Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “procurement quality”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2013

Discovery: Under the Microscope at Kennedy Space Center

The National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA) is known for discovery, exploration, and advancement of knowledge. Since the days of Leeuwenhoek, microscopy has been at the forefront of discovery and knowledge. No truer is that statement than today at Kennedy Space Center (KSC), where microscopy plays a major role in contamination identification and is an integral part of failure analysis. Space exploration involves flight hardware undergoing rigorous "visually clean" inspections at every step of processing. The unknown contaminants that are discovered on these inspections can directly impact the mission by decreasing performance of sensors and scientific detectors on spacecraft and satellites, acting as micrometeorites, damaging critical sealing surfaces, and causing hazards to the crew of manned missions. This talk will discuss how microscopy has played a major role in all aspects of space port operations at KSC. Case studies will highlight years of analysis at the Materials Science Division including facility and payload contamination for the Navigation Signal Timing and Ranging Global Positioning Satellites (NA VST AR GPS) missions, quality control monitoring of monomethyl hydrazine fuel procurement for launch vehicle operations, Shuttle Solids Rocket Booster (SRB) foam processing failure analysis, and Space Shuttle Main Engine Cut-off (ECO) flight sensor anomaly analysis. What I hope to share with my fellow microscopists is some of the excitement of microscopy and how its discoveries has led to hardware processing, that has helped enable the successful launch of vehicles and space flight missions here at Kennedy Space Center.

Howard, Philip M.↗
NASA NTRS1972

Using the scanning electron microscope on the production line to assure quality semiconductors

The use of the scanning electron microscope to detect metallization defects introduced during batch processing of semiconductor devices is discussed. A method of determining metallization integrity was developed which culminates in a procurement specification using the scanning microscope on the production line as a quality control tool. Batch process control of the metallization operation is monitored early in the manufacturing cycle.

Adolphsen, J. W.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Genesis Solar Wind – Capture, Return, Curate and Analyze: Looking Backward and Creating a Timeline

Introduction: In 1997 NASA’S Discovery Program selected the Genesis mission proposal to return solar wind samples to Earth for laboratory analyses. Principal Investigator Donald S. Burnett and the science team defined the purity of collector materials and ability to analyze solar wind composition to the precision required for planetary science. As a small mission, focused on a well-defined science goal, yet needing careful attention to engineering details, the communication among scientists and engineers, nurtured by Don Burnett, was exceptional. Genesis Mission and Curation Legacy: Genesis, as the first U. S. spacecraft to return astromaterial samples since Apollo, not only integrated the mission planning and flight teams, but also the science and sample curation teams during the mission development period. Since Genesis is a sample return mission, the Science Team was essential in certifying the collectors (sample containers for solar atoms). From inception, Genesis established mission funding for returned sample curation. JSC was lead in contamination control during mission preparation, including establishment of an ISO 4 cleanroom facility and use of ultrapure water (UPW) for cleaning flight hardware (and, as it turned out, for cleaning collectors after the mishap). Reliable, fast communication among scientists, engineers and curators at the hands-on level established deep respect among team members and efficient decision-making. JSC’s 50-years of astromaterial sample curation provided experienced sample processors onsite during recovery in Utah (a deep bench for emergency response). Post-recovery curation included iterative collaboration with science sample users to clean or verify cleanliness of samples. The science legacy from Genesis is addressed by Burnett and Jurewicz, this volume. In The Beginning: After Apollo sample return, Burnett and Marcia Neugebauer at JPL began discussing a solar wind sample return, with Neugebauer arguing that separate collection of solar wind regimes was essential science. By 1992 a solar wind sample return mission was presented at a workshop, and by 1994 a mission was proposed named Suess-Urey. The mission was re-proposed under a new name GENESIS and selected in 1997. Susan Niebur captured the Genesis mission history and stories, from high level management documents and from many interviews with participants [2]. Her account lets readers glimpse personality of participants in quotations from interviews. Need and Scope for Detailed Technical Timeline: A timeline constructed from lower level task documents has been initiated to document the resources and skills actually used, as well as task sequence or concurrency. Timelines for high level mission events are captured in two documents [1] [2] and for detailed re-entry events in [3]. A detailed technical timeline for Genesis mission and curation activities will provide data points for lower level tasks, such as ISO 4 curation facility construction time, preparation for nominal sample field recovery, mishap recovery, and UPW expansion. Changes in technology context 1990-2024: Semiconductor technologies were easily accessible in the U.S.A. (1990-1999), and the Genesis team used those resources for cleanroom design and UPW system expansion. Image documentation was changing from film to digital during cleanroom construction and payload cleaning (1997-2001). Engineering design was done using computer aided design proprietary software, making more difficult the archiving of payload configuration and materials. Email of documents, tracked delivery service and virtual meeting capability greatly improved communication efficiency. Information sources – Pre-launch mission preparation: Examples of mission science, engineering and contamination control are collector purity testing, payload design/fabrication and ISO 4 cleanroom construction. Information on timing of these activities comes from facility readiness reviews, management reviews, shipping documents, procurement documents, test reports, travel documents, laboratory logs, Quality Assurance documents, dates on images, participant notebooks and emails. Information sources – Sample return re-entry and field recovery activities: Information comes from event timelines produced by Mid-Air Recovery team, Lockheed team lead notes and from chase video, JPL Quality Assurance. Information also comes from images and logbooks from UTTR cleanroom operations and from curatorial documents. Information sources – Resulting science and sample cleaning processes: Agendas from the annual gatherings of the science team initially trace testing for collector purity/cleanliness, and after sample recovery, include collector cleaning and cleanliness assessment. Post-recovery documents include curatorial orders and procedures, sample allocation documents and LPSC abstracts. Timeline Objectives: A simple spreadsheet timeline with headers DATE, EVENT, PEOPLE, COMMENT, INFORMATION SOURCE has been initiated and currently has over 90 entries. While this is not definitive historical research, it is a quick look at the evolution of Genesis curation with pointers to documents or people with information. Engineers for future missions may find useful points of comparison for development of facilities. References:[1] Genesis Mission Reference Document, (2011) JPL D-62382.[2] Niebur S. M., edited by Brown D. W. (2023) NASA’s Discovery Program: The First 20 Years of Competitive Planetary Exploration, NASA-SP-2023-4238.[3] Genesis Mishap Investigation Board Report, Vol. 1 (July 2005).

