<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 31%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 27%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 16%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>ECSS</td>
<td colspan="3">5.2.3</td>
<td colspan="3">Note</td>
<td colspan="3">te</td>
<td><p>The verb "can" should be changed in "is" in the sentence "Mass
reduction can be a costly undertaking.</p>
<p>Justification:<br />
Our Company experience (Galileo Avionica Space Division, Italy) is based
on equipments for platforms (sensors, under 10 kg each, well known,
almost COTS) and scientific instruments (optical instruments, up to 60
kg, always new development). While for the first a mass reduction is
only considered as a new generation sensor is designed, with reasonable
costs, for the latter the unresolved gap between allocated resources and
science requirements (in some cases science expectation) brings often to
"mass reduction exercise" after phase B, which always has a big economic
impact.</p></td>
<td colspan="3">Change verb “can” into “is”.</td>
<td colspan="3">Accepted, with modification. Changed “can” to “generally
is”.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>ECSS</td>
<td colspan="3">5.4.4.6</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">te</td>
<td><p>The design maturity levels for which an rigorous uncertainty
analysis is of interest is not identified. Also its inter-relation with
the growth allowance is not addressed.</p>
<p>Justification:<br />
Decoupling the design uncertainty from the mass growth allowance does
not make sense in particular in the early phase of a program. The mass
growth allowance should cover for uncertainty unless there is a reason
to think it is not accurate enough for the particular requirement of a
system. In that case the uncertainty analysis should provide the
justification for the figure used in the uncertainty analysis.</p></td>
<td colspan="3">… at key points of the programme. The mass growth
allowance can be assumed to cover for usual design uncertainties up to
and including design maturity level X. In special cases where the mass
growth allowance usual figures are believed too inaccurate, a rigorous
uncertainty analysis based on raw uncertainty data can be performed</td>
<td colspan="3">Pending – needs more discussion.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>ECSS</td>
<td colspan="3">General</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">te</td>
<td>The process described in ISO/CD 22010 does not include a mechanisms
of progressive release of man margin which would result in a penalty
either on the spacecraft structural capability or on the allowable
payload mass.</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">Pending – make a specific recommendation.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>ECSS</td>
<td colspan="3">3</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">te</td>
<td><p>Too many definitions are given in Chapters 3 and 5 and may lead
to confusion because they are not related / linked to each other .</p>
<p>Examples :</p>
<p>- BASIC ( 3.9 ) .vs. estimated ( 3.5 ) , or calculated ( 3.6 )</p>
<p>- PREDICTED ( 3.11 ) .vs. final ( 3.11 ) , or Not-To-Exceed ( NTE ) (
5.2.5 )</p>
<p>- MEASURED ( 3.7 ) .vs. ACTUAL ( Annex A / Code A )</p>
<p>- CONTRACTOR Limit ( 3.12 ).vs. Not-To-Exceed ( NTE ) ( 5.2.5 )</p>
<p>Customer Margin ( 3.14 ) .vs. System Margin ( 5.2.3 )</p>
<p>Justification:<br />
Use ONLY the following Mass Properties definitions , to be controlled
and subject to Trend Analysis :</p>
<p>- 1 - BASIC : Best Engineering Estimate , based on the most recent
Baseline design .</p>
<p>BASIC may be ESTIMATED from preliminary data / sketches , OR
CALCULATED from released drawings , according to Project development
phases and status .</p>
<p>- 2 - PREDICTED : BASIC + Mass Growth Allowance</p>
<p>( Mass Growth Allowance = Design Maturity Margin at Equipment Level ,
under the control / responsibility of the Contractor ).</p>
<p>- 3 - CONTRACTOR LIMIT = PREDICTED + CONTRACTOR Margin</p>
<p>( Contractor Margin = " Local System Margin " for the ensemble of
equipment under the control / responsibility of the Contractor )</p>
<p>The CONTRACTOR LIMIT shall be the NOT-TO-EXCEED ( NTE ) Mass values ,
SPECIFIED in the relevant contractual specifications applicable to the
Contractor .</p>
<p>The FINAL Mass at Delivery ( i.e. the ACTUAL MEASURED of the Flight
Hardware ) shall be Lower than the CONTRACTOR LIMIT .</p>
<p>- 4 - CUSTOMER LIMIT = CONTRACTOR LIMIT ( NTE ) + CUSTOMER Margin</p>
