Separate payload processing from spacecraft supervision
Define which computer supervises the spacecraft bus and which processes payload data. An AI payload processor may be allowed to restart without interrupting essential bus functions, but only if the interfaces, power domains and recovery behavior support that separation. Document command ownership and the safe state of each interface.
Select compute by workload and evidence
| Architecture | What to evaluate | Engineering trade-off |
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Control software, preprocessing and flexible algorithms | Software flexibility versus measured energy and throughput |
| FPGA | Streaming interfaces and deterministic processing paths | Custom datapaths versus development effort and configuration recovery |
| NPU or other accelerator | Supported operators, precision, memory and deployment tooling | Model efficiency versus runtime limitations and component suitability |
No processor label establishes radiation tolerance. Evaluate the exact component, memory, power devices and board implementation against the intended mission environment. Peak TOPS is not an end-to-end payload performance guarantee.
Design the power and thermal paths together
Prepare an operating-mode budget for startup, acquisition, inference, storage and communication. Include conversion losses, startup transients and the peak current of simultaneous operations. Specify the response to undervoltage, overcurrent and interrupted power.
Vacuum removes the ordinary air-convection path used by many terrestrial products. Component heat must follow a designed conduction path to the spacecraft structure and ultimately its radiating surfaces. Mechanical contact, interface materials, mounting and hot or cold operating cases belong in the design review.
Understand radiation failure mechanisms
Radiation can cause transient errors, state changes and damaging events, while cumulative exposure can degrade device behavior. A radiation-hardness assurance plan connects the mission environment to parts selection, available test evidence, design mitigation and verification. A watchdog alone cannot establish that a system is suitable for flight.
NASA distinguishes the need to characterize and mitigate radiation risks even for parts sold under different commercial or military classifications. NASA’s assurance guidance also connects the environment, component evaluation and system design. Use those principles to define the evidence for the actual mission rather than treating a generic label as a qualification.
Source: NASA — Mitigating Risks of Single-Event Effects in Space Applications
Source: NASA — Avionics Radiation-Hardness Assurance
Make recovery an explicit requirement
- Define detection and response for stalled software, corrupted state and failed communications.
- Consider error-detecting memory, integrity checks and controlled memory scrubbing where supported.
- Partition power and interfaces so that a recoverable payload fault does not propagate unnecessarily.
- Test boot recovery, persistent-storage integrity and interrupted updates.
- Log enough health data to understand resets and repeated faults from the ground.
These are design options, not a universal protection recipe. Their suitability depends on the fault model, mission criticality and evidence from analysis and testing.
Verify the engineering model before environmental qualification
Begin with repeatable electrical and functional tests: interface timing, data loss, power sequencing, thermal behavior under representative load and response to injected faults. Hardware-in-the-loop tests should exercise realistic payload and spacecraft-bus traffic, including exceptional conditions.
Agree the environmental test matrix with the mission team. Vibration, thermal-vacuum, electromagnetic compatibility and radiation-related verification have different purposes and acceptance criteria. Passing a laboratory functional demonstration is not equivalent to passing that matrix.
Specify the handover package
Define the expected schematics, board files, bill of materials, interface control documents, firmware and model versions, test procedures and verification reports. Agree source access, intellectual-property rights and maintenance responsibilities in the project scope.
Alvexis can support custom satellite electronics and engineering models, embedded integration and ground-test hardware. Start by sharing the mission constraints and required evidence. Existing terrestrial Alvexis platforms can inform laboratory evaluation; they should not be described as flight-qualified without the relevant verification.