Attachment B4-Topic 4-System Requirements-Amendment 1.pdf

Attachment B4: Technical Performance Metrics and Desired System Characteristics Topic 4 NextSTEP-3 Appendix A

NASA uses International Space Station (ISS) standards as a baseline for safety, software, and crew-related requirements. The solicitation is open to both microgravity demonstrations such as ISS, Commercial Low Earth Orbit Destinations (CLDs), or hosted orbitals and reduced gravity demonstrations such as the lunar or Martian surface. Approaches may target either environment or both, provided the design supports mission-relevant objectives.

The requirements below are a representative set of system requirements for orbital manufacturing. ISS-specific standards (SSP 52005, SSP 57000, SSP 51721) are provided as examples of rigorous safety, contamination control, and crew‑interaction requirements. Offerors targeting non-ISS environments (CLDs, hosted orbitals, lunar or Martian surface platforms) may propose tailored compliance demonstrating equivalent safety, verification, and performance rigor appropriate for the operational context.

To satisfy state-of-the-art (SOA) performance requirements for each metric where “state of the art” is referenced below, offerors are required to provide a clear, defensible justification of performance.

Comparable manufacturing processes of similar feedstock class, deposition modality, and part scale should be used to provide benchmarks to part yield, SOA, technology readiness level (TRL), and manufacturing readiness level (MRL) relevant to published performance metrics.

This justification must:

• Define the relevant technical domain (i.e. additive manufacturing of metals, polymers, electronics, semiconductors, regolith-derived feedstocks).

• Identify the current best-demonstrated performance levels within the domain as documented through credible, publicly available sources.

• Demonstrate the manufacturing system meets or exceeds the benchmarks for the corresponding requirement and performance equal to or better than leading advanced manufacturing (AM) capabilities in terms of part scales, geometries,

• Describe measurement methods and test configurations to support the claim.

• Demonstrate repeatability and accuracy by linking SOA to yield gates and the required verification methods.

• Discuss design rationale that explains the selected performance targets are appropriate for the intended mission use case (orbital platform, lunar surface, Martian surface).

Verification methods (Analysis, Test, Inspection, Demonstration) are assigned to enable NASA to verify manufacturing processes, component production, and system operation.

• Analysis relates to design safety, environmental robustness, and compliance where functional testing is not possible.

• Tests are used to verify functional performance, accuracy, yield, and anomaly recovery with quantifiable data.

• Inspection verifies physical quality, interfaces, and material integrity through non-destructive methods.

• Demonstration verifies end-to-end operation of the manufacturing system.

Demonstration verifies end to end operation of the manufacturing system. Offerors shall propose and justify test cases that explicitly align with the most relevant civil space shortfalls for In-Space Manufacturing shown in the table below, demonstrating functionality, verification, validation, and performance characteristics traceable to architecture‑driven technology gaps and lunar surface functional needs for the selected orbital or extraterrestrial operational environment(s).

https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/fy26-civil-space-shortfall-prioritization.pdf?emrc=6a7b1d6ef2a8b

Shortfall Need

ID

Need Statement

Deploy, assemble, and construct complex structures on the lunar surface.

4.02 Deploy load-bearing structures on the lunar surface.

4.03 Autonomously assemble and construct structures on the lunar surface. Reference ESDMD #0504 for specific details.

4.04 Construct structures on the lunar surface through advanced manufacturing techniques. Reference ESDMD #0505 for specific details.

Produce propellant, consumables, and other usable materials from lunar resources to support human exploration and commercial activities.

5.06 Produce power components derived from in-situ resources.

Efficiently and responsibly manage waste streams during long duration missions.

18.01 Manage logistics and waste streams to maximize reuse, minimize logistics footprint and waste, and prevent microbial and volatile releases that contaminate the vehicle and planetary surfaces. Reference ESDMD #0702 for specific details.

18.04 Utilize recycled material as feedstock in space-based

manufacturing.

Provide efficient, outfitted habitation capable of long duration missions.

19.02 Provide mass-efficient habitat structures capable of supporting mission relevant crew size and duration. Reference ESDMD #0306 for specific details.

Emplace and maintain large, stable space platforms and observatories.

27.05 Create and evolve systems beyond current launch size

limitations.

Autonomously monitor, inspect, maintain, and repair space assets.

28.01 Implement space-based manufacturing techniques for in-situ repairs and replacement of hardware components. Reference ESDMD #0502 for specific details.