<p>( Customer Margin is under the Customer control / responsibility to
cope with changes of Customer requirements , or for contractual clauses
/ incentives ) The Customer Margin is the SYSTEM Margin quoted in 5.2.3
.</p>
<p>FORMAL Mass Parameters ( To be controlled + Plotted versus Time )
:</p>
<p>BASIC ; PREDICTED ; CONTRACTOR LIMIT ; CUSTOMER LIMIT .</p>
<p>Other Mass Parameters definition ( for clarification ) :</p>
<p>Estimated ; Calculated ; Final ; Actual ;</p></td>
<td colspan="3"><p>3.10 : Mass Growth Allowance = Design Maturity Margin
at Equipment Level , allowing for anticipated design changes and
evolutions during the development ( Design , Verification , Testing )
cycle of the equipment . Mass Growth Allowance do not cover
configuration changes due to major contractual or requirements changes
initiated by the Customer .</p>
<p>Reword : BASIC , PREDICTED , CONTRACTOR LIMIT , CUSTOMER LIMIT
according to above Justifications / Definitions . State that those 4
Mass properties shall be controlled and subject to Trend Analysis .</p>
<p>Modify Figures 1and 2 to make them consistent ( Using exactly same
wording ) with each other , and with the proposed terminology .</p>
<p>Para 5.2.3. : Explain " SYSTEM Margin AGAINST the contactor limit ",
and state WHO is responsible / in control of this system margin . To me
, this System Margin is under the Customer responsibility .</p></td>
<td colspan="3">Pending – U.S. team needs to discuss this in
detail.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>ECSS</td>
<td colspan="3">1</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">te</td>
<td><p>Sentence does not make sense.</p>
<p>'The relationship between this management plan and the performance
perameters for mass and stability are met throughout the mission are
described.'</p></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">Should read : “for mass and stability to be met
throughout the mission…”</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>ECSS</td>
<td colspan="3">5.3.4</td>
<td colspan="3">1</td>
<td colspan="3">ed</td>
<td><p>Missing word.</p>
<p>'full analysis using CAD models may not be possible,'</p></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">Changed to “In some cases, full space systems analysis
using CAD systems may not possible”</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>ECSS</td>
<td colspan="3">5.4.5.4.3</td>
<td colspan="3">1</td>
<td colspan="3">ed</td>
<td><p>Missing word.</p>
<p>'procedures that are approved and documented.'</p></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">Accepted</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>ECSS</td>
<td colspan="3">1</td>
<td colspan="3">1</td>
<td colspan="3">Te</td>
<td><p>The terms "space vehicles" used in the scope should be
avoided</p>
<p>Justification:<br />
The terms "space vehicles" used in the scope are less general than
"space systems" as defined in clause 3.2.</p></td>
<td colspan="3">...mass properties of space systems...</td>
<td colspan="3">Accepted</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>ECSS</td>
<td colspan="3">3.8</td>
<td colspan="3">3</td>
<td colspan="3">ed</td>
<td>"Authority to proceed" is used instead of "Authorization to proceed"
in the legend of abscissae axis</td>
<td colspan="3">authorization to proceed</td>
<td colspan="3">Accepted</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>ECSS</td>
<td colspan="3">5.2.1</td>
<td colspan="3">5</td>
<td colspan="3">ed</td>
<td><p>Use of the terms "effective mass reduction plan" can lead to an
ambiguous understanding.</p>
<p>Justification:<br />
Effective mass is a specific terminology used by structural dynamics
engineers</p></td>
<td colspan="3">efficient mass reduction plan<br />
or<br />
real mass reduction plan</td>
<td colspan="3">Changed to “a successful mass reduction plan”</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>ECSS</td>
<td colspan="3">5.2.2</td>
<td colspan="3">5</td>
<td colspan="3">ed</td>
<td><p>The example of "spacecrafts" is very restrictive wrt the context
of the standard.</p>
<p>Justification:<br />
The standard is written for space systems, not only "spacecrafts" of
"satellites". Use of "space system" seems to be preferred.</p></td>
<td colspan="3">Different space systems..</td>
<td colspan="3">Changed to “A space system that is
spin-stabilized….”</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>ECSS</td>
<td colspan="3">Gereral</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">te</td>
<td><p>Some indication should be given to combine the different margins
