Here are the questions, see the postcast for the answers.
The COTS components usage for space projects started many years ago but nowadays is when it seems to begin a more frequent and recurrent use. Although there is not any standard nor a commonly accepted policy, is the whole space industry ready to deal with them?
- Knowing the risk factors associated with the use of COTS devices for space applications, which ones do you consider are the most relevant and how would you prioritize them?
- If we remove space-qualified components (MIL, ESCC, JAXA,…, ), there are still a wide range of available products: commercial, industrial, automotive (with different grades …) enhanced product version offered by some manufacturers,… to military parts. Which are your preferred selection criteria and why?
- The space industry is now putting the focus on qualified automotive electronic component grades. Do you believe is justified or the part selection should be more open and better based on best in class manufacturers and assessing, on a case by case basis, the application needs and the available options?
- Without enter in discussing related to the intrinsic product reliability, the confidence in non-qualified parts is lower than those qualified under a specification system. Which set of test and activities are for you the most relevant ones to increase the confidence when procuring COTS components?
- There is a trend to assess the space equipment reliability combining in one phase two processes classically separated: the reliability prediction and the radiation hardness assurance. Do you see a benefit in this approach?
Do you see any difference in the approach for the use of COTS-based on the intended mission (LEO, GEO, etc.)