1/17
Introduction Approach MiniEOSS-1 Mission Analysis Conclusion
MiniEOSSA Testbed for the Next Generation of Miniature Responsive Earth
Observing Systems-of-Systems
Daniel Selva1
Serhat Altunc2 Brenda Dingwall2
August 26, 2015
2/17
Introduction Approach MiniEOSS-1 Mission Analysis Conclusion
The future of Earth Observation
Future Earth Observing Systems will be distributed networks ofheterogeneous assets in space, air and ground, sharing information inreal time and making decisions autonomously [Di et al., 2010].
Future EOSS (Image credit: NASA)
3/17
Introduction Approach MiniEOSS-1 Mission Analysis Conclusion
What is needed to get there?
Affordable Subsystem-level technologies:
Small high gain antennas
Small precise attitude control systems
Low power, high MIPS on-board computers
(a) Ultra compactKa-band deployableantenna[Sauder et al., 2015]
(b) BCT XACTReaction Wheel
(c) Proton-200k litemicroprocessor
4/17
Introduction Approach MiniEOSS-1 Mission Analysis Conclusion
What is needed to get there?
Affordable System-level technologies:
Formation flying [Hu et al., 2011]
Real-time data sharing and autonomous decision-making
Network communication protocols, market mechanisms[Bhasin et al., 2000]
(a) CNES formation flyingmission
(b) Credit: NVIDIAcorporation
5/17
Introduction Approach MiniEOSS-1 Mission Analysis Conclusion
A testbed for system-level technology validation
Validation of these technologies inrelevant operational environments isrequired before consideration forscience missions
Validation of system-leveltechnologies requires the use of atestbed that is both affordable andresponsive so multiple iterations canbe done quickly.
Research Goal
We need a testbed that allows us to rapidly test and infuse newsystem-level technologies in an affordable way.
6/17
Introduction Approach MiniEOSS-1 Mission Analysis Conclusion
Leveraging the COTS revolution in aerospace
(a) MicroMAS-1 CubeSat[Blackwell et al., 2012]
(b) IDJ Phantom-3Quadcopter
Number of CubeSat launches peryear (Source: Swartwout database),see [SpaceWorks, 2014]
7/17
Introduction Approach MiniEOSS-1 Mission Analysis Conclusion
Introducing MiniEOSS
MiniEOSS is a testbed designed for flexibility and scalability
MiniEOSS-1 is a “Minimum Viable Product” demo
MiniEOSS-1 conops
8/17
Introduction Approach MiniEOSS-1 Mission Analysis Conclusion
Affordability
Current prices for miniature antennas and transceivers, CubeSatbuses, launch services, quadcopters, and balloons are compatible withsub $1M system-level technology validations.
Product/Service Cost ($k) Observations3U Cubesat bus 300 Blue Canyon XB16U Cubesat bus 500 Blue Canyon XB1
3U launch to LEO 295 Spaceflight Services6U launch to LEO 545 Spaceflight Services
S-band patch antenna 4.7 Clyde SpaceS-band transmitter 8.9 Clyde Space
X-band antenna 5.0 SyrlinksX-band transmitter 6.4 Syrlinks
Quadcopter 1.3 DJI Phantom-3 quadcopterAtmospheric balloon 0.15 Project Aether
9/17
Introduction Approach MiniEOSS-1 Mission Analysis Conclusion
MiniEOSS Staged Deployment
A staged deployment will allow us to increase scale and upgradetechnology progressively.
MiniEOSS-1 • S-band patch antennas • 1Mbps cross-links • 1 3U CubeSat • 2 balloons
• 1 quadcopter
MiniEOSS-2 • X-band helix antennas • 10Mbps cross-links
• 2 3U CubeSat • 2 balloons
• 2 quadcopter
MiniEOSS-3a • Ka-band deployable
parabolic antennas • 100Mbps cross-links
• 3+ 6U CubeSat • 3+ balloons
• 3+ quadcopter
MiniEOSS-3b • Optical
• 100Mbps cross-links • 3+ 3U CubeSat • 3+ balloons
• 3+ quadcopter
$1M $2.5M
$5M
$5M
10/17
Introduction Approach MiniEOSS-1 Mission Analysis Conclusion
Performance
ADCS: arcminute or evenarcsecond control accuracy(BCT XACT)
Communications: S-band 8dBpatch antenna[Nascetti et al., 2015], S-band(18dBi) and Ka-band (40+dBi) deployable antennasunder development at Boeingand JPL [Sauder et al., 2015]
Avionics: 1GHz, 8,000 MIPSprocessor with 512 MBSDRAM, 200g, 1.5W(SpaceMicro Proton200k lite)
LMPC Cubesat (Aerospace Corp)
Current performance of state-of-the-art CubeSat and quadcoptertechnologies is compatible with the development of the MiniEOSSconcept [NASA, 2014].
11/17
Introduction Approach MiniEOSS-1 Mission Analysis Conclusion
Responsiveness
Responsiveness of weeks to months (instead of months to years) canbe achieved thanks to intelligent design tools, use of COTS, andleverage of NASA Wallops facilities and expertise in IA&T.
Cornell has developed acatalog-based CubeSat designtool [Jacobs and Selva, 2015]
Given a set of missionrequirements, returns thecheapest CubeSat design builtentirely with COTS thatsatisfies all requirements.
Wallops has extensiveexperience in the design,IA&T of CubeSat missions
They have a Mission Planninglab, and their ground stationhas high-performance UHF,S-band, and X-band systems.
