AIAA 96-4245

Analysis of Shuttle Orbiter Reliability and Maintainability Data for Conceptual Studies W. D. Morris N. H. White NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, Virginia Dr. C. E. Ebeling University of Dayton Dayton, Ohio

1996 AIAA Space Programs and Technologies Conference September 24-26, 1996/Huntsville, AL
For permission to copy or republish, contact the American Institue of Aeronautics and Astronautics 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Suite 500, Reston, VA 22091

Space Systems and Concepts Division. NOMENCLATURE APU COMM ECLS EXP FPOT GPOT IOS IWCS HC KSC LaRC LOG LSTAR MHRS MAINT MTAR Auxilary Power Unit Communications Environmental Control and Life Support Exponential Flight Power On Time Ground Power On Time Integrated Operations System Integrated Work Control System Head Count Kennedy Space Center Langley Research Center Lognormal Launch + 15 Day Shuttle Trend Analysis Report Manhours Maintence Maintenance Trend Analysis Report MTBMA MTTR OMDP PRACA PV&D R&M RCM RCS SFC/DC SPDMS STS TCS TPS TVC WEIB Mean Time Between Maintenance Actions Mean Time To Repair Orbiter Maintenance Down Period Problem Reporting and Corrective Action Purge Vent & Drain Reliability and Maintainability Reliability Centered Maintenance Reaction Control System Shop Floor Control/Data Collection Shuttle Processing Data Management System Space Transportation System Thermal Control System Thermal Protection System Thrust Vector Control Weibull INTRODUCTION *Aerospace Technologist. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner. trends. Government has a royalty-free license to exercise all rights under the copyright claimed herein for Governmental Purposes. No copyright is asserted in the United States under Title 17. Inc. Virginia Dr. Member AIAA. Ohio ABSTRACT In order to provide a basis for estimating the expected support required of new systems during their conceptual design phase.S. For those charged with assessing the support required of future reusable launch systems. One of the best guides for estimating future performance of conceptual systems is current experience with similar systems. U. N. the lack of a suitable compilation of the reliability and maintainability (R&M) history of the Orbiter has been a major hindrance in benefiting from that experience. This information is used to help establish rational levels of support for a new generation of vehicles that are traceable to current flight experience and to help evaluate the value of new technologies in reducing both the time and cost to operate a new system. This paper presents a summation of those results and an initial interpretation of the findings. School of Engineering. C. E. and distributions to aid in the analysis of new designs. the experience base is the Shuttle Orbiter. Such information is needed by those working in space operations who are charged with the responsibility of both assessing the support required of future systems and of identifying the benefits of developing new technologies for support of those systems.ANALYSIS OF SHUTTLE ORBITER RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY DATA FOR CONCEPTUAL STUDIES W. D. Copyright © American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Morris*. The analysis of aircraft support has used historical R&M data from operational systems in combination with . However.S. †Associate Professor. Code. **Aerospace Technologist. H. Space Systems and Concepts Division. White** NASA Langley Research Center Hampton. Ebeling† University of Dayton Dayton. This information was analyzed to provide benchmarks. The U. Langley Research Center has recently collected Shuttle Orbiter reliability and maintainability data from the various data base sources at Kennedy Space Center.

