Mandatory Technical Standards

1. Mandatory Technical Standards Engineering Management Board Goddard Space Flight Center July 10, 2003 Updated October 7, 2003 HQ/Code AE R. Weinstein

2. Current Status - NASA Technical Standards • Development of NASA Technical Standards approved by Engineering Management Board in ~1995 • To be designated as “Preferred Technical Standards”, I.e. recommended benchmarks • Tailoring allowed/required for application to projects • Standards mandatory only where so designated • Generally Safety, IT • Non NASA standards added to “Preferred” list by formal adoption (Center concurrence) • MIL Standards • Non Government standards, e.g. ASTM, AIAA, IEEE • International Standards (e.g. ISO, IEC) • Currently ~2500 documents: ~80% specifications

3. Renaissance of Standards in DoD • Acquisition Reform in the 1990’s resulted in deactivation of many MIL documents, switching procurements to “performance standards” • “Performance” contracting hasn’t worked; MIL documents and technical requirements are back • AF/SMC (Space and Missiles Center) is developing a list of core standards • 30 categories, 108 docs.; 50 MIL, 3 NASA, 12 ISO, non-Gov. • 12 new documents to be written; 18 to be revised or tailored • NASA has already reviewed draft of revised MIL-STD 1540; we have offered to participate in other reviews • List already applied to 7 programs • Integrated Test and Evaluation program for National Security Space (SMC, NRO, Navy, …) emphasizing re-establishment of standards as requirements. NASA will participate

4. Mandatory Technical Standards • Why Mandatory? • Build a core of common practice within NASA (internal interoperability) • Establish a proven baseline/standard of practice • Provide required rigor for the engineering process) • Provide a consistent framework for dealing with partners and suppliers (external interoperability • CAIB recommendations

5. Issues • Do we have NASA Preferred Technical Standards designated to meet all NASA needs for standards? • Compare with Air Force/SMC list to identify holes • Review Center standards lists to identify priorities for transition to NASA Technical Standards • Do we need/can we construct guidance on when standards should be specified? • How do we deal with multiple standards for the “same” thing?

6. Issues (2) • Which documents should be mandatory? • Design requirements/criteria, e.g. • e.g. factors of safety, stress corrosion materials selection criteria, electrical bonding • Test Methods, e.g. • flammability, fracture toughness • Process specifications, e.g. • Welding, cleaning • Procurement specifications, e.g. • Basic materials, cables and connectors • Handbooks • Reference to specific analysis methods?

7. Issues (3) • How to apply standards? • As configuration controlled requirements: contractual • As benchmarks: demonstrated equivalents accepted • As “preferred”: starting point but user’s choice • As guidelines: expectation level • As references: background material • When and where to apply • Progress from reference to requirement through program phases? • At system/requirements level – or down to component level

8. Issues (4) • Waivers (non-use) and Deviations (tailoring) • Where are each controlled (project, Center, Enterprise, Office responsible for standard, Code D/NESC?) • Does the type of control depend on circumstances, e.g. program phase, system level,…. • Criteria for justifying, approving • Mission suitability (e.g. thermal cycle for earth orbital vs planetary) • Requirement does not apply (e.g. contamination control for a sealed system) • Requirement will be met through alternate means (e.g. integrated dynamic static test vs separate tests) • Equivalence can be demonstrated for alternate method (e.g. lowers cost, uses similarity data for other systems) • Risk/Impact assessment (e.g. probability X consequences of failure does nor violate Level 1 requirements, result in loss of system, mission, personnel )

9. Safety Criteria for Waivers and Deviations(NPG 8715.3)

10. ISSUES (5) • Increased responsibility of standards OPR’s under an “Independent Technical Authority” concept • Agency responsibility? • Relation to NESC? • Audits required? • Review selection of standards? • Implementation of standards? • Access to standards information • Configuration control?

11. Required Improvements to Standards Process • Enterprise coordination on technical standard approval re: program level issues • Ensuring effective Program/Project review of standards in addition to that from engineering • Formal NASA tailoring of non-NASA documents, and more attention to “shall” vs “should” in NASA documents • Common procedural requirements for all NASA standardization areas, e.g. appeals process • Currently, other HQ offices have authority under NPD 8070.6 to develop NASA Technical Standards in their areas of authority/responsibility, e.g Safety (Code Q), Information Technology (Code AE), Space Data Systems (Code M) • NPG should apply to all NASA Technical Standards, not just engineering

12. What’s Next? • Mr. Bradley considers mandatory standards a high priority item • Will issue memo on this subject to Centers • Identify other issues to be addressed • Begin looking at necessary changes to technical standards NPD (8070.6), NPG