Attendees: · Web viewJohn Venditti, NASA Procedures Management Office. 1. ... The ESA...

Operations Data File Control Board Meeting #65Meeting Minutes

10 – 14 May, 2004 in Bremen, Germany

Attendees:Rob Banfield, ODFCB ChairJack Compton, ODF ManagerJohn Bearley, Procedures Management Office RepresentativeChuck Moede, Procedures Management Office RepresentativeMike Hurt, SODF Manager/ U.S. SODF Board MemberLisa Payne, Procedures Management Office RepresentativeNicole Bolinger, Procedures Management Office RepresentativeRobert Curbeam, Crew Office Board MemberMichelle Rowland, Crew Office RepresentativePerry Bennett, Safety Board MemberLauren Hastie, Safety Office RepresentativeLawrence Vezina, CSA Board MemberMikael Wolff, ESA Board MemberPeter Granseuer, ESA Board MemberHelmut Luttmann, EADS RepresentativeGerd Hajen, EADS RepresentativeJoachim Dőpkens, EADS RepresentativeKagan Kayal, ESA RepresentativePaolo Ariaudo, ESA RepresentativeSimon Challis, ESA RepresentativeUwe Brauer, ESA RepresentativeRose Lindsey, US PODF Board MemberMercedes Galloway, US PODF RepresentativeJohn Wade, US PODF RepresentativeMasao Nakai, JAXA Board MemberCari Goulard, EADS Intern/NASA Assembly & Checkout Officer Representative

Attendees via telecon:Alexander Kotov, RSA Board MemberCharlotte Beskow, ESA ATV RepresentativeJohn Venditti, NASA Procedures Management Office

1. Welcome/Introduction/LogisticsThe sixty-fifth ODFCB meeting was held on May 10 - 14, 2004 in Bremen, Germany. EADS/H. Luttmann welcomed everyone to Bremen and the EADS facility, and provided information on the locations of various facilities. He noted there will be a social event for the Board on Tuesday evening.

Mr. Luttmann stated that since the Columbia accident there has not been much activity and noted the delay to the schedule for Columbus.

EADS/G. Hajen identified the several meetings that will be occurring this week and their locations. Mr. Hajen noted that everything should be in placed to set up the telecon for tomorrow’s meeting. He explained locations in the building of offices and secretarial support, and arrangements for lunch.

Mr. Hajen also mentioned the scheduled tour of the EADS facility tomorrow afternoon and briefly discussed the integration work being done.

2. Meeting OverviewNASA/R. Banfield, Chairman, opened the meeting by welcoming everyone and briefly discussing the agenda for the meeting. The agenda and action items are available for view on the ODF Home Page. The presentations are linked to the agenda and are available at the following URL:

Page 1 of 34


10 – 14 May, 2004 in Bremen, Germanyhttps://mod2.jsc.nasa.gov/do3/ODF/ODFCB/index.html

The participants in the iPV Splinter moved to their meeting following the introductions.

3. CSA PODFCB StatusOn Monday, the presentation by CSA/ L. Vezina was deferred.

On Tuesday, Mr. Vezina presented the PODFCB status. He noted there have been no changes to the Management Plan and Annexes 1 & 2. Mr. Vezina announced there will be Board changes due to CSA reorganization, and that he will be leaving the Board. The new CSA PODFCB representative will be Real Palardy, the CSA SODF representative will be Ken Podwalski, and the CSA SODF Coordinator will be Frederic Poinlane. He summarized there will be a low level of activity until Shuttle returns to flight, and mentioned CSA might decide it’s not worth setting up a system to support only 4-5 payloads, but rather would work with MSFC.

There was discussion on assignments of CRs in Workflow. NASA/J. Compton will assign Real Palardy and Ken Podwalski to ODF Management document CRs and NASA/M. Hurt will assign Ken Podwalski and Frederic Poinlane to SODF procedure CRs.

4. ESA ODFCB StatusAt the Monday session ESA/M. Wolff presented the status of the ESA ODFCB and summarized the items covered at the most recent meeting in March. He noted there have been on-going telecons regarding ODF schedule, validation, and ground-flight commonality. With regard to ground-flight procedures, he stated that ESA expects to submit a CR to the ODFCB on presentation of applicable steps.

ESA/Peter Granseuer commented that the approach to ESA Safety is a simplified process based on the NASA OCAD plan, and the intent is to put this into the ESA ODF management plan. For next multi-lateral ODFCB ESA expects to be ready to present the hazard control process. NASA/P. Bennett asked if this process is also applicable to ATV and ESA payloads, or just the Columbus module. Mr. Granseuer responded that Columbus reports to an Operations Control Board (OCB) and that ATV reports to their own OCB. Therefore, ATV representatives do not come to the ESA ODFCB and do not have representation on the ODFCB. NASA/R. Banfield asked about having ESA/C. Beskow become an ODFCB member for ATV and Mr. Wolff agreed this was a good idea and indicated further discussions would be necessary. NASA/M. Hurt noted that ATV was different than Shuttle since the Shuttle reports through the SODFCB, and that having ATV representation on the ODFCB made sense.

Mr. Wolff stated that the next ESA ODFCB is planned for early July and hopes to have an updated Management Plan by late summer. NASA/J. Compton asked if payloads flown on Soyuz and/or Progress were part of this group or separate, and Mr. Wolff indicated they are separate and worked with the Russians. When questioned about the visibility of these payloads, Mr. Wolff explained that science performed in the Russian Segment is covered by RODF procedures and the ESA ODFCB won’t see them. NASA/R. Curbeam noted it had been difficult to obtain information for the ARGES and Heat payloads, and NASA/R. Lindsey stated that the information was received very late.

NASA/R. Lindsey asked if the ESA ODF for payloads is controlled separately from the ESA Systems. Mr. Wolff explained that at ESA Payloads are controlled by the same ESA ODFCB that controls systems.

ESA/G. Hajen presented the Columbus Flight ODF status and noted the preliminary content has been defined for all the books, including the input to the SODF-maintained books. Mr. Hajen mentioned development of Strategy Documents and clarified for the Board that these are bilateral documents between ESA and NASA.

Mr. Hajen reported that validation of layout and correctness of IFM and MSM procedures will be performed via desktop review. Feasibility has already been verified in the 1g test campaigns. Validation

Page 2 of 34

https://mod2.jsc.nasa.gov/do3/ODF/ODFCB/index.html


10 – 14 May, 2004 in Bremen, Germanyof multi-element procedures will be performed by NASA during joint tests and NBL simulations. During Bilateral Test #3B tests will be conducted at the Software Verification Facility (SVF). One objective of test will be validation of operational products.

Mr. Hajen presented a schedule for preparation of Columbus ODF and reviewed the various milestones and need dates. The training at the European Astronaut Center will be dedicated to Columbus systems training and thus will not need any multi-element SODF procedures. Preliminary Columbus ODF is needed in September 2004 with the basic required in January 2005.

March 2006 is a management launch date. ESA is keeping an artificial launch date for a dress rehearsal in February 2006 so that things will be ready for the eventual launch date. ESA need dates will likely be earlier than the need dates for SODF publication and this is being discussed at the EJOP in June.

Mr. Hajen noted that ESA delivered their hazardous commands to NASA’s hazardous command list, and processed them the same as NASA does. There was significant discussion on hazardous commands, SPNs and designation in procedures. Mr. Wolff noted that the ODF Management Plan does not require review of hazardous commands which ESA has properly implemented.

Summary: Consider adding ESA/C. Beskow as a member of ODFCB (see Agenda Item 32 for further

information). Safety should ask ESA/C. Beskow about the ATV process for OCAD.

5. JAXA ODFCB Charter/StatusOn Monday JAXA/M. Nakai-san presented the status of the JAXA ODFCB and summarized the items covered at the most recent meeting.

Nakai-san explained that the development group and operations group were consolidated when NASDA became JAXA. The JAXA ODFCB functions are performed at the “Operations Technical Coordination Board” and ODF related management level decisions are made by “JEM Project Control Board” including approval of ODF Management document and procedures. Nakai-san noted that Payload procedures are also controlled basically in this manner. So, at this time JAXA does not have its own ODFCB.

Nakai-san noted that further bilateral coordination is needed with NASA to update the JAXA Charter and presented two options for how to update the charter.

Nakai-san noted that a total of 96 ODF procedures were developed from FY2002 through FY2003, with plans to be completed with preliminary versions of the assembly and activation procedures for 1J/A and 1J in FY2004. 1J/A and 1J malfunction / contingency ODF is planned to be developed in FY2004 through FY2005.

NASA/R. Lindsey asked about Payload procedure development plans. Nakai-san noted that the charts presented do not include payload procedures.

NASA/J. Compton asked about HTV. Nakai-san noted that the HTV operations team belongs to the JEM project team. The JEM Project Control Board is responsible for HTV operations matters.

Nakai-san identified new members, himself as ODFCB rep, with support from JAXA/M. Ohama-san and JAMSS/T. Kajitani-san

6. PODFCB Component and StatusIn the Monday session NASA/R. Lindsey presented the U.S. PODFCB documentation status, noting that an Engineering Change Request (ECR) to revise the U.S. Payloads iPV Ops Concept is out for review and that it will be reviewed at the next PODFCB meeting scheduled for May 27, 2004. Ms. Lindsey also

Page 3 of 34


10 – 14 May, 2004 in Bremen, Germanystated that other ECRs are in work. One ECR is to Baseline the ODF Standards Annex E2 and others address updates to the PODF Management Plan.

Ms. Lindsey announced that MSFC will not be utilizing the Workflow system because of budget constraints. Instead, ECRs will be reviewed via the Payload Information Management System (PIMS) that is also used in real-time for Operations Change Requests (OCRs). With the movement to PIMS, the ECRs will be changing to be termed OCRs.

Ms. Lindsey asked that all ODFCB members who wish to review U.S. Payload products complete the HOSC forms which were attached to the agenda and submit them to her during this face-to-face meeting.

Ms. Lindsey was asked whether PIMS was operational and she explained that the PIMS system is currently used in operations. Upon questions from NASA/P. Bennett, Ms. Lindsey explained that all partners who currently have access to PODF ECRs will need to submit new paperwork and will be required to have static IP addresses.

Upon questioning, it was identified that the PIMS system would also be a repository and in order to view any procedures access to PIMS will be required. ESA/M. Wolff requested that PODF publish their procedures on the ODF web page to allow greater access. Ms. Lindsey will review this request and respond at a later ODFCB.

For Increment 9, PODF is still planning to fly the backup PODF MPV library CD on 15P since it has been over a year since the CD was updated on orbit.

Summary: Applicable ODFCB members complete and submit HOSC forms during this ODFCB. NASA/R. Lindsey will review the ESA request to publish the PODF to the ODF web page.

7. SODFB StatusOn Monday NASA/M. Hurt stated that PCNs to the Emergency and Handover books were launched with the Expedition 9 crew. He reported another Emergency Book PCN and two backup CDs are planned for 14P.

Regarding hybrid SODF books, Mr. Hurt stated all CRs except for the EVA Book have been approved. He discussed the issue of scheduling crew time to implement the books and that the Station Program had approved the request for time.

Mr. Hurt reported on the FCOH update to document the Real-time CR Process for SODF. He described how this process accelerates processing for certain types of changes. He noted the system is in use with positive results so far, with the average processing time from initiation to publication being 19 days.

JAXA/Nakai-san asked about ODF Management Plan requirements for CR required for any change. Mr. Hurt explained that the console review has been augmented to include the same requirements that are used for workflow CR review. Once a change is approved on console, the record of the console review is attached to a CR. The SODF Manager reviews the CR to verify that the required review was completed and if the same review was performed, the CR is approved.

Mr. Hurt discussed the conversion of procedures to XML for iPV. He noted that authoring of the procedures is proceeding ahead of schedule, but that review of the procedures is behind. Mr. Hurt explained that the editors author the procedure and the book managers review the procedure and then the flight controllers also review the procedure.

Mr. Hurt reported the Status Sheets have been updated to provide data on uplinked procedure to ensure that flight controllers are in sync on what version of the procedure to use.

Page 4 of 34


10 – 14 May, 2004 in Bremen, Germany.

8. Ops Data Set Blank Book StatusOn Monday NASA/J. Compton reviewed that the ODFCB previously approved the ODF portion of this document at ODFCB #43. He noted that when the SSCN was released for review there were no comments against the ODF part, though JAXA submitted comments against other sections and ESA comments have not yet been received. Mr. Compton reported the SSCN is expected to be signed in August and at that time the ODF content will be moved to the ODF Management Plan, per agreement at ODFCB #43.

Mr. Compton clarified that this is only for systems and it represents the requirements between partners and MOD.

