

["

downtime
failure

and schedule
impact
due to vendors'
to meet
full-term
contract
commitments.

Several

different

4"

3.

I:

data

were

methods

used.

proprietary

This

route

f _

used

by

record

model

cor_trol

by

i.-':

trace,

all

and
_

and

_ac_

for

Tables

of

and

accept

method

possible

for

reduction

three

required.

.
I
::_

_
!

meet

would

would

eliminate
of

changing

the

be

the

one
the

forms

for

the

were

means

:_
used

acceptance

and
_:

fabrication
with

method

the

as

drawing

used

to

subassemblies
be

established

Proprietary

in

would

would
system

or

CEI's,

as

early

be

filing
no

index.

a result
not

of
the

a
as

be

because

This
of

'

because

longer

easier

overlooking

and

fabricate

requirements.

realized

formats

be

_i

acceptance_

where

all. trace

Retrieval

there

any

the

should

different

was

sheets

room,

to

(T/O)

of

would

and

azeas

components,

uniform

personnel

accomplished

Operation

Regardless

{o

fabrication

manufachuring,

drawing

route

dip

_as

by

shop

fabrication

the

acceptance

and

tracing
data
to meet
Shop orders
were

the

production

except

orders,

sheets

of

where

inspection

other

shop

utilized

machine

data

Fabrication

forms,

required
various
methods
traceability
requirements.

of

route

traceability

sheets.

Different
i

tracking

included

inspection

inspection

of

This would
production

system

a revision

a CCA;
shop

to

i.e.,
order.

(
I

-131-

+
+

.....

,+

,+

, +...........

*4

l
4.

F"
,

Retrieval
the

of

vast

amount

Development

[+

data

of

the

,--

beyond

_.

number

of

It

i_

of

critical

versus

++

5.
i--!
t

items

alleviated

requiring

by

reducing

traceability

inspection

and

a single

format.
that

will

sufficient

still

quantities

have

to

be

traced.

computerized

system

should

be

undertaken.

to

identify

was

over
to

the

a ccnsiderable

years

in

as
Some

daily

often

duties

that

of

requests

who

data

previously

for

z2quire0

by

of

data

could

not

for

trace

be

or

and

of

a
(

[.+

non-critical
nature.
Quality
personnel
were
handicapped
in

data
by

center

NASA

work

as

personnel

priority.

While

contractor

provide

costly

to

NASA

should

be

generated

access

in

order

i [

or

I-

'
i

data
but

,_

redundant
are

various

information.

_hrough

could

one
be

and reliability
scheduling
quality

request

this

under

the

sourcc,

retrieved

control

The
a

:+

is

also

!i

++

procedure

non-critical

requests

specific

requests

data
top

possible

require

the

it

;
+_

traceability

the

to

departments

have

system.

requests.

related

If

to

service,

reduce

trace

afforded

a manual
to

to

for

normally

advantageous

data

often

any

was

_ ,

for

problem

different
were

necessary

funneled
information

efficiently.

--132-i

_
+

contractor

requested

;_

to

retrieve

charts

requests

for

amount

to

and

_as

a result

either

order

matrices

Overtime

normal

was

in

prepare

comparisons.

performed

established
,

resulted

and

perform

never

data.

data

NASA

be

a manual

request

data.

update

of

overtime

[.

a continuing

traced.

study

[+i

being

trade-off

materials

of

a cost

This

L+

could

items

procedure

_ould

because

al]_ parts/materials
combinations
proved
to be impractical.

anticipated

Therefore,
I+'

for

acceptance

is

consuming

and

a matrix

receiving

fabrication

time

parts

%'he situation

[:

of

capability
for
and permutations

[_

was

'

_!

>'

C_.

i"

P,1

RECO;,DIEh]D:I.:D I:UTE;R]'_ _,U] z

PROGRAI ._, ;',IgTItOD :

GU IDEL INi':S:
,: -

Method

i!|-

I - manual

traceability
some

_i.[_'

syctc:m

tasks

to

The

requirements,

:i:["
I_

capability.
Using

::-V;
_[;

trace
trace

_I"

centralized

would

quality
incoming
QC

having

Class

This
sheet

}[

verification

II

in

this

ECO

time

storing,

duty

procedure

in

for

o_'der

to

how

and

may

manpower

faster

retriew._l

and

not

_i
!

sto_-Jn 3

or

be

seve]:&l

;_

overall

traced.
:

inspection
route
representa%ive_._

work

requiring

have

request

system

of their

will

fabrication
the
quality

as paper

reduce

data

as part

prograw, s should
who

fo_: filing

central

as well

Future

and

only
mon_.tor
and verify
This will require a

info_.-mation

will resu].t in a smaller

system
which
will
reduce

and

center

will
een_er.

representative

representatives

_':I'_::

assurance
to the

transferring

in manpower

paperwork

data

and

center.

be reduction

of

pro._;ent

requirements

data

a centralized

data,
data

Str_oamline

reduc:i:_.
9

a reduction

function.

filing

'_

a specific

traceability

requirements

for

data

attaining
%

non-essential

The
This

I
i

or

redundant

traceability

baseline

_ould

as

support

requests

for

requirements

include

traceability

should

information

be

data.

:,

established.

required

for

such

i '

events

material

to

review

reports

"

developed

which

_.

minimum

amount

Ii

RECO_IENDED

.I

i! i
[

2.
I.

design

board

corrective

could

3.

"
_.

be

-_;

!I

malfunction

defect

A system

satisfactorily

investigations,

analysis
could

and

then

unsatisfactory

be

operational

with

of changes.

GROUND

RULES

FOR

_NUAL

SYSTEM:

Non-critical
to bedocument.
traced past
Mus_ function parts
under are
NPB not
5300.4
inspection.

Central

data

center

storing

and

retrieval

will

studies,

activity,

actions.

receiving

':.

All

verify
trace

will
of

handle

all

traceablity

filing,
data

and
,.

data.

data

_._ to be

recorded

by

._

a single

system.

i!
_le

by

advantages

"

full-time

system,

'

.......

'

-133-

|
?

1
m

_"

Method

_ f
.....

- Computerized

contractor

has

reduce

traceability

the
The

_.

II

computer

identified
The

access

by

to

manpower
be

other

the

system,

to

future
this

requirements

proguammed

flol cbart

advantages,

- if

computerized

cou]_

trace

system

"

could

sub._:tantially.

follow

guidelines

QI"

than

a reduction

in

manpower

f-

requirements,
requests

would

for

data

be
and

faster
less

retrieval

control

on

in
who

response
may

use

to

any

this

T'

service.

Class

additional
f-:

can

i.

in

r"

GROUND

be
the

changes

.anpe_:er

compared

production
RULES

FOR

may

requirement&.

be

tracked

As-built

as-authorized

without

configvratJons

configurations

anywhere

process.
COMPUTERIZED

i.

Compliance

2.

Quality

3.

to verify
all
The contractor

4.

handle
all filing
All trace
data
is

_i:
I ["

still

with

SYSTEM:

NHB

assurance

5200.4.

must

have

effective

cont_'ols

data necessary
to rneet requirements.
must have
central
data center
to

f
i.
f

system

of

and storing
of
to be recorded

data.
by a sir : e

reporting.

i
t

tm

!
h

1
t

;1
1J
'
"L'

___,..:.,i ..

2 _--:---_-:, ,% .

-134,_ .... , .....

........................

{
-'I, ........

,_

5.2

TASK TITLE:
Inspection

OBJECT__VE
[
{

manpower

,-

APPROACH

of

Verification

d'.._;cre]_an'cypa_er,

p__'oduction

inspection

de::n-timu.

:
Evaluate

present

discrepancy

re'pol-ting

in

production

defects,

and
i

amount

and

[.
:

In-Process

Reduce

IL
and

overtime.

in-process

This

system
to

of

production,

identify

major

down-time,
evaluation

fabrication

and

inspection

problems

excessive
will

that

resulte6

inspectJ.on

concentrate

testing

and

on

time

the

acceptance.

BACKGROU_D:
::

',

Apollo/Skylab

of

cunsistent

NPC-?00-2.

suit

It was
with

the

inspection

implemented

level

of

to

system

met

assure

a product

confidence

requirements

necessary

for

!.

qua].ity

ii

I"
L
I

to
criteria,

[
i_

<

man/space

[
i

rated

Quality
'

system.

The inspection
that end items

assure

established

and
met

testing
system
a]l ore-delivery

a very

detailed

Components
and sub-assemblies
whe,-e characteristics
could

were
not be

operation.

and

Some

components

was designed
acceptance

inspection
inspected
verified

most

system
at every
point
at a later

sub-assemblies

were

!.

not

i
:_

teste_]

until

'

'

sub-assemblies

test

after
had

failures

asse-_blies,

overtime

production

flow

at

difficult,
on
.
J,

:_

was

mnd

may

was

the
or

of

of

CEI

manufacturing
The normal
approximately

and

scheduling,
ratio
of
one

to

to
100%

to

maintain

of

new

level

for

not be

have

"
,%

inspection
reduced

manufacturing,
until

cause

level

would

the

quality

detected

component/sub-assembly
impossible

fabrication

could

inspection

the

since

reports.

required

been

component/
standards

schedules,

system

have

These

inspection

manpower

not
at

C,_.I.

malfunction

this

portions

investigation

action

shipping

under

defects

of

strict

Inspection

delegating

Then

meet

inspection

verification.

because

to

affected

Quality

by

integration

CEI

and

would

had

testing.

corrective
have

greater

'

been

'

impact

!
i

i
inspectors

eight.

This

to

production

caused

an

operators

inspector

-135-

to

I
|
i

have

a:_ malzy as

at

one

given

"

time

awaiting

'

Even

tLot,sn

sequence,
article

90%

of

This

: _ :
I t

"

the

Articles

and

It
accept

article
_n

the

one

[
_

the

of

hour

_"

average

years

which

required

an

cause

of

problem

material

line

unt_ 1
,

n_-ure.

of

the

inspection

a considerable

a complete

the

to

the

amount
and

review

of

tags

board

befol-e

an
step.

averaged

per

in

the

hours

to

action
time

government

process

approxim;_tely

This

the

a reject

fabrication

program,

corrective

of

of

write,
tag

next

four

were

initiation

actions
of

which

day.

out
There

last

engineers

years
the

preclude

involved

were

four

evaluate
to

to

the

/
t

quality,
to

satisfactorily

to

the

actions

:
Lost

in-line

Due

components

criteria

to

and

an
the

and

program

of

capability

time

due

amount

A.

became

production

inspection.

BACKGROUNE

of

_e

in-line

added

reject

reject

board

large

process

that

assen_;ly

fab._'icate

generated.
two

and

manufacturing

each

the

average

design,

one

to

of

were

review

of

an

10%

inspection

for

processed

material

I.
:

to

req_ired

tags

of

This

time

an

Approxj_,ately

only

nature

1,600

PROBLEM

flow

writing

recurrence.

and

9 down-

acc_;mi,lis:hed while

to

four

inspector

wos

presented

be

reject

in

inspezt

inspection.

not_,.i_:g to

was

completion.

disposil-ion,

last

manufocturin

inspectien.

fabricated

an

could

30,000
"

took

by

to

component.

non-conformance
tag.

opereto_ _ had

inspection

(additional)
or

in

tb.e artJ.cl,_ from

inspection

article's

sub-assen_b!y

o_

an

the

being

at

of

times

that

resulLcd

articles

flo,.: _'as set--up

in-pxocess

was

amount

return

_._as returned

meant

occurr<:d

e'J.ght d[f_-erent

This

production

all

article

or

period.

many

the

seven

components

completed

lack

sub-assemblies

absolute

for

the

end

separately,

essential.
or
item

No

other

sub-assemblies
use

to

until

final

adequately
in-line

method
met

all

testing

test

inspection

would

assure

acceptance
and

acceptance

CEI.

-136w'

_.

This
of
{

even

was

a costly

a ._:mall percentage

manufacturing

was

assurance

charged

item

was

acceptance
One

to

to

sacrifice

acceptance

at

_"

will

a reduction

{'

the

various

in-process

,;

be

to

inspection

allow
amount

made

that

must

a person

of

to

must
be

insure

available

to

management.

for

In

be

good

quality

insure

that

end

by

decreasing

the

any

poor

detailed

then
,'L

practice

All

operator

tools
must

be

quality

is

not

the

manufacturJ

ng

specs,

fault
'

' :

discrepancy

feed

incentive

and

Only

also

for

performed

by

inspection
as

an

provide

level,"

proper

equirment,

inspection

be

basis

will

will

audit

component/sub-assembly

quality

personnel.

have

to

be

of

Quality

function

a check

of

operator's

monitored

on

engineering.

certification

status.

"

should

scheduled

operator

motivation.

manufacturing

This

to

critical

acceptance
All

back

m_,_-;tbe

hiring

certifiable.
the

of

delegate

cert_ficatS.on

from

This

could
to

_,

and

Delegation

order

of

item,

testing

level.

required.

a part

to

(Example-

the

down-time

operator

able

future

responsibilities

made

fin,
_

sub-asser._J!y

C _ersonnel.

be

of

in

sub-_ssemblies

inspection

qual__t-y

on

confidence

production

responsibility,

i ity

inspection

inspection

manufacturin

since

to

reliability.

and

of

in-line

It

made

and

De)egakion

characteristics

respon_;ibi

of

component

implemented.

required
i

the

of

the

in-line

components

assurance.

acceptance

design

reduce

'

of

unacceptable

with

assure

without

design

of

considered

to

way

contracts,
is

method

Any

test

failures,

an

operator's

part,

of

operator's

certification

It must
certification
component
affected

be

CEI

would

component

failures,
on

require

testing,
testing
be
but

completed

an

understood

defects

still

from

poor

quality

immediate

on

re-evaluation

classification.

clearly

acceptance

Schedules

encountered

would

program,

final

resulting

may
the

with

to

that
occur
same

100%

impacted
not

the

by

under
which

way

as

quality

of

operator

will

affect

defects
inspeciton.

sub-assembly

degree

an

or

::

a failure

CEI' s.

