Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
November 21st , 2007
Aaron Q. Rogers
Small Satellite Utility:
Present and Future
Session #2: Small Satellite Key
Technologies for Remote Sensing
International Workshop on Earth Observation Small Satellites forRemote Sensing Applications
Session #2: Small Satellite Key Technologies for Remote Sensing
Slide 2
Acknowledgements
International Workshop on Earth Observation Small Satellites forRemote Sensing Applications
Session #2: Small Satellite Key Technologies for Remote Sensing
Slide 3
Agenda
�Background
�Small Satellite Utility Studies
�Focus Areas
�Obstacles vs. Enablers
�“Good Enough”
�Definitions
�Conclusions
�Mid-Term
Key Technology Enablers
�Aperture Drivers
�Power Systems
�Ground Operations
�Common Spacecraft Platform
s and Standards
�Current NASA Study Effort
�Summary & Hand-Off
GISTDA THEOS
International Workshop on Earth Observation Small Satellites forRemote Sensing Applications
Session #2: Small Satellite Key Technologies for Remote Sensing
Slide 4
APL Overview
•Not-for-profitDoD chartered “University
Affiliated Research Center”, a UARC
•Founded in 1942
•Staffing:4,000+ employees
(70% scientists & engineers)
� ���Space Department ~ 600 staff
•Business areas:
Air & Missile Defense
Biomedicine
Civilian Space
Homeland Protection
Infocentric Operations
National Security Space
Precision Engagement
Science & Technology
Strategic Systems
Undersea Warfare
Warfare Analysis
Successfully designed, built, and operated
> 64 spacecraft and 200 instruments
International Workshop on Earth Observation Small Satellites forRemote Sensing Applications
Session #2: Small Satellite Key Technologies for Remote Sensing
Slide 5
EO Remote Sensing…En Route to Mercury
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/
International Workshop on Earth Observation Small Satellites forRemote Sensing Applications
Session #2: Small Satellite Key Technologies for Remote Sensing
Slide 6
Small Satellite Studies
�JHU/APL engaged in a number of industry,
government, academia studies
�Reviewed/analyzed features and elements of
small satellite systems:
�Obstacles vs. Enablers
�Required vs. “Good Enough”Capability
�Program Lifecycle
�Utility vs. “Disruptability”
�Technology Enablers
�Ground Systems and CONOPS
Government
Industry
APL
Concept Development
�Problem Definition
�System Concept
�Critical Technology Identification
�Demo., Validation, Prototyping
Requirements Definition
�System Design Requirements
�Design Development with
Government & Industry
�Technical Evaluation
�Coord. of Integration Testing
Production & Deployment
�Transition of Prototype Design
�Follow-on Review and
Requirements
�Utility Assessment
�Adjust TTPs
System Engineering
International Workshop on Earth Observation Small Satellites forRemote Sensing Applications
Session #2: Small Satellite Key Technologies for Remote Sensing
Slide 7
Obstacles vs. Enablers
�Obstacles:
�Funding (always!)
�Planning “Useful”Missions
�Launch Access
�Operations
�Enablers:
�New Commercial Launch Providers, Classes
oExamples: Space-X Falcon 1/9 and ISRO PSLV-C8
oSecondary and multi-payload adapters: Falcon-
class RideShare Adapter (RSA)
�New spacecraft subsystem technologies
oLow(er) cost
oReduced mass, volume, power
o“Good enough”parameters
�New design tools and methods for small satellites
International Workshop on Earth Observation Small Satellites forRemote Sensing Applications
Session #2: Small Satellite Key Technologies for Remote Sensing
Slide 8
“Good Enough”
�Utility assessment of small satellites depends
critically on establishing what is “good
enough”
�Small satellites satisfy different portions of
access-persistence-quality trade space than
exquisite systems
�Mixed architectures (small/large) can provide
flexibility to match needs
�Other design variables can be relaxed
oPerform
ance
oReliability: Shorter (advertised) lifetime, MTBF
oRadiation tolerance
�Demand for small sat solutions necessary to
drive many elements of operational
responsiveness
�Inadequate attention given to ground systems,