the solid rocket motor and external tank data are not shown as a part of this report. Since these studies are frequently addressing generic technologies and broad-based processing issues. That level of information. the models had to be based on assumed parametric values such as turnaround time.. aircraft data has been used to formulate an analysis tool based on parametric estimating relationships6-8. since historically defined support requirements were generally only available at highly aggregated levels. however. it lacked completeness and contained insufficient data to statistically characterize the results. One of the initial data studies which collected Shuttle support information was specifically designed to aid in the process definition and to define manpower and task times for launch operations5. Although useful for launch vehicles in giving general insight to support requirements. The results from this most recent study form the basis of this report. number of facilities. A more recent study has confirmed that the maintainability data is not available from the existing Shuttle electronic databases11 at a fidelity comparable to aircraft databases. the modeler is in need of information on the type. along with the crew sizes required for support of new launch systems. The records presented in this paper reflect tasks required for hands-on support of Orbiter processing between flights. Because the focus was on support of reusable elements. While information from this study aided simulation modeling. The recent implementation of the Integrated Work Control System (IWCS) as a part of Shuttle Processing Data Management System (SPDMS) provided the opportunity to define that connection. etc. This method built on one developed by Weber9 for analyzing space system designs using aircraft data. This study made use of current data collection systems in-place at KSC to collect and analyze information which would be consistent with the level of analysis used in Langley’s conceptual studies. For conceptual studies.simulation models to define and improve the effectiveness of their support systems for over 25 years1.000 support tasks performed over a 4-year period. SCOPE/METHODS/APPROACH Ideally. but required major assumptions to develop the maintainability data. manpower. Typically. none of the cited reports provide a linkage between the problems that initiated maintenance actions and the support manpower and time required to analyze and/or correct it. In particular. these studies are conducted at the subsystem level. A number of working reports are now being issued to aid those responsible for Shuttle processing. This paper will examine the Shuttle R&M data to identify characteristics and trends consistent with this phase of the program. Lacking good R&M histories on Shuttle. Early work defining support for conceptual launch vehicles also attempted to use this approach with discrete event simulation modeling2-4. This level lacked the fidelity necessary to evaluate the effects of introducing new technologies or procedures. Typical are the MTAR (Maintenance Trend Analysis Report12). the application of these techniques at the subsystem level is both appropriate and adequate. The focus of each is on slightly different aspects of the support. their emphasis is on process control and are intended to highlight current and emerging problem areas to management attention so that they can be addressed in a timely manner. The Langley Research Center (LaRC) initiated a study by Lockheed Martin Advanced Programs Group15 at KSC to update the data base that had been developed in 199210 and to collect this additional information on maintenance activities which had not been available at the time of the earlier report. LSTAR (Launch + 15 Day Shuttle Trend Analysis Report Plus13) and RCM (Reliability-Centered Maintenance14) reports. Although these reports contain useful modeling information. it will attempt to provide insight to the manpower and repair time characteristics of the Shuttle’s support concept that can be used for modeling the support requirements of future reusable launch vehicles. a study by Martin Marietta10 was initiated to define R&M data from the Shuttle program that was comparable to the aircraft data used by this analysis model. a complete and detailed component level R&M history would be available for the Shuttle Orbiter. As Shuttle data became available in the