-137-

The

system

confidence

,re,
st

level,

be

under

established
delegated

to

produce

inspection

on

th<

sac,r:

the

sub--

[
asse:1_uly

level,

complel-c,]
,

that

CEI

level.

mal,uf,_ctu_ii,%'s
in

Once

of

an
this

will

remove

malfunctions.

very

at

actually

in

order

an

analysis

a possible

cycle

time

to

during

of

an

opurators

to

free

time

Coupled

with

down-time

production
and

failures,

explanation
or

100%

would

occur

costs.
12%

of

This

This

present

total

figure

system
items

a!Io_.s
to

several

items

to

before

their

it_m

for

qu(n;tioned

defect

allowed

35%.

some

Quantity

in

or

se_;iously

fabrication.

create

the

of

level

approximately

the

point

implement

standards

has

in

cause
to

be

a_o:u_.t of

reduction

inspector

to

no

action

any

inspection

when

increase
II.

defect)

as

corrective

will

single

this

percentage

returned.

or

on

neces._;ity,

reports,

insp_,?tion,

amounted

inspection

absolute

creditabi!iLy

ma!f1_nctJon

eliminating

for

a certain

inspection

a componcnt/sub-assem_!y

quickly,

time

an

of

ProJuction
flow

fs

metho0,

inspection

This

(malfunction

questions
ever

_.;ith 100%

c_Ltiflcation

evaluatior:s

etc.

existed

inspect
is

rejections

this

created

to

discrepancy

cycle.

time

required

process

paper_ork.
A.

Sampling

of

over

length

the

discrepancy
of

several

significant

i.

to

"
2.
.

25%

30%

action
40%

scrap,

or

of

obvious

rework

required

design

board
not

cosmetic

non-conformance

30%

to

or

repair.

to

40%

revealed

written

were

requiring

no

written

were

rework

action

for
by

nature

were

engineering

scrap,

covered

has

discrepancies

Remaining

as

contract

discrepancies

further

an

3.

of

nature

to

the

paperwork

facts.

a minor

35%

reporting

or

of

requiring

a nature

that

interpretation

material

"use-as-is"

authorized

of

of

or
repair

review
repair
procedures.

-z38-

i
J

As

stated

' _

were

' '

It is very

generated

before,

eve_

approximately

the last

significant

four

30,000

years

to mention

that

tags

of the program.
the four

previous

reject

tags

in the

total

of the "state of-the-art"

and accumulation
of past history
to evaluate
reject tags without
as much design interpretation.

(approximately

evolutionary

cost

reduction

Evaluatlon

60,000).

alaount of rejects

This
. if any

nearly

efforts

the

amount

A significant

can be

process

_lice

years

i
U

to A7I,B/fikyl_b produced

reject

attributed

must

are

of

reduction
to advancement

be considerably

shortened

to be realized.

of effectiveness

of reducing

non-conforming

paperwork,
_ !"

that

quality

after
':

i
and
_

defects

and

could

fabrication

positive

disposition

not be built
of first

into

article

ability

the product

has

shown

especially

qualification

unit.

Dispositioning
of non-conformance
by manufacturing
quality engineering,
was very difficult
without
continuous

aide

from

design

engineering.

All

were

of

'
i

guidelines
on what was rejectable
nature, not requiring
generation

manufacturing

specifications

a general

Specifications
!
J

engineers

nature

lacked

to make

conforming

which

Inspectors

had

a questionable

nature,

because

guidelines

them

accept

in a production

i.

Design
criteria

6t

_L

changes
!

for

engineering
acceptance

delay

while

engineering

after

conformances

to

the

were
future

suit

criteria

of the previously

was

articles

minor

were

qualified.

rarely
in that

would

effect

the

of

This

being

resulted

made.

to change

acceptance

Recurring

sou-

"use-as-is"

valid,

suit

everything

insufficient

was

was

qualified

of non-

conditions.

reluctant

were

few

manufacturing

to reject

evaluation

was

very

disposition

there

dispositioned

rationale

to allow

effecting

for

inspection

and what was of a minor

of non-conforming
paperwork.

definitions

decisions

items.

gave

but

changed.
multiple

design

and

specification
Design
changes

of

reliability

configuration.

-139-

Obviously
:

reporting

. ..

have

applied

problems,

the

cannot

adequately

[
]
:

defects

....

in

be

(i)

accurate

' ""

t that

exceed

_ allow

design

utilized.

safety

effort

(2)

to

is

tool

_Cost

Ruduction"

for

of

that

these

this

evaluatic_n

realistic

creating

establish

engineering

defects,

evaluate

to- o set

instead

of

to

Areas

margins,

manufacturing

Unless

study

amount

non-conformance

Quality

tolerance

the

stages

effective

tolerances,

is

of

imps.eL
" ", _.

earliest
most

It

disposition

program

the

manufacturing
:

and

significant

are

methods

occur.

make

tolerances

specifications
positive

that

dispositions

"i

,o

/of

'

I minor

non-conformances,
defects

.generation

,
i.
during

(3)evaluate

to

of

determine

those

discrepancy

The

above

the

design

all

potential

that

will

cosmetic

not

and

require

paperwork.

tasks

require

concept

sufficient

of

f]ture

manpower

programs.

loading

Well

defined

C _

l
i

goals
must
a long-term

be established
cost reduction

RECOMMENDED

FUTURE

GUIDELINES
:

SUIT

GENE}L_L:

Early
Quality

paperwork,

and

design
phase

Manufacturing
realistic

that

assure

GUIDELINES

will

A.

to

realize

Manufacturing
previous

be

and

Quality

Engineering,

to

a solid

most

significantly

form

efficient

means

decision

during

not

of

inspection,

in

involvement

an_

causes

in-proces_

ineffectiveness

goals
the

All

detailed

making

the

improved

unless

together,

foundation
of

operation.

SPECIFIC:
The

Manufacturing

must

provide

the

capability

specifications

the

non-conformance.
'

Contractor's,

engineering

will

establish

program

METHOD:

is necessary.

Engineering's

Design,

_"

by

Manufacturing
excessive

the

departments

production

i-

PROGIh_M

involvement

non-conformance
i

early
in
program.

Manufacturinq

to

evaluate

Engineer

and

Manufacturing

Engineering

must

be

fabrication

methods.

exposed

aDd.procedures

disposition
and

to

with

Quality

pre-production

-140:
2

i
J

A basic
Y
'

cause

encountered

as

and

base

;
l
'

to

realistic

'

Manufacturing

the

for

production

Quality

analysis
desion

phase

discrcpancie_
will

will

evaluate

with

the

production

engineers,

Desi. _, Engineers,

have

an

fabrication,

determine

criteria.

aided

will

of

opportunity

engineer,

acceptance

Manufacturing

pre-production

design

serve

disposition

non-conformances.

and

working

of

establishing

Engineering

observe

and

affec

during

a solid

future

and

by

collect

Quality

data

and

necessary

to

--

generate

will

used

during

_.
s -

Specifications

will

for

the

be

actual

encountered..

This

will

result
to

be

will

designed

in

the
the

they

of

during

the

of
the

from

update
are

the

majority

aid

reduce

allow

as

ability

that

phase.
to

pxoblems

continued

also

specification

production

encountered

_ithout

This

the

evaluate

conformiies
phase

manufacturing

production

Engineer

basic

Manufacturing

nonproduction

Design

"design

Engineering.

interpretation"

category
40%

of

of

reject

total

tag_,

which

represented

30

to

discrepancies.

Manufacturing
classify
.

specifications

defects.

classification
production

range

the

phase

of

an
the

defect
of

the

the

Inspectors
covered
delays

by
for

of

reject

product.

Failure

will

any

of

and

the
to

produce

the

the
wide

criteria
program.

products
or

in

during

accept/reject

phase

must

defect
part

specifications
evaluations

minor

important

product

production
will

and

procedures

classification

interpretation

during

"

plays
phase

establish
design

Major

add

not

procedures

disposition

specifically
causing
of

questionable

rejects.
t

-141-

T1]ero
\

'.

is

possible
product,

conditions

defects

requiring
be

!
I

not

_'

du]:ing

manufacturing
must

design

and

eflort

be

inJ.tiatcd

or

the

minor

defects

involvement,

for

during

of

minor

major

specifications

all

phase

rejection,

engineering

The

categorize

cosmetic

requiring

complete

and

the

dispositioning

improving

should

the

and

procedures

for

the

preliminary

i_

design

stage.

This

of

rejects

involving

conditions

which

reduction
,f

idcntify

fief'e, howevcr,

evaluated.

use
i

v:ay to

defects

r-

["

no

other
30%

mJnor
of

all

should

result

in

significant

"cosmetic"

and

represented

25

to

rejects.

(--

Manufacturing

provide

and

f
I

specifications

workmanship

inspection

criteria
these

i,
;

to

I
L

for

This

operators

be

an

by

Many

or

procedures
guide

as

tolerance,

acceptance

a tolerance.
items

condition

Even

must

manufacturing

times

sample

acceptable

_._ritten criteria.

expressed

to

expressed

pictures

constitutes
]
j
t

standards

functions.

cannot

cases,

and

when

of
are

In

what
preferrable

acceptance

visual

is

aids

are

awareness

by

helpful

comparisons.

should

result
to

in

better

acceptance

standards;

it

manufacturing

will

also

,,,

reduce

to

'

""

the

amount

inspection.
category

of

reject

tags
of

The

must

most
at

contractor

applied

if

order

the

comprised

35

decrease

"obvious
to

expand

the

This

level.
to

criteria,

testing
This

confidently

Operator

guideline

acceptance

40%

inspection

acceptance/r_-jection

subassen_ly
in

presented

reduce

and

Proqram.

effective
the

will

which

interpretation

Certification

non-conformities

This

defects"
total

of

would
is

concept
delegate

be

implemented
n-u:_t be
certain

-142-

[i_

[,

quality
acceptance
criteria
This Operator
Certification

-*
_

L.(

probation
an

period

invidivual

can

requirements.
_

[_

capable
Quality

i"
_

and
and

E
_
L_

!
_

"

["
!

of using
product.

properly

meet
be

the

evaluate

whether

_i

certification

certified,

they

must

all tools
provided
to
They must be capable

be

insure
a
of reading

understanding
all manufacturing
specifications
procedures
pertaining
to the product
such as

fabrication
awareness.

inspection

and the
drawings.
just
ability

operations,
they must
Diligent
pursuance
of

produce

waiting
;
_

To

Table
of more
Operations
display
than

w_ll
[_

to

to other
departments.
Program
must
be a

a reduction
which

return

will
from

reduction
of obvious
40% of all previous
Quality

inspectors

of

up

result

in

inspection,
defects
defects,
required

to

They
must.,
to perfoxm
show
this
60%

of

_
i

in-line

less

down-time

also

a significant

support

a Quality
program

which
comprise
and a reduction
to

35 to
in

production.

a
I"

['

"I

__

o,

-143-

,_-

_'

'

iiJii

i i n

..

;.

N_

I"

',

1,

_ I@_-._
.....
_.@

_,_.
_,-

.._.rrr_ ,.;';".-.

I"

.,.

I" I.LJ
i_.

1_

_ _

'........
@!"

>)
_,__ J

-147-

"_,+

_ -",4n"o_'"
.|nb.-oink.lv

z,

],|

i n l/n

i I nl i

[.

++-

,"
+

++ I-

_t
_i.

E _ _

__

i
++iT.[

"

"

t
'

'

I.
( ,
|

++

._

+ I

,_

' . -'.

*,

,
I '

P
10
I_

<=+
"

P
_02.

/+:

m
'

+++,+..++
i
-.1.4 9-

,+

i.
I

"

"

I
;-

/'*

"._

;
(.

.. L;

'-

:_

,--4.... _

,-

.... _-. :_

..

'

L
J
"--it"-'

|
*

:ec_l
_u.

I_ _._

_'1]

_L,,/

Ii_
L_),o:, :. ,,
t......J

;_.,

u.
I t_#

_ _-_-:_ _

m-iu,I

o I' /

I,TI

, _

_er--"..... r-"r -"1"

..... ;'""_._..... r_-_ .................
_.._

|
o

a_l_

.....

:_;_:
-155-

I]

I-

'+5'+ -$+

I
,

_
i+_
,_
r:-_: , F:t_(_,o
l_

imp,.

+_

i/

I.=O

I _m

!_

I_,_

i__

I_l_r
I_ ,

,, T

,,: ,
'
i

_+c_

"--

It
it+,+. {]. ...

,
.....

'

=,- '. +
i_i_i_

:'

<"

+ '

" +

l//

[,

Ii

illla

I _

I
I

'"_-__i_
, i...----_-+ i

i/i

',<_

'
il

"

-+_ i
+l! ,:h_ i._I _>_ .'_'i''b_>
,. _=//,
>'it')
,I-_"_I_,
17 c._i
!
,
I , -XSB..J

'

I'7

r-_"
....'I

i....
,

,i I

_.....r_
-+ _-_
_-..j_.>..l

'

i*

zo
o_

I-,_wl+lJll

'

!!+<_:

_.

'
_l'>,<_i.+_,_
_:__-+': _:_"_Y_,sL:_l_,_i
,_
, ,.,
_
_,+P_"
_
.I I,,.'- _'l ,..,,...,ll
i-T-'
I__
I _t__
....
_,,
,o_
_-_..
,+_L,_t_,
l_ill!
'1,"
l; _+'

:'
':

II
,r
:" +

I_

t.,,..i

' '

ivt

"_"

'

.......