9. ODF SchedulesOn Monday NASA/J. Compton presented the upcoming schedule milestones on the ODF Template, based on Interim Assembly Sequence Revision F, dated October 27, 2003. NASA/R. Banfield asked if the Columbus ODF milestones discussed in the ESA ODFCB presentation should be added. ESA/M. Wolff agreed that once ESA has finished the schedule discussions, that those milestones should be added to the schedule since the milestones involve multi-element procedure requirements.

Summary: Add Columbus milestones to schedule once ESA completes schedule discussions.

10. ODF Procedures Enhancement with Color and GraphicsOn Monday NASA/L. Payne presented the status of Action Item #408.

Ms. Payne explained that a small group had been formed and the group has met several times with representatives from the crew, training, systems, crew systems, MSFC and medical systems organizations. Ms. Payne stated that for Photo/TV procedures the team had explored using different colors to show various items such as where a particularly troublesome cable is connected or how a scene setup is different than the nominal configuration.

One proposal considered was to use different colors to designate different levels of indentation for nested “if” statements. Ms. Payne noted that the SODF IFM group was proposing to exempt IFM procedures from the standard use of Red and Yellow so that if a cable was yellow it could be indicated by a yellow line in a diagram.

To support additional use of color in procedures, testing was conducted to determine colors that reproduced consistently in the various simulators, workstations, and printers used for SODF. The presentation lists the colors that reproduced consistently. Ms. Payne explained that testing would continue to identify additional colors. NASA/R. Lindsey asked if there will be testing on iPV and NASA/M. Hurt clarified the test process and that the results should be hardware independent.

ESA/M. Wolff asked if the results of the color testing had been reported to IDAGS/G. Pennington. Mr. Hurt explained that the results had not yet been reported to the SODFCB and thus had also not yet been reported to IDAGS.

Future work is to finalize the results from the test of the use of color in the SODF and bring to the ODFCB for discussion on whether this can be expanded for use in the ODF. The team will continue to review the proposals discussed previously and will bring them forward to the control board if the team decides they merit further consideration. Ms. Payne expects by the next ODFCB face-to-face meeting to have a Standards CR for Color and Graphics, which will close the action.

Page 5 of 34



11. Waivers for Standards and OpNomOpNom Waivers

In the Monday session NASA/J. Compton gave a presentation reviewing the current waiver process for OpNom and proposed some modifications to that process. Mr. Compton noted that sections 3.4 and 7.0 in the OpNom Main Volume discuss the waiver process and that a presentation was made at ODFCB #40 for establishing permanent waivers. Mr. Compton proposed adding a definition of permanent waivers to the document to prevent confusion. Permanent waivers would be defined as “a waiver for an article that is planned to stay on the ISS for the lifetime of the Station with no plan for replacement.”

NASA/P. Bennett asked if this waiver process was in sync with the new Program Office attempts to have a generic definition for waivers, deviations, and exceptions. NASA/S. Hatfield, Program Integration Office, is leading the Program Office effort and Mr. Compton will contact him to explain the ODFCB waiver process.

NASA/R. Banfield asked if this meant that if a piece of hardware originally planned to stay on orbit was returned, would the OpNom be readdressed or would it remain permanent. Discussion ensued. NASA/M. Galloway noted that the Payload Control Board had determined that unless a documented issue was identified by the operations community when the payload was on orbit, then the OpNom would not be readdressed. There were discussions on the relative merits of temporary waivers and permanent waivers and under what circumstance a waiver would need to be re-approved.

NASA/R. Curbeam proposed that when hardware returns and is modified, then it must either be updated to meet OpNom or that another waiver be approved. NASA/M. Hurt recommended eliminating the distinction in the OpNom document for temporary or permanent waivers.

After much discussion the following wording was tentatively agreed to by the Board regarding OpNom waivers:

Waivers that are granted are applicable for the initial flight configuration of hardware and software. If hardware and/or software is modified in any way, modifications will include corrections of any items previously covered by a waiver. If not, another waiver or extension of the existing waiver would be required for the modified hardware and/or software.

Mr. Compton further proposed that instead of having all partners review and approve OpNom waivers, that sign-off of waivers be changed to using workflow so that all partners could see the waiver, but that only the affected component(s), the crew office, the main volume book manager, and the ODFCB chairman be required to approve the waiver.

ESA/M. Wolff asked that the title of the CR include some words to specify that it is a waiver. Also, Mr. Bennett requested the addition of a sentence to this proposal that the component board will include safety. Mr. Banfield asked NASA/J. Compton and J. Bearley to draft a CR to rewrite the waiver section of the OpNom document based upon the above discussions.

On Friday, NASA/J. Bearley presented draft language for a CR to the OpNom document covering the waiver process. NASA/R. Curbeam asked if the change would mean access to the waivers would be in the main volume. Mr. Bearley explained that the form in the draft CR would remove some administrative content. He confirmed to NASA/P. Bennett that you would always have the waiver attached to the CR. NASA/R. Banfield explained how the waiver information would be available for review on the web page. NASA/R. Lindsey asked about “effectivity” and, since temporary or permanent will not be noted, how to note something like “to end of Station.” Mr. Bearley pointed out that there is the ability to specify an event, such as “the end of Station.”

Ms. Lindsey recommended the mandatory signatures be retained on the waiver form. Mr. Banfield asked for clarification about the request for signatures. Mr. Banfield and Mr. Compton pointed out that the

Page 6 of 34


10 – 14 May, 2004 in Bremen, Germanywaiver form will be attached to the CR in Workflow, which will capture the signatures electronically. Ms. Lindsey agreed to this process.

Standards WaiversOn Monday NASA/M. Hurt gave a presentation reviewing the current waiver process for ODF Standards and proposed some modifications to that process.

Mr. Hurt noted that the current ODF Management Plan states that all partners must approve a Standards Waiver. Mr. Hurt suggested that this was not always practical for very minor Standards violations for a single procedure. As an example, Mr. Hurt explained that just before publication for a mission a procedure might have an off-nominal block with 30 lines instead of the approximate 10 lines per the standard.

Mr. Hurt proposed that if a component board desires to waive a standard across all their procedures, then it would be required to be brought to the entire ODFCB for review.

Mr. Hurt explained that the component board would develop a process to approve these single one-time basis waivers and it would be up to the component board to determine the appropriate review.

Mr. Hurt was asked to draft a CR to document the newly proposed Standards Waiver Process.

On Friday NASA/M. Hurt presented a proposed standards waiver form and explained its content. NASA/R. Lindsey asked him to clarify applicability and effectivity. Mr. Hurt stated that effectivity was basically how long, and applicability would indicate to what product the waiver is applied. Ms. Lindsey asked about the case of a 1-flight violation, and Mr. Hurt explained that such a case would be worked by the component boards.

Mr. Hurt noted his assumption that there would be table posted on the web page, following the proposed process for OpNom. He also acknowledged the “Mgmt Approval” and “ODF CB Rep Approval” fields would be removed from the draft form.

Mr. Compton suggested that Mr. Bearley and Mr. Hurt work together for as much commonality as is appropriate between the OpNom and Standards waiver processes before submitting CRs.

Summary: ODFCB tentatively agreed to some text for the OpNom waiver process. NASA/J. Compton and J. Bearley to draft CR on OpNom waiver section. NASA/J. Compton will contact NASA/S. Hatfield about Program effort to generically define waivers. NASA/M. Hurt will draft Standards Waiver Process CR.

12. Review Current OpNom Waivers for ApplicabilityOn Monday NASA/J. Bearley began a presentation listing the 16 OpNom waivers that have been approved by the ODFCB.

There was discussion on how to retire OpNom for hardware that will no longer fly. The consensus was that Hardware nomenclature could be retired and waivers could be retired, but acronyms and abbreviations can not. The board agreed that for existing waivers they will be submitted as EZ-CRs in workflow to capture the waiver, but no review will be done. Mr. Bearley proposed that the table contained in his presentation would be included in the OpNom main volume.

The proposed draft wording on waivers prepared by NASA/L. Payne was presented to consider for handling of Waiver 001. The draft was discussed and there was general agreement with the following words:

Page 7 of 34


10 – 14 May, 2004 in Bremen, GermanyWaivers that are granted are applicable for the initial flight configurations of hardware and software. If hardware and/or software is modified in any way, modifications will include corrections of any items previously covered by a waiver. If not, another waiver or extension of the existing waiver would be required for the modified hardware and/or software.

In response to a question, NASA/R. Curbeam clarified that, based on the above words, as long as there is no change to the initial flight configurations the waiver would remain valid even if the hardware had been returned. NASA/R. Banfield proposed that we could review the status of waivers at ODFCB about every 6 months. NASA/M. Galloway raised the point of knowing if someone else was using the OpNom and/or acronym for which they had received a waiver.

Mr. Banfield asked Mr. Bearley and NASA/J. Compton to draft a CR for a new waiver form with new content that reflects the above thinking. Waiver 001 was valid through UF2 only and is no longer active. Mr. Bearley noted this waiver has

expired. Ms. Galloway noted that most of the hardware is still on-orbit and the waiver is still valid.

Waiver 002 – In the review of this item on Monday, Ms. Galloway stated this hardware is still on-orbit and has not been modified, so the waiver is still applicable.

Waiver 3 was withdrawn.

Waiver 004 – In considering this item on Monday, NASA/R. Lindsey stated this waiver will go away when HRF Rack-2 flies.

Mr. Banfield proposed that we defer the remainder to the end of the ODFCB agenda.

Due to the meeting schedule, this topic was not revisited.

Summary: NASA/J. Bearley and J. Compton will draft a CR for a new waiver form to reflect the above thinking

13. Fire Port OpNom LessonsAt the Monday session NASA/R. Curbeam gave a presentation on the OpNom for Fire Ports on station. Mr. Curbeam noted that during an on board training exercise, the station crew experienced difficulty in locating a specific Fire Port. Upon further investigation it was discovered that some Fire Ports currently

have unique identifying labels and some do not. Currently in SSP 50005 Rev B, 9.5.3.1.13 section D, a requirement to install Fire Port Emergency labels exists. However, in the past unique identification labels for Fire Ports have been addressed as crew preference labels.

Mr. Curbeam made the following recommendations: Fire Ports need to be uniquely identified for quick crew response. The hardware that will be serviced by the Fire Port should be identified. Standardization of the Fire Port Identification label is necessary for crew safety.

Mr. Curbeam provided a draft Fire Port label that matched these recommendations. There was much discussion on the draft and NASA/R. Banfield clarified that the real requirement is to have a unique identifier for each fire port. Mr. Curbeam concurred, however he also desired to have location coding on the Fire Port labels.

ESA/M. Wolff stated it is the responsibility of OpNom to define Fire Port as being common emergency hardware and that each fire port has a unique identifier of a specific format.

Page 8 of 34


10 – 14 May, 2004 in Bremen, GermanyNASA/M. Hurt proposed writing a CR to add Fire Port to the list of emergency hardware that would have common OpNom across station. He generated an OpNom CRU102 and verbal approval was received from all Partners with the exception of JAXA and RSA. During the subsequent break there was significant discussion on whether additional changes to the OpNom document were required to further define Fire Port nomenclature. NASA/L. Hastie agreed that she would submit a draft CR if further changes were deemed necessary.

Mr. Curbeam also noted that the crew office would submit a PIRN to SSP 50005 to have the requirement of a unique identifier and items serviced by the fire port to the existing Emergency Fire Port Label and this would have to be discussed at the MIOCB.

On Friday, NASA/P. Bennett presented proposed nomenclature to be used, based on the above 3 bullets, with an example table. NASA/R. Lindsey suggested putting the dash in the specified format, and NASA/M. Hurt added to specify the format if there’s only 1 fire port. There was general agreement on the proposal.

Summary: OpNom CRU102 received verbal approval from all Partners except JAXA and RSA. NASA/L. Hastie will submit CR if further Fire Port nomenclature definition is required. NASA/R. Curbeam will submit a PIRN to SSP 50005 to define Fire Port label requirements.

14. Standards for OpNom AnnexesAt Monday’s session NASA/R. Curbeam gave a presentation on OpNom Annex Standards. Mr. Curbeam noted that at the last ODFCB it was agreed that before a new Operations Nomenclature is submitted, all Annex’s should be reviewed to make sure that the proposed nomenclature does not already exist. Commonality across OpNom annexes would assist this process and the main point is to make all the annexes look the same.

Mr. Curbeam proposed that each partner include a legacy table which he defined as a table in each annex containing OpNom that will not be used again. NASA/R. Banfield asked ESA/M. Wolff if this was the same meaning for the Legacy table that ESA had intended when they established the Legacy Table in the ESA Annex. Mr. Wolff stated that the ESA table identifies the legacy acronym that should not be used, the acronym that should be used and the definition. CSA\L. Vezina concurred with the ESA definition and stressed that the legacy table should identify not only what terms not to use, but also the terms to use. Mr. Curbeam agreed.

