Introduction to this NASA M&P Homepage System
Last update January 12, 1996
To return to the M&P Homepage click here.
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: email@example.com