solar wind↗
NASA NTRS2000

Lightweight Lidar Telescopes for Space Applications

NASA is intent on exploiting the unique perspective of space-based remote optical instruments to observe and study large-scale environmental processes. Emphasis on smaller and more affordable missions continues to force the remote sensing instruments to find innovative ways to reduce the size, weight, and cost of the sensor package. This is a challenge because many of the proposed instruments incorporate a high quality meter-class telescope that can be a significant driver of total instrument costs. While various methods for telescope weight reduction have been achieved, many of the current approaches rely on exotic materials and specialized manufacturing techniques that limit availability or substantially increase costs. A competitive lightweight telescope technology that is especially well suited to space-based coherent Doppler wind lidar has been developed through a collaborative effort involving NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) through the Global Hydrology and Climate Center (GHCC) and the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) at the Center for Applied Optics (CAO). The new lightweight optics using metal alloy shells and surfaces (LOMASS) fabrication approach is suitable for high quality metal mirrors and meter-class telescopes. Compared to alternative materials and fabrication methods the new approach promises to reduce the areal density of a meter-class telescope to less than 15-kg/sq m; deliver a minimum VIO-RMS surface optical quality; while using commercial materials and equipment to lower procurement costs. The final optical figure and finish is put into the mirrors through conventional diamond turning and polishing techniques. This approach is especially advantageous for a coherent lidar instrument because the reduced telescope weight permits the rotation of the telescope to scan the beam without requiring heavy wedges or additional large mirrors. Ongoing investigations and preliminary results show promise for the LOMASS approach to be successful in demonstrating a novel alternative approach to fabricating lightweight mirrors with performance parameters comparable with the Space Readiness Coherent Lidar Experiment (SPARCLE). Development and process characterization is continuing with the design and fabrication of mirrors for a 25-cm telescope suitable for a lidar instrument.

Peters, Bruce R.↗
NASA NTRS1982

Handling Qualities Specifications for U.S. Military Helicopters

Inadequacies in the military specification for helicopter handling qualities, MIL-H-8501A, have long been recognized, and the latest procurements by the U.S. Army used special Prime Item Development Specifications (PIDS). This paper assesses the efficacy of these PIDS and suggests that changes should be made. In particular, the structure developed in MIL-F-8785B (ASG) (the specification for flying qualities of piloted airplanes) should be incorporated. Improved requirements must be based on a systematic data base and concentrated on topics most important in preliminary design: static and dynamic stability, control power and sensitivity, and interaction with controllers and displays. Emphasis should be on current military helicopter missions and helicopter idiosyncrasies such as cross-coupling, nonlinearities, and higher-order dynamics.

