Changes from ESA to Draft ECSS-E-HB-10-12A (14 April 2010)
as of 10 November 2010
4. Review Item no.
(Entered by Secretariat)
DRR number - Originator
ESA-01
5. Location of
deficiency
clause
page
(e.g. 3.1
14)
5.8
p44
6. Review deficiency and justification
there is a mistake when quoting the short course
from Mangeret at RADECS 2003:
"The results indicate that if shell sphere ... is
combined with ray tracing techniques (SLANT) the
results for TID tend to agree within 30%, solid
sphere dose depth information and NORM
raytracing etc..." -> the NORM and SLANT shall be
swapped.
7. Proposed change
8. Disposition of
DRR
9. DRR
implemented
Replace
Mangeret has compared predictions of
TID calculated using sector-shielding
analysis and 3-D Monte Carlo for
geostationary-orbit and geostationarytransfer (i.e. electron-dominated)
environments [RDC.25]. The results
As already discussed, for similar input fluxes, shell
indicate that if shell sphere dose-depth
sphere dose curves give different results
depending on the inner radius. This should be
information is combined with ray tracing
specified somewhere, as the shell sphere / NORM
results from Astrium are only valid for a certain type techniques (SLANT) the results for TID
of shell sphere (incidentally it would be interesting
tend to agree within ±30 %, whilst solidto know how this curve was generated) for a GEO
sphere dose-depth information and
mission.
NORM raytracing tends to provide
comparable if not pessimistic results.
with
Mangeret has compared predictions of
TID calculated using sector-shielding
analysis and 3-D Monte Carlo for
geostationary-orbit and geostationarytransfer (i.e. electron-dominated)
environments [RDC.25]. The results
indicate that if either shell sphere doseDispositions:
A
Accept comment as written
AM
Accept comment with modification (disposition with justification required)
R
Reject comment (disposition with justification required)
Page 1 of 4
Changes from ESA to Draft ECSS-E-HB-10-12A (14 April 2010)
as of 10 November 2010
4. Review Item no.
(Entered by Secretariat)
DRR number - Originator
5. Location of
deficiency
clause
page
(e.g. 3.1
14)
6. Review deficiency and justification
7. Proposed change
8. Disposition of
DRR
9. DRR
implemented
depth information is combined with the
NORM ray tracing techniques, or the solid
sphere case is combined with the SLANT
technique, the results for TID tend to agree
within ±30 % with Monte-Carlo calculation.
Using the shell sphere case with the SLANT
technique gave rise to large underestimates of the
doses in the cases studied and so this combination
should be avoided.
ESA-02
7.2
p50
,
"Displacement damage is normally be expressed
as either", "be" shall be removed.
Change to “Displacement damage is normally
expressed as either…”
ESA-03
8.5.7,
p81
SPENVIS and OMERE include also GCR ISO
models, OMERE also includes CREME96. BTW,
the CREME96 website is no more active, it's all
been transferred to CREME-MC
Add to para 1 of 8.5.7: “OMERE and SPENVIS
also include the ISO standard cosmic ray
environment.”
ESA-04
8.6.1.4,
3rd
bullet
p84
,
"SEL cannot be performed without power cycling..."
should be "cannot be resumed" or something
similar.
Change sentence to read: "SEL condition cannot
be removed without power off whereas SESB can
"
ESA-05
8.6.2.4
and
8.6.3.4,
p87
,
for penetration depth of heavy ions for power
MOSFETs are in contradiction with Q60-15C. HI
penetration depends on the devices (thickness of
epi layer, buffer layer if any and so on) therefore it
shall be referred to Q60-15C for the test method of
power MOS. The HI penetration required in the
draft HB-10-12 are clearly insufficient for most
power MOS.
Remove penetration depth and refer to Q60-15
1. Delete the part of clause 8.6.4.2 from “For
SEGR”….until “angle [RDF.33]”
(6 paragraphs)
And insert
“Test methods are defined in ECSS-Q-60-15c and
applicable documents therein”
2. Delete all clause 8.6.3.4
Dispositions:
A
Accept comment as written
AM
Accept comment with modification (disposition with justification required)
R
Reject comment (disposition with justification required)
Page 2 of 4
Changes from ESA to Draft ECSS-E-HB-10-12A (14 April 2010)
as of 10 November 2010
4. Review Item no.
(Entered by Secretariat)
DRR number - Originator
5. Location of
deficiency
clause
page
(e.g. 3.1
14)
6. Review deficiency and justification
7. Proposed change
8. Disposition of
DRR
9. DRR
implemented
And insert
“Test methods are defined in ECSS-Q-60-15c and
applicable documents therein”
ESA-06
8.5.8.1:
8.5.8.2
p81
8.5.8.3
about SEL mitigation. It is considered that an
applicable mitigating technique. On my view it
should not be considered as a standard technique
but rather an exception submittted to RFW fro
acceptance by the project. Also SEL mitigation
design should be validated by test and latent
damamge issues should be addressed.
Replace complete 8.5.8 (including 8.5.8.1 to
8.5.8.3 by:
For SEE phenomena such as single event burnout
and gate rupture, error or failure rate cannot be
quantified along the lines discussed above, so
instead radiation assurance is based on derating of
maximum operation values.
The derating and mitigation techniques are defined
in ECSS-Q-ST-60-15C.Remove and refer to Q-6015"
ESA-07
clause
8.5.8.3:
p82
ESA-08
8.5.9
ESA-09
8.6.1.5
84
8.6.2.5
86
8.6.3.5
87
this clause should be removed on my view. I know
that in projects we accept parts without SEB/SEGR
data only based on 50% derating. But this should
not be consider as a standard process. Again it
should be an exception submitted to RFW.
See ESA-06
The typical values shown in Table 11 are not
necessary in the handbook and therefore should be
deleted.
Delete sentence "Typical amplitude …. Application
specification" and Table 11
This is covered by ECSS-Q-ST-60-15.
Text shall be deleted and replaced by
proposed sentence.
Dispositions:
A
Accept comment as written
AM
Accept comment with modification (disposition with justification required)
R
Reject comment (disposition with justification required)
“Test methods are defined in ECSS-Q-60-15c and
applicable documents therein”
Page 3 of 4
Changes from ESA to Draft ECSS-E-HB-10-12A (14 April 2010)
as of 10 November 2010
4. Review Item no.
(Entered by Secretariat)
DRR number - Originator
5. Location of
deficiency
clause
page
(e.g. 3.1
14)
ESA-09
Figure
22
caption:
ESA-10
Throughout
ESA-11
8.5.2
99
77
6. Review deficiency and justification
7. Proposed change
shouldn't it be top instead of left?
Replace “left ”with “top”
Word “annex” is widely used. This may be a carryover from when this document was an Annex to the
standard. Should this be replaced?
Replace annex with clause where ever relevant.
The link to the equation includes the words
"Bradford formula for RPP" which should be
remove
Show only the reference number "(19)" of the
equation.
Dispositions:
A
Accept comment as written
AM
Accept comment with modification (disposition with justification required)
R
Reject comment (disposition with justification required)
8. Disposition of
DRR
9. DRR
implemented
Page 4 of 4