,i

glmJ_

il/i_,

'

, ,di

I_

5.3

TITLE:

L (

Pyoduct

Assurance

OBJECTIVE:
Evaluate

the management

_.

control

of Quality,

Apollo,

Skylab

reconuaended
I

manpower
APPROACH

and ASTP

programs

to support
GROUNDRULES

for

during

Using

the

the

guidelines

5 2 r determine

projected

in support
used

were

organization
of

and

the Apollo,

Skylab

as a comparative

used

to project

operating
and

baseline.

recommended

ASTP
Guide-

manpower

future suit programs

USED FOR STUDY:

i.

The

Product

1970

through

Primary
("

5.1 and

Assurance

were

discussed

Safety

Summary.

Product
used

and

utilized

programs.

savings.
:

procedures

lines

suit

and Manpower

systems

Reliability

in paragraphs

The

svit

Organization

2.

The

Assurance
1973

emphasis

proposed

manloaded

organization

was
was

Product

to support

in section
Compliance

3.

used

as

for

the

study

on manpower

assumed

to

for

future

be

Assurance

organization

the program

minimum

baseline.

reduction.

schedule

3.4 (see Figure 5.3).

with NASA document
NHB

was

the period

was
shown

:;
:

5300.4

assurance

requirements

programs.

DISCUSSION:

through
i

"I

During

the

period

1973,

the

_arious

assruance

Safety

were

continually

Reliability,
organizational

changes

utilized

in order

for the

study,

functions,
being

to most

1970

Quality,

subjected

effectively

to

manpower
utilization,
As a result,
ILC had
Product Assurance
approach
of confining
the

optimize

formulated
overlapping

the

or redundant

functions

_his

philosophy

general

manpower
I
('

attempting

requirements
an

in-depth

of Quality,

Reliability

is reflected
for

future

evaluation

suit

%n the

Safety.

proposed

programs

of all

an_

without

Assurance

disciplines.

'
-162-.

_
?
/

'
r"

The

specific

; .-.

_is

report

cost

savi,,gs

X
_i

the

past

_-

manpower

!-

organization

[_

In

[.

rate

i_

requized

two programs
months.

order
was

and

studies
were

those

the

was

The
based

to

a 1/20
revealed

5.1

which

Flow

proposed

properly

factored
for

areas

potential.

deltas.

to

(Paragraphs

procedures

an

of

average

compare

these

reflect

the

production

5.21

presented

displayed

diagrams

manloading
on

and

the

were
and

the

the

rate.

a total'manpower

to

1973

production

rate.
the

levels

Comparison
savings

of

resulting

organizatins,
estimated

significant

constructed

.970

1/5

mo_t

in

of
of

of

production
manpower
these

436

man

|_,

I
!

r
t

f
I

I
i

I.

t._

-163-

OU
'-'"

;:

I-} _
U _

g
0
0

,m

:"

- [,
"

,-4
0

-_

-164-

[-_

L
2

["

6.0

TITLE:

_ "

Organization
OBJECTIVE:
Evaluate

and Cost

the

entire

Summary
.

program

i
_
management,

engineering
%

and quality
[.

Skylab

organization

(ASTP)

manpower

and ASTP

which

savings

suit

resulting

existed

during

programs.
from

the Apollo,

Determine

the

the

implementation

overall

of all

f-

|
L-!

_-

the guidelines
APPROACH:
"

The

reco_nended
..

ILC

program

future

management,

engineering

ASTP programs
were used as a comparative
baseline.
The
guidelines
identified
in Sections
III, IV and V were used

[,

future

suit

savings

was

management
DISCUSSION:
[-"

As
guidelines

recommendcd

program.
then

The

Apull0,

Skylab

manpo_J_r

required

resulting

summary

determined

by

(ASTP)

to support

and

to

of manpower

a comparison

of these

program

organizations.

a result
were

of this

study,

recommended

for

the

use

following

on future

major
suit

programs:

Ill

i.

Place emphasis
on qualification
of subassemblies
rather than the entire spacesuit
assembly.

[!

2.

FACI the first

qualification

production
item.

3.

Qualify

CEI wozst

[
_

the

to the

first

time. _,_b_

4.
_

_*.:_Z

the

drawing

manufacturing

rather
mission

........
_I_L_,

requirements

instructions

for

|_

5.

[_

with

6.

Reduce

in-process

component

Allocate

and

sufficient

time

early

develop

efficient

systems

7.

Perform

astronaut

fit check

8.

Streamline
the data

data

reporting

collection

requirements
%_a_'

..,_

_,..,,.,

by using

:::

configuration

inspection

subassembly

the

.'._.'/
f..A"_'_.<

Q
100%

than

....
t ,.,-/.....
_

.....
_..i':.."_

control.

Reduce

item
case

.,.,,._.: .. ,_

quality

_-

the

the

and

organizations

formulate

supported

suit

_"

[-

which

for

programs.

"'7"_
:_....
"'_"
_

and--replace

it

acceptance

in the program

to

and procedures.
at the user's

requirements

and

site,._^>
centralize

system.

-167-

I
ii
["
_
F
_

9.

Consolidate

The

manpower

program

level

required

Skylab

period

1970

(A7LB)
through

and

was based on
compare
these

_"

tO reflect

1/20

of

an average
organizations,

the

production

a future

guidelines
was then compared
at ILC to support the

suit

prog_s

during

the

estimated
rate.

6.1 illustrates

the

1970

through

1973

organization

1/5 production
rate.
In order to
the
production
rate
was factored
levels

of ma_)ower

Comparison

revealed
a
four
yeara total
period manpower
if the
Figure

functions.

1973.

he ma_loading
[_

ASTP

control

to support

program utilizing
the recommended
to the level of manpower
required
Apollo,

management

of these

required

suit

two programs

savings
of 1565
man
recommended
guidelines

the recommended

for

months
are

program

d_ring
followed.
manloading.

_ E
L

Li,

"

[
'E

E
.....

tD

'

-168-

[_.

"

:!I
_..,,

:'U

'E

.i

IE

IE.
IE
E

APPENDIX
-A7LB

- INDENTURED

A
PARTS

LIST

'_ E
Z

;E
.E
E
[-;,
%

!'

L_
[_
k k..,
r_

_ [._
_.

A7LB-109017
A6L-104025

Mounting
Plate,
Gas Connector
Gage Pressure
Dial Indicating

D
D

A6L-104035

Mount,

A6L-104034
A7LB-109029

Wrist
Ring,

Back
Disconnect,

Suit

Side,

Left

A7LB-109029

Wrist

Disconnect,

Suit

Side,

Right

A7LB-109013
A7LB-101189
A7LB-101190

Mounting,
Ring Neck
Upper
PLSS Attachment
Bracket,
Attachment,

"A7LB-101191
A7LB-104084

Bar, Attachment,
Arm Bear Assembly

"

I"

A7LB-109010

[:

!_ _. ["
I

<

J
J

Knob
& Shaft
Assembly,
Diverter
Mounting
Plate,
Diverter
Valve

Torso
Torso Limb
Limb Suit
Suit Assembly,
AssesL_bly, Integrated
EV

A7LB-109023
A7LB-109025

A7LB-100006
A7LB-100007

'_
'I {_
f
,
I ["
_|_,
!
I
["i

_ [_--_
i
'_ I"
i [
i
I',
L_

Seal,
Ball,
Race,
Outer,
Spacer

-A_B--10q-2.0 -3
_I_-]_
302
_4YI-_
-A2LD------_
A6L-101017
A6L-101016
-A_l_>l-i
_%6L-4_03

<

I'"

L,
",_
_i

35

.A_T.-!040!8
=A6L-10!044
A7LB-101155
A7LB-109018
A7LB-109020
ATLB-109038
"_=
. -___7
L_- ! __!285

li

Connector

,,

!
:

C
D
C
C
E
D
B

B
A
D
C

E
C

'
i

D
E
B

..
,_

Flange,
Outer,
Electrical
Flange,
Inner,
Electrical
Thig h-Cab ie_-Gu id st-Patch-As
semblyGuid_r-Cord-_TWO - ST Drawings
Cover-Strip
Assembly
,-.Wrist--

C
C
C
B
B
B

:
_.

Tape - & STWebbiag--Reinforcement-.

One
Drawing
Washer-r-Gromm.e,_t-Tube,
Waist
Cable
Guide

B
B
B
C

Assembly,

Arm

Bearing

Arm

Bearing

Pest_-St_?-Assemb_-y,---Tor
so
F_%s_-ener--_a peT--Pi-l._-En t r a nce-Z-_ppe
Four
- ST Drawings

D
C
C

S-t-_i_>-Asse mb_y-_
ae_
S_r ip_--Ba se--_i_2--(Pa t tern ).

-A6L_IO4018
"

Wiper
Port
Inner
Race

D
D

Assembly
PLSS

Four
- ST Drawings
One - MS Drawing
Ring Retaining,
Convolute
Tab, Locking
Arm Bearing

A7LB-104135
A7LB-104136

i [_
:

Gage

Neck Ring,Suit Side

A7L-104046
A7L-104060
A7LB-104092
A7LB-104130
ATL-104076

Valve

Housing
Assembly,
Inner
Gas
Spring
Gas Connector
Ring Clamping
& Multi
H20

'"
_.

..

D
B
C

:i

':

S_r-ilmr-Base-4-7-_.P attern.) -

._

TWO

S u-._w-r-Ned i_f.i
ed-----

ST

Drawings

Connector

[i
[.i
1

/ 7! /

"'j

'"

, ........

+ i2
+"

+
Y

A7LB-101225

k++

_
P

"

I!
|+
-+-.
I

_'

I+_

I
+

1"

+I

,,

L,;

Assembly,

Outer

C
B
B

'
"

D
Gas

Connector,

Gas

Connector,

D
D

i
!

Base Plate,
Shoulder
Cable
Connector
Cover
Shoulder,
Cable
Connector
Terminal;
Swaging
Cable

C
D
C

R_ve%_7_
e __! e r-_e_t-r_in_t+ --Re_r--Neek
Ring & Cable
Guido
Assembly,
Shoulder
Ring & Cable
Guide
Sub-Assembly,

B
E

Shoulder
Ring Form
Angle,
Reinforcing
Support, Guide,
Swivel Shoulder
Tubing
Washer,
Thrust
Shaft,
Pulley
Shaft,
Swivel
Washer,
Thrust

i.7LB-104101

Bushing,

Assembly

Clevis

Clevis
Pulley
Assembly
----Pu-l-l_q_-A_emb-lY7
-e_l_-Pulley
Cable
Three
- ST Drawings
Four - ST Drawings
Four - AN Drawings
Pu_-ey--AseemblyT--W_i__-Pulley
& Bearing
Assembly,
Waist
Cover,
Pulley
Assembly,
Waist
LH
Clip,
Pulley
Assembly,
Waist
LH
Cable
Guide
Screw,
LM Restr.
Attachment
Bracket,
LN Restr.
Attachment
Weldment,
Pulley
& Bearing
Pulley
Two - ST Drawings
One - MS Drawing

Assy.,

ATLB-101197
A7LB-101165

Pulley
Cable

Assembly,

A7LB-101160
A7LB-10164
ATLB-101199
ATLB-101157

Clip,
Pulley
Assy.,
Waist
RH
Cover
Pulley
Assy.,
Waist
RH
Screw,
LM Restr.
Attachment
Bracket,
LM Restr.
Attachment

& Bearing
Guide

E
D
C

C
C
C
C
C
C

_
_

ATLB-101167
ATLB-101197

"i "
"

Guide

A7LB-104106
A7LB-104096
A7LB-104094
A7LB-104102
A7LB-104103
A7LB-104094

--ATLB-10!!55
A7LB-101197
A7LB-101164
A7LB-101160
A7LB-101165
A7LB-101199
A7LB-101157

Tube,
Flared
Cable
TWO - ST _rawings
Plate
Mounting

Rear

Housing
Outlet

|"

Assent]y,

A7LB-109016

A7LB-104100
-A_LB--I-04_98
A7LB-104128

I_
tJ

Guide

Plug,
Water
Connector
Housing
Assembly,
Outer
Inlet

A7LB-104105
A7LB-104097

{_

Cable

A7L-101035
A7LB-109016

.A_74_
B __.i_2+35
A7LB-104095
A7LB-104140

{ii

i+

A6L-101045

A7L-101116
A7L-101117
ATLB-101229

[_

"
w

A7LB-101226

[i
[i

+
+

Waist

LH

Waist

C
C
C
B
B
A
D
D
C
D
C
B
B

..

+_i
._

D
B
A

,i

C
C

_
_.

C
D
t
C

'

........

'_
+_

,.++_.+

+.

i[ +:_+_
+_
!
_4_ _

I"

.......

_,

:;_i:_.O]llliqlll;tltihanO]|hni_m,_._

L"_ | II

,.

-_

._
k..
_ ["

L.

-_
_..

A7LB-101167

A7LB-108038
A7LB-108038
A7LB-101122
A7LB-104106
A7LB-101123
A7LB-101124

....
--_

_
[

A7LB-101122
A7LB-104106
A7LB-101123
i%7LB-101124
-_9_=B-q4)415 _
"4_;B-_-S44_i -

[_

--A7LB- !0 _! 53
--A6/=-14)90_I
--A_LB _i_70

li
--A2LB_A_0OA_
r.-
[__
l_

-!