Key, David L.↗
NASA NTRS1974

Management approach recommendations. Earth Observatory Satellite system definition study (EOS)

Management analyses and tradeoffs were performed to determine the most cost effective management approach for the Earth Observatory Satellite (EOS) Phase C/D. The basic objectives of the management approach are identified. Some of the subjects considered are as follows: (1) contract startup phase, (2) project management control system, (3) configuration management, (4) quality control and reliability engineering requirements, and (5) the parts procurement program.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1983

Qualification and testing of modules

The experience gained in procuring solar modules soon to be installed on the Photovoltaic Higher Education National Exemplar Facility (PHENEF) at Georgetown University is discussed. The 300 KE Photovoltaic Array consists of 4464, 2' X 4', polycrystalline solar cell modules. The performance requirements for the modules are described in a detailed procurement specification which defines physical and electrical characteristics and extensive quality assurance provisions including requirements for an interface control drawing and qualification and acceptance testing.

Cohen, D. B.↗
NASA NTRS1972

HELIOS Critical Design Review: Quality Assurance

The following is an account of the activities of the Quality Assurance (QA) department of the project management office highlighting some of the ways in which it controls QA of the subcontractors on one hand and reports on Quality to GfW (Gesellschaft fur Weltraumforschung) on the other hand. The basic document prepared by MBB (Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohm) for QA activities is 1. The QA plan based on GfW 002. The QA department is responsible moreover for monitoring and making decisions about the quality of parts and materials and the governing document for this activity is 2. The Parts and Materials Control Plan based on GfW 001 - the reliability program provisions, as well as GfW 002. A brief survey of the contents of the QA Plan is shown. It should be noted that QA activity dealing with parts procurement is partially covered in a separate presentation entitled "Hi-Rel Parts". Supplementary quality documents are shown.

Benoehr, H. C.↗
NASA NTRS2022

Recommendations on the Use of Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) Parts for NASA Missions - Phase II

