Document Scope
The GOLD Rules are intended to apply to all space flight projects (and where applicable, associated ground projects) regardless of implementation approach or mission classification (except where explicitly noted). Although not required, an a priori Mission Exceptions List (MEL) may be proposed at the start of a Program and/or Project, to highlight rules which do not apply to that mission. It is not a list of deviations from the guidelines. The GOLD rules MEL should be submitted to the Engineering Technology Directorate and Division Chief Engineers for review. If a MEL is submitted, additional assessments will not be required for exceptions covered by the MEL unless changes occur to the underlying basis for exception. For rules that include multiple elements (e.g. 1.09 “Test as You Fly”), assessments should be discussed for each deviation; acceptance of one deviation does not remove the responsibility to discuss additional deviations as they are discovered. A MEL approved at the program level for multi project programs will be reviewed at key points in the program lifecycle (e.g. at the release of a new Announcement of Opportunity) to validate its applicability for new Projects within that program.
The designated project Engineering Technical Authority (ETA) should assess compliance with the guidance and should provide rationale for deviating from GSFC Best Practices and an assessment of any additional risk and mitigations for the approach. The appropriate mission ETA shall conduct an engineering peer review assessment against the GOLD Rule guidelines with the ETD Directorate and Division Chief Engineers and report deviations from that guidance and associated risk assessments at major project milestone reviews. Additionally, subsystem engineering peer reviews should include a discussion of GOLD rules compliance. Missions that are classified as being tolerant of higher risk (e.g. class D, 7120.8, and Do No Harm missions) are still expected to conduct assessments against the GOLD Rules, but may consider a less formal review of those assessments with ETD technical leadership than an Engineering Peer Review.
Projects may choose not to apply GOLD Rules to internal constituents of Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) items and Projects should not apply GOLD Rules to standard components with established reliability. (See definition in “Glossary and Acronym Guide” at the end of this document.) In this case, any residual risk should be assessed and tracked by the project. (Note: by definition, if GSFC chooses to change COTS developer processes for an item, the item is no longer COTS.)
For other commercial procurements, the project ETA is expected to perform an assessment of the vendor’s design against the GOLD rules, as noted above. Projects are not required nor expected to incorporate the rules directly into their system requirements. Instead, they should work with their vendors to determine where the vendor’s standard practice meets the intent embedded in each rule.
A technical authority designated for each rule will be responsible for design assessment, related guidance and lessons learned, and participation in the evaluation of proposed changes and review of project assessment. Note: in development of the project assessment, staff will find that some rules have multiple owners listed. The project staff should work directly with the “primary owner”, who will get feedback from the other owners and subject matter experts.
