![](media/image1.wmf){width="1.1in" height="1.0465277777777777in"}

**K-ELV-10.3**

National Aeronautics and Space Administration **Basic**

John F. Kennedy Space Center, Florida **4/11/01**

**Expendable Launch Vehicles Program**

##### PROGRAM/PROJECT MANAGEMENT INSTRUCTION

#### RESPONSIBLE OFFICE: EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE DIRECTORATE 

#### SUBJECT: EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE CERTIFICATION PLAN

#### 

#### REFERENCE:

(a) NPD 8610.23 "Technical Oversight of Expendable Launch Vehicles (ELV)
    Launch Services"

(b) NASA STD-8709.2 "NASA Safety and Mission Assurance Roles and
    Responsibilities for Expendable Launch Vehicle Services"

(c) PPMI K-ELV-10.2 "Expendable Launch Vehicle Certification"

(d) KDP-P 2837 "Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV) Certification Process"

#### PURPOSE

The intent of this document is to provide a generic plan for
certification of a common launch vehicle (LV) according to the
requirements defined in Program/Project Management Instruction (PPMI)
K-ELV-10.2, "Expendable Launch Vehicle Certification." A specific
certification implementation plan will be developed to tailor the
requirements expressed in this document to each particular LV (Reference
Appendix A). Deviations from this PPMI will be identified in the
certification plan specific to a particular launch vehicle. Approval of
the deviations will be by the ELV Project and/or Program as required.
This plan defines the specific areas in which NASA/KSC intends to
perform assessments to certify LV's to Category 2 and 3 levels. Category
1 questions and concerns should be addressed to the Marshall Space
Flight Center (MSFC).

#### SCOPE

Launch vehicles which are under contract with the NASA/KSC Expendable
Launch Vehicle Program Office (ELVPO), and which are being considered
for a NASA mission, are subject to the provisions of this document.

#### IMPLEMENTATION

This document divides the certification process into phases. Category 2
Certification is satisfied by one successful flight and completion of
phases A through C. New LV's with heritage to a previously certified
Category 3 LV and 6 consecutive, successful flights may obtain Category
3 Certification by completion of phases A through D. Category 3
Certification may also be satisfied by completion of phase E only,
provided the LSP is a domestic LSP pursuant to the Commercial Space
Launch Act of 1998[^1], and is ISO 9001 certified with 14 consecutive
successful flights. After a Certification has been granted, Phase F
addresses the required NASA/KSC insight to monitor LV design upgrades
and modifications.

For LV's under contract with the ELVPO, the certification effort shall
begin immediately upon consideration of a NASA mission for that LV, and
it will be a continuous process up through final vehicle certification.
NASA/KSC will make every effort to tailor its certification efforts
around the contractor's standard LV development processes (i.e., tests,
meetings, reviews, etc.). Per contract, NASA/KSC shall be afforded all
insight privileges in the areas delineated in NASA Policy Directive
(NPD) 8610.23 (\"Technical Oversight of ELV Launch Services\"). The
ELVPO may partner with the Air Force and other NASA centers to
accomplish LV certification.

Each assessment area is addressed by sub-elements of Responsibility and
Data. The Responsibility refers to the NASA/KSC group or organization
responsible for the review of the associated data, and the Data is the
information necessary to satisfy the certification element. The data
listed are generic in title. Where there is not a direct match between a
specified item (i.e., meetings, documents, processes, etc) and the
contractor's standard documentation, the contractor's documentation will
be acceptable provided it contains the equivalent data and/or meets the
intent as determined by NASA/KSC.

**3.1 PHASE A**

At the onset of certification, NASA/KSC shall be invited to attend and
participate in all design reviews, LV development meetings, and tests.

**3.1.1 Vehicle Design Assessment:** The ELV Project will conduct an
assessment of the qualification and acceptance plan, and test data, for
the common vehicle configuration. An assessment of the LV's overall
predicted design reliability analysis will also be conducted.

**3.1.1.1 LV Design:** The ELV Project will conduct a review of the
launch vehicle's predicted design reliability with respect to 95 percent
at an 80 percent confidence level.