There was an active and vigorous exchange of ideas on whether part numbers should be associated with OpNom in the annexes. Mr. Vezina’s position was that CSA ODFCB would not manage the association of part numbers with OpNom. Upon questioning by NASA/M. Hurt, Mr. Vezina did agree that CSA did have the responsibility for associating OpNom with part numbers, but organizationally in CSA this responsibility would not belong to CSA ODFCB. Mr. Banfield noted that CSA had a unique organizational structure in the same way other partners have unique characteristics in their organizational structures, but that each partner needs to have a process to associate OpNom with a part number.

NASA/R. Lindsey and M. Galloway noted that U.S. PODF processes a significant amount of paperwork in order to associate OpNom with part numbers since this information is listed in their annex. Ms. Lindsey proposed that the annex should only include an OpNom listing. As a compromise she further proposed that the annex contain a MIDAS report so that it would be recognized that only the OpNom was controlled by the annex and not other parameters maintained in MIDAS.

Mr. Banfield questioned the value of maintaining an OpNom list that does not identify the association of the OpNom terms with part numbers. He noted that the crew depends on IMS onorbit and IMS gets the OpNom for each part number from MIDAS. Mr. Banfield stated it is the responsibility of each partner to associate OpNom with the appropriate part number. If the ODFCB membership decides to no longer

Page 9 of 34


10 – 14 May, 2004 in Bremen, Germanymanage OpNom by the part number, then ODFCB actions will be required for each partner to document the process by which their individual components associate OpNom with part numbers.

There were no conclusions to this discussion. Mr. Banfield requested that NASA/M. Rowland work with Mr. Bearley and Ms. Galloway to revise the proposals for formatting of the annexes, based on these discussions, so that the Board can revisit these issues and come to conclusions.

Summary: NASA/M. Rowland, J. Bearley and M. Galloway to revise annex format proposals based on Board

discussions.

15. Minimum Number of SSCs in Columbus for Viewing Procedures with iPV

On Monday NASA/R. Banfield explained that ESA had reported they would not be implementing a procedure viewer on their command laptops and were formally requesting use of iPV on the SSC laptop client in the Columbus module. The Station Program then asked that MOD determine the minimum number of SSC client laptops required to support crew procedure viewing in Columbus.

There was significant discussion on this topic. NASA/R. Curbeam proposed that for a 3-member Station crew 1 SSC would be sufficient for procedure viewing in Columbus, but for a 6-member Station crew that 3 laptops to display procedures would be required. ESA/M. Wolff and G. Hajen agreed with that assessment. This was based on the assumption that a 3-member crew would not allow more than 1 activity at a time to be scheduled in Columbus, while acknowledging that Columbus module was designed for 3 concurrently active crewmembers as part of full Station crew.

ESA/G. Hajen explained that ESA intends to expand their network to allow their command laptops to run iPV. However, for 1E and the first few increments that follow, this will not be possible and ESA will have to rely solely on SSCs in Columbus. Therefore, once upgrades are finished, Columbus would have 1 SSC and 2 Columbus laptops displaying procedures.

Mr. Hajen noted that with the use of the SSC in Columbus the only remaining concern was reliability since there is only a single Ethernet plug in the module. NASA/P. Bennett was concerned about the use of drag-thru cables to supplement the SSC in Columbus. Currently there are no plans to run cables through the hatch so, with some Safety constraints, the use of cables through the hatch might be explored to provide additional SSC network connections. Mr. Bennett noted that the cables would need quick disconnects at the hatches and Safety would require the cables to be disassembled after each use as they are considered temporary cables. Mr. Bennett stated that he would verify if the drag-thru cable flight rule applied to Columbus.

Mr. Hajen stated that ESA was planning to use the current Ops LAN wireless system to backup access to procedures in Columbus. Mr. Banfield responded that flight experience has shown the wireless system data transfer rate may be inadequate to support use of iPV, and he has asked NASA/N. Bolinger to evaluate the use of iPV with the wireless system. NASA/C. Moede noted that currently no wireless laptops are in use onboard Station due to low throughput and that the actual wireless data transfer rate is significantly below 1 Mbps.

Mr. Banfield stated that one ESA concern with relying on the SSC was adequate storage space for ESA procedures. Ms. Bolinger noted that the Management Plan required SODF to obtain an allocation on the Ops LAN for ODF procedures. With the current ODF allocation Ms. Bolinger was confident that all partner’s ODF files could be accommodated. Mr. Banfield stated that if space became limited that a request for additional allocation could be made or manage the allocation until storage became available.

Mr. Banfield noted that an additional ESA concern was the ability to uplink ESA procedures through USOS assets. Mr. Banfield had discussed this with 1E Flight Director/Mark Ferring and Mr. Ferring saw

Page 10 of 34


10 – 14 May, 2004 in Bremen, Germanyno problems with uplinking ESA procedures. Mr. Banfield suggested ESA confirm this at the EJOP with Mr. Ferring.

Ms. Bolinger explained that the design for the administration tool allows each partner to remotely update, via the web, the procedures in iPV at any time of day. Ms Bolinger noted an uplinked file would be generated and automatically provided to the OCA Officer for uplink 24/7.

Mr. Banfield noted that based on the JAXA bilateral discussions in May, 2003 JAXA is likely in a similar situation as ESA with a desire for NASA to provide an SSC in the JEM for viewing procedures with iPV. Therefore, Mr. Banfield suggested that the process used with ESA to move an SSC with iPV into Columbus could be extrapolated for use in the JEM. Mr. Nakai concurred and thanked ESA for being the trendsetter.

Summary: ODFCB agreed to inform the Program that 1 laptop in Columbus is acceptable with a 3-member

Station crew, but 3 laptops will be needed when 6 or more crewmembers are permanently onboard. Mr. Bennett will verify if there is drag thru Flight Rule that is applicable to ESA. ESA representatives to confirm at upcoming EJOP the ability to uplink ESA procedures using USOS

assets.

16. Day 1 Action Item ReviewNASA/R. Banfield thanked everyone for their participation in the first day’s session and reminded them that the Day 2 session would begin at 8:00 a.m.

17. ESA ODF Workflow and RepositoryOn Tuesday, ESA/M. Wolff gave a presentation on the status of the ESA ODF CR workflow process and ESA ODF repository.

EADS/U. Brauer showed a simplified web-based ESA ODF management system including a workflow process for reviewing CRs. The workflow system involves use of open source software with a few selected commercial products and some customized programming. This system would control procedures and displays together.

The configuration management tool is a commercial tool called perforce. ESA is planning to move their displays from a Sammi based system to an XML based system similar to the USOS solutions. This workflow is based on an open source tool called Scarab and it is possible in the future that it will be exchanged with a commercial program.

ESA is planning to have an initial version of the workflow system available for use by early next year.

The system will also provide support documentation such as the Columbus Electronic Manual and the Mission Data Base with fully hyperlinked information. The Columbus Electronic Manual is a 10,000 page document and it was converted to HTML by a software tool called “Robohelp”. There was some discussion on the effort required to perform this conversion.

ODF Workbench provides a JAVA capability to wrap around the Procedure Authoring Tool to manage multiple books.

This is a prototype of a tool and EADS/Dr. J. Dőpkens is currently working on defining the ESA ODF processes.

The board had a very favorable impression on this prototype.

Page 11 of 34


10 – 14 May, 2004 in Bremen, Germany18. Emergency Procedures

This topic was deferred to Thursday when RSA/A. Kotov will be able to participate.

On Thursday, NASA/M. Hurt gave the presentation on the Emergency Book. Mr. Hurt outlined the history of agreements on the Emergency Book and all Emergency procedures are treated as if they are multi-element and all Emergency CRs are sent to RSA for approval.

Mr. Hurt noted that the ODF Management Plan states that all board members will be provided the opportunity to review all emergency book CRs and that their review is optional unless their element is affected.

Mr. Hurt proposed to treat the initial response procedures for cabin depress, fire, and toxic spill as multi-element for all IPs. These are the most time critical procedures flown and they affect the entire station. The appropriate IP would begin getting CRs within 6 months of element launch. Mr. Hurt proposed that the remaining Emergency procedures be handled like the rest of the ODF according to the definitions of multi-element and impact procedures. Decisions on which procedures are “impact” would be done 6 months before launch.

Mr. Hurt showed a proposed table and discussion was that U.S. Payloads would need to be added to the table.

Mr. Hurt noted that a CR is required to the ODF Management Plan.

ODFCB ACTION #441 – Emergency Procedure CR (NASA/M. Hurt)Submit an ODFCB Management Plan CR to document the agreements reached at ODFCB #65 relating to Emergency Procedures in presentation 18. Due: July 2, 2004. OPEN.

RSA/A. Kotov noted that the process of making any modifications to emergency procedures is excessively complicated. I also do not think that an attempt to rate procedures as ME or Impact would reduce this complication. I would like to offer to come back to the original scheme suggested before launch. The scheme offered a set of initial response actions that would be multi-segment and would need to be in the safety books for all station elements. Then following the emergency response matrix, the crew follows procedures in each module. With this scheme we would have a very small amount of multi-element procedures that would need concurrence by all partners and the remaining could be dealt with as impact procedures. This would make my life extremely easier.

Mr. Hurt explained that when Mr. Kotov had originally made this proposal, Mr. Hurt had taken an action to present this proposal to the Generic Joint Operations Panel and it was not accepted. Mr. Hurt followed up with the chief of the Flight Director Office and the Crew office representative and Mr. Hurt was directed not to accept this proposal. NASA/R. Curbeam stated that he acknowledges that such a proposal may make the books easier to manage, on the day that you have an emergency that having one book would be the best way to operate. NASA/P. Bennett concurred that we would be increasing risk if there were multiple Emergency Books. Mr. Bennett noted that Safety wants the crew to evacuate modules where hazards exist and having them return to a module to retrieve a book would not be appropriate.

NASA/R. Banfield explained that Mr. Hurt’s proposal was to streamline the existing process. The current process would be extremely difficult once the Columbus and JEM were onorbit.

Mr. Kotov agreed the proposals would make things slightly easier. He asked what Mr. Hurt’s suggestion was for when we can review the proposed table. Mr. Hurt thought next week, stating he could send the table and Mr. Kotov could comment. Mr. Kotov thought this was good it would happen soon. He also asked if the changes will affect the structure of the book or facilitate the process. Mr. Hurt said only to facilitate, and noted he would send the table to NASA/R. Lindsey also. Mr. Kotov saw no problem with

Page 12 of 34


10 – 14 May, 2004 in Bremen, Germanythe proposed CR. ESA/M. Wolff asked if he could have a copy of the table for explaining to ESA, and Mr. Hurt noted that table will be posted. Mr. Wolff asked that he be notified when the table is posted.

JAXA/M. Nakai-san stated JAXA would need some time to consider this proposal. Mr. Hurt explained how things would work under the current bilateral agreement approach and what is stated in the Management Plan. The proposal is to treat all Emergency procedures, other than the initial response procedures, as any other procedure in ODF. He pointed out the proposal would allow JAXA to pick and choose which Emergency Book procedures they would review.

Summary: ODFCB Action to submit a CR to the ODF Management Plan to implement the agreements in this

item. NASA/M. Hurt to make proposed table available to partners for review in the following week.

19. Safety of Flight (SOF) for Pre-mission and Real-timeOn Tuesday, NASA/J. Compton gave a presentation reviewing the current agreements on Safety of Flight changes. Mr. Compton noted that the ODF Management Plan in section 2.2.1 defines Safety of Flight, and that in section 4.5.1.2 it provides guidelines for determining if any given change is a Safety of Flight change. Mr. Compton proposed that all partners include this definition and guidelines in their component’s management documents. Mr. Compton noted that this will ensure compliance to this level across the board.

NASA/P. Bennett explained that the safety community strongly wants all partners to use this definition. NASA/R. Banfield asked all partners if they concurred with adding these words to their management plans. JAXA, ESA, U.S. PODF, SODF, and Safety concurred. Mr. Banfield noted he would assign an ODFCB Action for all partners to update their management plans to include this text.

ODFCB Action Item #442 Add Safety of Flight Guidelines to Component Management Plans: (All Component Board Members) All partners will add the definition of Safety of Flight (from section 2.2.1 in the ODF Management plan) to their component’s Management Plan. All partners will add the guidelines for determining if a change is a safety of flight change (from section 4.5.1.2 in the ODF Management Plan) to their component’s Management Plan. Reference ODFCB #65 pitch #19.Due: 01 September 2004. OPEN.

Mr. Compton noted that in section 4.5.1.6 that all board members must be provided the opportunity to review safety of flight changes, but that only Safety was a mandatory reviewer. Mr. Compton noted that safety is the only mandatory reviewer for safety of flight changes for preflight changes to procedures. In real-time, the SODF process ensures that Safety has reviewed any safety of flight changes. Mr. Compton noted that all partners must ensure their real-time processes include Safety review of any changes that meet the safety of flight guidelines.

