###### ![](media/image1.png){width="1.4027777777777777in" height="1.4027777777777777in"}

######  **K-ELV-10.2**

###### **National Aeronautics Revision: Basic**

**and Space Administration September 20, 1999**

###### **John F. Kennedy Space Center**

######## PROGRAM MANAGEMENT INSTRUCTION

###### 

###### **RESPONSIBLE OFFICE: EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAM OFFICE**

###### 

####### SUBJECT: LAUNCH VEHICLE QUALIFICATION

**REFERENCE:** (a) Section 201, Public Law 105-303, Commercial Space Act
of 1998

> \(b\) NPD 8610.7 "Launch Services Risk Mitigation Policy for
> NASA-Owned or NASA-Sponsored Payloads"

\(c\) MSFC-RQMT-3019 "Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV) Qualification
Requirements"

\(d\) ISO 9001-1994, International Organization for Standardization

**1.0 PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY**

#####  Any launch vehicle configuration utilized by Launch Service Providers (LSP) to launch National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) payloads must be qualified in accordance with NASA Policy Directive (NPD) 8610.7, "Launch Services Risk Mitigation Policy for NASA-Owned or NASA-Sponsored Payloads". {#any-launch-vehicle-configuration-utilized-by-launch-service-providers-lsp-to-launch-national-aeronautics-and-space-administration-nasa-payloads-must-be-qualified-in-accordance-with-nasa-policy-directive-npd-8610.7-launch-services-risk-mitigation-policy-for-nasa-owned-or-nasa-sponsored-payloads. .n}

#####  {#section-3 .n}

##### This Instruction sets forth the criteria to be used by the KSC ELV Program Office to qualify any launch vehicle configuration. {#this-instruction-sets-forth-the-criteria-to-be-used-by-the-ksc-elv-program-office-to-qualify-any-launch-vehicle-configuration. .n}

#####  {#section-4 .n}

##### **2.0 IMPLEMENTATION** {#implementation .n}

#####  {#section-5 .n}

2.1 For acquisition of future launch services, the NASA Expendable
Launch

##### Vehicle Program Office (ELVPO) has established the following requirements: {#vehicle-program-office-elvpo-has-established-the-following-requirements .n}

#####  {#section-6 .n}

##### (a) The LSP shall be a domestic LSP pursuant to Section 201 of Public Law 105-303, "Commercial Space Act of 1998." {#a-the-lsp-shall-be-a-domestic-lsp-pursuant-to-section-201-of-public-law-105-303-commercial-space-act-of-1998. .n}

#####  {#section-7 .n}

##### (b) The LSP must obtain an ISO 9001 third party certification, from a registrar accredited by either the International Registrar of Certified Auditors (IRCA) or the Registrar Accreditation Board (RAB), for any corporation, corporate divisions, subsidiaries, joint ventures, partner(s) and/or any other business entity actually performing launch vehicle manufacturing, management, payload/launch vehicle integration, testing, and launch.  {#b-the-lsp-must-obtain-an-iso-9001-third-party-certification-from-a-registrar-accredited-by-either-the-international-registrar-of-certified-auditors-irca-or-the-registrar-accreditation-board-rab-for-any-corporation-corporate-divisions-subsidiaries-joint-ventures-partners-andor-any-other-business-entity-actually-performing-launch-vehicle-manufacturing-management-payloadlaunch-vehicle-integration-testing-and-launch. .n}

#####  {#section-8 .n}

##### (c) For contract award of any launch services solicited under a NASA request for contract proposal, the proposed launch vehicle configuration shall be qualified to the required payload risk category, as defined by the NASA Enterprises or the LSP shall provide a viable plan to achieve this qualification prior to launch. (Note: The payload risk categories are defined in Appendix A.) {#c-for-contract-award-of-any-launch-services-solicited-under-a-nasa-request-for-contract-proposal-the-proposed-launch-vehicle-configuration-shall-be-qualified-to-the-required-payload-risk-category-as-defined-by-the-nasa-enterprises-or-the-lsp-shall-provide-a-viable-plan-to-achieve-this-qualification-prior-to-launch.-note-the-payload-risk-categories-are-defined-in-appendix-a. .n}