to perform the trend analysis at system level in order to derive the NTE
mass.</p>
<p>Justification:<br />
The different masses budgets at subsystem level will include margins but
it is very uncommon to have all the subsystems at their NTE mass at the
same time. If the subsystems masses are summed linearly, this will lead
to a high system maximum mass or to lower NTE masses for the subsystems
in case of allocation analysis.</p></td>
<td colspan="3">Define a way to combine the susbsystem masses for trend
analyses : eg. RSS</td>
<td colspan="3">Pending. Identify specific clauses affected and
requested changes to be made.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>ECSS</td>
<td colspan="3">5.3.6</td>
<td colspan="3">5</td>
<td colspan="3">ed</td>
<td>"current mass" is a specific definition used in mass analyses ~ best
estimate.<br />
Are these words used with this meaning in the text?<br />
If not, another formulation should be preferred.<br />
If yes, "current mass" should be defined in the paragraph 3 terms and
definitions.</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">Accepted with modification: Use “basic and/or predicted”
instead of “current”.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>ECSS</td>
<td colspan="3">5.4.2</td>
<td colspan="3">5</td>
<td colspan="3">te</td>
<td>I consider that the "mass analysis" of the structure, thermal
system, antennae... shall be under the responsibility of their
developers not of the MPE. The MPE should only be there to help for the
analysis and to establish the budgets and perform the trends analysis
with data provided by the different developers.</td>
<td colspan="3">Cancel this part of clause 5.4.2</td>
<td colspan="3">Under consideration: Currently this clause is reworded.
Shall we delete this clause or expand it to include all hardware listed
in Table A.1, as suggested by AFNOR?</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>ECSS</td>
<td colspan="3">5.4.5.4.4</td>
<td colspan="3">5</td>
<td colspan="3">te</td>
<td><p>I do not understand why this clause which is only related to
contractual matters is included in the standard.</p>
<p>Justification:<br />
Contractual matters depend upon each project, each customer... and
cannot be defined in a general standard.</p></td>
<td colspan="3">Cancel this clause.</td>
<td colspan="3">Accepted – the 1 week notice is a contractual
matter</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>ECSS</td>
<td colspan="3">General</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">te</td>
<td><p>The standard insists on the role of MPE and gives information on
who should perform the work.. A reading of the standard draft leads to
the understanding that it aims at defining a role and responsibilities
for an MPE.A standard should detail what to do, how to do it but not who
should do it.</p>
<p>Justification:<br />
The way to do the work of mass control depends on each project
organization and an MPE is not always member of the project team. The
mass control can be assigned to the system engineer or to any other
personnel in the team depending on its capacity to do it.</p></td>
<td colspan="3">Cancel in the text the different references to the
responsabilities of an MPE.</td>
<td colspan="3">Accepted – text will be revised to remove reference to
an MPE specialist as the responsible person; however, the tasks will
remain.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>ECSS</td>
<td colspan="3">General</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">te</td>
<td><p>Cette proposition de norme nous semble relativement proche du
référentiel ASP où le rôle de MPE (Mass Product Engineer) est joué
prioncipalement par l'AMT (en délégation du responsable
technique).<br />
On notera surtout l'aspect pilotage de la masse (prédiction en fonction
des événements, avancement du programme).</p>
<p>La notion de matrice de vérification de masse est intéressante, ainsi
que la prise en compte dés le début de l'affaire de l'aspect masse et
des règles de suivi.</p>
<p>En bref, c'est globalement un plus complet que le référentiel ASP sur
l'aspect processus et méthodologie. C'est surtout intéressant à un
niveau système ou équipement.</p>
<p>Par contre, l'art et la manière de sommer les masses en fonction des
incertitudes sont donnés pour info, il serait à mon sens bon d'être plus
directif comme cela se fait chez nous, pour éviter toute polémique et
tout malentendu.</p></td>
<td colspan="3"><p>Attempted translation:</p>
<p>This proposal of standardization seems to us relatively similar to
