Spacecraft component cost reduction selection method based on application risk and component criticality

Abstract

The invention discloses a spacecraft component cost reduction selection method based on application risk and component criticality, which is characterized by comprising the following steps: determining the severity level of a single machine; determining the fault mode occurrence probability of the single machine; determining a single-machine risk level according to the single-machine severity level and the single-machine fault occurrence probability; determining a stand-alone redundancy mode; determining a single machine key degree grade; determining the risk acceptance level of the spacecraft; determining the application level of the single machine; determining the severity level of the component; determining the redundancy of the components; determining the criticality grade of the component; determining the application level of the component according to the application level of the spacecraft component; and determining the quality grade of the to-be-selected component. According to the method, the defect that no specific implementation method is provided for cost reduction selection of existing low-cost components is overcome, the determined quality grade of the components can completely meet the use requirement of a satellite, the use cost of the components is reduced, and meanwhile the reliability of in-orbit application is ensured.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the field of spacecraft test technology, and in particular to a method for reducing the cost of spacecraft components based on application risk and component criticality. Background Art

[0002] According to statistics, the cost of components accounts for about 30% to 50% of the overall cost of spacecraft. The safety level and manufacturing cost of spacecraft are directly related to the selection of components. If the selected components have a low radiation resistance level, the satellite will be easily affected by space particles and malfunction; excessive use of high-level radiation-resistant reinforced components, although achieving safety goals, greatly increases the development cost and reduces the availability of components.

[0003] With the advancement of space vehicles and the need for the development of low-cost, fast-response commercial satellites, low-cost commercial satellites have put forward urgent application requirements for high-performance non-hardened components. The traditional method of "selecting all expensive and possibly banned reinforced components, or simply judging whether the radiation resistance of non-hardened components meets the requirements through evaluation tests and then making selection decisions" is no longer fully applicable to the new requirements of commercial aerospace for cost, progress and reliability.

[0004] Cost control has become one of the main tasks in the commercial aerospace field. Components are an important part of the cost of spacecraft development. They need to further adapt to the development of commercial aerospace and reduce the cost of spacecraft components while ensuring their quality and reliability.

[0005] Patent document CN111438066A "A method, device and electronic equipment for selecting components for satellites" discloses a method, device and electronic equipment for selecting components for satellites, including: judging whether the components to be tested are core components; if the components to be tested are not core components, judging whether the components to be tested meet the minimum quality grade requirements; if the minimum quality grade requirements are met, determining the quality assurance grade of the components to be tested; performing quality assurance tests on the components to be tested according to the quality assurance grade to obtain quality assurance test results; performing strict screening tests on single boards with qualified quality assurance test results to obtain strict screening test results; performing whole machine level tests on whole machines with qualified strict screening test results to obtain whole machine level test results; selecting components to be tested with qualified whole machine level test results as satellite components. This invention solves the problem of using low-grade components on short-life, low-orbit satellites, solves the quality assurance solution for low-grade components when used on satellites, and reduces the risk of using low-grade components.

[0006] Patent document CN114755512A "A method for selecting small satellite components" discloses that the present invention discloses a method for selecting small satellite components, including determining the selected components, firstly comprehensively considering and analyzing the application level distribution of the component stand-alone reliability index, the single board function failure degree, the component quality level and the category use level by level; at the same time, considering the component price and the unified manufacturer batch factors to divide the configuration of the application of components of different levels; then judging whether the component meets the installation requirements, if it meets the requirements, it is directly installed and used, if it does not meet the requirements, it enters the 100% secondary screening process; initially inspecting the components to see if the component DPA is qualified, if the inspection is qualified, the screening environment is upgraded and tested again, and qualified components are further screened and selected, and if it cannot be inspected, qualified components are screened out at the board level. Through multiple screening and continuous improvement of components, the test process of this method has been solidified, and it has the basis for formulating standardized processes.

[0007] The above standards fail to provide effective implementation paths and methods, cannot be accurately implemented in actual operations, are not very operational, and cannot effectively guide designers to reduce costs. Summary of the invention

[0008] In order to solve the above problems, the present invention provides a method for cost reduction selection of components for spacecraft based on application risk and component criticality, forms a spacecraft unit grading and classification method based on a precise component selection baseline based on mission profile, establishes an implementation approach and selection model for cost reduction selection of low-cost components, and clarifies which units can use low-cost devices and how to select low-cost devices.

