Horvath, Tim

McPherson, Kevin

NASA Technical Reports Server

NASA MSFC
Mission Operations Laboratory
MSFC
MSFC
NASA MSFC
Mission Operations Laboratory
POIWG Main Forum
Tuesday, January 26th 2016
Tim Horvath Kevin McPherson
Payload Ops Director GRC ISS Payload Ops Manager
Marshall Space Flight Center Glenn Research Center
(Russian) Joint Research 
OASIS Lessons Learned and 
Operations Improvements
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20160001803 2019-08-31T04:24:18+00:00Z
NASA MSFC
Mission Operations Laboratory
MSFC
Page 2
Page 2
Background – Ops Challenges
 The purpose of this presentation is to highlight both general 
and specific Joint Research lessons learned, and the 
mitigation initiatives in work
 Specific examples included in this presentation are from 
the OASIS payload which was installed and operated in 
MSG
 Original ISSP direction was to train, plan, and operate Joint 
Research payloads comparable to nominal USOS ops
 Since the original several JR payloads were operated in 
mid-2014, it became clear that we had a number of 
challenges to overcome in order to be successful
 Difficulties encountered with JR payloads can be 
categorized into the following major areas:
 Language
 USOS Familiarity
 Crew Training
 Planning
3 OASIS was one of the first payloads to utilize Russians for 
crew operations. 
 Increment 43/44 cosmonaut Oleg Kononenko was trained at 
JSC on 03/19/2015.
 Due to the Progress loss and resulting Soyuz delay, 
Kononenko was not on-orbit to support the start of OASIS 
operations.
 Cosmonaut Gennady Padalka (not ground trained) 
performed many of the first OASIS crew operations, 
including the OASIS installation into MSG.
OASIS Lessons Learned – Background
4 Driving Event: The Russian version of the OASIS 
installation procedure was linked to the crew activity. Once 
beginning the activity, Padalka requested the procedure in 
English.
 Lessons Learned: 
 Procedure language preference can be crew member 
dependent.
 If a procedure is translated, keep label names in English to 
match the hardware. OASIS labels were translated as well as 
the main text of the procedure
OASIS Lessons Learned – Language
5 Driving Event: During the initial OASIS crew activity, Padalka
requested an interpreter to assist the S/G enabled PD. 
 Lessons Learned: 
 An interpreter was extremely helpful for crew clarification, 
efficiency, and operational success on crew activities.  
 Recommend that the interpreter have hands-on familiarity with 
the payload hardware and attend ground training with the 
cosmonaut.
 If not able to use an interpreter, describing the item can aid in 
understanding what hardware is being referenced rather than 
simply referencing OpNom.
 “Counterclockwise” and “heads up” are specific terms that do not 
translate into Russian. Refrain from slang English terms. It would 
be beneficial to get Russian assessment of what English words 
literally do not translate.
 Even with a cosmonaut with “excellent English skills”, a language 
barrier was evident and a challenge for OASIS operational 
success. Multiple performances of the same activity did improve 
efficiency, however the language barrier was still evident.
OASIS Lessons Learned – Language
NASA MSFC
Mission Operations Laboratory
MSFC
Page 6
Page 6
Lessons Learned – Language
 Challenge: Cosmonauts not used to operating and 
communicating in English using English language products
 Mitigations:
 JR crew procedures and other operations products are now 
generally translated into Russian, however both versions will 
be on-board and available if a crewmember decides to switch
 Labels and OpNom are not to be translated into Russian; the 
English names will remain English in the Russian procedure
 Tech Trans International (TTI) setting up training for PD 
teams and POIC to help with terminology nuances – see 
POIWG splinter “RJR Interpreter Splinter”
 Interpreters are being trained to talk to the cosmonauts on 
space-to-ground. This capability is in work is expected to be 
available in 1-2 months
 Includes training on ground hardware and observing some crew 
training sessions
7 Driving Event: US procedure standards were assumed to be 
consistent and understood by cosmonauts.  OASIS crew activities 
demonstrated that assumptions cannot be made for consistent 
knowledge on PODF procedure standards.
 Lessons Learned: 
 Cosmonauts did not have a strong familiarity with 
Stowage and Execution Notes. 
 If an action was not explicitly stated in the procedure, it 
was not performed. This is important for steps such as 
connector cap mating. 
 Check POIC – Recommend the procedure state “Call 