L
.
:
"
I_
,"#_' "
_'

I',
.l

[.i

[i

D
B

I
_i

One - MS Drawing
Sleeve
Plenum
, Mtg. Diverter
Valve
Sleeve,
Plenum,
Mtg. Diverter
Valve
Bracket
Assembly,
Neck Turn Around
RH

A
C
C
C

! }
!
4

Ferrule,
Guide
Bracket,
Right
Hand
Tubing
Two - ST Drawings
Assembly,
Bracket
Neck
Ferrule,
Guide
Bracket,
Left Hand

B
D
C
B

-A_LB_I40
4
A7LB-101182
A7LB-101183
--Aq4_-I0119 _
A7LB-101184
A7LB-1011P5
A7LB-101214

Pulley
Drawings

Assembly,

-- _L._

Pa_-%crn

Around

LH

_'
_

C
B
D

,,

"

CB
D
E
E

.......
Co_r--Aseemb_5_r-Shou%de_--R_ghtTwo - ST Drawings
L o ep--T_pe_d
"_-f-ie_
Pa __tern
Two - ST Drawings
..Leb_l--As_ em _!_._a_g

A7LB-101253
A7LB-101187
A7LB-101256

Pin,
Plate, Slider,
Spring Mounting
Retainer
Housing
Lock,
Restraint
Two - MS Drawings
Three
- ST Drawings
Inlet
& Torso
Plenum
Plenum
Gas Connector
Plenum
Torso
Duct
P a_ _ er-.n--Spacer
Assembly,

D
D
B
B
C
C

Four
- ST Drawings
P a t-_r-n-Lock Assembly,
Restraint
Zipper
Housing,
Lock,
Restr.
Zipper
Tab Ass_,
L.oc__-Lock
Tab,
Lock-Lock
Pin,
Lock-Lock

A7LB-101186

, "_S
802 5
A7LB-108022

Turn

RH

Bushing,
One
- ST Centering
Drawing
Strike,
Zipper
Lock

A7LB-108018
A7LB-108020
A7LB-108021

Waist

Tubing
Two - ST Drawings
C_y_"
cr _ _ _._i_:yT--Fn_eu-ld
......
P a t%_ r n
_v_.

_/_B-LS4_

[i

Weldment,
Two - ST

B
C
E
E
C
C
C
C
B
C

Zipper

Assembly
Tnlet

Torso

Vent

C
E
A
B
D
D
C
D
D

._

,,_

_ 7..d

--It7
!.!_--!
C_70 29 -"-A-7LI3-L_70@"'

k
r

F a s t ene r- $_."-4-1>rU p p_ z_ Wr-i_ t

F_._:e::
"" "
' " "

--I_77,';15.7.05)
0
--;_7i.-9c 7 07-6

/_act_Au& c_:_J!}:-,__U'
.'pp
c__A_m_C
I,_,-4-c.
-- .__

i
,,:
'
I.

f
'

,
I"

!I
'

--AqL--] F ,'0.'5
I T
I
-A-,.,B-._:
_0 5 [,
-A-7
L B--I-Z-70
56
-Ag_B--I Z 7 056
--_-7
LB-_I_-704 _
----9_7
bZ--!C=7050
--A7LE
-!Cq-0-5/9
--A-7LB--I $7 0 6 5
-.-__7LB--I-S-7
06 G
--A:_L-B-% 5-7G 6:7-4_ LB-jLS-7_6 _
--A?LB-_IC-7 0.52-A_LD--I_P,J- _-_
I=P_!_>7 C_3l-=J%7L---.I_7_;
12
--_-L--I-S70 69

--A/LLB _20
--_B-_I2

29
9.

_n e

E
D

.Pattcxn--One - S'ffDrawing
2,1it er.I__
P-,n_L._r_-,-i'e.ttez-n
4'e_-te?:-n-P<]t% e z_--Pc t% ._.r-n
P a Et_r _
P_ h-t_r-_&P -_-t
_er-r
4:_t-t_er_
_.
7a t_er_
Pa _er4%P _.d--A_e _,_ly7--Sheuld er
Pa_ter n
Part or n
One - ST Drawing
F_s_ene_-_-S t_'/_-Low_p/--_q_i st
F_._. nc_-S/.r-i_r-TOr_,_

C
E
E
E
E
D
D
D
C
C
C
C
D
C
D
D
C
B
E
E

t.
!

.-_
_LB---I-S
7-0 6_-

P_-t ern

A.7LB--2 _ _,_32-_-A_'..:-__.-wo--3.!
,_,,,,-d_

Comf-or.t---P_d--Aaa_ ._l_-r--Knee
Pattez-n
Pa-t_be__,_-

D
C
C

--A_=B-q4_ 7433 -2---A_LB-q4_70 @0

-A_B--I_7_7_)_ _

I
'

--AT 5B----..,l_7--0-3.2
--A-7-_B--q-7,-7-0-7-9

=.

"
.
,
1

II

--A_LB_ISI-O 8_-

- A_LB_ --l-Z-7-0
1 Z-7078
_--A-TLB
_7
-A_B_6-1
--_0_02_9
--A-TL_-I $7049
.--- A2-LB--1-.S-7-94 9-- -AqLB--l_qq4)gq.

One - _'9 Drawing

-Com_]._t--.na_--A_sem}>lq_der_r4_
.Rat_oz_nP a t_n
One - ST Drawing
P ad-As c--em_ly-w
-G<)._r-_h
_-'a-t-t--e-r_
Patt_n
One - ST

B
D
C
C
B

Drawing

_ -Pa_e.v-n
-Pa4_t_-m,-Pa_-_tcrn-- _as tenez_-S_,
-----Patter-_- -_ate_
Pa.bter.n.

B
D
D
D

C
C
E
Neck

E
J
J
C

[
i

_A_L B--I0-_0 34
-A-7LB- 107035
-4_7LB-157099
......
--A-7J_B-.I
S 2100

r_
_.
:
-"

-A-7LD- IC7052
U--A-7-I:,B--tZ-70 -5-5

---Aq-_B--Iq)
12-1-2
--A6!_ 1 S10 I-5
-A_LLB-q-S-141-7

."

--k_qLD---ISI41&...
ATLB-104085

i"

_t-5

i
F
'
!
t-

1
"
I..

..'

)
ii.
I
[

'/
_

Pat_tern
"_wo
- ST Drawings
Arm Assembly,
Lower

C
B
D
B
C

Left

Cenvoi_--As_em_bow

A7LB-104156

C
C
C
C
B
D
E
B

Fourteen
- ST Drawings
F_ s tc n er--St r.i.
p-A_c_-mbl_
Neck
Five - ST Dra_.,ings
Guid e--As s emb!_ ,_F-Crotch-eab{ e
P0 bt-er_-P._t_-e_n-

-_213

[--

Str_ p_-UC T_k-U e sc__etaining

Ch in .i_adr-Linex-_A s s:_nhl),
P_tter-n-d)atter_.
One - ST Drawing
P_tern
....
Pa t-ter n

Convolute,
Six - ST

-3
-A7-LB-_I041-2_
-Aq.LB- 1041-25
---A_B--I-Z-._
062.
---A6L--1090 01.
--A_L--1S4004
-A_434-I-24
A_r/%
-"A-7-,5--J:Z-4-_
,__
--4_B- l_. OGI
--ATL-_- ! Z4 O 48
A6L-101044

A7LB-1040854 ! 57
-4_7_B--I_
A7LS-104156

---A_LB_I$_I_3
_B--I-0412-7
--W_LB--1-04_2.5
----A_LB--IZ,:0 62-

Elbow
Drawings

One - MS Drawing
F ac_t_er--S%-r_i.pT-_r/_
-L wr-_-L
Re&_
laddo r-_k_sem_kv-,-_5 e f t
I',_str_--As_ embl_ur- "__i__
e ft
Pat tern--Tape_--Looi_,
Patter_

Medi f_ed

C
B
E

'

D
B

'

A
D
E
E
D
B
B

Bladde_--Asseml_fT--W_:-i_t--C-one,
Seven
- ST Drawings
......
'p._
_-_)-_
_"
n
P _.t,gor-r. _
Five - ST Drawings
Pn __prn .
Two - ST Drawings
Washer,
Eyelet
Six - ST Drawings
Two - AN Drawings

L.

Arm
Assembly,
Lower
Right
Ca_n__la4_--As
se_.ly-r--Blbow
Convolute,
Elbow
Six - ST Drawings
One -. MS Prawing
Fa s tener--S t_i_-4_r is_--r-Lwr_- R.
-Rest r,--&---Bl
add er--As seml>ly-r-4_i_
P,este._b_y_
Wrist
C_n_ : Right
-. Pattern--

D
B
D
D
B
C
B
B
B
"-_
E
E
D
B
A
D
_;
E
D

--A6L_ 10 9 0 01

Tape_-Loop_-Modi_-_ed

--A4_--1S40

PSeven
a t_r_ - ST

B
B

Drawings

:
_

].

I
_
: "_

-_--ATLB=I04124
--A-_LB=J.Z4060
n%qLB-IZ4061-

" [.
,
L-

_A_LB-

1-Z_048

A6L-101044
.
A7LB-104093
[.
,
t.

A7LB-106061
--AI4=B--I
06_

"
_

-ATL=IZ603-7.

P
''
|.

c4_7L--10_01-9
-A?LB-q4)6074
-A-_-S6
_27

_Bladder _tls-_.
eP_bly_,_._]/isl__ioilc
,_P__
Pat_re.on__
Pahtern_

D
D
D

Five -.ST Drawings

P-atter.n----Two - ST Drawings
Washer, Eyelet

B
C
B
B

Two
Six - AN
ST Drawings
Dra:.;ings
Bracket Cable Retention

AB
C

Boot Ass_rM)ly, TLSA, Left

Bl_n;_
d c-_r-Jinc-r--&--_e._
nt--As&e;_bl-y-_-P_t
Left

_It_m_]_-A& semb!y, Blad_e_-L_f_

P at-t__i_Two - ST Drawings
Liaer--&-Vent .-Assemi_l_o_
L i_ner--A
_s_':_b
_y__Pat%_r n....

D
D
B
D
E
D

--A_LB-_I_61-I8
_0-18

Patter-n--l_a-t-t_r
_Three - ST Drawings

E
D
B

"

__5_/_--i_
---A_-I_-I
J)604-5
60!9 - 03
-AqL-IS6046

Pa
t_-e_n---Patch
,--Reinforceme nt
P-attera

C
D
C

_-A_41_I-Z
G044
----A7L-IZ6043
.....
... I_6042
----A_60
_-!
1_'7T

:-

Pat_e.rn-Pat te r-_---Pa%_-ern
P_ ttern-Six - ST Drawings
Rest-r_iat_--Ne_l--&--Se!c A_emi_ls_--Boot
-Lef-%Sclc A==_,'_b!y, Left
P_t_-er4_--.
Pa_-t_m
Nut, Flanged
P: tt_r_----Pat_ern_

--

,.,
_%_4=B-_-06072
---A-7-IzB-_0-607-!
-A6L_IZ 6007
_3
A7L-106012
_4.6031
--A? L--14_6_32

,
[..
{:L.

-AT-LB---1060_-0
...K2L=lS6029

[_

I_

A7L-106010
A7L-106013
_1460A6
A?L-IZ6_3

,
_-

i_

I,

i
'_

D
D
D
D
B
E
D
C
C
B
D
D

One - ST Drawing
IIeel--Assembl_ot
__

B
D
D

One - ST Drawing
Screw, Heel Shank
Screw, Arch Shank
Irosele--A_se_l_fv--Re_t-_a _.
Pat-4_r-n
Two - ST Drawings

B
B
B
D
D
B

I_
i,"

<

Li
{!

,
.

I
I
B
| ",

I
I_
I
'
\

"
F
I
r'"

A7L-106014
_l_-/_q
C_i7

Arch/IIeel
P_-t-ter-n

--9_71_--14_
607-7--Aq 5-I-S 607-7........

Pa C tern-Pa b t_r-n---

_IS607.8
A7L-106005
-A-Tqr-l.
Z 6O0 !
--AqL--_Z6 00-2.......
_-S
6008
--A-?
L- -IS 6 0 _
-A_L- ]_ 60-36---A_L-I.%60 _
_L_I
Z6&_

B
B

Patterd_
Restraint
Assembly,
Pat%e_n
Da t ter-nP a%-t-ern
.Pa-teern-Pa _:tern

Boot,

Ferrule,Shrinkable
Cord
Tube,
Tube,
Shrinkable

_/_T--Boot

Guide,

|.

A6L-106007
_25

Two - ST Drawings
Ferrule,
Cord Guide,
P a_to:._-

I
_"

_1_602-2
--A_60/_

9a%te_-n
Pa _ t_era----

Ii

Six - STDrawings
Five - ST Drawings
One - ST Drawing
Boot Assen_ly,
TLSA

-ATJ;B--10$063
_I17
_-A_q=--l_3-7
_i06_18
__

I.,"
[..
.
..
,"
L.

-,
|"

0! 9

-A/L/3=_60_.4
A-7-DB.--I
S612.7
-ATLB--I-Z 612-3
_ATLB_IZ6118
%A2/J3=I_6038

Right
B1
adder--Li_
P_;tern

<

I;
[i

Small

Small

C
C
C
C
B
C
D
D
C

Right

or--&-4_ n_--Ass_,_,l.yT-_8o o t

_t-t_-n -O_t_ole--Assembly
i :lad_ght
Two - ST Drawings
Li____J_ly_-Boot
L1m_.XS-= ..... .. _ ....
"
" A e_mhl_,
n,-,,-,t-_ Left
P-at,t,ern-Pat tora-Patte;4_---

B
B
B
E
E
E
D
D
B
P
E

D
D
E

_%_L--IS604.5
--ATL--106019-03
---A3L-IS6046
----A_L-.IZ 6044

P= t Set-R------Three
- ST Drawings
Pa_t-ern-Pa tt-ern.-.
Pa_tern--P a%_t,e_R----

C
B
C
D
C
D

-,_._I_-1_, 6042
---AXL=_Z 6041

Pattern
Pat-teJ_

D
D

Six

[.