[0009] The present invention provides a method for reducing the cost of spacecraft components based on application risk and component criticality, which is characterized by comprising the following steps:

[0010] The first step is to determine the severity level of the single machine;

[0011] The second step is to determine the probability of occurrence of failure modes of a single machine based on the design failure mode impact analysis (DFMEA);

[0012] The third step is to determine the risk level of a single machine based on the severity level of the single machine determined in the first step and the probability of occurrence of a single machine failure determined in the second step;

[0013] The fourth step is to determine the single machine redundancy mode, that is, to determine whether the single machine has redundant backup;

[0014] Step 5: Determine the criticality level of the single machine according to the risk level of the single machine determined in Step 3 and the single machine redundancy method determined in Step 4;

[0015] Step 6: Determine the spacecraft risk acceptance level;

[0016] Step 7: Determine the application level of the single machine according to the criticality level of the single machine determined in Step 5 and the risk acceptance level of the spacecraft determined in Step 6;

[0017] Step 8: Determine the severity level of components;

[0018] The ninth step is to determine the redundancy of components according to whether there is a backup in the actual application status of the components in the single spacecraft;

[0019] Step 10, determining the component criticality level based on the component severity level determined in step 8 and the component redundancy determined in step 9;

[0020] Step 11, determining the application level of the components based on the single-machine application level determined in step 7 and the component criticality level determined in step 10;

[0021] The twelfth step is to determine the quality level of the components to be selected based on the application level of the spacecraft components determined in the eleventh step.

[0022] Furthermore, in the first step, the severity of a single machine is divided into four levels, namely, I, II, III, and IV, in accordance with the provisions of QJ3050A-2011 "Guidelines for Failure Mode, Effects, and Criticality Analysis of Aerospace Products". In the second step, the probability of occurrence of the failure mode is divided into five levels, namely, A, B, C, D, and E, according to the probability of occurrence.

[0023] Furthermore, in the third step, the risk level of a single machine is determined as Class I risk, Class II risk, Class III risk, and Class IV risk according to the following method:

[0024] When the severity of a single machine is level I, the risk level of a single machine with a failure mode probability of level A, level B, or level C is determined as a Class I risk; the risk level of a single machine with a failure mode probability of level D is determined as a Class II risk; the risk level of a single machine with a failure mode probability of level E is determined as a Class III risk;

[0025] When the severity of a single machine is level II, the risk level of a single machine with a failure mode probability of A or B is determined as a Class I risk; the risk level of a single machine with a failure mode probability of C is determined as a Class II risk; the risk level of a single machine with a failure mode probability of D or E is determined as a Class III risk;

[0026] When the severity of a single machine is level III, the risk level of a single machine with a failure mode probability of A or B is determined as a Class II risk; the risk level of a single machine with a failure mode probability of C, D, or E is determined as a Class III risk;

[0027] When the severity of a single machine is Level IV, the risk level of a single machine with a failure mode probability of A or B is determined to be Category III risk; the risk level of a single machine with a failure mode probability of C, D, or E is determined to be Category IV risk.

[0028] Furthermore, in the fifth step, the criticality level of the single machine is divided into 1, 2, 3, and 4 levels according to the risk level of the single machine, and the criticality level of the single machine is lowered for the single machine with redundant backup.

[0029] Furthermore, in the sixth step, the risk acceptance level is divided into three levels, namely, level 1, level 2, and level 3 according to the life of the spacecraft and the importance of the mission.

[0030] Furthermore, in the seventh step, the stand-alone application level is determined as level 1, 2, or 3 according to the following method:

[0031] When the single machine criticality level is level 1, if the spacecraft risk level is level 1 or level 2, the single machine application level is level 1; if the spacecraft risk level is level 3, the single machine application level is level 2;

[0032] When the single machine criticality level is level 2, if the spacecraft risk level is level 1, the single machine application level is level 1; if the spacecraft risk level is level 2, the single machine application level is level 2; if the spacecraft risk level is level 3, the single machine application level is level 3;

[0033] When the single-machine criticality level is level 3, if the spacecraft risk level is level 1, the single-machine application level is level 2; if the spacecraft risk level is level 2 or level 3, the single-machine application level is level 3;

[0034] When the single-machine criticality level is Level 4, if the spacecraft risk level is Level 1, the single-machine application level is Level 2; if the spacecraft risk level is Level 2 or Level 3, the single-machine application level is Level 3.

[0035] Furthermore, in the eighth step, according to the provisions of QJ3050A-2011 "Guidelines for Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis of Aerospace Products", the severity level of components is divided into three levels, namely Level I, Level II and Level III; in the ninth step, according to the actual situation, the redundancy of components is divided into three situations: single point, dual backup, triple backup and above.

