NASA's Changing Electronics Landscape: NEPP Focus, Agency Alignment, and Technology Development
This presentation will cover NASA Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) Parts Landscape and 2018 Activities.
Parts assurance↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “EEE Parts Program”
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Why Space is Unique? The Basic Environment Challenges for EEE Parts
This presentation includes an introduction the space radiation environment, the effects on electronics, the environment in action, flight projects, mission needs, and radiation hardness assurance (RHA).
Technology Evaluation↗
Integrated Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit-A (AMSU-A). As-Designed Parts List: Electrical, Electronic and Electromechanical (EEE) As-Designed Parts List
This report comprises the Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) As Designed Parts List to be used in the Integrated Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit-A (AMSU-A) instrument. The purpose of the EEE As-Designed Parts List is to provide a listing of EEE parts identified for use on the Integrated AMSU-A. All EEE parts used on the AMSU-A must meet the parts control requirements as defined in the Parts Control Plan (POP). All part applications are reviewed by the Parts Control Board (PCB) and granted approval if POP requirements are met. The "As Designed Parts Lists" indicates PCB approval status, and thus also serves as the Program Approved Parts List.
Lorenz, E.↗
System Risk Balancing Profiles: Software Component
The Software QA / V&V guide will be reviewed and updated based on feedback from NASA organizations and others with a vested interest in this area. Hardware, EEE Parts, Reliability, and Systems Safety are a sample of the future guides that will be developed. Cost Estimates, Lessons Learned, Probability of Failure and PACTS (Prevention, Avoidance, Control or Test) are needed to provide a more complete risk management strategy. This approach to risk management is designed to help balance the resources and program content for risk reduction for NASA's changing environment.
Kelly, John C.↗
Alternative Test Methods for Electronic Parts
It is common practice within NASA to test electronic parts at the manufacturing lot level to demonstrate, statistically, that parts from the lot tested will not fail in service using generic application conditions. The test methods and the generic application conditions used have been developed over the years through cooperation between NASA, DoD, and industry in order to establish a common set of standard practices. These common practices, found in MIL-STD-883, MIL-STD-750, military part specifications, EEE-INST-002, and other guidelines are preferred because they are considered to be effective and repeatable and their results are usually straightforward to interpret. These practices can sometimes be unavailable to some NASA projects due to special application conditions that must be addressed, such as schedule constraints, cost constraints, logistical constraints, or advances in the technology that make the historical standards an inappropriate choice for establishing part performance and reliability. Alternate methods have begun to emerge and to be used by NASA programs to test parts individually or as part of a system, especially when standard lot tests cannot be applied. Four alternate screening methods will be discussed in this paper: Highly accelerated life test (HALT), forward voltage drop tests for evaluating wire-bond integrity, burn-in options during or after highly accelerated stress test (HAST), and board-level qualification.
Plante, Jeannette↗
Echoes of the Past, Glimpses of the Future - Ongoing Trends in Assurance of EEE Parts for Spaceflight
This presentation will review some past NASA presentations that had identified challenges and future trends in the assurance of Electrical, Electronic and Electromechanical (EEE) parts for spaceflight applications. It will contrast the concerns expressed in those presentations with the challenges of today and identify trends that give insight into the future. Common themes include the use of commercial parts, limited technical and physical resources, the pace of technology change and the difficulties in handling and testing individual parts as they become smaller and more complex. Some options for dealing with these challenges will be suggested to accommodate increasing numbers of smallsats, cubesats, constellations and other disruptive concepts, as space becomes more and more commercialized.
NASA Electronic Parts and Packaging (NEPP) Program↗
NASA Electronic Parts and Packaging (NEPP) Program
Recent Findings from Audits, New Technology Data Reviews a) Disabled Chip Burn-ins A recent audit for a QML device discovered that the chip was disabled during the static burn-in, thus it was not drawing any current. Recommendation: For new SMDs add a statement within the burn-in paragraphs stating that the parts shall be kept in their enabled state during the burn-in. b) Class Q 160-hr/125oC Burn-in This is being interpreted as a static burn-in (even for CMOS technology). Recommendation: Provide clarification in MIL-STD-883, Test Method 5004. c) At Frequency (Dynamic) Burn-ins Test equipment limitation is being cited for not doing burn-ins at the application frequency. Recommendation: The burn-in task group to discuss and provide guidance. When the SMD says that the part can be used at 200 MHz, then doing burn-in at 6 MHz (cited as burn-in equipment limitation frequency) is not going to be meaningful! d) Two Static Burn-ins Some manufacturers are doing electrical testing between the two static burn-ins, whereas others do electricals after completing both static burn-ins. Recommendation: Provide clarification in MIL-STD-883, Test Method 5004. e) Thermal Imaging For a device with hot spots, the thermal resistance, junction-to-case, would be much higher than the guidelines given in MIL-STD-1835. One of the suppliers used thermal imaging to find hot spots on the die. Recommendation: Assign a task group to evaluate the effectiveness of thermal imaging at the product development stage.
