Requirements compliance matrix A.1 Purpose

1. PDF page 29

	Section	Description	Requirement in this NASA Technical Standard
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4a.	General	(1) [FSR 1] NASA programs and projects that do not meet the provisions of this NASA Technical Standard shall be assessed by the NASA Program Manager for the associated risk to the success of the planned NASA mission and approved by the delegated Technical Authority.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4a.	General	(2) [FSR 2] This NASA Technical Standard shall not supersede applicable laws and regulations unless a specific exemption has been obtained by the Office of the NASA Chief Engineer.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4b.	Constraints and Preconditions	(1) [FSR 3] The service environments and limit loads shall be well defined.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4b.	Constraints and Preconditions	(2) [FSR 4] Aerospace standard manufacturing and process controls shall be used in hardware fabrication and handling.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4b.	Constraints and Preconditions	(3) [FSR 5] Deviations of the test article from the flight configuration shall be documented and approved by the delegated Technical Authority.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4.1.1	Prototype versus Protoflight Approaches	[FSR 6] A protoflight test shall be followed by inspection and functionality assessment.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4.1.2.1a	Test Methods	[FSR 7] The strength verification program shall be approved by the delegated Technical Authority.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4.1.2.1b	Test Methods	[FSR 8] The magnitude of the static test loads shall be equivalent to limit loads multiplied by the qualification, acceptance, or proof test factor.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4.1.2.1c	Test Methods	[FSR 9] Strength model verification, if required, shall be accomplished over the entire load range.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4.1.2.1d	Test Methods	[FSR 10] The test article shall be instrumented to provide sufficient test data for correlation with the strength model.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4.1.2.1e	Test Methods	[FSR 11] Each habitable module, propellant tank, and SRM case shall be proof pressure tested.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4.1.2.1f	Test Methods	[FSR 12] Departures from test plans and procedures, including failures that occur during testing or are uncovered as part of post-test inspection, shall be documented by a non-conformance report per the approved quality assurance plan.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4.1.2.2a	Test versus Design Factors of Safety	[FSR 13] When using the prototype structural verification approach, metallic structures shall be verified to have no detrimental yielding at yield design load before testing to full qualification load levels.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4.1.2.2b	Test versus Design Factors of Safety	[FSR 14] When using the protoflight structural verification approach, design factors shall be specified to prevent detrimental yielding of the metallic structure or damage to the composite/bonded flight structure during test.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4.1.2.3a	Test versus No- Test Options	[FSR 15] Analysis shall be provided with an acceptable engineering rationale for the “no-test” option.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4.1.2.3b	Test versus No- Test Options	[FSR 16] To use the “no-test” approach, project-specific criteria and rationale shall be developed for review and approval by the delegated Technical Authority.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4.1.3	Probabilistic Methods	[FSR 17] Any proposed use of probabilistic criteria to supplement or as an alternative to deterministic factors of safety shall be approved by the delegated Technical Authority on an individual-case basis.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4.2a	Design and Test Factors of Safety	[FSR 18] The design factors of safety and test factors of this NASA Technical Standard are the minimum required values for NASA spaceflight structures and shall be applied to the limit stress condition, including additive thermal or pressure stresses.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4.2b	Design and Test Factors of Safety	[FSR 19] If pressure or temperature has a relieving or stabilizing effect on the mode of failure, then for analysis or test of that failure mode, the unfactored stresses induced by temperature or the minimum expected pressure shall be used in conjunction with the factored stresses from all other loads.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4.2c	Design and Test Factors of Safety	[FSR 20] Material selection and derivation of material design allowables shall follow the requirements defined in NASA-STD-6016, Standard Materials and Processes Requirements for Spacecraft.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4.2d	Design and Test Factors of Safety	[FSR 21] The factored stresses shall not exceed material allowable stresses (yield and ultimate) under the expected temperature, pressure, and other operating conditions.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4.2e	Design and Test Factors of Safety	[FSR 22] The hardware shall be designed to preclude any detrimental yielding under limit loads and, where applicable, under protoflight or proof test loads.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4.2f	Design and Test Factors of Safety	[FSR 23] Applications of design and test factors to the development and verification of a structure shall be accepted by the delegated Technical Authority only when all the constraints and preconditions specified in section 1.4 are met.

