Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “supplier 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 NTRS1992

George M. Low Trophy: NASA's quality and excellence award. 1992 recipients: Honeywell Clearwater, IBM Houston

The George M. Low Trophy is awarded to current NASA contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers in the aerospace industry who have demonstrated sustained excellence and outstanding achievements in quality and productivity for three or more years. The objectives of the award are to increase public awareness of the importance of quality and productivity to the Nation's aerospace program and industry in general; encourage domestic business to continue efforts to enhance quality, increase productivity, and thereby strengthen competitiveness; and provide the means for sharing the successful methods and techniques used by the applicants with other American enterprises. Information is given on candidate eligibility for large businesses, the selection process, the nomination letter, and the application report. The 1992 highlights and recipients are included.

Source record↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Overview of Printed Circuit Board Risks and Supplier Capability (Reuse Document ID 20205007963)

This HDPUG Webinar provides the audience a snapshot of quality variations in printed circuit boards, as assessed, using experiences in processing and risk analysis of PCB structural integrity coupons. The presentation will focus on PCB quality metrics, the relative type and number of non-conformances observed and trend analysis using statistical methods. Trend analysis shows the top five non-conformances observed across suppliers, the associated root cause(s) behind these non-conformance, suggestions of mitigation plans and most importantly – the relation of these non-conformances to end item reliability. The statistical trends will then be matched with the current state of the domestic PCB supplier base, its key challenges and opportunities. The presentation further discusses the methods applied at GSFC for evaluating candidate PCB technologies that promote the adoption of higher throughput and faster processing technology for GSFC missions.

printed cricuit boards, supplier capability, risk ↗
NASA NTRS1990

NASA Excellence Award for Quality and Productivity 1989 highlights. The 1989 recipient: Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company

The NASA Excellence Award for Productivity and Quality is the result of NASA's desire to encourage superior quality and the continuous improvement philosophy in the aerospace industry. It is awarded to NASA contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers who have demonstrated sustained excellence, customer orientation, and outstanding achievements in a total quality management (TQM) environment. The 'highlights' booklet is intended to transfer successful techniques demonstrated by the performance and quality of major NASA contractors.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2019

TCL3 UTM (UAS Traffic Management) Flight Tests, Airspace Operations Laboratory (AOL) Report

The Technology Capability Level-3 (TCL3) flight tests were conducted at six different test sites located across the USA from March to May of 2018. The campaign resulted in over 830 data collection flights using 28 different aircraft and involving 20 flight crews. Flights not only varied in duration, but also in the environments and terrains over which they flew. The TCL3 tests highlighted four different types of tests: three tests focused on Communication, Navigation and Surveillance (CNS); six tests focused on Sense and Avoid (SAA) technologies; six tests focused on USS Data and Information Exchange (DAT); and five tests focused on exploring fundamental Concepts of the project (CON). This document presents data collected during the TCL3 tests that informed the operator’s experiences—the quality of the unmanned aerial system (UAS) Service Supplier (USS) information that the operator was provided with, the usefulness of this information, and the usability of the automation, both while airborne and on the ground. It is intended to complement the reports written by the test sites and the quantitative reports and presentations of the UAS Traffic Management (UTM) project. With the goal of instructing what the minimum information requirements and/or best practices might be in TCL3 operations, the driving enquiry was: How do you get the information you need, when you need it, to successfully fly a UAS in UTM airspace? This enquiry touches on two requirements for displays, which are to provide adequate situation awareness (SA) and to share information through a USS. The six test sites participating in the TCL3 tests flew a subset of the 20 tests (outlined above), with most sites working on a subset of each of the four types: Communications, Navigation and Surveillance (CNS); DAT; CON; and Sense and Avoid (SAA). The, mainly qualitative, data addressed in this report was collected by the AOL (Airspace Operations Laboratory) both on-site and remotely for each test. The data consists of the contents of end-of-day debriefs, end-of-day surveys, observer notes, and flight test information, all submitted as part of the Data Management Plan (DMP).

