THE NASA EEE PARTSTHE NASA EEE PARTS ASSURANCE GROUP (NEPAG) ASSURANCE GROUP (NEPAG)

Presentation to the Space Parts Working Group

Torrance, California, May 1, 2001

Michael J. Sampson,Code 306,

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center,Greenbelt, Maryland 20771

Phone: 301-286-3335; Fax: 301-286-1667msampson@pop300.gsfc.nasa.gov

2

OverviewOverview

• Origins• Changing World of EEE Parts• A New Start• Study• Charter• Objectives• Organization• NEPAG/NEPP• FY01 Activities• Issues and Concerns• FY02 Plan• Conclusions

NASA EEE Parts Assurance Group (NEPAG)

3

• NASA Parts Project Office– Mid 80’s to ‘95– Agency-wide standard part program - MIL-STD-975– Project Office at Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)– Began EEE Parts Information System (EPIMS) parts database

• EEE Parts/Advanced Interconnect/ Radiation (EEE/AI/RAD) Program– ‘96 to ‘98– MIL-STD-975 replaced with the NASA Parts Selection List (NPSL)– Emphasis on newer technologies– Responsibility shared between GSFC and Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)

• NASA EEE Parts and Packaging (NEPP) Program– “98 to Present– New and Emerging Technology Evaluation– Program office at JPL– NPSL still maintained but de-emphasized– No Agency coverage of mature, “familiar” technology

OriginsOrigins

4

• Acquisition reform

• Insight versus oversight

• Rush to use COTS

• Apparent belief that all parts assurance problems would be solved by using COTS

• The MIL system is “dead”

• Rapid technology change

• Dynamic supply chain (who owns who this week?)

• Downsizing - NASA has lost most of it specialists and about half of its total parts engineering resource

The Changing World of The Changing World of EEE Parts AssuranceEEE Parts Assurance

5

• Late 1999, PE leads at NASA centers organize informal parts engineering forum– Regular telcons to share experiences

– Establish simple, functional website

• Early 2000, NASA HQ, Code Q organizes studies of NASA-wide EEE parts assurance needs for effective risk management

• Late 2000, NASA EEE parts assurance group formed– Goddard Space Flight Center is lead Center

– PE Leads at 5 NASA Centers and JPL

– Co-funded by NASA HQ Codes Q and AE

– Later expands to include USAF, NAVSEA Crane, European and Japanese National Space Agencies

A New StartA New Start

6

• Telcons and Face-to-Face Meetings with Center Representatives - “Focus Groups”

• Agency-wide Survey - current capabilities and needs

• Risk Analysis Using Risk Matrices

• Fishbone Diagram Constructed

• High Risk Commodities Identified

• Survey Performed to Identify Critical Needs

The StudyThe Study

7

• Preferred Parts Program - Parts & Source Selection *

• Reliability Validation Program: Risk Assessment *

• Procurement Management Program: Project Level Services

• Failure Resolutions & Lessons Learned *

• Maintenance of Core Competency

• Forecasting EEE Parts Needs

37 Major Subprocesses were identified for these 6 Primary Processes* Processes which most enable risk management

Critical EEE Parts Processes Critical EEE Parts Processes Identified by AnalysisIdentified by Analysis

8

Ratings ResultsRatings Results

In the recent past, NASA has emphasized the Procurement

Management processes in response to faster project cycle times,

de-emphasizing Reliability Validation, Failure Analysis &

Resolution and Standard Part Program processes - specifically

those associated with flight lot qualification -reducing our

ability to quantify, understand and manage risk.

9

Product PriorityNASA Parts Selection List HighEEE Part Failure Database - Including Emphasis on DC/DC Converters HighSpecification Review Process w/Team HighCommon Parts Management Webtool HighCOTS Guidelines HighWork Package Agreement Software at all Centers HighNEPAG Website & Weekly Telecons HighPart Evaluations (Failures, NPSL candidates etc.) HighPE Handbook HighCandidate Parts - Review of NEPP Products MedTesting Cooperative MedProcess for Failure Resolution LowHelp Desk LowParts Needs List LowISO Guideline Document for OEMs LowParts Control Board Guideline LowParts Heritage Database LowGIDEP & Industry Alert Screening Tool Low

Resulting ProductsResulting Products

10

Study SummaryStudy Summary

• Analyzed agency needs for primary and secondary parts engineering process

• The results were used to create a ranked list of risk factors

• Risk factors used to identify and prioritize products

• Established NEPAG objectives

• Formed the basis of the NEPAG program plan

11

NEPAG CharterNEPAG Charter

• It is the role of NEPAG to:

– Provide knowledge, tools, information and access to resources to enable the project parts engineers and parts specialists to optimally support the circuit designers

AND to:

– Promote processes which will exclude quality and reliability part failures from the advanced stages of the project life cycle.