28.02 Provide robotic systems capable of inspection, maintenance, and repair operations that function autonomously and as part of a human-robot team. Reference ESDMD #0501 for specific details.

Develop an affordable and resilient supply chain for space exploration.

32.01 Manufacture low-cost, mass-efficient, large flight components.

Requirement Type

1.1 – Functional Performance

1.2 – Design

1.3 – Logistics

1.4 – Safety and Mission Assurance

1.5 – Environmental

1.6 – Software

1.1 – Functional Performance – Requirement

ID

Requirement Verification Rationale

1.1.1 The payload shall achieve

dimensional print accuracy consistent with state‑of‑the‑art performance for each supported feedstock and deposition modality.

Analysis & Test Maintaining high accuracy enables printed parts to integrate reliably into parameter‑defined systems and applications.

1.1.2 The payload shall achieve

dimensional motion accuracy with state‑of‑the‑art performance for each supported feedstock and deposition modality.

Analysis & Test Maintaining high accuracy enables printed parts to integrate reliably into parameter‑defined systems and applications.

1.1.3 Payload shall support at

least 1feedstock, the feedstock may be individual metals, polymers, composites, electronic conductive materials, dielectric conductive materials, lunar regolith, regolith simulants, or ISRU-derived feedstocks.

Inspection Feedstock aligned with offeror identified use case and future proofs the technology. This expands integration opportunities into mission-relevant architecture.

1.1.4 Payload shall produce

part/component yield at or greater than 80% for 10 consecutive samples of each test case after process optimization before final design review/CDR.

Test High yield is critical for cost efficiency, mission reliability, and sustainability, as it minimizes material waste, ensures most components meet stringent quality standards without rework, and supports scalable production essential for long-duration space operations.

1.1.5 Payload shall produce

part/component yield at or greater than 60% for 20 consecutive samples of each test case before an interim design review/PDR.

Test This threshold is important entry criteria for relevant environment testing as it demonstrates initial tool reliability before informed re-work. Parts to be produced must be defined concurred with by NASA prior to the System Requirements Review.

1.1.6 Offeror shall have at least

two independent methods for part quality verification, including in-

Inspection/ Demonstration

Provides the ability to recognize defects and address functionality without destructive evaluation.

process monitoring and/or post-process inspection.

The selected methods shall capture how well the manufactured part meets design specifications and/or how well the part is able to be used for an intended application.

Functional testing capability is optional but favorable for electronics.

1.1.7 Payload shall complete

test cases within allocated time specified concurred with by NASA scaled with part complexity.

Test After process optimization, parts need to be manufactured within a reasonable time allocated for the process.

1.1.8 Offeror shall have post-

processing solutions available, if required to produce a functional part with the manufacturing process.

Test The manufacturing process needs to produce parts in the final form.

If post-processing is required, it must be included in the manufacturing process to ensure part functionality and facilitate testing. Parts to be produced must be defined concurred with by NASA prior to the System Requirements Review.

1.1.9 Payload shall have fault

detection, isolation, and recovery (FDIR) method.

Test Technology should enable detection, isolation, and recovery from print anomalies.

1.1.10 Payload shall be designed

such that a full-sized part could be produced. Except for parts being produced specifically for an application targeting the assembly of a larger structure, the payload must not require additional assembly to create a useful part.

Inspection/ Demonstration

Ensures that the payload can produce operationally relevant parts without requiring post-printing assembly or introducing the associated failure modes. This requirement ensures the system provides meaningful manufacturing capability except in cases where multi-part fabrication is intentionally required for larger structures.

1.2 – Design Requireme nt ID

Requirement Verification Rationale

1.2.1 Payload shall have

structural integrity that meets all intended loads during the payload

Analysis & Test Payload must meet NASA safety requirements and demonstrate compliance with specifications.

Example/applicable standards lifecycle, including but not limited to launch loads, transport loads, test loads, etc.

may include those found in SSP 52005 and SSP 57000.

1.2.2 Payload shall maintain

environmental integrity under all specified operational and survival environmental loads for the selected orbital platform. The payload shall withstand exposure to the survival environments without degradation and shall subsequently operate as intended within the specified operational environment.

Analysis & Test Payload must meet NASA safety requirements and demonstrate compliance with specifications.

Example/applicable standards/requirements may include those found in SSP 52005 and SSP 57000.

1.2.3 Offeror shall confirm all

wetted/exposed surfaces and feedstock chemicals are compatible with other feedstock chemicals and orbital platform systems.

