NASA Materials and Processes (M&P) Homepage

Introduction to this NASA M&P Homepage System

Last update January 12, 1996

To return to the M&P Homepage click here.

3.1.2.2 2nd NASA M&P STANDARDS MEETING

MINUTES

                                    
                              April 5 to 6, 1994

                    Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas

                                     MINUTES
                                    
SESSION 1: OVERVIEW AND STATUS REPORTING , Session Chairperson, Lubert Leger,
JSC

                               OPENING SESSION 

Lubert Leger, JSC, opened the meeting and greeted the more than forty participants including
individuals from all NASA centers and selected individuals representing Department of Defense
(DoD), Technical Societies (including Society of Aerospace Engineering (SAE), American
Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) and International Organization of Standards (ISO)) as
well as industry (Hughes, Lockheed). Richard Weinstein, Manager, Engineering Standards,
NASA Code QW- Engineering and Quality Management Division,  presented NASA
Headquarters (HQ) perspective on engineering standards related to materials and processes and 
presented a review of the recent changes in Code Q - Office of Safety and Mission Assurance.   
In his review of  the changes he stated that Code Q is now trying to ensure that Safety & Quality
is integrated into the design process earlier in the development cycle and that there is a focus on
results that are customer oriented.  HQ would like to see a reduction in the total number of high
level documents (for example Directives should be reduced by 50%).   This activity is headed by
Code J - Office of Management System and Facility, as part of the Federal "Re-Inventing
Government Initiative".  Reduction in NASA Agency directives does not preclude formation of
NASA-wide technical standards.  A NASA Technical Standards series will be beneficial in
resolving conflicts as well as simplify operations. Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Circular A-119, "Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Standards",
requires  a preference for the use of nongovernment standards including international standards. 
DoD is currently moving strongly toward using standards produced by technical societies. 
Weinstein reviewed the potential technical societies and  encouraged more involvement.  NASA
involvement with international standards has been minimal, but International  Organization for
Standardization (ISO)-9000 has now been adapted for NASA use and a broader space standards
initiative  has begun under ISO Technical Committee 20.  ISO Committees utilize a one-country
one-vote representation approach.  Metric transition is also NASA policy.

Recently, a questionnaire was sent to various NASA contractors for comments regarding the
impact of using various NASA centers specifications.  Some of the comments included: the need
to update, out-of-date standards, suggested use of military standards or contractors own
specifications, requests to consider life cycle cost benefits and recommendations that NASA
specifications should not be overly prescriptive.   

There is a definite value in having common specifications and standards in areas of materials and
processes and these could be best developed as NASA-wide.  For example, we need to issue new
cleaning standards because of the Chloro-Fluoro-Carbon (CFC) phase-out and efforts could be
coordinated with DoD and technical standards societies.   

With regards to the proposed M&P policy document NASA Management Instruction (NMI)
8077.XX "Selection and Control of Materials and Processes for Space Flight Programs" which
was developed,  reviewed, and agreed upon by several Centers,  it is now considered for
integration into NASA Handbook NHB-7120.5, "Management of Major System Programs and
Projects Handbook".  However, this document may not be applicable to small programs and a
separate NMI may still be necessary (See Session 3 Notes).

Tim O'Donnell, JPL,  briefly reviewed JPL and HQ Material and Process standards activities. 
The advantages and disadvantages of discrete, coordinated and NASA-wide classes of technical
standards development were discussed.  The importance of Materials and Processes in the overall
success of NASA was stressed.  Examples of extensive specification duplication (for NASA
programs) were given.  An immediate objective of these standards efforts will be to determine if
Center consensus can be established for collaborative efforts on high priority technical standards.

                       M&P ACTIVITIES AND PROBLEMS
                                    
In this session all NASA centers were given the opportunity to review their centers M&P
activities and problem areas.   The following is a brief summary of the presentations:

JSC -  Lubert Leger reviewed the responsibilities and activities of the Materials Branch at JSC. 
A broad range of activities were briefly reviewed and ranged from development of specific
hardware in support of the Space Shuttle Orbiter to technology transfer.  Included in these
activities are in-house build efforts which drives JSC's interest in specifications/standards. 
Examples of recent Materials Branch activities includes: certifying hardware  from the Russian
Space Station MIR, writing a corrosion control document for the Space Shuttle Orbiter, working
on an atomic oxygen effect payload experiment and reviewing more than 90 payload safety
documents.