NASA/M. Hurt proposed a change to delete Section 4.5.1.5 so that Safety would be the only “additional” mandatory reviewer. He pointed out that, as currently written, all Partners must be provided any SOF change for review. Mr. Hurt noted that we already have a documented table that shows Safety has a mandatory reviewer, and so he would like to propose removing the words in 4.5.1.6 since reviewers are covered by the table.

There was general agreement, but there was some issues relating to Payloads and partner visibility into safety of flight changes. Mr. Bennett noted that for the ESA case, the ESA Safety representative would review any ESA Safety of Flight changes, but that if he had access to the ESA CR system, he could review any Safety of Flight changes.

Mr. Bennett asked if Nakai-san was OK with this proposal. Nakai-san was in sync with these proposals.

Page 13 of 34


10 – 14 May, 2004 in Bremen, GermanyOn Thursday NASA/P. Bennett made a presentation on how a hazard report connects to OCAD and then to Caution Boxes. He gave an example of where a procedure has a Warning box and a Caution box each addressing an ops control for a hazard. The point was if a Caution block is changed or deleted it can affect a hazard control. NASA/R. Banfield stated that Mr. Bennett’s proposal is not required as the current guidelines identify any procedure with operations controls to be defined as having safety of flight implications. Mr. Banfield asked NASA/M. Hurt to ensure that he and Mr. Bennett are in agreement on the guidelines for safety of flight implications. Mr. Hurt asked if the guidelines are to be literally followed or if best engineering judgment can be followed. Mr. Bennett stated they should be followed literally, and that would imply these are requirements. Mr. Bennett will generate a CR to add Caution boxes as a reason for Safety review. Mr. Banfield asked if all Cautions had safety implications. Mr. Bennett agreed that not all Cautions have safety implications. ESA/M. Wolff noted that when the CR is available his modification would be to add the reference to Caution boxes to the bullet 1 listing procedures with hazard reports.

ODFCB ACTION #443 – Safety of Flight Caution CR (NASA/P. Bennett)Submit a CR to ODF Management Plan to update the Safety of Flight guidelines.Due: August 13, 2004. OPEN.

On Friday NASA/P. Bennett proposed adding text to the first bullet (a) that specifies those ops controls that may be implemented by a caution or warning block, and striking “major” in bullet (e) in describing injury. The Board asked that the language be changed from “block” to “box”, and Mr. Perry agreed.In response to a question, NASA/M. Hurt explained why all warnings are not handling hazard reports. Based on this discussion Mr. Bennett will draft a CR to the Management Plan to change the language.

Summary: ODFCB Action Item that all components will ensure that the SOF text presented here be included in

their management documents. OCFCB Action Item to submit Safety of Flight CR.

20. PCS Commands Which Only Affect Columbus (Action Item 431)On Tuesday, NASA/M. Hurt gave a presentation on PCS Commands which only affect Columbus. This was to resolve an EJOP action to the ODFCB. Mr. Hurt pointed to the ODF Management Plan’s guidelines paragraph “f” which state that if a procedure in one partner’s element only uses resources from another partner, then it is single element. Mr. Hurt noted that the commands in question are vital layer commands that are sent through the PCS to the Columbus module. Therefore, Mr. Hurt thinks this meets the definition of single element procedures since the commands are only routed.

Mr. Hurt stated that based on his discussions with NASA/M. Ferring and other JSC Flight Controllers these procedures should be single element (ESA Columbus), but considered impact procedures with SODF. Thus, they would remain in the ESA ODF, but any changes to the procedures would require approval by SODF specialists.

Mr. Hurt proposed to report this conclusion to the EJOP next month. Mr. Hurt noted that this case may also apply to JAXA so it should be reported to the JEM JOP also.

NASA/R. Banfield noted that the existing language is open to interpretation and although he agreed with Mr. Hurt’s recommendation, the ODF Management plan could be interpreted differently. Mr. Hurt agreed to write a CR to add this case to the ODF Management Plan to define it as single element.

Mr. Hurt clarified that the existence of one of these commands does not make the procedure multi-element requiring it to be in SODF, rather ESA would retain ownership in their ODF.

Summary: NASA/M. Hurt will write a CR to implement the above proposed changes.

Page 14 of 34


10 – 14 May, 2004 in Bremen, Germany Procedures using PCS for commanding only the Columbus module shall be single-element

procedures and be part of the ESA ODF. They are, however, considered as impact procedures with SODF.

21. Real-time ODF Change ProcessOn Tuesday, NASA/J. Compton gave a presentation on the status of the Real-time ODF Change Process OIP. Mr. Compton explained that the process for making real-time ODF changes that affects other partners must be documented in the OIP. The process must contain enough detail to ensure that each partner understands how to submit changes to the other partner’s ODF and how each partner is involved in the review process.

Mr. Compton noted that due to language and infrastructure issues, Russian review is treated differently. The multi-element real-time coordination form is intended for internal use between HSG and RODF to get Russian approval.

Mr. Compton walked through the draft OIP titled “5.2 Operations Data File (ODF) Procedures”.

CSA/L. Vezina noted that CSA would need to document any real-time procedure change process in the CSA Management Plan and thus any process would need to come to the CSA ODFCB before submission to the OIP. There was discussion on what other partners are documenting in their management plans for real-time procedure changes. NASA/M. Hurt noted that for SODF the detailed process is not documented in the SODF Management Plan. Mr. Vezina concurred based on the discussion that CSA’s input to the OIP would not need to be taken to the ODFCB.

NASA/R. Banfield asked that ESA and JAXA verify with their representatives to the OIP working group that their sections would remain TBD. Mr. Banfield wanted to be sure we were in sync with our representatives on the OIP working group if we elected to put TBD in the OIP. The OIP Working Group meeting is planned for June.

NASA/R. Lindsey reviewed the U.S. PODF OIP text. Ms. Lindsey then reviewed the U.S. PODF real-time process. There were some questions about the process that Ms. Lindsey answered completely.

On Friday, JAXA/M. Nakai reported JAXA is assuming they will be using EFN. Mr. Banfield suggested that at the next JJOP that JAXA talk to NASA about obtaining and using the EFN application. Ms. Lindsey asked if JAXA had made a decision about working with Payloads and whether JAXA is planning to work with PIMS. Mr. Nakai said they would like to talk this with POIC.

Mr. Compton noted that the Real-time CR Form mentioned in Mr. Nakai’s presentation is not planned to be used by the partners. Mr. Nakai acknowledged they understood this.

SUMMARY: The ODFCB reviewed a draft OIP for real-time procedure changes. The draft OIP contains detailed procedures for documenting changes to SODF and U.S. PODF

procedures. ESA, JAXA, and CSA are still defining their processes and thus their sections in the OIP will remain

TBD at this time.

22. Tour of EADS/ST FacilitiesEADS/G. Hajen coordinated an outstanding tour of the EADS facility, as well as the city of Bremen.

23. OpNom IssuesOn Tuesday NASA/J. Bearley presented some proposals on OpNom.

Page 15 of 34


10 – 14 May, 2004 in Bremen, GermanyMr. Bearley reminded the Board that PNOM was approved at the last ODFCB for hardware that is reconfigurable. Mr. Bearley noted that there is also a requirement to uniquely identify units that are identical. Mr. Bearley proposed an OpNom extension which is something that is added to the hardware OpNom but does not change it. Mr. Bearley noted that one example would be to identify the specific location of a piece of hardware such as Lab Aft IMV Valve. A second example would be to identify specific hardware that is identical but connected to specific power sources.

NASA/M. Rowland noted that on the label the piece of hardware would not be changed. NASA/M. Galloway raised some concerns based on Payloads and discussions ensued.

Ms. Rowland wanted to stress that Extended OpNom would need to have the cases where it can be used specifically identified. Mr. Bearley noted that this was for hardware that performs the same fit and function

Due to the need to depart on the EADS Tour, this topic was only introduced and no conclusions were reached. Therefore, further will discussion will be needed.

On Wednesday NASA/J. Bearley briefly reviewed his proposed CR for Extended OpNom and covered the purpose and use of PNom. NASA/M. Rowland asked to delete “normally” in the CR text stating that PNom does not replace the OpNom assigned to a part.

There was discussion about placement of the terms in Main Volume or in the annexes; NASA/M. Galloway stated that GFE should be in Main Volume and other hardware in the annexes. There was further discussion and agreement that partner unique hardware will be registered in the annex.

ESA/M. Wolff stated that these terms could be confusing without examples. NASA/R. Banfield stated the Board is in agreement that the CR needs examples for the PNom and Extended OpNom terms.

There was discussion about the location of the CR content. The proposal was to use the first paragraph from section 4.2 and change “OpNom” to “PNom” and use this text in the CR. There was general agreement.

There was confusion about the purpose of item 3. in section 4.2.1 of the CR. The intent of the item is to state that PNom does no have to be defined for all hardware items, only those that have been reconfigured. Ms. Galloway proposed that the statement should read “PNom is not assigned until the hardware is reconfigured.” Ms. Rowland and NASA/R. Curbeam proposed deleting item 3 since the introductory paragraph covers this. The board agreed with this deletion. Also, the reference to Section 6.0 was moved to the introductory paragraph.

NASA/R. Curbeam proposed deleting the last line of the introductory paragraph and replacing it with “OpNom is used when referring to the part in its generic configuration.” The Board agreed.

Mr. Wolff suggested changing the original item 4 to read that PNom may cover OpNom “if necessary.” After further discussion, Mr. Banfield suggested deleting the original item 4, since this Board is not responsible for labeling, but the Board’s intent is to follow this item as stated – “PNom will be provided on a label attached to the part but will not replace the label containing the OpNom. The PNom label may cover up the OpNom but not the IMS Bar Code.” This was left as an open issue to work with labeling organizations.

In considering Extended OpNom, Mr. Banfield stated that the preference of the Crew Office and MSFC was to define 2 cases of PNom rather than having PNom and Extended OpNom. JAXA/M. Nakai agreed with the 2 cases of PNom approach. NASA/M. Hurt brought a proposed definition for PNom that reflects this 2-case approach, with examples of each case.

Page 16 of 34


10 – 14 May, 2004 in Bremen, GermanyMr. Banfield asked that Mr. Hurt and Mr. Bearley work to compose a new draft, based on combining Mr. Bearley’s draft of 4.2.1 and Mr. Hurt’s proposed definition, of the CR for Board review and comment. Ms. Galloway asked if the Standards document should have something on PNom and Mr. Banfield agreed. Mr. Banfield asked Mr. Hurt and Mr. Bearley to bring the revised proposal to the Board tomorrow.

Summary: Open issue: work with labeling organizations for PNom labels NASA/J. Bearley and M. Hurt to revise CR draft based on Wednesday’s discussion.

24. Heavy Use of Acronyms and Abbreviations in ProceduresNASA/R. Curbeam presented the crew office’s observations about the volume of acronyms and abbreviations across the ODF. Mr. Curbeam noted that he is trying to highlight a problem that the crews and Flight Directors are encountering.

Mr. Curbeam noted that there are 3,371 Acronyms approved with 523 submitted for approval. The projection is that it would climb to ~9000 acronyms by Assembly Complete. Mr. Curbeam noted that there are 585 registered abbreviations. Mr. Curbeam noted that crewmembers, starting with Expedition 2, have complained about the number of acronyms on board station and the cosmonauts, starting with Expedition 6, have started complaining about the number of Abbreviations and Acronyms used in joint procedures.

Mr. Curbeam gave an example where a paragraph was written completely using approved abbreviations and acronyms. It was difficult to be sure what each of the terms meant. Mr. Curbeam provided another example where it was spelled out and it took only 2 lines longer.

Mr. Curbeam noted that it is not necessary to have an acronym associated with everything. Mr. Curbeam noted that on orbit the crew had turned off the Ku system due to an acronym being misread. Mr. Curbeam noted that people who are not native English speakers and may have limited familiarity with the system must be able to understand the procedure and acronyms can make this difficult.

NASA/R. Banfield asked if there were any specific actions that the board ought to do other than work in general terms to reduce acronyms and abbreviations. Mr. Curbeam noted that we can’t solve the world at one time, but we can start working to make things better.

NASA/M. Galloway pointed out that some procedure developers will use abbreviations just because they are listed in the OpNom document. Ms. Galloway suggested that perhaps there should be a standard to limit use of abbreviations in procedures. Mr. Curbeam added that he would desire a standard to limit the use of abbreviations in procedures. There was a healthy discussion of the problem.

Mr. Banfield and NASA/M. Hurt reviewed the ODF Standards document and there are not directions in the document to spell out abbreviations in procedures.

Summary: NASA/M. Hurt to draft a CR to standards document to direct reduced use of acronyms/abbreviations.

