Journal of Space Safety Engineering 9 (2022) 656–661

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Space Safety Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jsse

Efforts to improve spacecraft reliability prediction method to evaluate

the probability of successful disposal in ISO 24113:2019
Sato Kenichi a,∗, Yamane Takashi a, Yoshihara Toru a, Fukuta Yasuhiro a, Nagano Tomoaki b
a
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, 2-1-1, Sengen, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki, 305-8505 Japan
b
NEC Corporation, 1-10, Nisshin-cho, Fuchu-shi, Tokyo, 183-8501 Japan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The new requirement in ISO 24,113:2019, "The probability of successful disposal of a spacecraft or launch
Received 28 March 2022 vehicle orbital stage shall be at least 0,9 through to the end of life." is uneasy to show compliance because
Received in revised form 4 October 2022
there is no accurate prediction method. This probability is usually calculated based on the reliability, but
Accepted 14 October 2022
it is difficult to achieve 0.9 with the reliability prediction method applied to JAXA’s spacecraft because it
Available online 22 October 2022
is based on MIL-HDBK-217F, with worst case temperature condition. Though the reliability of the JAXA’s
spacecraft can not achieve 0.9, they have survived soundly through the design life unless a specific failure
occurs. It is recognized that the MIL-HDBK-217F based prediction method is conservative to the actual
probability of successful disposal. Therefore, JAXA investigated the improvement of the prediction method
to bring the reliability closer to the actual probability of successful disposal.
© 2022 International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All
rights reserved.

1. Background probability is not strictly defined, and it is not easy to show the
conformity.
1.1. The probability of successful disposal in iso 24,113:2019
1.2. Rationale of 0.9 in the probability of successful disposal
The third edition of the world-famous space debris mitiga-
tion requirements “ISO 24,113: 2019 Space systems - Space debris
The target value of 0.9 for the probability of successful disposal
mitigation requirements” [1] was published in 2019. Several new
was obtained from the low earth orbit environmental evaluation
requirements have been added to the standard due to concerns
by the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC).
about the dramatically congested low earth orbit environment.
The rationale is shown in IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guide-
Since the space debris mitigation standard JMR-003 (past
lines [3] and Support to the IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guide-
NASDA-STD-18) was established in 1996, JAXA has maintained it
lines [4]. The probability of successful disposal 0.9 is a value re-
incorporating international regulatory trends. JMR-003 has been
quired to maintain the low earth orbital environment when the
maintained to conform to ISO in recent years, and recently JMR-
so-called 25-year orbital life rule is applied. This value was set
003D [2] was issued in 2020 in consideration of the new elements
based on the orbital environment at 1990s to 20 0 0s. It should be
presented in ISO 24,113: 2019.
noted that this does not presuppose the constellation era of the
Unlike the conditional probability of successful disposal defined
2020s.
in the previous version, the requirement to "The probability of suc-
The ESA’s Annual Space Environmental Report shows the actual
cessful disposal of a spacecraft or launch vehicle orbital stage shall
value of the compliance rate to the IADC disposal rule in recent
be at least 0,9 through to the end of life." set in ISO 24,113: 2019
years. In the March 2021 report [5], for spacecraft in the low earth
is a strict requirement because it needs to be evaluated in consid-
orbit protected region, the most recent rate of compliance with the
eration of mission phase. Moreover, the evaluation method of this
rule is 0.2 to 0.4 (excluding those that meet the 25-year rule with-
out a disposal maneuver), for launch vehicle orbital stages rock-
ets in the low earth orbit protected region, the most recent rate of
∗
compliance with the rule is 0.8 or more (excluding those that meet
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: satoh.kenichi2@jaxa.jp (S. Kenichi), yamane.takashi2@jaxa.jp
the 25-year rule without a disposal maneuver). It should be noted
(Y. Takashi), yoshihara.toru@jaxa.jp (Y. Toru), fukuta.yasuhiro@jaxa.jp (F. Yasuhiro), that these values include not only disposal failures but also cases
t.nagano@nec.com (N. Tomoaki). of intentionally not attempting disposal action.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsse.2022.10.003
2468-8967/© 2022 International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Kenichi, Y. Takashi, Y. Toru et al. Journal of Space Safety Engineering 9 (2022) 656–661

Fig. 1. Environmental aspects vs. individual spacecraft aspects when discussing the probability of successful disposal.