MSFC -  Dennis Griffin covered their activity in Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO) M&P technologies 
which includes lightweight, reusable cryotanks, cryogenic insulation, Thermal Protection Systems 
(TPS), composite structures and structural health monitoring (using sensors)
as well as their efforts towards utilization of aluminum lithium on the Shuttle external tanks.  He
stated that the MSFC signature cycle for specification approval is very short (only 3 signatures
are needed).  MSFC has written three M&P control standards and several M&P specifications as
tailored performance specifications; users must/can augment the requirements based on their
individual program needs and requirements for implementation.  He covered Materials and
Processes Technical Information System (MAPTIS) and described it as a repository for the
Engineering Standards data-base, the NASA Environmental Information System (NEIS), and the
Structural Materials Failure Analysis data-base (discussed later, page 8), among others.  He
mentioned that MSFC allows the use of contractor generated specifications.  He emphasized that
NASA technical standards should cover performance rather than "how-to" requirements.  MSFC
is evaluating Russian specifications for equivalency as part of an International Space-Station
Alpha delegated task.

LeRC - John Reagan stated that they are certifying Space Transportation System (STS)-based
experiments for M&P and they have in place STS payload Intercenter Agreements with
MSFC/JSC/GSFC.  Some of the issues that they are working on include toxicity, outgassing and
flammability.  He discussed current issues involving toxicity and potential stress corrosion on the
CM1 experiment.

KSC - Scott Murray reviewed the formation of a technical team with 25 members to support
changing the KSC design review process and his Section's efforts to add an M&P member to
their drawing signature cycle.  An eight to sixteen hours class is being developed for designers to
inform them of general M&P issues such as applicable specifications.  KSC is in the process of
issuing a precision cleaning document (KSC-STD-123G).  The issue of ground support
equipment corrosion is being supported by maintaining test specimens exposed to the ambient
environment for up to 25 years.  Document KSC-STD-C-0001D "Standard for Protective
Coating of Carbon Steel, Stainless Steel, and Aluminum on Launch Structures, Facilities, and
Ground Support Equipment" has been prepared with approved environmental compliance.  KSC
has a Request for Issue Clearance procedure to officially circulate proposed
standards/specifications for review and to record and disposition official
comments/concurrences.

JPL - Cheng Hsieh described the organizational and functional structure of Section 355, Space
Materials Science and Engineering Section.  He covered the JPL Flight M&P Engineering group
involvement in flight projects such as CASSINI and Mars Pathfinder.  He covered some of the
materials issues that the group is working on including composites and white paints.  The group
also maintains the JPL Materials Control and Database System (MCADS).

GSFC - Fred Gross stated that his office is responsible for flight assurance of Flight Projects
payloads and that M&P requirements are covered under GSFC's SPAR (Standard Payload
Assurance Requirements) document.  (Note: SPAR index 6.xx has list of applicable standards) .
These requirements can be tailored according to classes of projects.  Arbitrary material changes
by manufacturers cause lack of confidence in materials performance data, for example,
Chemglaze now Aeroglaze paint.  There is a need for standards on the following items:
Structural Integrity (Note: now being developed under Code Q support), criteria for reviewing
M&P with respect to as-built equipment, contamination control and the need for concurrent data
with M&P review cycles.  He suggested that the use of specific specs will be stated in the
contracts with industry.  Gross provided also a list of problems/opportunities for improving
M&P.  He cited that specs/STDs included in GSFC contracts  allows contractor use of their own
specifications providing they demonstrate equivalence, i.e."meet or exceed requirements", but
keeps the requirements as the cited spec.  GSFC feels that ASTM protocols alone are not specific
enough to ensure consistent test data.   He felt that there is a continuing need for NASA to
support lubrication expertise even though there is a good MSFC handbook.   The LeRC
lubrication group, which lost Code C (Sam Venneri, Sponsor) support is considered a unique
resource by several of the NASA Centers.

ARC - Dan Dittman reported that ARC is going through a major reorganization in the spirit of
TQM.  His center was represented at the meeting also by a contractor - Peter Choi who is an
expert in non-metallics.  ARC has been a life sciences payload organization with a new emphasis
on materials oversight.  Dittman is trying to form a top level document to establish an M&P
program at ARC.  He believes a separate HQ NMI on M&P is needed to provide authority for the
program.  A large turnover in designers is requiring improvement in the repository of M&P
guidelines and associated material databases.  His group is involved in approval of drawings.