post Challenger time period. The study provided Shuttle data similar to the aircraft reliability histories. However. This is of primary interest for modeling these activities for future launch systems. . It links planned and unplanned work to both the time and workforce required to perform the task. is simply not available for Shuttle systems. The data base presented in this report consists of data records from post-Challenger flights only for the Shuttle Orbiter. They do not provide the modeler all of the information nor offer the longer historical perspective needed for use in conceptual studies. frequency and duration of tasks. A total of 29 post-Challenger flights are included in the data base and represent over 75. 2 All of these reports are drawn from data contained in the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) data bases. comparable to that available for military aircraft.

The standard tasks are frequently referred to as planned or scheduled work. the SPDMS II. Integrated Work Control System (IWCS) Integrated Operation System (IOS) Data Base Scheduled Unscheduled Problem Reporting & Corrective Action (PRACA) Data Base sources. Also. These included the Interim Problem Reports. The PRACA data base was used to define the number of maintenance actions and thus the reliability of each subsystem for the purpose of maintenance. and the Problem Reporting and Corrective Action (PRACA) data systems (Figure 1). Job Card. The workforce and task time requirements were defined in SFC/DC system for many of the planned tasks identified in the IOS data base. The systems which make up IWCS are the primary source of processing data for this study. the Problem Reports.The operations processing data maintained at KSC was originally driven by the need to track the status and completion of work. For that reason. STS# 50 46 47 52 53 54 56 55 57 51 58 61 60 62 59 65 64 68 66 63 67 71 70 69 73 74 72 75 76 Mission# 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 Orbiter 102 104 105 102 103 105 103 102 105 103 102 105 103 102 105 102 103 105 104 103 105 104 103 105 102 104 105 102 104 Launch Date 6/25/92 7/31/92 9/12/92 10/22/92 12/2/92 1/13/93 4/8/93 4/26/93 6/21/93 9/12/93 10/18/93 12/2/93 2/3/94 3/4/94 4/9/94 7/8/94 9/9/94 9/30/94 11/3/94 2/3/95 3/2/95 6/27/95 7/13/95 9/7/95 10/20/95 11/12/95 1/11/96 2/22/96 3/22/96 Landing Date 7/9/92 8/8/92 9/20/92 11/1/92 12/9/92 1/19/93 4/17/93 5/6/93 7/1/93 9/22/93 11/1/93 12/13/93 2/11/94 3/18/94 4/20/94 7/23/94 9/20/94 10/11/94 11/14/94 2/11/95 3/18/95 7/7/95 7/22/95 9/18/95 11/5/95 11/20/95 1/20/96 3/9/96 3/31/96 Shop Floor Control/ Data Collection (SFC/DC) Data Base Scheduled Task Scheduled Task with Manpower Unscheduled Task with Manpower Unscheduled Task Scheduled Data Base Unscheduled Data Base Figure 1. the IWCS also provided new software functions that allowed for the first time a limited definition of maintenance requirements based on the historical records. They consists of the Operations and Maintenance Instruction. because the SFC/DC has been phased into use only in recent years. For that reason. Work Authorization and the Test Preparation Sheet tasks. Repetitive Operations and Maintenance Instruction. Again. The SFC/DC system was used to define the number of people and the time required to perform repair tasks which are then assumed representative of unscheduled maintenance tasks on each subsystem. it became necessary to define the unplanned data from the two different 3 Note: shaded flights not included in this analysis . and the Discrepancy Reports. these are assumed representative of the scheduled tasks for each subsystem. IWCS was the latest part of the evolution of this system. Table 1. STS Missions Contained in the R&M Data Base. In addition to better integrating the standalone systems. In a similar fashion. The IOS was used to define both the standard and non-standard tasks for the data base. Stand alone data systems were typical until a unified electronic data collection system. These were the Integrated Operating System (IOS). Data base development. it was necessary to use the IOS to identify the corresponding maintenance records in the SFC/ DC data base. matching records do not exist for every maintenance action identified in the PRACA data base. the IOS data base was used to define the number of scheduled tasks and the SFC/DC system was used to define the people and the time required to perform those tasks. was implemented after the Challenger accident. Since the PRACA data base does not contain manpower or task time information. matching records do not exist for every scheduled maintenance task identified in the IOS data base. the Shop Floor Control /Data Collection (SFC/DC). The non-standard or unscheduled tasks were identified in the PRACA data base.

