MSC24806-1

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

1/78

Lyndon B. Johnson Space CenterHouston, Texas 77058

Technical Support Package

Method of Separating Oxygen FromSpacecraft Cabin Air to EnableExtravehicular Activities

NASA Tech Briefs

MSC-24806-1

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

2/78

Technical Support Package

for

Method of Separating Oxygen From Spacecraft Cabin Air to Enable

Extravehicular Activities

MSC-24806-1

NASA Tech Briefs

The information in this Technical Support Package comprises the documentation referenced in MSC-

24806-1 of NASA Tech Briefs. It is provided under the Commercial Technology Program of the NationalAeronautics and Space Administration to make available the results of aerospace-related developmentsconsidered having wider technological, scientific, or commercial applications. Further assistance isavailable from sources listed in NASA Tech Briefson the page entitled NASA Innovative PartnershipsOffice (IPO).

Additional information regarding research and technology in this general area, contact:

NASA Johnson Space CenterTechnology Transfer OfficeMail Code AT2101 NASA ParkwayHouston, TX 77058

Telephone: (281) 483-3809E-mail: [email protected]

NOTICE: This document was prepared under the sponsorship of the National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration. Neither the United States Government nor any person acting on behalf of the United StatesGovernment assumes any liability resulting from the use of the information contained in this document or warrantsthat such use will be free from privately owned rights. If trade names or manufacturers names are used in thisreport it is for identification only This usage does not constitute an official endorsement either expressed or

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

3/78

Method of Separating Oxygen From Spacecraft Cabin Air to Enable

Extravehicular Activities

Brief Abstract

Extravehicular activities (EVAs) require high pressure, high purity oxygen. Shuttle EVAs use oxygen that

is stored and transported as a cryogenic fluid. EVAs on ISS presently use the Shuttle cryo O 2, which is

transported to ISS using a transfer hose, is compressed to elevated pressures, and stored as a high-pressure

gas. With the retirement of shuttle, NASA has been searching for ways to deliver oxygen to fill the high-

pressure oxygen tanks on ISS.

One method of delivering oxygen to ISS is to use portable high-pressure tanks. NORS (Nitrogen,

Oxygen, Recharge System) is an example of a tank delivery system.

This disclosure describes a way of using low pressure oxygen that is generated onboard the ISS and

released into ISS cabin air, filtering the oxygen from ISS cabin air, generating a low pressure (high

purity) oxygen stream, compressing the oxygen with a mechanical compressor, and transferring the high

pressure high purity oxygen to ISS storage tanks.

10 year launch mass estimates for NORS are 10,120 lbs. of launch mass. 10-year launch mass for this

system are 1,494 1bs. This represents an 8626 lbs. savings in launch mass ($215 million savings in

launch costs, at the time of this reporting).

Section I Description of the ProblemGeneral problem: High purity, high-pressure oxygen is necessary to conduct EVAs because space suitsuse high-pressure gaseous oxygen. High pressure, high purity, gaseous oxygen was delivered on the

space shuttle to the space station as cryogenic oxygen. As the cryo O2 would boil off as a high-pressure

gas, it would be transferred to ISS using a high-pressure transfer hose, compressed to even higher storage

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

4/78

Limitations of prior art: High-pressure water electrolysis has an unacceptable technology risk and safety

risk, and the estimated cost and schedule to develop high-pressure water electrolysis is prohibitively large.

External tanks are difficult to launch after shuttle retirement, and require an EVA to install. Cryo systemsslowly warm up and boil off gaseous oxygen, so cargo launch vehicles can become filled with oxygen.

Internal tanks are large and heavy. Estimates for a 10-year supply of EVA oxygen on ISS are 9046 lbs. if

high-pressure internal tanks are used.

The ISS has four different methods of delivering low pressure oxygen to ISS cabin air: There is US made

water electrolysis unit, a Russian made water electrolysis unit, Russian provided chlorate "candles", and

gaseous oxygen delivered in tanks mounted on the outside of Russian Progress cargo vehicles. The

Progress tanks release low-pressure oxygen into ISS cabin air.

Section II Technical DescriptionDescription of the innovation: This disclosure describes a method of filtering cabin air using a Pressure

Swing Adsorber to produce a low pressure, high purity oxygen stream, compressing the oxygen using a

multistage mechanical compressor, and transferring the high pressure oxygen product into HPGT oxygen

storage tanks.

Components: The pressure swing adsorber can be either a two-stage device, or a single stage device

depending on the type of sorbent used. The key is to produce a stream with oxygen purity greater than

99.5%. The separator can be a PSA device, or a VPSA device (that uses both vacuum and pressure for

the gas separation). The compressor is a multi stage mechanical compressor. If the gas flow rates are on

the order of 5-l0 lbs. per day, the compressor can be relatively small (31616 inches).

Alternate embodiments of the innovation: Any spacecraft system, or other remote location that has a

supply of low pressure oxygen, a method of separating oxygen from cabin air, and a method of

compressing the enriched oxygen stream has the possibility of having a regenerable supply of high

pressure high purity oxygen that is compact, simple, and safe. If cabin air is modified so there is very

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

5/78

The system is significantly easier to launch. ISS requires 9000 lbs. of high pressure tanks, but1500 lbs. using the proposed system. Launch cost estimates place the launch cost savings at

greater than $200 million (at the time of this reporting). The system uses available technology. Compared to high pressure water electrolysis, there are

working prototype systems capable of purifying and compressing the oxygen stream.

Test Data and analyses:

Prototype systems have demonstrated 99.5% oxygen purity, and safe oxygen compressorperformance.

Section IV Potential Commercial ApplicationsCommercial sources of high purity, high-pressure oxygen generally use cryogenic methods of separation.

In industrial settings, cryo separation is relatively inexpensive; and oxygen purity can be very high. It is

unlikely that this method can beat the price or purity of cryo derived oxygen in an industrial setting. But

remote locations, and situations where small-scale sources of high-pressure high purity oxygen are needed

could find this technique commercially favorable. This may include: spacecraft, small scale remotely

controlled aerial vehicles, submarines, ships, polar environments, and developing countries.

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

6/78

Page No. 1

ISS CM 019 Rev 08/2009

IntegratedA Cabin Air Separator for EVA Oxygen

(CASEO)Flight Development Plan Description

Request for Full and Final Implementation

Sponsoring Org/Office Code: EC

Name of Forum: VCB

Date: March 2010

John Graf / Dan Leonard

CTSD / EC3 / Boeing

CR 012209

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

7/78

Page No. 2

ISS CM 019 Rev 08/2009

Purpose/Agenda

Purpose:This CR requests technical concurrence, and Authority To Proceed (ATP) todevelop CASEO. CASEO project intends to develop and certify a method of filteringoxygen from ISS cabin air, compressing the high purity oxygen, and delivering the

high pressure oxygen to the High Pressure Gas Tanks. Final implementation willdevelop and certify 2 flight units, a qual/life test unit, and one trainer.