SSC - Larry deQuay substituted for William St. Cyr, who is the leader in M&P for SSC.  He
stated said that there is not an official M&P organization at his center.  He expressed his Center's
interest in a single NASA document for welding and precision cleaning.  From SSC experience
effective replacements to Freon for cleaning include: (a) deionized water/isopropyl-alcohol (at a
ratio of 20/80) which has been found to be effective in removal of particulate samples for
analysis, and (b) using trichloroethane for NVR (non-volatile residues) during precision
cleaning/verification.  Also, some development and test results for a new seal configuration test
method used for oxygen compatibility and seal life testing were presented.  Development
progress and data are being coordinated with ASTM.  One of the main concerns with utilizing
existing KSC and MSFC standards is their referencing of other standards specific to the
respective centers, therefore adopting standards "as is" would mean adopting center specific
standards which may not be desired.  The existing KSC welding specifications were reviewed at
SSC and were determined to be closely compatible to requirements and needs at SSC since they
are geared toward ground support equipment.

LaRC - Yoseph Bar-Cohen presented Sheila Thibeault's viewgraphs which covered her center
activities.  LaRC is strongly active in composites and developing substitutes for CFC.  The issue
of non-CFC cleaning brought about an open discussion where it was mentioned that the NASA
Operational Environment Team (NOET) is collecting information and the fact that there are
several proposed substitutes but their reliability and long term performance would need to be
determined.  ASTM has a cleaning procedure but this area has not been coordinated with NASA
due to inadequate participation of NASA individuals.

SESSION 2: MILITARY, INDUSTRY AND TECHNICAL SOCIETIES
STANDARDS, Session Chairperson, Yoseph Bar-Cohen, JPL

DoD - Lee Gulley was the first speaker and represented DoD/Air Force.  He was substituting for
Thomas Cooper from Air Force Wright Lab.  Gulley reviewed the 75 years history of DoD
development of MIL-Specs and MIL-STD.  With the growth in the number of specs/STD and the
decline in resources it becomes harder to develop new specs or update old ones.  Further, the
issuance of Military specifications and standards is being de-emphasized as required by Federal
policy (OMB Circular 119) and increased emphasis will be made on industry (professional
societies) as well as use of the National Aerospace and Defense Contractors Accreditation
Program (NADCAP) and international activities.  Therefore, DoD is currently placing emphasis
on working with technical societies such as SAE to whom responsibility for individual standards
is being transferred.  As an example of the new trend, the C-17 project was mentioned where
DoD accepted the McDonnell Douglas specifications.  DoD was also involved in North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) standards for many years.  The recent trend is to use CD-ROM as
much as possible for repository of documents.

ASTM - Gene Camponeschi, who is a Navy employee, reviewed the activity of ASTM in
international harmonization of standards for composites.   International harmonization came in
response to the need to: a) Facilitate international trade, b) Develop common standards, and c)
Obtain international recognition.  He mentioned that his society has made a strong push to
position itself as an authority in the composites area.  There has been recent success in this
regard.  In 1992 two composite specs were issued while fifteen composite-related specs were
issued in 1993.  He mentioned that some test standards will be difficult to harmonize because of
the number of existing ones and the differences between them (e.g. tensile tests).  To get
agreement in ISO, it is necessary to directly contact the members of the specific committees of
interest.  To meet the needs that are involved with international and U.S. standardization ASTM
formed the Institute for Standards Research (ISR).  This institute has started with the issue of
standardizing  tensile tests.

ASTM and ISO - Gene Borson mentioned that ASTM committees prepare inter-laboratory round
robin test programs that can be used to evaluate laboratory and test method performance.  He also
stated that DoD and other government agencies are supporting the writing of standards by
societies by encouraging participation on the technical committees.  In addition, the Air Force
provided funds to The Aerospace Corporation to write ASTM standard E-1559, "Method for
Contamination Outgassing Characterization of Spacecraft Materials".  This test was developed
by the Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., under a contract from the Air Force Wright Laboratory
(Materials Laboratory), to provide data on materials that can be used for contamination modeling
of spacecraft.  It is intended to complement ASTM E-595, "Method for Total Mass Loss and
Collected Volatile Condensable Materials from Outgassing in a Vacuum Environment".