This assessment had two Phases. Phase I captured NASA Centers’ current practices for commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) parts 1 used in spaceflight systems and ground support equipment (available at https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20205011579) [ref. 1]. The Phase II report provides guidance for selecting and using COTS parts in NASA missions. The approaches proposed in this report differ from current agency practices. This top-level executive summary touches on these new approaches for using COTS parts but does not provide the detailed information that is critical in understanding the rationale behind these new approaches. Readers will need to read the entire report to gain full understanding and effectively use the recommendations herein. NASA’s historical approach to selecting and applying parts has been to define certain parts, primarily specific classes of military specification (MIL-SPEC) parts, as “standard”, leaving all others, including COTS parts, as nonstandard. Standard parts typically are used without further testing (“use-as-is”). Nonstandard parts are subjected to initial screening and subsequent lot acceptance testing of representative samples from each procured lot per MIL-SPEC or similar requirements. Decades later, top-tier commercial part manufacturers have evolved significant manufacturing, statistical control, and technological improvements that can now provide parts as reliable or more reliable than MIL-SPEC parts, when used within their datasheet limits. Concurrently, the space science and exploration community’s needs demand technological advances unavailable with MIL-SPEC parts. This ongoing change necessitates using COTS parts for space missions. Properly selected COTS parts in appropriate applications can offer performance and supply availability advantages compared to MIL-SPEC parts. Their utility and demonstrated reliability result from large volumes and automated production and testing processes. However, careful review and a thorough understanding of their specifications (i.e., datasheet limitations) is needed, and verifying that manufacturer specifications and reliability meet space hardware application needs are necessary. This report recommends MIL-SPEC screening and non-radiation-related lot acceptance testing be reduced or eliminated in cases where evidence of sufficient quality and reliability exists for COTS parts. The extent of NASA's insight into COTS manufacturers and the amount and nature of the needed evidence will differ by mission and will likely be driven by a mission's resources and associated risk posture. To facilitate this goal, two new terminologies have been defined and described: “Industry Leading Parts Manufacturer (ILPM)” and “Established COTS parts.” An ILPM is a COTS manufacturer that produces high quality and reliable parts. Some parts produced by ILPMs, defined as Established COTS parts, do not need any additional MIL-SPEC or NASA screening and lot acceptance testing to be used in space applications. This report provides guidance for selecting, procuring, and applying COTS parts and for performing part-, board-, and system-level COTS parts verification. The recommendation to select Established COTS parts from ILPMs will assure those COTS parts will have comparable quality to corresponding MIL-SPEC parts. Selecting, applying, and verifying Established COTS parts from ILPMs requires a holistic team approach, engaging parts engineers, circuit designers, quality, reliability, and systems engineers, procurement specialists, radiation specialists, avionics leads, and program/project managers. A mission-specific approach tailored to a project’s Mission, Environment, Applications and Lifetime (MEAL) [ref. 2] requirements should be developed and approved by program/project managers. Any associated risks should be clearly identified, quantified, mitigated, and/or accepted. Different approaches are recommended according to program/project Risk Classes A, B, C, and D [ref. 3] and human-rated missions [ref. 4]: 1. Recommend Classes A and B and human-rated missions consider a “MIL-SPEC parts- based design” approach. ”MIL-SPEC parts-based design” approach is one in which most parts are MIL-SPEC parts and Established COTS parts from ILPMs are used only when an equivalent MIL-SPEC part does not meet functional or size, weight, and power (SWaP) or performance requirements, or is not available. 2. Recommend Classes D and Sub-D missions consider a “System of COTS” approach. “System of COTS” approach is one which most parts are Established COTS parts from ILPMs. 3. Recommend Class C missions determine which approach is the best for their projects; that is, use either a “MIL-SPEC parts-based design” approach, “System of COTS” approach, or a combined approach utilizing elements of both. This report intends to provide guidance in using COTS parts for NASA missions with risk classifications of A through D and human-rated missions; but it does not address the costs of using COTS parts. Costs of using COTS parts in different NASA mission classes can vary significantly even if the same parts are used in different risk postures, due to differing verification levels needed. The guidance does not distinguish between critical or non-critical systems, and a given project will need to apply the appropriate guidance based on their risk posture. The intended audience of this report are NASA personnel and commercial practitioners who support NASA’s spaceflight missions, including spaceflight program or project managers, parts engineers, parts manufacturers, radiation engineers, avionics engineers, system engineers, circuit design engineers, reliability engineers, safety and mission assurance (SMA) personnel, and parts procurement specialists. The NEPP Program will perform a pathfinder study to explore implementing the guidance in this NESC report. An ILPM verification process is not the same as conventional vendor qualification processes performed according to military standards and specifications. This NESC report intends to provide guidance in utilizing available parts data from ILPM manufacturers for parts assurance assessments needed for NASA missions. The report also captured the current practices from DoD and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in Section 10. Note each DoD and FAA report was provided by the corresponding agencies regarding their practices, which are independent from the NESC recommendations in the report.

Commercial-Off-The-Shelf↗
NASA NTRS2007

CompactPCI(Registered TradeMark) Connectors in Space Flight Applications

This report documents the current status of CompactPCI(Registered TradeMark) connectors in GSFC spaceflight applications. To the extent the information is known, this report summarizes to what component quality level each NASA contractor (referred to as OEM in this report) procured the parts, and what board level and system level testing was performed. The report also provides the current status of the reliability assessment for each GSFC project based on the results of testing and FMEA (Failure Mode Effects Analysis). This report addresses how the CompactPCI(Registered TradeMark) connectors came into existence, and how these became the connector style chosen by many designers of space flight hardware. It identifies the design philosophy and the lack of robustness which has led to several known failure modes. These failure modes include fretting of connector pins during vibration, shock and thermal cycling, exposure of underplating, and increased resistance, including brief excursions to very high resistance. Each of these are signs of aging, which becomes an increasing concern for long duration orbiting space flight applications. This report addresses the mitigation strategy to replace CompactPCI(Registered TradeMark) connectors with space qualified Hypertronics 2mm cPCI connectors. The Hypertronics 2mm cPCI connectors are pin-to-pin compatible with the CompactPCI(Registered TradeMark) connectors and meet all of the same technical requirements, except the ability to hot mate, and to mate directly with a CompactPCI of the opposite gender. A detailed comparison of the CompactPCI(Registered TradeMark) connector and the Hypertronics 2mm cPCI connector is provided to describe the ruggedness of Hypertronics connector for space flight applications. Finally, this report makes recommendations for flight hardware for the future missions where the hardware is yet to be built, as well as for the hardware which has already been built with CompactPCI(Registered TradeMark) connectors.