25. U.S. Payload OpNom Lesson LearnedIn the Tuesday session NASA/M. Galloway gave a presentation on some OpNom lessons that the U.S. Payloads have experienced. Ms. Galloway noted that hardware is being developed and completed before OpNom is approved, thus each partner must get involved early in the development process. Mr. Banfield noted that this is also applicable for Systems.

Ms. Galloway noted that U.S. Payloads had experienced some confusion with having preliminary OpNom review and thus will remove the requirement of having a preliminary OpNom review.

Page 17 of 34


10 – 14 May, 2004 in Bremen, GermanyMs. Galloway noted that the process for getting parts information into MIDAS needs to be refined since there have been some problems and OpNom can not be populated until the part is in the MIDAS parts catalog.

Ms. Galloway noted that challenges have been encountered with non-US payloads in the U.S. PODF that are launching on a vehicle other than the shuttle. For example, the Russians have a different method of providing data to MIDAS and IMS and the parts are not listed to the same level as for US hardware and IMS is not always complete.

26. OpNom In MIDASOn Wednesday, NASA/J. Bearley proposed that there be unique codes identified for each partner to be used in the OpNom OPR field so that reports might be sorted on these specific partner codes. A proposal was made to use the OpNom annex designation as a way to define the code with 2 characters, for example E1 or E2. If users want to use additional characters in the code to support their sorting requirements, they would be able to do that.

In response to a question from CSA/L. Vezina, NASA/R. Banfield explained the purpose of the loader was to meet a JAXA request to have the ability to submit a spreadsheet, in a defined format, for loading the data in bulk into MIDAS.

Mr. Bearley continued the presentation with a status of the Loader. It was noted that currently the additional fields in MIDAS will not be ready until the fall. NASA/M. Rowland asked who will go back and update the data for hardware that is already in MIDAS, and NASA/M. Galloway stated it would be the person responsible for that hardware.

ESA/M. Wolff asked if the partners must add data to the new fields if they don’t want to. Mr. Banfield stated that the new OPR code would be the only data that will be required and the other is optional in order to allow sorting of the OpNom into the various annexes. Ms. Galloway explained that adding the OPR code with the loader would not be difficult if ESA did a MIDAS report on their hardware.

JAXA/M. Nakai wanted to review what fields are required. Ms. Galloway explained that OC requires cage code, part number, and part name (which is what Station manifesting personnel call engineering name) as the minimum data required to add a part number to the parts catalog. There was discussion on whether these 3 are the correct required fields. Mr. Banfield assigned an ODFCB Action to Mr. Bearley to verify the minimum required data fields for entry in MIDAS.

ODFCB ACTION #444 – Minimum Information for MIDAS (NASA/J. Bearley):Work with the MIDAS developers and the Station Program Office to define the minimum amount of information to add a new part to MIDAS. Report this to the ODFCB. Also define the minimum amount of information required to add OpNom to a part already existing in MIDAS (Reference ODFCB #65, Item 26).Due: August 13, 2004. OPEN.

There was discussion about the schedule for MIDAS upgrades.

ODFCB ACTION #445 – MIDAS Development Schedule (NASA/J. Bearley)Work with the MIDAS Developers to establish and provide the schedule and status of the new OpNom requirements for MIDAS. Provide details on what requirements were submitted. Report this information at the next ODFCB telecom (Reference ODFCB #65, Item 26).Due: August 13, 2004. OPEN.

Mr. Bearley presented the proposed request for a dedicated OpNom display to support the entry of OpNom data into MIDAS and the capability to enter multiple PNom for parts. He noted this would support the capability to produce labels with PNom. NASA/R. Lindsey asked about having to use the Loader to enter data and then have to use a different application to enter PNom. Mr. Bearley explained this is a

Page 18 of 34


10 – 14 May, 2004 in Bremen, Germanylong term proposal and the intent would be to modify the Loader to include PNom. There was discussion about whether PNom could be added now to MIDAS using existing comments fields. Ms. Galloway discussed the current processes to produce labels. Mr. Banfield summarized that there is work needed to add PNom to MIDAS.

ODFCB ACTION #446 – MIDAS PNom Requirements (NASA/J. Bearley)Work with the MIDAS developers and the Station Program Office to propose a set of requirements for MIDAS to record PNom for hardware. Present these proposed requirements to the ODFCB for partner review. Upon ODFCB review, submit these requirements to the MIDAS developers (Reference ODFCB #65, Item 26).Due: August 13, 2004. OPEN.

Mr. Bearley explained the requested capability for MIDAS to recognize the case where a dash number has rolled (i.e. 638-56001-11 and 638-56001-12) and automatically use the same OpNom with an option to accept/reject. There was significant discussion as to the acceptability of this approach.Mr. Banfield assigned an action to each partner to define an appropriate process for handling OpNom where the root part number is the same but the dash number has incremented.

ODFCB ACTION #447:- Partner Process to Associate OpNom with Part Numbers with Rolled Dash Numbers (All Component Boards)Each partner will define their process for ensuring that the approved OpNom in MIDAS is assigned to a new part if a part number has a “rolled dash number”. In some cases the new part with a “rolled dash number” functionally is the same equipment and thus requires the same OpNom. In other cases the new part with a “rolled dash number” functionally is different equipment and thus requires a unique OpNom. Since IMS uses the OpNom data in MIDAS, each partner needs to ensure that the appropriate approved OpNom is assigned to each part with an appropriate level of configuration management. Present the process to ODFCB (Reference ODFCB #65, Item 26).Due: September 19, 2004. OPEN.

Mr. Bearley then introduced draft language for a CR to the OpNom document that covers items discussed in this presentation. Ms. Galloway asked if the MIDAS Administrator’s e-mail would be listed on the OpNom web page and Mr. Banfield said that could be done. The draft CR content was discussed but no consensus was reached.

On Friday Mr. Bearley presented a proposal to add information to Section 3 on loading data into MIDAS based on the above discussions. Mr. Bearley, in regard to the column descriptions, stated that the CAGE number and the part number should be tied together, and that he and NASA/T. Brown agreed on this point. A clarification was made that there can be 2 identical part numbers as long as they have different CAGE codes. He noted that until MIDAS is modified, PNom can be listed in the Comments field. He noted that the proposal calls out that the completed spreadsheet can be e-mailed to the MIDAS Administrator.

NASA/M. Rowland stated her concern that this proposal is trying to cover information that is located elsewhere. Mr. Bearley stated that the Board asked for this loader form, and this is intended to define the fields. Ms. Rowland said that she doesn’t feel this is information that should be in the management document. A proposal was made that this information could be placed on the web site as a user’s guide. JAXA/M. Nakai stated he did not care if it’s in the management document or on the web site. ESA/P. Granseuer stated ESA will follow the process, and has no problem with either location. NASA/R. Curbeam stated that this information is useful and should be available to everyone, but that the management document is probably not the place for it. NASA/J. Compton stated that an overview should be in the document, and Mr. Curbeam concurred. The decision was to place it on the web page.

There was further discussion on Friday about MIDAS and the Crew Office request for standard format for OpNom annexes. Further work needs to be done on these topics.

Page 19 of 34


10 – 14 May, 2004 in Bremen, GermanySummary: ODFCB Action on Minimum Information required for MIDAS ODFCB Action on MIDAS Development Schedule and new OpNom requirements ODFCB Action on MIDAS PNom Requirements ODFCB Action on Partner Process to Associate OpNom with Part Numbers with Rolled Dash

Numbers MIDAS Loader information will be placed on web page rather than OpNom Main Volume

27. Operations Nomenclature Main Volume Status and Review of CRsOn Friday NASA/J. Bearley presented the OpNom CR status.

U97 – Addition of EEG: OpNom CRU97 was approved and closed with JAXA approval. This CR was on RSA/A. Kotov’s list of approved CRs submitted on Thursday. Status: Approved by all partners. CLOSED.

U98 – Add Acronyms and Abbrev to Main Vol: JAXA/M. Nakai stated he had some comments on the CR and they were supplied to Mr. Bearley to be included in the revision of the CR. This CR was on RSA/A. Kotov’s list of approved CRs submitted on Thursday.Status: Revision to be worked. OPEN.

28. iPV Status ReportOn Thursday NASA/J. Carnes presented a status report of the results from the iPV working group meetings conducted in parallel with the ODFCB.

ODFCB ACTION #450: CSA Use of iPV (NASA/J. Carnes)Work with CSA/L. Vezina to facilitate the use of iPV in the CSA Remote MPSR. This facility will be certified for use in the very near future and they will support simulations from this facility.Due: July 2, 2004. OPEN.

ESA/M. Wolff asked about metrics for authoring procedures. NASA/M. Hurt explained that we are taking about 40 minutes per page to author procedures. We are book keeping 60 minutes total per page because the reviews of the procedure take time. Mr. Hurt reiterated that the authoring is going well, but the reviews of the procedures are behind schedule.

Mr. Carnes noted that the Procedure Authoring Tool (PAT) version 1.0 is in use authoring procedures. The required set of procedures to support initial simulations (~550) is complete and over 1000 SODF procedures have been authored. PAT version 1.5 will be delivered to operations on August 30, 2004.

Mr. Carnes noted that delivery of Viewer 1.0 will be delivered to operations on September 15, 2004. NASA/M. Galloway asked when the Standards Working Group would meet to review the compliance with ODF Standards. The schedule shows the 3 weeks of testing would start on August 11, 2004.

Regarding the XML-to-Word Conversion Tool, Mr. Carnes stated the tool is about 90% ready for use with checklist procedures. In response to a question about the COTS software package RTF Formatting Kit that is needed to transform XML to RTF, the users will have to purchase this tool (1 copy per server). NASA/R. Banfield asked about the status for logic flow procedures, and Mr. Carnes stated work is ongoing on this aspect, noting that the boxes are looking more accurate.

Mr. Carnes noted that a promising start had been made on XML-to-Word for Logic Flow procedures using MS Word 2003.

On creating a backup CD, Mr. Carnes stated they are looking at crew involvement in producing backups onboard. He noted that Skytek has a very good tool for downloading files to static HTML files, and they are looking at modifying it for use in creating a backup CD. He pointed out that “selectable folders” would be burned to the CD. Ms. Lindsey asked if all the data can be backed up and Mr. Carnes said yes.

Page 20 of 34



Mr. Wolff commented that some of the iPV accomplishments had been worked on the European side, and briefly reviewed some of those items that had been achieved. He mentioned moving toward iPV on Linux and that would benefit integration of the Control Centers and the future implementation of Columbus system laptops. As demonstrated in the splinter meeting, progress has also been made with the eSA ODF Workbench and iPV session sharing over narrow space-to-ground communication links. The ESA Word-to-XML prototype utility was also demonstrated in the splinter meeting.

Summary: ODFCB Action Item to support use of iPV in CSA Remote MPSR.

29. SODF Procedures In iPVOn Thursday NASA/M. Hurt presented some lessons learned from iPV implementation, and reviewed some of examples of the limitations that have been identified with PAT 1.0. He showed which requirements for PAT 1.5 would provide the most benefit.

30. iPV and MPV ComparisonNASA/N. Bolinger discussed the capabilities and limitations associated with the current MPV application as compared to XML in iPV and PDF in iPV. She then brought up iPV to demonstrate its capabilities, and then brought up a PDF file and identified the differences in working with a procedure in this format. After these demos, Ms. Bolinger showed how MPV works. She pointed out that in MPV the procedure title scrolls out of view and the user would “lose it” (it is the window title, but not obvious), but in iPV the title is retained at the top at all times in view and it has a continuous scroll with no “page breaks.”

NASA/R. Banfield explained that this item was on the agenda to ensure all partners fully understood the differences between the current MPV, XML procedures in iPV, and PDF procedures in iPV.

31. Day 3 Action Item Review

32. RSA ODF Management StatusOn Thursday RSA/A. Kotov gave a status of the RSA ODF and noted the plans to discuss the RSA Charter document during the summer bilateral face-to-face. ESA/C. Beskow asked if this charter would need to involve her. NASA/J. Compton noted that on initial thought it did not, but we would have to review it with respect to ATV and it is possible that there may be some additions due to ATV. Mr. Kotov explained that ATV procedures development is covered by a specific contract. Because this is contract specific information, Mr. Kotov did not think it is necessary to reflect this in the charter document.

For ATV procedure books such as RNDZ/ Docking and Undocking and joint flight, Mr. Kotov predicts fewer problems here since we only have two sides to the agreement which is ESA and RSA. As for the Emergency Book, this is a much more complicated case. Mr. Kotov thinks they already have some experience and it is difficult to maintain this under CM. After RSA got inputs from ESA, they were incorporated and sent to NASA for incorporation. Ms. Beskow had noted some differences between the original input and the final version. Mr. Kotov proposed developing a system of configuration management that is efficient and accurate.

