Growing a training system and culture for the Ares I Upper Stage project

In roughly two years' time, Marshall Space Flight Center's (MSFC) Mission Operations Laboratory (MOL) has incubated a personnel training and certification program for about 1000 learners and multiple phases of the Ares I Upper Stage (US) project. Previous MOL-developed training programs focused on about 100 learners with a focus on operations, and had enough full-time training staff to develop courseware and provide training administration. This paper discusses 1) the basics of MOL's training philosophy, 2) how creation of a broad, structured training program unfolded as feedback from more narrowly defined tasks, 3) how training philosophy, development methods, and administration are being simplified and tailored so that many Upper Stage organizations can “grow their own” training yet maintain consistency, accountability, and traceability across the project, 4) interfacing with the production contractor's training system and staff, and 5) reaping training value from existing materials and events.


INTRODUCTION
For the International Space Station (ISS) program, MOL, a component of MSFC's Engineering Directorate, was and is tasked with managing NASA payload operations and related training. This includes providing payload training for flight crew at Johnson Space Center (JSC), basic console operations training for NASA payload developer teams distributed throughout the world, and basic and detailed console operationss training for civil service and contractor personnel working at the Payload Operations Integration Center (POIC) at Marshall. We've established some resident payload training staff at JSC, primarily for 1 1 U.S. Government work not protected by U.S. copyright 2 IEEEAC paper#1550, Version 9, Updated 2009:01:20 astronaut training, and worked with several outside organizations and space agencies. Due to both tradition and the intrinsic nature of operations, training was and is readily accepted and expected as part of the operations culture, and was included in program budgets and plans early on. Budget and redesign issues pushed ISS launch back several years, providing more time to develop the operations training program. Also, experience gained from Spacelab training in the 1980s and 1990s was brought to bear, and many of the learners for ISS had Spacelab operations experience.
In contrast, MOL was asked to help with training for the Ares I Upper Stage Project (US) development team after the development effort had begun. While the Spacelab and ISS operations populations and organizations were homogeneous and relatively small, about 100 learners at first, the US organization is diverse and large, approximately 1000 learners. To maintain good checks and balances, most sub-teams or disciplines within the US team have a project lead from the Upper Stage Office (USO) in MSFC's Project Office and an engineering lead from a discipline-related branch or division in MSFC'S Engineering Directorate. The engineering lead serves as Product Lead for the associated Integrated Product Team (IPT), and IPT members come from a plethora of organizations within NASA. At this writing, corresponding leads from the Production Contractor (PC) are being designated and added to the org chart. Generally speaking, NASA is not responsible for training PC personnel and vise versa, though there may be some overlaps, and it would be wise to make certain there are no underlaps.
Note -For this paper, "NASA" refers to civil servants and support contractor personnel working directly for NASA to design the US. "Production Contractor" refers to Boeing and its subcontractors working directly to build and deliver the US.

MISSION OPERATIONS LABORATORY TRAINING PHILOSOPHY
The following principles are based on training industry practices and on MOL's Spacelab and ISS experiences.
Training is simply the imparting of knowledge and skills needed to perform a specific job. By definition, someone is qualified to do a job if they have the needed knowledge and skills, no matter how they acquired them. Certification is a formal process in which management acknowledges that a learner is qualified and authorizes them to do the jo b. It's possible to certify someone without training (we wouldn't require Mozart to study Composition 101), but training, "qual", and "cert" usually go hand -in-hand (most of us are a long way from being Mozart).
The more critical a job is or the more accountability, the higher the need for certification. Certifications often require renewal due to time passage or configuration changes, just as we renew our driver's license and/or upgrade our license to let us drive a different type of vehicle. The closer we get to system production or operations, the more important it is to certify the system, supporting facilities/capabilities, and the people who build and/or operate them.
MOL favors an Instructional Systems Design (ISD) type approach for building an effective training program. Pioneered by the U.S. Air Force, ISD approaches use systems engineering methods to a) identify training needs (and exclude non-needs), b) negotiate compromises among training needs, time, money, and other resources, and c) establish training administration, provide training, gather feedback, maintain the system and products.
The front end of an ISD process -deciding what knowledge and skills need to be imparted -works like this: [1] • Perform functional decomposition to brea k down Jobs into Duties, Tasks, Sub-Tasks, and Steps. Task statements are brief -an action verb followed by a noun -and do not overlap with other tasks. They should not define goals, attitudes, personal characteristics, knowledge, selection criteria, or be too detailed.
• Analyze Learners, especially how many to train, education, job experience, attitude/motivation. Both group and individual learner analyses are useful.
• Define Training Objectives, Performance Tests, and Goals for Post-Course Follow-up.
Course definition, design, and implementation are influenced by considering four basic training strategies, their major benefits, and selection criteria. See Figure 1.

JOB AIDS
Learning tool doubles as a work companion

ON-THE-JOB TRAINING
There's no experience like experience

SELF-PACED INSTRUCTION
Ex: Workbooks, Computer-Based Training (CBT) Easy to schedule!

