Small Satellite Utility: Present and...

November 21st , 2007

Aaron Q. Rogers

[email protected]

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



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



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



Slide 5

EO Remote Sensing…En Route to Mercury

http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/



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



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



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



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



Slide 10

Current Satellite Cycle Contrasts



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



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”



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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)



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



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

Small Satellite Utility: Present and...

Documents

Transcript of Small Satellite Utility: Present and...