Select the appropriate box below:

This presentation was previously reviewed/dispositioned at:Meeting Date Outcome/DirectionEC CCB Feb 17, 2010 Approved

MVCB March 25, 2010 Concur to go forward to 3-30-10 SSPCB

Request for Technical ConcurrenceqRequest for Partial ImplementationRequest for Full/Final ImplementationqInformation Only/Management Direction

Response to an Action Item

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

8/78

Page No. 3

ISS CM 019 Rev 08/2009

Summary of this CR

Request for Technical Concurrence:This CR describes the project plan for CASEO (Cabin Air Separator for EVA Oxygen).CASEO is a system that filters oxygen from the ISS cabin air, creates a stream of highpurity oxygen, compresses the oxygen, and delivers the oxygen to the High Pressure Gas

Tanks. Final implementation will develop and certify 2 flight units, a qual/life test unit, andone trainer. First flight system to be certified in March 2012.

Request for Full Implementation:This CR requests Full and Final Implementation.

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

9/78

Page No. 4

ISS CM 019 Rev 08/2009

Summary of High Pressure Oxygen Issues

1) Currently, oxygen for ISS EVAs using EMUs is delivered by the Shuttle,compressed to storage pressure using the ORCA, and stored in the HPGTs.

2) After shuttle retirement, a new source of high pressure, high purity EVA gradeoxygen is needed.

3) NORS (Nitrogen / Oxygen Recharge System) is currently in development.

4) This CR describes an alternate method for producing EVA grade oxygen. Thismethod separates oxygen from the cabin atmosphere, compresses the highpurity oxygen, and transfers the oxygen to the HPGTs. This method is calledCASEO (Cabin Air Separator for EVA Oxygen)

5) A full scale technology demonstrator system has been developed. This systemis the size of ORCA, meets ORCA interfaces for weight, power, and cooling,and delivers 10 lbs/day of oxygen with purity > 99.5%. (Reference SE-S-0073(Rev G))

6) The key threats to flight hardware development are: oxygen safety, oxygenpurity, acoustics, delivery schedule, and COTS component certification.

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

10/78

Page No. 5

ISS CM 019 Rev 08/2009

The CASEO Concept of Operations on ISS

Remove ORCA, and Transfer Hose upon Shuttle Retirement Install CASEO in ORCA location meet all mechanical interfaces

Keep shuttle delivered 99.99% oxygen in HPGT #1 and #5 use for EMU O2

Route recovered CASEO oxygen to HPGT #2, use for pre-breathe, and contingency O2

If HPGT #2 O2 is verified >99.5%, O2 can be transferred to HPGT #1 and #5

HPGT #2

Current System

Transfer Hose

Cryo O2

ORCA

Issue

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

- ORCA not useful

Proposed System

ORCA

HPGT #1

HPGT #2filled with O2recovered

by CASEOCASEO

HPGT #5

HPGT #1

HPGT #5

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

11/78

Page No. 6ISS CM 019 Rev 08/2009

CASEO doesnt make oxygen. How can it help?

EVAs do not cause an increase in the total amount of oxygen used.High pressure oxygen used for pre-breathe and purge are vented tothe cabin, and metabolically consumed after the EVA.

ISS has a capability to produce more O2 than metabolically required

when the OGA is operating nominally. CASEO can take oxygen from any low pressure source (Elektron,

OGA, candles, Progress external tanks) and fill the HPGT oxygentanks.

With CASEO, HPGT #2 can be kept full. HPGT #2 can be used for

contingency O2, medical O2, or pre-breathe O2. If CASEO producesoxygen with >99.5% O2, CASEO can also fill HPGT #1 and #5 (andeliminate the need for delivering high pressure oxygen to ISS)

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

12/78


COTS Home UseMedical Oxygen Separators and Home-Fill Compressors

Typical Performance Specifications

Medical Oxygen Separators

5 lpm delivery rate (25 lb/day) 93% O2 purity 14 X 18 X 26 51 lbs 60 db 400 W 3 year continuous use warrantee

Home-Fill Compressor

2 lpm rate (10 lb/day) 2200 psi delivery pressure 14 X 18 X 15 33 lbs 50 db 200 W 3 year continuous use warrantee

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

13/78


A Research Grade Form of CASEO

Typical Performance Specifications

CASEO Oxygen Separator

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

CASEO Compressor

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

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

14/78


Process Schematicof a COTS Medical Oxygen System

Legend

Filter

Compressor

Vacuum Pump

Boost Compressor

Solenoid

Strainer

Bed

Pressure Sensor

Flow Restrictor

Check Valve

Flow Sensor

SurgeTank

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

15/78


Process Schematicof a Flight Qualified CASEO

Legend

Filter

Compressor

Vacuum Pump

Boost Compressor

Solenoid

Strainer

Bed

Pressure Sensor

Flow Restrictor

Check Valve

Flow Sensor

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

16/78


Organizational Risks

ISS High Pressure Oxygen Program Risks (OA) Safety Having high pressure oxygen for EVAs

ORCA use on late shuttle flights Number and frequency of EVAs NORS schedule, performance, cost CASEO schedule performance, cost

Having oxygen for contingency and medical purposesFlight Hardware Development Risks (EA)

Safety Performance

Purity Interfaces Rated Life

Meet Schedule CommitmentsEMU High Pressure Oxygen Risks (XA/EA)

Safety Impacts of O2 that meets but does not exceed EMU purity spec. Verification of on-orbit CASEO O2 purity

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

17/78


On Orbit Verification of O2 Purity

MeasurementTechnique

TechnologyAssessment

CurrentCapability

PotentialCapability

Electrochemical Needs cal, 1 year life 2.5% tbd

POMS Will be on ISS 2% Not better than 1%

MCA On ISS Max O2 40% tbd

Orion mass spec prototype 100% O2 range .5% or better

GC-DMS Cant make measurement na na

Custom GC complex na .5% or better

Microfluidics GC Small, complex na .5% or better

Pressure decayIron/oxygen

Simple, ISS compatible 2% 1% or better

Zirconia Sensor Relatively large 1.5% 1% or better

Ar Plasma spectrometer 1890 technology tbd tbd

The current SOA capability for on orbit verification is +/- 1.5% O2 (If 98%O2, can verify better than 96.5%) The project recognizes the importance of on orbit verification The table below summarizes our latest assessment of on orbit verification methods

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

18/78


CASEO Level 1 Technical Requirements

CASEO must be safeOxygen purity must be >99.5%

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

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

Noise

NC 40 will be exceeded CASEO will implement noise reducing strategies

Compressor mounting Structural housing 1 liter per minute delivery rate (4 days operation per EVA)