The GSA (General Services Administration) delegated responsibility for revising and
maintaining FED-STD-209E, "Airborne Particulate Cleaning Classes in Cleanrooms and Clean
Zones", to the Institute of Environmental Sciences (IES).  The U.S. Army delegated
responsibility for revising MIL-STD-1246, "Product Cleanliness Levels and Contamination
Control Program" to the IES.  Revision E will be released in June 1994.

The ISO (International Organization for Standardization) has established TC 209 on Cleanrooms
and Associated Controlled Environments.  The IES is the Secretariat for TC 209 and the TC 209
Working Group is convened by various nations.  The U.S. Technical Advisory Group (TAG) has
representatives from various groups including societies, NASA and Food and Drug
Administration (FDA).

All standards in ASTM Committee E-21 (Space Simulation and Applications of Space
Technology - responsible for contamination control standards for space) are being reviewed
because of the need to replace solvents that deplete the ozone layer or have high health risk.  This
includes methylene chloride used in ASTM E-1235, "Method for Gravimetric Determination of
Nonvolatile Residue (NVR) in Environmentally Controlled Areas for Spacecraft" and 1,1,1,
trichloroethane used in NVR sampling tests.  The Air Force has funded The Aerospace Corp.
(James Doi and Graham Arnold) to select and evaluate solvents to replace unacceptable ones.

SAE - Scott Klavon gave an overview of SAE.  SAE is a professional technical society
incorporated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as a nonprofit organization.  SAE has more
than 60,000 members world wide. The main purpose of this society is to develop, collect and
disseminate technical information related to mobility technology.  SAE's standards activity is
organized under the Technical Standards Board, which reports directly to the SAE Board of
Directors.  All of SAE's Aerospace Standards are handled under the jurisdiction of the Aerospace
Council of the Technical Standards Board.  SAE wrote the first industry consensus aerospace
standard in 1917 and SAE remains the largest producer  of aerospace industry consensus
standards and specifications in the world.  Currently, SAE technical committees under the
Aerospace Council maintain over 4,000 standards and specifications.  Aerospace Material
Specifications (AMS) are maintained by the Aerospace Materials Division of the Aerospace
Council.  The AMS program is user oriented in nature, reflecting supplier capabilities. AMS
documents are used heavily and have been adopted by the Department of Defense.  The
Performance Review Institute (PRI) is an affiliate of SAE.  PRI administers third-party quality
assurance and accreditation programs for the aerospace industry through NADCAP. 
Additionally, SAE is highly active in ISO Technical Committee (TC) 20, Aerospace and Space. 
SAE Committee G-3 recently completed two documents on fluid components in conjunction
with the NASA Space Assembly and Servicing Working Group.  In 1987, SAE established the
Space Standardization Advisory Committee under the Aerospace Council.  SAE welcomes the
opportunity to improve NASA participation in the AMS program and the Space Standardization
Advisory Committee.

Hughes - Francyne Shahidi from Hughes covered a system that Hughes Corporation is
pioneering for coordinated procurement of perishable materials.  This process can save cost by
significantly eliminating redundancies and waste by consolidating purchases of shelf-life limited
materials normally purchased in small quantities.  She also suggested that an improved database
of user needs is essential to make such a scheme work.  Hughes is considering consolidation of
multi-division specs that are being used to procure the same material.

SESSION 3:  MATERIALS & PROCESSES STANDARDS,  Session
Chairperson, John Reagan, LeRC 

ISO-9000  John Reagan,   LeRC, covered the philosophy of ISO-9000.  The idea is that only the
requirements for quality systems are specified and companies become accredited and certified to
be responsible for their own product quality with 6-month periodic checks and renewal every 3
years.   It requires understanding the process with third party accreditation.  Reagan felt that
consideration should be given to use of contractor specs that meet or exceed NASA
requirements.  Specifications need to be written for different levels of control.  The
implementation of ISO does not have a short term impact on M&P.  The long term effect is
indirect.  DoD is represented in the ISO TC176 committee which provided the ISO-9000
standard. Note: Brent Fontenot (713-483-6456) is a knowledgeable person at JSC regarding the
implementation of ISO requirements.   There is a Code Q (F. Gregory) letter promoting the use
of ISO-9000 across NASA.
 
