box score: 6 / 6
DESCRIPTION
1 - Introduction 2 - Propulsion & ∆V 3 - Attitude Control & instruments 4 - Orbits & Orbit Determination 5 - Launch Vehicles Cost & scale observations Piggyback vs. dedicated Mission $ = 3xLaunch $ The end is near? AeroAstro SPORT. 6 - Power & Mechanisms Photovoltaics & Solar panels - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Enginering 176 #6
Box score: 6 / 6
• 1 - Introduction• 2 - Propulsion & ∆V• 3 - Attitude Control &
instruments• 4 - Orbits & Orbit
Determination• 5 - Launch Vehicles
– Cost & scale observations– Piggyback vs. dedicated– Mission $ = 3xLaunch $– The end is near?– AeroAstro SPORT
• 6 - Power & Mechanisms– Photovoltaics & Solar
panels• Maximizing the minimum
– Batteries and chargers– Deployables:
• Why moving parts don’t• Common mechanisms• Build v. buy v. modify• Reliability, testing &
terrestrial stuff• 7 - Radio & Comms• 8 - Thermal / Mechanical
Design. FEA• 9 - Reliability• 10 - Digital & Software• 11 - Project Management
Cost / Schedule• 12 - Getting Designs
Done• 13 - Design Presentations
Enginering 176 #6
Return on Investment
-25000
-20000
-15000
-10000
-5000
0
5000
10000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Month
Month
Revenue - Investment
(revenue - investment)
Investment Value (with i)
the word from our sponsor: $$$
A large number of small monthly payouts ------
…adds up to a lot of negative equity ------
…and even more with foregone interest included ------
Enginering 176 #6
You Are Here
Design Roadmap
DefineMission
ConceptSolutions &Tradeoffs
ConceptualDesign
Requirements Analysis
OrbitPropulsion
/ ∆VComms
AttitudeDetermine & Control
LaunchGroundStation
Thermal /Structure
Deployables
InfoProcessing
Top Level Design
Iterate Subsystems
Suppliers / Budgets
PartsSpecs
Mass
Power
$
∆V
Link BitsMaterialsFab
Detailed DesignFinal Performance
Specs & Cost
Or maybe Here
Enginering 176 #6
2.0 System Definition2.1 Mission Description2.2 Interface Design
2.2.1 SV-LV Interface2.2.2 SC-Experiments Interface2.2.3 Satellite Operations Center (SOC) Interface
3.0 Requirements3.1 Performance and Mission Requirements3.2 Design and Construction
3.2.1 Structure and Mechanisms3.2.2 Mass Properties3.2.3 Reliability3.2.4 Environmental Conditions
3.2.4.1 Design Load Factors3.2.4.2 SV Frequency Requirements
3.2.5 Electromagnetic Compatibility3.2.6 Contamination Control3.2.7 Telemetry, Tracking, and Commanding
(TT&C) Subsystem3.2.7.1 Frequency Allocation3.2.7.2 Commanding3.2.7.3 Tracking and Ephemeris3.2.7.4 Telemetry3.2.7.5 Contact Availability3.2.7.6 Link Margin and Data Quality
3.2.7.7 Encryption
(Some) STP-Sat Requirements
NB: this is an excerpt of the TOC - the entire doc is (or will be) on the class FTP site
Requirements & Sys Definition go together
Highly structured outline form is clearest and industry standard
Enginering 176 #6
Single vs. Two
Stage Assumptions: • R = M(i)/M(f) = 10
• ∆V required: 10 km/s
• Payload = 100 kg • Payload =10% MfSSTO: 100 kg payload
∆V = gIspln(R):
Isp = 420 (H2 / O2)
Launch mass: 12,500 kg
Structure = 1000 kg
=> R = 12.5
Stage payload Mass Fraction: 0.8%
TwoSTO: S-1 ∆V(s)=5000m/s (2 stages, equal ∆V)
S-2 mass: 505 kg
S-2 structure: 150 kg
S-2 PMF: 20%
TwoSTO: S-2 ∆V(s)=5000m/s
S-1 mass: 2595 kg
S-1 structure: 770 kg
S-2 PayMF: 20%
TwoSTO: ∑ ∆V =10000m/s
Total Mass: 3100 kg
Total PayMF: 3.2%
Enginering 176 #6
Orbital Insertion
Payload / kg
20,000
10,000
5,000
15,000
Ariane VProton
X
Delta /LLV
X
Pegasus / Scout
X
0
104103102
25,000Shuttle
(est.)