[0036] Furthermore, in the tenth step, the criticality level of components is determined as 1, 2, and 3 according to the following method:

[0037] If the component redundancy is single point, when the component severity level is level I, the component criticality level is level 1; when the component severity level is level II, the component criticality level is level 2; when the component severity level is level III, the component criticality level is level 3;

[0038] If the component redundancy is double backup, when the component severity level is level I or level II, the component criticality level is level 2; when the component severity level is level III, the component criticality level is level 3;

[0039] If the component redundancy is three or more, when the component severity level is Level I, Level II or Level III, the component criticality level is Level 3.

[0040] Furthermore, in the eleventh step, the application level of components is determined as level 1, 2, and 3 according to the following method:

[0041] When the criticality of a component is level 1, if the stand-alone application level is I, the application level of the component is determined to be level 1; if the stand-alone application level is II, the application level of the component is determined to be level 2; if the stand-alone application level is III, the application level of the component is determined to be level 3;

[0042] When the criticality of a component is level 2, if the stand-alone application level is level I or II, the application level of the component is determined to be level 2; if the stand-alone application level is III, the application level of the component is determined to be level 3;

[0043] When the criticality of a component is level 3, if the single-machine application level is level I, level II, or level III, the application level of the component is determined to be level 3.

[0044] Furthermore, in the twelfth step,

[0045] When the component application level is level 1, the quality level of monolithic integrated circuits, discrete semiconductor devices, hybrid integrated circuits, filters, and frequency components is YB or components of the same baseline level; the quality level of resistors, capacitors and magnetic components, fuses, and electromechanical components is YC or components of the same baseline level;

[0046] When the component application level is 2, the quality level of monolithic integrated circuits is GJB597 B level and above or QJB or components of the same baseline level; the quality level of discrete semiconductor devices is GJB2438 H level and above or QJB or components of the same baseline level; the quality level of hybrid integrated circuits is GJB33 JCT level and above or QJB or components of the same baseline level; the quality level of resistors, capacitors and magnetic components, electromechanical components, filters, fuses is GJB or QJB or components of the same baseline level; the quality level of frequency components is GJB1648 or QJB or components of the same baseline level;

[0047] When the component application level is level 3, the quality level of monolithic integrated circuits, semiconductor discrete devices, hybrid integrated circuits, filters, frequency components, resistors, capacitors and magnetic components, fuses, and electromechanical components is national standard or QB or the same baseline level components,

[0048] The electromechanical components include connectors, relays, switches, and wires and cables.

[0049] The present invention solves the problem of which single machines can use low-cost components and how to select low-cost components, making up for the lack of a specific implementation method for the existing low-cost component cost reduction selection. Based on the precise component selection baseline of the mission profile, a classification method for spacecraft single machines is formed, and an implementation path and selection mode for the cost reduction selection of low-cost components are established. The component quality level determined by this method can fully meet the use requirements of satellites, reducing the use cost of components, while also ensuring the reliability of on-orbit applications. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0050] Figure 1 A flow chart of a method for reducing the cost of selecting components for spacecraft based on application risk and component criticality of the present invention;

[0051] Figure 2 The present invention is a flowchart for determining the application level of components. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0052] The following will be combined with the drawings in the embodiments of the present invention to clearly and completely describe the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention. Obviously, the described embodiments are only part of the embodiments of the present invention, not all of the embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by ordinary technicians in this field without making creative work are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0053] It should be noted that the terms "first", "second", etc. in the specification and claims of the present invention and the above-mentioned drawings are used to distinguish similar objects, and are not necessarily used to describe a specific order or sequence. It should be understood that the data used in this way can be interchanged where appropriate, so that the embodiments of the present invention described herein can be implemented in an order other than those illustrated or described herein. In addition, the terms "including" and "having" and any variations thereof are intended to cover non-exclusive inclusions, for example, a process, method, device, product or equipment that includes a series of steps or units is not necessarily limited to those steps or units clearly listed, but may include other steps or units that are not clearly listed or inherent to these processes, methods, products or equipment.

[0054] The present invention relates to the field of spacecraft component selection for determining the quality grade of spacecraft components based on application risk and single machine criticality, and belongs to the field of spacecraft component selection.