GROUP INSTRUCTION
Opportunities for team building and shared experience. After or in conjunction with strategy selection, we can choose specific delivery methods. Within the training industry, there are approximately 50 methods, such as workbooks, lectures, simulations, internships, etc. Many are variations on a theme. Fortunately, they all fit into one of the four strategies, and it's certainly OK to use more than one method and/or strategy to address a particular need.
The important thing is to consciously select or even invent methods in an organized way, rather than pulling them out of thin air because that's what we (or someone else) used in some other situation.
Some training needs elude functional decomposition. In these cases, establishing a rich learning environment based on what is known allows content (and sometimes requirements) to surface as discovery. A classic example of this is whole-team training exercises using realistic simulators of flight equipment with flightlike telemetry/commanding data streams flowing to/from actual control rooms. In addition to practicing known procedures, flight crew and ground controllers can be put into situations that let them (well, actually force them to) experience the process of working through unanticipated scenarios. This also builds team identity and that intangible "feel" for things, and sometimes the results of a sim lead to improvements in ground and flight procedures or policies. Both the Spacelab and ISS programs reaped huge benefits from this.
We won't go into the details of course development and delivery, training administration, and feedback in this paper. Instead, we'll end this section with three nuances that are absolutely critical for the success of any training program:

1.
We remember what we do far better than what we merely see, read, or hear. Adult learners prefer activity over academics, and bring a wealth of outside experience into the learning environment, especially in space programs. Because of this, a healthy mix for training delivery is 35% presentation, 65% application and feedback.
2. Courses need to be tailored to both the task and the learners being trained. Some courseware can be used for multiple learner populations, but don't teach folks how to build a clock if their task only involves telling time.
2. Instructors need teaching skills as much or more than technical expertise. A proficient instructor will ferret out needed material from lesson plans and/or Subject Matter Experts (SME) and engage learners. An SME who doesn't know how to teach will bore learners, who will learn and retain very little. (Have you ever died inside while the "pro" read word charts that looked like a thesis?) If an SME is going to teach, investing in instructor training pays off twice -classes are more successful, and the SME's other presentations, interactions, and results improve.

OVERVIEW -ARES I AND UPPER STAGE
To set the stage for exploring Upper Stage design and manufacturing training, let's take a high-level look at the source of the training needs. The Ares I vehicle is an in-line, two-stage rocket topped by the Orion crew vehicle and its launch abort system. Early missions will carry 4 to 6 astronauts to ISS beginning in 2015. At launch, the firststage solid booster propels the vehicle. In mid-flight, the reusable booster separates and the liquid-fueled upper stage's J-2X engine ignites to finish putting the vehicle into low Earth orbit. (The J-2X was derived from the J -2 engines used in the Saturn V's 2 nd and 3 rd stages.

INTERFACE WITH PRODUCTION CONTRACTOR
NASA (including its support contractors) is designing Ares I and the Upper Stage, while the Production Contractor will actually build it. For the most part, each group will look after their own when it comes to training, thought there will obviously be some crossover. The situation is a little bit like building the transcontinental railroad: two entities are laying track, but they need to meet in the middle, and the tracks need to line up. During preliminary work with the Test Control Room team, MOL Training had some very preliminary discussions with the Production Contractor about gaining insight into each other's approaches and implementations of training. Knowing what to expect has tremendous value. We hope to devote more to this effort before the next round of design reviews begins.

SERENDIPITY -NO PAIN, MUCH GAIN
Training media and events often need to be conceived, designed and built, but even in these early stages of Upper Stage training program development, some existing assets with training value have dropped into our laps and deserve mention here: -During the Manufacturing and Assembly (M&A) segment of an Upper Stage 101 session, the M&A instructor showed an 8-minute conceptual animation of the process for building and populating the US structure. You could almost see the light bulbs turning on in people's minds. The animation had been built for another purpose, but was matched perfectly to the "kick start" needs of the US 101 learner population.
-While building the US 102 class for M&A, the author from MOL Training learned of 2 or 3 very brief animations (less than one minute each) showing the essential ideas behind friction stir welding, which is a critical construction method for US. The increase in learner comprehension between reading about the process and seeing it illustrated dynamically is astounding. In some cases, animation makes the key ideas evident more readily than photography or video, due to both visual and time-lapse clarity.
-The section on MOL Training Philosophy mentioned the value of rich learning environments. The Ares I Flight Operations Working Group, jointly chaired by MSFC and JSC, realized that observing Mission Control Center's launch/ascent simulations for upcoming Shuttle missions could provide much insight into things we'll need to consider for Ares. (Each day of simulation involves multiple ascents, some nominal and others with malfunctions inserted by the sim team.) We've paid one such visit to JSC, found it most beneficial, and anticipate more to come. The benefit for operations developers is obvious, but just as -importantly, giving rocket engineers (hardware, software, engine, avionics, or other) a chance to see and, to some extent, vicariously experience the flight controllers' world, helps them feel the split-second nature of operations and provides motivation for making those products as robust and reliable as possible.
-Another vicarious experience was found in an electronic presentation of subtitled audio from an actual Shuttle launch, along with dynamic graphics showing which flight controllers were speaking on which voice loops. Animation or other forms of dynamic visualization are extremely well-suited for imparting central and/or difficult concepts. Their "Eureka!" value offsets the monetary cost.

CONCLUSION
Rich learning environments can compensate for situations where functional decomposition of jobs and tasks comes up short. In the early stages of a new project, exposure to the operations and/or simulation environment of similar, mature projects can provide tremendous insight for designers in all disciplines.
Keep a sharp eye out for existing materials inside our outside the training organization that can be brought to bear on training needs, but take the time to tune them for the audience if at all possible.
Effective training programs a) emphasize doing by the learners (healthy activity mix = 35% presentation, 65% application), b) tailor courseware to both the tasks and the learners being trained, and c) ensure that instructors have teaching skills as well as subject knowledge.
Training Analysis and Design  Step Step Step Step Step Step Step Job Duty Duty Duty