Lyndon B.

Johnson Space Center Houston, Texas 77058

Technical Support Package

Method of Separating Oxygen From Spacecraft Cabin Air to Enable Extravehicular Activities
NASA Tech Briefs MSC-24806-1

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Technical Support Package

for Method of Separating Oxygen From Spacecraft Cabin Air to Enable Extravehicular Activities MSC-24806-1 NASA Tech Briefs
The information in this Technical Support Package comprises the documentation referenced in MSC24806-1 of NASA Tech Briefs. It is provided under the Commercial Technology Program of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to make available the results of aerospace-related developments considered having wider technological, scientific, or commercial applications. Further assistance is available from sources listed in NASA Tech Briefs on the page entitled NASA Innovative Partnerships Office (IPO). Additional information regarding research and technology in this general area, contact: NASA Johnson Space Center Technology Transfer Office Mail Code AT 2101 NASA Parkway Houston, TX 77058 Telephone: (281) 483-3809 E-mail: jsc-techtran@mail.nasa.gov
NOTICE: This document was prepared under the sponsorship of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Neither the United States Government nor any person acting on behalf of the United States Government assumes any liability resulting from the use of the information contained in this document or warrants that such use will be free from privately owned rights. If trade names or manufacturers names are used in this report, it is for identification only. This usage does not constitute an official endorsement, either expressed or implied, by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Method of Separating Oxygen From Spacecraft Cabin Air to Enable Extravehicular Activities
Brief Abstract Extravehicular activities (EVAs) require high pressure, high purity oxygen. Shuttle EVAs use oxygen that is stored and transported as a cryogenic fluid. EVAs on ISS presently use the Shuttle cryo O2, which is transported to ISS using a transfer hose, is compressed to elevated pressures, and stored as a high-pressure gas. With the retirement of shuttle, NASA has been searching for ways to deliver oxygen to fill the highpressure oxygen tanks on ISS. One method of delivering oxygen to ISS is to use portable high-pressure tanks. NORS (Nitrogen, Oxygen, Recharge System) is an example of a tank delivery system. This disclosure describes a way of using low pressure oxygen that is generated onboard the ISS and released into ISS cabin air, filtering the oxygen from ISS cabin air, generating a low pressure (high purity) oxygen stream, compressing the oxygen with a mechanical compressor, and transferring the high pressure high purity oxygen to ISS storage tanks. 10 year launch mass estimates for NORS are 10,120 lbs. of launch mass. 10-year launch mass for this system are 1,494 1bs. This represents an 8626 lbs. savings in launch mass ($215 million savings in launch costs, at the time of this reporting). Section I Description of the Problem General problem: High purity, high-pressure oxygen is necessary to conduct EVAs because space suits use high-pressure gaseous oxygen. High pressure, high purity, gaseous oxygen was delivered on the space shuttle to the space station as cryogenic oxygen. As the cryo O2 would boil off as a high-pressure gas, it would be transferred to ISS using a high-pressure transfer hose, compressed to even higher storage pressures, and stored in a High Pressure Gas Tank (HPGT). When the shuttle retired, the ISS was expected to lose its supply of high-pressure, high purity oxygen. Key problem characteristics: As the shuttle was recently being retired, the ISS has been scheduled to operate another 10 years. Thus, ISS needed a new supply of high pressure, high purity oxygen. Prior techniques: The space shuttle EMUs were launched with their tanks filled with oxygen. Russian suits were launched with replaceable oxygen tanks. The tanks were relatively large, and the ratio of tank weight to oxygen weight was unfavorable. Boeing (under contract to ISS- ECLS 10389) conducted a survey of oxygen delivery techniques: Boeing evaluated: Internal and External gaseous oxygen tanks, internal and external cryo oxygen delivery, high pressure water electrolysis, and mechanical and sorption methods of compressing low pressure oxygen. After results of ECLS 10389 were presented, the ISS program selected high-pressure oxygen tanks (NORS) as the method of oxygen supply.

-1-

MSC-24806-1

Limitations of prior art: High-pressure water electrolysis has an unacceptable technology risk and safety risk, and the estimated cost and schedule to develop high-pressure water electrolysis is prohibitively large. External tanks are difficult to launch after shuttle retirement, and require an EVA to install. Cryo systems slowly warm up and boil off gaseous oxygen, so cargo launch vehicles can become filled with oxygen. Internal tanks are large and heavy. Estimates for a 10-year supply of EVA oxygen on ISS are 9046 lbs. if high-pressure internal tanks are used. The ISS has four different methods of delivering low pressure oxygen to ISS cabin air: There is US made water electrolysis unit, a Russian made water electrolysis unit, Russian provided chlorate "candles", and gaseous oxygen delivered in tanks mounted on the outside of Russian Progress cargo vehicles. The Progress tanks release low-pressure oxygen into ISS cabin air. Section II Technical Description Description of the innovation: This disclosure describes a method of filtering cabin air using a Pressure Swing Adsorber to produce a low pressure, high purity oxygen stream, compressing the oxygen using a multistage mechanical compressor, and transferring the high pressure oxygen product into HPGT oxygen storage tanks. Components: The pressure swing adsorber can be either a two-stage device, or a single stage device depending on the type of sorbent used. The key is to produce a stream with oxygen purity greater than 99.5%. The separator can be a PSA device, or a VPSA device (that uses both vacuum and pressure for the gas separation). The compressor is a multi stage mechanical compressor. If the gas flow rates are on the order of 5-l0 lbs. per day, the compressor can be relatively small (31616 inches). Alternate embodiments of the innovation: Any spacecraft system, or other remote location that has a supply of low pressure oxygen, a method of separating oxygen from cabin air, and a method of compressing the enriched oxygen stream has the possibility of having a regenerable supply of high pressure high purity oxygen that is compact, simple, and safe. If cabin air is modified so there is very little argon, the separator can be smaller, simpler, and use less power. Section III Unique or Novel Features of the Innovation The novel features include: low pressure oxygen systems (like water electrolysis, chlorate "candles", or cryo boil off) can be used to obtain a high pressure, high purity oxygen supply on orbit. two stage separation process (where oxygen and argon are separated in the first stage, and oxygen is separated from argon in the second stage) can achieve high purity oxygen onboard a spacecraft, a sorbent that is selective to Ar/O2 can achieve high purity oxygen in a single stage, if argon is excluded from cabin air, even simpler methods of oxygen separation can be used. if the oxygen is in cabin air, there is an uninterrupted supply of process air. Advantages of the innovation:

-2-

MSC-24806-1

The system is significantly easier to launch. ISS requires 9000 lbs. of high pressure tanks, but 1500 lbs. using the proposed system. Launch cost estimates place the launch cost savings at greater than $200 million (at the time of this reporting). The system uses available technology. Compared to high pressure water electrolysis, there are working prototype systems capable of purifying and compressing the oxygen stream.

Test Data and analyses: Prototype systems have demonstrated 99.5% oxygen purity, and safe oxygen compressor performance. Section IV Potential Commercial Applications Commercial sources of high purity, high-pressure oxygen generally use cryogenic methods of separation. In industrial settings, cryo separation is relatively inexpensive; and oxygen purity can be very high. It is unlikely that this method can beat the price or purity of cryo derived oxygen in an industrial setting. But remote locations, and situations where small-scale sources of high-pressure high purity oxygen are needed could find this technique commercially favorable. This may include: spacecraft, small scale remotely controlled aerial vehicles, submarines, ships, polar environments, and developing countries.