Noise treatment of cooling air outletMeet ORCA Interfaces

CASEO located in the ORCA spot

Shared fluid interfaces with NORS oxygenDesign for On Orbit Filter Replacement

Design for ruggedness (lower packing factor, heavier system, lower delivery rate)

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

19/78


CASEO Level 1 Project Requirements

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

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

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

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

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

20/78


1. Rotating Equipment The two stage system has 4 different pieces of rotating equipment

The lifting compressor is exposed to oxygen at 2400 psi

2. Reliability 10 year service life, with hundreds of use cycles required

The two stage system has a complicated state table

3. Cost Containment Something expensive will happen between PDR and CDR

4. Schedule Control The rotating systems are long lead items

Testing to prove 10 year life takes time

5. New ProceduresNew on orbit configuration, new O2 purity, new procedures

6. Oxygen Purity What if it works fine on the ground, but fails on orbit

7. On Orbit Verification System should verify it is producing better than 99.5% O2 before routing

the product to the high pressure O2 tanks

8. Oxygen Safety Some pumps and compressors can be used for air but not O2Some systems have to be redesigned after an oxygen safety analysis

9. Dust This is a bed of packed zeolite sorbent, much like CDRA

10. Trace Contaminants Some trace contaminant in the ISS air (like freon 218) will get in theoxygen system

A Prioritized List of Project Risks

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

21/78


CASEO Flight Development Plan:A Hybrid Approach

The Boost Compressor part of CASEO has a relatively low technical risk, but consequences ofa safety related failure are severe

Boost compressor part of CASEO has O2 at >2000 psi pressure Consequence of an oxygen fire at >2000 psi can result in loss of life, loss of vehicle Likelihood of an oxygen fire is acceptably low:

A sequential, safety focused development plan will be followed

The materials used in the boost compressor have been reviewed, and are safe

Gas velocity is low, temperatures are low, rate of pressure change is low

System has been subjected to a 5000 hour life test with O2 in CASEO operating conditions

CASEO project team asserts CASEO can be safer than any other form of high pressure O2

The Separator part of CASEO has a relatively low safety risk (ambient temperature, low gasvelocity, oxygen pressure less than 40 psi), but relatively high technical risks and relativelyhigh schedule risks

High technical risk because >99.5% O2 is a difficult requirement (no COTS system can meet) High schedule risk because the separator for CASEO is a complex, custom system

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

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

22/78


Boost Compressor Flight Development Plan:Baseline the Design Early, Focus on Safety

Boost Compressor Sequential Program Elements:

Preliminary Requirements Established at ATP (Feb 2010) Reference Configuration Established at ATP Oxygen Compatibility Assessment Preliminary OCA complete Safety Testing Fines Injection test begins at ATP Design Review #1 September 2010

Materials Tests Complete November 2010 Component Safety Tests Complete November 2010

Design Review #2 November 2010 Prototype with Flight Configuration December 2010 Performance and Reliability Testing Feb 2011, ongoing Flight Configuration Design Review Feb 2011 Begin Qual build May 2011 Complete build of qual July 2011 Begin build of Flight #1 August 2011 OCA of Flight configuration complete August 2011 First O2 wetted test of Qual hardware August 2011 Flight #1 build complete November 2011 First O2 wetted test of Flight hardware Jan 2012 Flight #1 Acceptance Tests Complete March 2012

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

23/78


Separator Flight Development Plan:Drive Down Technical Risk with aggressive schedule,

multiple systems, multiple components

Separator Program Elements (tasks prior to separator/boost compressor integration)

Develop single stage system start at ATP (Feb 2010) Requirements baselined at ATP

Sorbent Manufacture begin at ATP (license offer in hand)

Component Testing begin at ATP

Preliminary OCA May 2010

Preliminary reliability assessment May 2010 System build June 2010

System sequence, timing June 2010

Initial purity testing July 2010

Characterization testing September 2010

Develop two stage system start at ATP (Feb 2010) Requirements baselined at ATP

Component Testing begin at ATP Preliminary OCA May 2010

Preliminary reliability assessment May 2010

System build June 2010

System sequence, timing June 2010

Initial purity testing July 2010

Characterization testing September 2010

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

24/78


Off Template Strategies to Accelerate Schedule

Hybrid Qualification: The High Pressure Boost Compressor has a sequential, on-template approach The Low Pressure Separator has an accelerated, off-template approach

Two proof of concept separator systems

Long lead items procured early

Design begins before requirements are formalized

Two Different Separator Units built as proof of concept Focused on evaluating purity by July 2010 (time of NORS PDR) Environmental characterization testing (Ar, CO2, temp, pressure, humidity) will continue

through September 2010

Units not suitable for detailed analysis of acoustic or thermal issuesStart Preliminary Design at ATP

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

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

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

25/78


Off Template Strategies to Accelerate Schedule

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

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

Waiver of NC-40 noise requirement Designers will follow best practices (mounting fixtures, housing design, cooling air noise

treatment)

Waiver of 10 year service life Life testing will begin as soon as hardware is ready Incremental increase in system life as data becomes available

Qualification Testing and Flight Hardware build are concurrent Qual unit fabrication complete in July 2011 Flight unit #1 begins fabrication in August 2011

Embedded Project Team Key stakeholders are contacted at ATP asked to identify a POC for their organization POCs are included in low level changes and issues in real time

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

26/78


ISS Impacts(Boeing)

ISS Integration Impacts Possible need to design sample method for ISS oxygen systems

Work with NASA to derive a system for both CASEO and AirlockOxygen

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

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

27/78


NORS Impacts(Boeing)

Interfaces Location

NORS is currently planned to occupy existing ORCA location plussome additional space

Preliminary Options Remain in Airlock zenith but reduce NORS to just have one RTAinstalled at a time with IRA (Impacted)

Packaging/design challenge Move NORS to Airlock nadir

Minimal impact; just longer flex hoses/cables Covers more storage bins

Need to verify if keep out zones prohibit use

Install and uninstall each system when required Crew intensive Undesirable to for high pressure oxygen systems

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

28/78



Stbd

Zenith

Aft

Section A

Crew Lock Equipment Lock

View of Airlock Looking Aft

(Node 1)

Zenith

Stbd

Overall Airlock

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

29/78



Crew Lock not shown for clarity

Port

Zenith

(View looking Aft) View C

View C

PCA Outlet

Cabin Air DuctConnections

ORCA

View D

View E

LHA

ORCA Oxygen Recharge Compressor AssemblyLHA Lamp Housing AssemblyPCA Pressure Control Assembly

Cabin Air Outlet Diffuser

Cabin Air Rack

Detail G

Section B

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

30/78



Airlock Current Configuration

Crew Lock not shown for clarity

ORCA

Section B

Spaghetti PanelQD11 Location

QD 12(Hidden)