#####  {#section-9 .n}

##### (d) The ELVPO has established the Launch Vehicle Qualification Process as outlined in Section 4 and shown in Figure 1. The LSP shall submit the required documentation for NASA evaluation and determination of qualification category. NASA shall not bear any cost associated with the development of any LSP documentation required for the qualification of a launch vehicle configuration. {#d-the-elvpo-has-established-the-launch-vehicle-qualification-process-as-outlined-in-section-4-and-shown-in-figure-1.-the-lsp-shall-submit-the-required-documentation-for-nasa-evaluation-and-determination-of-qualification-category.-nasa-shall-not-bear-any-cost-associated-with-the-development-of-any-lsp-documentation-required-for-the-qualification-of-a-launch-vehicle-configuration. .n}

#####  {#section-10 .n}

##### (e) Prior to issuance of mission Authority to Proceed (ATP), the proposed common launch vehicle configuration shall achieve one successful launch. (Note: ATP shall be construed as L-27 months before launch or at option exercise, whichever is closer to launch.) {#e-prior-to-issuance-of-mission-authority-to-proceed-atp-the-proposed-common-launch-vehicle-configuration-shall-achieve-one-successful-launch.-note-atp-shall-be-construed-as-l-27-months-before-launch-or-at-option-exercise-whichever-is-closer-to-launch. .n}

#####  {#section-11 .n}

##### (f) Prior to launch of the NASA payload, the proposed launch vehicle configuration shall be qualified to the required payload risk category. {#f-prior-to-launch-of-the-nasa-payload-the-proposed-launch-vehicle-configuration-shall-be-qualified-to-the-required-payload-risk-category. .n}

#####  {#section-12 .n}

##### (g) In some special cases, NASA may designate payloads as "extremely important" due to the mission's complexity, high cost, or use of special technologies or resources. Payloads designated as "extremely important" shall not be launched on launch vehicles qualified by the alternate method as described in paragraph 4.4. For these special cases, 14 consecutive, successful launches of the launch vehicle configuration must be achieved prior to the launch of the NASA payload. {#g-in-some-special-cases-nasa-may-designate-payloads-as-extremely-important-due-to-the-missions-complexity-high-cost-or-use-of-special-technologies-or-resources.-payloads-designated-as-extremely-important-shall-not-be-launched-on-launch-vehicles-qualified-by-the-alternate-method-as-described-in-paragraph-4.4.-for-these-special-cases-14-consecutive-successful-launches-of-the-launch-vehicle-configuration-must-be-achieved-prior-to-the-launch-of-the-nasa-payload. .n}

#####  {#section-13 .n}

##### (h) A launch vehicle qualified to a higher category is inherently qualified to launch payloads designated with lower category ([i.e]{.underline}., launch vehicles qualified to launch category 3 payloads are also qualified to launch category 1 and 2 payloads). {#h-a-launch-vehicle-qualified-to-a-higher-category-is-inherently-qualified-to-launch-payloads-designated-with-lower-category-i.e.-launch-vehicles-qualified-to-launch-category-3-payloads-are-also-qualified-to-launch-category-1-and-2-payloads. .n}

#####  {#section-14 .n}

\(i\) If no qualified launch vehicle configuration exists to meet
specific mission requirements solicited under a NASA request for
contract proposal, the ELVPO may elect to award or issue ATP of a
mission, contingent on the launch vehicle configuration achieving
tailored qualification requirements.