-3-

MSC-24806-1

Integrated A Cabin Air Separator for EVA Oxygen (CASEO) Flight Development Plan Description Request for Full and Final Implementation
Sponsoring Org/Office Code: EC Name of Forum: VCB Date: March 2010

CR 012209

John Graf / Dan Leonard CTSD / EC3 / Boeing

Page No. 1
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Purpose/Agenda
Purpose:
This CR requests technical concurrence, and Authority To Proceed (ATP) to develop CASEO. CASEO project intends to develop and certify a method of filtering oxygen from ISS cabin air, compressing the high purity oxygen, and delivering the high pressure oxygen to the High Pressure Gas Tanks. Final implementation will develop and certify 2 flight units, a qual/life test unit, and one trainer.

Select the appropriate box below:

Request for Technical Concurrence qRequest for Partial Implementation Request for Full/Final Implementation qInformation Only/Management Direction Response to an Action Item

This presentation was previously reviewed/dispositioned at: Meeting Date Outcome/Direction

EC CCB MVCB Feb 17, 2010 March 25, 2010 Approved Concur to go forward to 3-30-10 SSPCB

Page No. 2
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Summary of this CR
Request for Technical Concurrence:
This CR describes the project plan for CASEO (Cabin Air Separator for EVA Oxygen). CASEO is a system that filters oxygen from the ISS cabin air, creates a stream of high purity oxygen, compresses the oxygen, and delivers the oxygen to the High Pressure Gas Tanks. Final implementation will develop and certify 2 flight units, a qual/life test unit, and one trainer. First flight system to be certified in March 2012.

Request for Full Implementation:

This CR requests Full and Final Implementation.

Page No. 3
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Summary of High Pressure Oxygen Issues

1) Currently, oxygen for ISS EVAs using EMUs is delivered by the Shuttle, compressed to storage pressure using the ORCA, and stored in the HPGTs. 2) After shuttle retirement, a new source of high pressure, high purity EVA grade oxygen is needed. 3) NORS (Nitrogen / Oxygen Recharge System) is currently in development. 4) This CR describes an alternate method for producing EVA grade oxygen. This method separates oxygen from the cabin atmosphere, compresses the high purity oxygen, and transfers the oxygen to the HPGTs. This method is called CASEO (Cabin Air Separator for EVA Oxygen) 5) A full scale technology demonstrator system has been developed. This system is the size of ORCA, meets ORCA interfaces for weight, power, and cooling, and delivers 10 lbs/day of oxygen with purity > 99.5%. (Reference SE-S-0073 (Rev G)) 6) The key threats to flight hardware development are: oxygen safety, oxygen purity, acoustics, delivery schedule, and COTS component certification.
Page No. 4
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

The CASEO Concept of Operations on ISS

Current System
HPGT #1 HPGT #5
ORCA

Issue

Proposed System
HPGT #1 HPGT #2 filled with O2 recovered by CASEO

HPGT #2
ORCA

HPGT #5
CASEO

Transfer Hose Shuttle Retired: - no source of cryo O2 - transfer hose not useful - ORCA not useful

Cryo O2

Remove ORCA, and Transfer Hose upon Shuttle Retirement Install CASEO in ORCA location meet all mechanical interfaces Keep shuttle delivered 99.99% oxygen in HPGT #1 and #5 use for EMU O2 Route recovered CASEO oxygen to HPGT #2, use for pre-breathe, and contingency O2 If HPGT #2 O2 is verified >99.5%, O2 can be transferred to HPGT #1 and #5
Page No. 5
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

CASEO doesnt make oxygen. How can it help?

EVAs do not cause an increase in the total amount of oxygen used. High pressure oxygen used for pre-breathe and purge are vented to the cabin, and metabolically consumed after the EVA. ISS has a capability to produce more O2 than metabolically required when the OGA is operating nominally. CASEO can take oxygen from any low pressure source (Elektron, OGA, candles, Progress external tanks) and fill the HPGT oxygen tanks. With CASEO, HPGT #2 can be kept full. HPGT #2 can be used for contingency O2, medical O2, or pre-breathe O2. If CASEO produces oxygen with >99.5% O2, CASEO can also fill HPGT #1 and #5 (and eliminate the need for delivering high pressure oxygen to ISS)

Page No. 6
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

COTS Home Use Medical Oxygen Separators and Home-Fill Compressors

Typical Performance Specifications Medical Oxygen Separators 5 lpm delivery rate (25 lb/day) 93% O2 purity 14 X 18 X 26 51 lbs 60 db 400 W 3 year continuous use warrantee Home-Fill Compressor 2 lpm rate (10 lb/day) 2200 psi delivery pressure 14 X 18 X 15 33 lbs 50 db 200 W 3 year continuous use warrantee

Page No. 7
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

A Research Grade Form of CASEO

Typical Performance Specifications CASEO Oxygen Separator 2 lpm delivery rate (10 lb/day) > 99.5% O2 purity 23.5 X 24 X 19 (ORCA ICD) 77 lbs Above NC 40, quieter than lab background 600 W Designed for 3 year life (new system)

CASEO Compressor 2 lpm rate (10 lb/day) 3000 psi delivery pressure Packaged with separator 45 lbs 50 db (estimated) 250 W Completed 5000 test

Page No. 8
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Process Schematic of a COTS Medical Oxygen System

Legend
Filter Compressor Vacuum Pump Surge Tank Boost Compressor Solenoid Strainer Bed Pressure Sensor Flow Restrictor Check Valve Flow Sensor

Page No. 9
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Process Schematic of a Flight Qualified CASEO

Legend
Filter Compressor Vacuum Pump Boost Compressor Solenoid Strainer Bed Pressure Sensor Flow Restrictor Check Valve Flow Sensor

Page No. 10
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Organizational Risks ISS High Pressure Oxygen Program Risks (OA)

Safety Having high pressure oxygen for EVAs
ORCA use on late shuttle flights Number and frequency of EVAs NORS schedule, performance, cost CASEO schedule performance, cost

Having oxygen for contingency and medical purposes

Flight Hardware Development Risks (EA)

Safety Performance
Purity Interfaces Rated Life

Meet Schedule Commitments

EMU High Pressure Oxygen Risks (XA/EA)

Safety Impacts of O2 that meets but does not exceed EMU purity spec. Verification of on-orbit CASEO O2 purity
Page No. 11
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

On Orbit Verification of O2 Purity

The current SOA capability for on orbit verification is +/- 1.5% O2 (If 98%O2, can verify better than 96.5%) The project recognizes the importance of on orbit verification The table below summarizes our latest assessment of on orbit verification methods Measurement Technique
Electrochemical POMS MCA Orion mass spec GC-DMS Custom GC Microfluidics GC Pressure decay Iron/oxygen Zirconia Sensor Ar Plasma spectrometer
Page No. 12
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Technology Assessment
Needs cal, 1 year life Will be on ISS On ISS prototype Cant make measurement complex Small, complex Simple, ISS compatible Relatively large 1890 technology

Current Capability
2.5% 2% Max O2 40% 100% O2 range na na na 2% 1.5% tbd

Potential Capability
tbd Not better than 1% tbd .5% or better na .5% or better .5% or better 1% or better 1% or better tbd