[0055] The following is a description of a method for reducing the cost of spacecraft components based on application risk and component criticality of the present invention, please refer to the attached specification. Figure 1 and Figure 2 , which shows a flow chart of a method for selecting satellite components provided by an embodiment of the present invention, the method comprising:

[0056] First, determine the severity level of a single machine. According to QJ3050A-2011 "Guidelines for Failure Mode, Effect and Criticality Analysis of Aerospace Products", the severity of a single machine is divided into four levels: I, II, III, and IV; causing subsystem failure or safety accidents is level I; causing serious degradation of subsystem functions is level II; causing general degradation of subsystem functions is level III; and causing very low impact on the subsystem and negligible impact is level IV.

[0057] Table 1 gives the single machine severity level table.

[0058] Table 1 Single machine severity level

[0059] Severity level Impact on functional completion Level I Cause subsystem failure or safety incident Level II Causes severe degradation of subsystem functionality Level III Causes general degradation of subsystem functionality Level IV The impact on the subsystem is low and negligible

[0060] The second step is to determine the probability of occurrence of the failure mode of a single machine based on the design failure mode effect analysis (DFMEA). It is divided into 5 levels according to the probability of occurrence. If the ratio of the probability of occurrence of a single machine failure mode to the total failure probability of the single machine is ≥20%, it often occurs at level A; if the ratio of the probability of occurrence of a single machine failure mode to the total failure probability of the single machine is 10%≤<20%, it sometimes occurs at level B; if the ratio of the probability of occurrence of a single machine failure mode to the total failure probability of the single machine is 1%≤<10%, it occasionally occurs at level C; if the ratio of the probability of occurrence of a single machine failure mode to the total failure probability of the single machine is 0.1%≤<1%, it rarely occurs at level D; if the ratio of the probability of occurrence of a single machine failure mode to the total failure probability of the single machine is <0.1%, it rarely occurs at level E. Table 2 gives the classification table of single machine failure probability.

[0061] Table 2 Failure mode occurrence probability

[0062]

[0063]

[0064] The third step is to determine the risk level of a single machine based on the severity level of the single machine and the probability of single machine failure determined by the above method. The risk level of a single machine is determined as Class I risk, Class II risk, Class III risk, and Class IV risk according to the following method.

[0065] When the severity of a single machine is level I, the risk level of a single machine with a failure mode probability of level A, level B, or level C is determined as a Class I risk; the risk level of a single machine with a failure mode probability of level D is determined as a Class II risk; the risk level of a single machine with a failure mode probability of level E is determined as a Class III risk;

[0066] When the severity of a single machine is level II, the risk level of a single machine with a failure mode probability of A or B is determined as a Class I risk; the risk level of a single machine with a failure mode probability of C is determined as a Class II risk; the risk level of a single machine with a failure mode probability of D or E is determined as a Class III risk;

[0067] When the severity of a single machine is level III, the risk level of a single machine with a failure mode probability of A or B is determined as a Class II risk; the risk level of a single machine with a failure mode probability of C, D, or E is determined as a Class III risk;

[0068] When the severity of a single machine is Level IV, the risk level of a single machine with a failure mode probability of A or B is determined to be Category III risk; the risk level of a single machine with a failure mode probability of C, D, or E is determined to be Category IV risk.

[0069] The risk level of a single machine is determined as Category I, Category II, Category III, and Category IV risk as shown in Table 3.

[0070] Table 3 Single machine risk level table

[0071]

[0072] The fourth step is to determine the single machine redundancy mode, that is, to determine whether the single machine has redundant backup. Determine whether the single machine in the subsystem where the spacecraft single machine is located has redundant backup. If there is redundant backup, the single machine is called a redundant single machine. If there is no redundant backup, the single machine is called a single-point single machine.

[0073] Step 5: Determine the criticality level of a single machine based on the risk level of the single machine and the single machine redundancy method determined by the above method. The criticality level of a single machine is determined to be 1, 2, 3, and 4 according to the following method.

[0074] When the risk level of a single point machine without redundant backup is Class I risk, the criticality level is 1;

[0075] When the risk level of a single point machine without redundant backup is Class II risk, the criticality level is 2;

[0076] When the risk level of a single point machine without redundant backup is Class III risk, the criticality level is 3;

[0077] When the risk level of a single-point stand-alone machine without redundant backup is Class 4 risk, the criticality level is 4.

[0078] For a single machine with redundant backup, the criticality level of the single machine can be reduced.

