To what extent are NASA standards applicable to commercial aviation?

DuncanGibbons

Starting to get Involved
#1
Would be interested to hear the forum members opinions on this.

Is there any credibility in following NASA MSFC technical standards for processes in commercial aviation that don't yet have defined industry standards for such processes?

If so to what extent can the MSFC standards be used?

Currently, I'm looking into the MSFC-SPEC-3717 "Specification for control and qualification of laser powder bed fusion metallurgical processes" and MSFC-SPEC-3716 "Standard for additively manufactured spaceflight hardware by laser powder bed fusion in metals". Within these standards, they address the industry as "aerospace", can I, therefore, use these standards when developing a framework to certify commercial aviation parts and if so, how would validate my reasoning for using these NASA standards?
 

Al Rosen

Staff member
Super Moderator
#2
Would be interested to hear the forum members opinions on this.

Is there any credibility in following NASA MSFC technical standards for processes in commercial aviation that don't yet have defined industry standards for such processes?

If so to what extent can the MSFC standards be used?

Currently, I'm looking into the MSFC-SPEC-3717 "Specification for control and qualification of laser powder bed fusion metallurgical processes" and MSFC-SPEC-3716 "Standard for additively manufactured spaceflight hardware by laser powder bed fusion in metals". Within these standards, they address the industry as "aerospace", can I, therefore, use these standards when developing a framework to certify commercial aviation parts and if so, how would validate my reasoning for using these NASA standards?
Your question would be best answered by the FAA Aircraft Certification Office.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
#5
Would be interested to hear the forum members opinions on this.

Is there any credibility in following NASA MSFC technical standards for processes in commercial aviation that don't yet have defined industry standards for such processes?

If so to what extent can the MSFC standards be used?

Currently, I'm looking into the MSFC-SPEC-3717 "Specification for control and qualification of laser powder bed fusion metallurgical processes" and MSFC-SPEC-3716 "Standard for additively manufactured spaceflight hardware by laser powder bed fusion in metals". Within these standards, they address the industry as "aerospace", can I, therefore, use these standards when developing a framework to certify commercial aviation parts and if so, how would validate my reasoning for using these NASA standards?
In the foreword of the MSFC-SPEC-3717, we find the following text:

This MSFC Specification is an applicable document to MSFC-STD-3716 “Standard for Additively Manufactured Spaceflight Hardware by Laser Powder Bed Fusion in Metals” (henceforth, MSFC-STD-3716) and implements the requirements for qualification of the laser powder bed fusion (L-PBF) metallurgical process, control of L-PBF equipment and associated facilities, and training of personnel.
So, it is meant for spaceflight hardware and not meant for commercial aviation. Obviously, the criteria for process validation for spacecraft tend to be very strict. In manned spaceflights, much more strict than commercial aviation, but, when it comes to commercial aircraft, you have to reach out to the OEM's who have the production regulatory approvals and type certifications. Any component produced by additive manufacturing for commercial aircraft has to be properly certified accordingly.

I hear that the Airbus A350 has over 1,000 parts that are produced via additive manufacturing, so, clearly, EASA (and the other equivalent regulators, such as FAA, etc.) MUST have approved the AM manufacturing processes to be used in the commercial aviation supply chain.

Good luck.
 

Randy

Super Moderator
#6
In the foreword of the MSFC-SPEC-3717, we find the following text:

So, it is meant for spaceflight hardware and not meant for commercial aviation. Obviously, the criteria for process validation for spacecrafts tend to be very strict. In manned spaceflights, much more strict than commercial aviation, but, when it comes to commercial aircraft, you have to reach out to the OEM's who have the production regulatory approvals and type certifications. Any component produced by additive manufacturing for commercial aircraft has to be properly certified accordingly.

I hear that the Airbus A350 has over 1,000 parts that are produced via additive manufacturing, so, clearly, EASA (and the other equivalent regulators, such as FAA, etc.) MUST have approved the AM manufacturing processes to be used in the commercial aviation supply chain.

Good luck.
This is interesting, thanks....I wonder what they're doing about Virgin Galactic because it's a commercial spaceflight venture? There's gotta be a workaround. My interest is peaked now.......
 

Ninja

Looking for Reality
Trusted
#7
Glad to see that the referenced SPEC defines which type of "additive manufacturing" to such a level. (L-PBF pka SLS {Selective laser sintering} )

At this point every craft (air/auto/water/space) has "additive manufacturing" on board, screen printed electronics if nothing else
...and function/process/design vs FFU is the thing that has to vetted.

{...and your interest is piqued... ;) }
 

DuncanGibbons

Starting to get Involved
#8
Glad to see that the referenced SPEC defines which type of "additive manufacturing" to such a level. (L-PBF pka SLS {Selective laser sintering} )

At this point every craft (air/auto/water/space) has "additive manufacturing" on board, screen printed electronics if nothing else
...and function/process/design vs FFU is the thing that has to vetted.

{...and your interest is piqued... ;) }
Hi Ninja, what does FFU stand for? apologies for my ignorance
 

Top Bottom