The compliance rate to the IADC disposal rule of spacecraft that bility. In NASA, if sufficient orbital data is available, Weibull distri-
require maneuvers for disposal needs to be improved worldwide. bution fitting or Bayesian update is taken for MIL-HDBK-217 type
failure rate data [9]. ESA published white paper in 2016 [10] and
1.3. Difficulty in predicting the probability of successful disposal has been implementing the Reliability.space project since 2017,
which is considering the New Reliability Prediction Methodology
The environmental requirement for successful disposal rate 0.9 Aimed at Space Applications (NRPM) [11]. NRPM proposes a pre-
is a target for the entire population of spacecraft and orbital stages diction method based on FIDES Guide 2009 Ed A Rev 2010 [12].
in low earth orbit. By contrast, ISO 24,113: 2019 and other miti-
gation requirements apply to each and every individual spacecraft,
2. Efforts to improve reliability prediction method for
orbital stage. This contrast is illustrated in Fig. 1.
evaluation of probability of successful disposal
In the process of spacecraft development, in order to make Go
/ NoGo decisions in design reviews, etc., it is usually required to
2.1. Current status of JAXA’s reliability prediction
perform preliminary evaluation of various risks (not only the prob-
ability of successful disposal). Similarly, when making an operation
Most of the spacecraft operated by JAXA in earth orbit set reli-
extension decision after the end of the design life period (nom-
ability requirements for the design life. Reliability requirements for
inal mission phase), it is necessary to make a decision based on
spacecraft bus are set individually for each mission, often 0.80 to
the risk. However, accurately predicting the probability of success-
0.85.
ful disposal for each spacecraft or launch vehicle orbital stage is a
Reliability prediction is performed based on MIL-HDBK-217F.
very challenging issue.
Acceptance Test (AT) temperature upper limit or AT temperature
1.4. Relationship between probability of successful disposal and upper limit −10 °C is used as the temperature condition when cal-
reliability culating the reliability. Since this temperature severely overstates
the thermal stress that occurs on orbit, it results in understating
NASA-STD-8719.14B Process for Limiting Orbital Debris [6] and the reliability.
ECSS-U-AS-10C Rev.1 Space sustainability Adoption Notice of ISO Table 1 shows a comparison between the design life and the
24,113: Space systems - Space debris mitigation requirements actual operation period of the spacecraft operated by JAXA in earth
[7] state that the probability of successful disposal is obtained from orbit. All spacecraft except ADEOS-2 and ASTRO–H were not lost
the reliability of the disposal function. The method of expressing during the design life. Also, most spacecraft have extended mission
some kind of success probability using reliability has been a com- periods.
mon method for a long time, for example, it is used for calculating
the expected number of casualties in controlled re-entry in JAXA.
Table 1
However, JMR-003D does not require quantitative evaluation of the A comparison between the design life and the actual operation period
probability of successful disposal based on the reliability at this of the spacecraft operated by JAXA in earth orbit.
time because of the issue on reliability prediction method.
Spacecraft Design life A Actual operation period B B/A
Reliability prediction has traditionally been performed using name [year] [year] [-]
MIL-HDBK-217F [8]. The method using this handbook has become
DRTS 7 14.9 2.1
widespread in the space industry because it is simple, can be used
ETS-8 10 10.1 1.0
by anyone, and can be obtained free of charge. However, MIL- WINDS∗ 1 5 11.0 2.2
HDBK-217F has not been updated since 1995, making it an out- QZS-1 ∗ 2 10 10.9 1.1
dated method. Since the method using MIL-HDBK-217F only con- ADEOS-2 3 0.8 0.3
OICETS 1 4.1 4.1
siders the probability of random failures of the equipment (this is
ALOS∗ 1 3 5.3 1.8
a constant failure rate), it does not take into account the so-called ASTRO-F 3 5.8 1.9
bathtub curve phenomenon such as early “infant mortality” failures GOSAT∗ 2 5 12.6 2.5
and wear-out failures. In addition, the random failure rate tends to SDS-1 1 1.7 1.7
be expressed larger than the actual value of the current parts. GCOM-W∗ 2 5 9.3 1.9
ALOS-2 ∗ 2 5 7.3 1.5
At JAXA, early failures are eliminated by screening such as
ASTRO–H 3 0.2 0.1
ground tests as much as possible. In addition, JAXA models wear- GCOM-C∗ 2 5 3.7 0.7
out failures by identifying an effective lifetime for those compo- SLATS 2 1.8 0.9
nents. MIL-HDBK-217F predictions are only used for random fail- GOSAT-2 ∗ 2 5 2.8 0.6
ures. ∗
1 Failed to dispose of the spacecraft due to sudden loss of func-
Space agencies in other countries are looking for various alter- tion during the extended mission period. ∗ 2 Currently in operation as
native methods to MIL-HDBK-217F to predict more realistic relia- of August 2021.