12/17
Introduction Approach MiniEOSS-1 Mission Analysis Conclusion
Multi-scale imagery for ecosystem change monitoring
MiniEOSS-1 will demonstrate the feasibility of obtainingcross-registered multi-scale imagery from heterogeneous assets.
The George Washington and Jefferson National Forests werechosen as a target for the observations (over 1.8 million acres ofland, over 40 species of trees, 200 species of birds, 60 species ofmammals, and 78 species of amphibians and reptiles).
Goal is to monitor seasonal changes in the ecosystem.
Simulated multi-resolution imagery (h = 400km to h = 400m, θ = 5µrad)
13/17
Introduction Approach MiniEOSS-1 Mission Analysis Conclusion
MiniEOSS-1 common payload
2 8dBi S-band patch antennas
An S-band modem anddiplexer
A 400MHz ARM9microprocessor
A 3Mpixel, 9deg FOV CCDcamera
MiniEOSS-1 Common Payload
Mass: < 700gPower: < 7W (1W typ.)Volume: ≈ 1U
(a) Nanocam C1U(GOM Space)
(b) S-band patchantenna (Clyde Space)
(c) ARM9microprocessor(CubeSatShop)
14/17
Introduction Approach MiniEOSS-1 Mission Analysis Conclusion
Link budget
Preliminary link budget analysis shows feasibility of 1Mbps cross-linksbetween CubeSat and quadcopter/balloons at BER = 10−5.
Parameter ValueTx power 2WTx gain 8.2dBi
Frequency 2.2GHzDistance 400km
Data Rate 1MbpsAtmospheric loss 1dB
Parameter ValueLine loss 1dB
Pointing loss 0.01dBRx gain 8.2dBi
Rx noise temperature 300KEb
N0 minBER = 10−5 9.6dB
Margin over Eb
N0 min0.3dB
15/17
Introduction Approach MiniEOSS-1 Mission Analysis Conclusion
Preliminary mass/power budget results
Preliminary mass and power budgets show feasibility with amplemargin for 3U CubeSat
Component Mass (g) Power (W) Volume (cm3)S-band patch antenna 50 0 76x76x38
S-band modem 55 < 6 96x90x5400MHz ARM9 processor 94 0.4 96x90x124 deployable solar panels 720 0 ≈ 0
Li-Ion Battery pack 213 0 95x95x15Electrical Power System 86 ≈ 1 95x95x15
ADCS system 694 2.2 100x100x503MP camera 166 0.634 96x90x58
Structure 450 0 0
TOTAL 2,520 10.2 95x95x193
16/17
Introduction Approach MiniEOSS-1 Mission Analysis Conclusion
Conclusion I
Potential contributions
Enables affordable validation of system-level technologies neededfor future Earth Observing System architectures in operationalenvironment
Use of COTS facilitates affordability and responsiveness, whichenables multiple iterations and faster technology infusion
Current state of the art of CubeSat technology is compatiblewith full-scale validations in many cases
Common payload concept facilitates scalability, flexibility,extensibility
17/17
Introduction Approach MiniEOSS-1 Mission Analysis Conclusion
Conclusion II
Remaining challenges and limitations
Feasibility studies must be refined, CAD models, detailedsimulations.
Build a prototype of the common payload
Representativity: how useful is this really?
Scalability: Is common payload concept feasible at higher datarates?
Standardization: What standards do we use to facilitateadoption?
18/17
References
References I
Bhasin, K., Depaula, R., and Edwards, C. (2000).
Internet Technologies for Space-Based Communications: State of the Art and Challenges.In 18th AIAA International Communication Satellite Systems Conference and Exhibition.
Blackwell, W. J., Allen, G., Galbraith, C., Hancock, T., Leslie, R., Osaretin, I., Retherford, L.,
Scarito, M., Semisch, C., Shields, M., Silver, M., Toher, D., Wight, K., Miller, D. W., Cahoy,K., Erickson, N., Conrad, S., Kingsbury, R., Mckinley, P., Reid, B., Wezalis, R., Marinan, A.,Paek, S. W., Peters, E., Schmidt, F. H., Alvisio, B., Wise, E., Masterson, R., and Miranda,D. F. (2012).Nanosatellites for earth environmental monitoring: The MicroMAS project.In 2012 12th Specialist Meeting on Microwave Radiometry and Remote Sensing of the Environment(MicroRad), pages 1–4. Ieee.
Di, L., Moe, K., and Van Zyl, T. L. (2010).
Earth observation sensor web: An overview.IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 3(4 PART 1):415–417.
Hu, M., Zeng, G., Yao, H., and Li, Z. (2011).
Electromagnetic formation control for fractionated spacecraft.Proceedings of the 30th Chinese Control Conference, (4):3484–3488.
Jacobs, M. and Selva, D. (2015).
A CubeSat Catalog Design Tool for a Multi-Agent Architecture Development Framework.In Aerospace Conference, 2015 IEEE.
NASA (2014).
Small Spacecraft Technology State of the Art.Technical Report February, NASA.
Nascetti, A., Pittella, E., Teo, P., and Pisa, S. (2015).
High-gain s-band patch antenna system for earth-observation cubesat satellites.IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters, 14:434–437.
19/17
References
References II
Sauder, J., Chahat, N., Thomson, M., Hodges, R., and Rahmat-Samii, Y. (2015).
Ultra-compact ka-band parabolic deployable antenna for cubesats.In 4th Interplanetary CubeSat Workshop.
SpaceWorks (2014).
2014 Nano/Microsatellite Market Assessment.Technical report, SpaceWorks.
