PROBA-3 Phase A Study Executive Summary Report

PROBA-3 Phase A Study
Executive Summary Report

PROBA3-ASU-RPT-14
Issue 01
Page 1 of 20


UK EXPORT CONTROL RATING : 9E001
Rated By : Paolo d'Arrigo

This document is produced under ESA contract, ESA export exemptions may therefore apply. These
Technologies may require an export licence if exported from the EU

Astrium Limited 2007

Astrium Limited owns the copyright of this document which is supplied in confidence and which shall not be used
for any purpose other than that for which it is supplied and shall not in whole or in part be reproduced, copied, or
communicated to any person without written permission from the owner.

Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259
Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England
Company Registration No. 2449259
Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, UK

PROBA3-ASU-RPT-14
Issue: 01
Page 2 of 20

INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Astrium Limited owns the copyright of this document which is supplied in confidence and which shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which it is supplied
and shall not in whole or in part be reproduced, copied, or communicated to any person without written permission from the owner.

PROBA3-ASU-RPT-14
Issue 01
Page 3 of 20

This Executive Summary has been compiled from the work of the PROBA-3 Phase A Study led by
EADS Astrium. The members of the Study Team are listed below.

Astrium Ltd Andrew Davies
Kelly Geelen
Simon Grocott
Stephen Kemble
Ronan Wall
Carl Warren
Alex Wishart
Astrium GmbH Klaus Ergenzinger
Astrium SAS Cyril Cavel J ulien Morand
Verhaert Space Pieter Van den Braembussche Marline Claessens
GMV Lorenzo Tarabini
Swedish Space Corporation Nils Pokrupa
Laboratoire dAstrophysique
de Marseilles
Philippe Lamy
Patrick Levacher
Sebastien Vives


PROBA3-ASU-RPT-14
Issue: 01
Page 4 of 20

CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................1-5
2 MISSION OBJECTIVES..........................................................................................................................2-6
3 TECHNOLOGY PAYLOADS .................................................................................................................3-7
4 SCIENCE PAYLOAD.............................................................................................................................4-10
5 MISSION ARCHITECTURE ................................................................................................................5-12
6 FORMATION FLYING.........................................................................................................................6-15
7 SPACECRAFT DESIGN........................................................................................................................7-17
8 PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENT........................................................................................................8-19
9 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................................9-20


PROBA3-ASU-RPT-14
Issue 01
Page 5 of 20

1 INTRODUCTION
This report provides an executive summary of the PROBA-3 Phase A study performed by a team led
by EADS Astrium over the period J uly 2006 through J uly 2007. The Study was conducted in two
parts. In part one ESAs initial mission and system requirements were analysed and a baseline
system design generated. This was reviewed with ESA at a Preliminary Concept Review held at
ESTEC at the end of J anuary 2007. In the second part of the study the baseline concept was studied
in detail resulting in mission and spacecraft designs which were presented to ESA at the Preliminary
Requirements Review held at ESTEC at the end of J une 2007. A development plan and a ROM cost
for the implementation phase has also been produced.
The Study team and the broad allocation of tasks are shown in Figure 1-1.

Figure 1-1: PROBA-3 Phase A Study team


PROBA3-ASU-RPT-14
Issue: 01
Page 6 of 20

2 MISSION OBJECTIVES
The PROBA-3 mission is designed to provide in-orbit demonstration of new Formation Flying
techniques and technologies being developed in Europe, validating their use for future operational
Formation Flying missions. A series of Formation Flying manoeuvres will be performed which are
designed to exercise the various technology items being flown. PROBA-3 will also carry a science
payload in the form of an externally occulted solar coronagraph. This payload requires the two
spacecraft to maintain a precise sun-pointing formation and this experiment will serve to validate
mission in a quantifiable way. The technical demonstrations are summarised in Figure 2-1.