[0079] When the risk level of a single machine with redundant backup is Class I risk, the criticality level is 2;

[0080] When the risk level of a single machine with redundant backup is Class II risk, the criticality level is 3;

[0081] When the risk level of a single machine with redundant backup is Class III risk, the criticality level is 4;

[0082] When the risk level of a single machine with redundant backup is Class 4 risk, the criticality level is 4.

[0083] The criticality level of a single machine is shown in Table 4.

[0084] Table 4 Single machine criticality level table

[0085]

[0086] The sixth step is to determine the level of risk acceptance for spacecraft. The risk acceptance level is divided into three levels according to the life span of the spacecraft and the importance of the mission. Specifically, spacecraft with a life span of 5 years or more or low risk tolerance is level 1; spacecraft with a life span of 1 to 5 years or low risk tolerance is level 2; spacecraft with a life span of 1 year or less or high risk tolerance is level 3. See Table 5.

[0087] Table 5 Definition of project risk tolerance

[0088] Project risk tolerance Project Definition Level 1 Models with a lifespan of 5 years or more or low risk tolerance Level 2 Models with a lifespan of 1 to 5 years or with a lower risk tolerance Level 3 Models with a lifespan of 1 year or less or with a higher risk tolerance

[0089] Step 7: Determine the application level of a single machine based on the spacecraft risk acceptance level and the single machine criticality level determined by the above method. The application level of a single machine is determined as 1, 2, or 3 according to the following method.

[0090] When the single machine criticality level is level 1, if the spacecraft risk level is level 1 or level 2, the single machine application level is level 1; if the spacecraft risk level is level 3, the single machine application level is level 2;

[0091] When the single machine criticality level is level 2, if the spacecraft risk level is level 1, the single machine application level is level 1; if the spacecraft risk level is level 2, the single machine application level is level 2; if the spacecraft risk level is level 3, the single machine application level is level 3;

[0092] When the single-machine criticality level is level 3, if the spacecraft risk level is level 1, the single-machine application level is level 2; if the spacecraft risk level is level 2 or level 3, the single-machine application level is level 3;

[0093] When the single machine criticality level is level 4, if the spacecraft risk level is level 1, the single machine application level is level 2; if the spacecraft risk level is level 2 or level 3, the single machine application level is level 3. See Table 6:

[0094] Table 6 Single machine application level table

[0095]

[0096] Step 8: Determine the severity level of components. According to QJ3050A-2011 "Guidelines for Failure Mode, Effect and Criticality Analysis of Aerospace Products", the severity level of components is divided into three levels. If the failure of a component causes the complete loss of equipment function, or causes the failure of other equipment, or causes serious degradation of equipment function, the severity level of the component is determined to be Level I; if the failure of a component causes a general degradation of the working ability of the equipment, the severity level of the component is determined to be Level II; if the failure of a component causes a small or negligible impact on the equipment, the severity level of the component is determined to be Level III. See Table 7.

[0097] Table 7 Component severity levels

[0098]

[0099] The ninth step is to determine the component redundancy according to whether there is a backup in the actual application status of the components in the spacecraft. According to the actual situation, the component redundancy is divided into three situations: single point, double backup, triple backup and above.

[0100] Step 10: Determine the criticality level of components based on the severity level and redundancy of components determined by the above method. The criticality level of components is determined as 1, 2, and 3 according to the following method.

[0101] If the component redundancy is single point, when the component severity level is level I, the component criticality level is level 1; when the component severity level is level II, the component criticality level is level 2; when the component severity level is level III, the component criticality level is level 3;

[0102] If the component redundancy is double backup, when the component severity level is level I or level II, the component criticality level is level 2; when the component severity level is level III, the component criticality level is level 3;

[0103] If the component redundancy is three or more, when the component severity level is level I, level II or level III, the component criticality level is level 3. See Table 8.

[0104] Table 8 Component criticality levels

[0105]

[0106] Step 11: Determine the application level of components based on the stand-alone application level and component criticality level determined by the above method. The application level of components is determined as 1, 2, or 3 according to the following method.

[0107] When the criticality of a component is level 1, if the stand-alone application level is I, the application level of the component is determined to be level 1; if the stand-alone application level is II, the application level of the component is determined to be level 2; if the stand-alone application level is III, the application level of the component is determined to be level 3;

[0108] When the criticality of a component is level 2, if the stand-alone application level is level I or II, the application level of the component is determined to be level 2; if the stand-alone application level is III, the application level of the component is determined to be level 3;

[0109] When the criticality of a component is level 3, if the single-machine application level is level I, II, or III, the application level of the component is determined to be level 3. See Table 9.

