Introduction to this NASA M&P Homepage System
Introduction to this NASA M&P Homepage System
To return to the NASA M&P Homepage click here. Last update January 12, 1996
9 January 1995
PARTICIPATED
HQ Richard Weinstein
ARC Dan Dittman
JPL Tim O'Donnell and Yoseph Bar-Cohen
JSC Mike Pedley and Lubert Leger
SSC William St. Cyr
GSFC Roamer Predmore, Petar Arsenovic
KSC Coleman Bryan, Scott Murray and Peter Welch
LeRC Steve Pepper, Bob Fusaro, John Reagan and Bill Jones
MSFC Dennis Griffin, Ann Whitaker, Ron Mize, William Baker and George Leath
LaRC Sheila Thibeault
MINUTES
NASA M&P STDs Program - R. Weinstein briefly reviewed the recent reorganization at NASA HQ and mentioned that
responsibility for the NASA M&P Standards activity is now moved from Code Q to the Office of the Chief Engineer,
Code AE, although Code Q will still process the release of funds.
3rd NASA M&P Standards Meeting - T. O'Donnell reviewed the objectives and draft of the Agenda for the 3rd NASA
M&P meeting and reminded everyone to send to JPL any suggested alternatives or addition for the Agenda. As in the
past, we will have in the first Session a presentation from all NASA Centers. Session 2 will include presentations
from voluntary standards organizations, DoD, industry and suppliers. Regarding the Agenda, JPL has contacted the Air
Force, Aerospace Corp., McDonnell Douglas Corp., SAE and ASTM. Because the current ASTM contact represents one
specialized area, R. Weinstein offered to identify a contact with a broad overview. C. Bryan said that the issue
of Oxygen Compatibility is covered very well by ASTM. With regard to the issue of non-CFC cleaners and a non-NASA
presenter, O'Donnell said that we are considering a person from Martin Marietta, Denver. Regarding whether a NASA
person should present work on non-CFC M. Pedley suggested that he prefers to hear a non-NASA viewpoint. R. Fusaro
asked to consider including a talk about mechanical components issues particularly with regards to space qualified
materials and lubricants. O'Donnell responded that if there is a specific input we can take it into consideration
for the agenda.
In Session 3, the five current NASA-wide standards projects will be covered. Welding was split into ground and
space and we included a presentation on composite standards, non-CFC cleaning and the planned NASA material database
survey efforts. L. Leger initially expressed a concern about having this session open to technical societies if the
NASA Centers will be airing unresolved differences. It was pointed out that review of current projects should be
relatively complete by the 3rd M&P Meeting. The discussion ended with a general agreement to leave this Session
open to Non-NASA participants.
In Session 4, efforts will be made to agree on the next NASA M&P Standards candidates. A pilot effort with
voluntary standard societies will be considered. Pedley expressed interest in a presentation from Weinstein on NASA
involvement in ISO and Weinstein promised to include it in his presentation in Session 1.
NASA TECHNICAL STDS STATUS - T. O'Donnell, S. Murray, C. Bryan and D. Griffin covered the status of the five specs
that are currently in development. The JPL coordinated NASA epoxy spec is in the mail. It includes input from 3M,
MSFC, and industrial users and will be on the Mosaic Homepage towards the end of January The Low Outgassing Silicone
spec is half complete and it includes input from Dow and GE. It is expected to be complete a week or two before the
3rd NASA M&P Standards Meeting. M. Pedley asked about inclusion of data from a Rockwell material spec and promised
to send a copy to JPL. Leger asked if this is for in-house activity or for contractors. O'Donnell answered that
the intent is for NASA in-house use but it can be used by contractors. Leger stated that this material spec should
not be mandatory and industry should be free to use their own. The approach to material qualification proposed in
the epoxy spec is to rely significantly on the manufacturers certification of conformance and test data documentation.
To realize cost savings, procuring agencies should only perform minimal acceptance testing, if any. The spec
document will provide typical material properties. Leger asked "how do you deal with Qualified Sources?".
O'Donnell answered that qualified sources are planned to be listed. Weinstein suggested that these specs will be
used internally first and then could be offered to societies.