the ASP reference, whereas the role of MPE (Mass Product Engineer) is
principally played by the AMT (delegated to the technical manager). One
notes especially the piloting(driving?) mass aspect (predicting ,
depending on events, the advancement of the programme.</p>
<p>The notion of a mass verification matrix is interesting, as well as
taking into account from the beginning of the affair the mass aspect and
the follow-up rules.</p>
<p>Briefly, it is globally more of an advantage than the ASP reference
from a process and methodology aspect. It is especially interesting at a
system level or equipment level.</p>
<p>On the other hand , the art and manner of adding the masses in
function of the uncertainties are given as information, it would be, in
my opinion, good to be more direct as is done by us, to avoid any
confusion or misunderstanding.</p></td>
<td colspan="3">En cours. On a besoin de vérifier la traduction. On
propose que les paragraphes spécifiquement concernées soient identifier
et les changements proposés soient fait.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>AFNOR</td>
<td colspan="3">2</td>
<td colspan="3">1</td>
<td colspan="3">Ed</td>
<td><p>Quotes ISO 21347 as being “Space systems – Non-flight items in
flight hardware – identification and control. The document with this
title is ISO 22108.</p>
<p>ISO 21347 title is Fracture and Damage Control.</p></td>
<td colspan="3">Include the correct reference(s).</td>
<td colspan="3">Accepted, but is it WD or CD 22108? (It’s not a released
ISO document yet) CD 22108</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>AFNOR</td>
<td colspan="3">3</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">Ed</td>
<td><p>It is proposed that the following definitions be added:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Mass</p></li>
<li><p>Centre of gravity</p></li>
<li><p>Moments of inertia</p></li>
<li><p>Products of inertia</p></li>
</ul>
<p>To ensure that that there is an international understanding of what
mass properties are.</p></td>
<td colspan="3">Add definitions.</td>
<td colspan="3">Rejected: these basic definitions can be found in
textbooks, and would not add value to this document.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>AFNOR</td>
<td colspan="3">5.2.7</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">Ed</td>
<td>Penultimate sentence: the word “<strong>exceedence</strong>” is not
in two dictionaries that I have checked.</td>
<td colspan="3"><p>Change “<strong>specification exceedence</strong>” to
“<strong>excess</strong>” or “<strong>excess mass</strong>”.</p>
<p>NB: the use of the word “specification” is not necessary as it has
already been used in the sentence.</p></td>
<td colspan="3">The current version does not use the word
“exceedence”</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>AFNOR</td>
<td colspan="3">5.3.4</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">Ed</td>
<td>The word “<strong>be</strong>” is missing in the first line.</td>
<td colspan="3">Include the word “<strong>be</strong>” between “not” and
“possible”.</td>
<td colspan="3">Accepted</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>AFNOR</td>
<td colspan="3">5.3.4</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">Ed</td>
<td>Last line, incorrect use of an abbreviation.</td>
<td colspan="3">Change “<strong>math</strong>” to
“<strong>mathematical</strong>”.</td>
<td colspan="3">Accepted</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>AFNOR</td>
<td colspan="3">5.4.2</td>
<td colspan="3">All</td>
<td colspan="3">Te</td>
<td>Not all hardware included</td>
<td colspan="3">Include all hardware of Table A.1</td>
<td colspan="3">Pending: delete the clause or include all hardware from
Table A.1?</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>AFNOR</td>
<td colspan="3">5.4.2</td>
<td colspan="3">First</td>
<td colspan="3">Te</td>
<td>Inappropriate definition</td>
<td colspan="3">The MPE shall be responsible for the compilation of the
system mass budget and mass properties using inputs provided by the
hardware suppliers.</td>
<td colspan="3">Revised suggestion: “All new subsystems, units, and
components are subject to detailed analysis</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>AFNOR</td>
<td colspan="3">5.4.4.2</td>
<td colspan="3">First</td>
<td colspan="3">Te</td>
<td>Inappropriate definition</td>
<td colspan="3">Exchange “<strong>payload layout team</strong>” with
“<strong>system mechanical configuration team</strong>”.</td>
<td colspan="3">Wording already changed to a more general