CONOPS, and tasking, processing, exploitation
& dissemination
�Satellites get the attention
�Current infrastructure development and upgrades
focused on large satellites
Courtesy MIT/LL
International Workshop on Earth Observation Small Satellites forRemote Sensing Applications
Session #2: Small Satellite Key Technologies for Remote Sensing
Slide 9
Small Satellite Working Definition
Experiment
& University
Class
Science &
Technology
Class
Demo &
Emerging
Systems
Mature &
“Exquisite”
Systems
ION2
CP4
QuakeSat
Cube
Sats
Tiungsat-1
Maroc-Tubsat
Thai-Phutt
Nano
Sats
Beijing-1
TopSat
Lapan-Tubsat
RapidEye 1-5
Micro
Sats
QuickBird-2
KOMPSAT-2
SAR-Lupe 1-5
Form
oSat-2
Small/
Mini
Sats
IRS P6
Yaogan-2
Cosmo-Skymed 1
Large
OpSats
1 kg
5 kg
50 kg
200 kg
1000 kg
5000 kg
UTILITY
Accepted/
Proven
Hidden
Debated/
Emerging
International Workshop on Earth Observation Small Satellites forRemote Sensing Applications
Session #2: Small Satellite Key Technologies for Remote Sensing
Slide 10
Current Satellite Cycle Contrasts
International Workshop on Earth Observation Small Satellites forRemote Sensing Applications
Session #2: Small Satellite Key Technologies for Remote Sensing
Slide 11
Mission Utility Study Conclusions
�Small satellites have clear utility
for:
�EO Remote Sensing, Space
Weather, Technology and
CONOPs demonstrators
�Simple ground infrastructure
�Smaller apertures, lower power
�LEO
�Small sats provide minimal
near-term
utility for:
�PNT, Wide-bandwidth
communications, Radar
�Compatibility with large numbers
of ground term
inals
�Higher power, larger apertures
�Continuous coverage, MEO/GEO
Courtesy MIT/LL
International Workshop on Earth Observation Small Satellites forRemote Sensing Applications
Session #2: Small Satellite Key Technologies for Remote Sensing
Slide 12
Mid-Term
Key Technology Enablers
�Increase access/persistency, reduce constellation size by
going to higher altitude
�Aperture: Low-mass large optics and antennas, coherent
combination of small apertures
�Power: Mass-efficient solar power conversion & storage
�Radiation: Rad-tolerant sensors & electronics
�Improve achievable small sat perform
ance
�Sensors: Large arrays, reconfigurable sensors
�Processing: Capable onboard processors
�Bus: Low-mass structure & stabilization
�Innovate C3 for constellations
�Ground Systems: Automated processing and product distribution
�Operations: On-board autonomy; tool-aided rapid ground system
composition
�Communications: Standard space network USB-style “plug”
International Workshop on Earth Observation Small Satellites forRemote Sensing Applications
Session #2: Small Satellite Key Technologies for Remote Sensing
Slide 13
Aperture Drivers
�Low-Mass Optics
�Folded Optics
�Coherent Combo of Small (Sparse) Apertures
�Low-Mass Antennas
Traditional
Compound Lens
“Folded”Optic
Courtesy UC San Diego
Courtesy QinetiQ
Courtesy Univ. of Rochester
International Workshop on Earth Observation Small Satellites forRemote Sensing Applications
Session #2: Small Satellite Key Technologies for Remote Sensing
Slide 14
Power Systems
�High efficiency cell technology
�State of industry vs. theoretical
�Thin-film photovoltaics (TF-PV)
�State of industry and near-term
projections
�Key properties
�Applications
�TacSat-2: FITS
�DSX: PowerSail
Courtesy Lockheed Martin
Courtesy MSI
Courtesy AFRL
DSX
TacSat-2
International Workshop on Earth Observation Small Satellites forRemote Sensing Applications
Session #2: Small Satellite Key Technologies for Remote Sensing
Slide 15
Ground Operations
�Distributed and virtual operations
centers: Federated ground network
�Standardized commanding: XTCE
�What
�Why
�How
�Autonomous commanding and
data/TT&C
Courtesy SSTL
Courtesy NRL
Network
Infra-
structureInternet
Mission Control Center
Courtesy SSDL
Satellite Factory
Common Formats
Facilitate Transition to
Operations and Data
Exchange
Mission Ground System
Mission Ground System
International Workshop on Earth Observation Small Satellites forRemote Sensing Applications
Session #2: Small Satellite Key Technologies for Remote Sensing
Slide 16
Why Build A Common Platform
?