8 2.4 61.6 1.0 57.3 25.1 1.0 1.9 1.2 No Data 4.0 11.0 1.0 No Data 0.4 1.9 5.0 76. lower forward Crew module Fuselage.3 110.3 1.8 17.2 No Data 171.3 8.7 9.4 1.5 1.9 19.8 17.5 1.1% 18.7% 19.8 46.1 7.7% 12.5 50.3% 28.3 1.1 0.2 2.3% 44.7 1.6 14.3 1.3 26.9 20.5 0.4% 25.8 16.2 1.9 73.1 12.4% 29.9% 14. Crew Size Removal Tasks Hours Mhrs HC Activities Hours Mhrs HC Rate 0.9% 13.4 14.2 44.1 1.0 16.9 38.3 2.8 1.3 28.0 1.0 10.2 21.7 17.4 15.8 6.3 87.2 15.2 1.5 5.3 1.3 1.3 10.8 8.8 19.9 13.3 5.0 35.0 19.0% Subsys Subsys Definition 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 16 19 20 21 22 23 26 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 Structures and thermal control Purge.0% 53.4 5.8 17.7 1.5 1.7 23.0 No Data 85.1 1.3% 23.8 20.7 18.8 29.3 21.1 No Data 25.4 2.8 24.0 1.0 12.6 26.7% 65.5 47.0 1.0 1.8 2.2 1.0 2.4 11.4 43.9 0.1 10.9 16.3 1.6 34.2 15.4 1.8 27.1 37.3 8.6% 52.0 No Data 15.2 13.1 13.5 11.0 6.6 76.0 1.0 18.5 1.6 58.7 6.7 0.2 1.6 6.7 3.5 13.8 18.4 1.7 17.1 24.9 1. Crew Size Maint.2 14.9% 14.0% 31.2 23.0 7.0 71.2 6.4% 19.3 37.0% 60.1 35.9 10.3 1.2 1.1 16.3 21.2 21.5 50.5 20.4 41.1 35.2 1.3 11.0% 13.2% No Data 31.2 1.Table 2.7% 41.2 23.5 1.9 23.0 9.4 11.2 13.7 28.0 1.2 0.8 20.450 hours.9 19.9 1.0 27.0 93.2 7.2 27.4 17.2 19.6% 49.5 24.7% 52.6 38.3 1.0% 38.5 42.1 0.4 8.1% 4.6 3.0 1.3 9.0 10.1 13.6 1.8 1.4 7.2 33.7 51.1 18.0 2.3 9.4 1.3 45.6 31.5 10.9 25.1 1.6 1.9 53.8 24.4 1.8% 46.7 14.3% 22.2 1.8% 37.3% 39.2 1.2 12.9% 32.6 14.2 1.3 1.4 19.5% 17.7 44.3 No Data 3. mid Fuselage.2 18.1 20.9% 18.3 6.7 18.7 32.8 16.6% 66.9 39.3 16.9 25.8 12.3 16.4 2.2 1.2 31.1 23.0% 31.0 1.4 13.7 16.5 1.6 13.1 7.2 13.1 1.8 7.2 1.2 8.0 34.4 1.2 9.6 1.5% No Data 34.7 2.5 17.3 57.2 1.5% 41.6 15.6 47.5 1.6 42.3 20.9 15.7 19.7 15.1 19.1 72.8 175.6 11.4 1.2 1.0% 76.9 68.6% 0.9 20.4 1.1 5.3 2.2 16.9 72.2 48.2 722.3 17.5 20.2 1.1 18.2 20.6 3.1 2.4 22.0 0.8 33.4 26.5 5.5 12.0 15.2 11.9 23.7 19.8 9.6 0.8 1.7 35.7 9.7 19.7 37.7 26.8 21.3 20.6 29.0% 44.3 14.0 7.8 6.8 23.7 Mean operating time: GPOT = 1.0 1.8 26.3 47.3 17.2 4.3 1.3 1.4 14.9 No Data 5.5 24.2 9.5 39.4% 22.0% 64.3 1.2 1.1 No Data 58.15 2.6 18.7% 26.9 1.6 15.4 1.8 12.1 2.1 24.0 1.5 56.9 22.0 1.7 25.2% 30.1 134.8 23.7 1. FPOT = 264 hours 4 .2 1.6 15.1 1.0 16.4 9.6 38.2 1.1 22.7 39.4 34.2 15.3 18.4 20.4% 26.7 2.4 17.9 21.7 14.3 22.5 30.2 1.5 2.3 0.5% 25.2 1.6 15.4 18.9 17.5 1.0 17.4 13.3 13.8 9.2 1. Scheduled Unscheduled Number Task Time Maint.2 13.8% 21.4 1.9 No Data 1.1 83.2 1.7 1.3 18.8 2.7 0.3 13.4 12.9% 18.1 No Data No Data 1.7 1.9 3.8% 29.5 1.5 2.6 0.5 3.2 7.5 20.7 2.95 1.4 375.3 6.4 2.0 52.8 14.4% 23.5 22.7 1.8 20.4 2.4 2. vent and drain Thermal control system Thermal/aerodynamics Structural dynamics/structures Thermal protection system (general) Wing (general) Wing leading edge Wing box Elevons Wing TCS Wing TPS Vertical stabilizer (general) Vertical stabilizer leading edge Vertical fin Rudder/speed brake Vertical stabilizer TCS Vertical stabilizer TPS Fuselage (general) Fuselage.0% 35.3 11.6 37.8 9.8 31.3 7.8 25.3 1.9 9.9 13.6 59.5 47.2 2.3 2.5 1.5 57.8 11.9 11.6 16.1 11.1 12.2 1.8 32.4% 19. MTTR Maint.1 1.7 26.0 10.0 17.2 1.9 17.0 8.7 20.6 1.6 9.3 1.5% 80.1 No Data 7.7 9.4 1.2 1.0 29.6% 50. Benchmark R&M Results for Shuttle Subsystems.1% 50.6 12.6 12.1 29.0 2.1 1.1 1. aft Fuselage TCS Payload bay doors Fuselage PV&D Fuselage TPS Propulsion/pwr (general) Main propulsion Reaction control/TVC Orbiter maneuvering Electrical power generation Auxiliary power unit Landing gear Brake/skid control Docking mechanism Payload retention/deployment Pyrotechnics and range safety Attachment/separation Aero surface control Hydraulics Actuation mechanisms ECLS (general) Atmospheric revitilization Life support Active thermal control Airlock support Crew provisions Crew equipment Avionics (general) Guidance and navigation Data processing Displays and controls Communications and tracking Instrumentation (operational) Electrical power distribution Interconnecting wiring Instrumentation development Flight control 16.2 7.6 1. upper forward Fuselage.7 43.6 14.