Mr. Compton explained that the Emergency Book is a SODF book and we have a CR system. ESA/C. Beskow said she did not know the process to make inputs. Mr. Compton explained that if she had any issues that she could work them directly with SODF and if it is necessary then these can be tri-lateral discussions involving.

Mr. Kotov suggested that ESA provide inputs to RSA and RSA converts them to procedure format before sending to SODF. In this case, ESA did not see the version in procedure format before RSA sent them to

Page 21 of 34


10 – 14 May, 2004 in Bremen, GermanyNASA. Thus, Mr. Kotov suggested it might be beneficial if RSA sends the inputs to ESA for verification before sending them to NASA.

Ms. Beskow suggested that having three-way telecons would be beneficial. There was agreement that if ESA had any issues that they could be sent directly to Mr. Compton and they would be added to the schedule for the next telecon. Bilateral telecons between RSA and NASA normally occur at least every two weeks.

Mr. Kotov noted that the ODF package for the next launch has been sent to Baikonour. The list of books on the manifest will be delivered to the RODF Coordinator tomorrow. Mr. Compton asked if the issues with the EVA document had been handled. Mr. Kotov noted that he had talked to Mr. Polychuk and today is the last day that the documents can be sent by plane. Mr. Kotov noted that the Emergency Book PCN had been stowed on the vehicle.

Mr. Kotov noted that yesterday he had signed the waiver for non-standard symbols in the ODF. Mr. Kotov noted some standards are not being followed and some of the waivers are coming from the Astronaut/Cosmonaut Office. He asked what should be done in cases where there may be conflicts, and noted there is an Astronaut Office representative on the Board with voting rights, but there is not a Russian Astronaut Office representative on the Board. He stated this conflict may reappear when the European Astronaut and Japanese Astronaut Offices are participating. Mr. Kotov said he sees 2 ways out of this problem. The first option is to provide representation from every IP Astronaut office on the ODFCB, and the 2nd option is we have to trust the Astronaut Office in its present capacity to represent not only the NASA Office position but also all Astronaut Office’s positions. NASA/R. Banfield noted that an earlier presentation by NASA/R. Curbeam had represented both NASA and Russian astronaut concerns, and Mr. Banfield is confident the Astronaut Office rep will adequately represent all issues, and if more pre-coordination is needed, CB would do that if RSA can provide a point-of-contact. Mr. Kotov agreed with this proposed plan.

Mr. Curbeam noted that when they bring positions to the Board, many times they are weighted toward the international astronaut position. But his office will work to ensure the international astronaut positions are well represented.

ODFCB ACTION #451 – Designate Cosmonaut Procedure Point-of-Contact (RSA/A. Kotov)Identify a point-of-contact from the Cosmonaut Office to work with NASA Astronaut Office on ODFCB issues.Due: September 10, 2004 OPEN.

Mr. Kotov discussed the iPV Charter (See Agenda Item 35).

Mr. Kotov provided the status for a number of CRs. He stated he had no concerns on any of the CRs. He submitted the following list of CRs:

ODF_Mgmt_PlanU92A - Payload Procedure ResidencyODF_StandardsU129A – Replace Appendix B ExampleOpNom_AnnexE1U37 – Add H/W and Misc Acronyms to Annex E1OpNom_AnnexE1U38 – Addl Acronym Definitions for CheCS H/WOpNom_AnnexE1U39 – 14P Open OpNomOpNom_AnnexE2U36 – PASC OpNomOpNom_AnnexE1U44Op_NomU97 – Addition of EEGOp_NomU98 – Add Acronyms and Abbrev to Main Vol.Op_Nom_AnnexB2U1A – OpNom_Annex B201 – EPMOp__Nom_AnnexB2U2A – OpNom AnnexB206 – ETCOp_Nom_AnnexB3_ATVB1B – OpNom Annex B3 – ATVOp_Nom_AnnexBU2D – Add Columbus OpNom

Note: It appears the above callout should be CR Op_Nom_AnnexB1E1F.

Page 22 of 34


10 – 14 May, 2004 in Bremen, GermanyOp_Nom_AnnexCU1A – Del IMS Sys Code and Add Label Op NomOp_Nom_AnnexCU2 – Add ICS Devices IMS Label OpNom and P/NOp_Nom_AnnexCU3 – Adding HW Nomenclature Table to Annex CStandards_AnnexE1U3 – Ground Handbook Update

Mr. Kotov conducted a discussion with Ms. Beskow about the relationship between RSA and ESA with respect to ATV. Mr. Kotov proposed the idea of returning to meetings on procedures, and Ms. Beskow concurred.

There was discussion about the association of the ATV Project with the ODFCB. ESA/M. Wolff represents the Columbus module and ESA payloads to the ODFCB. Currently he does not represent ATV to the Board.

Mr. Banfield noted that there have been some disconnects in the past and the Board feels it would be beneficial to have Ms. Beskow as a member of the Board. Ms. Beskow had no objection, just a question of allocation of time resources. Mr. Banfield proposed that Ms. Beskow be an Ad Hoc member of ODFCB and participate when there are topics or issues concerning ATV that come up. This is to optimize the use of her time. Ms. Beskow felt this was a very good proposal and Mr. Wolff concurred and stated this would formalize the relationship. Mr. Kotov stated this was “perfect.”

Summary: RSA/A. Kotov submitted a listing of 17 CRs which he had approved. ODFCB Action Item for RSA to designate Cosmonaut point-of-contact for ODF. ESA/C. Beskow to join ODFCB as an Ad Hoc member to represent ATV on the Board.

33. ATV ODF CR and CM Process After “Final” DeliveryOn Thursday, NASA/J. Compton asked ESA/C. Beskow about the ODF Review and Baseline Signing in September on the ATV schedule. He asked what she means by ODF and what they are baselining. RSA/A. Kotov stated they have been treating the ATV ODF rather freely, incorporating comments as they come in and thus creating a day-to-day version of the procedures. After this baseline is signed, this easy way will come to an end and every change will require an OCR. Ms. Beskow stated that the partners have agreed that up to then changes will be handled by an OCR.

Mr. Compton broke in and stated his concern is that the meeting in September is identified as an ODF baselining, and stated that those items belonging to SODF, such as the Emergency Book, will be handled by SODF and not by ATV. Ms. Beskow agreed.

34. Other ATV Information and Overview Update of Discussion Items at Meeting

On Thursday ESA/C. Beskow presented information on ATV Status and talked through milestones. The presentation covered the Operational Change Request process. She noted that OCRs are reviewed and dispositioned in weekly telecons. NASA/P. Bennett asked about the involvement of Safety in these reviews. He asked for OCAD items, and who they are submitted to. She identified an ESA Safety person, Richard Chase. She then talked through the ODF Signature process, and how changes to ODF are worked. Mr. Compton restated that our concern remains the baselining of procedures.

NASA/R. Banfield asked if there was any ability for an ATV RODF procedure to change without an approved OCR. Mr. Kotov noted that after September it would not happen without an OCR. Mr. Banfield commented that this was good and it sounded like they had developed a good process. Ms. Beskow concurred and confirmed this is an agreement with the Russians.

Page 23 of 34


10 – 14 May, 2004 in Bremen, Germany35. ODF Management Plan CR Status

A decision was made to move to this topic on Tuesday morning, and NASA/J. Compton presented this status. Mr. Compton noted that JAXA/M. Nakai had made some inputs on these CRs. These were reviewed.

U92A – Payload Procedure Residency: Mr. Nakai stated that JAXA concurs and his approval has been entered in the Workflow system. Note that this CR was included on the list submitted on Thursday of CRs approved by RSA/A. Kotov. Status: All partners approved CR with MSFC mod. CLOSED.

U98 - iPV Charter: Crew office provided a verbal concurrence with this CR. MSFC concurs with this and recorded this in workflow last week. JAXA has one comment on the authority section. JAXA wanted to understand what is meant by this. ESA/M. Wolff noted that SSP 50609 is the Level A requirements which is reviewed by the ODFCB. Mr. Wolff noted that ODF schemas are controlled by the ODFCB. Mr. Wolff noted that if JAXA is unable to attend a working group meeting, then minutes are posted on the iPV web page.

JAXA proposed adding “Changes to SSP 50609 must be approved by the ODFCB” in the authority section of the charter. Under deliverables the following text will be added “schemas for approval by ODFCB”. In the Members listing, NASDA will be changed to JAXA.

JAXA/M. Nakai-san noted that JAXA is unable to regularly participate in the iPV Working Group meetings. Mr. Wolff stated that the minutes for the iPV Working Group are posted on the iPV web page and therefore JAXA can review them when they are unable to attend a meeting.

On Thursday RSA/A. Kotov stated he was wondering about the areas of responsibilities for the various partners. Mr. Kotov noted that there are three parties that have full authority: Crew Office, SODF, and ESA. In the document it says “full voting rights” and for RSA is says rights on the Level A requirements document. Mr. Kotov stated that ESA and NASA are the joint developers of the software and thus this is natural. But he would also like to grant full voting rights to the participants who are planning to develop the procedures. NASA/R. Banfield explained that if any partner provided inputs that the development organizations would welcome inputs and a persuasive argument. However, NASA and ESA management require that since they are providing funding that they have final authority on its path. Mr. Kotov stated he understood and agreed, and approved the CR.

ESA/M. Wolff noted that all the information about the iPV development is on a web page on the NASA server and we are very open to comments.Status: All partners approved the modified CR. CLOSED.

U99 – Warning Block: SODF, ESA, and MSFC recommended modifying the CR from warning block to be warning box. JAXA approves, and CSA approves verbally.

NASA/P. Bennett proposed adding changes to a caution box to the criteria for safety of flight changes. Mr. Curbeam and Ms. Galloway noted that a change to a caution box would not be a safety of flight change because any caution box that would be of concern should be changed to a warning box based on the ODF Standards.

Mr. Bennett will draft a CR to address his proposal and at that time these issues will be discussed.Status: All partners approved the modified CR with the exception of RSA. The Board will ask RSA/A. Kotov for verbal approval on Thursday. OPEN.

Summary: NASA/P. Bennett will draft a CR to address his proposal for adding Caution box changes to Safety of

Flight guidelines.

Page 24 of 34


10 – 14 May, 2004 in Bremen, Germany36. Crew Prime List

On Tuesday NASA/M. Hurt explained that the International Training Control Board (ITCB) has conducted an effort to determine which procedures are “crew prime”. This list is used by the training organizations to define the scope of their training requirements. Mr. Hurt noted that at the SODFCB some of the procedure developers were not aware of this process. The ODFCB members were polled and they were not aware of this effort.

Mr. Hurt explained that this was an informational level briefing to explain to the ODFCB that this effort is underway and that the board responsible for managing procedures may be interested.

This list can be found at the following URL:https://mod2.jsc.nasa.gov/dt/ISSCoreSys/main.cmf

37. OpNom Annexes Status37A. Status of CSA Annex A Part 1 and 2On Friday NASA/J. Compton reported that CSA/L. Vezina had stated he did not have any updates and the CSA Annex was fine.

37B. Status of ESA Annex BAt the Friday session NASA/M. Rowland noted that there were still outstanding actions from the ETC OpNom telecon to be worked regarding whether “PU” might be used. She stated there was probably a need for 1-2 more telecons to complete the ETC work.

NASA/R. Banfield noted the Board has all the approvals for Annex B1 (Columbus OpNom) but will need to have ESA/M. Wolff add the updates for “ops” and “stat” as discussed in Item 52, Walk-on Items.

For Annex B3 NASA/J. Compton wondered if the ATV Annex had been revised per previous discussion. Mr. Banfield told ESA/G. Hajen that Mr. Wolff can let him know if ATV is ready and that the Board can help getting ATV moving. During the Thursday telecom with RSA/A. Kotov, he stated that he had approved the CR for this annex.

The list submitted on Thursday of CRs approved by RSA/A. Kotov included B1E1F – Add Columbus OpNom, B2U1A – OpNom Annex B201 - EPM, B2U2A – OpNom AnnexB206 – ETC, and B3_ATVB1B – OpNom Annex B3 - ATV. Note that in the listing (see Agenda Item 32) the callout is for “CR AnnexBu2D” rather than AnnexB1E1F.

37C.Status of JAXA Annex COn Friday JAXA/M. Nakai reported there are 4 CRs still open. He also discussed a problem that occurred with labels and JAXA’s desire to keep the labels as produced. Therefore, JAXA plans to modify their OpNom to document this change and match the label.

NASA/M. Galloway stated that the labeling people in the past have believed it is acceptable to abbreviate words on the label request to accommodate space. This will no longer be the case.

Regarding JAXA’s CR CU3 NASA/J. Compton asked if it is still needed if CR U98 is approved. The decision was made that JAXA will go back and modify this CR if U98 is approved, and Mr. Nakai agreed

JAXA will also need to modify CRs CU2 and CU3, and a telecon will be needed to help work those.