X
11
22
33
44
55
66
Enginering 176 #6
Optics Lesson #1: Pinhole Camera
0.01 radian
Spot diameter = 0.01 rad x L =~ 400km
(where L = 40,000 km
= GEO altitude)
Spot area =~ 1011 m2
=> every m2 of mirror yields 10-11 sun brightness: 1km2 mirror yields 10-5 sun brightness = 10 x lunar illumination
From 400 km LEO every m2 of mirror yields 10-7 sun brightness: 10x10m yields 10-5 sun brightness = 10 x lunar illumination over diameter = 4km
L = 40,000,000 m
Diffraction limit = L/D = 10-6 x 4x107 / 1 = 40 meters - not limiting
Enginering 176 #6
For tonight (/ Thursday)
• Requirements Doc– Mission
Requirements– System Definition– Begin Tech
Requirements
• Launch Strategy– Primary LV and cost– The last mile
problem
• Reading– Requirements Doc
Sample– Power:
• SMAD 11.4• TLOM 14
– Mechanisms:• SMAD 11.6 (11.6.8 too)• TLOM ?
– Fill in re ACS: TLOM:• Chapt. 6 (magnets)• Chapt. 11 (ACS)
• Thinking– What can you
build?– What can you test?
Enginering 176 #6
For next Thursday, (March 7)
• Preparation: Radios & Comms
• SMAD Chapter 13• TLOM Chapters 7,8,9
• Technical requirements:Create a list of technical requirements - even if it has “TBD”s in it. (+ revisit mission rqts)
• Systems design:create a good looking “cartoon” set of the spacecraft, orbit and ground segments
• Tools selection:– Finite element– Design and layout– Presentation
Graphics
• Pick Something Physical
Enginering 176 #6
Power: Supply & Demand
• Supply:– Sun: 1.34 kW/m2
– Solar panels: =~ 20% => ~250W/m2
– 50% of electricity is heat => At ops. temps, Radiation=300 W/m2
(courtesy Stephan & Boltzman)
• Demand– 1 Transponder: 200W; 1 DBS
XPDR: 2000W– On - Board Housekeeping: 100W– Iridium / Globalstar class
satellite: 500W– Micro / nano: 100 W to 1 W
Enginering 176 #6
Design Driver: Power• Increased Demands for
Power:– Higher bandwidth (10 x BW =
10 x P)
– Wide coverage area (5 x area = 5 x P)
– Small GS antenna(1/10th diameter = 100 x P)
• Increased supply of Power:– PV efficiency now 25%
may increase to 30%– Li-Ion Battery
may transition to sulfur sodium (2x mass efficiency, or not)
– Digital Charge circuits (a few % savings)
– Sharper antenna patterns: (a few % savings in power)
– New array deployment (potential 2x to 100x)
Enginering 176 #6
Small v. Big approaches to Power
• Big– Mil Spec Batteries– Large Deployable, articulated
solar arrays– Large Volume ÷ Area: => Heat
matters => heaters / heat pipes / radiators
• Small– Commercial NiCads
(but relatively larger fraction of total mass)
– Fixed, Body mounted cells (small V÷A => volume, not W, limit) => passive thermal
Enginering 176 #6
Power Affects all Engineering Aspects
• Array & Battery Size Volume, Mass, Cost ($10k/W), Risk
• Deployables Cost & Risk, CG, Attitude control & perturbations, managing complexity
• Thermal Larger dissipation => large fluctuations => heat pipes, louvers, structure upgrade
• High photovoltaics High cost, tight attitude control
• Other upgrades Power regulation & distribution, charging, demand side devices
Enginering 176 #6
Power: Cost Impacts• Solar Panel Area • Cost of Deployables• Pointing requirements • Cost / mass of batteries• Tracking array • Structural support / mount batteries• Thermal issues: • G&C disturbance by array
- internal dissipation • More power -> more data ->- large day / night ∆ - more processor cost
• Heavier spacecraft - higher radio & memory costs
- more costly launch • Higher launch cost ->• Consider GaAs vs. Silicon higher rel. required ->
higher parts count and cost