•The availability of a common platform
will improve the
speed of acquisition, and enable a faster response to
changing needs
�Using a common platform
eliminates Non-Recurring
Engineering (NRE) Expenses of subsequent vehicles, by
perform
ing the engineering and design only once for a
large block build
�Note that a single platform
class can only support a finite
variety of payloads and capabilities
�Using a common platform
for many missions involves
varying degrees of inefficiency
International Workshop on Earth Observation Small Satellites forRemote Sensing Applications
Session #2: Small Satellite Key Technologies for Remote Sensing
Slide 17
Common EO Platform
s: An Example
Courtesy of Nothrup Grumman
Courtesy of Nothrup Grumman
Global Hawk is a Common Platform
, utilizing an
Open Architecture to support a variety of Payloads
International Workshop on Earth Observation Small Satellites forRemote Sensing Applications
Session #2: Small Satellite Key Technologies for Remote Sensing
Slide 18
Standardization Concepts and Term
s
�Standard Interfaces
�Pre-specified boundary and limits for interaction across
boundary
�Standard Parts
�Units with identical form
and function that form
a distinct
portion of different systems
�Standard Architectures (Common Bus, Standardized
Bus, Scalable Bus, Modular/Reconfigurable Bus)
�Defined ways of configuring and connecting parts of system
�Standard Integration and Assembly (e.g. Iridium)
�Set process for building up systems
�Standard Verification Process (e.g. MIL-STD-1540)
�Repeatable methods for determ
ining requirements satisfaction
for different systems
Design Integration, Assembly
& Test
International Workshop on Earth Observation Small Satellites forRemote Sensing Applications
Session #2: Small Satellite Key Technologies for Remote Sensing
Slide 19
Standard SC Bus Approaches
�Fixed/Common Bus
�Designed to envelope all potential payloads
�Identical bus builds with different payloads from the same user (e.g. EOS)
�Identical planning and documentation for testing and verification (using worst-case
envelope)
�Can use one set of qual units / EMs / spares for multiple buses
�Standardized Bus
�Designed to envelope all potential payloads
�Uses standard interfaces to different payloads from different users (e.g. STEP)
�Partial commonality in testing / qual approach (different users)
�Scalable Bus
�Maintains standard interfaces within bus, but parts are resized to fit mission
�Modular Bus
�Modularity removes need for a single bus designed for all potential payloads
�Uses standard architectures to configure parts of the system
�Each module has a series of options with different levels of capability
International Workshop on Earth Observation Small Satellites forRemote Sensing Applications
Session #2: Small Satellite Key Technologies for Remote Sensing
Slide 20
Standards Efforts
�PnPSat: Complete system
modularity
�Applique Sensor Interface
Module for “COTS-PnP-retrofit”
�F6: Future Fast, Flexible,
Fractionated, Free-Flying
Spacecraft united by Inform
ation
eXchange
�Complete abstraction of traditional
monolithic design
�SIV: Standard Bus + Flexible
Payload Interface
�Bus capable of operating
in virtually any
LEO orbit
�Prescribed payload
mass, power, env.
limits ensure
compatibility and
manifest.
�ORS: Capability on Demand
�TacSat series of experiments
�Established interface standards for
all system segments
Courtesy ATK
Courtesy NRL
& JHU/APL
Courtesy Ball & AeroAstro
Courtesy DARPA
Courtesy AFRL
International Workshop on Earth Observation Small Satellites forRemote Sensing Applications
Session #2: Small Satellite Key Technologies for Remote Sensing
Slide 21
Standardization Summary
�Standardization can be applied to spacecraft design to varying
degrees through parts, interfaces, and architectures
�Experience with spacecraft standardization has met with varied
success over the last several decades
�Typically most successful when the range of applicability is relatively
narrow (bus is used for missions it was originally designed for)and there
is high volume (demand for key mission)
�There are some common themes that have been observed
�Flexibility, if desired, must be planned for from the onset of the program
(design spacecraft to perform
ance envelope)
�Missions and payloads tailored to capabilities of bus (limit in perform
ance
traded for standardization benefits to cost, schedule, reliability)
�Development of spacecraft design standards require upfront investm
ent in
order to achieve benefits in long term
(return on investm
ent notrealized
until several spacecraft have been built)
International Workshop on Earth Observation Small Satellites forRemote Sensing Applications
Session #2: Small Satellite Key Technologies for Remote Sensing
Slide 22
NASA Small Satellite Study
�Small Explorer Program Office interested
in current and new small satellite
capabilities:
�Spacecraft systems
�Component technologies
�Draw from industry, gov., international
�Ready or “near-term
”availability:
�Technology Readiness Level (TRL) ≥4
�Results will be utilized to inform
government and industry community:
�Offerings
�Potential gaps for future investm
ent
�Will be openly published ~ April 2008
� ���Your input needed!
Component
and/or
breadboard
validation in
laboratory
environment
International Workshop on Earth Observation Small Satellites forRemote Sensing Applications
Session #2: Small Satellite Key Technologies for Remote Sensing
Slide 23
Summary & Hand-Off
�Small Satellite Utility
�Currently:
oObstacles: Access to space
oNiche market, missions, and applications
oProvide “Good Enough”capability
oComplementary to large systems
oR&D focused on key technology enablers
oStandard platform
s being revisited � ���
potential cost savings
�Future:
oNew launch and manifest options poised
oTechnology advances reducing capability as ƒ ƒƒƒ(sc size) gap
oStandard and modular interfaces � ���
access, flexibility, schedule
oCommunity embracing approach