2. PDF page 30

	Section	Description
4.2.1a	Metallic Structures	[FSR 24] The minimum design and test factors of safety for metallic structures shall be as specified in Table 1, Minimum Design and Test Factors for Metallic Structures.
4.2.1b	Metallic Structures	[FSR 25] Workmanship verification shall be performed for the first flight build and follow-on structures under a prototype test approach and for follow-on structures under a protoflight test approach.
4.2.1c	Metallic Structures	[FSR 26] The workmanship verification program shall be approved by the delegated Technical Authority.
4.2.2a	Threaded Fastening Systems	[FSR 27] Threaded fastening systems shall be designed and analyzed per the requirements specified in NASA-STD-5020, Requirements for Threaded Fastening Systems in Spaceflight Hardware.
4.2.2b	Threaded Fastening Systems	[FSR 28] The minimum design and test factors of safety for metallic fasteners and internally threaded parts shall be as specified in Table 1.
4.2.3	Composite/Bonded Structures	[FSR 29] Composite/bonded structures, including bonded sandwich structures and bonded inserts but excluding glass, developed for NASA spaceflight missions, shall, as a minimum, use the design and test factors specified in Table 2, Minimum Design and Test Factors for Composite/Bonded Structures.
4.2.4.1	Glass/Ceramics in Human-Rated Spaceflight Applications	[FSR 30] The design and verification of glass and ceramic structures for human-rated spaceflight application shall follow the requirements defined in NASA-STD-5018, Strength Design and Verification Criteria for Glass, Ceramics, and Windows in Human Space Flight Applications.
4.2.4.2	Glass/Ceramics in Robotic Spaceflight Applications	[FSR 31] A non-fracture-based strength approach is possible for glass and ceramic structures in non-safety critical robotic spaceflight applications, such as mirrors and lenses used in science instruments, provided conservative strength allowables are used; however, approval by the delegated Technical Authority of the allowables and approach shall be obtained before implementing this option.
4.2.4.2a	Glass/Ceramics in Robotic Spaceflight Applications	[FSR 32] The minimum design and test factors for pressurized and nonpressurized glass/ceramics shall be as specified in Table 3, Minimum Design and Test Factors for Glass/Ceramics in Robotic Applications.
4.2.4.2b	Glass/Ceramics in Robotic Spaceflight Applications	[FSR 33] Structural integrity of all pressurized glass and ceramics shall be verified by both analysis and proof testing.
4.2.4.2c	Glass/Ceramics in Robotic Spaceflight Applications	[FSR 34] Proof tests of glass and ceramics shall be configured to simulate flight-like boundary conditions and loading.
4.2.4.2d	Glass/Ceramics in Robotic Spaceflight Applications	[FSR 35] For glass proof testing, the total time during unload shall be as short as possible and the whole test performed in an environment designed to minimize unrealistic flaw growth.
4.2.4.2e	Glass/Ceramics in Robotic Spaceflight Applications	[FSR 36] All glass and ceramic bonds shall be proof tested in the bonded flight assembly.
4.2.4.2f	Glass/Ceramics in Robotic Spaceflight Applications	[FSR 37] The design and test factors for structural bonds in glass or ceramics shall be as specified in Table 4, Minimum Design and Test Factors for Bonds in Glass/Ceramic Structures.
4.2.5.1a	Pressure Vessels and Pressurized Components	[FSR 38] Metallic pressure vessels and pressurized components shall be designed, qualified, and accepted per the requirements of ANSI/AIAA S-080, Space Systems – Metallic Pressure Vessels, Pressurized Structures, and Pressurized Components.
4.2.5.1b	Pressure Vessels and Pressurized Components	[FSR 39] Composite overwrapped pressure vessels (COPVs) shall be designed, qualified, and accepted per the requirements of ANSI/AIAA S-081, Space Systems – Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessels (COPVs).
4.2.5.1c	Pressure Vessels and Pressurized Components	[FSR 40] ANSI/AIAA S-080 and S-081 shall be tailored such that MDP is substituted for all references to maximum expected operating pressure (MEOP).