B
D
D
D
B
C
C
C
C

A6L-106007
A7L-106007
A7L-106007

ATLB-106061

Left

P-a_ter-nPa%_r4%
C able_&-_r-_le-Aesemb

%"

C
B

-.A-7J.-_-0$ 00-7 _i

Shank

- ST

Drawings

L.

[_
!
i "

--A?4__

12___

Reshra//zt__Hee/_
&_SolP__As_emhl
Right
S ol_-A _ emi)iy-r-_i_h _
PAtjze_n.

4_7I,B-q_60_-I--A6L--IZ6 007

r
[.
'
i
t

"--A7 Ir I-Z6033
A7L-106012
----A-7
i,-1 Z 603 I.
---A-TL-1Z 6032
_--A4qLB_IO_I0--

"

---A7L- IS607-5_
---A7_--I-S
6029

n a t-"
b-__ I%--Nut,
Flanged
Pattern_
P_ttern- -.
One - ST Drawing
He(: .L-A_;s e'nl__ly_

....
....

ATL-106010
I"

A7L-106013
-A74_-I_)604-6........

A7L-106014

i_
.

I"
__.
#

_
[

[..

i ..

--A3/_-_960-7-7--A/L_IS6018
_.S6_7-8

J
".
"

-Aq4_-Z

60 _.?

4_I-06

'_n"

A7L-106007
A6L-106007
A7L-106007
A6L-] J,_007
__v_6025
.-A2/.-IZ&0 24
--A_ L-IZ 6022
-A ;-L_I_60 L7

I"
A7LB-101270
A7LB-101271
o'

ATLB-!0!272

E
D
C
C
B
D
D
B
D

Pa_.
I_%--P_ t.to_,_-One -.ST Drawing
Screw,
Heel Shank

CD
B
B

Screw,
Arch
Shank
Iasole-A s s emb_y_,--Rest-ma_n_--Right

Two - ST
Arch/Heel,

B
C

Drawings
Shank

P;_t tern.P_e_m-

B
B

P_t_r-n

A7L-106005
---A_-L-_.Z 6001
--A-71,-1 Z6002
-A7L-IS6008
--A_LLIS 602-1
--A_L--I_6036

.
I

y___Boot

Restraint
Assembly,
_a t-te r_n
P a4_-t_z_
n-I_1_t_rnPa_t_4_-P a-t_=r_

Boot

Right

D
D
D
D
C
C

Pa _ter4_--

_"_^

& P.... _--A_._em_IT,---Bo_t

Tube,
Ferrule,
Shrinkable
Cord
Guide,
Tube,
Shrinkable
Two - ST Drawings
Ferrule,
Cord
Pat ter_-----P_at.bar.n_
Pa t_r_-P a t-t_m_n-

Guide,

Small

C
C
B

Small

Sixteen
- ST Drawings
Five
- ST Drawings
One - ST Drawing
Swage
Fitting,
Crotch
Cable
Thimble,
Crotch
Cable
C a_a
_ag-$k_7--N_l
on

"

C
D
D
D
C
.

,
B
B
C
D
C

. [.
i

'

'

!
I

["
i
;

A7LB-105004
(-ATJ,B---I
0 .5045----

Leg Assembly,
TLSA
Left
l_cs trainLAszembl_--Low_
Left

.-b7I_B--I-S
50_9

E
r--Leg-Co ne,
D

_ttern

--A6L-I Z 5003

Pa t te_O______
Two - ST Drawings
T apeT--l_9oi_-,MoO i-f-i_ dTa pev--L oopv -/4odi/ied
Eight
- ST Drawings
Pulley
Assen_)ly,
Cable
Crotch
T_Ipev--_
p_--Mod i.fied
Co_e r_-A_ scmb/_{-_lig
h--Con_o/u_ev--Le
Loo1>7--Ta_od_
Z-_ed-

-A6 5-4 09001

--ACrlr--i
O 900 i

_
i

i_

A6L-105031
--A6L-_ 09001
-A-_LB-105026
"--A6L--14>8001

--A6L--I_-502_9
-Aq_B --I-S
5 026

--A_AB-q_q_ 0_J-

!'

-A_LB-14) 502 _.
-AT/_B--1S I_L9
4%_AB_I$5021
ATLB-105023

[ "
I

"

P_ttcxn----_t-t_gr-a-

--Aq_B--10 5033
ATLB-105036
A7LB-10_006

!
I

_LB--105007
-A-7J.B--1-_ 500 =.
_%6L--.LZS006

5007

,.

-A6L-I_9001

_5OO9
-A_4._501O
--AT-LB--IZ 5009
_-_@I-208
.A6L-105019
_.A6_--Ig50 2-4

[i.
"
[.

._AILB --_ 5 008.

_B_1_5007-

I'

_%_L_L0503

l_[
'

25

Pa
Sixt_er-n
- ST Drawings
C en%__ex_lY_
P_" t_ _
_r-_
Convolute,
Thigh
One - ST Drawing

D
C

Tapa_-J_pv--_0dii/ed
Eight
- ST Drawings
B!edder
Azzemb!y,
T_hlq_-J.ef-t
Pat_ =_=_Ba_mra%-".trip Assembly
,_ _._e_.-eh_
Disc,
Medical
Injection
P __+_t.er-a----Five - ST Drawings

C
B
E
D
D
D
B
B
B

Bladd
Left

em-A&s

E
C
C
D
D
D
B

_.onvolut-e-Assemb!y_
}thee
Terminal,
Cable
Swaging
Convolute,
Knee
One - ST Drawing
Restr a int- As semb lyT- Th-i_
P a t-t_e
_:n-_
Pa_-t-ern
Pa+ter-

D
B
E
D
B
B

embly-r-Lewer--Le_,

Str.ilm_Aeeem_4__hmcnt,
."attireFive - ST Drawings
Cover

..A6L-105032
A6L--14_50 l_
__A6L.-.IS5013

f-t

C
B
D
C
E
C
B
E

Pattern

--A_.LB_IOI208
-ATLB-I-S 5008

D
B
C

__-_
se_-b]v.

Y_uee Con-o

T=.pu, L_-_spv--Med-i-f--i-edPa%_rn
.
Pattern

":nt
_,,t_

D
D
B
D
D
D
D

I:
(
1

[i
%

?--q_'r"
.............

.,
-,,

' -

i
I

i
$

! [
k

_"
8

Two - ST
Pa t-ter_-.P_-t
t or4%-_

--2_g_B--iS 501{ .
---A-7-LBi-S 5018
A6L-101044

A7LB-105004

---A_LB-_I-S5089
-A6L--I 05015
.-A6 L--I_50 _

.
I

'

E
"

B
C
C

Washer,
Grommet
Eight
- ST Drawings
Two - AN Drawings
Leg Assembly,
TLSA Right

_'

Drawings

E
B
A
E

P-._.
t_er-n
Right
._lap--&-4_.Lid_%_t-.--Assemb
ly
Pattern-Drawings
Two - ST
T __
p o__r
-_-"h9
_i-f-i_
d -T.ap__-_k_
i_f-i<_d
Eight
- ST Drawings
Pulley
Assembly,
Cable
Crotch
T_pe _ Loo_r-d4odif-_:od--

_A6L=IOS/?JII
-A6 L-_I0900 !
A6L-105031
_K6/-_L0_L00L
--A6L_Iq)
-A?LB_I(_-50_6
90 (_l-----A6L--IS5 O 29

Co.ver._2_s_y_,__high
Tape_(_p-,--/4o4i-f-i
pa_h_rn

ed

Convo!_4_

D
D
C
D

:
:

B
C
C
B
D
C
___ight

C
E
B
E

A? LB_I_5027

-4_LB_05
!

Pakter
Six - ST Drawings
Convo lu_e--As s embly-r--T.h.igh-

_2-4

--A7LB- 1S 502-1
ATLB-105023

A7LB-105036
ATLB-105006
{

---A6L-qZ5006
---A6.L_IZ 50 0-7-

"

--A-6-_-1-09.00 004t
_I-$4
.-_7L9-!05009
_9

D
D

Thigh

Terminal,
Cable
Convolute,
Knee
One - ST Drawing
_il_t-As-__e_m_b!y_

----A_I,B-_4AS007

-Pa t{_r_-Convolute,

B
C

Swaging

Th__gh

C
D
B
E

Cone

Patter.-.
- Pattez_%--

B
E

T_%p__@7-44_
_d-.Pa_er_
Five
- ST Drawings
nl_,l_o_m_l_:."
_g_
Pat_ern
...........
_,

_-=

Att_chment

_(-h__

CB
E
E
D
D

- [I
,,

r3

l
w

L.
F'
[
L

--A-7_B-lJ_O 0O

B! adder--As;, em/_,
Right
Rat to rn

--A-7I,B-_I$5007

'

F-

"--A_-LB- I S 5008

|.
t

---Aq-LB--iOa-q98

r"
.

-A6L-q0 50 _2---_
_-A6L-_I 0-5_32
---ATrL--I-S_{}I-2
_% f_I_--155_13

,'-

_-7_B--I-0_0-2-9

. A7LB-105015

'

A7LB-IZ5019
A6L-401042

i,
:

Cover_

--A_LB_I_I2-_2
_-A61_09001
ATLB-!09012

I "

Ten One Two Sleeve

A7LB-101126
-ATLB-_i_.I-I_3
--A_-LB -_ICI 42.0
--AT_B-4GIA4_I
_Tq_B-IG-14-2 O.....
_74_ BLIG 14 _i
-_A/LB--IC/_7/-

.......

-AS;-LD--IC_II2
4-

I,

ATr_-_
A7
r_.__n- !C __
! 30_
307
-._.7
LB-1S ! 4 ! 5

-_-7L_--I_-I-B96
-A_LD_IC i17 _

"

I
.,

....

...A-7.-I,.B
- _,._- 40-0
_C-I_/,3
-@:_=B--I_-I1-83
-q_74_--iC_iG4;8

Preformed

UTCA

Transfer
Ilose Assembly,
Clamp,
Mod, Preformed,
Two - ST Drawings
Plug
Mounting
Ring
"O" Ring

A7LB-101269

Cover--and--T.r_ansf<_r--H.ose-A_sembly-r-_CTA
Male Disconnect,
Urine
Tzansfer,
Mod.

I"
|_
.

D
D

_t_i_p_-A&s embLy--A t_mor+t_r-_e

_-Five - ST Drawings
--Cover-A_semb
15_r--K_._e
.e--_oP_ol4a%._-T-ape_r--!=oopT-nM_1-i-f_ed_
P_a_._grn _
.
Pa__r
n-

A7L-104005
A7L-104005
ATL-104005

I-

n_

E,atlu2rD.

A7L-105003

r-

-_we.r--Leg-C_

D
B
D
D
D
D
D
C
C

UCTA
Band Type

ST Drawings
MS Drawing
AN Drawings
Swage
Fitting

D
C
B
D
D
D
B
A
A
D

Cab _i=a
9 T -M e d-i-f-ied
T _q_ov--Loop_-_1od4_f-i4_%--Screw,
Hex, Socket
Head,
Cap

C
C
D

Torso
Assembly, elabl-yTLSA ,--T_:s e
Re _t-r&iaa_--Ass
Pat _ _ rn

J
J
D

_
Pa_ra ;,rqa
_attern
P_t__ er_

C
D
C
J

P._t_

___rda
_
%_%er n
_ a_t er4_

J
C

_a t--ter_a
._attcrn

J
E

Pa ,_er,._

Pc t tcraa---

P a t-t_ra%--9atter_-_

D
E

l:
.

3,

/ ?-'

I
)

[-

ii
!
i
._ [

-A_DB-IO1309
--A-TLB-1CI 309
---ATLB--IC117.9
A7LB-101252
_A7-b_-.-iOi_ -.50
......
A7LB-101251

"

-AILLB-_l0-1q_ 2....
--AI_4Z
I_21
--_c7_B-I-$I-390
.--A-TI_Bi S 13a 2

I,
'

-A_AB-q-0 -1.231

i'i

"

I.
I
[.

" i
I..

._%ILP=101237

-A_LB--IGI-_20
---AILB1 S 1-3-2-2
A-A_B-q_0A_-II
A7LB-101195
A7LB-101195
LB_IF_I-I-9_
.3_TLB=I01210
-3tlLB--10121!
_A3LB-IS
1245
,mA__._'Lc
-_I n n
.........
---A-7-bB--IC-I
198
-_7LB-I_
i-1-9.5
-A_LB_IS-I-193
--A_LB-4_I-Lg_
-A3LB-I_I-9_
--A_L B--IGI-II_
A7L-101017

I
_.

)"
.i "
! I
,
I

.KILB--ICII82-_%-TLB--IGI4 82
-A7LB-.IC i181
_%_-LB--IC1181
-A7LB-ISI.178
_O1-1-7-5
.A7LB- 101140
_TLB-101_I5
AT.LB--1S 1 i_.9.
ATLB-ISI3.0.1

Pa t-t-e_-'_

Pa.t-tern
Patheru___.
Hook ,. Donning
Aid
4)on n-i-l_j-._i_L-Asc._e
_bLy_--Sl_.ide-_a_
Eye, Donning
Aid,
Slide
Fastener
Three
- ST Drawings

E
E
C
i-_er C
C
B

':
;

_
,

T_c_bbing_Ax_semb
Right
ly.T_/_ea r_r_N e ck_R e ___t
ra/n t D
P_tter___
D
l,et-t-e_,_Pa_.t.er.n
F-i-t_t-i_.
n _T-_e _t-r__eGk-r
One - ST Drawing
Wehbi_g--A._semb!y,
Left

Rear,

BAtter_n
Pat-Gern
F it-t-iag_c-_aq-_t
Fastener,
One - ST
Fastener,
I)a%._er _--

Slide,
Drawing
Slide,

--Rea

N_h

,--_

Restraint

,---Rent_

Vertical
Horizontal

C
C

;. _
:

C
B

_. :
{ ;

) "
il]J

C
C
C

i
i _
_

E
B
E
J

; :
_.

