COTS in Space

COTS Population

• • • The term “COTS” (Commercial Off-The-Shelf) refers to a huge EEE Components population, including all the commercial grade ones (industrial, commercial, consumers, automotive etc.). 
    • Referring to COTS, there should be no place for hasty generalization. 
    • Quote: “All generalizations are false, including this one.” – Mark Twain.

COTS Characteristics

• • • High Volume Production ensure efficiency of using statistical tools.
    • Statistical Process Control (SPC) used in production line to prevent defects, translated into reliability.
    • Better lot homogeneity, higher the value of sampling.
    • No screening.

Global Developments

• • • Decrease of Military/Space Components market today to 0.1% of the world market (in dollars) from 60% in the 1960.
    • Components Availability are dictated by manufacturers’ decisions based on market demand.
    • Huge Technological Progress in solving reliability issues encountered in the last four decades.

Global Developments Impact

GLOBAL DEVELOPMENTS

lead to Cultural Change from

Use of Space/Military EEE Components

to

Use of Commercial EEE Components

1994 Perry memo

• • • 1994 Perry’s memo legalizes the use of COTS in military applications.
    • Space applications are exempted.
    • Main drivers:

• • • • Defense Budget shrinking.
      • Military components shrinking availability.
      • Need for advanced technologies.

• • • The memo states “The use of military specifications and standards is authorized as a last resort, with an appropriate waiver”. 
    • The reversed components selection priority order is clear.
    • It is big step to recognize officially the global developments, in an atmosphere of strong resistance to change.

REMEMBER

• • • The transition to COTS has a big potential for cost savings in military applications.
      
    • The cost savings are realized with COTS used as is.
    • For space applications the COTS are not used as is.

Methodology Change

• • • The global developments lead to the need for a new methodology adapted to deal with COTS for military projects. The space applications were exempted from 1994 Perry’s directive.
    • The EEE Components Selection Policy has been changed to COTS becoming first priority selection
    • A 20 years retrospective summary of properly selected COTS use across various military (air, ground, sea) and space applications (LEO) proves that COTS are OK.

MIL-PRF/QML Methodology

• • • Liberalized methodology following 1994 Perry’s directive.
    • Transition from MIL-SPEC cookbook “how to” specifications to performance specifications.
    • Transition from component level QPL to product line level QML.
    • Components manufacturers get the authority to eliminate justified non-value added screening/ testing steps.

COTS

• • • Following 1994 Perry’s directive Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) has been legalized for use in military applications.
    • COTS dominate the global market (99.7% in $).
    • Market Size = Incentive to invest in technological developments.
    • High Volume Production = Valued Statistical Tools in Process Control = Reliability.
    • Most failures are due to component manufacturing defects.

COTS in Space Official Policy

• • • The main leading COTS in space policy documents:
      
      • NASA PEM-INST-001 (June 2003) – Instructions for Plastic Encapsulated Microcircuit (PEM) Selection, Screening, and Qualification. 
        
      • ESA ECSS-Q-ST-60-13C (21 October 2013) – Space product assurance commercial electrical, electronic and electromechanical (EEE) components.

• • • The traditional methodology of dealing with space/military grade EEE components has been extended (with some tailoring) to commercial EEE components.
    • The policy imposes on the user a “last resort” a COTS selection path vs. preferred Space/MIL components.
      
    • The selection of COTS is penalized.

COTS in Space Debunking Myths

• Myth 1:
  Incorrect interpretation of the term “space qualified”.

• • • The environmental requirements to be met are various, depending on many parameters like orbit, mission criticality, mission duration, etc.
    • The term “space qualified” shall be fully understood in context of the specific component specification and in context of the intended application. 
    • The term “space qualified” refers often to the component quality level, unless RHA is specified.

• Myth 2:
  The main drive to use COTS in space is cost savings.
  • • Compare apple to apple, namely component ownership cost.
    • Component Ownership Cost = Component Pre-procurement Cost (NRE) + Component Procurement Cost (RE) + component Post Procurement Cost (NRE).
      
    • The main drive: component availability to meet performance and/or Size, Weight, Power (SWaP).

• Myth 3:
  Incorrect interpretation of the term “space heritage”.
  • • Compare apple to apple, namely mission to mission.
    • Space missions are various:
    •  Scope: scientific, in orbit demonstration, operational …
    •  Orbits: LEO, GEO.
    •  Mission duration: <1 year to 15 years.

• Myth 4:
  Use of terms “quality” and “reliability” interchangeably.

• • • Quality and reliability are two terms referring to two entirely different aspects of the behavior of a component over its lifetime.
    • Quality measures how well the facility produces components that meet the specifications at the start of use.
    • Reliability is the probability of a component meeting the relevant specification over the lifetime.