657
S. Kenichi, Y. Takashi, Y. Toru et al.
Fig. 2. Reliability block diagram focusing on the disposal function (red X means eliminated as not relevant to the disposal function).
The probability that 14 spacecraft with a reliability of 0.9 at the
end of the design life will survive in a row is about 0.23 (that
is (0.9)14 ). However, considering that so many spacecraft are ac-
tually alive at the end of the design life, the reliability prediction
at the end of the design life seems to be a fairly conservative value
against the actual survival rate.
The communication blackout of ADEOS-2 was caused by the
high temperature of the harness of the solar array paddle and the
burning due to the charge and discharge of MLI, which was due
to a design error. ASTRO–H was lost due to attitude anomaly [13].
These failures were due to causes unrelated to reliability predic-
tion.
For WINDS and ALOS, the mission was extended after the end
of the design life, but the spacecraft suddenly lost its function dur-
ing the mission extension period, and the execution of the disposal
maneuver failed. This is also a problem unrelated to the reliability
prediction at the design phase which evaluate only up to the de-
sign life period.
Since the main purpose of JAXA’s current reliability prediction
is to confirm that the reliability design is sufficient by relative eval-
uation with past spacecraft, the reliability did not necessarily need
to represent the actual survival rate at the end of the design life.
However, as an absolute evaluation, when the reliability is to be
used for the evaluation of the probability of successful disposal, re-
liability lower than the actual value including the margin becomes
a problem from the viewpoint of conformity with the requirement.
Because of the issue on reliability prediction method, JMR-003D
does not require “reliability is 0.9 or higher” in verification of the
probability of successful disposal. The target value for the reliabil-
ity of the disposal related functions can be set for each mission.
However, JAXA still considers introducing a quantitative risk as-
sessment, 0.9 as reliability requirement for disposal functions in
the future edition of JMR-003, like it is adopted in the United
States and Europe. Therefore, in order to improve the accuracy of
reliability prediction as an absolute evaluation for the probability
of successful disposal, JAXA conducted the three studies shown in
2.2 to 2.4.
2.2. Case 1: focus on the disposal function
The reliability prediction currently implemented by JAXA is cal-
culated separately for the reliability of the bus and the reliability
of the mission equipment, and the reliability of the spacecraft sys-
658
Journal of Space Safety Engineering 9 (2022) 656–661
tem is calculated by multiplying the reliability of the bus and the
reliability of the mission equipment. Since the bus reliability intro-
duced in Section 2.1 includes equipment that is not necessary for
disposal operation, more accurate evaluation for the probability of
successful disposal can be performed by focusing on the disposal
function.
Fig. 2 shows a reliability block diagram of a JAXA earth obser-
vation spacecraft evaluated by focusing on the disposal function. In
this spacecraft, the reliability at the end of the design life (5 years)
was improved by 0.0338 compared to the reliability of the bus by
evaluating the reliability focusing on the disposal function. (Fig. 3)
This reliability was calculated using MIL-HDBK-217F.
2.3. Case 2: change of temperature condition
As mentioned in Section 2.1, the reliability predictions for the
JAXA spacecraft in earth orbit are performed assuming an AT tem-
perature upper limit or a temperature 10° below the AT upper
limit. This is a value including a margin with respect to the aver-
age design predicted temperature in orbit. If this is revised to the
actual on-orbit average temperature (Fig. 4), the reliability can be
more accurate without the margin.
Fig. 5 shows the results of evaluating the reliability of a JAXA
earth observation spacecraft based on the actual on-orbit average
temperature. In this spacecraft, the reliability at the end of the de-
sign life (5 years) was improved by 0.0183 by reviewing the AT
temperature upper limit −10 °C to the actual on-orbit average tem-
perature. This reliability was also calculated using MIL-HDBK-217F.
2.4. Case 3: use of new handbook
JAXA is also considering introducing a new handbook to replace
MIL-HDBK-217F. In this study, we used FIDES as a trial basis. This
handbook is free to be introduced and is still being vigorously up-
dated. Fig. 6 shows an example of improving the bus reliability
about a JAXA earth observation spacecraft when the main equip-
ment of the attitude and orbit control subsystem AOCS (the one
with the lowest reliability among all subsystems) is replaced from
MIL-HDBK-217F to FIDES. MIL-HDBK-217F is used for subsystems
other than AOCS. At the end of the design life (5 years), the bus re-
liability improved by 0.0071. (The reliability of the subsystem AOCS
improved from 0.9719/5 years to 0.9806/5 years.)
S. Kenichi, Y. Takashi, Y. Toru et al. Journal of Space Safety Engineering 9 (2022) 656–661