Williams, Richard↗
NASA NTRS2008

Supplier Management System

Supplier Management System (SMS) allows for a consistent, agency-wide performance rating system for suppliers used by NASA. This version (2.0) combines separate databases into one central database that allows for the sharing of supplier data. Information extracted from the NBS/Oracle database can be used to generate ratings. Also, supplier ratings can now be generated in the areas of cost, product quality, delivery, and audit data. Supplier data can be charted based on real-time user input. Based on these individual ratings, an overall rating can be generated. Data that normally would be stored in multiple databases, each requiring its own log-in, is now readily available and easily accessible with only one log-in required. Additionally, the database can accommodate the storage and display of quality-related data that can be analyzed and used in the supplier procurement decision-making process. Moreover, the software allows for a Closed-Loop System (supplier feedback), as well as the capability to communicate with other federal agencies.

Ramirez, Eric↗
NASA NTRS1995

Metrology: Measurement Assurance Program Guidelines

The 5300.4 series of NASA Handbooks for Reliability and Quality Assurance Programs have provisions for the establishment and utilization of a documented metrology system to control measurement processes and to provide objective evidence of quality conformance. The intent of these provisions is to assure consistency and conformance to specifications and tolerances of equipment, systems, materials, and processes procured and/or used by NASA, its international partners, contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers. This Measurement Assurance Program (MAP) guideline has the specific objectives to: (1) ensure the quality of measurements made within NASA programs; (2) establish realistic measurement process uncertainties; (3) maintain continuous control over the measurement processes; and (4) ensure measurement compatibility among NASA facilities. The publication addresses MAP methods as applied within and among NASA installations and serves as a guide to: control measurement processes at the local level (one facility); conduct measurement assurance programs in which a number of field installations are joint participants; and conduct measurement integrity (round robin) experiments in which a number of field installations participate to assess the overall quality of particular measurement processes at a point in time.

Eicke, W. G.↗
NASA NTRS1990

Streamlined acquisition handbook

NASA has always placed great emphasis on the acquisition process, recognizing it as among its most important activities. This handbook is intended to facilitate the application of streamlined acquisition procedures. The development of these procedures reflects the efforts of an action group composed of NASA Headquarters and center acquisition professionals. It is the intent to accomplish the real change in the acquisition process as a result of this effort. An important part of streamlining the acquisition process is a commitment by the people involved in the process to accomplishing acquisition activities quickly and with high quality. Too often we continue to accomplish work in 'the same old way' without considering available alternatives which would require no changes to regulations, approvals from Headquarters, or waivers of required practice. Similarly, we must be sensitive to schedule opportunities throughout the acquisition cycle, not just once the purchase request arrives at the procurement office. Techniques that have been identified as ways of reducing acquisition lead time while maintaining high quality in our acquisition process are presented.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1994

Quality assurance and risk management: Perspectives on Human Factors Certification of Advanced Aviation Systems

This paper is based on the experience of engineering psychologists advising the U.K. Ministry of Defense (MoD) on the procurement of advanced aviation systems that conform to good human engineering (HE) practice. Traditional approaches to HE in systems procurement focus on the physical nature of the human-machine interface. Advanced aviation systems present increasingly complex design requirements for human functional integration, information processing, and cognitive task performance effectiveness. These developing requirements present new challenges for HE quality assurance (QA) and risk management, requiring focus on design processes as well as on design content or product. A new approach to the application of HE, recently adopted by NATO, provides more systematic ordering and control of HE processes and activities to meet the challenges of advanced aircrew systems design. This systematic approach to HE has been applied by MoD to the procurement of mission systems for the Royal Navy Merlin helicopter. In MoD procurement, certification is a judicial function, essentially independent of the service customer and industry contractor. Certification decisions are based on advice from MoD's appointed Acceptance Agency. Test and evaluation (T&E) conducted by the contractor and by the Acceptance Agency provide evidence for certification. Certification identifies limitations of systems upon release to the service. Evidence of compliance with HE standards traditionally forms the main basis of HE certification and significant non-compliance could restrict release. The systems HE approach shows concern for the quality of processes as well as for the content of the product. Human factors certification should be concerned with the quality of HE processes as well as products. Certification should require proof of process as well as proof of content and performance. QA criteria such as completeness, consistency, timeliness, and compatibility provide generic guidelines for progressive acceptance and certification of HE processes. Threats to the validity of certification arise from problems and assumptions in T&E methods. T&E should seek to reduce the risk of specification non-compliance and certification failure.