S. Murray said that he is working on the ground based welding spec and expects to have it ready by the March deadline.
W. St Cyr will have an input for the draft of the welding Spec. Murray asked to receive comments prior to April and
that he would like to have interactive discussion on it. D. Griffin will coordinate the space welding spec with
C. Russell. Griffin also suggested that Murray coordinate his efforts with Russell and that he hopes to have the
space welding spec by 1/16/95 and to send copies to the Spec. development team. J. Bennet, Pedley will provide the
JSC input. Regarding MSFC-STD-522, the latest version is on the Mosaic Homepage and it is ready to be distributed
as a draft NASA-Wide Standard even though there are some plans to update the document. Griffin is soliciting
comments and O'Donnell confirmed that we made minor changes to make it conform to the format for a NASA wide standard.
JPL will send copies to everyone within a week. Bryan wants to see this spec address the KSC marine environment
issues. R. Predmore had a question regarding thin materials below 1/4 inch and suggested to have the spec deal
with this topic. Griffin felt that non-NASA participation can help here a great deal.
SEAL CONFIGURATION TESTER DEVICE - W. St. Cyr reviewed his joint work with ASTM on the Seal Configuration tester
and he showed a video covering his work . A test facility was established to measure the wear characteristics of
seals and performance in oxygen and nitrogen. He expects to have a draft spec in about 3 month. Griffin wondered
if it is intended for a NASA spec. Pedley thought that this should be an ASTM spec rather than put into NHB-8060.1.
Bryan commented that SSC efforts are valuable because they are establishing quantitative evaluation criteria.
However, Pedley was not sure what the number really means. Further discussion may be appropriate at the 3rd NASA
M&P Standards Meeting.
MATERIALS DATABASE ASSESSMENT EFFORT - A. Whitaker covered this presentation representing F. Key. She mentioned
that a kick-off meeting is planned in February and in the meantime she sent a questionnaire to all of the Centers.
So far only ARC responded. Pedley wondered if the database information will be made accessible through the Homepage
system and Whitaker said that this is one direction being considered.
LUBRICATED SPACE SYSTEM REQUALIFICATION FOR ODC FREE CLEANING PROCESSES - S. Pepper, LeRC, made the primary
presentation. He reported on a proposal that was submitted to Code Q and approved to work on the effect of CFC
free cleaning on space lubricants. The goal is to assess the effect of differences in surface chemistry through
an accelerated lubricant life test. Predmore claimed that little work was done so far to qualify lubricants used
with new cleaners. There is a little effort to stockpile Freon before the phase out. The problem is critical
because replacement cleaners do appear to be introducing new problems and we will have to face these problems.
A meeting on the topic was held this year in Denver and the Proceedings are currently being prepared. O'Donnell
reminded that this topic will be discussed at the meeting.
PRIORITIZATION AND PROCESSES (SAE, ETC.) FOR DEVELOPMENT OF M&P STANDARDS - O'Donnell showed a statement from OMB
Circular A-119 that strongly urges the transfer of government specs to societies. He also gave a brief status of
the JPL interaction with SAE. According to S. Klavon from SAE, the cost of similar spec development efforts with
the Air Force was about $385K for 80 documents. Bryan questioned whether we should use SAE or ASTM, which is free.
Weinstein responded that there are costs if the relevant document must be modified. ASTM is a viable option per
some participants. Bryan could be the lead person for such an effort. Weinstein wants to see more proposals for
both internal NASA development and outside. Fusaro wondered if DoD is involved. Weinstein and O'Donnell confirmed
that the DoD trend is in the direction of transferring the responsibility to the technical societies.
INTERCENTER AGREEMENT - T. O'Donnell reviewed the status of the proposed NASA Intercenter Agreement that was issued
by Joe Wonsever. Given the existing agreements among various Centers, the consensus was that we don’t need this
effort. An alternative could be the formation of a standardized agreement which could serve as a reference guide
based on existing documents. O'Donnell promised to continue the dialogue regarding the establishment of an
alternate document framework. Weinstein acknowledged his understanding of the objections and promised to talk
to Wonsever.
SUMMARY - The NHB-7120.5 document is being completed this week and Weinstein will fax the slightly revised
chapter on M&P to all Centers. Pedley asked if the text of 7120 still required identification of critical
processes. Weinstein indicated it is not in the materials section but may be in the safety section. A request
was made of Weinstein to send the safety related Section of 7120.5 to the M&P Working Group. Weinstein deferred
this request back to the respective Centers Safety representatives.
Weinstein requested that O'Donnell's presentation material be distributed to all centers and O'Donnell agreed.
For more information you can contact: Yoseph Bar-Cohen, Cheng Hsieh or Tim O'Donnell Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), M.S. 125-112, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109-8099 Phone: 818-354-2610 Fax: 818-393-5011 E-Mail: yosi@jpl.nasa.gov