Representative ground and flight operating hours were developed as a part of the study to be used for defining the maintenance failure rate (Table 2). It also must be noted that no data entry against a subsystem does not necessarily indicate that no work was required. Also shown are the mean number of unscheduled maintenance actions for each subsystem along with the mean time to repair and crew sizes used. the time required and the number of personnel required for touch labor associated with each subsystem. and some short term delays. resulting in an underestimate of the total number of tasks required. 73) which were not representative of normal processing.52). The data for each were examined for any observable trends over the time period covered by the data and for distribu- . Since the data system has been phased in. These were assumed to be procedural errors and a task time of 12 hours was assigned to these.7. or alternate processing procedures for future launch systems would be accomplished by the modeler based on these benchmark values. a certain amount of inconsistency is inevitable. leaving to the analyst to decide whether the operating hours or some other parameter is the appropriate reliability metric for their study. Also since the number of tasks are from a different data base than the one in which the maintenance work was defined. The results are intended to be representative of the frequency of task.The data base presented in this report (Table 1) is drawn from the initial 29 flights minus: the Orbiter Maintenance Down Period (OMDP) flights (STS-53. An implicit assumption is made that the type of failures that occur and the time and manpower required for support can be used to uniquely characterize each subsystem code.7 tasks after each flight using sufficient personnel to average a crew size of 1.2 could perform repair in 12. All results are based on the flight subsystem codes as defined in reference 16. This is the longest a technician could typically work in a day even with overtime. Subsystems that were excluded are those that were not representative of reusable elements such as the external tank. In addition. Results for the 20 flights that were included were summarized in terms of the scheduled and unscheduled work required for support for each of the Shuttle’s subsystems. or subsystem codes that describe unique systems such as orbiter experiments or mission kits. power. 46. it appears that the assignment of the subsystem to the work performed could be done independently in the various data bases. work may have been accomplished before the data system was instituted. histograms were developed for each task to describe the variability in processing time and workforce representative of the task. changes in the operating environment. It should be noted that the Main Propulsion subsystem data generally includes only the work required to remove and replace the engines after each flight. The removal rate is based on the disposition code for each maintenance action and is also a weighted mean. diagnosing. avionics and electrical. These rates are not computed here. RESULTS & DISCUSSION Summary Results A summary of the results are presented in Table 2 for selected Shuttle subsystems. These task/repair times are based on the assumption that the data collected from the SFC/DC were representative of all tasks for each subsystem.4 working 51. In addition. propulsion. Delays that were coded into the shop floor data have been excluded from the serial time required for the task. In addition.3 hours on each task. to 5 maintain a hydraulic system using the same maintenance concept as Shuttle would require 8. the number of unscheduled maintenance actions that could be expected for a new system flying a similar technology in the same flight environment would be 26. An average crew of 1. so at times this identification was redefined to different subsystems. The task/ repair times presented here represent the time from task assignment to close-out including accessing. For example. These characteristics are the mean number of scheduled tasks and the mean time and crew size required per task weighted by the number of tasks. The actual engine repair work is accomplished in a repair shop which is not a part of the SFC system. Accounting for new technology. 66. These values weighted by the number of tasks are presented as a characterization of the R&M parameters that could be expected using Shuttle technologies for typical missions of similar environments and duration. hydraulics. Several subsystems were selected to be representative of different types of support: thermal protection. These were also examined over the 4-year period for trends. several of the early flights where data collection was initially being implemented (STS-50. and the last two flights for which all data may not have been available at the time it was downloaded (STS-75. The original data records contained some tasks that were never closed. That data was not available for this study. 76). Not all scheduled tasks could be identified by subsystem code in the IOS data base.47.8 hours for each maintenance action required.

Scheduled mean task time frequency distribution. 6 Figure 3. mid 25 20 15 10 5 0 50 90% Subsystem 34 Fuselage. . Scheduled mean task time per mission. hours 70 80 90 100 Figure 2. mid Mean task time Frequency 80 60 40 20 0 120 100 Subsystem 42 Reaction control/TVC 40 30 20 10 0 15 Subsystem 42 Reaction control/TVC 90% Mean task time 60 40 20 0 120 100 Subsystem 58 Hydraulic Frequency 80 Subsystem 46 Auxiliary power unit 10 Subsystem 46 Auxiliary power unit 5 90% 0 15 Subsystem 58 Hydraulic Mean task time 60 40 20 0 120 100 Subsystem 74 Communications & tracking Frequency 80 10 5 78% 0 15 Subsystem 74 Communications & tracking Mean task time 60 40 20 0 120 100 Subsystem 76 Electrical power distribution Frequency 80 10 5 90% 0 35 30 Frequency Mean task time 80 60 40 20 0 25 20 15 10 5 90% Subsystem 76 Electrical power distribution 54 56 55 57 51 58 61 60 62 59 65 64 68 63 67 71 70 69 73 72 STS number 0 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time.120 100 Subsystem 19 Wing TPS 200 150 Frequency Mean task time 80 60 40 20 0 120 100 Subsystem 19 Wing TPS 100 90% 50 0 35 30 Mean task time Frequency 80 60 40 20 0 120 100 Subsystem 34 Fuselage.