12

NEPAG ObjectivesNEPAG Objectives

To:• Establish an inter-agency working group of lead parts engineers from NASA

Centers and JPL for agency-wide coordination of parts issues

• Develop information technology-based communication system and tools to increase efficiency

• Create a knowledge-base of part supplier quality

• Develop assurance tools for COTS parts– Guidelines & procedures for qualification

– Shared knowledge of qualification results

– Knowledge-base on current COTS industry products and trends

• Provide support to the MIL system

• Maintain a current NASA EEE parts selection list

• Influence Non-government standards bodies through active participation

• REDUCE INCIDENCE OF EEE PARTS FAILURE

13

NEPAG Organization ChartNEPAG Organization Chart

NASA ARC

Ron Chinnapongse

NASA GRC

Vince Lalli

NASA GSFC

Greg Rose

NASA JSC

David Beverly

JPL

David Peters

NASA LaRc

Otis Riggins

NASA MSFC

Charles Gamble

NASA KSC

Eric Ernst

USAF/SMD

Dave Davis

NAVSEA Crane

Darren Crum

ESA

John Kaëlberg

NASDA

Sumio Matsuda

NEPAG OfficeGSFC

Mike Sampson

This is a GROUP, a cooperative affiliation

14

NEPP

New technology insertion risksRadiation susceptibilityThermal constraintsPackaging failure modesEmerging technology reliability inputNew packaging failures - redesignNew COTS failure modes and mechanisms in NASA environmentsCOTS assessment methodologies

NEPAGContinuing Reliability of Parts in Use by the AgencyDesign/Manufacturing Change ImpactVendor/Supplier Quality DataVendor Audit Knowledge AlertsFlight HeritageAcceptance CriteriaScreening, Qualification ProcessesProblems, MitigationEmerging Issues

NEPPNEPP (Program/Project Future Needs)

NEPAGNEPAG(Program/Project Routine and Emergency Needs)

Needs, Feedback

Reliable Hardwarein Missions

NEPAG/NEPP InteractionNEPAG/NEPP Interaction

Infusion Path

15

FY01 ActivitiesFY01 Activities

• Information Technology Infrastructure– NEPAG website firmly established http://eee.larc.nasa.gov/forum/

Interactive Currently it is primarily a tool for NEPAG members Products (tools and information) will be offered in a public area whenever possible

• Guidelines, Tools– NPSL updating in process - Public– Risk Management of supply chain

Task added for FY01in reaction to obvious need MIL specification and standards control NGS activity - monitoring, participation and promotion of space perspective Audit and Survey support

• Telcons– Weekly with all NASA participants, USAF, Navy Crane– Monthly with ESA and NASDA to work global issues

16

FY01 Activities (contd.)FY01 Activities (contd.)

• DC/DC Converters– Plan developed to refocus towards short term and intermediate aids for

the procurement of reliable parts

• NEPAT– Study of Reverse Polarity Behavior of Tantalum Capacitors (2 recent

occurrences) Recurring problem, error proofing seems difficult Life expectancy under derated conditions “indefinite” Negligible published data, especially for SMT chips

– Contribution to GSFC Tin Whisker Experiment Important for lead-free initiative SEM examination of 2-year old whiskers Whisker found growing through conformal coating

• NPSL Parts Addition– Developing process to provide an infusion path for selected NEPP

products Evaluated products that are potentially qualifiable section

17

Issues and ConcernsIssues and Concerns

• Lack of good NASA-wide parts problem data– Where to concentrate resources?– What problems to attack?