4.2.5.2.1a	Habitable Modules	[FSR 41] Habitable modules shall maintain dimensional stability required for functionality of structural and mechanical attachments, pressure connections, and openings for doors or hatches throughout their service life in the applicable environments.
4.2.5.2.1b	Habitable Modules	[FSR 42] Habitable modules shall withstand applicable loads with the doors or hatches in the open and closed condition for the applicable ground and mission environments.
4.2.5.2.1c	Habitable Modules	[FSR 43] The minimum design and test factors of safety for habitable modules, doors, and hatches shall be as specified in Table 5, Minimum Design and Test Factors for Habitable Modules, Doors, and Hatches.
4.2.6.1	Softgood Structures	[FSR 44] Static strength of all structural softgoods shall be test verified.
4.2.6.2	Softgood Structures	[FSR 45] The minimum design and test factors of safety for structural softgoods shall be as specified in Table 6, Minimum Design and Test Factors for Structural Softgoods.
4.3.1	Beryllium Structures	[FSR 46] The minimum design and test factors of safety for beryllium structures shall be as specified in Table 7, Minimum Design and Test Factors for Beryllium Structures.
4.3.2	Beryllium Structures	[FSR 47] When using cross-rolled sheet, the design shall preclude out-of-plane loads and displacements during assembly, testing, or service life.
4.3.3	Beryllium Structures	[FSR 48] Stress analysis shall properly account for the lack of ductility of the material by rigorous treatment of applied loads, boundary conditions, assembly stresses, stress concentrations, thermal cycling, possible material anisotropy, and worst-case tolerance conditions.
4.3.4	Beryllium Structures	[FSR 49] All machined and/or mechanically disturbed surfaces shall be chemically milled to ensure removal of surface damage and residual stresses.
4.3.5	Beryllium Structures	[FSR 50] All parts shall undergo penetrant inspection for surface cracks and crack-like flaws per NASA-STD-6016, Standard Materials and Processes Requirements for Spacecraft.
4.4	Fatigue and Creep	[FSR 51] For NASA spaceflight structures made of well-characterized materials and with sufficient load cycle data that accounts for all in-service environments, a minimum service life factor of 4.0 shall be applied to the service life for fatigue and creep life assessments.
4.5.1	Buckling	[FSR 52] All structural items subjected to significant in-plane stresses (compression and/or shear) under any combination of ground loads, flight loads, or thermal loads shall be analyzed for buckling failure.
4.5.2	Buckling	[FSR 53] Design loads for buckling shall be ultimate loads.
4.5.3	Buckling	[FSR 54] If a loading condition tends to alleviate buckling, then the unfactored load shall be used in combination with other factored loading conditions.
4.5.4	Buckling	[FSR 55] Buckling evaluation shall address general instability, local or panel instability, crippling, and creep.
4.5.5	Buckling	[FSR 56] Analyses of thin-walled shell structures subject to buckling load conditions during the service life shall account for the differences between idealized model geometry and the physical structure, including boundary conditions.
4.6.1	Alternate Approaches	[FSR 57] In the event a particular factor of safety requirement of this NASA Technical Standard cannot be met for a specific spaceflight structure or hardware component, an alternative or modified approach shall be proposed to verify the strength adequacy of the design.
4.6.2	Alternate Approaches	[FSR 58] A written risk assessment that justifies the use of the alternate approach shall be prepared by the organization with primary responsibility for the development of the structure or component.
4.6.3	Alternate Approaches	[FSR 59] The risk assessment shall be submitted to the delegated Technical Authority for approval prior to the implementation of the alternative approach.
4.6.4	Alternate Approaches	[FSR 60] If the lower factors of safety are approved by the delegated Technical Authority, a waiver shall be written that documents the rationale for this one-time exception.
4.6.5	Alternate Approaches	[FSR 61] Waivers shall not be used as precedents for future mission applications.