Class Y↗
Recommendations on the Use of Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) Parts for NASA Missions - Phase II
This assessment had two Phases. Phase I captured NASA Centers’ current practices for commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) parts 1 used in spaceflight systems and ground support equipment (available at https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20205011579) [ref. 1]. The Phase II report provides guidance for selecting and using COTS parts in NASA missions. The approaches proposed in this report differ from current agency practices. This top-level executive summary touches on these new approaches for using COTS parts but does not provide the detailed information that is critical in understanding the rationale behind these new approaches. Readers will need to read the entire report to gain full understanding and effectively use the recommendations herein. NASA’s historical approach to selecting and applying parts has been to define certain parts, primarily specific classes of military specification (MIL-SPEC) parts, as “standard”, leaving all others, including COTS parts, as nonstandard. Standard parts typically are used without further testing (“use-as-is”). Nonstandard parts are subjected to initial screening and subsequent lot acceptance testing of representative samples from each procured lot per MIL-SPEC or similar requirements. Decades later, top-tier commercial part manufacturers have evolved significant manufacturing, statistical control, and technological improvements that can now provide parts as reliable or more reliable than MIL-SPEC parts, when used within their datasheet limits. Concurrently, the space science and exploration community’s needs demand technological advances unavailable with MIL-SPEC parts. This ongoing change necessitates using COTS parts for space missions. Properly selected COTS parts in appropriate applications can offer performance and supply availability advantages compared to MIL-SPEC parts. Their utility and demonstrated reliability result from large volumes and automated production and testing processes. However, careful review and a thorough understanding of their specifications (i.e., datasheet limitations) is needed, and verifying that manufacturer specifications and reliability meet space hardware application needs are necessary. This report recommends MIL-SPEC screening and non-radiation-related lot acceptance testing be reduced or eliminated in cases where evidence of sufficient quality and reliability exists for COTS parts. The extent of NASA's insight into COTS manufacturers and the amount and nature of the needed evidence will differ by mission and will likely be driven by a mission's resources and associated risk posture. To facilitate this goal, two new terminologies have been defined and described: “Industry Leading Parts Manufacturer (ILPM)” and “Established COTS parts.” An ILPM is a COTS manufacturer that produces high quality and reliable parts. Some parts produced by ILPMs, defined as Established COTS parts, do not need any additional MIL-SPEC or NASA screening and lot acceptance testing to be used in space applications. This report provides guidance for selecting, procuring, and applying COTS parts and for performing part-, board-, and system-level COTS parts verification. The recommendation to select Established COTS parts from ILPMs will assure those COTS parts will have comparable quality to corresponding MIL-SPEC parts. Selecting, applying, and verifying Established COTS parts from ILPMs requires a holistic team approach, engaging parts engineers, circuit designers, quality, reliability, and systems engineers, procurement specialists, radiation specialists, avionics leads, and program/project managers. A mission-specific approach tailored to a project’s Mission, Environment, Applications and Lifetime (MEAL) [ref. 2] requirements should be developed and approved by program/project managers. Any associated risks should be clearly identified, quantified, mitigated, and/or accepted. Different approaches are recommended according to program/project Risk Classes A, B, C, and D [ref. 3] and human-rated missions [ref. 4]: 1. Recommend Classes A and B and human-rated missions consider a “MIL-SPEC parts- based design” approach. ”MIL-SPEC parts-based design” approach is one in which most parts are MIL-SPEC parts and Established COTS parts from ILPMs are used only when an equivalent MIL-SPEC part does not meet functional or size, weight, and power (SWaP) or performance requirements, or is not available. 2. Recommend Classes D and Sub-D missions consider a “System of COTS” approach. “System of COTS” approach is one which most parts are Established COTS parts from ILPMs. 3. Recommend Class C missions determine which approach is the best for their projects; that is, use either a “MIL-SPEC parts-based design” approach, “System of COTS” approach, or a combined approach utilizing elements of both. This report intends to provide guidance in using COTS parts for NASA missions with risk classifications of A through D and human-rated missions; but it does not address the costs of using COTS parts. Costs of using COTS parts in different NASA mission classes can vary significantly even if the same parts are used in different risk postures, due to differing verification levels needed. The guidance does not distinguish between critical or non-critical systems, and a given project will need to apply the appropriate guidance based on their risk posture. The intended audience of this report are NASA personnel and commercial practitioners who support NASA’s spaceflight missions, including spaceflight program or project managers, parts engineers, parts manufacturers, radiation engineers, avionics engineers, system engineers, circuit design engineers, reliability engineers, safety and mission assurance (SMA) personnel, and parts procurement specialists. The NEPP Program will perform a pathfinder study to explore implementing the guidance in this NESC report. An ILPM verification process is not the same as conventional vendor qualification processes performed according to military standards and specifications. This NESC report intends to provide guidance in utilizing available parts data from ILPM manufacturers for parts assurance assessments needed for NASA missions. The report also captured the current practices from DoD and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in Section 10. Note each DoD and FAA report was provided by the corresponding agencies regarding their practices, which are independent from the NESC recommendations in the report.
Commercial-Off-The-Shelf↗