• Lead-free - the pure tin option risks tin whiskers

• MIL and NGS specification change systems have inadequate government participation/oversight

– Dominated by manufacturers and low REL users– Semiconductor power ratings increased without demonstrated reliability– Key tests such as Residual Gas Analysis proposed for deletion– MIL adoption of inadequate industry standards

• Aging tools– Derating - still using MIL-STD-975, not updated since ‘95, canceled in ‘98– Reliability - still using MIL-HDBK-217, not updated since ‘92

• Inappropriate use of COTS– For cost not performance– With inadequate screening and qualification

18

Parts Issues by Calendar YearParts Issues by Calendar Year

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Year Parts Issue Reported

Pa

rts

Issu

es

Re

po

rte

d

19

Pareto of Problem Pareto of Problem Commodities 1991-2000Commodities 1991-2000

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Dis

cre

tes

Hyb

rid

s

Mic

rock

ts

Re

sis

tors

Co

nn

ect

ors

Cap

acit

ors

Re

lays

Wir

e/C

able

Mag

ne

tics

Ph

oto

nic

s

Cry

sta

ls

Fus

es

Ck

t B

reak

ers

Filt

ers

Sw

itch

es

Oth

er

20

Lead FreeLead Free

• Being promoted by Japan, OSHA and Europe

• Electronics is a minor hazard source

• Several concerns for space applications

– Thermal cycle durability of lead free solder joints, especially surface mount

– Effect of soldering process on components, especially higher temperatures

– Use of pure tin plating Tin Whiskers Tin Pest

21

Tin Whiskers - It’s Alive!Tin Whiskers - It’s Alive!• Whiskers have been an issue in electronics since 1946• Cause shorts in low current applications (<10mA)• At higher currents cause “glitches” as they fuse open• Loose whiskers are hazardous contaminants in spacecraft• Satellite Failures Due to Plasma Arcs Experienced in the 1990’s• Plasma Arcs can conduct hundreds of amps in space vacuum• Whiskers are a few microns in diameter (typical ~1) and up to several millimeters in length (typical ~1)• Risk is greatest with pure tin • Companies say they must go lead-free soon (months not years)• Many commercial parts already plated with pure tin• EIA G-12 Committee requested to support re-instatement of a pure tin option in the plating specifications

for military products- Heavily contested by NASA• Several platers offering “whisker- free” tin plating, typically called “matte tin” -effectiveness unknown

22

The Fact Remains - Tin Will The Fact Remains - Tin Will WhiskerWhisker

• Freedom from whisker growth cannot be expected for pure tin, cadmium or zinc.

• The incubation period for whiskers has been observed to be days to years

• Tin whisker growth is enormously variable and its controlling factors are not understood

• Reflow is often recommended for the elimination of whiskers but long term studies have shown this is not a complete fix - scratches can initiate whiskers

Conformal coating delays the risk but whiskers can grow through it.

Low voltage circuits and ultra-small lead spacings heighten NASA’s susceptibility to whisker related failure

23

Tin PestTin Pest

• Tin exists in two forms or allotropes– Metallic - hard, shiny, conductor

– Non-metallic powder - soft, gray, semiconductor

• Transition between two forms is temperature dependent– “Cold” phenomenon

– Begins to occur at about 13°C

– Conversions speeds up as temperature falls, maximum rate occurs at -30 °C

– The powdery form has no strength and tin objects stored at low temperatures can disintegrate

– Process accelerated by presence of powder form which acts as a self-catalyst

24

Specifications and StandardsSpecifications and Standards

• The MIL system is not dead but it is neglected

• The coordination system became weak after acquisition reform

– Preparing, custodian and review activities reassigned?

• NGS bodies poorly attended by NASA and other spaceflight interests

• Result in changes that may not be good for space applications

– Class T - MIL-PRF-38535 - opposed by NASA

– Higher power ratings - MIL-PRF-19500 -opposed by NASA unless no deterioration in reliability can be demonstrated

– Tin Plating - opposed by NASA

25

FY02 Plan HighlightsFY02 Plan Highlights

• Information Technology– Expand website capabilities, particularly interactively– Transition products to public area– Add parts problem database– Plan NASA-wide parts engineer’s database

• Resources– Obtain or develop parts expertise in the top risk commodities

• NASA Parts Selection List– Improve Usability and Searchability– Update and add new parts– Add technology infusion path for NEPP products

• Lead-free– Task to evaluate commercial platings - samples for whisker farm

26

ConclusionsConclusions

• NASA has reinserted itself into the global EEE parts arena at the right time

• Risk management of EEE parts for space applications requires attention to detail

• Old problems will reappear. We must be vigilant

• Our concerns are shared by an international community

• NASA Parts assurance needs improved tools to remain effective in this environment of scarce expertise, rapidly changing technology and varying priorities