Table 3.56 14.11 7.00 9.33 51.55 R2 exponential 86 34 65 86 96 96 96 R2 Weibull 96 97 96 97 99 97 95 R2 normal 63 39 55 70 74 91 74 R2 lognormal 96 96 94 91 94 96 99 Best fit Log/Weib Weib/Log Weib/Log Weib/Log Weib/Exp Weib/Log Log/Exp tion of their task time requirements. electrical and Thermal Protection System (TPS).30 Sample std dev 19. The reason this is not observed could be attributed to several factors. mid RCS APU Hydraulics Comm/Tracking Electrical n 380 388 380 211 104 339 333 Sample mean 17.63 42. And finally. Results of Curve Fitting for Scheduled Task Times. both airborne and ground. Half of the tasks are completed in a single work shift for the TPS. Scheduled For scheduled support. The mean task times show mechanical type systems such as the Hydraulics.80 34.86 17. It may be that any learning that takes place is offset by increasing difficulties in performing the task due to aging equipment. limiting the fleet to seven flights per year places no incentive on reducing the time required for a task as long as it is within the time allotted to support the flight rate. All except the Hydraulics and the RCS systems complete 90 percent of the tasks within that period.06 16.36 16.35 Sample std dev 23. Curve fitting the data. Auxilary Power Unit (APU) and Reaction Control System (RCS) require significantly longer 7 work times than do the avionics. The multishift tasks appear to be characteristic of the scheduled support for these systems.50 20. A decreasing trend might be expected for repetitive tasks such as these.83 23.83 18. Subsystem Wing TPS Fuselage. Mid Fuselage. no task time trend could be observed.89 16.30 R2 exponential 62 88 55 98 90 96 98 R2 Weibull 86 94 93 94 92 98. The Hydraulics system completes only 78 percent of the tasks within that time. Subsystem Wing TPS Fuselage. The APU and Electrical subsystems also display a very good fit to an exponential distribution. the mean task times by mission are shown in Figure 2 for the representative subsystems. and for the unscheduled in Figure 4 and Table 4.57 19. The task time frequency distributions are shown in Figure 3 for each system.87 24. Communications & Tracking and Electrical Power Distribution subsystems. the nature of the task may be changing over time with the procedures being redefined to accommodate new information. mid RCS APU Hydraulics Comm/Tracking Electrical n 137 119 37 79 197 43 63 Sample mean 15. Unscheduled The number of maintenance actions and the distribution of task times are shown for the unscheduled repair tasks in Figure 4. The results shown in Figure 3 also illustrate the longer work times required of the mechanical systems with larger means and standard deviations than the other systems. These distributions are shown for up to 100 hours of time to complete a task. Also the fixed flight schedule.69 9. For most of these systems. most systems display a lognormal or Weibull distribution for the scheduled task times.05 46.22 11. These results are summarized in table 3 for samples from each representative subsystem.5 97 R2 normal 44 66 47 84 89 72 86 R2 lognormal 88 95 96 87 80 94 90 Best fit Log/Weib Log/Weib Log/Weib Exp/Weib Weib/Exp Weib/Exp Exp/Weib Table 4. Results of Curve Fitting for Unscheduled Repair Times. These are presented as a function of the STS flights plotted in order of their mission sequence. Most of these systems can complete .92 25.82 14.37 47. The assumption is made that the support task functions are consistently the same between flights.25 40.75 13.82 13. The results are presented for the scheduled support in Figures 2 and 3 and Table 3.

