NASA Workmanship Guide for wire splicing
workmanship.nasa.gov
workmanship.nasa.gov
Pretty darn cool little site, will have to mirror it.
Something that I definitely "did wrong" for decades was over-twisting stranded wires before inserting them into a crimp connector. According to NASA's guide, the correct way is to strip the wire and insert it without additional compaction. Their reasoning makes sense: leads to individual strand breakage and/or loose crimps.
Related, double-crimp terminals are designed to have one crimp over uninsulated wire, the second (closer to contact/space/barrel) mates with the stripped copper. Similarly, for twist-post connections, the first 1.5 twists should be of insulated wire, and then several more of stripped conductor.
They were very serious about this stuff, for obvious reasons. No rework possible in space.
I still use those skills on my home DIY hobbies.
I suddenly started imagining someone trying to strip some wire, twist the strands together, hold a soldering iron and the solder and the wires all while essentially having Mickey Mouse fingers from being in a space suit. If something ever deserved the No User Serviceable Parts Inside sticker...
[0] https://www.wago.com/us/discover-wire-and-splicing-connector...
They’re 8x more expensive and take longer to install than a wire nut, and they take up more space inside the device box. They’re also difficult to unterminate without damaging the lever nut or conductor.
It’s not hard to splice #14 solid to #18 stranded with a wire nut, you just extend the smaller wire a bit beyond the end of the larger wire and twist.
I’d recommend wago lever nuts to homeowners doing their own electrical work because homeowners are terrible at electrical work and the less chances for electrical fires, the better.
I’m a commercial electrical project manager in the US.
sounds like it needs a ground! /s
but seriously, what kind of junction boxes are used outside the US that these would fit?
as far as connecting a larger device wire to a smaller mains line seems odd to me. granted, i'm not an electrician, but it is pretty much opposite of all of my experiences with wiring commercial lighting and home lighting
They make stab Wagos as well which I don't recommend, but the lever ones are great. You can work 'hot' if you need to replace a switch or anything (don't work hot blah blah blah). Much of my existing wiring is crappy 50s era copper and in some areas, aluminum -- so to add GFCIs where useful, I use either the levers to join copper of shitty provenance or the ALCU junction connectors and a bit of the paste.
Do we now understand why that happens?
(edit: minor side-rant about high definition 16mm films being preserved at 480p mpeg.)
There are other reasons that may be less apparent, like the fact that materials can have weird properties in space. One example is solder "whiskering"[1]. I believe NASA requires techs to be certified to the IPC-JSTD [2].
There are some elimination methods such as conformal coatings (very hazardous) and plating finishes (nickel/gold/palladium) that have been tested. I got certified by the IPC-J-STD-001H also soldering 201 surface mount components 0.6x0.3x0.25mm 0.05W handling.
We never got out of the prototyping stage but it was clear that we wouldn’t use this approach for the parts of the system that weren’t vibrating. Of course if you’re building a space- or aircraft it’s worth doing this pretty much everywhere.
> That is very old reference, and afaik not used at NASA anymore. More current ref would be https://s3vi.ndc.nasa.gov/ssri-kb/static/resources/nasa-std-... but also note that NASA has been moving away from having their own standards and instead adopting industry standards: https://nepp.nasa.gov/index.cfm/26139
The NASA Workmanship Standards Program has been working to adopt IPC/WHMA-A-620xS since 2008. The goal is to allow the use of IPC/WHMA-A-620B-S, Space Applications Electronic Hardware Addendum to IPC/WHMA-A-620B as an alternative to NASA-STD-8739.4, Crimping, Interconnecting Cables, Harnesses, and Wiring. This change facilitates a move by suppliers towards the industry voluntary consensus standard but does not force those suppliers who cannot accommodate the current IPC/WHMA-A-620B training options to do so.
Notice that the statement is undated but says they've been working on it "since 2008"; possibly that statement is old too.
I see that NASA is turning to space industry standards, not general electrical standards (e.g., for a commercial building). But I wonder why do it at all? I assumed NASA's internal standards met their quality and performance needs, but maybe it was just that there were no industry standards when NASA developed theirs?
> In 1998, NASA established by internal mandate, the need for all NASA standards users and custodians, to comply with the 1995 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119 on Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities. This directive compels the NASA Workmanship Project to actively identify, enhance and adopt industry standards which can be used in lieu of the NASA-STD-8739 series documents.
Of course you might ask why that OMB was made, but tbh it just makes lot of sense imho, maintaining own set of standards is not cheap especially with all indirect effects that it implies
[0] https://workmanship.nasa.gov/lib/insp/2%20books/links/sectio... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_wrap
Had to rebuild it from original hand written point to point wrap instructions (of which there was only the original) coupled with all the changes in the 30 years since original build.
That was a hell of a project.
I also have a little bit of a fetish. I really enjoy it when other people do their work correctly and do those small things that show their prowess. And I like to to think somebody someday sees what I did and will enjoy it the same.
That's why, when I sail, I always have all my lines neatly tied and organised. And use proper knots for their applications. And look at other yachts when docked to see if their owners know what they are doing or not.