La nya rd-A s sc.:_b_yT-Donn_ng

Hook____

D
D

Three
- ST
Pattern
P &t-te r4_
P a_-_er4_-Pat te_u_
Ba_r4%
Pa_t_r4_

B
C
C
J
C
C
J

Drawings

Patto;;n
P a tte r4_Double

Bar

',

.
"

D
D
"D"

Ring

_at_-_n
Pattern
P@ __
t er_
Pa_t_mPattern-_"attcrnTwenty-six
- ST Drawings
B ladd er--A _s embl_r--T_r_._
----_a%_h--A_sembl_',
St-r_e-Req-i_f-r-_pper
P_4_e r n
Ps_-

B
C
C
D
D
D
D
B
J
C
C
C

5
,

....

_.:,
I"

_._--aW.m--k_t-_---------

"
..

_A_B--I
0-i26_7-.
-A_ _B--IS:I-4
06
--4Y74_B-IS1-40 6

_-A74_B-I-SIA07
_7-LB--1C _ _2
A_ I,B--IG
i_%3&

&.

4674_B-q_l-l-5
6
4_B--IC_ 13 _
"_i_-4:i_
5
_Cq-l-30
A7T;R-1Ol I 3_
--AI_B--IC-I
12 5

,"
_: r,
_

Two
- ST Drawings
P_t-ter-a----

B
C

<
. ;

PadT-,Pro bee _i_e-,-4>/S--S_de--Fasten er

_a_%-ern
P_li_ern,

C
C

'

pattern

Pa%_rn
P_#tern

E
E

Padhtex_
P at-te_n
Pattern
Pat-t_er
n
Pak..tern
Pa t_e_

E
J
J
J
J
E

Pa_te_n
Pat-Eer-_
St-r-_p-At_-aohmeBt--Aesemb _--1-5P-_h_aTwo - ST Drawings
St--r-ig-A%--a
eh men t--AseemS_2--l_ Pattern
Two - ST Drawings

E'
E
E
C
B
E
C
B

'
_ ."
,

_
-:

_ -,:I

"
r|
I_]

"
"

_A:LLB-_C-LI-3@
-_A24_B--l_=l-laa
4W4_B--I-01.20
8
-9_7LB--14_386

_ ["_
I I'
._

-A_LB.-I0120 8
*A--7__3-85

i,-_.

_i-si-ae:

_ l.
_.
:
7 1:
_i
["

___2LB.-!Z !317
A7LB-!Z!315
-A-7_-]:-3-2-B
_I-Z-I-318
----A_LB_I-Z
!3!6
__i_
04

P_.n

....

....

Two - ST Drawings
Pat __ --P_. _e_a
Pa_ern
Pa t-t_T_Pattern
_
Pattern

B
E
E
C
E
E
D

_ .

C
C
C
C

_ ,:
i {:
"
_

_B
-l-SLI-58
....
,-A_LB_IGI!5?
--A-74-,B--t-S14 5 4 ....
_
B-4G 11-54

."attar_.
Da.t_ern
P_e-_n---Ba-h:i:,e-r--r+

, [.
: "

-A_LB_IC!__31
:-ATLB-!C !!31

Pa t_,n--Pa +t_n

"' 'J['/
}

A7L_-3CII26
-A.7-I,B--]._,.l.l.2.6

......

:: ::
:

Dat-_re_-Pa_tera--

"

',

::.
_.
--

D
D
D

'[!
i
,

i t

( "_

I "l

l,

"

/_&

'

--A-7_B-_5 i_-94

Pa-t_orqq

_-i_rn----

P_/utern

.... -Pat-tern----

P-a-_.a--

P_t-t_-_n
P ee-t-er-n-Pa%_er4_l_4_r_2a_r4x
--Pa_-t-_.
_a

C
C
C
C
D
C

:
i
i_
._
'

C
C
D
C
C
C
C

[
._

-A-74TB_xI5

,_

'

_B=-251797
-A-7-LB--2_ -l-B-i-i-

{.[._

,-_

'Ii

"

) ii
I

_2_a=m._/J__9
_,B-;AS/m_O. !
,_2
__18!2
_ "A_LB-_2_5_I 3
- _LB=gA_.79
2
-__5-i-7-9
3
-A 7LB.--2_IS_I0
_5_-_5
_-_
--A_B-4_5_-7-9
_
--A_LB=2.5!794
8,11
_--_
A7!-B-25!79
8 .....

.-

...... _a_
Patt era%-Pa_
.-Pa&t-t-er-_
Pa
_a ..
Po t-_e.
_-tern_

_ _"
_
_ 1"

'
I:
:,i', " [..
):'o ,
_ I

B
J
D
C
C

Right

Pattern_

....

<
",

"

"

c
Ba_r-_
PaCer-n-Pa_tcrn

D
C
C

-A-7_II=_
.4
--A_aB-_4)I055
A7LB-2ZII72
-,-a_ _/_Y' Its _'1_1
_ ...... 173
_51!
_4

._-in,- ,.Vent
Rei_t
Ring, Flourel
1_**ern
Pattern

C
C
D
D
D

..........

i_

_
_%-7-_-_42-_ 6
--A_I_2-_I/_8_

"92J_B.-_2ZI/2.6

i(

Eighteen
- ST Drawings
Arm Assy., Lower,ITMG.,
Pa
t=he_n-Pa_t_n
Iza_r..n.-

-9_=B--2_-7_ 1

,.
_:
_,

I_-" A7LB-201170
I-,\
--_74_R-_5i-7_
.__-2
5!799 :
_5,!
779
.......

,-:
i

.:

'0'

,..
]
',%
:

,,, ,

Pa_._;oEa--

} 1

'I

_j

"_"

_r_B-

Z5_ _4,

P_.ttern_

_ATL_--1513_8_
_-251799
_A4CbB--2_t_u90
-_7-LB--2_-_I-79_
A7Y,R- 95] 809

Patt_n-Pa t-ter4_.
Pa%-ter4_
Pa%ter-n
Pattern_

D
C
C
C
C

[]
""

_A_q_B_l180-_
4_2-5-1-79-i "

P@
tern
Pattern_

C
C

_/5-1-79-2
_1793
--A_-I,B--2=%I-7
94
--bT/_-_ "1-815-----A_LB_2_I-7@-5

Pa%-t_ern-Pat t-e_,
Pa %-t-c
ra
P&Stor-n
P_q_tG_ n-

D
C
C
C
C

P att_r-n
P_
.na_r_

C
C
C

L.
[-

-I

i
i
. ["

I_r.,

_ i

'_

_Aq/_B---_i-79
_
_A7LB_5
!798
-A2LB- 2 518 !!
--A_LB-_I-7-9$

Patter-n---.

--A_-L_--2513_.l

_tern

P.atterm

_a_t_r_ _
Patte_rD__

C
D

'

-A_ LB_5
_

r"
[,

[_
)
t

<
!

''
L_

I_-LI

--A7 LB ----251.813.
.-A2.LB=/51/_9

--A-7-LB=-2.SIS/.0
.-A_-LB---25 !79 6
-A_LB=25_ _97,,
_A2.LB--25iI_8
-AT LB-_--_LSII
A7LB-251799

, ,,
.

A7LB-20iI56

!
'

.[ _

--A_m_-a-5_818
-A7LD -251919

'"

_!.

..

D
C
C
C
C

Eighteen
- ST Drawings
Pocket Assembly,
Datolist

E
J

Pat een.n
Pattern
, pa_n
P_n__

_ ,

pa J-_r n
Pettern
-@aC_&er-_
Pa_ern
_

_-1_27
=A,_-B-251827, ,,

A7LB-201127
_!___
_.

_attern

Ring,
__rn

E
E
E
E

Rectangular

'

D
C

-!
.(',

?
<

, _-.._

[ L
I Ec
_I

A7LB-104138
A7LB-103056
2&_q_B__8

One
One

Ring,
Glove Wrist
Assy.,
P_t_er_

Glove
Comfort,
One -Assy.,
ST Drawing
Pat t_=r4%One - ST Drawing

A7LB-i01121
4%_tLB_20-l-18_

Wristlet
Cre.::C_mm_and

-4_7LB=251860
-A?_B--251860
_ATLB-251860

r.

I,.

Pattern
Pa_r4_-

_'

D
D
D
D

J
J
D
D
D
D
D

__7
p"i

D
D

Torso
Assy.,
shal_.
Pattern
Pa_t_rn
Par tern
Pattern
Pattern

_0

D
C

ATLB-201177
__:,_
9
-A_LB--_
3
A7 LB-_-51-_5/--AVLB--2-512_3
A_';_B- 2-=1-753
-A-_:,6_5

_Zl?_.9

E
B
C
B

B
C
C

A?L__-3_.!G__

Right

Five - ST Drawings
Ring, Mounting,
Itmg,li20. Corm
Cap Assy., Pry.

A7LB- 2CI_84n
_ATLB-2CI67
=A?LE- 2C!685
_$I_- 2Z!__5"_

C
E
C

A7LB-109039
A7LB-109050

.ATLB-2_I&69
-ATLB--2C!669
--A7 LD-_C_ 70
[2

"

Left

pa_4;ern
pa
l-t_ rn

-A_I,B-qC
!__5
-ATLB_II66
6....
-ATLB-2C_IZ 66

A
B

Pat t_v_er4_
Pat_ern

_25!860
-..A-7-I,B----2.,51..g6.0.
---A_LB-_$1_&0 ......
A7LE 251S_0

Comfort,

A7LB-103056
.__. ,__ I ,_',_ _o

_
"-

"

- AN Drawing
- ST Drawing

_?Y.n-___1

51
7__1

Tmg.

Pattern
Pattern
P_ ___n

D
D
D

Pattern
Pn_t__rn
Pa t_---

C
C
D

_%a_term_Da,t_.rn
Pattern
Pa ttcrn

C
D
C
D

2attcr._

" .........

" ......

Pa_.er_

P=_ttern

[J
_:

:i

,"

)
,

'
"L

i; L

l
Ill

ill

"" +
_.TLB- 25!8!6

_2LB=a318

I"
L_

____7Ln-_90!]67
_TT.n-)__1 7 61
:A?L_-2 Z!7 ._!
_74_B-q_l-7_l

!6

4_LD-!Tr61
x_. n_,, i`T&_
A_i_.n-_9_
17_!

"

li "71" D_

") U. 1 "1 l'_O

'

-- --,,.,..A2-Lli-l._& 679

"
', E

I[___ 11/_l 1 _

Dosimeter

D
D
D
DD
D

'

AB
B
A
E
D
E

Pattern
Pat tern
P__ttern

E
D
D

o-. + +,=,,-,-,
_%attar=__

E
B

lr___.I-,I-r.._t._.

*'/0

Pattern
P=_ttern
*)a t_r"

E
D
E

__6.79
j_TLN,?0] 67R
-_"'" 201."29

Pattern
_e_vn
Part=tin

E
D
D

Reinf---/Zent

-_ n=,,

A7 r-_-gnl I _5

'

ATL_--20I_ 79
_-20_67_
.K7LB-.+201629

---_

,I-.1'- n':," T1

Four
MS Drawing
Drawings
One - - ST
Six - ST Drawings
Two - MS Drawings
F !-_plAis_mb!-/, Entrance
Pat ter_-_
Pattern

_B-20!!6_
-AqAB--20 16 _4
_ A7L__-2n!=.77

_[IT

'

Paef_-rn
Pattern
i.=_l

__8
i_L-_.51_&8
-ATL "^' oA_

D
D
D

Pocket,
P__t%ern Assy.,
Pat e_efT,

_!677
__2T-_
n- 201678
- A?LB-20!_'!0

AE
B
E
D
D
D

pa f_tern

I"_ "';"
L <

Two
pa _ -_n MS Drawings
Four - ST Drawings
F!ap Assy., UCD/REV
Pnt_'Prn
Pattern
Patter
-_ -

DIn:

....

A7L-201045
A7 L- 25 !!.:B
_._L--25 !! 68

Pattern
Pattern
pn tf_n

__TT_._n-_ _ 1 nS__

"

..P._f_rn

_i_-ee
_ AS__,I_- ; i,e__

N
LJ
,)

ii

+
i

_0,.i "
I
-

.....

++.-.,--

.,,

_-

.A7LB- 2c.I649

Pattern

A7LB- 215239

Pa_t_n

Pan-tern

__.7
LB- 2C!6A 6

ATLB- 251 ?A?

_-25!645
_251_ 5

Pattern
Patter._Pattern--

J
D
D

_-25!746
-_ATLD-251746

P___ttern
Pattern

Patte-_r_-Pattern

Pa_&e_n
Pattcr_ --

D
D

Pattern

--A2LB_

17 4 2

_A7LB-_gC1642
A7T-B -2Z1742
_.7L__ - 2C !_42
_

_T.D--9_I

_A

_'lT.I_--901

_A

"-_
-n
Pattern_at t_rn_-_

-A?L__-2CI_ A.
5
_ .... ._n.A.
_7LD ": n. A'7
..... " _" _"
_A?T_n__95I_645
_'tf

__')

_ ,_w

_,

_I.'7

"t" _,.._..L.
---,L

T_.

4-4-^----

--

J
J

A G

_'J_'I "7 A

B
J

Pat.tcrn
......
P.einf. Ve._t-

A?L_- 2CI_ _.
_
---AT-LL2_IO54

_--

E
E
E

Six - ST Drawings
Film A__semb_Znner

,_ ATT.n-991!58

....

E
C'

LPatt_rn
_att&zr.,Fatt&_-n
_attcrn
Pattern
n.