statement.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>AFNOR</td>
<td colspan="3">5.4.5.4.5</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">Ed</td>
<td>ISO 22008 is not the correct reference.</td>
<td colspan="3">Change “<strong>22008</strong>” to
“<strong>22108</strong>”.</td>
<td colspan="3">Accepted, but is it WD or CD 22108? CD 22108</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>AFNOR</td>
<td colspan="3">Various</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">Ed</td>
<td>The word “<strong>program</strong>” is the incorrect spelling for a
document written in English.</td>
<td colspan="3">Change “<strong>program</strong>” to
“<strong>programme</strong>”.</td>
<td colspan="3">Accepted</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>JP</td>
<td colspan="3">2</td>
<td colspan="3">ISO CD21347</td>
<td colspan="3">ed</td>
<td>CD21347 shall be collected.</td>
<td colspan="3">ISO CD21347 shall be WD22108. (Non-flight items)</td>
<td colspan="3">Accepted (WD or CD?) CD 22108</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>JP</td>
<td colspan="3">5.4.5.4.5</td>
<td colspan="3">ISO CD22008</td>
<td colspan="3">ed</td>
<td>CD22008 shall be collected.</td>
<td colspan="3">ISO CD22008 shall be WD22108. (Non-flight items)</td>
<td colspan="3">Accepted (WD or CD? ) CD 22108</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>JP</td>
<td colspan="3"><p>3.7 and</p>
<p>Annex A</p></td>
<td colspan="3">Table A.1</td>
<td colspan="3">te</td>
<td>"nearly identical components" mass includes manufacturing tolerance
of 1-5% in Table 1.</td>
<td colspan="3">Measured and Comparison should be identified
separately.</td>
<td colspan="3">Need more specific recommendation</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>JP</td>
<td colspan="3">5.2.3</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">te</td>
<td>Please define "a system margin against the contractor limit" at
section 3, or show in Figure 1. Or "a system margin against the
contractor limit" in compliance with customer reserve in Figure 1?</td>
<td colspan="3">Define that “A system margin is a predicted final
contractor margin (or plus customer reserve), which is expected to be
positive.”</td>
<td colspan="3">Need to discuss this in light of AIAA document
definition.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>JP</td>
<td colspan="3">5.2.3</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">te</td>
<td><p>Is "historical warrant margins" included in historical warrant
system margin or in compliance with customer reserve Figure 1?</p>
<p>If affirmative, Please use the definition, “customer
reserve”.</p></td>
<td colspan="3">Ditto</td>
<td colspan="3">Ditto</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>JP</td>
<td colspan="3">5.3.7.</td>
<td colspan="3">Figure 2</td>
<td colspan="3">ed</td>
<td>Is “customer margin” in Figure 2 the same as “customer reserve” in
Figure 1?</td>
<td colspan="3">“customer margin” in Figure 2 shall be changed as
“customer reserve”.</td>
<td colspan="3">Ditto</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>JP</td>
<td colspan="3">5.2.4</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">ed</td>
<td>“The MPE software shall be capable...”is to be changed as
proposed.</td>
<td colspan="3">To be “The MPE shall identify or prepare such software
capable of....”</td>
<td colspan="3">Referring to 5.4.2? If so, this clause substantially
revised</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>UK</td>
<td colspan="2">2</td>
<td colspan="3">1</td>
<td colspan="3">E</td>
<td colspan="4"><p>Quotes ISO 21347 as being “Space systems – Non-flight
items in flight hardware – identification and control. The document with
this title is ISO 22108.</p>
<p>ISO 21347 title is Fracture and Damage Control.</p></td>
<td colspan="3">Include the correct reference(s).</td>
<td>Repeat of ECSS comment</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>UK</td>
<td colspan="2">3</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">E</td>
<td colspan="4"><p>It is proposed that the following definitions be
added:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Mass</p></li>
<li><p>Centre of gravity</p></li>
<li><p>Moments of inertia</p></li>
<li><p>Products of inertia</p></li>
</ul>
<p>To ensure that that there is an international understanding of what
mass properties are.</p></td>
<td colspan="3">Add definitions.</td>
<td>Repeat</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>UK</td>
<td colspan="2">5.2.7</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">E</td>
<td colspan="4">Penultimate sentence: the word