NMI-8077.XX - As mentioned earlier, Weinstein has not submitted  NMI-8077.XX for formal
approval and is reformatting it for incorporation into NHB 7120.5.  Generally, NHB 7120.5 is
intended for large projects for management planning and control and M&P could be considered
under the issue of Engineering.  The problem is that NHB 7120.5 may not cover small programs. 
The current options are: To push for publishing as stand-alone NMI, to publish the policy
document as NASA technical standards or to insert it into NHB 7120.5.  The consensus was to
accept the inclusion into NHB 7120.5.  However, the preference of the NASA M&P community
is a stand-alone NMI for M&P policy.

NHB 8060.1C - Mike Pedley, JSC, covered NASA Handbook NHB 8060.1C implementation
issues including flammability, toxicity, offgassing, oxygen  and propellant compatibility tests.  
He said that test 2 is an ISO type, test 4 seems similar to 1 and test 2 will be up and running at
JSC and MSFC but its implementation will exclude Shuttle, Space Station and payloads.   Key
suggested to take a look at case histories of test 1 and 2 to verify consistency and relevance.  Test
6 is related to odor and is considered not to have an added value because construction material
offgassing odor is less problematic than other sources of odor and the only concern is issue of
toxicity.  He suggested not to enforce this test.  All the participants agreed on this item.   Test 7
"offgassing products" - has a low cost effectiveness. 

CFC cleaning - Coleman Bryan, KSC, covered the issue of CFC cleaning.  The elimination of
Freon is forcing the change of all KSC cleaning documents.  Mass flow tests for particles have
been deleted while adding safety and regulation issues.  CFC-113 is still around and replacement
solvents are still needed for many applications.  New tests have been added for fluid NVR only. 
KSCs document as written is for ground hardware and for cleaning of Air Force flight hardware. 
KSC added the requirement for approval of an M&P cognizant engineer as well as instituting
training of design personnel.

Dennis Griffin, MSFC, described MSFC-STD-164B cleaning process that eliminates CFCs for
Shuttle elements.  The document was written for use by both MSFC on-site test facilities and
out-of-house contractors as well as to accommodate existing Shuttle propulsion system
cleanliness level requirements without a cost impact of updating the specification to eliminate
environmental concerns.

Welding - Scott Murray, KSC, reviewed the status of the KSC Ground Support Equipment
(GSE) welding specs including KSC-SPEC-Z-0003 for pipe and tube welding as well as KSC-
SPEC-Z-0004 for structural welding.  He mentioned the requirement for 100% radiographic
inspection.  SW-E-0002 pipe and tube welding callouts are outdated/incorrect and will be
addressed in subsequent documents.  He has initiated a change request (CR) to correct the KSC
welding spec callouts in SW-E-0002; This CR was approved and will be effective in April 1994.

Griffin reviewed MSFC efforts to establish an aerospace welding spec called MSFC-STD-1972
which combines MSFC STDs 504 and 506.  This draft specification was made available at the
meeting.

Structural Material Failure Analysis Database  - Griffin, MSFC, described the data that was
collected under an Research and Technology Operating Plan (RTOP) at MSFC and is now
residing on MAPTIS.  In addition, KSC is placing their case history on a CD-ROM accessible
NASA wide.  To obtain access to the photo network or digitized data for the MSFC database one
should contact Richard Parr, MSFC (205-544-2582).  MSFC digitized image data from past and
on-going failure analysis reports is available via photo phone network which exists as part of this
database at most NASA centers and Shuttle prime contractors.  On-line image storage is being
pursued by MSFC, but was not funded under this RTOP.  The database contains reports from
several different sources including MSFC and KSC, is easy to use and menu driven with on-
screen prompts.  Access to this and any MAPTIS database may be obtained from, Rene Histon,
Boeing Computer Support Services (BCSS), at 205-544-6972, or by contacting C. F. Key at 205-
544-2483. 

Composites -   O'Donnell, JPL, covered overall issues with the use of composites for flight
hardware.  This area was identified by the NASA M&P community as high priority.  He
reviewed the topic of composites from JPL perspective since JPL is both building hardware in
house and buying composites from large contractors in addition to using small contractors who
don't have M&P specs.  Lack of specifications can be a reliability concern.  Big companies are
using contract funding in some cases to conduct material sample tests and write specs.  Loral
Space Systems has made 75% of its Intelsat VII Communication Satellite structure from
composites.  The request for composite specs is also coming from the contractors.  The Italians
have advanced to the stage of making a 4 meter diameter composite antenna for the CASSINI
project however, there is no requirement to transfer technology to the USA since it is being paid
for by the Italian Space Agency.  Generally, there are 150 different specs for all areas related to
graphite/epoxy composites (without considering what industry has generated).  A summary
report listing these specs was made available at the meeting.  TRW is funded via LaRC to
develop a composite design guide for small spacecraft.