#####  {#section-15 .n}

##### 2.2 For upgraded or modified vehicle configurations, NASA may require additional technical insight into the design, manufacturing, testing, integration, and first launch of the affected systems and launch vehicle. {#for-upgraded-or-modified-vehicle-configurations-nasa-may-require-additional-technical-insight-into-the-design-manufacturing-testing-integration-and-first-launch-of-the-affected-systems-and-launch-vehicle. .n}

#####  {#section-16 .n}

#####  {#section-17 .n}

##### 2.3 In the event of a launch failure of a qualified common vehicle configuration, the NASA ELVPO will either participate in or perform a failure investigation/return-to-flight board to re-qualify the launch vehicle configuration. {#in-the-event-of-a-launch-failure-of-a-qualified-common-vehicle-configuration-the-nasa-elvpo-will-either-participate-in-or-perform-a-failure-investigationreturn-to-flight-board-to-re-qualify-the-launch-vehicle-configuration. .n}

#####  {#section-18 .n}

#####  {#section-19 .n}

##### **3.0 DEFINITIONS** {#definitions .n}

> **[Common Vehicle Configuration:]{.underline}** A distinct combination
> of core propulsion stages, hardware, and software used to deliver
> payloads to earth orbit or escape trajectories.
>
> **[Qualified Common Vehicle Configuration:]{.underline}** A common
> vehicle configuration which has met the requirements defined in this
> section for a specific qualification category.
>
> **[Upgraded or Modified Vehicle Configuration:]{.underline}** A launch
> vehicle configuration which incorporates upgrades or modifications
> that do not substantially affect operating time, total impulse, and/or
> the thrust profile of one or more propulsive stages of the qualified
> common vehicle configuration. Examples of upgrades and modifications
> include changes in software, payload fairing, payload
> electrical/mechanical interfaces, incorporation of mission-unique
> requirements, and the addition or deletion of final, strap-on trim
> and/or common propulsive stages. Upgrades or modifications are not to
> be interpreted as common vehicle configuration changes.

#####  {#section-20 .n}

#####  {#section-21 .n}

##### **[Common Vehicle Configuration Changes:]{.underline}** Changes to a common vehicle configuration that substantially affect the airframe integrity, operating time, total impulse, guidance, navigation, control and/or thrust profile of one or more propulsive stages. Examples of vehicle configuration changes include the replacement of engine types, main propulsion stages, guidance and control systems, and/or structures. {#common-vehicle-configuration-changes-changes-to-a-common-vehicle-configuration-that-substantially-affect-the-airframe-integrity-operating-time-total-impulse-guidance-navigation-control-andor-thrust-profile-of-one-or-more-propulsive-stages.-examples-of-vehicle-configuration-changes-include-the-replacement-of-engine-types-main-propulsion-stages-guidance-and-control-systems-andor-structures. .n}

#####  {#section-22 .n}

#####  {#section-23 .n}

**4.0 QUALIFICATION PROCESS**

#####  {#section-24 .n}

##### 4.1 Category 1 Qualification Requirements  {#category-1-qualification-requirements .n}

#####  {#section-25 .n}

##### To achieve a Payload Risk Category 1 qualification, the requirements of the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) document MSFC-RQMT-3019, "Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV) Qualification Requirements," must be met. {#to-achieve-a-payload-risk-category-1-qualification-the-requirements-of-the-marshall-space-flight-center-msfc-document-msfc-rqmt-3019-expendable-launch-vehicle-elv-qualification-requirements-must-be-met. .n}

#####  {#section-26 .n}

4.2 Category 2 Qualification Requirements

> (See Figure 1 -- "Evaluation A" Module.) To achieve a Payload Risk
> Category 2 qualification, the LSP must have a minimum of one
> successful flight of the common vehicle configuration and participate
> with NASA in a review of vehicle characteristics and LSP processes.

