Kirsch

Broad-Based Teams
Case Study #1 - Composite Crew Module (CCM)
Project Management Challenge 2009

Daytona Beach, Florida
February 24-25, 2009
Mike Kirsch, CCM Project Manager

NASA Engineering and Safety Center
Principal Engineer
Engineering Excellence
This briefing is for status only and may not represent complete engineering information
NESC Overview
NESC Overview
• In 2003, the NASA Engineering & Safety Center (NESC) was formed as a
response to a Columbia Accident Investigation Board observation
• The NESC mission is to provide the Agency’s Programs and Projects with
rigorous independent technical perspectives on their most critical
technical issues
Five years later – The NESC remains independent:
• Centrally managed and funded through the Office of Chief Engineer
• Small staff of senior leaders and technical experts to lead broad based
engineering teams in “tiger team” fashion
• Unaffiliated with and unbiased by any specific NASA Program or Center
• Has an independent engineering chain of command to assure an avenue for
consideration of all points of view
• Facilitating hands-on design and development experience
NESC Background
NESC emphasis is to create broad-based teams to enable networks that

discourage silos
• Recruit team membership • Facilitate inter-Center
from a broad community collaboration
• Increase inter-Center • Encourage inter-Center
knowledge and information relationships and
flow communities of practice
NESC Composite Crew Module
January 2007 NASA Administrator
chartered the NESC to form an
agency team to…
• design and build a composite crew module,
• gain hands-on design, build, and test
experience,
• in anticipation that future exploration
system may be made of composite
materials.
Composite Crew Module Overview
Upper Pressure Shell
Splice Joint
Lower Pressure Shell
Pressure Module = Upper Pressure Shell + Splice Joint + Lower Pressure Shell
System Dimensions
Project Attributes
• Broad NASA Center representation

• ARC, DFRC, GRC, GSFC, JPL, JSC, KSC, LaRC, MSFC
• Aerospace structures and composites industry collaborative
participation
• Alcore – Honeycomb core
• ATK – Design, Tooling, Manufacturing
• Bally Ribbon Mills – 3D woven structures
• Collier Industries – Hypersizer structural analysis software
• Genesis Engineering - Design
• Janicki Industries - Tooling
• Lockheed Martin – Design, Tooling, Manufacturing
• Northrop Grumman – Design, Tooling, Manufacturing
• Industry partners within each discipline and across all of the
disciplines
• 18 months from vision to delivery of testable full scale hardware
• Production slow down May 2008 – September 2008 (NESC Budget
realignment)
Project Management
Project Manager Mike Kirsch LARC
Deputy Project Mgr--Technical Integration Jeff Stewart GSFC
Deputy Project Mgr--Technology Dev. Paul Roberts LARC
Administrative Assistant Terri Derby ATK (Swales)
Support Advisors
Resource Analyst Pamela Throckmorton LARC Advisor Damodar Ambur LARC
Pro-E & IT Admin Mike Mongilio ATK (Swales) Advisor Tom Modlin JSC
Program Support Steve Summit ATK (Iuka) Advisor Joe Pellicciotti GSFC
Advisor Tod Palm NGC
Testing Materials Analysis Design Engineering Manufacturing NDE

Lead Lead Lead Lead Lead Lead
Sotiris Kellas Dan Polis Jim Jeans Jeff Stewart Larry Pelham Ken Hodges
LARC GSFC Genesis Engineering GSFC MSFC JSC
Chip McCann Wade Jackson David Sleight Craig Collier Ian Fernandez Dawson Vincent Randy Sparks Tristan Curry
JSC LARC LARC Collier Research Corp ARC NGC (MSFC) ATK (Clearfield) UAH
John Thesken Ben Rodini Jonathan Bartley-Cho Phil Yarrington Dave Paddock Mike Western Tom McCabe Elliott Cramer
GRC SGT Northrop Grumman Corp Collier Research Corp LARC Janicki ATK (Iuka) LARC
Donny Wang Ron Schmidt Eric Schleicher Jerry Stuart
Steve Rickman NGC Eric Friesen Chip Henderson Brad Parker
NGC LMC ATK (Swales) GSFC
JSC Janicki ATK (Iuka)
Marc Dinardo Luis Santos
Perry Wagner Laurie Carrillo Robert Boscia Fred Hall Jeff Stone
LMC GSFC
ATK (Swales) JSC Alcore ATK (Iuka) ATK (Iuka)
Dan Richardson
Wayne Sawyer Charles Kaprielian Sam Russell
Angel Alvarez- ATK (Swales) Terry Graham Touch (ATK)
AS&M ATK (Swales) MSFC
Hernandez ATK (MSFC) Stephen Williams
Bill Kelly
Jared Schoenly JSC Rance Jones James Walker
Brett Bednarcyk ATK (Swales) Mike Abel
AMA Cindy Sowards MSFC
GRC Ed Fasanella ATK
Doug Lenhardt Danny Lambert
LaRC Andrew Johnson Steven Johnson
KSC
Jerry Gray ATK (Iuka)
Al Tabiei Craig Bowser Phil Thompson
MPSE ATK Swales Scott Ragasa
UAH
Virtual Engineering Enablers
• Goal – Create a virtual environment that promotes communications as if