1. PDF page 29

	Section	Description	Requirement in this NASA Technical Standard
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4a.	General	(1) [FSR 1] NASA programs and projects that do not meet the provisions of this NASA Technical Standard shall be assessed by the NASA Program Manager for the associated risk to the success of the planned NASA mission and approved by the delegated Technical Authority.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4a.	General	(2) [FSR 2] This NASA Technical Standard shall not supersede applicable laws and regulations unless a specific exemption has been obtained by the Office of the NASA Chief Engineer.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4b.	Constraints and Preconditions	(1) [FSR 3] The service environments and limit loads shall be well defined.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4b.	Constraints and Preconditions	(2) [FSR 4] Aerospace standard manufacturing and process controls shall be used in hardware fabrication and handling.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4b.	Constraints and Preconditions	(3) [FSR 5] Deviations of the test article from the flight configuration shall be documented and approved by the delegated Technical Authority.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4.1.1	Prototype versus Protoflight Approaches	[FSR 6] A protoflight test shall be followed by inspection and functionality assessment.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4.1.2.1a	Test Methods	[FSR 7] The strength verification program shall be approved by the delegated Technical Authority.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4.1.2.1b	Test Methods	[FSR 8] The magnitude of the static test loads shall be equivalent to limit loads multiplied by the qualification, acceptance, or proof test factor.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4.1.2.1c	Test Methods	[FSR 9] Strength model verification, if required, shall be accomplished over the entire load range.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4.1.2.1d	Test Methods	[FSR 10] The test article shall be instrumented to provide sufficient test data for correlation with the strength model.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4.1.2.1e	Test Methods	[FSR 11] Each habitable module, propellant tank, and SRM case shall be proof pressure tested.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4.1.2.1f	Test Methods	[FSR 12] Departures from test plans and procedures, including failures that occur during testing or are uncovered as part of post-test inspection, shall be documented by a non-conformance report per the approved quality assurance plan.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4.1.2.2a	Test versus Design Factors of Safety	[FSR 13] When using the prototype structural verification approach, metallic structures shall be verified to have no detrimental yielding at yield design load before testing to full qualification load levels.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4.1.2.2b	Test versus Design Factors of Safety	[FSR 14] When using the protoflight structural verification approach, design factors shall be specified to prevent detrimental yielding of the metallic structure or damage to the composite/bonded flight structure during test.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4.1.2.3a	Test versus No- Test Options	[FSR 15] Analysis shall be provided with an acceptable engineering rationale for the “no-test” option.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4.1.2.3b	Test versus No- Test Options	[FSR 16] To use the “no-test” approach, project-specific criteria and rationale shall be developed for review and approval by the delegated Technical Authority.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4.1.3	Probabilistic Methods	[FSR 17] Any proposed use of probabilistic criteria to supplement or as an alternative to deterministic factors of safety shall be approved by the delegated Technical Authority on an individual-case basis.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4.2a	Design and Test Factors of Safety	[FSR 18] The design factors of safety and test factors of this NASA Technical Standard are the minimum required values for NASA spaceflight structures and shall be applied to the limit stress condition, including additive thermal or pressure stresses.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4.2b	Design and Test Factors of Safety	[FSR 19] If pressure or temperature has a relieving or stabilizing effect on the mode of failure, then for analysis or test of that failure mode, the unfactored stresses induced by temperature or the minimum expected pressure shall be used in conjunction with the factored stresses from all other loads.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4.2c	Design and Test Factors of Safety	[FSR 20] Material selection and derivation of material design allowables shall follow the requirements defined in NASA-STD-6016, Standard Materials and Processes Requirements for Spacecraft.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4.2d	Design and Test Factors of Safety	[FSR 21] The factored stresses shall not exceed material allowable stresses (yield and ultimate) under the expected temperature, pressure, and other operating conditions.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4.2e	Design and Test Factors of Safety	[FSR 22] The hardware shall be designed to preclude any detrimental yielding under limit loads and, where applicable, under protoflight or proof test loads.
NASA-STD-5001B w/CHANGE 3	4.2f	Design and Test Factors of Safety	[FSR 23] Applications of design and test factors to the development and verification of a structure shall be accepted by the delegated Technical Authority only when all the constraints and preconditions specified in section 1.4 are met.