Martin, Lynne↗
NASA NTRS2022

Assurance Equations: A Cost and Criticality Model for Optimizing Quality Assurance Surveillance

The cost of quality vs cost of failure correction has been a long-running topic of discussion within the Aerospace community. It leads directly to concepts of “risk tolerance”, and risk-based decision-making. It would be valuable if there was a way to compute the optimal investment in customer-executed quality assurance activities using defect significance with respect to performance objectives, the activities’ defect detection effectiveness, and the cost-penalty for late discovery of impactful defects. This optimization is particularly of interest to projects whose budget constraints significantly limit their risk management options.The cost to fix defects (i.e., failure correction) escalates as the project matures. There have been studies attempting to determine the relative cost of fixing defects discovered during various phases of a project life cycle with important implications, all of which suggest growth factors are large. The commonly referred to 1:10:100 rule represents a cost multiplier for repair/rework across the Design to Fab to Test hardware development phases. Cost premiums for QA activities also accumulate when they are treated as mandatory (due to schedule drag) or are performed later than their assigned phase.This paper describes the modeling of development phase -dependencies in the conduct of typical customer-executed quality assurance activities. Our initial modeling encompasses:• Distinct phases of the production lifecycle• Multiple kinds of Defects, each with some a-priori likelihood of being present• Each defect’s impact on performance Objectives for a type of hardware• The cost and efficacy of assurance techniques at detecting such Defects• The costs of fixing those Defects detected in a given phase of the production lifecycleThe model captures assurance activities’ abilities to Detect defects. Upon detection it is assumed that the Defect is immediately fixed. Defects that “escape” detection by some activity may thereafter be detected by a later activity, but by then the cost of fixing the Defect may have escalated. Defects are related to the performance Objectives they would detract from, were those Defects to remain present in the operating system.We have constructed and are exploring, a model that relates the importance of hardware system elements to mission objectives, the impact of types of Defects on those hardware types, the cost of customer-executed assurance activities (i.e., supplier controls) and their effectiveness towards reducing an impactful quality escape, and the cost of Defect correction across production phase. We describe the approach taken to select the key model aspects, why they are relevant to our NASA mission, and our efforts to populate it with relevant and contemporary data. We use a notional example to illustrate model design and function.

Plante, Jeannette↗
DOE OSTI2025

Thermal Evaluation of CCS and NACS Reference Devices and Adapters

It is important for manufacturers of electric vehicle charging connectors, inlets, and adapters to understand the thermal performance of their devices. Various standards, such as SAE J1772, SAE J3400, IEC 62196, UL 2251, and UL 2252, list temperature limits that charging hardware needs to meet. However, there are currently very limited standardized reference devices against which to measure connector performance, and those that do currently exist generally serve charging currents less than 500A. This can make determining whether a charging connector meets the appropriate temperature limits difficult. Additionally, as automakers and charging station suppliers transition from the SAE J1772 CCS charging standard to SAE J3400 NACS, a number of CCS-to-NACS and NACS-to-CCS adapters are entering the market. These devices are being produced both by well-known automakers/equipment OEMs and lesser-known third-party suppliers, across a wide range of price points and construction qualities. Though SAE J3400/1 and UL 2252 lay out standards for adapter construction, performance and overtemperature response, there is no guarantee that any particular adapter will follow these standards and react to overtemperature events appropriately. This work addresses these issues by developing and evaluating a set of CCS and NACS reference inlet devices to validate the performance of charging connectors in the 500-800A range. The work also evaluates the performance of multiple NACS-to-CCS and CCS-to-NACS charging adapters with respect to UL 2252 temperature limits and SAE J3400/1 overtemperature signaling criteria.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
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 NTRS2002

ISO 9000 and/or Systems Engineering Capability Maturity Model?