Analysis & Inspection Mitigate corrosion, degradation, crew-safety hazards by following standing materials and processes protocols for payloads destined for ISS or other orbital platforms.

SPEC.1.2.4 Offeror shall design payload to be installable in ISS or other selected orbital platform racks.

If specialized tools are required, the offeror shall furnish such tools.

Demonstration/Inspecti on

Minimized crew time and reduced potential impact to ISS systems or other selected orbital platforms by matching established payload practices.

1.3 – Logistics SPEC ID Requirement Verification Rationale

SPEC.1.3.1 Offeror shall use a modular tool design that limits replacement to simple crew-replaceable consumables or tool elements, rather than requiring removal, substitution, or modification of non-modular, complex, or impractically large components.

Inspection Toolheads, filters etc. are modular to allow crew to replace in case of damage/failure reducing risks.

SPEC.1.3.2 Payload consumables shall be replaceable by crew within 30 minutes.

Demonstration Routine task crew time should be limited to ensure alignment with milestones and reduce payload impact on crew operations.

SPEC.1.3.3 Payload fluid/electrical connectors shall be accessible for leak checks.

Inspection Mandating crew‑accessible fluid/electrical connectors enables standard ISS or other selected orbital platform leak checks and continuity testing after on‑orbit mating/de-mating protocols.

1.4 – Safety and Mission Assurance SPEC ID Requirement Verification Rationale

SPEC.1.4.1 Payload shall comply with all safety protocols and Do-No- Harm criteria for both the launch vehicle and the selected orbital platform.

Analysis ISS safety compliance governs hazard identification and control per SSP 51721; the payload’s adherence ensures it meets the same baseline safety expectations as current manufacturing payloads documented in hazard records. SSP 51721 is a valid reference until the selected orbital platform provides specific requirements.

SPEC.1.4.2 If operated within a manned vehicle, any payload that contains particulates and fumes shall comply with all applicable fire safety standards and crew-health exposure limits.

Analysis NASA-STD-6016 is a good reference for fire safety on the ISS.

Requiring containment and flammability/off‑gassing compliance reduces crew injury risk and fire hazards, consistent with ISS hazard reports and NASA materials standards.

1.5 – Environmental SPEC ID Requirement Verification Rationale

SPEC.1.5.1 Payload shall be able to operate in 0 g to 1 g in any orientation.

Analysis & Test Orientation‑agnostic operation is essential because terrestrial testing (1 g - varied orientations) must correlate to microgravity performance; this assures reliable operation independent of gravity vector. SSP 57000 contains a reasonable list of requirements to ensure the materials and loads of the payload can meet the environment of the ISS or selected orbital platform.

SPEC.1.5.2 Payload shall be able to function in 30% oxygen

Analysis Materials, enclosures, and processes must remain non- ignition-prone within the ISS oxygen envelope environment without ignition risk.

(localized O₂ may exceed nominal).

Carrying a 30% O₂ design point reflects current ISS payload practices and provides a worst-case design limit.

1.6 – Software SPEC ID Requirement Verification Rationale

SPEC.1.6.1 Payload shall have a software system that acknowledges commands and reports health/status telemetry from ground commanding system.

Test Command acknowledgement and health/status telemetry are required to demonstrate execution and enable ground monitoring/diagnosis, consistent with ISS and orbital platform controller interfaces. All payload commands shall be clearly defined within the Command and Control Data Book to ensure unambiguous ground-to-payload interactions and maintain standard verification and telemetry behavior.

SPEC.1.6.2 Payload shall provide real‑time fault annunciation to both crew and ground, where “real‑time” is defined as the minimum signal propagation and system processing delay necessary to transmit alerts from the orbital platform to ground.

Demonstration/Test Real‑time annunciation alerts crew/ground to anomalies (over‑temp, jam, off‑nominal deposition) for prompt fault reporting and repair.

SPEC.1.6.3 Payload shall be able to log, store, and transmit manufacturing parameters for analysis.

Inspection Persisting and downlinking build parameters, in‑situ sensor data, and outcomes supports post‑print acceptance decisions and process maturation (ISM certification).

SPEC.1.6.4 At Systems Requirements Review (SRR), compliance with all applicable Design & Construction (D&C) standards must be demonstrated, including those defined in NPR 7123.1.

Inspection Applying NASA software engineering requirements (tailored per payload class) ensures appropriate software assurance even for non‑safety‑critical payloads;

EMC guidance has previously affirmed applicability and tailoring processes for ISS tech demos.