> and Infineon didn't follow up with NASA or their contractor because they assumed that NASA was okay with the lower rad tolerance levels typical of space
It's more likely that Infineon's folks talking to NASA were equally clueless about this change.
Ultimately, NASA bought a part with a specified TID tolerance. Any manufacturer of space qualified parts keeps detailed records of lot acceptance testing as well as who purchased from that lot. The reps interfacing with NASA didn't necessarily need to know that there was a process change, but as soon as test failures below the datasheet spec were communicated from customers and confirmed, Infineon's quality department should have immediately reached out to NASA (or more specifically NASA's contractor working on the electronics).
" Infineon's quality department should have immediately reached out to NASA (or more specifically NASA's contractor working on the electronics)."
Is there any actual evidence they didn't reach out to every single buyer of the electronics?
The article goes out of its way to say Infineon did not contact NASA. But even in your description, they would not have, they would have contacted NASA's contractor working on the electronics.
I still go back to "if there was actual evidence that Infineon did not notify who it was supposed to, the article probably would have cited it". There isn't, so they instead cast aspersions.
Instead they make a bunch of hay about a statement from Infineon that seems totally innocuous - they didn't notify people they didn't know about. Shocker.
Look, i actually hate Infineon - i've been forced to try to make their wifi and bluetooth modules work properly before ;-)
But this kind of lazy-at-best journalism doesn't help anyone.
It's more likely that Infineon's folks talking to NASA were equally clueless about this change.