Aft

Port

(View looking zenith)

CabinAirRack

Section A

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

31/78



SomeStructureRemovedfor Clairity

IRARTA

RTA

Equipment Lock

O2 and N2 Hose Assembly

Aft

Starboard

(View looking Zenith)

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

32/78



IRA

RTAs

Aft

Nadir

(View looking Starboard)

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

33/78



Interfaces (cont) Power

NORS is currently planning to use two separate power sources oneof which is ORCA

Preliminary Options Y off the ORCA power feed for NORS and CASEO (Impacted) Possibility could use existing unused heaters power feeds and leave

ORCA power line for CASEO

May be a loss of redundancy Manually connect/unconnect systems as needed

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

34/78



Interfaces (cont) Oxygen

NORS as well as CASEO is currently planning to connect to HPGTsand oxygen Supply systems

Preliminary Options NORS uses QD11; CASEO fills directly via QD07/QD08 (Impacted)

Allows to keep both oxygen purities separate to keep oxygensystem operating during CASEO fills

Note interfaces are different and cannot be interchanged (QD11female on hose, QD07/08 male on hose)

Schedule NORS PDR was forecasted in July/August 2010, but CASEO

implementation will delay the PDR until September 2010

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

35/78


ISS Airlock ACS Schematic

P

ALF1Avionics

ALA1Cabin Air A ssembly

x1

x3

x2

Crew Lock

PCA

O2A078

100to120 psia

N2A076

O2

N2

CPS

FC

VRV

PCP

O2A077

N2A075

Umbilical InterfaceAssembly

3 lbm/h

16 lbm/h

110to

120psia

865to930psia

200psia

200psia

1050psia1050

psia

2

3

T

145to155psia

235psia

T

QD003VL009 VL010

MT002MT005

QD008 QD007

VL011

QD011

L003 L002

A082

QD010

A036

A084

MT003

A083

QD009

QD013 L007

QD012

MT006

VL013

QD004

VL006 VL005

QD001

VL003

QD002

VL004

VL017

VL016

QD025

QD024

QD023

VL015

QD014 QD015

RT023

A081

RT021

RT022

B001

F001

AB

A

B

F005VL014

VL001

VL002

RT025

RT026

RT024

QD026

A116

QD027

Equipment Lock

A029

P003

O2RTA

IRA

N2RTA

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

36/78


NORS/CASEO Decision Points

Date NORS/ECLS Benefit/Impact CASEO

Apr2010

uDelete Oxygen NORS?uOptimize for Nitrogen with Minimal ScheduleImpactPInvestigate Separating Nitrogen and OxygenSystem in IRA (Greater benefit and flexibility forfuture changes)

Removes oxygen pressure vessels,valves/reg, DDT&E costImproves launching efficiencies fornitrogen; (i.e. fewer RTAs) regulators,and testing

ATP

Jul2010

NORS PDRuDelete Oxygen NORS?u

Revisit if ISS Oxygen System Will Operate withTwo Levels of Purity (99.99% vs 99.5%)

Removes oxygen pressure vessels,valves/regulators, and testing

One purity simplifies oxygenoperations

Risk Outbrief to VCB

Oxygen Purity >99.5% Capability Confirmedand Impurities Defined

Verify EMU can use CASEO O2 output

Nov2010

High Pressure Oxygen Safety DemonstrateduProtoflight / Qualification Revisit

Apr2011

NORS CDRuPursue O2 Certification or Design but Do notVerify

Saves oxygen certification/testingcosts

Updated Risk Outbrief to VCB

Apr2012

IRA Testing Complete Flight CASEO #1 Delivery

Aug2012

FCA -- Qualification Testing CompletePFly Oxygen IRA (if separated)POrder all required RTAs for anticipated 2020needs (N2 and O2 if applicable)

Flight O2 IRA build/costFlight O2 RTA build/cost uCASEO On-Orbit Capability DemonstrateduFirst CASEO Oxygen Sample Available

Mar2013

Flight NORS Delivery to KSC O2 IRA launch costFlight O2 RTA build/cost

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

37/78


Launch Mass to 2020

Case: 1 Baseline NORS

~ 46 NORS RTAs (oxygen net need of 3453 lbm) ~10120 lbm launch mass

Case: 2

CASEO for Prebreathe Only

Mass of ~500 lbm with 20 lbm per year for maintenance ~8 O2 NORS Tanks required to support EMU suit gas needs for 99.99% pure O2 through 2020 - ~1760 lbms

CASEO supporting OGA downtime of 10% ~588 lbms of water (water 88% oxygen by mass)

Includes 7 CWCs at 4 lbms each for 28 lbms + 560 lbms of water

~2348 lbms launch mass Maximum Launch Mass Reduction of ~7772 lbm

Case: 3

CASEO for all Oxygen

Mass of ~500 lbm with 20 lbm per year for maintenance ~710 lbms of water (water 88% oxygen by mass)

Includes 8 CWCs at 4 lbms each for 32 lbms + 678 lbms of water

84 lbm for expired PBAs 6 lbm per PBA x 14 PBAs ~1494 lbms launch mass Maximum Launch Mass Reduction of ~8626 lbm

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

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

38/78


Launch Cost Comparison

NOTE: Launch cost is based on estimated weight to support ISS thru. 2020. Assumedlaunch cost of $25K per lbm.

Case 1No CASEO

Case 2CASEO for Pre-

breath Only

Case 3CASEO for all

Oxygen

CASEOHardwareCost

$0 $18.4MTotal CR impacted cost;

see slide 40.

$18.4MTotal CR impacted cost;

see slide 40.

NORsHardwareCost

$0 ($19M)Cost saving from tank

qty. reduction

($23M)Cost saving from tank qty.

reduction

TotallaunchWeight to2020

10120 lbm 2348 lbm 1494 lbm

LaunchCost $253M $58.7M $37.4M

TotalCost

$TBD $58.1M $32.8M

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

39/78


FY10

($k)

160

180

1290

220

380

1255

715

Labor Costs

Project Management

Requirements

Design and Development

Analyses

Manufacturing

Certification

Flight Acceptance

Post Delivery Activities

Materials Costs

Materials

Vendor Subcontracts

Testing Costs

Unique Testing

Standard Dev and Qual Testing

Total Costs (by year)

Estimated Total Project Costs: $ 14,240 k

Notes: Costs are fully burdened

Costs include WSTF costs, JSC costs, project safety costs and project quality costs

NA costs are not included

FY12

($k)

170

515

115

775

340

520

85

240

260

FY11

($k)

170

30

1225

350

850

135

2045

470

Concurrent Technology Development and Flight Qual:Estimated Project Costs

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

40/78


($k)479058603590

($k)

751049851745

FTE3.05.05.0

Cost by FYFY 10FY 11FY 12

Cost by Category

Labor (WYE)MaterialsTesting

Civil Servant Staffing*FY 10

FY 11FY 12

* FTE costs are not included in project cost total

Concurrent Tech Dev / Flight Qual:Estimated Costs by Categories

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

41/78


Cost / Schedule / Technical Impact ofDeveloping CASEO as ProtoFlight

Hybrid Development Approach:Cost: $14.2M

Schedule: 3/2012Technical: Qual/life unit on ground

One Stage Separator Dev.

