When 64 GB Changes the Storage Architecture

Moving from 32 GB to 64 GB may look like a straightforward increase in storage. For some spacecraft designs, however, crossing that capacity threshold can change the architecture itself.The key question is not simply whether 64 GB is better than 32 GB. It is whether the additional capacity allows a system to meet growing data requirements while continuing to use a managed eMMC architecture-or whether the design must move to a more complex storage approach.

Where capacity becomes an architecture issue

Thirty-two gigabytes remains sufficient for many systems. A compact avionics computer, navigation system or single-board computer with a defined workload may have no need for additional capacity. The decision changes when a system must hold larger sensor datasets, additional applications, intermediate processing products or more data between ground contacts. If the existing device can no longer accommodate the workload, the design team must determine how to expand. Options may include selecting a higher-capacity eMMC device, adding multiple managed-memory devices or moving to a raw NAND array. Those choices affect more than storage density. They can change board layout, interfaces, power, software, fault management and qualification requirements.

Managed eMMC versus raw NAND

Raw NAND provides storage at the memory-array level, but the system must supply the functions required to manage it. Depending on the implementation, those functions can include error correction, bad-block management, wear management and logical-to-physical address translation. Providing those capabilities typically requires controller hardware or IP, along with software integration and verification. That approach may be appropriate for systems requiring very large arrays, specific performance characteristics or greater control over the storage implementation. It also introduces development work beyond adding another memory component. An eMMC device combines NAND flash and an embedded controller in one package. The host still requires a compatible interface and driver, but it does not have to manage the raw flash directly. For an architecture already built around eMMC, moving to a higher-capacity device may therefore provide a simpler growth path than adopting raw NAND.

What a 64GB device changes

Frontgrade's 64 GB eMMC Managed NAND doubles the capacity of the 32 GB device introduced in 2025 while maintaining the same package size. For a compatible design, that may allow additional capacity without requiring a larger footprint or a fundamental change in how the system manages storage. The value depends on the application. A high-performance onboard computer may need more capacity for sensor data and intermediate processing products. An SBC provider may use 64 GB to support more demanding customer applications. A spacecraft developer that finds 32 GB sufficient today may want the additional capacity available for future designs. Multiple 64 GB devices may provide another scaling path. Depending on the host architecture, two devices could support 128 GB and four could support 256 GB without implementing a raw NAND array and its associated controller IP. This approach still requires system-level decisions. Additional devices consume board area and power, require host connectivity and may remain independent storage resources unless combined through the system architecture. Designers must also consider fault isolation, redundancy and software support. The benefit is not complexity-free capacity. It is another option for scaling before a more significant architectural change becomes necessary.

Capacity within the mission trade space

A larger device is not automatically the right choice. Capacity must be evaluated alongside performance, endurance, reliability, radiation tolerance and SWaP-C requirements. A managed NAND device may fit a mission whose radiation requirements fall within its operating envelope. A mission in a more demanding environment may require radiation-hardened MRAM or another technology, even if that means accepting a different capacity or cost tradeoff. The objective is to choose the storage architecture that fits the mission while preserving a credible path for growth. Designers should ask not only whether 32 GB meets the current requirement, but also what happens if the workload eventually requires 64 GB, 128 GB or more. Addressing that question early can help prevent storage capacity from forcing an unplanned architectural change later in development. For systems approaching the 32 GB threshold, moving to 64 GB is more than a specification increase. It can preserve design options and help storage scale with the computing architecture it supports.