Fig. 3. Example of reliability improvement by focusing on the disposal function.

Fig. 4. Change of temperature condition.

Fig. 5. Example of reliability improvement by reviewing temperature conditions.

As another example, for the JAXA earth observation spacecraft
different from Fig. 6, the reliability prediction method for the elec-
trical power subsystem (EPS) and mission data recorder subsystem
(MDR) has been changed from MIL-HDBK-217F to FIDES. At the end
of the design life (5 years) of this spacecraft, the reliability was im-
proved by 0.0121 for EPS and 0.0126 for MDR. It should be noted
that these values were calculated under conventional temperature
conditions. FIDES can take into account the temperature cycle in
orbit, and in the case where this is taken into consideration, the
reliability was further improved.
Since FIDES was introduced on a trial basis at the subsystem
level this time, it was not possible to confirm the reliability im-
provement effect when replacing MIL-HDBK-217F with FIDES for
the entire spacecraft system. However, when FIDES is applied to
the whole, more realistic reliability prediction can be expected
compared to MIL-HDBK-217F. As an issue when adopting FIDES in

659
S. Kenichi, Y. Takashi, Y. Toru et al.
Fig. 6. Example of reliability improvement by using FIDES.
Japanese spacecraft, it is necessary to accumulate and share the
knowledge to domestic community about the calculation of the
factor "π process" of the equipment manufacturing process that
MIL-HDBK-217F does not have. The π process is a parameter that
evaluates the maturity of the manufacturing organization and pro-
cess, and is a very important parameter in FIDES.
3. Conclusion
As a result of conducting the studies shown in 2.2 to 2.4 for
improving the reliability prediction method, the following reliabil-
ity improvement effects were obtained at the end of the design life
(5 years).
Case 1: Focus on the disposal function 0.0338
Case 2: Change of temperature condition 0.0183
Case 3: New handbook adopted (some subsystems only) 0.0071
Although the improvements cannot be simply summed, even if
Case 1 and 2 are combined (using MIL-HDBK-217F), the reliability
can be expected to improve by more than 5% compared to the con-
ventional prediction method. As mentioned in 2.1, the conventional
bus reliability requirement for the spacecraft operated by JAXA in
earth orbit is 0.80 to 0.85, so by using the methods of Cases 1 and
2, it is expected that the reliability of the disposal function of 0.85
to 0.90 can be achieved. However, in recent years, the design life
of spacecraft has been increasing, and the methods of Cases 1 and
2 are still insufficient. It is necessary to pursue more realistic re-
liability prediction by full-scale adoption of the new handbook of
Case 3 and feedback of in-orbit data.
4. Future issues
4.1. Limitations of the reliability-based probability of successful
disposal, and other considerations
In this paper, we have made efforts to obtain a “more accurate
probability of successful disposal” at the design phase by improv-
ing the reliability prediction method. However, it should be noted
that these studies are not intended to actually change the reliabil-
ity design of the spacecraft, but to avoid unnecessarily conservative
reliability design.
By the way, "more accurate probability of successful disposal"
is a difficult problem. From the engineer’s point of view, it is
understood that the reliability obtained with MIL-HDBK-217F is
660
Journal of Space Safety Engineering 9 (2022) 656–661
calculated as a conservative value compared to the actual sur-
vival rate of the spacecraft. However, the author has not con-
firmed an example that clearly shows how the probability of suc-
cessful disposal evaluated based on the reliability of each space-
craft is related to the actual value of the probability of suc-
cessful disposal in the entire orbital environment as mentioned
in 1.3.
Furthermore, even if the handbook is changed to FIDES, only