CASEO Level 1 Technical Requirements

CASEO must be safe Oxygen purity must be >99.5% Must have verification of performance
On board real time verification > 95% O2 With sample return verification >99.5% O2 (the project is trying to develop on-board verification)

Rated life
Initial rating limited by project schedule Qual / life test unit used for life extension

Noise NC 40 will be exceeded CASEO will implement noise reducing strategies

Compressor mounting Structural housing 1 liter per minute delivery rate (4 days operation per EVA) Noise treatment of cooling air outlet

Meet ORCA Interfaces

CASEO located in the ORCA spot

Shared fluid interfaces with NORS oxygen

Design for On Orbit Filter Replacement Design for ruggedness (lower packing factor, heavier system, lower delivery rate)
Page No. 13
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

CASEO Level 1 Project Requirements

Development plan must allow schedule for safety
Especially high pressure parts of the system

Development plan must recognize program schedule needs for high pressure O2
Forecast of HPGT redline in June 2012 NORS O2 tanks certified March 2013

Development Plan must address technical risks

Two different proof of concept units for the separator Long duration boost compressor testing with flight configuration hardware A qual / life test unit on the ground for life testing There must always be hardware on the ground for troubleshooting There must always be a spare flight system available System integration must be learned early with proof of concept hardware

Project team will communicate technical and project risks to the Program
Especially at the time of NORS PDR and CDR

Page No. 14
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

A Prioritized List of Project Risks

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Rotating Equipment Reliability Cost Containment Schedule Control The two stage system has 4 different pieces of rotating equipment The lifting compressor is exposed to oxygen at 2400 psi 10 year service life, with hundreds of use cycles required The two stage system has a complicated state table Something expensive will happen between PDR and CDR The rotating systems are long lead items Testing to prove 10 year life takes time

New ProceduresNew on orbit configuration, new O2 purity, new procedures Oxygen Purity On Orbit Verification Oxygen Safety Dust Trace Contaminants What if it works fine on the ground, but fails on orbit System should verify it is producing better than 99.5% O2 before routing the product to the high pressure O2 tanks Some pumps and compressors can be used for air but not O2 Some systems have to be redesigned after an oxygen safety analysis This is a bed of packed zeolite sorbent, much like CDRA Some trace contaminant in the ISS air (like freon 218) will get in the oxygen system

Page No. 15
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

CASEO Flight Development Plan: A Hybrid Approach

The Boost Compressor part of CASEO has a relatively low technical risk, but consequences of a safety related failure are severe
Boost compressor part of CASEO has O2 at >2000 psi pressure Consequence of an oxygen fire at >2000 psi can result in loss of life, loss of vehicle Likelihood of an oxygen fire is acceptably low: A sequential, safety focused development plan will be followed The materials used in the boost compressor have been reviewed, and are safe Gas velocity is low, temperatures are low, rate of pressure change is low System has been subjected to a 5000 hour life test with O2 in CASEO operating conditions CASEO project team asserts CASEO can be safer than any other form of high pressure O2

The Separator part of CASEO has a relatively low safety risk (ambient temperature, low gas velocity, oxygen pressure less than 40 psi), but relatively high technical risks and relatively high schedule risks
High technical risk because >99.5% O2 is a difficult requirement (no COTS system can meet) High schedule risk because the separator for CASEO is a complex, custom system

The hybrid approach:

Page No. 16
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Baseline the configuration of the Boost Compressor Begin WSTF O2 compatibility assessment, and boost compressor testing at ATP Build a safe, sequential, development plan for the Boost Compressor Aggressively build two different prototype separators (focused on schedule and purity) Test multiple components, begin early, buy long lead items early Integrate separator / boost compressor with concurrent build of Qual and First Flight Unit

Boost Compressor Flight Development Plan: Baseline the Design Early, Focus on Safety
Boost Compressor Sequential Program Elements: Preliminary Requirements Established at ATP (Feb 2010)
Reference Configuration Established at ATP Oxygen Compatibility Assessment Preliminary OCA complete Safety Testing Fines Injection test begins at ATP Design Review #1 September 2010 Materials Tests Complete November 2010 Component Safety Tests Complete November 2010 Design Review #2 November 2010 Prototype with Flight Configuration December 2010 Performance and Reliability Testing Feb 2011, ongoing Flight Configuration Design Review Feb 2011 Begin Qual build May 2011 Complete build of qual July 2011 Begin build of Flight #1 August 2011 OCA of Flight configuration complete August 2011 First O2 wetted test of Qual hardware August 2011 Flight #1 build complete November 2011 First O2 wetted test of Flight hardware Jan 2012 Flight #1 Acceptance Tests Complete March 2012

Page No. 17
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Separator Flight Development Plan: Drive Down Technical Risk with aggressive schedule, multiple systems, multiple components
Separator Program Elements (tasks prior to separator/boost compressor integration) Develop single stage system start at ATP (Feb 2010)
Requirements Sorbent Manufacture Component Testing Preliminary OCA Preliminary reliability assessment System build System sequence, timing Initial purity testing Characterization testing baselined at ATP begin at ATP (license offer in hand) begin at ATP May 2010 May 2010 June 2010 June 2010 July 2010 September 2010 start at ATP (Feb 2010) baselined at ATP begin at ATP May 2010 May 2010 June 2010 June 2010 July 2010 September 2010

Develop two stage system Requirements Component Testing Preliminary OCA Preliminary reliability assessment System build System sequence, timing Initial purity testing Characterization testing
Page No. 18
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Off Template Strategies to Accelerate Schedule

Hybrid Qualification:
The High Pressure Boost Compressor has a sequential, on-template approach The Low Pressure Separator has an accelerated, off-template approach Two proof of concept separator systems Long lead items procured early Design begins before requirements are formalized

Two Different Separator Units built as proof of concept

Focused on evaluating purity by July 2010 (time of NORS PDR) Environmental characterization testing (Ar, CO2, temp, pressure, humidity) will continue through September 2010 Units not suitable for detailed analysis of acoustic or thermal issues

Start Preliminary Design at ATP

Level 1 requirements will be developed and referenced at ATP These requirements will be used for component selection and testing ORCA ICD will be used at ATP any changes should be identified by OB

Proactive Procurements
Multiple sets of valves, vacuum pumps, separator compressors purchased and tested at ATP Multiple sets of the booster compressor purchased at ATP (as class 1 hardware) Long lead flight components will be purchased before design reviews

Page No. 19
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Off Template Strategies to Accelerate Schedule

Flexible Mounting Chassis:
Structural housing with peg board central element Allows a common interface for either single stage, or two stage system Will cause increase in weight (but will accelerate schedule)

Reduced Delivery Rate

Lab unit delivered 10 lbs/day, flight unit will deliver 5 lbs/day Reduced delivery rate improves purity, improves acoustics, improves schedule risk

Waiver of NC-40 noise requirement

Designers will follow best practices (mounting fixtures, housing design, cooling air noise treatment)

Waiver of 10 year service life

Life testing will begin as soon as hardware is ready Incremental increase in system life as data becomes available

Qualification Testing and Flight Hardware build are concurrent

Qual unit fabrication complete in July 2011 Flight unit #1 begins fabrication in August 2011