[0110] Table 9 Component application level

[0111]

[0112] The twelfth step is to determine the quality level of the components to be selected based on the application level of the spacecraft components.

[0113] When the component application level is 1, the quality grade of monolithic integrated circuits, discrete semiconductor devices, hybrid integrated circuits, filters, and frequency components is YB or components of the same baseline level; the quality grade of resistors, capacitors and magnetic components, fuses, and electromechanical components (connectors, relays, switches, wires and cables, etc.) is YC or components of the same baseline level.

[0114] When the component application level is 2, the quality grade of monolithic integrated circuits is GJB597 (Grade B and above) or QJB or components of the same baseline level; the quality grade of discrete semiconductor devices is GJB2438 (Grade H and above) or QJB or components of the same baseline level; the quality grade of hybrid integrated circuits is GJB33 (Grade JCT and above) or QJB or components of the same baseline level; the quality grade of resistors, capacitors and magnetic components, electromechanical components (connectors, relays, switches, wires and cables, etc.), filters, and fuses is GJB or QJB or components of the same baseline level; the quality grade of frequency components is GJB1648 or QJB or components of the same baseline level.

[0115] When the component application level is level 3, the quality level of monolithic integrated circuits, discrete semiconductor devices, hybrid integrated circuits, filters, frequency components, resistors, capacitors and magnetic components, fuses, electromechanical components (connectors, relays, switches, wires and cables, etc.) shall be national standards or QB or components of the same baseline level.

[0116] Domestic components of various application levels shall be selected according to the quality grade requirements in Table 10.

[0117] Table 10 Quality grade requirements for domestic components

[0118]

[0119] Implementation case 1: The above method is used to determine the quality level of the DC / DC used in the power board of a four-axis fiber optic gyroscope combination stand-alone in a satellite with a service life of 5 years.

[0120] The quality grade confirmation process of DC / DC is as follows:

[0121] (1) According to the provisions of QJ3050A-2011 "Guidelines for Failure Mode, Effect and Criticality Analysis of Aerospace Products", the severity of the four-axis integrated fiber optic gyroscope combination unit is confirmed to be Class I; design analysis, historical failure statistics, and simulation confirm that the probability of occurrence of the failure mode of the unit is 3%, confirming that it is a Class C unit;

[0122] (2) Based on the above information, it is confirmed that the risk level of the four-axis integrated fiber optic gyroscope combination stand-alone unit is determined to be a Class I risk;

[0123] (3) The stand-alone machine has redundant backup. Combined with the risk level of the Class I risk stand-alone machine, the stand-alone machine criticality level is confirmed to be Level 2;

[0124] (4) The satellite has an on-orbit life of 5 years, the spacecraft risk level is 1, and combined with the single machine criticality level of 2, the single machine application level is determined to be 1;

[0125] (5) According to QJ3050A-2011 "Guidelines for Failure Mode, Effect and Criticality Analysis of Aerospace Products", the severity level of components is Level I;

[0126] (6) When using a single machine, components are backed up with dual backup, and the criticality level of the components is determined to be level 2;

[0127] (7) The criticality of the component is level 2, and combined with the single-machine application level of level 1, the application level of the component is determined to be level 2;

[0128] (8) The DC / DC is a monolithic integrated circuit (including MMIC and CCD). Combined with Table 10, the quality grade of the DC / DC selected in this single machine is GJB grade.

[0129] Implementation Case 2: The above method is used to determine the quality level of the CMOS image sensor in a single star sensor in a satellite with an 8-year lifespan.

[0130] The quality level confirmation process of CMOS image sensors is as follows:

[0131] (1) According to the provisions of QJ3050A-2011 "Guidelines for Failure Mode, Effect and Criticality Analysis of Aerospace Products", the severity of the star sensor unit is confirmed to be Class I; design analysis, historical failure statistics, and simulation confirm that the probability of occurrence of the single-unit failure mode is 1.67%, confirming that it is a Class C unit;

[0132] (2) Based on the above information, it is confirmed that the risk level of the star sensor is determined to be Class I risk;

[0133] (3) The stand-alone machine has redundant backup. Combined with the risk level of the Class I risk stand-alone machine, the stand-alone machine criticality level is confirmed to be Level 2;

[0134] (4) The satellite has an on-orbit life of 8 years, the spacecraft risk level is 1, and combined with the single machine criticality level of 2, the single machine application level is determined to be 1;

[0135] (5) According to QJ3050A-2011 "Guidelines for Failure Mode, Effect and Criticality Analysis of Aerospace Products", the severity level of components is Level I;

[0136] (6) Components used in a single machine are single-point devices, and the criticality level of the components is determined to be level 1;

[0137] (7) The criticality of the component is level 1, and combined with the single-machine application level of level I, the application level of the component is determined to be level 1;

[0138] (8) The CMOS image sensor is a hybrid integrated circuit. Combined with Table 10, the quality grade of the CMOS image sensor selected in this single machine is YB and the same baseline grade device.