2. PDF page 30

	Section	Description
4.2.1a	Metallic Structures	[FSR 24] The minimum design and test factors of safety for metallic structures shall be as specified in Table 1, Minimum Design and Test Factors for Metallic Structures.
4.2.1b	Metallic Structures	[FSR 25] Workmanship verification shall be performed for the first flight build and follow-on structures under a prototype test approach and for follow-on structures under a protoflight test approach.
4.2.1c	Metallic Structures	[FSR 26] The workmanship verification program shall be approved by the delegated Technical Authority.
4.2.2a	Threaded Fastening Systems	[FSR 27] Threaded fastening systems shall be designed and analyzed per the requirements specified in NASA-STD-5020, Requirements for Threaded Fastening Systems in Spaceflight Hardware.
4.2.2b	Threaded Fastening Systems	[FSR 28] The minimum design and test factors of safety for metallic fasteners and internally threaded parts shall be as specified in Table 1.
4.2.3	Composite/Bonded Structures	[FSR 29] Composite/bonded structures, including bonded sandwich structures and bonded inserts but excluding glass, developed for NASA spaceflight missions, shall, as a minimum, use the design and test factors specified in Table 2, Minimum Design and Test Factors for Composite/Bonded Structures.
4.2.4.1	Glass/Ceramics in Human-Rated Spaceflight Applications	[FSR 30] The design and verification of glass and ceramic structures for human-rated spaceflight application shall follow the requirements defined in NASA-STD-5018, Strength Design and Verification Criteria for Glass, Ceramics, and Windows in Human Space Flight Applications.
4.2.4.2	Glass/Ceramics in Robotic Spaceflight Applications	[FSR 31] A non-fracture-based strength approach is possible for glass and ceramic structures in non-safety critical robotic spaceflight applications, such as mirrors and lenses used in science instruments, provided conservative strength allowables are used; however, approval by the delegated Technical Authority of the allowables and approach shall be obtained before implementing this option.
4.2.4.2a	Glass/Ceramics in Robotic Spaceflight Applications	[FSR 32] The minimum design and test factors for pressurized and nonpressurized glass/ceramics shall be as specified in Table 3, Minimum Design and Test Factors for Glass/Ceramics in Robotic Applications.
4.2.4.2b	Glass/Ceramics in Robotic Spaceflight Applications	[FSR 33] Structural integrity of all pressurized glass and ceramics shall be verified by both analysis and proof testing.
4.2.4.2c	Glass/Ceramics in Robotic Spaceflight Applications	[FSR 34] Proof tests of glass and ceramics shall be configured to simulate flight-like boundary conditions and loading.
4.2.4.2d	Glass/Ceramics in Robotic Spaceflight Applications	[FSR 35] For glass proof testing, the total time during unload shall be as short as possible and the whole test performed in an environment designed to minimize unrealistic flaw growth.
4.2.4.2e	Glass/Ceramics in Robotic Spaceflight Applications	[FSR 36] All glass and ceramic bonds shall be proof tested in the bonded flight assembly.
4.2.4.2f	Glass/Ceramics in Robotic Spaceflight Applications	[FSR 37] The design and test factors for structural bonds in glass or ceramics shall be as specified in Table 4, Minimum Design and Test Factors for Bonds in Glass/Ceramic Structures.
4.2.5.1a	Pressure Vessels and Pressurized Components	[FSR 38] Metallic pressure vessels and pressurized components shall be designed, qualified, and accepted per the requirements of ANSI/AIAA S-080, Space Systems – Metallic Pressure Vessels, Pressurized Structures, and Pressurized Components.
4.2.5.1b	Pressure Vessels and Pressurized Components	[FSR 39] Composite overwrapped pressure vessels (COPVs) shall be designed, qualified, and accepted per the requirements of ANSI/AIAA S-081, Space Systems – Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessels (COPVs).
4.2.5.1c	Pressure Vessels and Pressurized Components	[FSR 40] ANSI/AIAA S-080 and S-081 shall be tailored such that MDP is substituted for all references to maximum expected operating pressure (MEOP).