> 1\) Responsibility: Engineering and Safety & Flight Assurance Office
> (S&FAO)
>
> 2\) Data: Documentation for evaluation of LV design

a.  Component and system level PDR, CDR & DCR packages

b.  LV predicted design reliability with respect to 95% reliability at
    an 80% confidence level

**3.1.1.2\`Vehicle flight hardware/software qualification:** The ELV
Project will conduct a comprehensive review of the LSP's qualification
and acceptance test 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/KSC will emphasize the following areas:
test fidelity and completeness (i.e. \'test like you fly\'); component,
subsystem, and system requirements traceability; and knowledge and
verification of environments.

1)  Responsibility: Engineering

2)  Data: Comprehensive component and system qualification plans, and
    acceptance test results for the following subsystems:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a.  Ordnance

b.  Propulsion

c.  Avionics/Electrical

d.  Flight controls/guidance

e.  Mechanical

f.  Structures (Load bearing, pressure vessels, composites)

g.  Software

h.  Launch complex interfaces

i.  Safety Systems

> The LSP provided documentation shall include:

a.  System performance requirements

b.  Definition of system components

c.  Identify component predicted environments (thermal, vibration,
    shock, acoustics, etc.)

d.  Identify Acceptance Test Plan (ATP) and Qualification Test Plan
    (QTP) test levels/margins

e.  Adherence of ATP and QTP to the like-you-fly configuration

f.  ATP and QTP test plans

g.  Post ATP and QTP test reports, including all deviations, anomalies
    and waivers

    2.  **PHASE B**

To achieve a Category 2 certification, the LSP must have a minimum of
one successful flight of the common vehicle configuration and
participate with NASA/KSC in a review of vehicle characteristics.
Following the first successful launch of a new LV configuration, the LSP
shall participate with NASA/KSC in a review of:

**3.2.1 Flight Margin Verification:** The ELV Project will verify the
demonstrated vehicle configuration flight met the predicted vehicle and
performance parameters within three sigma criteria. Actual vehicle and
performance parameters which exceed three sigma predictions will be
investigated by NASA/KSC as anomalies regardless of mission success
determination.

1)  Responsibility: Engineering

2)  Data: Post-flight data and analysis including:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a)  Nominal 5 or 6 Degree of Freedom (DOF) trajectory simulation for the
    targeted insertion condition utilizing actual weights and propulsion
    models.

b)  Nominal and 3-sigma limits for orbit elements and associated
    covariance matrix.

c)  Performance impacts as a function of launch date and time

d)  Performance capability, margins and reserves.

e)  Sequence of Events (SOE) and tracking coverage

f)  Time history of trajectory from launch to targeted condition

g)  Launch vehicle summary and weight statement

h)  Sources and magnitude for all dispersions used. If statistical
    dispersions are used, then the distribution method (e.g., normal,
    gaussian) shall be specified for each parameter

i)  Definition of all coordinate systems used

j)  Reference to the source(s) for all payload inputs to this analysis
    (e.g., requirements, mass properties)

k)  Orbit elements determined from vehicle guidance data

l)  Pre-flight prediction of expected flight environments (e.g.,
    acoustic/vibration, quasi-static acceleration, thermal, shock, and
    pressure)

m)  Post-flight determination of actual flight environments

n)  Explanation of significant differences between the predicted and
    actual flight environments for every component

o)  Predicted versus actual vehicle system/subsystem performance data
    (e.g. duty cycles, gas budgets, actuator deflections, battery
    margins, regulator pressures, etc.)

p)  Comprehensive description of all vehicle flight anomalies, and
    associated corrective action

**3.2.2 Demonstrated System Safety:** The ELV Project will verify
compliance to EWR 127.1 (or equivalent for launch sites other than
Eastern and Western ranges) with regard to launch vehicle systems

1.  Responsibility: S&FAO

2.  Data: Missile System Pre-launch Safety Plan (MSPSP) and Range
    certification document including any wavers and deviations.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
2.  **PHASE C**

Following sufficient review of data in Phases A and B, the ELV Program
will conduct audits of the following:

#### 3.3.1 Flight Hardware/Software Operational/Integrated Test Process: The ELV Project will conduct an assessment of all flight vehicle hardware environmental, assembly-level, and integrated assembly test processes.