M&P Electronic Network - Yoseph Bar-Cohen gave an overview of recent developments in the
national information superhighway.  He covered examples of current uses such as electronic
mail, transfer of photos (micrographs and x-ray radiographs), transfer of documents and
newsgroup mailings.  He showed several homepages that he prepared for the NASA M&P
Working Group activity using Mosaic (hypertext forum of communication).  He mentioned that
currently JPL, JSC and MSFC are actively using the electronic communication network and their
files are accessible through several routes/servers such as Mosaic and Hypergopher.  To illustrate
the power of the network, Bar-Cohen showed examples acquired over the network from David
Altemir, JSC, Gofer-based electronic network for the NASA Mechanical Systems.   In addition,
he outlined possible future efforts such as the storage and in-process development of technical
standards.  Generally, it was agreed that this is a very powerful tool and its implementation is to
be considered cautiously with attention to security.

Critical Processes - Bud Castner gave an overview of past considerations involved in defining
Critical Processes (CP) and how CP were reviewed.  He indicated that the requirement for CP
review by government results in little value added.  From an overall efficiency and risk
standpoint he recommended that all processes be reviewed.  The Space Station (SS) program
office has removed reference to CP in SSP-30233D (SS Material and Process Selection Control,
and Verification Plan).

MSFC (Frank Key and Dennis Griffin) raised questions regarding the discontinuance of CP
reviews.  They provided their definition and approach for critical processes from MSFC-STD-
506 (MSFC's Materials and Process Control Document), which is used for all MSFC Shuttle
elements.  This definition was adapted from the Air Force approach described in MIL-STD-
1587C, "Materials and Process Requirements for Air Force Weapon Systems", and it was used
for control of the MSFC Space Station prime contractor processes prior to the restructure.

A discussion occurred on whether the change in philosophy, i.e. exhibited by the dropping of
reference to CP in SSP 30233D, should be presented to the Engineering Management Council
(EMC).  Whether or not this issue is to be presented to EMC was left up to Weinstein.


                             SUMMARY SESSION
                                    
Tim O'Donnell opened the session with a rhetorical question each Center participants needed to
answer themselves: what motivations are there for their involvement in NASA-wide standard
collaboration? JPL examples of motivation factors were given.  He promised to eventually
generate a list of proposed documents for AMS, ISO, ASTM consideration.  Documents that are
specific to NASA will be reviewed and worked on within the NASA community.  Two SAE
documents, that were developed to NASA requirements, were identified and we need to establish
the present status of these documents.   O'Donnell presented a list of twenty one possible
technical areas for NASA-wide collaboration.  A fast-moving discussion ensued and resulted in
an initial activity list for potential NASA-wide technical standards as shown in the attached table. 
In summary, technical standards topics that were agreed upon as pilot projects for NASA M&P
standards included:

- Welding  
- Stress Corrosion 
- Silicone and epoxy materials 
- Precision Cleaning
- Protective Coatings

Some of the comments during the Summary Session included: 

Weinstein, HQ, proposed that the sequence is first to establish NASA-wide specifications then
if/when appropriate transfer them to technical societies.  

Leger, JSC, suggested several documents covering technical areas that were presented on
O'Donnell's list.  Coleman Bryan offered KSC's cleaning document for NASA flight hardware.  
Griffin offered MSFC welding and cleaning documents for NASA-wide standardization.

Reagan, LeRC, stated that we don't want additional specs.  Weinstein commented that through
NASA-wide consolidation, we will eventually eliminate specifications.

One existing specification selected for general specification development was MSFC SPEC-522
Rev. B.  Byran commented that MSFC-522 does not adequately cover sea coast environment
exposure.  Leger commented that MSFC-522 should be retained for flight hardware and
consideration should be given to a separate document covering the sea coast environment.  In
developing general NASA specifications/standards Leger suggested that the final product would
be industry standards.  MSFC-522 may be appropriate as a SAE document.

JPL was to compile a list of proposed action items based on discussions at the meeting.  A draft
table listing the items description, responsibility and proposed close-out dates is attached.  

A telecon was proposed to be held in less than three months for follow-up discussions.  Further,
it was agreed to hold the 3rd NASA M&P Standards Meeting at MSFC,  Huntsville, Alabama.

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