4.2.5.2.1a	Habitable Modules	[FSR 41] Habitable modules shall maintain dimensional stability required for functionality of structural and mechanical attachments, pressure connections, and openings for doors or hatches throughout their service life in the applicable environments.
4.2.5.2.1b	Habitable Modules	[FSR 42] Habitable modules shall withstand applicable loads with the doors or hatches in the open and closed condition for the applicable ground and mission environments.
4.2.5.2.1c	Habitable Modules	[FSR 43] The minimum design and test factors of safety for habitable modules, doors, and hatches shall be as specified in Table 5, Minimum Design and Test Factors for Habitable Modules, Doors, and Hatches.
4.2.6.1	Softgood Structures	[FSR 44] Static strength of all structural softgoods shall be test verified.
4.2.6.2	Softgood Structures	[FSR 45] The minimum design and test factors of safety for structural softgoods shall be as specified in Table 6, Minimum Design and Test Factors for Structural Softgoods.
4.3.1	Beryllium Structures	[FSR 46] The minimum design and test factors of safety for beryllium structures shall be as specified in Table 7, Minimum Design and Test Factors for Beryllium Structures.
4.3.2	Beryllium Structures	[FSR 47] When using cross-rolled sheet, the design shall preclude out-of-plane loads and displacements during assembly, testing, or service life.
4.3.3	Beryllium Structures	[FSR 48] Stress analysis shall properly account for the lack of ductility of the material by rigorous treatment of applied loads, boundary conditions, assembly stresses, stress concentrations, thermal cycling, possible material anisotropy, and worst-case tolerance conditions.
4.3.4	Beryllium Structures	[FSR 49] All machined and/or mechanically disturbed surfaces shall be chemically milled to ensure removal of surface damage and residual stresses.
4.3.5	Beryllium Structures	[FSR 50] All parts shall undergo penetrant inspection for surface cracks and crack-like flaws per NASA-STD-6016, Standard Materials and Processes Requirements for Spacecraft.
4.4	Fatigue and Creep	[FSR 51] For NASA spaceflight structures made of well-characterized materials and with sufficient load cycle data that accounts for all in-service environments, a minimum service life factor of 4.0 shall be applied to the service life for fatigue and creep life assessments.
4.5.1	Buckling	[FSR 52] All structural items subjected to significant in-plane stresses (compression and/or shear) under any combination of ground loads, flight loads, or thermal loads shall be analyzed for buckling failure.
4.5.2	Buckling	[FSR 53] Design loads for buckling shall be ultimate loads.
4.5.3	Buckling	[FSR 54] If a loading condition tends to alleviate buckling, then the unfactored load shall be used in combination with other factored loading conditions.
4.5.4	Buckling	[FSR 55] Buckling evaluation shall address general instability, local or panel instability, crippling, and creep.
4.5.5	Buckling	[FSR 56] Analyses of thin-walled shell structures subject to buckling load conditions during the service life shall account for the differences between idealized model geometry and the physical structure, including boundary conditions.
4.6.1	Alternate Approaches	[FSR 57] In the event a particular factor of safety requirement of this NASA Technical Standard cannot be met for a specific spaceflight structure or hardware component, an alternative or modified approach shall be proposed to verify the strength adequacy of the design.
4.6.2	Alternate Approaches	[FSR 58] A written risk assessment that justifies the use of the alternate approach shall be prepared by the organization with primary responsibility for the development of the structure or component.
4.6.3	Alternate Approaches	[FSR 59] The risk assessment shall be submitted to the delegated Technical Authority for approval prior to the implementation of the alternative approach.
4.6.4	Alternate Approaches	[FSR 60] If the lower factors of safety are approved by the delegated Technical Authority, a waiver shall be written that documents the rationale for this one-time exception.
4.6.5	Alternate Approaches	[FSR 61] Waivers shall not be used as precedents for future mission applications.

1. PDF page 29

2. PDF page 30

Found in

Requirements compliance matrix A.1 Purpose

1. PDF page 29

2. PDF page 30

Found in