1)  Responsibility: Engineering and S&FAO

2)  Data: Review of build paper, non-conformance, failure analysis,
    statistical process control, etc. The Contractor shall make
    available to NASA/KSC all problem reports or discrepancy reports on
    LV systems' failures and anomalies. This shall include fleet-wide
    insight into anomalies, MRB actions, deviations or waivers to
    systems, subsystems, materials, processes, and test equipment
    including those for Non-NASA missions.

#### 3.3.2 Manufacturing Processes: The ELV Project will conduct audits/2^nd^ party audits with focus on the LSP's manufacturing processes.

1)  Responsibility: Engineering and S&FAO

2)  Data: Assembly procedures/drawings, manufacturing
    practices/standards, inspection/acceptance criteria, documentation
    defining the scope of Hardware Acceptance Reviews (HAR's) and
    post-production reviews, maintaining certifications, and training. A
    description of how any new processes and standards relate to the
    previous processes and standards. Copies of transition plans when
    component/assemblies are fabricated by new manufacturers or
    transitioned to new production/assembly facilities.

#### 3.3.3 Quality Systems: The ELVPO will conduct an audit of the LSP's management processes, quality systems, and problem reporting and corrective action systems. NASA/KSC will utilize industry-accepted practices to perform the audits in accordance with NASA STD-8709.2 "NASA Safety and Mission Assurance Roles and Responsibilities for ELV Services" and ANSI/ASQC Q10011-1-1994, "Guidelines for Auditing Quality Systems-Auditing".

1)  Responsibility: S&FAO

2)  Data: The Contractors Quality Management Plan. Items to be included
    (but are not limited to) in the Quality management plan should cover

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a)  Design Control

b)  Document and data control

c)  Purchasing

d)  Product identification and traceability

e)  Customer-Supplied product control

f)  Process control

g)  Inspection and testing

h)  Control of inspection, measuring, and test equipment

i)  Control of non-conforming product

j)  Handling, storage, packaging, and delivery

k)  Control of quality records

l)  Internal quality audits

m)  Training

#### 3.3.4 Launch Service Complex Review: Prior to the first NASA launch the ELV Project will perform an audit of the launch service complex, its operation and associated ground support equipment.

1.  Responsibility: Engineering and S&FAO

2.  Data: Open Item Review of all launch service complex and GSE
    anomalies, and description of corrective action plan.

##### *[Category 2 LV Certification:]{.underline} Upon successful completion of Phase A, B and C, and resolution of any ELV Program issues and/or concerns through the Program Review Control Board (PRCB), the vehicle under consideration has met the minimum requirements for Category 2 Certification.* 

2.  **PHASE D**

For Category 3 certification of a new LV under the alternate method, the
LV must have 6 consecutive, successful flights and must be derived from
a LV previously certified to launch Category 3 payloads. For vehicles
where this is a viable option, the following criteria shall be met prior
to obtaining a Category 3 certification.

**Category 2 Certification:** The new LV must successfully obtain a
Category 2 certification as described in Phases A thru C above.

**3.4.1 Vehicle Design Assessment:** NASA/KSC will conduct a detailed
assessment of the proposed vehicle in the following areas:

**3.4.1.1 LV Heritage Assessment:** NASA/KSC shall conduct a detailed
assessment of the LV's heritage to a previously certified Category 3 LV.
This assessment shall be performed prior to all other elements under the
alternate Category 3 method.

> 1\) Responsibility: Engineering
>
> 2\) Data: Documentation relating proposed vehicle to previously
> Certified Category 3 LV (e.g.. heritage component/system review)

**3.4.1.2 LV Analysis:** NASA/KSC shall perform an in-depth assessment
of various LV analyses. Pending review of the contractors data, if
NASA/KSC identifies any issues within the subject analyses, or the
analyses are an expansion of previously demonstrated capabilities,
NASA/KSC may elect to perform independent analysis in certain areas.