Formation Flying Techniques and Technologies Level of
Demonstration
needed
FF Mission
Requirement
Representation
on PROBA-3
Position navigation to mm
Position navigation to micron
Position navigation to sub micron
High
High
As far as possible
Required
Variable
Variable
High
Medium
No
Absolute/relative attitude determination (arcsec)
Absolute attitude determination (sub arcsec)
High
High
Required
Variable
High
No
Vision based navigation High Variable No
Formation control High Required Medium
RF to optical metrology transition High Required High
Ground control deployment
Autonomous deployment
High
High
Required
Required
Medium
Medium
FDIR and anti-collision High Required High
Command and control sharing space/ground Strategies
master/slave, multi-master
High Required No
RF metrology coarse
RF metrology fine
High
High
Required
Required
Medium
High
Optical metrology coarse lateral
Optical metrology fine lateral
Optical metrology fine longitudinal (DWI/FSI)
High
As far as possible
As far as possible
Required
Variable
Variable
High
Medium
High
Cold gas thrusters
EP (micro-ion)
High
High
Required
Required
No
High
ISL High Required High
Figure 2-1: Formation Flying technology on PROBA-3 relevance to future missions


PROBA3-ASU-RPT-14
Issue 01
Page 7 of 20

PROBa-3 will also serve to develop the industrial and engineering processes for future formation
flying missions. These are summarised in Figure 2-2.

Formation Flying engineering techniques to be
demonstrated
Level of
demonstration
needed
Required on
FF Missions
Representation on
PROBA-3
programme
Mission architecture design High required High
System design
High required High
System modelling and simulation
High required High
Formation Flying Test benches
High required High
GNC test bench
High required High
End-end validation High required High
Figure 2-2: Engineering process developments in PROBA-3

3 TECHNOLOGY PAYLOADS
3.1 METROLOGY
The Formation Flying metrology consists of 3 major pieces of equipment: RF Metrology system, an
optical Coarse Lateral Sensor (CLS) and a High Precision Optical Metrology (HPOM) system which
features a Dual Wavelength Interferometer (DWI) and a Fine Lateral Sensor (FLS). In addition to this
each spacecraft uses star trackers to provide accurate attitude knowledge; this is particularly
important because there is a very high degree of coupling between the attitude of the spacecraft and
the measurement of the lateral separation of the spacecraft.
The RF Metrology system has been developed by Thales Alenia Space. This sensor is based on the
use of GPS-like signals, although with different processing as both ends of the system are active. The
RF metrology can operate in a coarse mode based on pseudorange measurements or in a fine mode
based on carrier phase measurements. Coarse mode measurements are made with a single Rx/Tx
antenna on each spacecraft. The range between the spacecraft is coarsely determined, and the
angular position of the one spacecraft with respect to the other is very coarsely determined from the
strength of the signal received. The Fine mode operates by using a triplet of antennas, 1 Rx/Tx and 2
Rx.
To provide 4 steradian coverage, these antennas are arranged in a tetrahedral pattern with four sets
of antennas at the vertices. It is only strictly necessary to have fine measurement on the Coronagraph
spacecraft when the Coronagraph and Occulter spacecraft face each other in the nominal formation
configuration. Therefore, the Coronagraph spacecraft uses a triplet antenna at one vertex of the
tetrahedron. These antennas can be seen in Figure 3-1. The RF metrology is primarily designed for
missions outside the GPS sphere (for example at a Lagrange point). The maximum range is of order
30 km.


PROBA3-ASU-RPT-14
Issue: 01
Page 8 of 20

Figure 3-1: RF antenna configuration
In fine mode the system should provide range accuracy to the order of 10mm and bearing accuracy
(azimuth and elevation) of order 1
o
.
The optical CLS operates essentially as a very fine, narrow field of view star tracker, with an artificial
star pattern produced on the Occulter spacecraft (the target) using a set of laser diodes. The CLS
Optical head is mounted on the Coronagraph spacecraft (the chaser). The Field of View is wide
enough to encompass the accuracy of the RF metrology, to allow transition between the two sensors.
The lateral accuracy will be of order 1 arcsec.
Fine longitudinal and lateral metrology is provided by the DWI. The DWI is a heterodyne
interferometer with a synthetic wavelength of 100mm. This permits the DWI to measure displacement
on the order of 100 m with an ambiguity of 100 mm. In addition, the laser signal of the DWI also
impinges on a position sensitive detector (the FLS) via a beam splitter arrangement in the target retro-
reflector which gives a precise measurement of lateral displacements. The DWI retro reflector is
mounted near the centre of the Occulter disk and the optical head of the DWI is mounted near the
CLS on the Coronagraph spacecraft. The HPOM is being developed by Astrium.