For businesses and organizations to remain competitive today they must have processes and systems in place that will allow them to first identify customer needs and then develop products/processes that will meet or exceed the customers needs and expectations. Customer needs, once identified, are normally stated as requirements. Designers can then develop products/processes that will meet these requirements. Several functions, such as quality management and systems engineering management are used to assist product development teams in the development process. Both functions exist in all organizations and both have a similar objective, which is to ensure that developed processes will meet customer requirements. Are efforts in these organizations being duplicated? Are both functions needed by organizations? What are the similarities and differences between the functions listed above? ISO 9000 is an international standard of goods and services. It sets broad requirements for the assurance of quality and for management's involvement. It requires organizations to document the processes and to follow these documented processes. ISO 9000 gives customers assurance that the suppliers have control of the process for product development. Systems engineering can broadly be defined as a discipline that seeks to ensure that all requirements for a system are satisfied throughout the life of the system by preserving their interrelationship. The key activities of systems engineering include requirements analysis, functional analysis/allocation, design synthesis and verification, and system analysis and control. The systems engineering process, when followed properly, will lead to higher quality products, lower cost products, and shorter development cycles. The System Engineering Capability Maturity Model (SE-CMM) will allow companies to measure their system engineering capability and continuously improve those capabilities. ISO 9000 and SE-CMM seem to have a similar objective, which is to document the organization's processes and certify to potential customers the capability of a supplier to control the processes that determine the quality of the product or services being produced. The remaining sections of this report examine the differences and similarities between ISO 9000 and SE-CMM and make recommendations for implementation.

Sampson E. Gholston↗
NASA NTRS2018

Research and Technology Support Request: Functional Requirements

The objective of this Functional Requirements document is to present a new online platform, called R&T Support Request, which can be used to improve the overall quality and efficiency of communication between Users who request help from UB and Suppliers who answer those calls for help. The online portal is to be used for the first step of communication, as well as a tracking system to give progress updates. This document will establish stakeholders of this online platform, focus on interactions between potential Users (within and outside of the UB Directorate) and Suppliers (within the UB Directorate). This communication will be facilitated through a secure online platform which allows Users to submit Help Request Forms which will be received by designated groups within UB.

Research and Technology↗
NASA NTRS2018

Printed Wiring Board Technology Infusion and Supplier Capability Overview

Risk based technology infusion is a deliberate and systematic process which defines the analysis and communication methodology by which new technology is applied and integrated into existing and new designs, identifies technology development needs based on trends analysis and facilitates the identification of shortfalls against performance objectives. This presentation at QLF 2018 provides the audience a snapshot of quality variations in printed wiring board quality, as assessed, using experiences in processing and risk analysis of PWB structural integrity coupons. The presentation will focus on printed wiring board quality metrics used, the relative type and number of non-conformances observed and trend analysis using statistical methods. Trend analysis shows the top five non-conformances observed across PWB suppliers, the root cause(s) behind these non-conformance and suggestions of mitigation plans. The trends will then be matched with the current state of the PWB supplier base and its challenges and opportunities. The presentation further discusses the methods being applied at GSFC for evaluating candidate printed wiring board technologies which promote the adoption of higher throughput and faster processing technology for GSFC missions.

PCB fabrication↗
NASA NTRS1984

Requirements for Printed Wiring Boards

In order to maintain the high standards of the NASA printed wiring programs, this publication: prescribes NASA's requirements for assuring reliable rigid printed wiring boards; describes and incorporates basic considerations necessary to assure reliable rigid printed wiring boards; establishes the supplier's responsibility to train and certify personnel; provides for supplier documentation of the fabrication and inspection procedures to be used for NASA work, including supplier innovations and changes in technology; and provides visual workmanship standards to aid those responsible for determining quality conformance to the established requirements.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1985

Requirements for Conformal Coating and Staking of Printed Wiring Boards and Electronic Assemblies

In order to maintain the high standards of the NASA conformal coating and staking program, this publication: prescribes NASA's requirements for assuring reliable conformal coating and staking for printed wiring boards and electronic assemblies; describes and incorporates basic considerations necessary to assure reliable conformal coating and staking; establishes the supplier's responsibility to train and certify personnel; provides for supplier documentation of the fabrication and inspection procedures to be used for NASA work, including supplier innovations and changes in technology; and provides visual workmanship standards to aid those responsible for determining quality conformance to the established requirements.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1998