random failures based on a constant failure rate are evaluated, so
early failures and wear-out failures are not included in this pre-
diction. In addition, the reliability prediction does not take into
account operational mistakes during operation and collisions with
other objects in orbit. For these factors, it is necessary to take mea-
sures separately from the reliability prediction.
Since all possible events cannot be evaluated as quantitative
probabilities, it cannot be said that an accurate probability of suc-
cessful disposal is obtained from the reliability. Nevertheless, re-
quiring a certain high level of "reliability-based probability of suc-
cessful disposal" in space debris mitigation requirements is effec-
tive to some extent in promoting appropriate redundant design of
the disposal function and preventing disposal failure due to ran-
dom failures.
4.2. Establishing a method for evaluating the probability of successful
disposal when extending a mission
Since the reliability prediction conventionally implemented by
JAXA is an evaluation method at the design phase, we do not have
a reliability re-evaluation method when extending the mission af-
ter the end of the design life in orbit. When the reliability is used
for the probability of successful disposal for the mission exten-
sion as in the design phase, establishing an evaluation method is
a big issue. JAXA is proceeding with the study with reference to
the cases of ESA and NASA. In joint study with ESA and NASA, we
learned that the method of reflecting data obtained on orbit to the
failure rate is important, and that qualitative evaluation other than
reliability is also important [14]. When making a Go / Nogo deci-
sion to extend a mission, it is necessary to explain to various stake-
holders the rationale for the decision. There is a need for an eval-
uation method that can be convinced by both the user who wants
to extend the mission and the regulatory side who demands reli-
able disposal, and can reliably dispose of it while maximizing the
use of spacecraft resources.
S. Kenichi, Y. Takashi, Y. Toru et al.
Declarations of Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Sato Kenichi: Conceptualization, Project administration, Visual-
ization, Writing – original draft. Yamane Takashi: Writing – review
& editing. Yoshihara Toru: Supervision, Writing – review & edit-
ing. Fukuta Yasuhiro: Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing.
Nagano Tomoaki: Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing.
References
[1] ISO 24113:2019 Space systems — Space debris mitigation requirements
[2] JMR-003D SPACE DEBRIS MITIGATION STANDARD
661
Journal of Space Safety Engineering 9 (2022) 656–661
[3] IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines IADC-02-01 Revision 2 Mar 2020
[4] Support to the IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines IADC-04-06, Rev 5
(2019) 7 December.
[5] ESA’S ANNUAL SPACE ENVIRONMENT REPORT, May 2021
[6] NASA-STD-8719.14B Process for Limiting Orbital Debris
[7] ECSS-U-AS-10C Rev.1 Space sustainability Adoption Notice of ISO 24113: Space
systems - Space debris mitigation requirements
[8] MIL-HDBK-217F NOTICE 2 RELIABILITY PREDICTION OF ELECTRONIC EQUIP-
MENT, Feb 1995
[9] Reliability Estimation for Mission Extension NASA Ap-
proach/Recommendations, June 2019
[10] ESA-TECQQD-WP-0969 Effective Reliability Prediction for Space Applications
White Paper
[11] New Reliability Prediction Methodology Aimed at Space Applications TN-06/07
Fact Sheet on Proof of concept of the NRPM and Development of the NRPM for
space applications (final), Sep 2020
[12] FIDES guide 2009 Edition A September 2010 Reliability Methodology for Elec-
tronic Systems
[13] Hitomi Experience Report: Investigation of Anomalies Affecting the X-ray As-
tronomy Satellite “Hitomi” (ASTRO-H), June 2016
[14] NASA/SP-20210024973/ESA-TECQQD-TN-025375/CAA-2021025 Tri-Agency Reli-
ability Engineering Guidance: Post Mission Disposal and Extension Assessment