Embedded Project Team

Key stakeholders are contacted at ATP asked to identify a POC for their organization POCs are included in low level changes and issues in real time
Page No. 20
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

ISS Impacts (Boeing)

ISS Integration Impacts

Possible need to design sample method for ISS oxygen systems
Work with NASA to derive a system for both CASEO and Airlock Oxygen

Possible need to design closeouts over CASEO interfaces Integrated Hazard Reports and FMEA/CILs Integrated Operations Acoustics Heat Loads Integrated Air Flow (CFD) Power Stress/Structural Analysis

Page No. 21
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

NORS Impacts (Boeing)

Interfaces
Location
NORS is currently planned to occupy existing ORCA location plus some additional space Preliminary Options
Remain in Airlock zenith but reduce NORS to just have one RTA installed at a time with IRA (Impacted) Packaging/design challenge Move NORS to Airlock nadir Minimal impact; just longer flex hoses/cables Covers more storage bins Need to verify if keep out zones prohibit use Install and uninstall each system when required Crew intensive Undesirable to for high pressure oxygen systems

Page No. 22
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

NORS Impacts (Boeing)

Overall Airlock
Zenith Stbd (Node 1) Zenith Stbd Aft

Section A

Crew Lock Equipment Lock

View of Airlock Looking Aft

Page No. 23
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

NORS Impacts (Boeing)

Zenith

Section B
Detail G
Port

View (View looking Aft) Crew Lock not shown for clarity ORCA Oxygen Recharge Compressor Assembly LHA Lamp Housing Assembly PCA Pressure Control Assembly
PCA Outlet

C ORCA
LHA

View E

Cabin Air Duct Connections

View C

View D

Cabin Air Outlet Diffuser Cabin Air Rack

Page No. 24
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

NORS Impacts (Boeing)

Section A

Airlock Current Configuration

Section B
QD 12 (Hidden)

ORCA
Cabin Air Rack

Port

Aft (View looking zenith) Crew Lock not shown for clarity Spaghetti Panel QD11 Location

Page No. 25
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

NORS Impacts (Boeing)

Starboard

O2 and N2 Hose Assembly

Aft (View looking Zenith)

RTA

IRA

RTA Equipment Lock

Some Structure Removed for Clairity

Page No. 26
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

NORS Impacts (Boeing)

Nadir

Aft (View looking Starboard)

RTAs IRA

Page No. 27
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

NORS Impacts (Boeing)

Interfaces (cont)
Power
NORS is currently planning to use two separate power sources one of which is ORCA Preliminary Options
Y off the ORCA power feed for NORS and CASEO (Impacted) Possibility could use existing unused heaters power feeds and leave ORCA power line for CASEO May be a loss of redundancy Manually connect/unconnect systems as needed

Page No. 28
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

NORS Impacts (Boeing)

Interfaces (cont)
Oxygen
NORS as well as CASEO is currently planning to connect to HPGTs and oxygen Supply systems Preliminary Options
NORS uses QD11; CASEO fills directly via QD07/QD08 (Impacted) Allows to keep both oxygen purities separate to keep oxygen system operating during CASEO fills Note interfaces are different and cannot be interchanged (QD11 female on hose, QD07/08 male on hose)

Schedule
NORS PDR was forecasted in July/August 2010, but CASEO implementation will delay the PDR until September 2010

Page No. 29
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

ISS Airlock ACS Schematic

Equipment Lock ALF1

Avionics
VL009 RT021 RT022 VL010 QD004 VL006 MT002 QD007 QD026 QD003 VL005 QD024

QD023

MT005

x1
B

B001

QD008

O2
A078

O2
A077

QD011 QD027 A116 L003 VL011 L002 A083

QD014

QD015 QD010

O2 RTA IRA N2 RTA

Crew Lock
VL015

A082

O2

16 lbm/h
VL017

A084

110 to 120 psia T

RT025

865 to 930 psia T

235 psia 145 to 155 psia

RT024

1050 psia
B
F001 QD013

200 psia

1050 psia
MT003

QD009 VL001

Umbilical Interface Assembly

ALA1
Cabin Air Assembly
RT026

200 psia

N2

A081

L007

A
F005 VL014 VL002

A036

PCP

PCA
CPS FC x3
QD012

100 to 120 psia

VL016

3 lbm/h

MT006 VL013

RT023

N2
A076 VL004 VL003 QD001 QD002

N2
A075

VRV
x2
A029

3
QD025

P003

Page No. 30
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

NORS/CASEO Decision Points

Date Apr 2010 NORS/ECLS uDelete Oxygen NORS? uOptimize for Nitrogen with Minimal Schedule Impact PInvestigate Separating Nitrogen and Oxygen System in IRA (Greater benefit and flexibility for future changes) NORS PDR uDelete Oxygen NORS? uRevisit if ISS Oxygen System Will Operate with Two Levels of Purity (99.99% vs 99.5%) Benefit/Impact Removes oxygen pressure vessels, valves/reg, DDT&E cost Improves launching efficiencies for nitrogen; (i.e. fewer RTAs) regulators, and testing CASEO ATP

Jul 2010

Removes oxygen pressure vessels, valves/regulators, and testing One purity simplifies oxygen operations

Risk Outbrief to VCB Oxygen Purity >99.5% Capability Confirmed and Impurities Defined Verify EMU can use CASEO O2 output

Nov 2010 Apr 2011 Apr 2012 Aug 2012 NORS CDR uPursue O2 Certification or Design but Do not Verify IRA Testing Complete FCA -- Qualification Testing Complete PFly Oxygen IRA (if separated) POrder all required RTAs for anticipated 2020 needs (N2 and O2 if applicable) Flight NORS Delivery to KSC Flight O2 IRA build/cost Flight O2 RTA build/cost Saves oxygen certification/testing costs

High Pressure Oxygen Safety Demonstrated uProtoflight / Qualification Revisit Updated Risk Outbrief to VCB

Flight CASEO #1 Delivery uCASEO On-Orbit Capability Demonstrated uFirst CASEO Oxygen Sample Available

Mar 2013

O2 IRA launch cost Flight O2 RTA build/cost

Page No. 31
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Launch Mass to 2020

Case: 1
Baseline NORS ~ 46 NORS RTAs (oxygen net need of 3453 lbm) ~10120 lbm launch mass CASEO for Prebreathe Only Mass of ~500 lbm with 20 lbm per year for maintenance ~8 O2 NORS Tanks required to support EMU suit gas needs for 99.99% pure O2 through 2020 - ~1760 lbms CASEO supporting OGA downtime of 10% ~588 lbms of water (water 88% oxygen by mass) Includes 7 CWCs at 4 lbms each for 28 lbms + 560 lbms of water ~2348 lbms launch mass Maximum Launch Mass Reduction of ~7772 lbm CASEO for all Oxygen Mass of ~500 lbm with 20 lbm per year for maintenance ~710 lbms of water (water 88% oxygen by mass) Includes 8 CWCs at 4 lbms each for 32 lbms + 678 lbms of water 84 lbm for expired PBAs 6 lbm per PBA x 14 PBAs ~1494 lbms launch mass Maximum Launch Mass Reduction of ~8626 lbm

Case: 2

Case: 3

Note, total NORS Nitrogen up mass is ~8700 lbm in any case, all above listed masses are for O2 only.