A weapon: Power Conservation:- Duty cycle: 75 W Tx @ 20 min per day = 1 W equivalent- Do all you can to cut power on 100% DC items (e.g. processor), - Integrate payload / bus ops: 1 µp working 2x as hard is more efficient- Limit downlink: compression, GS antenna gain, optimal modulation, coding, use L or S band, spacecraft antenna gain / switch, selectable downlink data rate, Rx cycling, Tx off and scheduled ops.- Local DC / DC conversion where / when needed- Careful parts selection, dynamic clocks
Enginering 176 #6
Rechargeable Battery OptionsType Mil? Com? Pros Cons Applications E Density
W-hr / KgLead-Acid no ¦ Dense, Cheap Heavy Mass not 20(gel cells) Wide temp range Seal questions a factor
Volume constrainedVolume constrainedVolume constrainedNi-Cad ¦ ¦ Widely available Low capacity Most widely 25 - 30
Well characterizedWell characterized Mil are large used in space
Ni - H2 ¦ rareHigher E density No small sizes individual -> 25 - 40
5 to 10 x Not yet available multi-cell -> 45 - 60more cycles in multi-cell pacs
NiMH no ¦ E to Ni-H2 Consumer 40 - 60Lower volume Higher cost, no MIL electronics
Li-Ion no ¦ Biggest E densityNo space experience Consumer 100 - 150Fast charge No space qual electronics
More complex charging
None ¦ ¦ Lowest mass No ops in umbra sun synch Lowest cost Max 65% DC most orbitsinterplanetary
Highest reliabilityState saving RAM rqd. Light-sideinfinite lifetime
Enginering 176 #6
FAST
SLOW
DISCHARGE
Battery
TmpSns
Aux Interface A/D SignalConditioning
Aux Bus
PPT Power
Global Power (5V, +/- 12V)
Battery Charging
Enginering 176 #6
Water cooler, napkin back
& group picnic topics • Does the mission really require batteries? Trade vs. e.g. Flash RAM• Is Ni-Cad memory real?• The real cost of deployables (covered in next section)• Battery testing and flight unit substitution• Mounting your own cells• Real cost of body mount & not sun pointing:
- More cells - Shadow questions- Current loops in 3D array - Assembly hassles- Structural shell stiffness requirements
πr2 vs. 4πr2
A vs. 6A
multiply photovoltaic area by:
π(cylinder), 4 (sphere) or
6 (cube)
Do you care? Probably not.
π2r
2r
Enginering 176 #6
Design for Solar PowerExample: Equatorial Earth Oriented
1.10
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70SummerSolstace
FallEquinox
WinterSolstace
SummerSolstace
SpringEquinox
28°
Solstace
Solstace
Equinox
Sides Only
+ 15% endplates
15% end plates normalized
Spherical Satellite
Sphere normalized
Enginering 176 #6
Power Budget and
Power System Design
456789
10111213141516171819
A B C D E F G H I JInitial Deployment Max Sun Min Sun
Spacecraft Power (W) Duty Cycle Avg Pwr (W) Power (W) Duty Cycle Avg Pwr (W) Power (W) Duty Cycle Avg Pwr (W)
Payload 20.00 0.00% 0.00 20.00 100.00% 20.00 20.00 100.00% 20.00
Payload Interface Board 2.00 0.00% 0.00 2.00 100.00% 2.00 2.00 100.00% 2.00
Payload Total 0.00 22.00 22.00
Attitude Control System
Magnetometer 1.00 100.00% 1.00 1.00 100.00% 1.00 1.00 100.00% 1.00
Sun Sensor (course) 0.10 100.00% 0.10 0.10 100.00% 0.10 0.10 100.00% 0.10
Torque Coils 4.00 50.00% 2.00 4.00 50.00% 2.00 4.00 50.00% 2.00
Momentum Wheel 4.50 100.00% 4.50 4.50 100.00% 4.50 4.50 100.00% 4.50
Sensor Interface Board 1.50 100.00% 1.50 1.50 100.00% 1.50 1.50 100.00% 1.50
Sun Sensor (Adcole 18960) 2.00 0.00% 0.00 2.00 100.00% 2.00 2.00 100.00% 2.00
ACS Total 9.10 11.10 11.10
Enginering 176 #6
Potential Paradigm Breakers
• Advanced deployables– Inflatables– Flexible photovoltaics
• Power beaming• Cooperative swarms• Steerable Phased Arrays• Compression
L’Garde Inflatable
Enginering 176 #6
Astrid Spacecraft
Mass total: 27 kg
Mass platform: 22.6 kg
HxWxD: 290 x 450 x 450 Max Power 21.7 W
Battery: 22 Gates Ni-Cd
µprocessor: 80C31
ACS: spin stabilizedsun pointingmagnetic ctrl.
Thermal: Passive Control
Downlink: S-band, 131 kb/s
Uplink: UHF, 4.8 kb/s
Mission $: $1.4M inc. launch
Dvt. time: 1 year
Astrid (Swedish Space Corp)
Enginering 176 #6
Deployables: Why they might not
• Definitely not moving - for a long (or too long) time
• 1-g vs. 0-g (& vacuum) matters• Tolerance v. launch loads• Vacuum welds, lubricants, galling• Creating friction - rigging• Static strength, dynamics, resonance• Safety inhibits (it’s physical)
• Flaws, cracks, delamination, vibration loosen/tighten
• Minute population & test experience (the Buick antenna)
• Total autonomy • High current actuation• Statistics - ways to work v. not
Galil
eo:
did
n’t
x 1
Freja
: did
x 8
Enginering 176 #6
Common Deployables• Satellites (via Marmon rings)
– Bristol Aerospace, Canada
• Antennas & Radar Reflectors• Booms: gravity gradient & instrument
– Spar, Canada– stacer, astromast
• Solar Arrays (fixed & tracking)– Applied Solar Energy Corp.(ASEC), City
of Industry, CA; – Programmed Composites, Brea, CA; – Composite Optics, Los Angles, CA)
• Doors (instrument covers)• Mirrors & other optics• Rocket stages Marmon
Ring
Enginering 176 #6
Common Actuators• Pyrotechnic bolts and bolt cutters• Melting Wires (Israeli Aircraft Industries, Lod,
Israel)• Hot Wax (not melting wax)
– Starsys Research, Boulder, CO) Starsys also manufactures hinges for deploybles
• Memory Metal – GSH, Santa Monica, CA
• Motors and Stepper Motors• Carpenter tape
– hardware stores
• Sublimation (dural and others) – DuPont, 3M
Enginering 176 #6
Buick’s deployable antenna goes to space
(the board game you can play at home)
Interfaces:- 12V, neg ground?- brackets? fuse?
- air cooled motor?
Start:100,000,000 in service; work
great; price $179,retail.
Is it l o n genough
?
Doesrotation
anglematter
?
Howheavyis thetip
mass?
EliminateSubliming / Outgassing
Plastics andLubricants
Replacements: temp range? flexibility?
metal-to-metal contact & vacuum
welding
“Minor”improve-
mentscommence
Lighter
weight
hous-
ing
Tear-down
& rebuild
toinspect
Testing: Note:
GM gets50,000,000
deploymentsper day for 2 years to “get bugs out”
Momentumeffects?
Shock &Vibration?
Motor: I, Imax, EMI, on/off
Servo controls:set / stop / limit
switches
Enginering 176 #6
Two Simple Questionsbefore designing that terrestrial component into your next
spacecraft
• 1) Will it really be the same part?– If you change materials, lubricants, loading, mechanical support,
housing, coating, wiring, microswitches... It isn’t the same part.– Almost any terrestrial part will require design mods for its
controller, non-standard power supply, cooling, emi protection, surge reduction, structural upgrades…
• 1) How much will it cost to get around the game board?– Specs and shopping: $10k– Reengineer with new materials: $50k– Lubrication, heat sinking, thermal model: $75k– DC/DC converters, surge & EMI suppression: $50k– New housing, brackets & structural analysis:
$40k– Rebuild n units for test, spares, inspection & learning:
$50k– Test program including 100,000 vacuum ops, + 10 $50k
inspections and rebuilds
• Total - assuming nothing goes wrong $325k(not always a good assumption)
Enginering 176 #6
Death, Taxes and...Option Pro Con
Shell out for the • Will Work • If you don't change itflight-qualed gizmo • If it worked on the Big Mission (?)
• Well Defined Price • Which you probably can't afford• Interesting / educational to • You'll be tempted to do it yourself see how it was done (for 1% of the cost)• Popularity with the • 'till they see the price tag, customer & your troops delivery schedule, power, mass...