Huntsville”. Cosmonauts would also call down after each 
step and have to be instructed to continue through the 
procedure without reporting after each step.
OASIS Lessons Learned – USOS Familiarity
NASA MSFC
Mission Operations Laboratory
MSFC
Page 8
Page 8
Lessons Learned – USOS Familiarity
 Challenge: Cosmonauts not used to working in the USOS
 NASA payload hardware is less familiar to them because they 
don’t see/use it every day
 USOS ops tools (OPTIMIS Viewer, IPV, Stowage Notes) are not 
their primary tools and PODF standards and implicit instructions 
are not well understood
 Stowage locations are not frequently accessed by cosmonauts
 Mitigations:
 Additional crew time may be scheduled to account for the 
learning curve
 In some cases the USOS crew may assist with retrieval and 
stowage of hardware items
 Forward work: Providing additional ground training, particularly 
facility and USOS Daily Ops training to cosmonauts
 Forward work: Build a knowledge base of procedural 
instructions that should be explicitly stated instead of implicitly 
assumed
NASA MSFC
Mission Operations Laboratory
MSFC
Page 9
Page 9
Lessons Learned – Crew Training
 Challenge: Scheduling training for cosmonauts
 Typically a cosmonaut will have three or four ~2 week long trips 
to the US for training in their last year before flight
 Most JR protocols have been signed well after the point at which 
training schedules have been negotiated among Partners
 Normally while in Houston, cosmonaut schedules are full and JR 
training can be difficult to add
 GCTC approval is required to train cosmonauts; approval is 
contingent on signed protocols and formal direction from the 
Russian management chain
 Mitigations:
 Protocols signed early in the training flow would allow the 
scheduling coordination process to better take JR requirements 
into account
 Recently Russian management representatives in the JR 
discussions have agreed to short extensions of cosmonaut trips 
to Houston, for JR payload training; however, extending trips still 
requires GCTC training management approval
10
 Driving Event: Russian planners expected OASIS to meet 
a pre-determined operational schedule.  During the course 
of operations, science changes require real-time planning 
changes for different crew activity dates/times or additions.  
 Lessons Learned: 
 Time difference when working with Russian 
planning teams – they do not support 24x7
 Russian processes do not readily accommodate the 
fluid, dynamic nature of USOS payload operations
 Russian planners seem less receptive to re-
planning requirements
 Difficulty for the OASIS team given no direct contact 
between the PD team and Russian planners
OASIS Lessons Learned – Planning
11
 Driving Event: OASIS crew activities when performed by a 
trained cosmonaut took typically 1.5x the amount of time 
that would have been scheduled for a USOS crew member
 Lessons Learned: 
 Efficiencies are gained by Russian or USOS crew 
over time/repeated execution, but Russian 
execution does require more time
 Utilizing the Russian crew for on-orbit operations is 
not a one-to-one trade off
OASIS Lessons Learned – Planning
NASA MSFC
Mission Operations Laboratory
MSFC
Page 12
Page 12
Lessons Learned – Planning
 Challenge: Planning and Replanning Processes
 RSC-E approval is required to schedule cosmonauts for JR 
activities; approval is contingent on signed protocols and 
paperwork
 Once OOS is built it becomes more difficult to add new 
activities or time to already-planned activities
 Late changes close to execution are very difficult to get 
through the Russian planning processes
 Mitigations:
 Protocols signed prior to OOS development allows the 
planning process to work
 Forward work: Enhance interfaces and replanning processes 
with Russian ops/planning personnel to better accommodate 
late change
 Forward work: Better characterize the efficiency difference 
between USOS crew and cosmonauts conducting JR
NASA MSFC
Mission Operations Laboratory
MSFC
Page 13
Page 13
Conclusions
 The Joint Research program is designed to augment 
international utilization onboard ISS
 Operations processes, products, and interfaces are 
different than standard USOS processes, and we expect 
this to always be the case
 We have had some challenges and some successes and 
are learning as we go
 We plan to continue to develop mitigations to enhance 
success, though much forward work remains ahead
Joint Research puts the “International” in ISS!


(Russian) Joint Research OASIS Lessons Learned and Operations Improvements

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NASA Technical Reports Server