Search NASASearch

NASA NTRS · 20260004731

A Frank Discussion on Lessons Learned From Adopting and Applying NASA-STD-6030 for Spaceflight Systems

Abstract

With the advancement and adoption of Additive Manufacturing (AM) for spaceflight systems, numerous lessons have been learned during the qualification and certification of AM components. The lessons learned covered in this presentation will provide an overview of the challenges faced by NASA centers and commercial partners working to design AM hardware that complies with NASA-STD-6030 Additive Manufacturing Requirements (AMR). Topics of interest include tailoring of requirements for specific projects, documentation requirements, and addressing conservative approaches towards mechanical property development and analysis. In addition to that, this presentation aims to impress that these lessons learned will influence the future revisions of the NASA technical standard to facilitate and advance AM technology adoption on NASA projects.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Tim Poe, Theresa Juarez. A Frank Discussion on Lessons Learned From Adopting and Applying NASA-STD-6030 for Spaceflight Systems. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20260004731

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related discoveries

Off‑World Additive Manufacturing - Augmenting NASA‑STD‑6030

This slide presents a summary for a soon to be released white paper on augmenting NASA-STD-6030 for off-world manufacturing. It examines the driving need for in-space manufacturing and its corresponding risks, challenges, potential solutions, and technology development needed to qualify a process.

NASA-STD-6030

Model-based, in-situ, non-destructive qualification and certification of parts made by autonomous additive manufacturing

To address the significant productivity challenges associated with the qualification and certification (Q&C) tasks of additively manufactured (AM) parts, which have traditionally relied on rigorous post‐build inspection and testing, we propose an integrated framework that combines model‐based qualification and certification (MBQ&C) with autonomous additive manufacturing (AAM). MBQ&C employs high‐fidelity predictive models, developed within the Integrated Computational Materials Engineering (ICME) paradigm, to simulate process–structure–property–performance relationships for assessing a part’s fitness for use. Since predictive models are commonly machine learning (ML)-based or reduced-order surrogates of validated physics models, they run efficiently, enabling timely inference. In parallel, the self-driving AAM utilises ML-based adaptive, closed‐loop control strategies to avoid, mitigate, or repair defects and anomalies during fabrication, thereby increasing the likelihood of producing acceptable parts. A key feature of the combined AAM-MBQ&C framework is that predictive models explicitly incorporate defects or anomalies that persist after the build, using instance-specific data captured via in-situ sensing. This customisation enables a build‐specific assessment of fitness for use, rather than relying on nominal or generic parameters. Such individualised evaluation provides a robust basis for Q&C-related acceptance decisions relating to each build. Additionally, the rapid solution capabilities of ML or reduced-order models enable the determination of a part’s suitability for service shortly after build completion. As the framework matures, it has the potential to substantially reduce reliance on conventional point‐design approaches—such as time‐consuming post‐build computed tomography scanning and costly destructive testing. Thus, the AAM-MBQ&C framework represents a transformative, scalable strategy for quality assurance of AM components, as parts produced within a stable, validated, and certified envelope can be certified with reduced testing. Key benefits include: (1) significant gains in Q&C productivity through efficient, model-centric assessment; (2) performance-based classification of defects into critical and non-critical categories; (3) the ability to predict potential deviations in the performance of parts affected by real-time, adaptive process control interventions relative to those produced under a certified process, and (4) the enabling of virtual Q&C for service environments that are difficult, hazardous, or impractical to access or reproduce experimentally. Collectively, these capabilities strengthen the business case for AM, particularly for high‐consequence and mission‐critical applications. Finally, although this work focuses on powder-based AM, the proposed techniques could be extended to AM processes employing alternative feedstock forms.

Gunasegaram, Dayalan