[0139] It should be noted that the sequence of the embodiments of the present invention described above is for description only and does not represent the advantages and disadvantages of the embodiments. The above describes specific embodiments of this specification. Other embodiments are within the scope of the appended claims. In some cases, the actions or steps recorded in the claims can be performed in an order different from that in the embodiments and still achieve the desired results. In addition, the processes depicted in the drawings do not necessarily require the specific order or continuous order shown to achieve the desired results. In some embodiments, multitasking and parallel processing are also possible or may be advantageous.

[0140] Each embodiment in this specification is described in a progressive manner, and the same or similar parts between the embodiments can be referred to each other, and each embodiment focuses on the differences from other embodiments. The above is only a preferred embodiment of the present invention, but the protection scope of the present invention is not limited thereto. Any modifications, equivalent substitutions, improvements, etc. made within the spirit and principles of the present invention should be included in the protection scope of the present invention. The contents not described in detail in the specification of the present invention belong to the known technology of professionals and technicians in this field.

Claims

1. A method for reducing the cost of spacecraft components based on application risk and component criticality, characterized in that: The steps include: The first step is to determine the severity level of the single machine; The second step is to determine the probability of occurrence of failure modes of a single machine based on the design failure mode impact analysis (DFMEA); The third step is to determine the risk level of a single machine based on the severity level of the single machine determined in the first step and the probability of occurrence of a single machine failure determined in the second step; The fourth step is to determine the single machine redundancy mode, that is, to determine whether the single machine has redundant backup; Step 5: Determine the criticality level of the single machine according to the risk level of the single machine determined in Step 3 and the single machine redundancy method determined in Step 4; Step 6: Determine the spacecraft risk acceptance level; Step 7: Determine the application level of the single machine according to the criticality level of the single machine determined in Step 5 and the risk acceptance level of the spacecraft determined in Step 6; Step 8: Determine the severity level of components; The ninth step is to determine the redundancy of components according to whether there is a backup in the actual application status of the components in the single spacecraft; Step 10, determining the component criticality level based on the component severity level determined in step 8 and the component redundancy determined in step 9; Step 11, determining the application level of the components based on the single-machine application level determined in step 7 and the component criticality level determined in step 10; The twelfth step is to determine the quality level of the components to be selected based on the application level of the spacecraft components determined in the eleventh step.

2. The method for reducing the cost of spacecraft components based on application risk and component criticality according to claim 1, characterized in that: In the first step, according to the provisions of QJ3050A-2011 "Guidelines for Failure Mode, Effect and Criticality Analysis of Aerospace Products", the severity of a single machine is divided into four levels: Level I, Level II, Level III, and Level IV; In the second step, the probability of occurrence of the failure mode is divided into five levels according to the probability of occurrence, namely, level A, level B, level C, level D, and level E.

3. The method for reducing the cost of spacecraft components based on application risk and component criticality according to claim 2, characterized in that: In the third step, the risk level of a single machine is determined as Category I risk, Category II risk, Category III risk, and Category IV risk according to the following method: When the severity of a single machine is level I, the risk level of a single machine with a failure mode probability of level A, level B, or level C is determined as a Class I risk; the risk level of a single machine with a failure mode probability of level D is determined as a Class II risk; the risk level of a single machine with a failure mode probability of level E is determined as a Class III risk; When the severity of a single machine is level II, the risk level of a single machine with a failure mode probability of A or B is determined as a Class I risk; the risk level of a single machine with a failure mode probability of C is determined as a Class II risk; the risk level of a single machine with a failure mode probability of D or E is determined as a Class III risk; When the severity of a single machine is level III, the risk level of a single machine with a failure mode probability of A or B is determined as a Class II risk; the risk level of a single machine with a failure mode probability of C, D, or E is determined as a Class III risk; When the severity of a single machine is Level IV, the risk level of a single machine with a failure mode probability of A or B is determined to be Category III risk; the risk level of a single machine with a failure mode probability of C, D, or E is determined to be Category IV risk.