PROBA3-ASU-RPT-14
Issue 01
Page 9 of 20

Laser stabilisation
Laser 1 (f)
Phase Locked Loop
AOM1
AOM2
Laser 2 (f+3 GHz)
AOM4
AOM4
AOMs RF
frequency
generators
f +80MHz
f +3083MHz
f +81MHz
f +3080MHz
Laser stabilisation
Laser 1 (f)
Phase Locked Loop
AOM1
AOM2
Laser 2 (f+3 GHz)
AOM4
AOM4
AOMs RF
frequency
generators
f +80MHz
f +3083MHz
f +81MHz
f +3080MHz
Laser stabilisation
Laser 1 (f)
Phase Locked Loop
AOM1
AOM2
Laser 2 (f+3 GHz)
AOM4
AOM4
AOMs RF
frequency
generators
f +80MHz
f +3083MHz
f +81MHz
f +3080MHz
Laser stabilisation
Laser 1 (f)
Phase Locked Loop
AOM1
AOM2
Laser 2 (f+3 GHz)
AOM4
AOM4
AOMs RF
frequency
generators
f +80MHz
f +3083MHz
f +81MHz
f +3080MHz

Figure 3-2: HPOM DWI working principle and breadboard unit

The laser wavelengths in both metrology systems are outside the forbidden range of 530-640 nm
dictated by the coronagraph.
3.2 PROPULSION
The formation separation is controlled using electric propulsion micro thrusters with a dynamic range
of order 100N thrust. There are currently two types of electric propulsion thrusters under
development by ESA which could be demonstrated on PROBA-3. These are the RIT-2/4 Radio
Frequency Ion Thruster (RIT) being developed by EADS ST and the Miniature Gridded Ion Thruster
(MiGIT) being developed by QinetiQ.
The Coronagraph spacecraft mass and power budgets for the Electric Propulsion option which are
presented in 7 of this report were derived using the RIT2/4 thruster parameters. This is a more
mature design than the MiGIT which is currently at a very low TRL.
It should be noted however that the intrinsically high specific impulse advantage of electric propulsion
is lost in PROBA-3. To generate thrust on demand, the ionisation process for the thrusters must be
continuously running, because the time from power on to ion production is on the order of 5-20
minutes. It would therefore be impossible to perform demanding control if the thrusters were powered
down completely between every thrust application. Further, the required rapid variations in thrust level
cannot be obtained through control of the propellant flow, and must instead be obtained by
modulating the grid voltage. Control of the grid voltage essentially controls the exit velocity of the ions,
and therefore affects the specific impulse of the thruster. This leads to the situation where the
propellant supply limits the mission lifetime, which negates the object of using electric propulsion.
The Occulter spacecraft is passive, using no propulsion during Formation Flying operations while the
Coronagraph spacecraft is the active spacecraft using the electric microthruster. Higher thrust is
desired to provide small Delta-V manoeuvres to provide safe perigee passage. This is achieved using
a cold gas propulsion system using micro thrusters on the Occulter spacecraft. Both spacecraft use
reaction wheels as attitude control actuators, with the respective micro thrusters providing torque to
prevent saturation of the reaction wheels.


PROBA3-ASU-RPT-14
Issue: 01
Page 10 of 20

4 SCIENCE PAYLOAD
PROBA-3 will carry a solar coronagraph science payload. This is in the form of a coronagraph
instrument on one spacecraft and an external occulting disk on the other spacecraft. In operation, the
two spacecraft fly in a precisely controlled sun pointing formation, at a nominal Inter Satellite Distance
(ISD) of 150m, as shown in Figure 4-1.

Figure 4-1: Coronagraph Formation Flying Concept

The coronagraph will achieve unprecedented spatial resolution of the solar corona in to 1.075 solar
radii.