Page No. 32
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Launch Cost Comparison

Case 1 No CASEO CASEO Hardware Cost NORs Hardware Cost Total launch Weight to 2020 Launch Cost Total Cost $0 Case 2 CASEO for Prebreath Only $18.4M
Total CR impacted cost; see slide 40.

Case 3 CASEO for all Oxygen $18.4M

Total CR impacted cost; see slide 40.

$0

($19M)
Cost saving from tank qty. reduction

($23M)
Cost saving from tank qty. reduction

10120 lbm

2348 lbm

1494 lbm

$253M $TBD

$58.7M $58.1M

$37.4M $32.8M

NOTE: Launch cost is based on estimated weight to support ISS thru. 2020. Assumed launch cost of $25K per lbm.
Page No. 33
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Concurrent Technology Development and Flight Qual: Estimated Project Costs

Labor Costs Project Management Requirements Design and Development Analyses Manufacturing Certification Flight Acceptance Post Delivery Activities Materials Costs Materials Vendor Subcontracts Testing Costs Unique Testing Standard Dev and Qual Testing 135 Total Costs (by year) 520 340 FY10 FY11 FY12

($k) 160 180 1290 220 380

($k) 170 30 1225 350 850

($k) 170

515 115 775

Estimated Total Project Costs: $ 14,240 k

Notes: Costs are fully burdened Costs include WSTF costs, JSC costs, project safety costs and project quality costs 1255 2045 NA costs are not included
Page No. 34
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

85 240 260

715

470

Concurrent Tech Dev / Flight Qual: Estimated Costs by Categories

Cost by FY FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 Cost by Category Labor (WYE) Materials Testing Civil Servant Staffing* FY 10 FY 11 FY 12
* FTE costs are not included in project cost total

($k) 4790 5860 3590 ($k) 7510 4985 1745

FTE 3.0 5.0 5.0

Page No. 35
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Cost / Schedule / Technical Impact of Developing CASEO as ProtoFlight

One Stage Separator Dev. Two Stage Separator Dev. Boost Compressor Dev

Hybrid Development Approach: Cost: $14.2M Schedule: 3/2012 Technical: Qual/life unit on ground

CASEO integrated flight design CASEO Qual build

CASEO Qual Testing LifeTesting Flight build Flight Acceptance

One Stage Separator Dev. Two Stage Separator Dev. Boost Compressor Dev

Protoflight Approach: Cost: $13.4M Schedule: 12/2011 Technical: No Hardware on Ground

CASEO integrated flight design CASEO Proto build ProtoTesting Proto Refurb Proto-Flight Acceptance

Page No. 36
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Proto-flight Assessment
Explanation for limited cost and schedule reduction:
Due to the nature of this technology we must test the unit to full qualification limits. We do not have the required technical background to catorgize the level or type of risk the program would be require to accept in-order for us to test the unit to lower levels. Testing the unit to full qual levels will result in the need for a complete refurbishment before flying the unit. The refurbishment work would require a new round of acceptance testing to verify the workmanship before flight delivery. As a result the proto-flight plan does not reduce the number of test required and do to the refurbishment needed. The manufacturing cost are only slightly reduced. The hybrid project plan that has been develop is already developing the qual and flight units in a near parallel timeframe so there is only minimum schedule saving with the proto-flight method. At the end of a proto-flight program only a single end product will have been developed at near the same cost of a qual program that will result in both a flight unit and qual unit.

Page No. 37
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Cost/Schedule/Technical Impact of Changing the Quantity of Flight Units

The recurring cost of a CASEO flight unit is $2.5 M. Building additional units does not affect the delivery schedule of the first unit. Building additional units does not decrease the cost of the first unit. Building additional units provides a flight qualified spare system, on the ground, ready to launch if there is a failure. Total Program Cost is $14.2 M for
2 flight CASEO units 1 qal/life test CASEO unit 1 Tabletop Engineering Unit

Total Program Cost is $11.7 M for

1 flight CASEO unit 1 qal/life test CASEO unit 1 Tabletop Engineering Unit

Page No. 38
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Project Plan Cost Comparison

Qualification Method Hybrid Approach* Deliverables 2- Flight Units 1 Qual/life Unit 1 Eng Unit 1- Flight Units 1 Qual/life Unit 1 Eng Unit 1- Flight Units 1 Eng Unit Delivery Date 1st unit 04/12 Cost $14.2M

Hybrid Approach; No Flight Spare

1st unit 04/12

$11.7M

Proto-Flight Plan

1st unit 12/11

$13.4M

*NOTE: EA recommended

Page No. 39
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Concurrent Tech Dev / Flight Qual: Project Schedule

2 / 2010 4 / 2010 6 / 2010 7 / 2010 9 / 2010 9 / 2010 11 / 2010 11 / 2010 2 / 2011 2 / 2011 4 / 2011 11 / 2011 3 / 2012 3 / 2012 3 / 2012
Page No. 40
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

ATP (Feb 10, 2010 Assumed date of ATP) SRP Phase 0/1 SRR Risk outbrief to OB (coincides with NORS PDR) IDR #1 delta SRR (for acoustics, delivery rate) IDR #2 (PDR) SRP Phase 2 Final Design Review (CDR) SRP Phase 3 Risk outbrief to OB (coincides with NORS CDR) Flight #1 build complete Flight #1 acceptance complete Note: Meeting this schedule SAR requires that each of the offDelivery of Flight Unit #1 template approaches is
successful

Risk Outbriefs to OB
The Project intends to offer an outbrief of CASEO schedule, program, technical risk:
Risk Outbriefs will coincide with major NORS program reviews (PDR and CDR) Project schedule is developed to offer the best possible insight into CASEO risks at the time of the risk outbriefs

Sept 2010 Outbrief topics

Single stage separator purity Two stage separator purity Boost Compressor safety test results Silver sorbent characterization test results Component test results On Orbit O2 purity verification preliminary results Preliminary OCA, safety, reliability assessment PTRS CASEO system purity (for a full range of environmental conditions) Flight Design data package Results of system life test Flight configuration bed dusting, trace contamination test results Flight configuration acoustic, thermal test results

April 2011 Outbrief topics

Page No. 41
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Cost and Schedule Summary: With estimated range of Cost Risk and Schedule Risk
Hybrid Qualification Approach PDR date: PDR cost: Delivery date (estimated) Schedule Risk Cost (estimated) Cost Risk November 2010 $ 5.5 M March 2012 2/2012 9/2012 $14.2 M $13 17 M

Page No. 42
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Conclusions and Recommendations

CASEO can deliver high pressure, high purity oxygen to the HPGT, with a single system that fits in the ORCA envelope.
Launch costs are considerably smaller than NORS: CASEO launch mass estimate is 500 lbs NORS launch mass estimate is 9000 lbs

CASEO concept definition / concept development is complete. Interfaces can be met, oxygen purity can be achieved. The Hybrid qualification approach addresses technical and schedule risk Keep oxygen and do not optimize for nitrogen in NORS At this time, segregate CASEO and ECLS oxygen Best effort to build and deliver a first flight system by March 2012.
Off template strategies come with additional schedule risk

Best effort to build and deliver 2 flight units and a qual/life unit for $14.2 M.
Recurring cost of a flight unit is $2.5M

Page No. 43

Recommend Protect for Project Reserve because of technical uncertainties and aggressive schedule. Estimated range of total project cost $1317M. Estimated range of delivery schedule is 2/2012 9/2012.

ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

CR Eval Cost Summary

FY10 EA Boeing DA* Safety Total Cost $4.79M $1.39M $0 $0.052M $6.23M FY11 $5.86M $1.25M $0.075M $0.075M $7.26M FY12 $3.59M $1.32M $0 $0.036M $4.94M Total $14.2M $3.96M $0.075M $0.163M

$18.4M

*NOTE: DAs eval stated cost would be less than $500K, due to unknowns in this cost it was not
included in the above table. DA required mock-up fabrication cost was included.

Page No. 44
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Requested Evaluators
Distributed for Evaluation Date: 03/04/10
Recommendation Concur / Mod

I. NASA ISS Program Office CAMs DA/Mission Operations Directorate q KSC/ISS and Shuttle Payloads OB/Vehicle Office OC/Mission Integration & Ops Office OD/Avionics & Software Office OE/Safety & Mission Assurance Office OH/Program Planning and Control Office OM/Program Integration Office o OX/External Integration Office OZ/Payloads Office XA/EVA Office

Concur / Comments Concur N/A Concur / Comments Concur / Comments Concur Concur Concur

III. Other NASA Organizations Recommendation GRC (Identify Office) GSFC (Identify Office) MSFC (ECLSS) IV. International Partners ASI-MPLM ASI-Payloads CSA ESA INPE JAXA Roscosmos RSC-E

Evaluation Due date:03/17/10

N/A

II. NASA JSC Organizations CA/Flight Crew Operations Directorate Concur EA/Engineering Directorate Concur / Comments o MA/Space Shuttle Program Office SA/Space Life Sciences Directorate Concur o QA/Commercial Crew/Cargo Project Office o ZA/Constellation Program Office

V. ISS Contractors ARES Program Integration and Control Contract Barrios Mission Integration Contract Boeing Concur/Comments NAS15-10000 (ISS Sustaining Engineering) NAS9-02098 (40 Battery ORU Contract) Lockheed Martin Cargo Mission Contract

Page No. 45
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Evaluator Comments
DA: Concur with Modifications

No MCCS impacts. Potential impacts to SSTF ECLSS models. Implementation is probably about the same level of effort as NORS(less than $500K). SSTF POC: Jerry Swain DA7/Jones, Zachary Approved with Comments
Depending on how this is implemented, the SSTF might have model impacts. If the CASEO system is selfcontained (no telemetry to crew/ground) system, then the SSTF might be able to work around not having it modeled directly. For now, this CR will be listed as having ECLSS model impacts to the SSTF, pending design specifications. Disposition: Acknowledge

DX43/Curell, Philip Approved with Modifications

Modification: OSO requests two training units: one "dumb" box to hang in the overhead area of the Airlock and one high fidelity table-top mockup for I-level maintenance training and trouble-shooting. Comment: Keep I-level maintenance in the picture as much as possible. Sensors, valves, solenoids, etc. should be easily removed and replaced without need of special tools. Avoid hardwiring temp sensors to hardware that would require cutting and splicing wires during an R&R.

Disposition:

The current engineering plan does not include the fabrication of a dumb unit to install in the airlock mockup. In the engineering plan the Qual/Life unit will be provided to MOD as the training unit. We concur with the I-level maintenance comment.

DX14/Vincent, William R. Approved with Comments

Cost Impact: $40k $75k SVMF will require a medium fidelity mockup of CASEO for Installation, Operations, and IFM training. A CASEO front panel and primary structure is requested by this CR response, which will then be modified for an estimated $40K impact. If a CASEO front panel and primary structure is not provided, then the cost impact will increase to approx. $75K. See DX43 comment above.

Disposition:
Page No. 46
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

See disposition above for DX43 comments.

Evaluator Comments
OH: Concur with Comments
Villarreal, OH2, NASA CM / PI&C Consolidated Concur with comments (3/11/10) General new ISS hardware development to be in accordance with SSP 41170, Configuration Management Requirements. Any existing ISS hardware redesigns and/or software updates as a result of this change will need to be tracked and managed via part/dash number changes (including those for next-higher assemblies) and software revisions following the requirements of SSP 41170 (notably para. 3.3.5.2). Mod. Kit delivery to be with accordance with SSP 41170, Section 3.4.6. Disposition: Acknowledge OB5 - Spares considerations need to be determined and defined. In addition logistics engineering considerations need to be added for maintenance and LSAR. OB3 concur Disposition: Acknowledge

OB: Concur with Comments

Page No. 47
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Evaluator Comments
OE: Concur with Comments
S&MA (NT) cost impacts that will be incurred from the implementation of this CR include reviews and comments to requirements documents, procedures, drawings, test plans, as well as data packages for design reviews. Attendance and support of project meetings, design reviews, software assessments, preparation and support for the safety reviews, and the System Acceptance Review. Review of Safety Data Packages (SDP), FMEAs, NCR, and CILs. Closure of safety actions and support for Certification and CoFR reports. (Reference below table for details on FY cost impacts). These specific SAIC/S&MA cost estimates have been generated based on the current understanding of the task described in the CR under review and include the cost for S&MA Engineering, S&MA Quality Assurance and S&MA Quality Engineering. These estimates should be revisited if there are significant scope changes, and also, prior to the next fiscal year budget. General new ISS hardware development to be in accordance with SSP 41170, Configuration Management Requirements. S&MA (NE) cost impacts that will be incurred from the implementation of this CR include providing the Vehicle Group (NE) consulting services on an as required basis with GFE (NT) as it relates to GFE Integration into the ISS. This will include integration of hazard reports, FMEA, CILs and support with various program boards and panels.

NOTE: for purposes of this evaluation use the following: Total cost $163 K (for FY 2010 = $52 K; for FY 2011 = $75 K; for FY 2012 = $36 K) Disposition: Acknowledge.

Page No. 48
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Evaluator Comments
EA:

EP: Concur with Comments

Integrated end item shall comply with the applicable electrical power quality requirements listed in SSP 50835 Revision A, ISS Pressurized Volume Hardware Common Interface Requirements Document. From the EPS Architecture Notebook Revision Q, ORCA is powered by: RPDA AL-1A4A-B (A054) RPC number 18, which is a 12 Amps feed. This RPCM has an input from SPDA LAP3-1A4A. Disposition: Acknowledge

ES: Concur EC: Concur with Comments

Assumptions: See CASEO CR pitch charts Deliverables: One qualification unit Two flight units Risk: See CASEO CR pitch charts Cost $14.2 M Schedule: (Note: These dates assume an ATP of 02/10/10) Delivery Date for first flight unit March 2012. Project complete in August 2012 See CASEO CR pitch charts for details

Page No. 49
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Evaluator Comments
Boeing: Concur with Comments
Cost: $3.977M (FY10 1.395M, FY11 1.259M, FY12 1.323M)
Boeing (NAS15-10000) tasks to support the CASEO effort includes: 1.Provide Integration of CASEO in the Airlock. a)Design sample method for ISS oxygen systems b)Design closeouts over CASEO interfaces c)Integrated Hazard Reports and FMEA/CILs d)Integrated Operations. e)Provide the following integrated analyses for CASEO in the Airlock. Acoustics Heat Loads Integrated Air Flow (CFD) Power Structural Analysis f)Review gas compatibility standards from CASEO Government Furnished Data (GFD) to ensure compatibility with the existing ystem. g)Design, develop and deliver Mod Kits (Oxygen Sampling Kit and Airlock Mod Kit). 2.Modify Nitrogen Oxygen Resupply System (NORS) Airlock Modification Kit (AMK) to allow for simultaneous operation into the ISS Airlock. a)Modify / revise NORS design to accommodate CASEO. b)Revise NORS project plan to accommodate CASEO [revised Preliminary Review (PDR) date].