the team were in the same room
• Nearly 100% dedicated team
• Drives proactive rather than reactive behaviors
• Extensive co-locations - 18 of 52 weeks with contractor partners and vendors
during the first 12 months
• 7 of the first 9 weeks co-located – long hours through the weekend
• Understanding individuals and building relationships
• Used weekly bowling as a team social (fun for all abilities)
• Co located approximately 2 weeks every 2 months, thereafter
• Web based calendar for managing personal and professional schedules
• When dispersed we used daily virtual design sessions through Secure
Meetings/WebEx
• Windchill Web-based file management
• Electronic drawing and model review, approval, and configuration control
• Instant Messaging (Chat)
• Desktop sharing (2 clicks)
• Smart Boards/tablets
Co-location Floor Plan
Materials Selection
• Prepreg - IM7/977-2 tape and 4-harness satin fabric

• High strength fiber
• Toughened epoxy resin
• Extensive data available for determining material properties.
• 3D woven Pi preforms - IM7/MTM45-1

• Extensive data on IM7 woven Pi preform joints (CAI and JSF database).
• MTM45-1 resin was formulated for out-of-autoclave cure, providing manufacturing flexibility.
• Core Selection - aluminum non-perforated core.

• Non-perforated core provides some level of pressure containment redundancy.
• Adhesives
• FM 300 M film adhesive - high shear strength and high toughness
• EA 9394 paste adhesive - high strength room temperature cure
• FM 410-1 foaming adhesive - core splice adhesive
• EY-3010/Lord 4688 - potting compounds - low density, low CTE, RT cure
Lower Shell Loading
• Backbone carries pressure load –

no ring frame (~100 lbs savings)
• Membrane pressure head lobe
shapes (~50 lbs savings)
• Leverages and enhances
SM/ALAS reinforcements
• Backbone connection allows load Internal Pressure
sharing with Heat Shield (~1000
lbs heat shield savings)
50% load sharing on backbone Water Landing
New Technology - Cobonded Joints - Air Force CAI
• Replaces bonded or bolted

joints
• 3D-woven “Pi” shape preform
• Cobonded Pi preforms
comprise majority of
connections
• Lobe core tapers out before Pi
• Also used to bond Gussets to
upper shell
Pi Preform Comparison
HST's Super Lightweight Interchangeable

Program NESC Composite Crew Module
Carrier
Joint type traditional back-to-back L-clips pi preform technology
Geometry
Pre-cured part 5 pre-cured details: 2 pre-cured details:

count web, skin, closeout, two L-clips web and skin
Bonding process 2 step paste bond 1 step cobond
Tension
~900 lb/in ~2000 lb/in
Capability
Upper Pressure Shell Tooling
• Use Temperature: 400F

• Use Pressure: 100psi
• CTE: Chop Carbon
laminate
• Slight elevation in
CTE contributed to
ease of part de-mold
• Dimensional Accuracy:
• Critical Zones +/-
.010”
• Non-critical Zones +/-
030”
• Durability: 30 cycles
(300+ hours)
• Schedule: 12-16 weeks
• Cost: $375K
Tool nickname: “Big Plunger”
Upper Pressure Shell Tool
Upper IML Processing
Autoclave cure
Layup IML
Bag Part
Shell Core Installation
Film Adhesive
Install Core
Outer Skins
Debagging Tacked Ceiling Core
Automatic Ultrasonic Inspection
Upper Manufacturing Demonstration Unit Complete!
Lower Shell
Upper IML and OML Layup
• Between 4 and 39 plies thick