4. _.------

D
J
J
D
D
D

Y'__ 4- 4.._,_._ m_

_a_=_tter_
D'._'_'^_
:'a _ t &_.-,n
.....
--

DD

.. 1_._T.I=--9 __1 _AA.

Im,.._
4-4-_,,,.,..__

-A-TK,=" 2C1 _ _.-_

_-,'- _-,--,,

_B_2517
a.4
_.. ,,.k.
c n";AA
--AqLD-2 517 =_
-

[1 "
0c;'
N

C
D
D

_--A_LLB_I644
_B2Z!__44

__--

_A7

.A7__n__95]745

Pa _

_T_--_I

r'-')

E
D

|
!

i
L

,
APPENDIX

PRESENTATION-

- MANAGEMENT

SYSTEMS

STUDY

*'i
'i

|_

I"

,,,

|,

r 1
L
LQ

t .,,_4
:

, J

""

STUDY
TASKS=

t"

-"
"

PROGR_'I
MANAGEMENT
CMO

GOVERNMENT/CONTRACTOR
MANAGEMENT
REPORTS
ASTRONAUT
FIELDOPTIONITEMCONTROL
IMPROVED
CONFIGURATION
r_NAGEMENI
METHODS

BUSINESS
MANAGEMENT
I_

ANALYSIS
OF COSTDATA
BUSINESS
MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM
.'.
i

PROGRAM
CONTPOL
MANUFAC]URING
DOCUMENTATION
ANDCONTROL
SYSTEMS
PROGRAM
PHASING
PHILOSOPHY

_"
,
)
'
'
"
;:: _
_

,w_,.

,'
"=,

ENGINEERING
INTERFACE
CONTROL
DOCUMENTATION
CONTRACT
ENDITEMSPECIFICATIONS
FIELDOPERATIONAL
DOCUMENTATION
ENGINEERING
ORGANIZATION

,.L

_.
_:

;i

i]

QUALITY
TRACEABILITY
INSPECTION
ANDIN-PROCESS
VERIFICATION

_L_,
,

_j

.J

,,;

f"3

_,,

;n

,[;

,,_11

7.

L.

PROGRAF'I
MANAGEMENT

E
_i

I) MANUFACTURING
DOCUMENTATION
ANDCONTROL
SYSTEMS,

2) IMPROVED
CONFIGURATION
MANAGEMENT/CONTROL
METHODS,
3) GOVERNMENT/CONTRACTOR
MANAGEMENT
REPORTS,

[i

4) PROGRAM
PHASING
PHILOSOPHY,

[',"

5) ASTRONAUT
FIELDOPTIONITEMCONTROL,

Li
E_
I
I
{.
J

[!C
-_

r_

'
[!r

ENGINEERING
DRAWINGS
& MANUFACTURING
DOCUMENTATION

_:

PROBLEM
- OVER
90%OFTHEDRAWINGS
CONTAINED
REDUNDANT
INFORMATION,

i '

I'

.[:

1) MANUFACTURING
ANDINSPECTION
INSTRUCTIONS
(TO'S)
Ii.i

WEREUTILIZED
ASTHEPRIMEINSTRUCTIONS
FOR
OPERATIONAL
PERSONNEL
RATHER
THANTHEDRAWINGS,
A, SUBASSEMBLY
DRAWINGS
GENERATED
WERECOMPLEX

li
I!
,
L
,-.

ANDUNWIELDY,
OPERATIONAL
PERSONNEL
HAD
DIFFICULTY
USING
THEM,
B, DRAWINGS
WEREPRODUCED
ANDPARTNUMBERS
ASSIGNED
FROMANENGINEERING
VIEWPOINT,
MANUFACTURING
REQUIREMENTS
WERENOTGIVEN
PRIORITY,

i
_

2) TO'SCONTAINED
ALLTHEINFORMATION
ONTHE
DRAWINGS
ASWELLASSUPPLEMENTARY
INSTRUCTIONS
REQUIRED
TOFABRICATE
A SPACE
SUITASSEMBLY,

3) BOTHTO'SANDDRAWINGS
WEREMAINTAINED
--DUAL

i,"

CONTROL
PROCEDURES
a

L!
T

'

L_J

"C"

'

I"
I

DATACOLLECTION
ANDDISSEMINATION
PROBLE/.];

I_
VARIOUS
DOCUMENTATION
WASGENERATED
TU MEETCONFIGURATION
p

Z.

ANDMATERIAL
TRACEABILITY
REQUIREMENTS,

i,

1) THEINITIAL
_IPHASIS
WASPLACED
ON CONTROLLING

[:

CONFIGURATION
ANDTRACEABILITY
FORSPACESUITSBEING
FABRICATED,

[
.
i'...

L,

2) AS THEPROGRAM
BECAMEOPERATIONAL,
ADDITIONAL
REQUIREI,
IENTS
WEREENCOUNTERED,
3) NEWDOCUMENTS
WERECREATED
BY INDIVIDUAL
DEPARTMENTS

i.i

WITHOUT
CONSIDERING
UTILIZING
ORMODIFYING
EXISTING

[_

REPORTS,

i
p,

1,
i,

Li

",.

-]
"1C

"i

..

RECOrD.GUIDELINES:

[,
'

1) DELEGATE
AUTHORITY
FORDATACOLLECTION
AND
DISSEMINATION
TO ONESPECIFIC
GROUP

I.
w

"
!i

2) DETE_IINE
AS EARLYAS PRACTICAL
WHATINFORMATION
WILLBEREQUIRED
WHENTHEPROGRAMBECOMES
OPERATIOI4AL,

[i
3) FUNNEL
ALLADDITIONAL
REQUIREMENTS
THROUGH
THE
l)

[]

DELEGATED
GROUPFORoPTIMIZATION
OF DATA

rr-

DISSEMINATION,

L;
!
!-

:i
t ]

-.,......

, !

Na5

t-

EO

PROGRAM
PHASING,
PHILOSOPIIY.

E
P
_

II
ANYDELAYORREDESIGN
DURING
DESIGN
VERIFICATION
OR
QUALIFICATION
TESTING
HASA DOMINO
EFFECT
ONTHESUBSEQUENT
"PROGRAM
MILESTONES,

1) DVTWASCONCURRENT
WITHTHEFABRICATION
OFTHE
n

QUALIFICATION
UNITANDQUALIFICATION
WAS
PARALLEL
TOTHEFABRICATION
OFPRODUCTION
SPACESUITS.
2) "FINE
TUNING"
CHANGES
WEREINCORPORATED
INDVTAND

E_I

QUALIFICATION
UNITS
WITHOUT
COSTTRADE-OFF
STUDIES,
3) THEDVTANDQUALIFICATION
PROCEDURES
WEREBASEDON
MISSION
REQUIREMENTS
OFANENTIRE
SPACE
SUIT
ASSEMBLY,

(,?

A, PROGRAM
SCHEDULES
WEREBASEDONTHEENGINEERING
DEFINITION
OFTHELONGEST
DURATION,

,i

4) THEDESIGN
ENGINEERS
COULD
_IOT
ADEQUATELY
EG

TRAIN
IHEPROJECT,
MANUFACIURING
ANDQUALITY
ENGINEERS
PRIOR
TOFABRICATION
OFTHEDESIGN
VERIFICATION
SPACE
SUIT,

t
5) THESUITCONTRACTOR
ANDTHEGOVERNMENT
ARE
INVOLVED
INWHATCHANGE
ISORISN'T
FEE
"

E
E
[

C
[
E
C
m

_o
!}
[l

BEARING
DURING
QUALIFICATION
TESTING.

P
r"

RECOMMENDED
GUIDELI
tIES:

tC
F
'-

1) ESTABLISH
REQUIRED
CYCLELIFEOF EACHMAJOR
SUBASSFJ,IBLY
ARMS,LEGS,GLOVES,
ETC.AND

[i

PERFORM
CYCLEQUALIFICATION
ANDDESIGN
VERIFIC_TION
t

, c,
OFTHESESUBASSEMBLIES
INSERIES.
i_:"",'2.-C

_ .",,-."
" =
"

'

r _

i"
"
-

"

2) ALLOWENOUGH
DEVELOPMENT
TIMETO PERMIT
THE
DESIGNENGINEERS
TO ALLOCATE
TIMETO PROJECT,

[,

MARUFACTURING
ANDQUALI_Y
ENGINEERING.

3) COSTTRADE-OFF
STUDIES
sHOULD
BE ACCOHPLISHED

BEFOREINCORPORATIO;I
OF "FINE.TUNING"
CHANGES
INDVIOR QUALIFICATION
UNITSONCEFABRICATION

I !'"

HAS STARTED.

[i

4) PERFORMING
DVI"
ANDQUALIFICATION
TESTIHG
ON A

['"
L,.

SUBASSEMBLY
BASISALLOWS
ADDITIONAL
FLEXIBILITY
WHILEPERFORMING
TESTING.
THUSREDUCING
DELAYS
_USEDBY QUALIFICATION
FAILURESOR

;
!"

UNANTICIPATED
DELAYSINRELEASING
ACCEPTABLE
ENGINEERING
DEFINITION.

['

5) FIRSTAPTICLE
CONFIGURATION
INSPECTION
COULD
i-

i.

BEPERFORHED
UPON
COMPLETION
OFQUALIFICATION
TESTING
OFEACH
SUBASSEMBLY,

r'%
l

L:

_I_

[i
!

" "

"

'

.,

IMPROVEOCONFIGURATION'MANAGEMENT

[_
"

1)
"

. .

2)

[_

"..

THE MULTITUDE OF DIFFERENT CONFIGURATIONS

.

3)

IDENTIFICATION OF CONFIGURATiONDIFFERENCES
REQUIREDTIME-CONSUMINGPAPERSEARCHES
CHANGES OCCURRED AT COMPONENT OR"
" WHEN
LOWERCONFIGURATIONLEVELS

_i

4-)

QUALIFICATION STATUS IDENTIFICATION WAS

NOT READILY APPARENT

5)

APPROXIMATELY50 cMO.-RELATEDIJOCUMENTS

...

.,

[._

WERE
ACTIVE DURING THE SKYLAB/ASTP
PROGRAM

["
- .
I.
=,,

6)

MANUFACTURING
& qUALITY ORIGINATED
ADDITIOI"ALDOCUMENTATION FOR TRACE
AND ACCOUNTABILITY REQUIREMENTS

"

I/

"
l

t
_

;"

J'i
i

MADETHE DRAWINGSDIFFICULT TO INTERPRET

_
,
:-

."

115 DIFFERENT CONFIGURATIONSWERE

-CREATEDC.NTHE ATL PGA DRAWINGS

!
,

. CONTROLS
:.& METHODS
."
PROBLEM#1 - COMPLEXDRAWINGS& CONTROL
SYSTEMSEXISTED DUE TO MULTIPLE
CONFI GURAT! ON CHANGES
"

'

,=

RECOMMENDED
GUIDELINES
t

I_

1)
"

"

1_
1
-

;
-.
_,-.

.."
..

L
,
t.
,
!

2)

'o.

"

A PROPOSEDSYSTEM,WHICH IS INCLUDED
IN THE FINAL REPORT, SHOULDBE

"

CONSIDEREDFOR FUTURESPACE SUIT

PROGRAMS

UTILIZING 2-BASIC FBRi_ISTHE SYSTEMiVOULD

" PROVIDE ALL NECESSARYCONTROLDATA WHICH
INCLUDES:

. AD VS. AB CCNFI GURATION

CLASSIFICATION
SIZE.
QUALIFICATION S nATUS
INTERCHANGEAB
I L I "iY
.BILLS OF MATERIALS
DRAWINGS

;'

A)

- _ ":o "
-_" *
""

-'.o

IMPLEMENTAN
AUTHORIZEDCONFIGURATION
AND
TRACEABILITY
SYSTEM_,'IHICH'IiOULD
CONSOLIDATEINTER-RELATED MANUFACTURIHG,
QUALITY AND CMODATA.

."

[..

MOB KI T STATUS
TRACEABILITY

'
.

DELIVERY SCHEDULE

.;

p-o
W

..

"_

..
2
'"'
e_

:
2

; .'

-t

'

'

:'i,"
" ") "o',e

.. ,:.':
-.

'
"

[!_i

"

IMPROVED
CONFIGURATION
mNAGEMENT
CONTROLS/METHODS

[_

PROBLEM
#2: INCORPORATION
OF ACCEPTABLE
ALTERNATE

PARTSREQUIRED
FORMALCONFIGURATION
CHANGES,

[_
"

1) PERTHECEISPEC,EACHCOHPONENT
COULDONLY
BE REPLACED
WITHOTHERCOMPONENTS
HAVING
THE
"

L,
[
t

[,

!J

I'

SAMEPARTNUHBER,
2) EXISTING
SPAREPARTSWEREMODIFIED
OR NEW
PROCUREMENT
WASAUTHORIZED
BECAUSE
AN
INTERCHANGEABILITY
VEHICLE
DIDNOTEXIST,

_.

_o

RECO_IENDED
6UIDELINES:

_.
o

[_

n
I

[_

"

A SYSTEM
SHOULD
BE DEVELOPED
TO IDENTIFY
ANDcONTROL
USEOF ACCEPTABLE
ALTERNATE
PARTS,

U
F]

GOVERNMENT/CONTRACTOR
MANAGB_ENT
REPORTS

LC_

E
[]

Li

SIMILARREPORTS
WEREPREPARED
BY DIFFERENT
CONTRACTOR
GROUPS.

"

@
o

NO
I) MOSTREPORTSWEREUNCONTROLLED,
REQUIRING
,FORMAL
REVIEW
AND/OR
CONCURRENCE
PRIOR
TO
RELEASE.