Solar Corona spectral information:
Fe XIV: 530.3 nm (coronal matter, 1.8x10
6
K)
Fe X: 637.4 nm (coronal holes, 1.0x10
6
K)
He I: 587.6 nm (cold matter, 1.0x10
5
K)
Coronagraph instrument
Solar Corona spectral information:
Fe XIV: 530.3 nm (coronal matter, 1.8x10
6
K)
Fe X: 637.4 nm (coronal holes, 1.0x10
6
K)
He I: 587.6 nm (cold matter, 1.0x10
5
K)
Coronagraph instrument

Figure 4-2: Solar corona image and coronagraph optical box with electronics


PROBA3-ASU-RPT-14
Issue 01
Page 11 of 20

The successful operation of the solar coronagraph will serve to validate the Formation Flying
demonstration in a quantifiable way. The formation flying requirements are driven by need to maintain
the nominal occultation of Sun. At the nominal inter-satellite distance (ISD) of 150m these are:
Lateral Position Error 3 mm (equivalent to 4 arcsec attitude error)
Longitudinal Position Error 100 mm
The lateral accuracy, in particular, is difficult to achieve because the 4arcsec value includes an
absolute term from error in the Coronagraph to Sun Line of Sight (LOS - the angle in Figure 4-3) as
well as a relative term (the angle in Figure 4-3) which is measured using the relative metrology (the
optical CLS). The LOS is determined using a standard star tracker and ephemeris data which would
give at best an achievable positioning accuracy of 5 arcsec. The solution proposed in the Phase A is
to use a Shadow Position Sensor (SPS), which is part of the coronagraph instrument, in a calibration
exercise performed periodically during the mission to remove the bias between the Star Tracker
(STR) and the CLS.

Figure 4-3: Effect of absolute LoS error on measurement of lateral offset D
The Formation alignment bias cannot be solved by calibration alone, however, because there are two
optical lines of sight, one for the coronagraph optics and another for the HPOM. To operate these two
instruments simultaneously would require them to be co aligned with a very high accuracy due to their
limited FoV. This problem arises primarily due to uncertainty in the internal alignment of the
coronagraph optics. The HPOM could in principle be fitted with a steerable mirror but this is not
proposed because it would complicate the instrument design. In fact the coronagraph Formation
Flying operation does not require the HPOM measurement of longitudinal range the fine mode RF
metrology gives sufficient accuracy (see 6 below). Therefore there is no need to operate the HPOM
and the coronagraph optics unit simultaneously and the Coronagraph Spacecraft power budget is
sized accordingly.


PROBA3-ASU-RPT-14
Issue: 01
Page 12 of 20

5 MISSION ARCHITECTURE
The elements of the mission architecture are shown in Figure 5-1.

Launch Segment
VEGA Rockot
Propulsion Module
Coronagraph
Telescope
CEB
CCB
CCD radiator
M1
M3
FPA
M2
CEB
CCB
LEOP Network Occulter Spacecraft Coronagraph Spacecraft
Formation Flying
Technologies
S-Band Ground Station
Redu, Belgium
Launch Composite
LEOP
Apogee Raising Operational Orbit
Ground Segment
Flight Operations
Control Centre
Payload
Data
Segment
Ground
Communications
Network
Formation Flying
Demonstrations
Electric Propulsion

Figure 5-1: PROBA-3 mission architecture
A number of selection criteria for the mission design have been analysed, based on spacecraft related
issues and demonstration requirements. Primary spacecraft constraints are the fuel required to reach
orbit and ground contact availability which in turn drives communications requirements.
Demonstration related criteria are:
Time spent per orbit in low gravity gradient environment
Time available to complete demonstration manoeuvres (formation slews)
Delta-V for formation manoeuvres (i.e. between different formation modes)
Delta-V for Non-Keplerian motion phases.
Time in an orbit to complete a manoeuvre sequence (timeline complexity)
A Highly Elliptical Orbit (HEO) with a period of 72 hours has been selected as the optimum orbit for
the PROBA-3 mission objectives.
The mission scenario assumes a VEGA launch into a low elliptical orbit (200x1100 km). The Lisa Path
Finder Propulsion Module (LPF PRM) is then used to raise the apogee to around 160000 km altitude
in a series of about ten orbit raising manoeuvres. A final PRM manoeuvre is performed at the target
apogee to raise the perigee altitude to around 800 km. The nominal orbit parameters are summarised
in Figure 5-2.


