Scope

Purpose

The workshop examines the conservatism embedded in spacecraft radiation requirements and the evidence that would justify reducing it. The useful distinction is between margin that covers an identifiable uncertainty and margin that has accumulated without a clear connection to mission risk. Making that distinction requires following a requirement from the environment definition through shielding assumptions, part variability, test conditions, and acceptance criteria, and asking at each step what the margin is for.

The motivation is practical. Programs that deploy on short cadence need radiation decisions that can be made with a defined environment, a stated risk posture, and acceptance criteria that fit the schedule, while keeping a path to longer service when exposure, duration, or criticality increases. Programs that qualify for long duration carry methods that could in places be streamlined without changing the decision. Neither community benefits from margin it cannot explain.

Who should attend

The workshop is intended for people who make or review radiation acceptance decisions and for people who produce the evidence those decisions rest on:

• Radiation effects, parts, reliability, and mission assurance engineers from cadence-driven and qualification-driven programs
• Technical authorities and program offices in government agencies
• Prime contractors and defense industrial base suppliers
• Federally funded research and development centers, university-affiliated research centers, national laboratories, and test facilities
• University researchers in radiation effects, device physics, and reliability

Attendance is capacity-limited to approximately 150 and is by request. Requests are reviewed by the organizers with the aim of balancing sectors and roles so that each discussion includes the people who write requirements, the people who meet them, and the people who generate the data. There is no registration fee.

Format

The workshop runs for one day. The program is built around six priority discussions, each opened by short invited contributions and given most of its time to moderated cross-sector discussion. The remaining topics are addressed through invited case studies and a closing panel. Talk lengths and session order will be set when the program is assembled.

Every contribution is organized around a concrete acceptance decision: the conventional requirement, the proposed alternative, the evidence supporting it, and the conditions under which the alternative would fail. Contributions that argue for keeping a requirement as it stands are as welcome as contributions that argue for relaxing it, provided the argument is made in the same terms.

Intended outputs

Each session is expected to close with three things on record:

1. A proposed decision rule, stated precisely enough that a project could apply it and a reviewer could object to it.
2. The conditions under which the rule would not apply, or would fail.
3. The data or analysis still needed to support the rule at the confidence a project would require.

The third item is the primary product of the workshop. A catalogue of identified knowledge gaps, each tied to a specific acceptance decision, is the foundation for proposals to close them, and the organizers intend to circulate that catalogue to participants after the event.

Openness and releasability

The workshop is open and internationally attended. All discussion, presentations, and submitted material must be limited to publicly releasable content. No controlled unclassified information, no ITAR or other export-controlled technical data, and no proprietary data without the owner's consent may be presented or submitted. Contributors attest to this when they submit a concept, and the organizers will decline material that does not meet it.