Two Stage Separator Dev.

Boost Compressor Dev

CASEO integrated flight design

CASEO Qual buildCASEO Qual Testing

LifeTesting

Flight build

FlightAcceptance

Protoflight Approach:Cost: $13.4M

Schedule: 12/2011

Technical: No Hardware on Ground

One Stage Separator Dev.

Two Stage Separator Dev.

Boost Compressor Dev

CASEO integrated flight design

CASEO Proto build

ProtoTestingProto Refurb

Proto-FlightAcceptance

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

42/78


Proto-flight Assessment

Explanation for limited cost and schedule reduction: Due to the nature of this technology we must test the unit to full qualification limits. We do not have the required technical background to catorgize the level or type of risk the

program would be require to accept in-order for us to test the unit to lower levels.

Testing the unit to full qual levels will result in the need for a complete refurbishment beforeflying the unit. The refurbishment work would require a new round of acceptance testing to

verify the workmanship before flight delivery.

As a result the proto-flight plan does not reduce the number of test required and do to therefurbishment needed. The manufacturing cost are only slightly reduced.

The hybrid project plan that has been develop is already developing the qual and flight unitsin a near parallel timeframe so there is only minimum schedule saving with the proto-flightmethod.

At the end of a proto-flight program only a single end product will have been developed atnear the same cost of a qual program that will result in both a flight unit and qual unit.

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

43/78


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

The recurring cost of a CASEO flight unit is $2.5 M. Building additional units does not affect the delivery schedule of the first unit. Building additional units does not decrease the cost of the first unit. Building additional units provides a flight qualified spare system, on the

ground, ready to launch if there is a failure.

Total Program Cost is $14.2 M for 2 flight CASEO units 1 qal/life test CASEO unit 1 Tabletop Engineering Unit

Total Program Cost is $11.7 M for 1 flight CASEO unit

1 qal/life test CASEO unit 1 Tabletop Engineering Unit

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

44/78


Project Plan Cost Comparison

*NOTE: EA recommended

QualificationMethod

Deliverables DeliveryDate

Cost

Hybrid Approach* 2- Flight Units1 Qual/life

Unit1 Eng Unit

1st unit04/12

$14.2M

Hybrid Approach;

No Flight Spare

1- Flight Units

1 Qual/lifeUnit

1 Eng Unit

1st unit

04/12

$11.7M

Proto-Flight Plan 1- Flight Units1 Eng Unit

1st unit12/11

$13.4M

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

45/78


Concurrent Tech Dev / Flight Qual:Project Schedule

2 / 2010 ATP (Feb 10, 2010 Assumed date of ATP)4 / 2010 SRP Phase 0/1

6 / 2010 SRR

7 / 2010 Risk outbrief to OB (coincides with NORS PDR)

9 / 2010 IDR #1

9 / 2010 delta SRR (for acoustics, delivery rate)11 / 2010 IDR #2 (PDR)

11 / 2010 SRP Phase 2

2 / 2011 Final Design Review (CDR)

2 / 2011 SRP Phase 3

4 / 2011 Risk outbrief to OB (coincides with NORS CDR)

11 / 2011 Flight #1 build complete

3 / 2012 Flight #1 acceptance complete

3 / 2012 SAR

3 / 2012 Delivery of Flight Unit #1

Note: Meeting this schedulerequires that each of the off-template approaches issuccessful

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

46/78


Risk Outbriefs to OB

The Project intends to offer an outbrief of CASEO schedule, program, technicalrisk:

Risk Outbriefs will coincide with major NORS program reviews (PDR and CDR) Project schedule is developed to offer the best possible insight into CASEO risks at the time

of the risk outbriefs

Sept 2010 Outbrief topics Single stage separator purity Two stage separator purity Boost Compressor safety test results Silver sorbent characterization test results Component test results On Orbit O2 purity verification preliminary results Preliminary OCA, safety, reliability assessment PTRS

April 2011 Outbrief topics CASEO system purity (for a full range of environmental conditions) Flight Design data package Results of system life test Flight configuration bed dusting, trace contamination test results Flight configuration acoustic, thermal test results

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

47/78


Cost and Schedule Summary:With estimated range of Cost Risk and Schedule Risk

HybridQualification

Approach

PDR date: November 2010PDR cost: $ 5.5 M

Delivery date March 2012(estimated)

Schedule Risk 2/2012 9/2012

Cost $14.2 M(estimated)

Cost Risk $13 17 M

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

48/78


Conclusions and Recommendations

CASEO can deliver high pressure, high purity oxygen to the HPGT, with asingle system that fits in the ORCA envelope. Launch costs are considerably smaller than NORS:

CASEO launch mass estimate is 500 lbs

NORS launch mass estimate is 9000 lbs

CASEO concept definition / concept development is complete. Interfacescan be met, oxygen purity can be achieved.

The Hybrid qualification approach addresses technical and schedule risk Keep oxygen and do not optimize for nitrogen in NORS At this time, segregate CASEO and ECLS oxygen Best effort to build and deliver a first flight system by March 2012.

Off template strategies come with additional schedule risk Best effort to build and deliver 2 flight units and a qual/life unit for $14.2 M.

Recurring cost of a flight unit is $2.5M Recommend Protect for Project Reserve because of technical uncertainties

and aggressive schedule. Estimated range of total project cost $1317M.Estimated range of delivery schedule is 2/2012 9/2012.

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

49/78


CR Eval Cost Summary

*NOTE: DAs eval stated cost would be less than $500K, due to unknowns in this cost it was notincluded in the above table. DA required mock-up fabrication cost was included.