The negative binomial has a variance-tomean ratio greater than one (the Poisson equals one and the binomial is less than one). Poisson. In simulating a space transportation system. The probability distribution for the subsystem repair time can be modeled accurately. failures) per 100 flying hours. like component maintenance reliability. as either a Weibull or lognormal distribution with the parameter values as shown in Table 4. a realistic vehicle turntime and mission rate can then be obtained from the simulation model. The fact that either distribution may be used in all but the hydraulics or electrical subsystem is not surprising since both distributions can take on similar shapes. a random draw from the fitted repair time distribution will be made to determine a simulated repair time. the above results can be used to randomly determine the number of unscheduled maintenance actions to be expected for each subsystem following a mission. mid 9 6 90% 3 0 6 5 Subsystem 42 Reaction control/TVC Frequency 4 3 2 1 0 8 7 6 90% Frequency 5 4 3 2 1 0 20 15 90% Subsystem 46 Auxiliary power unit Frequency Subsystem 58 Hydraulic 10 90% 5 0 5 4 Subsystem 74 Communications & tracking 90% 3 2 1 0 6 5 Frequency 4 3 2 1 0 1 10 20 30 90% Subsystem 76 Electrical power distribution 40 50 60 Time. Representative operating hours were developed as a part of the study to be used for defining the maintenance fail- Frequency Frequency Frequency . In all cases. this result is not surprising. in most cases. This result is consistent with aircraft modeling in which the negative binomial has been used to represent the number of demands (i. Subsystem reliability. by simulating each maintenance action.e. However. the chi-square goodness-of-fit test was applied to three discrete distributions: the binomial. the negative binomial was the only acceptable fit with the parameter values as shown in Table 5. Therefore. Aircraft data and the Shuttle data for the seven subsystems analyzed have shown a variance-to-mean ratio greater than one. Unscheduled repair time frequency distribution. In order to identify a distribution for the number of failures per mission. Then. With the proper identification of crew sizes. is based on the amount of time or cycles that the system successfully functions over its operating life. for the Wing TPS. and negative binomial. The use of the exponential distribution is further supported by the fact that the sample mean and standard deviation are “close” to each other. Theoretically they have the same value. The repair time of hydraulics and electrical subsystems may also be modeled as an exponential distribution. the large chi-square value indicates the fit was marginal. and by constraining the number of crews available each shift. 8 half of the task within a single shift and all are 90 percent complete within 7 shifts (56 hours). then the fact that the Weibull is also a good fit is expected.15 12 Subsystem 19 Wing TPS 9 6 90% 3 0 15 12 Subsystem 34 Fuselage. Since the exponential distribution is also a special case of the Weibull (when the shape parameter equals one). Historically the lognormal distribution has been used to model repair times. hours 70 80 90 100 Figure 4.

vent. A comparison of both scheduled and unscheduled work leads one to several characteristics of this support.01 .7 8.3. mid RCS APU Hydraulics Comm/Tracking Electrical Best fit Neg Bin Neg Bin Neg Bin Neg Bin Neg Bin Neg Bin Neg Bin Chi-sq stat 41. %-on 8 3 8 24 37 6 24 5 4 12 14 FPOT. Also.36 Mean 375. the amount of the mission time is defined along with specific operating hours for subsystems that were not dependent on mission length.745 1. and drain Payload bay doors Fuselage PV&D Main propulsion Reaction control/TVC Electrical power generation Auxiliary power unit Pyrotechnics and range safety Aero surface control Hydraulics Actuation mechanisms ECLS (general) (see also dependency desc for payload) Atmospheric revitalization Life support Active thermal control Airlock support Avionics (general) (see also dependency desc for payload) Guidance and navigation Data processing Displays and controls Communications and tracking Instrumentation (operational) Electrical power distribution Interconnecting wiring Flight control Primary avionics system software Backup flight system software SSME software Test controller supervisor software General purpose computer – initial program load software 100 FPOT 100 14 100 100 14 100 100 100 12 100 100 24 100 FPOT FPOT FPOT FPOT FPOT FPOT FPOT FPOT 1 FPOT FPOT 1 0 14 100 17 100 14 FPOT FPOT FPOT FPOT 0 GPOT.0 14. scheduled tasks times for the mechanical systems are more than twice the mean unscheduled repair times for those same systems. and for Hydraulics it is four times the mean repair time. Although not established to support R&M data analysis. the percentage of operating hours when the systems were being serviced on the ground were developed.0 26.450 and 264 hours respectively.590 2. for the representative cases.75 7.  x  Table 6.Table 5. as summarized in Table 2. Power-on Values.106 1.18 .789 1.2. This information can then be used to compute the mean time between maintenance actions (MTBMA) required for these subsystems. All other systems have consistent task times whether for scheduled or unscheduled work.60 7.753 2. hrs 1 1 0 1 FPOT FPOT 4 1 4 4 4 ure rate. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The Shuttle support data collection system at KSC was established for the purpose of accounting for system and element processing requirements.066 Parameter s 4 5 5 3 7 2 4 Parameter p . Results of Curve Fitting for Number of Failures per Mission.2 21. Task time distributions for both appear to be primarily Weibull or lognormal.. These rates are not computed here.16 10. The mean Ground Power On Time (GPOT) and Flight Power On Time (FPOT) for the 20 missions analyzed is 1. Also. leaving to the analyst to decide whether the operating hours or some other parameter such as cycles is the appropriate reliability metric for their study.747 2. For those systems where the power-on time was considered relevant to maintenance reliability of the system.14 10.46 4.28  s + x − 1 x x Negative binomial density function: f(x) =   p (1 – p) . much of the 9 . This was done by Lockheed in consultation with the Test Project Engineers and are shown in Table 6 for each subsystem.85 6.14 . Subsystem Wing TPS Fuselage.85 18.19 .21 .0 Std dev 178.26 . In general. Subsystem Description 5 37 38 41 42 45 46 55 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 79 91 92 93 95 96 Purge.80 10. the number of scheduled tasks will be equal to or greater than the number of unscheduled tasks.1. x = 0..