The list submitted on Thursday of CRs approved by RSA/A. Kotov included CU1A – Del IMS Sys Code and Add label Op Nom, CU2 – Add ICS Devices IMS Label OpNom and P/N, and CU3 – Adding HW Nomenclature Table to Annex C.

37D. Status of NASA Annex E Part 1 and 2

Page 25 of 34

https://mod2.jsc.nasa.gov/dt/ISSCoreSys/main.cmf


10 – 14 May, 2004 in Bremen, GermanyOn Friday NASA/J. Bearley reported that Revision E had been published just prior to the face-to-face, and reviewed which CRs were open as of May 10th.

Mr. Bearley stated U39 is the only CR that needs to be discussed since it is being modified. Based on internal discussions, there are 3 items that will be moved to another CR. NASA/R. Lindsey asked if MSFC’s comments were being taken into account in the revision, and Mr. Bearley said they were. She also asked about U38, and Mr. Bearley reported that CR had been revised (Rev B) to take MSFC comments into account. NASA/M. Rowland added that there have been weekly working group meetings that have been very helpful. Mr. Bearley added that developers have been coming to the working group early to include OpNom in the hardware development and that has been very helpful.

The list submitted on Thursday of CRs approved by RSA/A. Kotov included U37 – Add H/W and Misc Acronyms to Annex E1, U38 – Addl Acronym Definitions for CheCS H/W, U39 – 14P Open OpNom and U44 – Add SDMS Acronym to Table in Sec. 3.10 for Annex E Part 1.

For Annex E2, on Friday NASA/M. Galloway gave the status.

The list submitted on Thursday of CRs approved by RSA/A. Kotov identified U36 – PASC OpNom for Annex E Part 2.

38. How Partners Will Use iPV On-console for ODF ChangesOn Thursday NASA/N. Bolinger gave a presentation on how SODF will manage changes in real-time. For checklist format procedures, the MCC-H flight controller will right click on the procedure in iPV and export the XML procedure to an RTF format which is editable in MS Word. The flight controller will redline the procedure and submit it as a flight note. Once approved the ODF Console which works 2 shifts a day will use the Procedure Authoring Tool (PAT) to update the XML file. This will be loaded into iPV on the ground and verified by the flight controller and uplinked to the vehicle.

NASA/J. Wade gave a presentation on how PODF will manage changes in real-time. Mr. Wade noted that payloads will operate in the same manner as SODF. It will be exported to MS Word and processed like SODF. PODF plans to use PDF files for logic flow procedures and include “to” / “from” language in an associated

ESA/M. Wolff stated that pending successful negotiations in the MIOCB to allow ESA to use an SSC in Columbus, they will be looking into developing their process and can brief the Board at a later time. Since ESA doesn’t have a formal agreement yet, they haven’t turned on the flight controllers yet. Mr. Wolff answered the question about all their flight controllers using PAT that this is only a discussion and a decision has not been made about this.

39. iPV Validation Process (Action Item #438)On Thursday NASA/J. Carnes presented the process of validating XML against the schema and style sheets.

Mr. Carnes explained how procedure violations of the schema are identified, as well as the response when a procedure is successfully validated. If the validation is unsuccessful, the procedure goes back to the PAT for correction; if successful it goes to the Library Administration Tool. He then showed the response from the Library Administration Tool when a procedure does not validate, and noted if the links are not correct the tool would still allow the procedure to be loaded into the database. He stated the last validation, and most important, is done by the Book Manager and File Manager.

NASA/M. Galloway asked if all the procedures need to be reloaded if the schema changes and NASA/N. Bolinger stated that the Library Administration Tool can take the new schema and validate the existing procedures. There was confirmation that when iPV is upgraded the procedures onboard will not have to be uplinked.

Page 26 of 34



40. iPV Administration Tool Security (Action Item #439)At the Thursday session, NASA/J. Carnes presented the process and requirements to obtain access to the Library Administration Tool. NASA/R. Banfield explained this action was from JAXA/Kajitani-san as he had concerns about security. Mr. Banfield discussed that in the future each partner will have a small number of specific people who will need to access the Library Administration Tool to update procedures.

Mr. Carnes went through the process for getting access, and the estimate between access request and receiving access was about a month, or less. Mr. Carnes noted that uses will have access to only their folders (e.g., partner users will have access to only their folder(s)). JAXA/M. Nakai asked if this is different from the dropbox in the ICD, and Mr. Carnes explained that this is a different dropbox.

41. iPV Style Sheet Compliance With Standards (Action Item #440)On Thursday NASA/M. Hurt addressed the question of how this Board knows if iPV has properly implemented standards. He stated the current iPV schedule for user testing of an application release is 3 weeks long. He proposes that the Standards Working Group be convened within that 3 weeks to confirm proper standards implementation, and proposes that would be within 10 days of the start of the 3 week period. The Standards Working Group results would then be reported to the iPV Working Group. At this point, all partners present approved this approach.

Mr. Hurt then addressed modifications to the schema. He proposed that when a schema change is required, the iPV Working Group would provide an estimate of the impacts of the schema change. The Board would then decide whether to give approval to proceed with development. NASA/J. Compton asked how to document this, and there was agreement to make it a mod to existing words in the Management Plan dealing with schema. The Board agreed.

ODFCB ACTION #452 – Two Stage Schema Review Process (NASA/M. Hurt)Write a CR to the Management Plan to document the two stage process for evaluating schema changes.Due: July 2, 2004. OPEN.

42. Approval of 1.0 Schema and Review Schema Changes in PAT 1.5On Thursday NASA/N. Bolinger reviewed ODF Standards CR U135. This CR establishes Appendix E to the ODF Standards document and includes the iPV version 1.0 schema.

The consensus was that the graphical view be added to the CR but not included in the document. All partners approved CR U135.

NASA/J. Carnes gave a preliminary estimate of the impacts of schema changes for Schema Version 1.5. Mr. Carnes explained that the changes consisted of additions to the codes. Mr. Carnes also explained that there were deletions and modifications of some codes, but those codes are not accessible from within PAT 1.0. Therefore, there should be no existing procedures invalidated. The iPV Working Group reviewed existing procedures and were unable to identify any that were invalidated.

This is considered preliminary approval by the Board for Schema 1.5.

43. Day 4 Action Item Review

44. Reserved

Page 27 of 34


10 – 14 May, 2004 in Bremen, Germany45. ODF Standards Implementation

On Wednesday NASA/M. Hurt gave a presentation on how the ODFCB ensures that ODF Standards changes have been implemented within the 2 year limit.

There was significant discussion. The consensus was to keep the generic 2 year limit and continue to discuss implementation plans at the ODFCB when ODF Standards are approved. Mr. Hurt noted that ODF Standards CRs would be sent to the iPV Working Group as an internal evaluation to allow the iPV developers to determine the impact of the CR implementation. However, there was discussion that the Board reps at the ODFCB need to approve the text of a CR before the iPV developers provide a detailed evaluation in order to ensure there is consensus on the technical content of the CR. NASA/R. Banfield suggested the Board consider providing an interim approval for Standards CRs and final approval after iPV developers have submitted their impact assessment. There was general agreement with this proposal, but no formal agreement was reached.

There was significant discussion on how the iPV development team’s ability to implement a CR would affect the ODFCB’s decision to approve a CR. It was repeated multiple times that the ODF Standards drive the iPV tool development and not the other way around. However, there was also discussion that in some cases the prudent response would be to modify standards to accommodate iPV tool development. The consensus was to continue to discuss implementation when a Standards CR is approved by the board.

Mr. Banfield presented a list of all CRs against standards that are more than 2 years old. Mr. Banfield gave an ODFCB action to all partners to review this list and come to the next face-to-face and report the status of compliance and if waivers are needed. NASA/R. Lindsey requested that the spreadsheet with the Standards CRs dates be posted on the ODFCB web page, and Mr. Banfield agreed to do that.

ODFCB ACTION #453 – Compliance with >2 Year Old Standards (All Component Boards)All partners review the list of Standards CRs attached to the ODFCB #65 Agenda that were more than 2 years old. Determine if all component board procedures are compliant with these CRs or process Standards waivers for the procedures that are not compliant. Report results to the ODFCB at the next face-to-face.Due: October 15, 2004. OPEN.

Summary: Post spreadsheet of ODFCB Standards CRs for compliance review. ODFCB Action Item to all partners to review the list of Standards CRs greater than 2 years old and

report on compliance or need for a waiver. Finding: ODF Standards drive the iPV tool development and not the other way around. Finding: In some cases the prudent response would be to modify standards to accommodate iPV tool

development. Decision: Continue to discuss implementation when a Standards CR is approved by the Board.

46. ODF Standard on When to Use the Logic Flow FormatAt the Wednesday session NASA/R. Curbeam proposed that the logic flow format should be used for all malfunction procedures for reasons of clarity. The rationale for this proposal is that procedures have started to be received in the checklist format when they should be in logic flow format. NASA/R. Lindsey stated that a change to the standards should be worked to require use of logic flow format for malfunctions. There was some discussion about whether the definitions of malfunction and logic flow would need to be revised also.

NASA/M. Rowland took an action to write a CR and submit to the Board.

Summary:

Page 28 of 34


10 – 14 May, 2004 in Bremen, Germany NASA/M. Rowland to submit draft CR for Board review.

47. ODF Standards CRs and Waivers Status U116C – Update Check and Verify Standards: All partners with the exception of RSA have

approved this CR.

On Friday, the Board confirmed that Mr. Kotov had concurred on CRU116C in Workflow.Status: Approved with mod. CLOSED.

U121B – Update Pick and Select Usage: On Wednesday NASA/M. Hurt proposed modifying the CR to just include the addition of the triangle. Mr. Hurt will include the modification that ESA/M. Wolff had recorded in workflow. The ODFCB concurred on the proposals. NASA/R. Banfield requested Mr. Hurt to revise the CR and allow the ODFCB to review the final text tomorrow.Status: OPEN.

U129A – Replace Appendix B Example: This CR replaces the example of the Logic Flow Procedure in the ODF Standards. This CR has not been approved by RSA or ESA. There are some ESA iPV concerns and this will be readdressed when the iPV Splinter is available.

This CR was included in the list submitted on Thursday of CRs approved by RSA/A. Kotov.Status: OPEN.

U130 – Update 4.3.29: On Wednesday NASA/M. Hurt explained this CR, noting that brackets were to be used to separate variables outside a repeat loop. Mr. Hurt noted that this CR covers a case that is not documented in the Standards. SODF has been utilizing boxes for this construction, but due to iPV inability to handle boxes for this case SODF proposed replacing the boxes with brackets and documenting this new structure in the ODF Standards. NASA/M. Galloway asked if this could cause crew confusion since brackets are used for other purposes also. NASA/R. Curbeam did not think it would cause confusion, but did not like the proposal. Mr. Hurt gave a summary of why the brackets were chosen for this use, in response to a question. ESA/M. Wolff wondered why commas could not be used, and Mr. Hurt stated they could but that the SODF team had selected brackets since they are close to boxes. Mr. Curbeam concurred with the proposal.

Mr. Banfield noted that a compromise solution acceptable to all Board members could not be reached and therefore further discussion on this topic was deferred.Status: No conclusion. OPEN.

U131 – Processes Unique to iPV: On Wednesday NASA/M. Hurt reviewed the CR contents. After significant discussion, the following modifications were agreed to:

o Deleted MSFC’s mod to add 4d. Consensus was that this could be deleted and was not needed.

o Deleted number 3.o In 4b the text “will be printed” was changed to “may be printed.”o In number 7 “meaningful names “was changed to “Operationally relevant names

Option1(Option2) is not meaningful.”o Deleted number 6.

NASA/R. Banfield assigned action to NASA/J. Wade to address how to handle metadata in ODF Standards. Status: Approved with modifications by all partners, with the exception of RSA. OPEN.

U132 – PDF File Options in iPV: On Wednesday NASA/R. Banfield explained that this CR allows for PDF files to follow the existing standards or the iPV standards. Status: Approved as written by all partners, with the exception of RSA. OPEN.

Page 29 of 34


10 – 14 May, 2004 in Bremen, Germany U133 – Change Bars in iPV: On Wednesday there was discussion of this CR. ESA/M. Wolff asked

if there was use of change bars onorbit. NASA/M. Hurt stated there was limited use onorbit. NASA/M. Galloway requested modification from “See also Section 5.6” to “If using iPV, see Section 5.6”. Status: Approved with mod by all Partners, with the exception of RSA. OPEN.

U134 – Exiting Logic Flow Boxes in iPV: In the Wednesday session NASA/M. Hurt explained that this CR was proposed because programming iPV per standards would be very difficult, and so the standard is being modified to reflect how iPV is programmed. NASA/M. Galloway asked if the standard should be modified so that all exit information is placed within a numbered box for all procedures. The CR text was modified to read as follows:

If a logic flow procedure is to be exited, then the information required to uniquely identify the entry into the next procedure is placed to the right or below the arrowhead within a numbered box.