Page No. 50
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Evaluator Comments
Boeing will be authorized for the full scope of SSCN 012209. However, due to the urgency of this change, a partial Undefinitized Contract Action (UCA) will be issued immediately to fund the following tasks for the Period of Performance 04/13/10 Authorization to Proceed (ATP) through 09/30/10: 1.Provide input to CASEO-to-Airlock Interface Control Document (ICD). 2.Review CASEO specifications and ICD and submit Review Item Discrepancy (RIDs). 3.Attend CASEO System Requirements Review (SRR) and Incremental Design Review (IDR) #1. 4.Initiate design and data products for Mod Kits (Oxygen Sampling Kit and Airlock Mod Kit). 5.Initiate procurement of long lead items. 6.Obtain Government Furnished Data (GFD) and develop analytical models. 7.Initiate analytical integration of CASEO into Airlock. 8.Modify / revise NORS design to accommodate CASEO. 9.Review gas compatibility standards from CASEO GFD to ensure compatibility with the existing system. 10.Revise NORS project plan to accommodate CASEO ([revised Preliminary Design Review (PDR) date]. ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Groundrules/Assumptions - Boeing/NAS15-10000: 1.CASEO will use existing Oxygen Recharge Compressor Assembly (ORCA) interfaces (JSC 38829). Power, grounding, structural, air cooling, envelope. Oxygen interface will change. 2.ORCA removed prior to CASEO installation. No Data interfaces are required for CASEO. Pre-Positioned Load (PPL) changes (if required) covered under existing sustaining effort 3.CASEO to be an external interface. Mod Kit required. 4.Two purity levels of oxygen (Airlock/NORS level-99.99% and CASEO level-99.5%) 5.ISS oxygen systems will not need to be re-qualified for use of 99.5% oxygen. 6.Existing NORS will still deliver oxygen and nitrogen at 6000 psi (7000 psi MDP). 7.CASEO implementation will delay the NORS Preliminary Design Review (PDR). 8.Sustaining Engineering for CASEO is not included. 9.The NORS design will remain in the Airlock zenith but reduce NORS to just have one Refill Tank Assembly (RTA) installed at a time with Internal Regulator Assembly (IRA). 10.Hose(s) and hardware necessary to connect the CASEO to the Airlock will be not be provided by Boeing.
Page No. 51
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Backup Slides

Page No. 52
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Project Risks
Risk Description
Rotating Equipment

Current Assessment
Piston compressor completed a 5000 hr test ORCA overpressure control is not applicable for CASEO Compared to CDRA, these are low flow rates Compared to CDRA, these are short operating times (16 days per year)

Forward Work Plan

Forward Work Test BR 3003 with flight config motor Vibe test of scroll compressor Define best practices: moisture tolerance moisture control inlet pressure management exit surge tank sizing particulate filtering startup motor alignment Expert consultants: A. Boehm J. Genovese J. Anderson Products Detailed flight specifications Test report for BR3003 Test report for scroll compressor Expert recommendations

Page No. 53
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Project Risks
Risk Description
Reliability

Current Assessment
Proven technology with COTS heritage Complete fault detection and isolation system can be established with 4 pressure sensors and a timer A 10 year service life on ISS consists of ~200 days equivalent of medical oxygen system (which has a 7 year rated lifetime)

Forward Work Plan

Forward Work Complete assessment of COTs valves compared to spool valve Develop flight configuration prototype with health check, fault detection, and fault isolation capability Expert consultants: P. Trombley

Products Prototype fault detection and isolation system Expert recommendations

Page No. 54
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Project Risks
Risk Description
Cost

Current Assessment
Working Technology Demonstrator Working Piston Compressor Working Scroll Compressor Proven Technology with COTS Heritage Inexpensive Components COTS system ~$4k

Forward Work Plan

Forward Work Develop detailed flight qualification budget Determine COTS valves or custom spool valve Conduct bed mechanical testing Conduct scroll compressor life testing Build flight configuration prototypes Products Flight configuration prototype Test results of components with a cost risk Draft Flight Requirements Document Detailed Flight Program Budget

Page No. 55
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Project Risks
Risk Description
Schedule

Current Assessment
Piston compressor completed 5000 hour test Scroll compressor selected, and used in 99.8% O2 demonstrator Technology demonstrator delivered Project plan in place for a flight feasibility assessment (with prototype hardware, flight development schedule) by 10/1/10

Forward Work Plan

Forward Work Develop flight system prototype components with schedule risk piston compressor (BR 3003) scroll compressor motors valves (COTS or spool) Build flight configuration prototypes Develop detailed flight development schedule Expert consultants: J. Jaax Products Prototype fault detection and isolation system Detailed flight schedule Draft Test and Verification Plan Expert recommendations

Page No. 56
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Project Risks
Risk Description
New operations

Current Assessment
Concept of operations proposes using CASEO generated oxygen for campout, pre-breathe, and suit purge (not EMU tank fill) Minimum O2 purity requirement for campout, pre-breathe, and suit purge is 97.0% NORS also requires new operations: there is no way to avoid this risk

Forward Work Plan

Forward Work XA led assessment of EMU impact due to 99.5% O2 XA led development of draft procedures

Products EMU impact assessment Draft procedures

Page No. 57
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Project Risks
Risk Description
Oxygen Purity

Current Assessment
Two Stage system demonstrated 99.8% O2 Silver sorbent system demonstrated 99.7% O2 Minimum O2 purity requirement needed for campout, purge, and pre-breathe is 97.0% (99.5% is margin to minimize the impact of an operational error)

Forward Work Plan

Forward Work Test Two Stage System in non standard configurations high humidity inlet high argon inlet high CO2 inlet Test Silver Sorbent in non-standard configurations high humidity inlet high argon inlet high CO2 inlet Expert consultants: Prof. Yang Prof. Foley Products Two test reports Expert recommendations

Page No. 58
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Project Risks
Risk Description
On Orbit Verification

Current Assessment
System health check will confirm valves are sequencing properly and system is free from leaks POMS the laser diode oxygen monitor has a 0-100% O2 range The project team has invented a new method of O2 measurement that uses commercial food packing sorbents and a pressure sensor. It consumes the oxygen, and measures the pressure of the remaining impurities

Forward Work Plan

Forward Work Test POMS prototype with 99.5% O2 Develop prototype of pressure / sorption O2 sensor Develop system health check sequence

Products POMS test report pressure / sorption sensor prototype Fault detection, fault isolation protocol

Page No. 59
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Project Risks
Risk Description
Oxygen Safety

Current Assessment
Only the piston compressor is exposed to oxygen at elevated pressures WSTF made the piston compressor and the scroll compressor product recommendation. Both are oil free and oxygen compatible Gas velocities are low Compression rates are low Temperatures are low

Forward Work Plan

Forward Work WSTF assessment of beds, valves, lines, and sensors Selection of flight motors, valves, and valve actuators WSTF system oxygen compatibility assessment Ignition sources highlighted