1)  Responsibility: Engineering

    1.  Data: Review of appropriate qualification data, pre-flight
        analyses and corresponding reports in the following areas.

> **a) Flight Design**

-   Pre and post flight performance reports

-   Injection accuracy report

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Aerodynamics

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Axial, Lateral, and Normal force coefficients as functions of Mach
    (and alpha/beta, if applicable) for all vehicle configurations that
    engage in atmospheric flight

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Propulsion

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Vacuum thrust and flow rate as functions of time for solid motors.
    Include a discussion of the effects of nozzle cant angle(s) as
    appropriate

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Vacuum thrust and flow rate for all liquid propellant engines,
    including attitude control/settling motors. Include variations due
    to mixture ratio adjustments and/or propellant tank pressurization,
    as well as startup, shutdown, and other transient events (for
    example, stage 2 engine chilldown)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Nozzle exit areas for all engines

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Detailed Mass Properties

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Dry mass breakdown for all stages and payload fairing

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Propellant mass breakdown for all stages:

> Usable propellant
>
> Reserves
>
> Unusable propellant (trapped, etc.)
>
> Non-impulsive flows (vents, ablation, ice, etc.)

-   Flight Design Ground Rules

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Steering angle limits

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Aeroload limits

> Alpha
>
> Q-alpha

-   Heating limits

-   Acceleration limits

-   Fairing jettison criteria

-   TM/tracking station requirements

-   Range safety requirements

-   Sequence of events requirements

-   Sample trajectory report

-   Performance Dispersion Analysis

> **b) Flight Software**

-   Software development plan.

-   Software configuration control plan.

-   Software requirements documentation.

-   Software design documentation.

-   As built verification test plan.

-   Integrated software test plan.

-   Mission parameter development process documentation.

-   Software change / pedigree documentation

> **c) Control Dynamics (Flight Controls)**

-   Stability and Control report

-   Separation analyses

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   List of bending mode frequency, modal mass, mode shape, and damping
    values used in controls analysis and the time points at which they
    are applicable (liftoff, Max-Q, etc). Mode shape provided at
    requested locations

-   Coordinate system definitions

-   Powered autopilot functional description (logic, block diagrams,
    etc)

-   Powered autopilot gain and filter schedule

-   Vehicle mass properties versus time, with and without propellant
    sloshing mass

-   Booster and upper stage propellant slosh characteristics versus
    time. Characterize slosh as spring-mass-damper or pendulum. Include
    vehicle station number for pendulum or spring attachment

-   Booster main engine, vernier engine, ground lit solid, air lit
    solid, and upper stage engine thrust time history including startup
    and shutdown transient

-   High fidelity actuator models for booster main engine, vernier
    engine, solid TVC, and upper stage

-   Upper stage roll thruster location, orientation, thrust versus time,
    and control logic.

-   Lumped and/or distributed vehicle aerodynamic data

-   Description of maneuvers performed during powered phases of flight

-   Preliminary open loop frequency response results and corresponding
    inputs for model checkout purposes at critical time points during
    booster and upper stage powered flight

-   Nominal and dispersed values of:

> -spacecraft and upper stage mass properties at separation event
>
> -spring and connector forces and locations
>
> -spacecraft and upper stage propellant properties and management
>
> -clearance envelopes and points on spacecraft and upper stage
>
> -upper stage attitude error and attitude rates prior to separation
>
> **d) Guidance**

-   Guidance hardware error models

-   Guidance Targeting and Performance memo and inputs

-   Guidance Analysis memo

> **e) Structural Dynamics (Loads)**

-   SC structural dynamic model (C-B format preferred)

-   LV structural dynamic models and forcing functions

-   Documentation describing models, forcing functions, and methodology
    (as it already exists)

-   Documentation on model verification

-   Test data and flight data used in forcing function development

-   Previous flight data and analogous CLA (couple loads analysis)
    results for comparison