“<strong>exceedence</strong>” is not in two dictionaries that I have
checked.</td>
<td colspan="3"><p>Change “<strong>specification exceedence</strong>” to
“<strong>excess</strong>” or “<strong>excess mass</strong>”.</p>
<p>NB: the use of the word “specification” is not necessary as it has
already been used in the sentence.</p></td>
<td>Repeat</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>UK</td>
<td colspan="2">5.3.4</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">E</td>
<td colspan="4">The word “<strong>be</strong>” is missing in the first
line.</td>
<td colspan="3">Include the word “<strong>be</strong>” between “not” and
“possible”.</td>
<td>Repeat</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>UK</td>
<td colspan="2">5.3.4</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">E</td>
<td colspan="4">Last line, incorrect use of an abbreviation.</td>
<td colspan="3">Change “<strong>math</strong>” to
“<strong>mathematical</strong>”.</td>
<td>Repeat</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>UK</td>
<td colspan="2">5.4.2</td>
<td colspan="3">All</td>
<td colspan="3">Technical</td>
<td colspan="4">Not all hardware included</td>
<td colspan="3">Include all hardware of Table A.1</td>
<td>Repeat</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>UK</td>
<td colspan="2">5.4.2</td>
<td colspan="3">First</td>
<td colspan="3">Technical</td>
<td colspan="4">Inappropriate definition</td>
<td colspan="3">The MPE shall be responsible for the compilation of the
system mass budget and mass properties using inputs provided by the
hardware suppliers.</td>
<td>Repeat</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>UK</td>
<td colspan="2">5.4.4.2</td>
<td colspan="3">First</td>
<td colspan="3">Technical</td>
<td colspan="4">Inappropriate definition</td>
<td colspan="3">Exchange “<strong>payload layout team</strong>” with
“<strong>system mechanical configuration team</strong>”.</td>
<td>Repeat</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>UK</td>
<td colspan="2">5.4.5.4.5</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">E</td>
<td colspan="4">ISO 22008 is not the correct reference.</td>
<td colspan="3">Change “<strong>22008</strong>” to
“<strong>22108</strong>”.</td>
<td>Repeat</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>UK</td>
<td colspan="2">Various</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3">E</td>
<td colspan="4">The word “<strong>program</strong>” is the incorrect
spelling for a document written in English.</td>
<td colspan="3">Change “<strong>program</strong>” to
“<strong>programme</strong>”.</td>
<td>Repeat</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>US</td>
<td>5.2.3</td>
<td colspan="3">Entire paragraph</td>
<td colspan="3">ge</td>
<td colspan="4">The word “shall” should be replaced by “should”
throughout this section.</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2">Partially Accepted-Shall is still used some places</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>US</td>
<td>5.2.3</td>
<td colspan="3">Entire paragraph</td>
<td colspan="3">ed</td>
<td colspan="4">The various percentages shown may be too restrictive
depending on contractor’s experience. Perhaps add a sentence before
discussion of percentages to indicate that these are only suggested
guidelines.</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2">Accepted-this section changed extensively</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>US</td>
<td>5.2.4</td>
<td colspan="3">Entire paragraph</td>
<td colspan="3">ge</td>
<td colspan="4">More emphasis on this as a suggested guideline rather
than a mandate.</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2">Accepted-this section changed extensively</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>US</td>
<td>5.2.7</td>
<td colspan="3">Entire paragraph</td>
<td colspan="3">ge</td>
<td colspan="4">The word “shall” should be replaced by “should”
throughout this section.</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2">Accepted-this section changed extensively</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>US</td>
<td>5.2.7</td>
<td colspan="3">Entire paragraph</td>
<td colspan="3">ed</td>
<td colspan="4">.”If possible, incentives and penalties against
specification values should be written into the contract.” This is
contract management prerogative.</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2">Partially Accepted-incentives are still mentioned;
however, only as a possibility</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>