2) NO CENTRALDATASOURCE_ISTEDAND RESULTED
_-i.
f-

t
I_

IN CUSTOr,
IERAND COI_RACTOR
COUNTERPARTS
FAVORING
EACHOTHER'SDATA (CMO,ENGINEERING,

OA,
R,
3) _ACH INTERDEPARTMENTAL GROUP OF THE
SUIT CONTRACTOR CREATED AND MAINTAINED
THEIR O_:IN
FILES TO PERFORM THEIR DALLY
TASKS.

l;

[i
L'-;
"

A.

AT
THE CONTRACTCR'S
FACILITY.
IN
AT LEAST
ii REDUNDANT
FILES EXISTED
SOME CASES 50 DIFFERENT CMO-RELATED.

B.

DOCU_;IENTS
IVEREINCLUDED IN FILES.
REORGANIZATION& RELOCATIONOF INIEC,-

[
f-

DEPARTI_ENTALGROUPSCAUSEDMUCH
DUPLICATION. .....

[!
"
[_
LJ
(

4.) RANDOMDI STRI BUTI ON TECHNI QUES. THE

ORIGII_ATORCF THE DATA IN I_,IAtlY
CASES
ESTABL;SHEDHIS O_,'JN
DISTRIBUTION REQUIREMENTS.

[J-:(_
RECOI.IMENDED
GUIDELINES: UTILIZE
A DATACENTRALIZATION
SYSTFJI
TO:
A. MONITOR
ANDCONTROL
ALLDATADISTRIBUTIONS

B, MONITOR
THEDATAREPRODUCTION
POLICiES.

C, ALLNEW
UTILIZE
ONECENTRAL
TO INPUT
DATA,
.DATASOURCE

L
[

o.

ASTRONAUT
FIELDOPTIONITEMCONTROL

........

[i
L

"

"

FIELDOPTIONAL
MODIFICATIONS
RESULTED
INCONFIGURATION
CHANGES,
MULTIPLE
DRAWING
REVISIONS,
ADDITIONAL

f-

i_,

, TRACKING
SYSTEMS
ANDMASSIVE
HISTORICAL
FILES.
i

1) APPROXIMATELY
30 FIELDOPTIONAL
ITEMS
(FOI'S)
WEREAVAILABLE
INANYCOMBINATION
TO THECREWMAN,

[-r.

2) SUITFITCHECK,
CREWMAN
GENERALLY
SELECTED
FOI'S
DURING
THE
.....

[.-_
L

A. TIMEWOULDNOTALLOWINCORPORATION
FOR
VERIFICATION.

[i

B. ON INITIAL
FIELDUSEOCCASIONALLY
NEWFIT
PROBLEMS
OCCURRED,

I!
F
L
,

3) STANDARD
FOI'SWERESHIPPED
AS PARTOF THE
SUITCONFIGURATION
WHENNOTDESIRED
BY THE

CREWMAN
(VALSALVA
DEVICE,
COMFORT
PADS,ETC,),

[-

u I-I

!(_.

I!

RECOMI.]ENDED
GUIDELINES: .

i) INSTALL
ALLFIELDOPTIONAL
ITEI]S
IN THEFIELD,

_?

2) IDENTIFY
ANDCONTROL
FOI'SAT A TYPEIILEVEL,
PREPARE
THELISTING
'OFFOI'SAS A TYPEI,

";

DOCUMENT
A, DO NOTMAKEFOI'SPARTOFTHECONTROLLED

DRAWING
SYSTEM,

3) PROVIDE
FOI'S
ONLYWHENSPECIFICALLY
REQUESTED
[i

_
_

BYTHECREWMAN,

.
.

......-..........
--T,--TT_

"

....

-..........

,__c,_--_
_

_--

=j

'

[._.
t,

CEISPECIFICATIOrIS

I:

PROBt

1.
,
.L

NUMEROUS
CHANGES
TO CEISPECIFICATIONS
CEIWEIGIff
CHANGES
SEPARABLE
COMPONENTS
REQUIRED
CLOSE
TRACKING

F. -

"

L,

EXCESSIVE
CHANGE
ACTIVITY
OCCURRED
DURING
PROGRAM
CREWOPTIONITEMS
_DED THROUGHOUT
PROGRAM

EFFECTED
WEIGHT
ANDCREWOPTIONITEMLIST

_.

ICDT_UI.ATION
CHAIIGES
OCCURRED
AT HIGHRATETHROUGHOUT

PROGRAM

NINklNS..

ALLOWSUFFICIENT
SAFETY
FACTOR
OH SPECWEIGHT

_
,

,
i
i

DELETEREQUIREMENT
TO REFLECT
ICDLISTINCEISPECS
CUSTOMER
SIGNATURE
ON ICDSHOULD
SUFFICE

i
T'
I

DELETECREWOPTIOI,_
LISTFROMCEISPECANDCOIITROL
_..

BYOTHERLOWERLEVELDOCUMENT,

(
\

f,._

-E

i_
L_

,!

,_
Z

z
r,_

I_.

,,

I--

__
t

E
In
_L

':

-I

'
[

PRo L .I.

,.

- F
_
-

!
;_

" MAINTAIN
EXPENSIVE
TO PREPARE
ArID

[_

"

CONTAINED
HIGHLEVEL
OFTECHNICAL
DETAIL
ILLUSTRATIONS
EXPENSIVE

!.I

I_
I_

ALLCLASS
I ANDITCONFIGURATIONS
MAINTAINED
3 MODELS
AT ONCE
OTHEROPERATIONAL
DIRECTIONS
(FOB'S,
SSN,SRP)

REFERENCES
RESTRICTED

[
L
f
I
'

SEPARATE
ANDDIFFERENT
INSTRUCTIONS
AT DEPOTAND
FIELD
TO'SFORNEWFAB.

:_
-i

I.

MM FORTEARDOWN
ANDREBUILD

MM RESTRICTED
TO NON-STRUCTURAL
REPAIRS

CHANGE
ACTIVITY
EXCESSIVE
1970- 1971,- 80 CHANGES
EFFECTING
2378
PAGES,
173ILLUST.

"
i
i:

LEVEL-OF-EFFORT
METHOD
OF MAINTENANCE

t,
L.;

r
_"
f
|

Ci
I
,:

CHANGES
DIRECTED
W/OREGARD
TO COST
INITIAL
STANDARD/,IAINTAINED

.i
,_

'

i1

[_

[i

_- _ ""
z

'-'

l
t

,,,

,_

"i

_'"

I_'s

Ii

_,.,

e_'

"

LIE

_o
,'i!
(

[.i

If
I"

INSPECTION
& IN-PROCESS
VERIFICATION

_"

PROBLEM_

AMOUNT
OF IN-PROCESS
DISCREPANCY
PAPER,
PRODUCTION
"DOWNTIME"ANDMANPOWER
REQUI:._D
TO CLEARPAPERWORK,

[,
F

"

1) THETOLERANCES
ON VARIOUS
DIMENSIONS
WERE
"TIGHT"
TO INSURE
QUALITY
WORkmANSHIP,

t-

2)

100%

I NSFECT]ON

-PRODUCTION,

WAS

PERFORMED

ON

ALL

ITEMS

IN

i
?

"

3) MANUFACTUR!NG
ENGINEERING
WASNOTDELEGATED
ANY

RESPONSIBILITY
FORDISPOSITIONING
A REJECT,

I'

[.

A, EACHREJECT
TAGREQUIRED
AN AVERAGE
OF ONEHOUR
TO PROCESS,

[!

B, MAJORANDMINORDEFECTS
WERENOTCLASSIFIED
AND
INDICATED
ON THEINSPECTION
INSTRUCTIONS

E
w

i
L

'_._i

_;'_
_''_

.--+i
__ _-_

..

( i

PROGRAM
GUIDELIIIES:

_ i,[",
"-"
4
+" ;
+E
_,- ;_
"," J:

I) INSURE
ALLTOLERANCES
AREPRACTICAL
PRIORTO
RELEASE
OF DVTPRODUCTION
DOCUMENTATIOII.
THE
RENLTSSHOULD
I_EREVIEWED
AFTERDVT,AND
TOLERA!ICES
REVISED
AS NECESSARY
FORTHE
: QUALIF-ICATION,
UNITS

! ,

,
J

:
"

IL

--

:,

:-

:.

2):CLASSIFICATION
OFDEFECTS

+) []
:_;:
It

_+
/

!
+

+--"
L

_'"
-

+>

3) A MININI+I
OF IN-PROCESS
INSPECTION
SHOULD
BE
PERFORMED
BY QUALI-TY.
THEEMPHASIS
SHOULD
BE
PLACED
ON SUBASSEMBLY
INSPECTION
ANDTESTING.

+.

4) BANUFACTURIIIG
SHOULD
BEDELEGATED
GREATER

I-

:-

; +_

2
.2

,<

_.

RESPONSIBILITY
FORIN-PROCESS
INSPECTION.

::
i

++,:-, .=
'+
++_
_'_"-I_
++.

.>

5) MANUFACTURING
ENGINEERING
SHOULD
BE
RESPONSIBLE
FORDISPOSlTIONING
MINOR
REJECTS.THISWOULDELIMINATE
APPROXIIIATELY

70%OF THEREJECT
TAGS.

;+"

" L
[i
t
J

-..

2-

(,

-I1

I_

,_._'_,
J

- .. . *
,

r_

i.-.

TRACEABILITY

F
r

HIGHLEVELOF MANPOI'IER
REQUIRED
TO t'_INTAII'I

-["

TRACEABILITY
SYSTEII,
STANDARD
TRACESYSTEI.}
DEVELOPED
INTOTOTAL
HISTORICAL/VERIFICATION
CAPABILITY,

F
U

CONTAINED
ALLFIELDAIID
DEPOTTRACEDATA,
MANUAL
SYSTEI.I
CAUSED
HEAVYMANLOADING,

_.
L

CRmCAL
PARTS
A_D
r_TERIALS
NOT
IDE,TIFIED.
"

REVIEWIHDICATES
25%IIEED
NOTBE TRACED

L.

[_
F:

L!
I_
_

ALLI_TERIALS
TREATED
EQUALLY

VARIATION
INTYPESOF TRACESYSTEI'IS
UTILIZED
(SHOPORDERS,
PIRS,FIRS)
COMPLICATED
DATARECORDII'IG
ANDRETRIEVAL
INCREASED
CHANCE
OF ERRORS

"

VARIED
ANDREDUNDANT
REQUESTS
FORDATA
RETRIEVAL
TIMECONSUI'IItlG

TRACEABILITY
I'.IATRIX
NOTFEASIBLE

: I

CAUSED
HIGHLEVELOF OVERTII'.IE
SOt,
IEREQUESTS
OF NON-CRITICAL
NATURE

I"
.(

NO REQUEST
SYSTEI4
OR REQUEST
"CHAIN-OFCOFIIIA{ID"
EXISTED

.i
_,
t
"

'I

L;

BETHODI. STREAMLINE
ANDMAINTAIN
A MANUAl,.
SYSTEM

RECORD
ALLTRACEDATABY ONESYSTEM
IDENTIFY
NON-CRITICAL
fIATERIAL
ANDDO NOT

[_
:" [i
"

_i
'

[i

TRACEBEYOND
RECEIVING
INSPECTION.
DO NOTTRACECLASSIICHANGES
"

TRANSFER
FILING
ANDMAINTENANCE
TO A CEtlTRAL
PROGRAfl
DATACENTER.
QUALITY
TO MONITOR
ANDVERIFY
ONLY.
REDUCES
QUALITY
CLERKREQUIREIEIITS.
ESTABLISH
"DATAREQUEST"
CONTROLS
ANDPROCEDURES.

[;
,

[
L,

METHODIT:COI'IPUTERIZE
DATASYSTEM
REDUCT
IOtl
IN I.]AI,IPOI'IER

[i

LESSFILINGREQUIREMENTS
FASTER
ANDMORECONTROLLED
RETRIEVAL

[)

MORERELIABLE
DATA
CLASSII CANBE TRACKED
AT LITTLEINCREASE

[_
I

;,

._COST.

"_.

I '
I .

i-'
i ;

[i"
-

_
_=_ _ _-....-:=-.-_

--..,,__

I
!
"2

d_

.!

I!
L._

['._.

SW_MARY

|_

I_

MAJORGUIDELINES
RESULTING
FROI'I
s'r'UDY:

"'F

"

[-'

1) PLACEEMPHASIS
ON QUALIFICATION
OF SUBASSEMBLIES

[-

RATHER
THANTHEENTIRE
SPACESUIT
ASSEMBLY.
2) FACIFIRSTPRODUCTION
ITEMRATHER
THAN
QUALIFICATION

ITEM,

i_

3)
CEIWORST
CASEMISSION
REQUIREr'_ENTS.
FIRST TIEIE
4) QUALIFY
REDUCE
DTO
RAWING
REQUIREI_IENTS
BY USING
MANUFACTURING

[_

INSTRUCTIONS
FORCONFIGURATION
CONTROL,
5) REDUCE
100%IN-PROCESS
INSPECTION
-- REPLACE
WITH

._ [

COMPONENT
ANDSUBASSEMBLY
ACCEPTANCE
TESTING,

11

6) DEVELOP
ALLOCATE
TIIIE
EARLY
INPROGRAM
TO
ESUFFICIENT
FFICIENT
SYSTEFIS
A,DPROCEDURES,

7) PERFORH
ASTRONAUT
FITCHECKAT USER'S
SITE,
8) STREAMLINE
DATAREPORTING
REQUIREMENTS
ANDCENTRALIZE
DATACOLLECTION
SYSTEH,

I_

9) CONSOLIDATE
PROGRAM
MAtlAGEMENT
CONTROL
FUNCTIONS,

i:L
Q

#,

1
F"

LC;
r

L'
POTENTIAL
MANMONTH
SAVINGS
r!

L:

,_.

i-

_.
F]

TOTALPOTENTIAL
SAVINGS
1565 IVIANMONTHS

'

SUr,
IMARY