-   Discussions (as needed by KSC) for development of CLA methodology

> **f) Environments**

-   Test data and flight data used in environmental derivations

-   Documentation or description on methodology for development of
    spacecraft and launch vehicle environments

> **g) Thermal**

-   Ground pre-launch processing/gas conditioning / gas
    velocities/impingement velocities

> -PLF internal geometric and thermal math models
>
> -Spacecraft external geometric and thermal math models
>
> -PLF and A/C thermal boundary conditions
>
> -Pre-launch/launch/launch abort timelines
>
> -CFD models
>
> -Model documentation/ validation/flight data

-   Ascent venting analysis

> -Venting analysis analysis
>
> -Ascent venting models
>
> -PLF vent and leak areas
>
> -PLF/Spacecraft volumes
>
> -PLF external pressure coefficient
>
> -Model documentation/validation/flight data

-   Ascent aeroheating analysis

> \- FMH/Aeroheating report
>
> \- Vehicle aerodynamic heating models
>
> \- Ascent trajectory
>
> \- External pressure coefficients
>
> \- Base/plume heating profiles
>
> \- CFD models/inputs
>
> \- Model documentation/ validation/flight data

-   Integrated thermal analysis

> \- ITA report
>
> \- Spacecraft geometric and thermal math model
>
> \- PLF/upper stage geometric and thermal math models
>
> \- Sun/umbra durations and angles, flight sequence of events/maneuvers
> (electronic format)
>
> \- Model documentation/validation/flight data

-   Upper stage propellant / pressurant thermodynamics

> \- Vehicle upper stage geometric and thermal math models.
>
> \- Flight prediction
>
> \- Model documentation/ validation/flight data
>
> **h) Stress and Structures**

-   LV strength analysis models and design load cases

-   Documentation describing models, assumptions, constraints, LV design
    loads, SC interface loads, and methodology

-   Test data and flight data used in design load development and model
    verification

-   Discussions of model to test and/or model to flight correlation (as
    needed)

-   Documentation on model reviews and/or verification

-   Drawings for model verification

-   Structural qualification test reports

-   Final strength analysis reports

-   ERB and/or documentation of design changes, repairs, and part
    substitution

-   Factory built records and hardware discrepancy reports

> **i) EMC/RF**

-   Launch Vehicle EMC Control Plan/Analysis

> \- Summary of all vehicle equipment level electromagnetic interference
> requirements and test data
>
> \- System level EMC test and analysis results
>
> \- Bonding, grounding, deadfacing, lightning protection and wire
> routing requirements, test summaries and analyses
>
> \- Analysis and test data used to determine electromagnetic
> interference safety margins for electroexplosive devices and critical
> circuits

-   Vehicle Electroexplosive Device (EED) Radio Frequency (RF)Analysis

> \- Radio Frequency testing of EEDs
>
> \- Analysis to show EEDs can survive/operate in RF environment

-   Mission RF Hazard Analysis

> \- Analysis of spacecraft EED hazards
>
> \- Analysis of spacecraft transmitter radiation within the fairing
> (when there are inadequate inhibits)

-   RF Environment Analysis/Definition

> \- Analysis of electromagnetic field levels from vehicle and range
> transmitters at the launch vehicle and at the payload interface

-   Spacecraft System Level EMC Test Plans/Results

-   Mission EMC Analysis

> \- Analysis of vehicle to electromagnetic environment generated by
> spacecraft
>
> \- Analysis of spacecraft immunity to launch electromagnetic
> environment
>
> \- Analysis of spacecraft receiver sensitivities to electromagnetic
> environment
>
> \- Analysis of integrated system wiring, grounding, shielding and
> bonding

-   RF Link Analysis

> \- Vehicle mission specific RF link analysis
>
> \- RF analysis of received power levels at the spacecraft on the
> launch pad from ground processing equipment
>
> \- Analysis of RF environment to receiver interference and damage
> levels

-   RF Intermodulation Report

> \- Analysis of intermodulation frequencies from vehicle, spacecraft ,
> and range transmitters