PROBA3-ASU-RPT-14
Issue 01
Page 13 of 20

Parameter Value
Nodal Period 3 days
Apogee Radius 168301 km
Perigee Radius 7178 km
Inclination 5
Argument of Perigee Depends on launch date
Right Ascension -10 (TBC)
Figure 5-2 Nominal Operational Orbit Parameters

This gives more than 48 hours during the apogee pass at which the gravity gradient force between
the two spacecraft is less than 100 microN. Most of the science operations will be close to apogee
and good communications over this long apogee period are advantageous. The nominal ground
station selected is Redu in Belgium and so a Northern latitude choice for the apogee gives good link
opportunities.
Figure 5-3 shows the ground track of the initial operational orbit.

Figure 5-3: Ground track for first orbit


PROBA3-ASU-RPT-14
Issue: 01
Page 14 of 20

Figure 5-4
Orbit track (red) and equatorial projection
(blue) for first orbit
Figure 5-5
Orbit trace (red) and equatorial projection (blue)
over two year mission

Figure 5.5 shows the initial orbit and Figure 5-5 shows how the orbit evolves over two years under the
influence of lunar-solar perturbations and the earths J 2 harmonic. The squares are 1 earth radius
edge-edge. At the end of the two years the inclination has risen from its initial value of 5
o
to over 30
o
.
Figure 5-6 shows the timeline of the operational orbit.

Figure 5-6: PROBA-3 operational orbit timeline


PROBA3-ASU-RPT-14
Issue 01
Page 15 of 20

6 FORMATION FLYING
The system architecture is shown in Figure 6-1.

Figure 6-1: PROBA-3 Formation Flying system architecture

For each spacecraft, there are two main functional blocks, Formation Flying Management (FFM) and
Mission Vehicle Management (MVM). FFM is defined as the aspects of control that require knowledge
of the state of the formation, not simply one of the spacecraft. MVM consists of all of those
components that are within the control of a single spacecraft. Nominally, the FFM resides on the
Coronagraph spacecraft while MVM is resident on both spacecraft. However, there are aspects of the
FFM that are required on the Occulter spacecraft as well as on the Coronagraph spacecraft. For the
PROBA 3 mission, this is primarily required to satisfy the failure case of losing communication
between the two spacecraft. If loss of communication occurs, it is necessary for the Occulter
spacecraft to know what the state of the formation is in order to correctly perform collision avoidance.
Therefore, information must be passed over the Intersatellite Link (ISL) for the Occulter to possess
the knowledge of the state of the formation. In a larger satellite formation this function could be more
elaborate and permit continued operation of the mission in the absence of a failed spacecraft;
however these aspects will not be addressed in the PROBA-3 mission.
Within the MVM on each spacecraft, there is interaction between the Attitude Control System (ACS),
Failure Detection, Isolation and Recovery (FDIR). Collision Avoidance is a Formation level function.
There are five operational Formation Flying (FF) modes involving the Coronagraph spacecraft (CS)
and the Occulter spacecraft (OS). These are summarised in Figure 6-2.


PROBA3-ASU-RPT-14
Issue: 01
Page 16 of 20

Mode Demonstration Sensors Propulsion Formation GNC
Acquisition Sets up for transition to fine
mode of the FF RFM. The OS
flies inertially
FF RFM in
Coarse and Fine
modes
Electric
Propulsion on
CS
Closed loop, non-Keplerian
motion
Coarse Sets up for transition to the
optical CLS. The OS flies
inertially
FF RFM in Fine
mode
Electric
Propulsion on
CS
motion
Transition coronagraph, Darwin-type
Formation slew, rotation,
resize, roll. OS flies inertially.
FF RFM in Fine
mode, optical
CLS
Electric
Propulsion on
CS
motion
Fine Darwin-type Formation slew,
rotation, resize, roll. OS flies
inertially
HPOM DWI and
optical FLS
Electric
Propulsion on
CS
motion
Perigee OS manoeuvres prior to
perigee to set up cartwheel,
leader follower etc evolution
during LEO passage. CS flies
inertially in this mode
FF RFM in
Coarse mode
Cold gas on
OS
Open loop, Keplerian. R-
GPS used on ground to
verify FF RFM
measurements
Figure 6-2: Formation Flying modes for PROBA-3