The ELVPO will verify that the demonstrated common vehicle configuration
met the predicted vehicle and performance parameters within three sigma
criteria prior to qualification. The ELVPO, with support from the MSFC
and GSFC ELV Project Offices, will perform an evaluation of the LSP's
capabilities. This evaluation is described as follows:

# (a) [2^nd^ Party Audit:]{.underline} The ELVPO will conduct an audit of the LSP's management systems; design, engineering, and manufacturing processes; and quality management systems including problem reporting and corrective actions. NASA will utilize industry accepted practices to perform the audit in accordance with ANSI/ASQC Q10011-1-1994, "Guidelines for Auditing Quality Systems-Auditing".

# (b) [95 Percent Predicted Design Reliability]{.underline}: The ELVPO will conduct an assessment of the overall launch vehicle's predicted design reliability to a scale no less than 95 percent at an 80 percent confidence level. NASA will use MIL-STD-1543 (B), "Reliability Program Requirements for Space Launch Vehicles," as a guideline for assessing the LSP's reliability program as it relates to design.

# (c) [Acceptance Test Analysis:]{.underline} The ELVPO will conduct an assessment of the LSP's qualification and acceptance test and analysis program. The LSP must submit documented and comprehensive vehicle qualification and acceptance test results from its environmental, propulsive, avionics, and payload electrical/mechanical interface testing programs. NASA will use MIL-STD-1540, "Test Requirements for Launch, Upper-Stage, and Space Vehicles," as a guideline for assessing the LSP's test program.

# (d) [Demonstrated Safety System:]{.underline} The LSP shall submit documentation to the ELVPO verifying compliance to EWR 127.1 from the Range with regard to its launch vehicle safety systems.

# (e) [Flight Margin Verification:]{.underline} The ELVPO will conduct an assessment of the launch vehicle's performance within the identified three sigma criteria on previous flight(s).

#####  {#section-27 .n}

#####  {#section-28 .n}

##### 4.3 Category 3 Qualification Requirements  {#category-3-qualification-requirements .n}

To achieve a Payload Risk Category 3 qualification, the LSP must achieve
a minimum of 14 consecutive, successful flights of a common vehicle
configuration.

4.4 Alternate Category 3 Qualification Requirements

> (See Figure 1 -- "Evaluation B" module.) For a vehicle derived from a
> launch vehicle previously qualified to launch Category 3 payloads to
> achieve a Payload Risk Category 3 qualification, the LSP must perform
> six successful flights of the new common vehicle configuration and
> participate with NASA in a review of vehicle characteristics and LSP
> processes. The ELVPO will perform an assessment considering vehicle
> design, manufacturing processes, test philosophy, risk mitigation,
> quality systems, documentation systems, and program management,
> including:

# (a) [Flight Hardware/Software Test Results.]{.underline} The ELVPO will conduct an assessment of all flight vehicle hardware environmental, assembly-level, and integrated assembly test results.