**3.4.1.3 Risk Assessment:** NASA/KSC shall review the overall LV risk
assessment performed by the LSP.

1\) Responsibility: Engineering and S&FAO

2\) Data: Fishbone analysis as determined in the specific LV
certification plan to determine fault modes and risk assessments

**3.4.2 Flight Margin Verification:** For new LV's with heritage to a
previously certified Cat 3 LV, 6 consecutive, successful flights will be
required to obtain a Category 3 certification. The ELV Project will
verify all six flights of the common vehicle configuration met the
predicted vehicle and performance parameters within three sigma
criteria. Actual vehicle and performance parameters which exceed three
sigma predictions will be investigated by NASA/KSC as anomalies
regardless of mission success determination.

1.  Responsibility: Engineering

2.  Data: Post flight data and analysis including:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a)  Nominal 5 or 6 Degree of Freedom (DOF) trajectory simulation for the
    targeted insertion condition utilizing actual weights and propulsion
    models.

b)  Nominal and 3-sigma limits for orbit elements and associated
    covariance matrix.

c)  Performance impacts as a function of launch date and time

d)  Performance capability margins and reserves.

e)  Sequence of Events (SOE) and tracking coverage

f)  Time history of trajectory from launch to targeted condition

g)  Launch vehicle summary and weight statement

h)  Sources and magnitude for all dispersions used. If statistical
    dispersions are used, then the distribution method (e.g., normal,
    gaussian) shall be specified for each parameter

i)  Definition of all coordinate systems used

j)  Reference to the source(s) for all payload inputs to this analysis
    (e.g., requirements, mass properties)

k)  Orbit elements determined from vehicle guidance data

l)  Pre-flight prediction of expected flight environments (e.g.
    acoustic/vibration, quasi-static acceleration, thermal, shock and
    pressure)

m)  Post-flight determination of actual flight environments for every
    component

n)  Explanation of significant differences between the predicted and
    actual flight environments

o)  Vehicle system/subsystem performance data (e.g. duty cycles, gas
    budgets, actuator deflections, battery margins, regulator pressures,
    etc.)

p)  Comprehensive description of all vehicle flight anomalies, and
    associated corrective action

**3.4.3 LSP Past Performance:** The ELVPO will assess the LSP's most
recent and relevant launch service activity. The ELV Project 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.

# 1) Responsibility: ELVPO

> 2\) Data: Documentation relating the LSP's recent (within the last 3
> years) experience in the launch service industry for a relevant class
> of launch vehicle. This document shall contain:

a.  Mission names and dates

b.  Common launch vehicle configuration

c.  Mission success statement

d.  Post flight data report(s)

**3.4.4 Management and Process Audits:** NASA/KSC will perform the
following audits prior to a Category 3 certification:

#### Test Philosophy: The ELV Project will review documented test practices as they apply to manufacturing, component, sub-assembly, assembly, sub-system, and system level testing. NASA/KSC will specifically analyze how the LSP has adapted proven test practices documented for certified vehicles, to the launch vehicle proposed for certification.

1)  Responsibility: Engineering

2)  Data: Engineering standards and practices documents (corporate,
    mil-standard or industry standards. Top-level test plans,
    requirements, and success criteria for integrated vehicle systems
    tests and launch site vehicle assembly and test.

#### Risk Mitigation: The ELV Project 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

1)  Responsibility: ELV Project and S&FAO

2)  Data: Risk management plan and risk reports

#### Documentation Systems. The ELV Project will review the LSP's existing documentation system discipline with regard to requirement definition, requirement tracking and verification, procedure development and release, test execution, problem reporting and corrective action, procedure deviations, recurrence control, and quality control.

1)  Responsibility: S&FAO and Engineering

2)  Data: Documentation system audit and control document review. Review
    of ISO9000 documentation processes. Focus on engineering approval
    and drawing release cycle, procedure review and release cycle,
    procedure redlines and lessons learned.

#### Program Management: The ELVPO will assess documentation detailing major program management functions and formal review processes.