There was general agreement with this proposal, along with correcting the associated examples.Status: Approved with mod by all partners, with the exception of RSA. OPEN.

U135 – Add iPV Schema to Standard Doc: On Wednesday, this item was deferred pending an associated presentation.

On Thursday NASA/N. Bolinger explained this CR creates an Annex E to document the schema. There are 3 parts to the schema – the checklist formats, the logic flow formats, and formats common to both checklist and logic flow. NASA/R. Lindsey asked about her input to provide a “graphical report” (i.e., a visualization of the schema) as part of the next iPV schema release. She later explained she would want to see this as part of the schema CR. Since this action would result in about 80 pages of hardcopy, NASA/R. Banfield suggested that the schema visualizations could be generated and posted on the web page and the standards could reference this. The visualization will be attached to schema CRs. All partners present at the ODFCB approved this CR.Status: Approved by all partners, with the exception of RSA. OPEN

U136A – Add ODF Symbol Font File: In the Wednesday session, NASA/R. Banfield gave some background on the need for defining a symbol font for iPV development. The intention was to include only symbols approved by the ODF Standards document. The only symbol in question was the omega symbol (Ω) and NASA/G. Pels is researching that. NASA/M. Galloway asked if the micro (μ) symbol is included. That symbol, though, is in the OpNom document and would need to be transferred per a separate CR. Ms. Galloway pointed out that the right arrow symbol (►) is not currently in the Standards, and there was agreement. ESA/M. Wolff stated that a font file name does not have to be specified, but the symbols need to be identified.

Mr. Banfield stated that the philosophy SODF is using is that the ODF Symbol font will only contain symbols that are identified in the ODF Standards Document. No disagreement with this statement was voiced.

After further significant discussion Mr. Banfield determined that the CR would be withdrawn.Status: Withdrawn. CLOSED.

U137A – Update to 5.2.2 and 5.2.3: On Wednesday, NASA/M. Hurt stated this CR is withdrawn. No objection. Status: Withdrawn. CLOSED.

U138 – 4.3.27 Standard 4 Modification: On Wednesday NASA/J. Wade explained that the document text had included implementation text which is not appropriate. The CR adds and modifies that standard to be clearer. There was general agreement. Status: Approved as written by all partners, with the exception of RSA. OPEN.

Page 30 of 34


10 – 14 May, 2004 in Bremen, Germany U139 – Tools, Parts, Materials: On Wednesday NASA/M. Galloway presented the CR content for

the Board, with the intent to return at a later time for discussion and disposition. The CR identifies an “unstow” structure for the “tools required” callout in a procedure. NASA/M. Hurt indicated this proposal would have a major impact to SODF. Mr. Hurt asked NASA/R. Curbeam to verify that the Crew Office wants the tools required called out at the front of a procedure, and Mr. Curbeam concurred. NASA/M. Rowland clarified that the list of tools does not necessarily equate to unstowing all the tools before starting the procedure. Ms. Galloway clarified that having the unstow callout as the first step would have all the tools pulled out, and if an item was perishable there should be a note to not unstow that item until needed. NASA/R. Banfield noted this was a good introduction and that this proposal will have to be coordinated with affected flight control organizations.

On Friday, the Board returned to this item and determined no further action would be taken at this time.Status: OPEN.

U140 – Add Record Statements Standard: At the Wednesday session NASA/J. Wade explained the content and rationale for the CR. NASA/R. Curbeam questioned the callout that nomenclature is optional and then refers to it in position of the data entry field. NASA/R. Banfield suggested, given the Record statement structure presented, that the “follows the . . . “ positional statements might be deleted. There was general agreement. NASA/N. Bolinger demonstrated the Record statement in a logic flow procedure and in a checklist procedure in iPV. For checklist, a user clicks in the blank area, enters data and can either hit enter or click on “Record” and for the logic flow case the user clicks on a blank line to get a pop-up window, enters data in the blank field and then either hits enter or clicks on a button (that can be labeled “Record”). Mr. Banfield requested that the iPV Working Group evaluate adding a “Record” button to the logic flow format so it looks closer to the checklist format.Status: The iPV Working Group will consider the options and then report back to the Board. OPEN.

U141 – Definition and Use of the Term Standard: NASA/R. Banfield asked about the intent of the addition to the first bullet, and NASA/M. Galloway explained that its intent is that if something is not in Standards then it can’t be done. NASA/R. Curbeam interpreted the statement to say a person must adhere to the standards, and that this statement doesn’t achieve its intent. NASA/R. Lindsey stated that they have experienced a lot of interpretation and so this was intended to avoid such situations. Mr. Curbeam suggested that the Standards are adequate to meet this intent, and if not then submit CRs for those areas in question. Mr. Wade clarified the proposed statement would put teeth to the Standards and provide support to address a “community problem” in adhering to standards. Mr. Banfield decided to table the discussion on this specific statement in the CR.

Regarding the 2nd statement in the CR, there were no comments.Status: Discussion was tabled. OPEN.

U142 - Data Entry of Handwritten Data: NASA/J. Wade explained the entry action was repetitive and so would be a good candidate for specifying a new structure called a label statement. NASA/R. Lindsey stated they felt the definition of this structure would clearly identify, in a standard format, that writing of data is to be performed. NASA/M. Hurt agreed with the proposal. There was discussion about having the iPV Working Group evaluate this CR, or any CR that would involve iPV capability, and report to the Board. NASA/R. Banfield asked the Board for interim approval. CSA/L. Vezina noted that “Using” in the structure should be identified as only when “writinginstrument” is specified.

The consensus is to modify this CR with “Using” added as an element with the description that it is only used if a writing instrument is utilized.

Status: Interim approval with mod, pending iPV Working Group assessment, by all partners, with the exception of RSA. OPEN.

Page 31 of 34


10 – 14 May, 2004 in Bremen, Germany U143 – Delete 5.4.1 Standard #1: NASA/R. Lindsey stated the reason for the CR is the desire to

remove START_IMS from Payload procedures without waiting on iPV delivery. NASA/R. Banfield proposed that the CR be approved; however any procedure that contains “START_IMS” does not have to remove the text until the end of the Station Program.Status: Approved with mod by all partners, with the exception of RSA. OPEN.Implementation Plan – It is acceptable for partners to retain the “Start IMS” section in their procedures throughout the duration of the program if they already exist in procedures as of this ODFCB.

The list submitted on Thursday of CRs approved by RSA/A. Kotov included E1U3 – Ground Handbook Update.

In response to questions on Friday about approving CRs without RSA concurrence, NASA/R. Banfield asked if there are CRs that need to be given priority for working RSA approval. NASA/R. Lindsey asked if the iPV CRs should be given priority so that development is not impacted. Mr. Banfield responded that no work is being affected by waiting on RSA approval.

With regard to iPV, NASA/M. Hurt wondered about the CR (U142) on the entry of handwritten data. Ms. Lindsey recalled that the Board would provide concurrence for the iPV Working Group to do an assessment, and she was concerned that sending the CR to the Working Group would be held up pending RSA concurrence; she asked for clarification. Mr. Banfield stated that the iPV Working Group would still be looking at the CR. NASA/R. Curbeam asked about the case where a partner is not impacted by the CR, and why are they not removed as a mandatory reviewer. Mr. Banfield explained that Mr. Kotov is interested in iPV and the discussions are ongoing.

NASA/R. Lindsey brought up CR U143 that calls for deleting START_IMS standard. NASA/M. Galloway asked why the Board shouldn’t go ahead and approve the CR since the START_IMS button doesn’t work and no one uses it. Mr. Banfield suggested that the Board call NASA/J. Venditti at that point and see if he could get Mr. Kotov’s approval for the CR. No action was taken to contact Mr. Venditti

NASA/J. Compton suggested that the Board give these CRs a little time for RSA response.

Mr. Hurt stated he had received an estimate that the earliest start of iPV programming for CR U142 would be around September, and so suggested the Board could wait for the CR approval until then with no impact. Mr. Banfield stated that the iPV Working Group had reported that CR U142 can be implemented with clear text and so no programming effort may be required, depending on programming priorities.

48. Overview of the CLARISSA DTOOn Friday, NASA/M. Rowland presented this informational briefing so that all partners are aware of this DTO and its objectives. She stated that recently the developers gave a demonstration, and Ms. Rowland had made sure that each of the partners had a representative present. She noted the plans are to do a checkout on Expedition 10, and that this involves making some minor changes to the procedures to make it more conversational. NASA/P. Bennett asked why this project is being worked and NASA/R. Curbeam explained the rationale for how its use onboard could be beneficial. ESA/P. Granseuer asked if this might impact or affect how procedures are written and Ms. Rowland said no. NASA/M. Hurt, though, noted that some projects in the past have felt they could modify procedures as needed, without ODFCB concurrence, so he thought there is the possibility of an impact but we don’t know. Mr. Hurt also mentioned that the application is XML based.

Ms. Rowland noted it is not certain that the DTO will be worked on Expedition 10 because the request for time needed is 2 hours, and time is at a premium. NASA/R. Curbeam noted that acceptance and use of an application like this will depend greatly on the partners because of the various languages and accents.

Page 32 of 34


10 – 14 May, 2004 in Bremen, Germany49. Safety Action Items 418, 422, and 426 Status

On Friday NASA/P. Bennett stated they were looking to close some open actions. NASA/L. Hastie reviewed that Action Item 422 was to submit an OpNom CR that defined a list of emergency hardware that should have common OpNom across the Station, and she covered work that had been done. Ms. Hastie presented the living list of OpNom terms and noted the CR, U92A, was approved and this action is closed.

Ms. Hastie covered Action Item 426 on terms that should be avoided in OpNom, and that with the approval and closure of CR U91A this action is closed.

Summary: Safety Action Items 422 and 426 were closed.

50. Review of Open Work and Action Items

51. Closing RemarksOn Friday, NASA/N. Bolinger provided concluding remarks about the work iPV Splinter Team had done during the week. She stated they had accomplished a lot and that the team would like to get together again at the next face-to-face, or to have an iPV face-to-face in the fall. She noted it had been 2 years since the participants had last met, and that was too long. The entire team agreed that the face-to-face was a very beneficial meeting.

NASA/R. Banfield asked each Board member if they had any closing statements for the meeting. NASA/R. Curbeam said he had no additional comments, other than to say thanks for having him and NASA/M. Rowland and he is looking forward to the next meeting. NASA/R. Bennett said he appreciated the Board considering all the Safety items that he wanted to discuss. NASA/R. Lindsey thanked EADS for being the host and comments how great a job they had done. ESA/P. Granseuer thanked ESA/G. Hajen helping out in organizing this event. JAXA/M. Nakai stated the meeting had been very good opportunity to communicate with other members and JAXA will continue to provide inputs to the Board. Mr. Banfield echoed Mr. Granseuer’s comments about Mr. Hajen’s efforts in hosting this excellent event.

The ODFCB #65 was adjourned.

52. Walk-On ItemsOn Thursday afternoon, NASA/D. White presented a request regarding registering OpNom “ops” and “stat” for parameter names in the database. The consensus was that “ops” is already registered in the OpNom document and is OK for use. NASA/M. Rowland stated that use of the term “ops” would need to be title case. NASA/R. Banfield noted it was unreasonable to request ESA to redefine all their parameters for their telemetry to change “ops” from all-capitals to title case.

Mr. White brought up the use of the term “stat.” A CR in September had deleted this from the OpNom document. Ms. Rowland stated that the Crew Office experiences confusion between whether “stat” means “status” or “state.” There was significant discussion about whether to grant a waiver or include this in the legacy table. NASA/R. Curbeam stated if it were in the legacy table, then ESA would have to change all “stat”s to “status” next time they change their telemetry or displays. ESA/P. Granseuer asked whether it was possible to develop a pragmatic solution and noted the high cost to ESA for making such a change.

Mr. Banfield proposed a compromise solution to put “stat” in the legacy table and ESA would update their crew displays to change from “stat” to “status” when ESA next modifies their displays. However, Mr. Banfield further proposed that any of the parameter names would not need to be changed.

Page 33 of 34


10 – 14 May, 2004 in Bremen, GermanyMr. Curbeam and Ms. Rowland concurred with this proposal. Mr. Granseuer and ESA/M. Wolff also concurred that this is a reasonable compromise. Mr. White also agreed with the proposal. There were no other comments.

Mr. White then noted there is a push to put module identifiers in front of parameters. ESA has already done their parameters without an identifier (i.e., COL) in front of them. Mr. Granseuer noted that the NASA and ESA flight controllers had spent a long time reviewing, verifying, and agreeing on the parameters they want to see, and such a change would be a major impact. This activity happened two years ago. Mr. Banfield agreed he would check into this.

Page 34 of 34

Date post:	15-Feb-2019
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vuongthuan
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times