• Myth 5:
  COTS reliability cannot be ensured, unless they are 100 percent tested and screened.

• • • Reliability cannot be tested into the component. 
    • The qualification and screening are not considered as a substitute for manufacturing control, but rather as risk-mitigation measures. 
    • Process (design followed by manufacturing) builds reliability into the component.
    • Statistical Process Control (SPC) addresses the reliability issue. 

• Myth 6:
  Meeting absolute quantitative limit of reliability is required in technical specifications in order to achieve the needed mission reliability.

• • • MIL-HDBK-217F explicitly states: “A reliability prediction should never be assumed to represent the expected field reliability”.
    • As MIL-HDBK-217F admits, “those who view the prediction only as a number which must exceed a specified value can usually find the way to achieve their goal without any impact on the system”.

• Myth 7:
  Plastic encapsulated semiconductors (PEM) cannot be used for space applications.

• • • The problems encountered in early stages (from the 1960s) with non-hermetic plastic encapsulated semiconductors caused the military and space components policymakers to taboo (avoid or ban) their use in military and space applications. 
    • If properly stored, there is no problem using non-hermetic components in space.
    • In space there is no moisture.

• Myth 8:
  COTS manufacturing is not controlled sufficiently. 

• • • The history does not show that a central control has been efficient for military components.
    • The military-level qualified components (widely used in space) and COTS have the same lack of wafer traceability problem.
    • The space industry turns a blind eye on the lack of wafer traceability for traditionally accepted military level components, but penalizes COTS in space because of the same traceability issue!

• Myth 9:
  Success in space missions can be achieved only by means of a conservative approach. 

• • • Space missions are inherently risky.
    • No approach, not even a conservative one, can avoid failures.
    • The name of the game is risk management.
    • Today, there is enough proof (see U.S. private space industry) that progressing with a more liberal approach is a valid way to success.

• Myth 10:
  Redundancy is a magic solution to enable the use of softer radiation components.  

• • • Redundancy, if found necessary, is a good practical solution for lowering the probability of system failures. 
    • The same type of components are expected to fail independently in the same design. 
    • This may be outweighed by other risk factors, such as human design error, generic failure modes, etc.
    • True redundancy: implementation with different designs designed by different teams.

COTS in Space – The Future Input to Forecast

• Input Data for the Forecast:

• • • The traditional MIL methodology for space and military applications, based on heavy testing/screening of hermetically sealed electronic components, is deeply rooted in the ongoing environment of resistance to change.
    • EEE COTS components, in spite of huge technological developments, were banned for decades to be used in military and space applications.

• The MIL traditional methodology rigidity and the commercial market dominance lead to a considerable technological lag of military/space EEE components behind commercial ones.
• The military/space EEE components market size led to components manufacturers business decisions to leave the military/space market, further affecting the availability.
• It has been proven that components manufacturers are independent in taking business decisions.

• Budgets are shrinking.

• • • After long debates the US DoD officially was compelled  (by global developments) to recognize the legitimacy of usage of EEE COTS components in military applications.
    • The decision to use of EEE COTS components in military applications has been proved as a successful one from every aspect.

• The above decision has led to replacing the MIL traditional methodology with the QML concept, a liberalized version of the traditional one, infused with elements of commercial practices.
• The space applications have been exempted (DoD is not responsible for space) from the above decision.
• Meanwhile, within local initiatives, EEE COTS components were successfully used in space applications.
• Extremely slow space policy makers decision taking led to a last resort EEE COTS components penalized methodology.
• The present space policy leads to preference of  military/space grade, hermetically sealed EEE components in space applications.
• The only thing certain about the availability security of the military/space EEE components is uncertainty.

COTS in Space – Forecast

• • • It is obvious that without electronics the space industry cannot survive. Consequently, the availability of the electronic components is a MUST.
      
    • Presently, most of the space designs are based on military/space grade hermetically sealed electronic components, meeting the space agencies’ policies.
    • The direct consequence is to commit those designs to insecure components availability.
    • The availability of military/space grade EEE Components depends solely on business decisions By Components Manufacturers, based on a miniscule space demand (less than 0.3% in $).
    • The business minded movement of the semiconductor industry to economy of scale cannot be stopped.
    • Not profitable markets will disappear.
    • Like for military, COTS in space is considered a viable disruptive alternative.
      
    • The policy makers’ duty should be to lead proactively the industry into the future.
      They have to adapt to the NewSpace philosophy, otherwise they may become irrelevant.
    • New thinking is urgently needed to accelerate new policy creation efforts.

COTS in Space Official Methodology To be changed

Albert Einstein wrote: “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them”.