1)  Responsibility: Program Integration Office

2)  Data: Program Management Plan detailing:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a.  Major program management functions required to provide the launch
    service and satisfy typical mission requirements

b.  Organizational approach (Structure and responsibilities)

c.  Documentation with respect to formal readiness review processes

d.  Launch review process

e.  Subcontractor management plan

#### Configuration Management: The ELV Project 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.

1)  Responsibility: Engineering

2)  Data: Configuration management plan(s)

#### Design and Engineering Processes: The ELV Project will conduct audits/2^nd^ party audits with focus on the LSP's design and engineering processes.

> 1\) Responsibility: S&FAO

##### 2) Data:. A description of how any new processes and standards relate to the previous processes and standards. LSP systems engineering process: requirements specification, requirements flow down tracking, verification, and certification process

##### *[Category 3 LV Certification]{.underline}: Upon successful completion of Phase A, B, C and D, and resolution of any ELV Program issues and/or concerns thru the PRCB, the vehicle under consideration has met the minimum requirements for Category 3 Certification.*

####### PHASE E

####### 

####### For new LV's which meet the 14 consecutive, successful flight criteria of a common vehicle configuration, the LSP shall participate with NASA/KSC in post flight data reviews. 

**3.5.1 Flight Margin Verification:**. For each flight, NASA/KSC will
verify the demonstrated vehicle configuration flight met the predicted
vehicle and performance parameters within three sigma criteria. Actual
vehicle and performance parameters which exceed three sigma predictions
will be investigated by NASA/KSC as anomalies regardless of mission
success determination.

> 1\) Responsibility: Engineering
>
> 2\) Data: Participation in the Contractor's internal post-flight
> review and delivery of a comprehensive post flight report including:

a.  Nominal 5 or 6 Degree of Freedom (DOF) trajectory simulation for the
    targeted insertion condition utilizing actual weights and propulsion
    models.

b.  Nominal and 3-sigma limits for orbit elements and associated
    covariance matrix.

c.  Performance impacts as a function of launch date and time

d.  Performance capability margins and reserves.

e.  Sequence of Events (SOE) and tracking coverage

f.  Time history of trajectory from launch to targeted condition

g.  Launch vehicle summary and weight statement

h.  Sources and magnitude for all dispersions used. If statistical
    dispersions are used, then the distribution method (e.g., normal,
    gaussian) shall be specified for each parameter

i.  Definition of all coordinate systems used

j.  Reference to the source(s) for all payload inputs to this analysis
    (e.g., requirements, mass properties)

k.  Orbit elements determined from vehicle guidance data

l.  Pre-flight prediction of expected flight environments (i.e.,
    acoustic/vibration, quasi-static acceleration, thermal, and
    pressure)

m.  Post-flight determination of actual flight environments

> n\) Explanation of significant differences between the predicted and
> actual flight environments
>
> o\) Vehicle system/subsystem performance data
>
> p\) Comprehensive description of all vehicle flight anomalies, and
> associated corrective action

##### *[Category 3 LV Certification]{.underline}: Upon successful completion of Phase E, and resolution of any ELV Program issues and/or concerns thru the PRCB, the vehicle under consideration has met the minimum requirements for Category 3 Certification.*

2.  **PHASE F**

Upon achieving certification, it is the intent that the certification
shall remain valid as long as NASA/KSC maintains insight into all LV
design upgrades and modifications, and flight anomalies on all missions.

**3.6.1 Fleet Insight:** The ELV Program shall maintain insight into all
common vehicle configuration upgrades and modifications in accordance
with NPD 8610.23 and NASA STD-8709.2

> 1\) Responsibility: Engineering S&FAO

##### 2) Data: NASA insight per NPD 8610.23 and NASA-STD-8709.2

**APPROVAL** [//Original signed by//]{.underline} **Date** [11 April
2001]{.underline}

> **Michael Benik**

**Director, ELV Launch Services**

**Attachments:**

**Appendix A - Flowdown of Launch Vehicle Certification Documents**

![](media/image2.wmf){width="10.0in" height="5.8in"}

[^1]: U.S. Title 49, Section 701, Subsection 9