FY10 FY11 FY12 Total

EA $4.79M $5.86M $3.59M $14.2M

Boeing $1.39M $1.25M $1.32M $3.96M

DA* $0 $0.075M $0 $0.075M

Safety $0.052M $0.075M $0.036M $0.163M

TotalCost

$6.23M $7.26M $4.94M $18.4M

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

50/78


Requested Evaluators

I. NASA ISS Program Office CAMs Recommendation

DA/Mission Operations Directorate Concur / Mod

q KSC/ISS and Shuttle Payloads OB/Vehicle Office Concur / Comments OC/Mission Integration & Ops Office Concur

OD/Avionics & Software Office N/A OE/Safety & Mission Assurance Office Concur / Comments OH/Program Planning and Control Office Concur / Comments

OM/Program Integration Office Concuro OX/External Integration Office OZ/Payloads Office Concur XA/EVA Office ConcurII. NASA JSC Organizations

CA/Flight Crew Operations Directorate Concur

EA/Engineering Directorate Concur / Comments

o MA/Space Shuttle Program Office SA/Space Life Sciences Directorate Concur

o QA/Commercial Crew/Cargo Project Officeo ZA/Constellation Program Office

III. Other NASA OrganizationsRecommendation

GRC (Identify Office)GSFC (Identify Office) MSFC (ECLSS) N/A

IV. International PartnersASI-MPLMASI-Payloads

CSAESAINPEJAXARoscosmosRSC-E

V. ISS ContractorsARES Program Integration and Control ContractBarrios Mission Integration Contract

Boeing Concur/CommentsNAS15-10000 (ISS Sustaining Engineering)NAS9-02098 (40 Battery ORU Contract)

Lockheed Martin Cargo Mission Contract

Distributed for Evaluation Date: 03/04/10 Evaluation Due date:03/17/10

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

51/78


Evaluator Comments

DA: Concur with Modifications No MCCS impacts. Potential impacts to SSTF ECLSS models. Implementation is probably about the same

level of effort as NORS(less than $500K). SSTF POC: Jerry Swain DA7/Jones, Zachary Approved with Comments

Depending on how this is implemented, the SSTF might have model impacts. If the CASEO system is self-

contained (no telemetry to crew/ground) system, then the SSTF might be able to work around not having it modeleddirectly. For now, this CR will be listed as having ECLSS model impacts to the SSTF, pending designspecifications.

Disposition: Acknowledge

DX43/Curell, Philip Approved with ModificationsModification:OSO requests two training units: one "dumb" box to hang in the overhead area of the Airlock and one high fidelity

table-top mockup for I-level maintenance training and trouble-shooting.Comment:Keep I-level maintenance in the picture as much as possible. Sensors, valves, solenoids, etc. should be easilyremoved and replaced without need of special tools. Avoid hardwiring temp sensors to hardware that would requirecutting and splicing wires during an R&R.

Disposition:The current engineering plan does not include the fabrication of a dumb unit to install in the airlock mockup.In the engineering plan the Qual/Life unit will be provided to MOD as the training unit.

We concur with the I-level maintenance comment.

DX14/Vincent, William R. Approved with CommentsCost Impact: $40k $75k

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

Disposition: See disposition above for DX43 comments.

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

52/78


Evaluator Comments

OH: Concur with Comments Villarreal, OH2, NASA CM / PI&C Consolidated Concur with comments (3/11/10)

General new ISS hardware development to be in accordance with SSP 41170, ConfigurationManagement Requirements.

Any existing ISS hardware redesigns and/or software updates as a result of this change will need to betracked and managed via part/dash number changes (including those for next-higher assemblies) and

software revisions following the requirements of SSP 41170 (notably para. 3.3.5.2).

Mod. Kit delivery to be with accordance with SSP 41170, Section 3.4.6. Disposition: Acknowledge

OB: Concur with Comments OB5 - Spares considerations need to be determined and defined. In addition logistics engineering

considerations need to be added for maintenance and LSAR.

OB3 concur

Disposition: Acknowledge

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

53/78


Evaluator Comments

OE: Concur with Comments S&MA (NT) cost impacts that will be incurred from the implementation of this CR include reviews and

comments to requirements documents, procedures, drawings, test plans, as well as data packages for

design reviews. Attendance and support of project meetings, design reviews, software assessments,preparation and support for the safety reviews, and the System Acceptance Review. Review of Safety Data

Packages (SDP), FMEAs, NCR, and CILs. Closure of safety actions and support for Certification and CoFRreports. (Reference below table for details on FY cost impacts). These specific SAIC/S&MA cost estimateshave been generated based on the current understanding of the task described in the CR under review and

include the cost for S&MA Engineering, S&MA Quality Assurance and S&MA Quality Engineering. Theseestimates should be revisited if there are significant scope changes, and also, prior to the next fiscal year

budget. General new ISS hardware development to be in accordance with SSP 41170, ConfigurationManagement Requirements.

S&MA (NE) cost impacts that will be incurred from the implementation of this CR include providing the

Vehicle Group (NE) consulting services on an as required basis with GFE (NT) as it relates to GFEIntegration into the ISS. This will include integration of hazard reports, FMEA, CILs and support with variousprogram boards and panels.

NOTE: for purposes of this evaluation use the following:

Total cost $163 K (for FY 2010 = $52 K; for FY 2011 = $75 K; for FY 2012 = $36 K)

Disposition:Acknowledge.

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

54/78


Evaluator Comments

EA: EP: Concur with Comments Integrated end item shall comply with the applicable electrical power quality requirements listed in SSP

50835 Revision A, ISS Pressurized Volume Hardware Common Interface Requirements Document.

From the EPS Architecture Notebook Revision Q, ORCA is powered by: RPDA AL-1A4A-B (A054)RPC number 18, which is a 12 Amps feed. This RPCM has an input from SPDA LAP3-1A4A.

Disposition: Acknowledge ES: Concur EC: Concur with Comments

Assumptions: See CASEO CR pitch charts

Deliverables: One qualification unit

Two flight units Risk: See CASEO CR pitch charts Cost $14.2 M Schedule: (Note: These dates assume an ATP of 02/10/10)

Delivery Date for first flight unit March 2012.

Project complete inAugust 2012

See CASEO CR pitch charts for details

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

55/78


Evaluator Comments

Boeing: Concur with Comments Cost: $3.977M (FY10 1.395M, FY11 1.259M, FY12 1.323M)

Boeing (NAS15-10000) tasks to support the CASEO effort includes:1.Provide Integration of CASEO in the Airlock.a)Design sample method for ISS oxygen systemsb)Design closeouts over CASEO interfacesc)Integrated Hazard Reports and FMEA/CILs

d)Integrated Operations.e)Provide the following integrated analyses for CASEO in the Airlock.

AcousticsHeat Loads

Integrated Air Flow (CFD)PowerStructural Analysis

f)Review gas compatibility standards from CASEO Government Furnished Data (GFD) to ensure compatibility with the existing

ystem.g)Design, develop and deliver Mod Kits (Oxygen Sampling Kit and Airlock Mod Kit).

2.Modify Nitrogen Oxygen Resupply System (NORS) Airlock Modification Kit (AMK) to allow for simultaneous operation into the

ISS Airlock.a)Modify / revise NORS design to accommodate CASEO.b)Revise NORS project plan to accommodate CASEO [revised Preliminary Review (PDR) date].