> \(b\) [LSP Past Performance.]{.underline} The ELVPO will assess the
> LSP's most recent and relevant launch service activity. The ELVPO will
> conduct an assessment of the launch vehicle's performance to verify
> that the launch parameters were within the identified three sigma
> criteria on previous flight(s). The ELVPO may require additional
> flight experience of a vehicle configuration prior to launch of a NASA
> payload.
>
> \(c\) [Vehicle Design Assessment]{.underline}. For common vehicle
> configuration changes, the ELVPO may resolve that a launch vehicle
> satisfies the intent of the 14 successful, consecutive launch criteria
> through assessment of:
>
> > 1\. Vehicle heritage
>
> > 2\. Vehicle flight hardware/software test results
>
> > 3\. LSP experience and past performance
>
> > 4\. LSP flight experience of the new vehicle configuration (six
> > flights required)
>
> \(d\) [Manufacturing Processes]{.underline}. If necessary, the ELVPO
> will conduct a 2^nd^ party audit with focus on the LSP's manufacturing
> processes, related quality and problem reporting and corrective action
> systems. NASA will utilize industry-accepted practices to perform the
> audit in accordance with ANSI/ASQC Q10011-1-1994, "Guidelines for
> Auditing Quality Systems-Auditing".
>
> \(e\) [Test Philosophy.]{.underline} The ELVPO will review documented
> test practices as they apply to manufacturing, sub-assembly, assembly,
> sub-system, and system level testing. NASA will specifically analyze
> how the LSP has adapted proven test practices documented for Category
> 3 qualified vehicles, to the launch vehicle proposed for
> qualification.
>
> \(f\) [Risk Mitigation.]{.underline} The ELVPO will review documented
> risk management policies with respect to the identification, tracking,
> analysis, and mitigation techniques used to manage potential impacts
> to delivery of the launch service.
>
> \(g\) [Quality Systems.]{.underline} If necessary, the ELVPO will
> conduct an audit of the LSP's management processes, quality systems,
> and problem reporting and corrective action systems. NASA will utilize
> industry-accepted practices to perform the audit in accordance with
> ANSI/ASQC Q10011-1-1994, "Guidelines for Auditing Quality
> Systems-Auditing".
>
> \(h\) [Documentation Systems.]{.underline} The ELVPO will review the
> LSP's existing documentation system discipline with regard to
> requirement definition, requirement tracking, procedure development
> and release, test execution, problem reporting and corrective action,
> procedure deviations, recurrence control, and quality control.
>
> \(i\) [Program Management.]{.underline} The ELVPO will assess and the
> LSP shall provide documentation detailing:
>
> > 1\. Major program management functions required to provide the
> > launch service and to satisfy typical mission requirements.
>
> > 2\. Documentation with respect to formal program, design, and
> > readiness review processes.
>
> \(j\) [Configuration Management.]{.underline} The ELVPO will assess
> the LSP's configuration management system. Launch vehicle design and
> production for all launch vehicle hardware/software components,
> assemblies, and systems will be evaluated.

5.  **LAUNCH VEHICLE QUALIFICATION REQUEST**

#####  {#section-29 .n}

5.1 Request for Qualification: The LSP should request qualification by
sending a written request to the ELVPO. The request should be
accompanied by the following:

> \(a\) A letter, signed by a corporate official, certifying that the
> company is a domestic LSP pursuant to Section 201 of Public Law
> 105-303, "Commercial Space Act of 1998".
>
> \(b\) A copy of the quality management system ISO 9001 third party
> certification received from an accredited registrar from either the
> International Registrar of Certified Auditors (IRCA) or the Registrar
> Accreditation Board (RAB).
>
> \(c\) A description of the launch vehicle configuration, including any
> similarities to a qualified launch vehicle configuration.
>
> \(d\) A list of mission names, launch dates, launch vehicle
> configurations, and associated customers for all planned and/or
> performed launches of the launch vehicle configuration requesting
> qualification.
>
> \(e\) A point-of-contact for coordination of NASA's qualification
> process.

5.2 Throughout the Qualification Process, open dialog is encouraged
between the LSP and NASA to ensure timely delivery of appropriate
documentation and to avoid unnecessary efforts.

5.3 Upon completion of the qualification process, the ELVPO will issue a
letter to the LSP informing them of the launch vehicle configuration's
qualification category.

####### APPROVAL \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Bobby Bruckner**

**Program Manager,**

**ELV and Payload Carriers Program Office**

######### Figure 1: Launch Vehicle Qualification Process

> **Appendix A**: Payload Risk Categories

####### Category 1 Payloads

> Payloads or instruments which are non-mission critical and require
> simple interface/mission design, and/or are low-cost (e.g., university
> research experiments or instrumentation).

####### Category 2 Payloads

> Payloads or instruments which are collectively mission critical to
> implementation of NASA\'s Strategic Plan, require moderate complexity
> of mission design and integration, and/or are of moderate cost (e.g.,
> Small Explorers or Earth System Science Probes).

####### Category 3 Payloads

> Payloads or instruments which are individually mission critical to
> implementation of NASA's Strategic Plan, require complex mission
> interface/design and/or are of high cost (e.g., Discovery or Space
> Station logistics).

######