Mandatory Technical Standards

Engineering Management Board

Goddard Space Flight Center

July 10, 2003Updated 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)

Type of Document

Wording Routing Approval Level

Reporting Requirement

NPD Policy Through Program System Safety Manager or Center Safety Director and Center Director

NASAHQ IPO or Enterprise

Assess and status annually w/input for OSHA report

NPG Shall Through Program System Safety Manager or Center Safety director

Center Director To HQ/QS within14 days; assess and status annually wi/input for OSHA report

NPG Should Through Program System Safety Manager or Center Safety Director

Directorate level Facility Mgr. or Program Mgr.

To NASA HQ/QS quarterly; assess and status annually w/input for OSHA report

Standard(referenced to NPD)

Shall Through Program System Safety Manager or Center Safety Director and Center Director

NASA HQ IPO or Enterprise

Assess and status annually w/input for OSHA report

Standard(referenced to NPG)

Shall Through Program System Safety Manager or Center Safety Director

Center Director To HQ/QS within 14 days, then status annually w/input for OSHA report

Standard Should Through Program System Safety Mgr. Or Center Safety Director

Program or Facility Mgr.

Not required

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