COTS components in satellites: a pre-flight review checklist

1. Write the mission envelope before comparing parts

Our recommended first step is a one-page requirement brief: orbit, operating life, expected electrical and thermal conditions, duty cycle, and the function the part performs. Record what happens if it stops working. Losing an optional experiment is a different problem from losing the only command path.

Use that brief to make supplier responses comparable. A vague request for a “space-ready” component invites different assumptions; a defined requirement lets your engineering team identify what the quotation does and does not cover.

2. Separate commercial availability from assurance

NASA’s 2022 NESC assessment distinguishes certain established commercial parts from the broader COTS category. It describes circumstances where additional traditional parts screening or lot-acceptance testing is unnecessary; that is not a waiver of every verification activity for every commercial product.

Keep the distinction between a component, a populated board, and an assembled subsystem visible in your review. Evidence about one level does not automatically establish performance at the others. Ask which exact product configuration the supplier’s evidence represents.

Sources: NASA NESC — Recommendations on COTS EEE Parts, Phase II (2022)

3. Treat radiation as a mission-specific review

JPL’s radiation-effects process evaluates candidate parts against the flight radiation environment and project requirements. That is a more useful starting point than treating “commercial” or “industrial” as a radiation rating. Relevant evidence needs to match the intended application, not simply a similar-looking product family.

For your review packet, ask which radiation effects were assessed, what hardware was evaluated, and what system-level mitigations are assumed. If information is unavailable, label it as an unresolved engineering question rather than silently treating the gap as a pass.

Sources: NASA JPL — Radiation Effects and Project Parts Review

4. Look beyond the electrical datasheet

NASA Goddard’s outgassing database records material test results, including mass loss and volatile condensable material under a defined test method. It is a useful material-selection resource, not a certificate for an assembled commercial board.

Include packaging, coatings, adhesives, connectors, mounting, and the planned heat-removal path in your review. A procurement checklist should capture which of these are documented and which require a conversation with the supplier. Do not let a matching connector or nominal voltage stand in for a complete interface review.

Sources: NASA Goddard — Vacuum Outgassing Database

5. Make the evidence part of the RFQ

Our sourcing recommendation is to request more than price and delivery. Put these fields beside each candidate in the comparison so missing information stays visible.

• Exact manufacturer part number, revision, quantity, and permitted alternatives.
• Supplier identity, manufacturer or authorized-channel traceability, and available lot/date-code information.
• Datasheets and relevant reports, including the configuration covered and any exclusions.
• Lead time, minimum order quantity, lifecycle notices, and rules for substitutions.
• An owner for each evidence gap before the purchase is approved.

6. Close the loop with the verification owner

NASA’s GEVS describes a baseline for demonstrating hardware performance in expected environments through test and/or analysis. It is a GSFC standard, not a universal checklist automatically imposed on every satellite.

Have the responsible engineering team identify the requirements that apply to your project, the evidence already available, and the work still needed. A faster purchase should not accidentally become an undocumented decision to skip that work.

Sources: NASA — GSFC-STD-7000B General Environmental Verification Standard