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

56/78


Evaluator Comments

Boeing will be authorized for the full scope of SSCN 012209. However, due to the urgency of this change, a partial Undefinitized

Contract Action (UCA) will be issued immediately to fund the following tasks for the Period of Performance 04/13/10 Authorizationto Proceed (ATP) through 09/30/10:1.Provide input to CASEO-to-Airlock Interface Control Document (ICD).2.Review CASEO specifications and ICD and submit Review Item Discrepancy (RIDs).

3.Attend CASEO System Requirements Review (SRR) and Incremental Design Review (IDR) #1.4.Initiate design and data products for Mod Kits (Oxygen Sampling Kit and Airlock Mod Kit).5.Initiate procurement of long lead items.6.Obtain Government Furnished Data (GFD) and develop analytical models.7.Initiate analytical integration of CASEO into Airlock.8.Modify / revise NORS design to accommodate CASEO.

9.Review gas compatibility standards from CASEO GFD to ensure compatibility with the existing system.10.Revise NORS project plan to accommodate CASEO ([revised Preliminary Design Review (PDR) date].______________________________________________________________________________________________

Groundrules/Assumptions - Boeing/NAS15-10000:

1.CASEO will use existing Oxygen Recharge Compressor Assembly (ORCA) interfaces (JSC 38829).Power, grounding, structural, air cooling, envelope.

Oxygen interface will change.2.ORCA removed prior to CASEO installation.No Data interfaces are required for CASEO.

Pre-Positioned Load (PPL) changes (if required) covered under existing sustaining effort

3.CASEO to be an external interface. Mod Kit required.4.Two purity levels of oxygen (Airlock/NORS level-99.99% and CASEO level-99.5%)5.ISS oxygen systems will not need to be re-qualified for use of 99.5% oxygen.

6.Existing NORS will still deliver oxygen and nitrogen at 6000 psi (7000 psi MDP).7.CASEO implementation will delay the NORS Preliminary Design Review (PDR).8.Sustaining Engineering for CASEO is not included.9.The NORS design will remain in the Airlock zenith but reduce NORS to just have one Refill Tank Assembly (RTA) installed at atime with Internal Regulator Assembly (IRA).

10.Hose(s) and hardware necessary to connect the CASEO to the Airlock will be not be provided by Boeing.

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

57/78


Backup Slides

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

58/78


Project Risks

RiskDescription

Current Assessment Forward Work Plan

RotatingEquipment

Piston compressor completed a 5000 hrtest

ORCA overpressure control is notapplicable for CASEO

Compared to CDRA, these are low flow

rates

Compared to CDRA, these are shortoperating times (16 days per year)

Forward Work Test BR 3003 with flight config motor Vibe test of scroll compressor Define best practices:

moisture tolerance moisture control inlet pressure management exit surge tank sizing particulate filtering startup motor alignment

Expert consultants: A. Boehm J. Genovese

J. Anderson

Products Detailed flight specifications Test report for BR3003 Test report for scroll compressor Expert recommendations

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

59/78


Project Risks

RiskDescription


Reliability Proven technology with COTS heritage

Complete fault detection and isolationsystem can be established with 4pressure sensors and a timer

A 10 year service life on ISS consists of~200 days equivalent of medicaloxygen system (which has a 7 yearrated lifetime)

Forward Work Complete assessment of COTs valves

compared to spool valve

Develop flight configuration prototypewith health check, fault detection, and

fault isolation capability

Expert consultants:

P. Trombley

Products Prototype fault detection and isolation

system Expert recommendations

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

60/78


Project Risks

RiskDescription


Cost Working Technology Demonstrator

Working Piston Compressor

Working Scroll Compressor

Proven Technology with COTS Heritage

Inexpensive Components

COTS system ~$4k

Forward Work Develop detailed flight qualification

budget

Determine COTS valves or customspool valve

Conduct bed mechanical testing

Conduct scroll compressor life testing

Build flight configuration prototypes

Products Flight configuration prototype

Test results of components with a costrisk

Draft Flight Requirements Document

Detailed Flight Program Budget

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

61/78

Page No. 56

ISS CM 019 Rev 08/2009

Project Risks

RiskDescription


Schedule Piston compressor completed 5000hour test

Scroll compressor selected, and used in99.8% O2 demonstrator

Technology demonstrator delivered

Project plan in place for a flightfeasibility assessment (with prototypehardware, flight development schedule)by 10/1/10

Forward Work Develop flight system prototype

components with schedule risk piston compressor (BR 3003) scroll compressor

motors valves (COTS or spool)

Build flight configuration prototypes

Develop detailed flight developmentschedule

Expert consultants:

J. Jaax

Products Prototype fault detection and isolation

system

Detailed flight schedule

Draft Test and Verification Plan

Expert recommendations

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

62/78

Page No. 57

ISS CM 019 Rev 08/2009

Project Risks

RiskDescription


New operations Concept of operations proposes usingCASEO generated oxygen for campout,pre-breathe, and suit purge (not EMUtank fill)

Minimum O2 purity requirement for

campout, pre-breathe, and suit purge is97.0%

NORS also requires new operations:there is no way to avoid this risk

Forward Work XA led assessment of EMU impact

due to 99.5% O2

XA led development of draftprocedures

Products EMU impact assessment

Draft procedures

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

63/78

Page No. 58

ISS CM 019 Rev 08/2009

Project Risks

RiskDescription


Oxygen Purity Two Stage system demonstrated 99.8%O2

Silver sorbent system demonstrated99.7% O2

Minimum O2

purity requirement neededfor campout, purge, and pre-breathe is97.0% (99.5% is margin to minimizethe impact of an operational error)

Forward Work Test Two Stage System in nonstandard configurations

high humidity inlet high argon inlet

high CO2 inlet Test Silver Sorbent in non-standardconfigurations

high humidity inlet high argon inlet high CO2 inlet

Expert consultants: Prof. Yang

Prof. Foley

Products Two test reports


7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

64/78

Page No. 59

ISS CM 019 Rev 08/2009

Project Risks

RiskDescription


On OrbitVerification

System health check will confirm valvesare sequencing properly and system isfree from leaks

POMS the laser diode oxygen monitorhas a 0-100% O2 range

The project team has invented a newmethod of O2 measurement that usescommercial food packing sorbents anda pressure sensor. It consumes theoxygen, and measures the pressure ofthe remaining impurities

Forward Work Test POMS prototype with 99.5% O2

Develop prototype of pressure /sorption O2 sensor

Develop system health checksequence

Products POMS test report

pressure / sorption sensor prototype

Fault detection, fault isolation protocol

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

65/78

Page No. 60

ISS CM 019 Rev 08/2009

Project Risks

RiskDescription


Oxygen Safety Only the piston compressor is exposedto oxygen at elevated pressures

WSTF made the piston compressor andthe scroll compressor productrecommendation. Both are oil free andoxygen compatible