Improving Customer Satisfaction in an R and D Environment

Satisfying customer needs is critical to the sustained competitive advantage of service suppliers. It is therefore important to understand the types of customer needs which, if fulfilled or exceeded, add value and contribute to overall customer satisfaction. This study identifies the needs of various research and development (R&D) customers who contract for engineering and design support services. The Quality Function Deployment (QFD) process was used to organize and translate each customer need into performance measures that, if implemented, can improve customer satisfaction. This study also provides specific performance measures that will more accurately guide the efforts of the engineering supplier. These organizations can either implement the QFD methodology presented herein or extract a few performance measures that are specific to the quality dimensions in need of improvement. Listening to 'what' customers talk about is a good first start.

Alexander, Anita↗
NASA NTRS1998

Evaluation of Chemical Coating Processes for AXAF

The need existed at MSFC for the development and fabrication of radioisotope calibration sources of cadmium 109 and iron 55 isotopes. This was in urgent response to the AXA-F program. Several issues persisted in creating manufacturing difficulties for the supplier. In order to meet the MSFC requirements very stringent control needed to be maintained for the coating quality, specific activity and thickness. Due to the difficulties in providing the precisely controlled devices for testing, the delivery of the sources was seriously delayed. It became imperative that these fabrication issues be resolved to avoid further delays in this AXA-F observatory key component. The objectives are: 1) Research and provide expert advice on coating materials and procedures. 2) Research and recommend solutions to problems that have been experienced with the coating process. 3) Provide recommendations on the selection and preparation of substrates. 4) Provide consultation on the actual coating process including the results of the qualification and acceptance test programs. 5) Perform independent tests at UAH or MSFC as necessary.

Engelhaupt, Darell↗
NASA NTRS1997

Evaluation of Chemical Coating Processes for AXAF

The need existed at MSFC for the development and fabrication of radioisotope calibration sources of cadmium 109 and iron 55 isotopes. This was in urgent response to the AXAF program. Several issues persisted in creating manufacturing difficulties for the supplier. In order to meet the MSFC requirements very stringent control needed to be maintained for the coating quality, specific activity and thickness. Due to the difficulties in providing the precisely controlled devices for testing, the delivery of the sources was seriously delayed. It became imperative that these fabrication issues be resolved to avoid further delays in this AXAF observatory key component.

Engelhaupt, Darell E.↗
NASA NTRS2016

43rd Aerospace Mechanisms Symposium

The Aerospace Mechanisms Symposium (AMS) provides a unique forum for those active in the design, production and use of aerospace mechanisms. A major focus is the reporting of problems and solutions associated with the development and flight certification of new mechanisms. Sponsored and organized by the Mechanisms Education Association, responsibility for hosting the AMS is shared by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company (LMSSC). Now in its 43rd symposium, the AMS continues to be well attended, attracting participants from both the U.S. and abroad. The 43rd AMS was held in Santa Clara, California on May 4, 5 and 6, 2016. During these three days, 42 papers were presented. Topics included payload and positioning mechanisms, components such as hinges and motors, CubeSats, tribology, and mechanism testing. Hardware displays during the supplier exhibit gave attendees an opportunity to meet with developers of current and future mechanism components. The high quality of this symposium is a result of the work of many people, and their efforts are gratefully acknowledged. This extends to the voluntary members of the symposium organizing committee representing the eight NASA field centers, LMSSC, and the European Space Agency. Appreciation is also extended to the session chairs, the authors, and particularly the personnel at ARC responsible for the symposium arrangements and the publication of these proceedings. A sincere thank you also goes to the symposium executive committee who is responsible for the year-to-year management of the AMS, including paper processing and preparation of the program. The use of trade names of manufacturers in this publication does not constitute an official endorsement of such products or manufacturers, either expressed or implied, by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Mechanism↗