4. The method for reducing the cost of spacecraft components based on application risk and component criticality according to claim 3, characterized in that: In the fifth step, the criticality level of the single machine is divided into 1, 2, 3, and 4 levels according to the risk level of the single machine, and the criticality level of the single machine is reduced for the single machine with redundant backup.

5. The method for reducing the cost of spacecraft components based on application risk and component criticality according to claim 1, characterized in that: In the sixth step, the risk acceptance level is divided into three levels, namely level 1, level 2, and level 3, according to the life of the spacecraft and the importance of the mission.

6. The method for reducing the cost of spacecraft components based on application risk and component criticality according to claim 5, characterized in that: In the seventh step, the stand-alone application level is determined as 1, 2, or 3 according to the following method: When the single machine criticality level is level 1, if the spacecraft risk level is level 1 or level 2, the single machine application level is level 1; if the spacecraft risk level is level 3, the single machine application level is level 2; When the single machine criticality level is level 2, if the spacecraft risk level is level 1, the single machine application level is level 1; if the spacecraft risk level is level 2, the single machine application level is level 2; if the spacecraft risk level is level 3, the single machine application level is level 3; When the single-machine criticality level is level 3, if the spacecraft risk level is level 1, the single-machine application level is level 2; if the spacecraft risk level is level 2 or level 3, the single-machine application level is level 3; When the single-machine criticality level is Level 4, if the spacecraft risk level is Level 1, the single-machine application level is Level 2; if the spacecraft risk level is Level 2 or Level 3, the single-machine application level is Level 3.

7. The method for reducing the cost of spacecraft components based on application risk and component criticality according to claim 6, characterized in that: In the eighth step, according to the provisions of QJ3050A-2011 "Guidelines for Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis of Aerospace Products", the severity level of components is divided into three levels, namely Level I, Level II and Level III; in the ninth step, according to the actual situation, the redundancy of components is divided into three situations: single point, dual backup, triple backup and above.

8. The method for reducing the cost of spacecraft components based on application risk and component criticality according to claim 7, characterized in that: In the tenth step, the criticality level of components is determined as 1, 2, and 3 according to the following method: If the component redundancy is single point, when the component severity level is level I, the component criticality level is level 1; when the component severity level is level II, the component criticality level is level 2; when the component severity level is level III, the component criticality level is level 3; If the component redundancy is double backup, when the component severity level is level I or level II, the component criticality level is level 2; when the component severity level is level III, the component criticality level is level 3; If the component redundancy is three or more, when the component severity level is Level I, Level II or Level III, the component criticality level is Level 3.

9. The method for reducing the cost of spacecraft components based on application risk and component criticality according to claim 7, characterized in that: In the eleventh step, the application level of components is determined as 1, 2, and 3 according to the following method: When the criticality of a component is level 1, if the stand-alone application level is I, the application level of the component is determined to be level 1; if the stand-alone application level is II, the application level of the component is determined to be level 2; if the stand-alone application level is III, the application level of the component is determined to be level 3; When the criticality of a component is level 2, if the stand-alone application level is level I or II, the application level of the component is determined to be level 2; if the stand-alone application level is III, the application level of the component is determined to be level 3; When the criticality of a component is level 3, if the single-machine application level is level I, level II, or level III, the application level of the component is determined to be level 3.

10. The method for reducing the cost of spacecraft components based on application risk and component criticality according to claim 7, characterized in that: In the twelfth step, When the component application level is level 1, the quality level of monolithic integrated circuits, discrete semiconductor devices, hybrid integrated circuits, filters, and frequency components is YB or components of the same baseline level; the quality level of resistors, capacitors and magnetic components, fuses, and electromechanical components is YC or components of the same baseline level; When the component application level is 2, the quality level of monolithic integrated circuits is GJB597 B level and above or QJB or components of the same baseline level; the quality level of discrete semiconductor devices is GJB2438 H level and above or QJB or components of the same baseline level; the quality level of hybrid integrated circuits is GJB33 JCT level and above or QJB or components of the same baseline level; the quality level of resistors, capacitors and magnetic components, electromechanical components, filters, and fuses is GJB or QJB or components of the same baseline level; The quality grade of frequency components is GJB1648 or QJB or components of the same baseline grade; When the component application level is level 3, the quality level of monolithic integrated circuits, semiconductor discrete devices, hybrid integrated circuits, filters, frequency components, resistors, capacitors and magnetic components, fuses, and electromechanical components is national standard or QB or the same baseline level components, The electromechanical components include connectors, relays, switches, and wires and cables.

Images