Modify existing • Works on the ground •So whatterrestrial device • Well tested • Dittothat meets the needs• Cheap • But high cost to modify and test
• Makes you a "dual use" hero • First prize: Career as a bureaucrat
Roll your own • Appeals to our Pioneer Spirit • Arrows in back
• No big company overhead • Prodigious consumer of engineering hours
• Meets all mission requirements• On paper, anyway• If it gets done in time for the launch
• Something the whole space • They'll find reasons to ignore you community can benefit from • They are requirements, not supply, driven
(or they are politically / business optimized)
Enginering 176 #6
What Deployables Really Cost
• Fab of 4 discrete paddles + 1 spare: $40k• 4 highly reliable actuators (hot wax) $150k• 4 highly overbuilt hinges & brackets $60k• Engineering: design, thermal, structural and
dynamic analyses $50k• Testing fixtures and test labor $50k
• Total out of pocket increased cost: $350k
Example: 4 deployable solar panels(cost ∆ compared with 1 large non-deployable panel)
Harder to quantify costs: - risk of deployment failure - CG
complications on G&C impact- risk of premature deployment - Safety
qualification- design review scrutiny - Vigilance during
integration / test- Murphy: one paddle broken in test costs $20k to
replace in a hurry
Enginering 176 #6
Getting Beyond Deployables
• Eliminate the need for deployables:– Larger launch envelope may be cheaper (and it’s more reliable)– Upgrade to Ga-As photovoltaics– Increase testing & trimming to reduce stray fields (e.g. for
magnetometers)– Use stuffing - things that deploy when other things deploy
• Reduce Requirements– Limit power budget to achievable with fixed array– Lower duty cycles in poor orbit seasons (i.e. don’t design for worst
case)– Lower accuracy (e.g. for magnetometers)– Replace GG boom with magnet or momentum wheel– Open instrument doors manually just before launch– Break mission into several smaller missions
• If all else fails...– Design as if the deployables you can’t eliminate might not work
(graceful degradation)– Purchase insurance– Deployables must be testable at 1-g, 1 atm, room temp...
Enginering 176 #6
Deployables Checklist• Withstand temperature, vibration, storage time, vacuum, radiation?
• Acceptable EMI, RFI, Magnetic moment, linear / angular momentum?• Outgassing materials, especially plastics and lubricants but also
wire insulation and other sub-parts?• Vacuum welding possible?• Sufficient cooling and lubrication without air and natural
convection?• Internal µelectronics: rad hard? Bit flip and latchup protected? • Totally autonomous and reliable? • Document and discuss all anomalies!• Testable on earth?• Safety: fire, fracture, pressure, circuit protection, inadvertent
deployment?• Power: surge, peak, voltage requirement(s)?• Design and design mods review? Test program review?• Large margins in design? Not compromised in ground fiddling?• Schedule and cost margin?• Failure tolerance - it still may not work...
Enginering 176 #6
Deployables Spec• Performance Applied torque or force, speed, accuracy,
preload, angular momentum (eg mirror)
• Weight / Power Allocations from system design spec
• Envelope Mechanical & electrical interface, dimensions& interfaces bolt patterns, interface regions...
• Environments Number of cycles, duration exposure to environments -> parts, materials, lubes…
• Lifetime (op/non) # operating cycles, duration exposure
• Structure Strength, fatigue life, stiffness
• Reliability Allocation from system rel. spec - may drive
specific approach & redundancy
Enginering 176 #6
Freja
Freja (Swedish Space Corp)
• Magnetospheric research• Launched October, 1992• 214 kg, 2.2 m diameter• Development cost: $23M
Freja Facts: • 8 science instruments; • deployed 6 wire booms (L=1 to 15 meters) • deployed 1m and 2m fixed boom • spacecraft separation: 4 pyro bolts plus standard marmon ring; • Orbit insertion:2 Thiokol Star engines • Start: 8/87; shipped to Gobi Desert 8/92 • High “Q” passive thermal design; • Everything worked!
(and still is working).
Enginering 176 #6
Galileo
• Galileo HGA Info:• Development cost about $1.5B
• HGA loss dropped data rate by 104 • Failure caused by loss of lubricant, probably
during several cross-country truck shipments (note similarity to Pegasus failure during HETE / SAC-B launch
• Deployable failure caused by poor lubrication - or by misjudgement of environment?
• Launched Oct. ‘89• Mass: 2.5 Mg NASA JPL
Enginering 176 #6
QuickTime™ and aCinepak decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Enginering 176 #6
Terrestrial Stuff that works in Space
• Electronic Components:– ICs, transistors, resistors, capaciters (beware of electrolytic),
relays
• Electronic devices– Vivitar photo strobe, timers, DC/DC Converters, many sensors
• Ni-Cad batteries– with selection and test. Li-ion are also being flown
• Carpenter Tape– has never failed
• Laptop computers, calculators– in Shuttle environment
• Stacer Booms– but rebuilt with new materials - imperfect performance on
orbit
• Hard disc– in enclosure - but why bother?
• People, monkeys, dogs, algae, bees...