Products WSTF O2 Hazard Assessment

Page No. 60
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Project Risks
Risk Description
Dust

Current Assessment
Dusting issues are not like CDRA Temp: CDRA 400 F / CASEO 75 Flow: CDRA 25cfm / CASEO 1cfm Time: CDRA 6000 hrs / CASEO 400 hrs Rotating speed CDRA 100,000 rpm / CASEO30 rpm CASEO beds are designed for dust control Granular compression spring Cylindrical beds Filters bracket every bed

Forward Work Plan

Forward Work 5000 hr dust test Vibe to failure test Document best practices for dust Expert consultants: Prof. Yang Prof Foley

Products Test report Best Practices for dust Expert recommendations

Page No. 61
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Project Risks
Risk Description
Trace Contaminants

Current Assessment
7 measurements of Argon on ISS analyzed Argon compatibility assessment - No harm to suit - 99.2% O2 needed for ppO2 in EMU The two stage system filters both ways - Heavies filtered in 1st stage - Lights passed in 2nd stage Silver sorbent system - Lights are concentrated - 10 liters of ISS 1 liter of O2 - 10 concentration of H, He, CH4 has no identified impact

Forward Work Plan

Forward Work Tests with contaminants Suit compatibility assessment Oxygen safety assessment

Products Chemical test report XA EMU impact report WSTF assessment

Page No. 62
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

How Commercial Home O2 Systems Work

A two bed, pressure swing adsorption device generates oxygen
Separation done with a two bed, adsorption / desorption system Adsorbing bed is compressed to ~30 psia H2O, CO2, and N2 adsorb O2 permeates through the bed Desorbing bed is vented back to the room desorbing the H2O, CO2, and N2 that was adsorbed at 30 psia Beds cycle every 15 seconds Oxygen purity is 93%, oxygen delivery rate is 6 liters per min (FDA requirement) Commercial systems operate continuously and have a 7 year warranty 10 year operations on ISS is equivalent to 200 days home use
Home Fill Station

A piston compressor fills a portable oxygen tank to 2200 psi

Separator Bed Air In Separator Bed O2 Product Tank (93% O2)

N2, CO2, H2O

Page No. 63
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Oxygen hose to patient (up to 6 lpm)

Portable Oxygen Tank (2200 psi)

Argon and Oxygen Purity

Nominal atmospheric compositions are:
Earths Atmosphere ISS cabin environment

N2 O2 20.9 Ar CO2 0.04 Water CO2 Nitrogen Oxygen Argon

78.1% 20.9 0.93 0.50

78.0% 0.60

Relative affinity of gases to commercial oxygen separation sorbents

The FDA spec for medical oxygen is 93% +/- 1%

Commercial systems meet this spec by filtering ~5 liters of air to produce ~1 liter of oxygen. Adsorb the water, CO2, N2, and let the O2 and Ar migrate through the bed Nominal composition of medical oxygen from commercial systems:
O2 Ar N2
Page No. 64
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

94% 5% 1%

A single stage commercial oxygen generator meets EVA pre-breathe purity requirements with considerable margin (<5% N2)

EVA Grade Oxygen Purity

EMU Oxygen Purity Requirement is 99.5%
The heritage of the purity spec is based on oxygen regulators for the US Navy NASAs experience base is with 99.99% oxygen (cryo oxygen)

Argon is the key to oxygen purity

Argon has less affinity to commercial sorbents than oxygen Argon affinity is similar to oxygen Argon is 0.93% in air, 0.60% on ISS (the argon comes from the air in the shuttle cabin) Pre-breathe requires <5% N2 (Argon does not affect pre-breathe timeline)

CASEO oxygen that contains <5% Nitrogen can be used for Pre-breathe
95% O2 is minimum purity to meet Pre-breathe, Purge, and Campout requirements

CASEO oxygen with >99.5% O2 can be used for Pre-breathe or EMU

Unverified CASEO oxygen should not be used in the EMU - Trace Argon accumulates in the suit 99.2% O2 / 0.8% Ar is minimum purity that maintains oxygen partial pressure in the EMU

There are two different techniques for achieving 99.5% purity

1. Add a second stage to separate oxygen from argon 2. Use silver sorbent to separate high purity oxygen in a single stage

Page No. 65
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Two Stage Method for 99.5% Purity

Two Stage System

1st stage bed Air In 1st stage bed N2, CO2, H2O

1st Stage Gas Storage Tank 96% O2

2nd stage bed Argon 2nd stage bed 99.8% O2 Delivered to Product Tank

The first stage is similar in design and operation to the first stage of a COTS system
Higher pressures, lower flow rates are used for better separation First stage product: 4 lpm, 96% O2 (4% Ar)

The second stage separates the oxygen from the argon

Reverse separation: let the argon pass, collect the adsorbed oxygen Second stage product: 2 lpm, 99.8% O2 (0.2% Ar)

Page No. 66
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Two Stage Prototype System

High Pressure Booster Compressor Control Electronics

First Stage Adsorption/ Separation Beds and Receiving Tank

Frame has ORCA dimensions Second Stage Adsorption/Separation Beds and Product Storage Tank Low Pressure Feed Compressors
Page No. 67
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Two Stage Prototype System

Purity: Size: Power: Rate:

99.8% oxygen Fits in ORCA 800 watts total 20 lbs O2 in 48 hrs

Acoustics: Quieter than lab background

Pros:

more industrial experience sorbents are inexpensive, readily available

Cons:

more complex system (more beds, more valves)

Page No. 68
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Silver Sorbent Method of 99.5% O2

Separator Bed Air In Separator Bed Product Tank 99.7% O2

N2, CO2, H2O

Instead of commercial sorbents, a silver exchanged, type X sorbent is used

These sorbents have more affinity to Ar than O2 Direct separation: oxygen is the most mobile it is collected directly from the front of the bed

This process is well known, but not used industrially because of sorbent cost
Four key patents drive the technology the oldest is 20 years old Silver exchanged sorbent is expensive ~$700 per pound (8 lbs of sorbent in full scale prototype)

Page No. 69
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Silver Sorbent System

High Pressure Booster Compressor

Control Electronics

Compressor Vacuum Pump Stabilizing Tank (2) pre-columns for H2O and CO2 removal

Oxygen Backfill
Page No. 70
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

Oxygen Separation

Silver Sorbent System

Purity: Size: Power: Rate:

99.7% oxygen Fits in ORCA 750 watts total 20 lbs O2 in 48 hrs (by design)

Acoustics: not yet measured

Pros:

Simpler system (fewer valves, fewer stages) Custom made sorbent Not commercially available

Cons:

Page No. 71
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

High Pressure Compressor

WSTF conducted an industry survey of high pressure mechanical compressors
Four candidate compressors were identified Two compressors were purchased and tested, one was selected

The selected compressor was the Cobham BR-3002

Three stage piston compressor Inlet pressure 14.7 psia, delivery pressure 3000 psia, delivery rate 10 lbs per day Low speed (30 rpm) leads to less noise, less heat

Page No. 72
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)

WSTF Compressor Testing

5000 hr test (104 EVAs) Seals generated fines Seals still sealed Filters contained fines: best possible outcome for a life test
Page No. 73
ISS_CM_019 (Rev 08/2009)