Gas velocities are low

Compression rates are low

Temperatures are low

Forward Work WSTF assessment of beds, valves,

lines, and sensors

Selection of flight motors, valves, andvalve actuators

WSTF system oxygen compatibilityassessment

Ignition sources highlighted

Products WSTF O2 Hazard Assessment

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

66/78

Page No. 61

ISS CM 019 Rev 08/2009

Project Risks

RiskDescription


Dust Dusting issues are not like CDRATemp:

CDRA 400 F / CASEO 75Flow:

CDRA 25cfm / CASEO 1cfm

Time:CDRA 6000 hrs / CASEO 400 hrsRotating speed

CDRA 100,000 rpm / CASEO30 rpm

CASEO beds are designed for dustcontrol

Granular compression spring

Cylindrical beds

Filters bracket every bed

Forward Work 5000 hr dust test

Vibe to failure test

Document best practices for dust

Expert consultants: Prof. Yang Prof Foley

Products Test report

Best Practices for dust


7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

67/78

Page No. 62

ISS CM 019 Rev 08/2009

Project Risks

RiskDescription


TraceContaminants

7 measurements of Argon on ISSanalyzed

Argon compatibility assessment- No harm to suit- 99.2% O2 needed for ppO2 in EMU

The two stage system filters both ways- Heavies filtered in 1st stage- Lights passed in 2nd stage

Silver sorbent system- Lights are concentrated- 10 liters of ISS 1 liter of O2- 10 concentration of H, He, CH4 has

no identified impact

Forward Work Tests with contaminants

Suit compatibility assessment

Oxygen safety assessment

Products Chemical test report

XA EMU impact report

WSTF assessment

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

68/78

Page No. 63

ISS CM 019 Rev 08/2009

How Commercial Home O2 Systems Work

A two bed, pressure swing adsorption device generates oxygen Separation done with a two bed, adsorption / desorption system Adsorbing bed is compressed to ~30 psia

H2O, CO2, and N2 adsorb O2 permeates through the bed Desorbing bed is vented back to the room

desorbing the H2O, CO2, and N2 that was adsorbed at 30 psia Beds cycle every 15 seconds Oxygen purity is 93%, oxygen delivery rate is 6 liters per min (FDA requirement) Commercial systems operate continuously and have a 7 year warranty 10 year operations on ISS is equivalent to 200 days home use

A piston compressor fills a portable oxygen tank to 2200 psi

Oxygen hoseto patient

(up to 6 lpm)

Separator BedO2

Product

Tank(93% O2)

Air In

N2, CO2, H2O

HomeFill

Station

Separator Bed PortableOxygen

Tank

(2200 psi)

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

69/78

Page No. 64

ISS CM 019 Rev 08/2009

Argon and Oxygen Purity

Nominal atmospheric compositions are:Earths Atmosphere ISS cabin environmentN2 78.1% 78.0%

O2 20.9 20.9Ar 0.93 0.60CO2 0.04 0.50

Relative affinity of gases to commercial oxygen separation sorbents

WaterCO2

Nitrogen

Oxygen

Argon

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

Commercial systems meet this spec by filtering ~5 liters of air to produce ~1 liter ofoxygen. Adsorb the water, CO2, N2, and let the O2 and Ar migrate through the bed

Nominal composition of medical oxygen from commercial systems:O2 94%Ar 5%N2 1%

A single stage commercial oxygen generatormeets EVA pre-breathe purity requirementswith considerable margin (

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

70/78

Page No. 65

ISS CM 019 Rev 08/2009

EVA Grade Oxygen Purity

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

Argon is the key to oxygen purity

Argon has less affinity to commercial sorbents than oxygen Argon affinity is similar to oxygen Argon is 0.93% in air, 0.60% on ISS (the argon comes from the air in the shuttle cabin) Pre-breathe requires

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

71/78

Page No. 66

ISS CM 019 Rev 08/2009

AirIn

Two Stage Method for 99.5% Purity

Two Stage System

1st StageGas

StorageTank

96% O2

N2, CO2, H2O 99.8% O2Delivered toProduct Tank

The first stage is similar in design and operation to the first stage of a COTS system

Higher pressures, lower flow rates are used for better separation First stage product: 4 lpm, 96% O2 (4% Ar)

The second stage separates the oxygen from the argon

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

2nd stage bed

2nd stage bed

1st stage bed

1st stage bed

Argon

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

72/78

Page No. 67

ISS CM 019 Rev 08/2009

Two Stage Prototype System

High Pressure Booster Compressor

Control Electronics

Low Pressure Feed Compressors

First Stage Adsorption/Separation Beds andReceiving Tank

Second StageAdsorption/SeparationBeds and Product

Storage Tank

Frame has ORCAdimensions

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

73/78

Page No. 68

ISS CM 019 Rev 08/2009

Two Stage Prototype System

Purity: 99.8% oxygen

Size: Fits in ORCA

Power: 800 watts total

Rate: 20 lbs O2 in 48 hrs

Acoustics: Quieter than lab background

Pros: more industrial experience

sorbents are inexpensive, readilyavailable

Cons: more complex system(more beds, more valves)

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

74/78

Page No. 69

ISS CM 019 Rev 08/2009

Silver Sorbent Method of 99.5% O2

Instead of commercial sorbents, a silver exchanged, type X sorbent is used These sorbents have more affinity to Ar than O2 Direct separation: oxygen is the most mobile it is collected directly from the front of the bed

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

Separator Bed

ProductTank

Air In

N2, CO2, H2O

99.7% O2

Separator Bed

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

75/78

Page No. 70

ISS CM 019 Rev 08/2009

Silver Sorbent System

High Pressure Booster Compressor

Control Electronics

Compressor

(2) pre-columnsfor H2O and CO2removal

OxygenSeparation

Vacuum Pump

OxygenBackfill

Stabilizing Tank

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

76/78

Page No. 71

ISS CM 019 Rev 08/2009

Silver Sorbent System

Purity: 99.7% oxygen

Size: Fits in ORCA

Power: 750 watts total

Rate: 20 lbs O2 in 48 hrs(by design)

Acoustics: not yet measured

Pros: Simpler system(fewer valves, fewer stages)

Cons: Custom made sorbentNot commercially available

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

77/78

Page No. 72

ISS CM 019 Rev 08/2009

High Pressure Compressor

WSTF conducted an industry survey of high pressure mechanical compressors

Four candidate compressors were identified Two compressors were purchased and tested, one was selected

The selected compressor was the Cobham BR-3002

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

7/29/2019 MSC24806-1

78/78

WSTF Compressor Testing

5000 hr test (104 EVAs)

Seals generated fines

Seals still sealed

Filters contained fines: best possible outcome for a life test

MSC24806-1

Documents