• Approximately 400 ply segments per skin
• Manage ply orientation, 0, 90, +45, -45 degrees
• Manage wrinkles over complex curvature and
core tapers
• Manage ply segment overlaps .75” – 1.25”
• Manage material yield
• Manage material “out time” < 30 days
Upper IML Plies
1 IML Ply Segment
1 ply segment
Flat Patterns
• Integrated electronic process flow exists

• Design, Manufacturing, and Inspection via
• CAD, NASTRAN, FiberSIM, flat patterns, laser projection, layup, inspection
Civil Servant “Hands On” Experience
Ian Fernandez,
Design Engineer
ARC
Dave Sleight,
Structural Analyst
LaRC
Cecilia Larrosa,
Aerospace engineering intern
ARC
T&V Objectives
• Show, through destructive testing, that allowable material

properties are conservative
• For given worst-case load environments, obtain structural test
responses to correlate with analysis models
• Verify structural design robustness, and understand failure
modes
Critical Test Locations
LIDS/Tunnel
Main Parachute
Drogue Parachute
Attachment
Attachment
Splice
Backbone
Attachment
Crucifom
Building Block Approach Tests
• Coupon
• Sandwich flatwise tension - complete
• Edgewise compression - complete
• Pi preform (1/8” clevis)
• pull off - complete
• shear - complete
• Visual impact study tests – on hold
• Permeability tests – before and after impact – in work
• Element
• LIDS/tunnel double lap joint - complete
• Splice
• Acreage - complete
• Longeron – complete
• Offset – ECD 12/08
• Backbone attachment pull-off
• 0° - complete
• 20°- complete
• Backbone attachment shear ECD – 1/09
• Cruciform - complete
• Component
• SM/ALAS simplified interface (flat panel)
• Non-potted core – complete
• Potted core - complete
Full Scale Testing: Loads “Freebody”
Main Chute Load Drogue Load

64,400 lbs 34,200 lbs
Launch abort Load

134,000 lbs
Maximum Internal
Pressure, 31.1 psi
Maximum
Delta Load
76,000 lbs
Service
Module Load
101,000 lbs
Combined Loads Test System (COLTS)
NASA Langley
Overall Project Status
• 24 months into the project

• Independent reviews conducted throughout project life cycle
• Conceptual design - March 2007
• Preliminary design – June 2007
• Detailed design – December 2007
• Manufacturing plan – May 2008
• Test plan – TBD (March 2009)
• Full scale tooling delivered January 2008
• Building block fabrication and testing ongoing
• Full scale upper pressure shell manufacturing demonstration unit completed in
December 2008
• Upper and lower full scale subassemblies started October 1, 2009
• Sandwich systems cured the week of December 15
• Post cure operations currently underway, with completion expected in March 09
• Full scale testing planned at LaRC using COLTS facility beginning in Spring 09
• Full scale static tests completion expected in July 09
• CCM Final Report completion expected in September 09
Composite Crew Module

Kirsch

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Kirsch

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Broad-Based Teams

Case Study #1 - Composite Crew Module (CCM)

Project Management Challenge 2009

Mike Kirsch, CCM Project Manager

NESC emphasis is to create broad-based teams to enable networks that

Upper Pressure Shell

Lower Pressure Shell

• Broad NASA Center representation

Testing Materials Analysis Design Engineering Manufacturing NDE

• Goal – Create a virtual environment that promotes communications as if

• Prepreg - IM7/977-2 tape and 4-harness satin fabric

• 3D woven Pi preforms - IM7/MTM45-1

• Core Selection - aluminum non-perforated core.

• Backbone carries pressure load –

50% load sharing on backbone Water Landing

• Replaces bonded or bolted

HST's Super Lightweight Interchangeable

Joint type traditional back-to-back L-clips pi preform technology

Pre-cured part 5 pre-cured details: 2 pre-cured details:

Bonding process 2 step paste bond 1 step cobond

• Use Temperature: 400F

• Between 4 and 39 plies thick

• Integrated electronic process flow exists

• Show, through destructive testing, that allowable material

Main Chute Load Drogue Load

Launch abort Load

• 24 months into the project

Anda mungkin juga menyukai