93-1025. and Buchanan. Weber. Talay and D. Eshleman W.” Presented at the AIAA 1995 Space Programs and Technologies Conference. RM-5544-PR. Byers. W... Huntsville AL. January 1983.” Lockheed Martin Manned Space Systems. 9.. W. T. Ebeling. W. H. M. 10 7. 2. “Launch Vehicle Maintenance Analysis. W. paper no. F. B. Johnson Space Center. Eide. “Operation & Support Database and Analysis. Huntsville.. July 1996. September 26-28.. “Parametric Estimation of R&M Parameters During the Conceptual Design of Space Vehicles. May 31. private communication. D. K. Harrison. Fleming. N. Revision C.” Martin Marietta Manned Space Systems. paper No. 192-152. H. Dayton OH. CA. 1992. and J..M. Logistics Directorate. The results of analysis for shape distribution are also presented for seven representative types of support including thermal protection. mechanical systems.” Presented at the AIAA 21st Aerospace Sciences Meeting. avionics..” IEEE 1992 National Aerospace and Electronics Conference. M. “The Determination of Operational and Support Requirements and Costs During The Conceptual Design of Space Systems. “Operations Simulation for the Design of a Future Space Transportation System. 16.” The Rand Corporation. March 4. 83-0140. July 1971. “Defining Support Requirements During Conceptual Design of Reusable Launch Vehicles. 1995. NSTS 08170.. pp. University of Dayton. 1987. Seymour. 6 Ebeling. 955-959 8.” United Space Alliance. “Shuttle II Data Base Development. These results represent the first analysis of maintenance support for the Shuttle subsystems based on previously unavailable historical manpower records. J. REFERENCES 1. Davis and C. D. NASA 15. AIAA-95-3619. pp. and Ingoldsby. White. “Simulating The Operations of the Reusable Shuttle Space Vehicle. E. Schlagheck. A. Morris.” Grant No.” Proceedings of the 1971 Summer Computer Simulation Conference. Paper no. 11. July 1987. private communication. F. November 1992. A. NAG1-1-1327. J. W. private communication. The results presented provide benchmark values of repair rates. E. Ebeling.. NAS10-10900. private communication..” Flight Projects Branch. Clark. “Orbiter Reliability Centered Maintenance Report. Fisher. 13. “Maintenance Trend Analysis Report. Kennedy Space Center. 4. Morris. “Available Shuttle Systems Data Base Identification and Pathfinder Data Search” Lockheed Martin. NASA Langley Research Center. VA.” Teledyne Brown Engineering. C. 1993.V... December. T. R. August. White. W. A. TD-926. private communication. D. Feb 16-19. “Reliability and Maintainability in Space Systems Design. R.” United Space Alliance. C. NAS8-36200. A. private communication. “A Space Transportation System Operations Model. The data is used to characterize the R&M support for subsystems on future reusable launch vehicles on the assumption that it is representative of the support required for each subsystem.. 1994. A. Vol 3.” NASA TM 100481.1968. 10. E. and N. NASA. Anderson. 5 Huseonica.. “The Logistics Composite Model: an overall view.” Presented at the Aerospace Design Conference. K. private communication. of Dayton. 12. NASA MSFC. Wise. 3. AL. Delfausse. Task 18... . “Launch + 15 Day Shuttle Trend Analysis Report Plus. Hampton.. This paper is a preliminary report on the analysis of that information. R. 14. Space Shuttle Subsystem Codes. manpower and task times that can be used by the analyst for guidance in allocating both reliability and maintainability of new systems based on the flight experience of the Shuttle Orbiter. Morris. DRD046. private communication. Drake. W. Univ. SC7490. May. electrical distribution and power.information is relevant to reusable launch vehicles and was used to form a Shuttle R&M data base. T.. Santa Monica. NASA Langley Research Center. VA.1995. Hampton. G. NAS1-18230. G. H.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful