PROBA 3 3rd Participants MeetingParticipants Meeting · PROBA 3 will be a cost effective means of developing “formation flying” to TRL 8/9, The alternative, each user developing

PROBA 3PROBA 3

13-March-2008 D/TEC-SY

PROBA 3PROBA 333rdrd Participants MeetingParticipants Meeting

13 March 200813 March 2008

2March-2008 D/TEC-SY

Introduction of the Meeting

PROBA 3 2nd Participants Meeting

Agreement to proceed with 4 main Participants and to review the situation after consolidation of the baseline

PROBA 3 main activities submitted to IPC in April 2007 (ESA/IPC(2007)76)

Bridging step inserted in the Project logic for the new industrial consortium

Industrial Phase A activities completed

Bridging step initiated in October 2007, to be completed May 2008

Bridging step PM2 completed (mission and design baseline)

Technology pre-developments initiated or continued


Objectives of the Meeting

To agree on steps and schedules for the implementation of the project,

To review and comment the Special Implementation Plan provided,

To take note of the status of on-going Bridging Step and associated technology developments activities in TRP and GSTP,

To identify any item which requires clarification from the Executive and plan required actions,

To address the involvement of Participants besides S, SWE, B, UK.


Steps and Schedules

3rd Participants Meeting

Letter to the GSTP Office indicating the intended contributions for Phase B and C/D/E (5 April 2008),

Procurement Proposal to AC endorsed by 18 April 2008,

Approval by IPC (6/7 May 2008) of:Procurement Proposal,Special Implementation rules,Proposition to shorten subscription (for Phase B) to 2 weeks

Subscription by interested Participating States (21 May 2008)

Issue of ITT


Agenda

Introduction (ESA)Phase A outcome (ESA)Bridging step status (SSC)Technology pre-development status (ESA)Payload status (ESA)Additional participants (ESA)Programmatic (ESA)Project organisation (ESA)Comments from DelegationsConclusion


The interest of implementing a mission to develop satellite formation flying has been recognised for several years.In 2005 the programmatic effort was strengthened and the proposal for PROBA 3 was presented to IPC (ESA/IPC(2005)76, rev. 1)Phase 0 was conducted, also in cooperation with CNES, in ESA CDFPhase A were performed under the GSPBridging step with the planned implementation consortium is on goingTechnology development activities are ongoing or initiated2nd Participants Meeting was held in 2007

General Background


Flying satellites in formation is the only reasonable way of implementing identified high performance missions in various domains: Space Science and Exploration, Earth Observation, Surveillance and SecurityBeing able to fly satellites in tight formation (as if it were a single body) opens new horizons, makes conceptually possible new missions; e.g. focal lengths are not limited by physical dimensions, new way of synthesizing apertures, long baseline interferometer / gradiometer, etcThese missions are not without risk and are expensive,PROBA 3 will be a cost effective means of developing “formation flying” to TRL 8/9,The alternative, each user developing the capability, will be considerably more expensive and risky,FF techniques can also spin-off to other domains, e.g. RV in non Earth orbits,Furthermore, PROBA 3 will allow to use for space advanced System Engineering and development approaches

It prepares the ground for future “large” missions based on small spacecraft using Formation Flying.

General Mission Background


PROBA 3 is a technology development and demonstration mission of precise Formation Flying techniques and technologies to prepare for future user missions

The objectives derived from the goal are:The development of FF system conceptsThe development of FF vehicle management and GNC and implementation in

operational SWThe development to TRL-8/TRL-9 of technology required for satellite FFThe development to operational SW release of SW, tools / facilitiesThe utilisation of advanced design, development and verification techniques

This is to be achieved byDeveloping and deploying two high performance small satellites with the appropriate

FF system and a sun coronagraph payloadUsing a cost-effective development approach (“lightsat”)

General Objectives


The mission requirements are therefore of two classes:Requirements associated to the formation flying, the development of the technology,

the tools and facilities and utilisation of the techniquesRequirements associated to the sun-coronagraph mission / payload.

The FF mission requirements are established with the future user programmes:Space science, Earth Observation, Exploration, Surveillance …

Mission and System requirements Documents will be established and monitored with user programmes

The intention is to progress also in the utilisation of advanced techniques for System Engineering and Software Development and AIV.

The challenge is also at system level:• First FF mission,• Upgrade of small spacecraft platform to include FF functionalities.

General Requirements


Astrium and Thales Phase A


Phase A Mission Requirements

PROBA 3 Mission Goal is the demonstration in orbit of Formation FlyingDemonstrate Formation Flying for high accuracy missions

Demonstration of FF acquisition and maintenance

Demonstration of FF manoeuvres

Demonstrate FF in the context of a user mission (coronagraph)Demonstrate performance of FF technologies of most demanding missions

Metrology systems

Actuation systems

GNC

Validate development approach and tools for FF missionsWithin the constraints of a small and demonstration mission (small spacecraft and launcher)


Astrium - Study Consortium and WBS


Astrium - Mission and System Architecture


Astrium – Mission baseline

Highly Elliptic orbit (3 days, 800/160000, i=5)Reduced gravity gradient

Long time for FF

VEGA (Rockot) + Propulsion ModuleTime-lining orbit


Astrium – System Architecture

Suite of Metrologies from Coarse to Fine FFRF based for coarse

Optical based for fine

PerformancesCoarse lateral:5mm, longitudinal:1cm

Fine lateral:5mm, longitudinal:2mm


Astrium – FF Spacecraft Architecture

Occulter CoronagraphBaseline concept Cold gas propulsion System

(Marotta thrusters)

Corner Cubes

Cold gas propulsion system

Detectors optical metrology(CLS, FLS, DWI)

EP concept Cold gas propulsion

Corner Cubes

Electrical Propulsion

(RIT-2 by Astrium)

Detectors optical metrology(CLS, FLS, DWI)


Astrium – Spacecraft Design


Astrium – Product Tree

Equipment Category SC CommentSeparation mechanism D CS Separates CS+OS stack from PRM Separation mechanism D CS Separates CS and OSSolar Panel D CSSolar Panel D OSSolar Array Drive Mechanism D CSLi-Ion battery D CSLi-ion battery D OSOn Board Computer D Common Mass memory D CS Same memory technology as OBC main memory Propulsion D OS Mono-prop or cold gasPropulsion A CS Electric PropulsionS-band Tx/Rx D CS Omni and high gain antennasS-band Tx/Rx D OS Omni antenna onlyStructure C OS Simple H-frame assumedStructure C CS Simple H-frame may not be suitable (TBC)OBSW operating system D Common RTEMS for exampleOBSW platform A Common Unionics is an example of software platformOBSW tasks A Common Tasks (e.g. ACS) will be tuned for CS or OS instantiationSTR D CommonRate gyros D CommonReaction wheels D CommonGPS D CommonPassive thermal control D CommonRF metrology C Common Includes ISLOptical Coarse Lateral sensor A CS Detector unit Optical Coarse Lateral Sensor A OS Laser diodesOptical longitudinal sensor A CS HPOM DWI Optical fine lateral sensor A OS Detector (part of HPOM system)

common battery technology

common cell technology, different arrays


Astrium - Budgets

Occulter Coronagraph

Baseline concept (launch mass: 541.8 kg-no system margin)

Mass 179.20 kg 362.61 kg

EP concept (launch mass: 552.5 kg- no system margin)

Mass 179.20 kg 373.31 kg

Incoming power 175 W (BOL)

159 W (EOL)

350 W (BOL)

319 W (EOL)

Incoming power 175 W (BOL)

159 W (EOL)

525.6 W( BOL)

478 W (EOL)


Astrium - Budgets

20% system margin is achieved only with mass savings

PROPULSION MODULE with VEGA Current Mass (kg) Contingency (kg) Maximum Mass (kg)Propulsion Module 190.0 10.0 200.0Additional Structural Mass for VEGA and higher mass 5.0 1.0 6.0Separation System 9.0 1.0 10.0PROPULSION MODULE DRY TOTAL 204.0 12.0 216.0Fuel 465.8Oxidiser 768.5Residuals 25.4Helium 3.6CONSUMABLES TOTAL 1263.2PROPULSION MODULE WET TOTAL 1479.2

LAUNCH COMPOSITE Maximum Mass (kg)Coronagraph Spacecraft 389.7Occulter Spacecraft 169.5Propulsion Module 216.0LAUNCH COMPOSITE DRY TOTAL 775.2Consumables 1263.2LAUNCH COMPOSITE WET TOTAL 2038.4VEGA Launch Vehicle Capability 2059.0Launch Vehicle Margin 20.6


Astrium – Technology Status

Technology item TRL Status/ResponsibilityMission Planning (MMOPS) 4 Will be developed by PROBA-3 Industrial Team Formation Command and Control 3 Will be developed by PROBA-3 Industrial teamFormation Position Control 4 Will be developed by PROBA-3 industrial teamAttitude Control System 5 Will be developed by PROBA-3 industrial teamTestbed Infrastructure 2 ESA managed technology development to TRL5GPS 8 Mature flight technology R-GPS 7 Mature technology (ground based)FF RFM 5 CNES managed development to fly on PRISMAShadow Position Sensor 1 ASPIICS development to PROBA-3 specificationOptical longitudinal (HPOM) 3 ESA managed technology development to TRL 5 Optical Coarse Lateral 1 CNES funded R&D study aimed at Simbol-XOptical Fine Lateral (HPOM) 3 ESA managed technology development to TRL 5Alternative Optical longitudinal 1 ESA managed technology development to TRL 5MIDGITS mini ion 1 ESA managed technology development to TRL 5RIT-2 mini-ion 4 ESA managed technology development to TRL 510 mN Mini-cold gas (on-off) 6 Mature technology10 mN cold gas, proportional 3 Being considered for GAIA


Astrium – Proposed WBS


Astrium – SW/System development


Astrium – Spacecraft Issues

Cold gas propulsion system on CSC and OSC is baseline, EP concept is also feasible, but extra deployable panel on CSC are required

20% system margin on mass budget is achievable only after mass savings

Thermal: Occultor (solar cells and units) becomes very hot. Heat pipesand a radiator are required

Thermal deformation: compliancy with requirement can be obtained byremoving electronic units of instrument and metrology from the opticalbench and adding heaters to keep dissipation constant on the bench

Power budget of the Occultor is very critical

Power budget is positive in all cases with constraints on the manoeuvers


Astrium – Project Issues

Technical Risk At Risk Until Risk Reduction ActivityVEGA performance PDR Arianespace analysis of mission requirementStructural design of Coronagraph to meet stack requirements PDR AnalysisThermo-Elastic spacecraft structural distortions compromise required precision in relative alignment of STR and CLS

PDR Detailed thermal modelling

FF RFM fine mode performance degraded by multipath CDR Early testing on spacecraft models Sun dazzling and thermal effects on optical sensors PDR Properly Specify in unit level requirementsCoupling between attitude and displacement measurements compromises required positional control

PDR Analysis and simulation

Thermal transients caused by operating in Occulter shadow PDR Analysis Mass budget constrains operational orbit PDR Proper use of system marginsShadow Position Sensor Performance affects calibration accuracy CDR Early prototyping, analysis and simulationFormation Command and Control complexity underestimated PDR Early analysis and simulationOptical GSE involves new expertise CDR Early analysis of requirements

Programme Risk At Risk Until Risk Reduction ActivityRequirements Overload SRR Manage ESA expectations ASPIICS project office not set up till PDR PDR Dialogue with LAMHigh mission profile puts pressure on ECSS3 assumption CDR Dialogue with ESACost and schedule overruns on the FF technologies during Phase C/D CDR Careful assessment of status at end of Phase BCLS is a national development, not influenced by P3 requirements CDR Develop alternative sensor


TAS - Study Consortium and WBS

Mission Analysis and FF MgtDEIMOS

Formation Flying FDIR / AnticollisionAvionics and SW

SciSyc

Prisma Heritageand MicroPropulsion

SSC

Proba PlatformVerhaert

Proba 3 - Phase APrime : Alcatel Alenia Space

Optical MetrologyAAS-ItalyCold Gas MicropropulsionSSC + AAS-ItalyElectrical MicropropulsionQinetiqRF Metrology and ISLAAS-France

Formation Flying technologiesConsultancies

Laboratoire d' Astrophysique de Marseille

ASPICS InstrumentConsultancy

NGCAnalytikonGMV

GNCConsultancies

Nanosat option : SSTL

Nanosat Platform

Proba 3 - Phase APrime : Alcatel Alenia Space


TAS - Study Consortium and WBS

PROBA-3 WBS

Analysis of Requirements& Drivers

WP 1100 - AASIdentification of mission architecture concepts

and recommendation of baselineWP 1200 - AAS

Analysis of status and plans of FF TechnologyWP 1300 - AAS / Consultancies

Preliminary Sun Corona MissionPayload Analysis and Concepts

WP 1400 - AAS/LAMPreliminary Mission Analysis

WP 1500 - DEIMOS

FF System WP 1610 - AASFF Management WP 1620 - DEIMOSFDIR WP 1630 - SciSysGNC WP 1640 - AAS/ConsultancyAvionics and SW WP 1650 - SciSys

Preliminary FF System Analysis and ConceptsWP 1600 - AAS

NanoSat (option) WP 1710 - SSTL

Spacecraft Requirements and ConceptsWP 1700 - VERHAERT

Requirements on Ground SegmentWP 1800 - AAS/SPACEBEL ConsultancyPreliminary Development and AIV Plan

WP 1900 - AAS + Verhaert support

Requirements &Concept Analysis

WP 1000

Coronograph Payload Interface RequirementsWP 2100 - AAS/LAM

Mission Detailed AnalysisWP 2200 - DEIMOS

FF System RefinementWP 2300 - AAS

(same sharing as WP 1600)

Avionics - SciSysNanosat (Option) - SSTL

Detailed Spacecraft Configuration and SystemsDefinition

WP 2400 - VERHAERT

Ground Segment Concept DefinitionWP 2500 - AAS/Spacebel ConsultancyDevelopment Plan and Cost Estimates

WP 2600 - AAS + Verhaert supportExploitation Concept

WP 2700 - AAS

Proba 3 Detailed DefinitionWP 2000

PROBA-3 System SpecificationWP 3100 - AAS

PROBA-3 Conclusion and RecommendationsWP 3200 - AAS

Proba 3 ConsolidationWP 3000

Proba 3 ManagementWP 4000

Proba-3Formation Flying Demonstration Mission


TAS – Mission baseline

Highly Elliptic orbit (1 day, 800/71212, i=5)

VEGA (Rockot) + Propulsion Module

Time-lining orbit


TAS – System Architecture

Suite of Metrologies from Coarse to Fine FFRF based for coarse

Optical based for fine (ULIS)

PerformancesLateral:2mm (6mm), longitudinal:10mm


TAS – FF Spacecraft Architecture

Occulter CoronagraphCold gas propulsion System

(NanoSpace/Proel thrusters)

Detectors optical metrology (ULIS, FLS, DWI)

Electrical propulsion system

(Astrium, Qinetiq)

Corner Cubes


TAS – Spacecraft Design


TAS – Product Tree


TAS – Product Tree


TAS - Budgets

Occulter Coronagraph

MIDGIT concept (launch mass: 493 kg 10% system margin)

Mass 213 Kg 280 Kg

RIT concept (launch mass: 491 kg 10% system margin)

Mass 213 Kg 278 Kg

Power 307 W (BOL)

273 W (EOL)

277 W (BOL)

247 W (EOL)


TAS – Technology Status

RF metrology

Micro-propulsion

Optical metrology


TAS – Proposed WBS


TAS – Proposed WBS


TAS – Development Flow


TAS – Project Issues

Mass budget criticalOccultor, solar cells temperatureShadowing on Coronagraph solar arraysRadiation levelPower consumption of metrologyElectrical Propulsion development status

Constraints induced by VEGA + propulsion module (LPFM)


Bridging Step (SSC)


Technology pre-developments


Design Development and Test of a Mini Ion Engine System (GSTP)Scope: Characterisation of ion engines for future missions including PROBA 3, TRL 4Planning: December 2006 to June 2008 delayed to December 2008Milestones:

System Design Review July 2007 (Astrium) delayed to January 2008TRR November 2007 (QinetiQ) delayed to April 2008TRR December 2007 (Astrium) delayed to May 2008PDR April 2008 (QinetiQ) delayed to November 2008PDR June 2008 (Astrium) delayed to December 2008

Status: Two parallel contracts placed with Astrium (D) and QinetiQ (UK)Addition for PROBA 3: Complete flight propulsion system (including power electronic)Open Points:

Usual technical performance issuesAccumulation of delays

Technology pre-development activities


Development of a Power Conditioning Unit for a Mini Ion Engine System (GSTP)

Scope: Develop a power conditioning unit for mini-ion enginesPlanning: planned for MarchStatus: Open competition. Candidates Astrium (D) and CRISA (E)Addition for PROBA 3: Flight modelOpen Points:

SubscriptionPlanning



RF Metrology Development (GSTP-4)

Scope: EQM of the generic RF metrology unit. Upgrade of PRISMA design. Planning: Feb 2008 to Feb 2009Status: Direct negotiation TAS (F and E) and GMVAddition for PROBA 3:

2 Flight units,upgrade of test benches,analysis of PROBA 3 specific performances (multi-path, configuration, …)

Open points:Cost of PROBA 3 complement,Compatibility of performances with optical metrology suite,Confirmation of funding.



High Precision Optical Metrology (TRP: MMO-630)

Scope: Development of HPOM to TRL 5/6 in line with PROBA 3 performancesPlanning: June 2007 to December 2008 delayed to March 2009Milestones:

CDR: February 2008, delayed to JuneStatus: Direct negotiation Astrium (F and D)Addition for PROBA 3:

Full flight model: optical head and electronicsOpen points:

Funding of flight modelTransfer to Switzerland



Alternative concepts for optical metrology (GSTP-4: FF04-04SP)Scope: Investigation of new metrology systems adequate for PROBA 3, TRL 3/4Planning: August 2007 to August 2008Status: Direct negotiation QinetiQMilestones:

TRR: June 2008Open points:

Selection for PROBA 3 in phase BPlanning

Optical Metrology - Coarse Lateral Sensor (GSTP-4: FF04-03SC)Scope: Development of the complement of HPOM and possible sensor for low accuracy FF missions, TRL 5/6Status: Proposal not acceptedOpen points:

Re-issue ITT,Investigation of back-up (F, DK,CH)



Fabry Perot (FP-MET) Metrology (Portuguese task force)

Scope: Adapt FSI to 1064 mm compliant to HPOM-2 designMilestones:

1st Phase: March 2008Status: INETI (PT)Addition for PROBA 3:

Flight model and inclusion with HPOM-2



FF SW Validation Facility, Requirements and Concepts (FF03-01SP)

Scope: Pre-development of SW system validation facility adapted to a multi- spacecraft missionPlanning: September 2007 to September 2008Status: SBI (B) with GMV (E) and Scisys (UK)Addition for PROBA 3:

Become part of the engineering development flowOpen points:

Aligned with PROBA 3 industrial consortium



Payload


PROBA 3 Coronagraph

During Phase 0 and A, a coronagraph was proposed by LAM and a preliminary design was preparedFor the bridging step, SSC, Qinetiq and LAM were tasked to simplify the proposed instrument to minimise cost due to lack of supportDuring the bridging step, NRL has proposed to team up with the Europeans to build the coronagraph (NRL PI and instrument Prime)NRL has submitted to SMEX (NASA) a proposal for a coronagraph (XCTEL_ED) following a “quick” design iteration with SSC, Qinetiq and LAMSMEX selection results will be known in May 2008


Additional Participations


PROBA 3 Additional Contributions

Interest (at least already known to ESA) from Canada, Switzerland, Norway, Portugal, Denmark, Luxemburg, Greece:Canada: GNC algorithms (follow-on of PROBA 1/2), FDIR methods

Switzerland: optical metrology (fine and coarse), ARASS

Norway: opto-pyros, space hardware

Portugal: Rendez-vous experiment and fine optical metrology

Denmark: same than Portugal

Luxemburg: spacecraft structures

Greece: avionics


PROBA 3 Additional Contributions

Interest (at least already known to ESA) from Canada, Switzerland, Norway, Portugal, Denmark, Luxemburg:Canada: GNC -> participation to Phase B (already in Phase A), FDIR -> TBDSwitzerland: optical metrology fine -> on going action on HPOM, optical metrology coarse -> TBD, ARASS -> currently in the system designNorway: possible participation to be selected in Phase BPortugal: RdV -> to be taken into account in phase B, fine optical metrology -> on going actionDenmark: same than PortugalLuxemburg: spacecraft structures -> possible participation to be selected in Phase B