Taylor, Robert M.↗
NASA NTRS1993

Management of government quality assurance functions for NASA contracts

This handbook sets forth requirements for NASA direction and management of government quality assurance functions performed for NASA contracts and is applicable to all NASA installations. These requirements will standardize management to provide the minimum oversight and effective use of resources. This handbook implements Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 46, NASA FAR Supplement 18-46, Quality Assurance, and NMI 7410.1. Achievement of established quality and reliability goals at all levels is essential to the success of NASA programs. Active participation by NASA and other agency quality assurance personnel in all phases of contract operations, including precontract activity, will assist in the economic and timely achievement of program results. This involves broad participation in design, development, procurement, inspection, testing, and preventive and corrective actions. Consequently, government, as well as industry, must place strong emphasis on the accomplishment of all functions having a significant bearing on quality and reliability from program initiation through end-use of supplies and services produced. For purposes of implementing NASA and other agency agreements, and to provide for uniformity and consistency, the terminology and definitions prescribed herein and in a future handbook shall be utilized for all NASA quality assurance delegations and subsequent redelegations.

Source record↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Ejectable Data Recorder: A Lean, Risk-Informed Approach for Hardware Development

NASA is developing the Orion spacecraft to transport crew from the Earth to the Moon as part of the Artemis series of missions. To provide a crew escape capability from pre-launch through ascent, the Orion vehicle is equipped with a Launch Abort System (LAS), built by Lockheed Martin, which pulls the capsule away from the launch vehicle in the event of an abort scenario. The Ascent Abort 2 (AA-2) test flight occurred on July 2, 2019,and tested a production version of the LAS to ensure that it can operate as intended, and to collect a large data set from hundreds of sensors on the vehicle to support Orion flight certification. In the original AA-2 architecture, a single-string set of communications antennas on the LAS would downlink all of the in-flight test data to ground stations. However, that communications architecture was predicted to have data dropouts during abort and jettison of the LAS, and would not support data transmission at all after LAS jettison. As a result, a comprehensive trade study was completed, yielding the addition of antennas on the crew module (CM), a buffer/rebroadcast capability for key portions of the flight, and an ejectable data recorder (EDR) subsystem. This EDR subsystem would serve as a backup to the radio frequency (RF) communications system, and would be non-flight critical, providing a unique capability that enabled management to take a different approach with the hardware and software development. The Crew Module and Separation Ring were developed as “Class 1”Flight Hardware, albeit with some tailoring approaches to enable efficiencies. The Class 1 designation requires full rigor for flight hardware and software, documenting everything that happens to a piece of hardware from procurement through disposal, requiring a full spectrum of acceptance tests, and the highest rigor of quality assurance processes. At the other end of the spectrum, Class 3hardware is controlled, but not intended for flight, and leaves the level of rigor up to the project manager. This classification is often used for research and development projects. Similarly,Class-1E has been recently defined at NASA for ISS payloads and technology development projects that are not flight critical and do not need the full rigor of Class 1 to be successful. The EDR subsystem was challenged at commencement to adopt a skunkworks and agile-like approach to hardware development, allowing for a different risk posture than the rest of the AA-2 hardware. After initially pursuing Class 1 processes, the EDR subsystem design evolved to incorporating numerous commercial components, leading to re-designation as a Class-1E subsystem. The resulting EDR subsystem was fully successful in meeting all flight system requirements, and achieved 100% retrieval of flight test data. This paper will discuss the risk posture of the EDR subsystem and the subsequent tailoring that was enacted as part of its Class-1E status.

EDR↗
NASA NTRS1988

Specification for IBM/IBM compatible 3480 tape cartridge

This document establishes the same kinds of standards and controls that are currently in use for the procurement on new analog and digital magnetic tapes. The Magnetic Tape Certification Facility (MTCF) currently maintains a Quality Products List (QPL) for all new analog and digital magnetic tapes purchased by NASA-GSFC. Extensive tests are conducted in the MTCF on an annual basis to determine the manufacturer's tape types to be added to or deleted from the current QPL. The MTCF currently maintains two specifications for magnetic tapes: NASA TM-79724 is used for the QPL and acceptance testing of new analog tapes; and NASA TM-80599 is used for the QPL and acceptance testing of new digital tapes. This specification will be used for the QPL and acceptance testing of new 3480 cartridges. The magnetic tapes used by GSFC, LaRC, ARC/Dryden, WFF, and the Network Tracking Stations are covered by the NASA-GSFC specifications. The 3480 cartridge was introduced approximately 3.5 years ago and is becoming an increasingly attractive alternative to digital magnetic tapes. Many users have already converted to the 3480 system and have more tape drives on order.

Perry, Jimmy L.↗