Points of considerationPROBA 3 is a technical challenge with tight programmatic envelope and system budgets -> no room for technology experiments not related to FF in the system design (possible opportunity but at a later stage !)Potential participants shall be known for the Phase B (contributions clarified)


PROBA 3 Programmatic Aspects


PROBA 3 Schedule

Activity Date

PROBA 3 Bridging Step 11/2007 – 05/2008

PROBA 3 procurement proposal to IPC May 2008

PROBA 3 RFQ for Phase B/C/D/E1

PROBA 3 proposal for Phase B/C/D/E1 06/2008

PROBA 3 Phase B 06/2008 – 06/2009

PROBA 3 SRR, PDR 12/2008, 06/2009

PROBA 3 updated proposal for Phase C/D/E1 05/2009

PROBA 3 Phase C/D 07/2009 – 11/2011

PROBA 3 CDR, FAR 12/2009, 11/2011

PROBA 3 Phase E 01/2012 – 11/2013


PROBA 3 Implementation Plan

The PROBA 3 Procurement Proposal will be submitted to IPC with an Implementation Plan (distributed):Project BackgroundProject ObjectivesProject DescriptionProject Phases and ScheduleScale of contribution by Participating StatesAdmission of new participants to the projectPROBA 3 procurement steps and schedulePROBA 3 budget breakdownIndustrial policy, geographical return and adjustment of contributionsManagementOverrun and delaysDelivery and exploitation of satellites and ground segmentRegime of results and follow-on


PROBA 3 Cost Figures

Title Budget (K€) Remarks

PROBA 3 space and ground segment BCDE1 93,200 Budget based on Phase 0 cost estimates.

Budget for the Phase B is 20 M€.

Launcher and propulsion module procurement 19,500 Assuming a VERTA flight (14.5 M€) and a

propulsion module procurement (5 M€),

Ground segment deployment, LEOP support and operations 6,500 Budget based on Phase 0 cost estimates

Total Project Costs 119,200

Total (including ESA Costs) 147,406

ESA/IPC(2007)76


Cost estimates are based on:Optimised project set-up which requires close collaboration between the mission Prime and the spacecraft Prime, and reasonable industrial distribution,

Small satellite/“Lightsat” approach, including:

Large amount of re-use implying a trade-off in the mission requirements,

Relaxing PA requirements but conducting tests of representative effects,

Relaxing availability and reliability requirements,

Reduced paper work but closer relation ESA – industry

Strong technology effort to reach timely the right TRL

Low number of layers, deep knowledge of elements

E2E testing

Assumptions on Vega and LPF propulsion stage.

PROBA 3 Cost Figures


Cost Allocation / Phase / Country (GSTP workplan)

Using bridging phase work organisation


Cost Allocation / Phase / Country (GSTP workplan)


Cost Allocation

Procurement Proposal costs estimated were presented at mid Phase A,Usage of recurrent elements and commonalities between spacecraft shall be maximised,A central FF and System Engineering group shall be created to avoid multiplication of interfaces and overlap.Share between countries is based on the Bridging Step set-up.


Phase B activities

It will include standard Phase B tasks including in particular :- Consolidation of mission and system requirements, system and support specifications,

justification dossiers and interfaces- Make / buy / “Make more” for specific FF technologies based on TRL and pre-developments,- Prototype of the flight software running into a system simulator (SVF) including at least GNC

(FF modes) and specific FF management SW,- Hardware in the loop validation of critical software,- Baseline launcher (Vega), launcher interface and formation deployment,- Payload confirmation,- Establishment of detailed development plan following small sat/lightsat approach,- Ground testing infrastructure,- Ground segment support,- FF technologies advanced developments,- Small spacecraft platform design.

The activity will end with a PDR, including thorough review of achievement of TRL 5/6.


Project Organisation


Bridging Step WBS


Organisation outline

The Bridging Step organisation will be (re-)used for the implementation phase (if in line with budget).WBS agreed with all participants to the Bridging Step will be provided at the end of the Bridging Step.Additional participations will be assessed in Phase B.

Issues:Technology providers,Involvement of UK in the system tasks


Conclusion