The expected Formation Flying positional control performance in Transition mode (which includes the
coronagraph) is summarised in Figure 6-3.
Longitudinal Accuracy (mm) Requirement
Long Term (post calibration sensor position tolerances and multipath) 10.22
Medium Term (thermo-elastic positional errors) 0.2
Short Term (sensor noise and spacecraft positional control) 6.32
Total budget 16.75 74
Lateral Accuracy at ISD = 150m (mm) Requirement
Long Term (post calibration STR pointing bias, ephemeris errors) 0.83
Medium Term (thermo -elastic deformations involving STR and CLS) 1.3
Short Term (mainly pointing, position control and CLS noise) 0.97
Total budget 3.09 3.15
Figure 6-3: Formation Flying position control performance in Transition mode

Closed loop non-Keplerian demonstrations will be performed in Fine mode (i.e. using all optical
sensors) over a range of ISD from 25m out to 250m, the range limit for the optical sensors. The
longitudinal control precision in Fine mode is expected to improve to of order 2mm. However the
lateral precision will be about the same as in Transition mode, because although the FLS is more
precise than the CLS its signal will be very noisy due to attitude jitter of the Coronagraph spacecraft.


PROBA3-ASU-RPT-14
Issue 01
Page 17 of 20

7 SPACECRAFT DESIGN
Figure 7-1 shows the two spacecraft in the coronagraph Formation Flying formation and Figure 7-2
list their mass budgets.

Figure 7-1: Occulter SC and Coronagraph SC in coronagraph Formation Flying configuration

CORONAGRAPH SPACECRAFT Current Mass (kg) Contingency (kg) Maximum Mass (kg)
Data Handling 18.6 1.9 20.5
Power Subsystem 20.3 1.4 21.7
Communications 8.3 0.7 9.0
AOCS 9.9 0.1 10.0
Stucture 138.9 23.6 162.5
Thermal Subsystem 10.0 2.0 12.0
Harness 8.00 0.4 8.40
Mechanisms 4.00 0.6 4.58
Propulsion 39.4 7.7 47.1
PLATFORM TOTAL 257.4 38.2 295.6
Payload 37.7 5.6 43.3
Formation Flying Metrology 32.3 3.8 36.1
PAYLOAD TOTAL 70.0 9.4 79.4
DRY TOTAL 327.4 375.0
System Margin 20 % 75.0
DRY TOTAL (INCL. MARGIN) 450.0
Propellant 2.5
CORONAGRAPH SPACECRAFT MASS AT LAUNCH 452.6

OCCULTER SPACECRAFT Current Mass (kg) Contingency (kg) Maximum Mass (kg)
Data Handling 18.6 1.9 20.5
Power Subsystem 18.9 1.3 20.1
Communications 8.3 0.4 8.7
AOCS 9.7 0.1 9.7
Stucture 40.4 6.8 47.2
Thermal 10.00 2.0 12.00
Harness 8.00 0.4 8.40
Propulsion 11.5 1.0 12.4
PLATFORM TOTAL 125.3 13.8 139.1
Payload 8.0 1.5 9.5
Formation Flying Sensors 20.7 1.8 22.5
PAYLOAD TOTAL 28.7 3.3 32.0
DRY TOTAL 154.1 171.2
System Margin 20 % 34.2
DRY TOTAL (INCL. MARGIN) 205.4
Propellant 2.1
OCCULTER SPACECRAFT MASS AT LAUNCH 207.5

Figure 7-2: Spacecraft mass budgets


PROBA3-ASU-RPT-14
Issue: 01
Page 18 of 20

The CS structural mass is too high a percentage of the platform mass. This is being driven by the
PRM requirement that the two-spacecraft stack combination should have a first lateral frequency >50
Hz at launch, in a configuration with a fixed base at the PRM-CS interface ring. There are several
approaches which could be taken to reduce the CS structural mass, including removal of the top and
bottom floors from the load path, redesign of the main load bearing structure, or possibly switching to
a carbon fibre structure. Alternatively it might be possible to relax the lateral frequency requirement
but this would require a coupled analysis of the PRM plus spacecraft stack.
The spacecraft subsystems are listed in Figure 7-3.
Subsystem Coronagraph SC Occulter SC
Structure
Outer panels (Al face sheets)
Inner panels (Al face sheets)
Optical bench +Titanium feet
LPF interface ring
Separation ring (SAAB)
Deployable panel, CRFP face
sheets
Inner structure (Al face sheets)
Outer structure (Al on sides,
CFRP on top, back)
Occulting disk (CFRP)
Separation ring (SAAB)
Thermal
MLI
Coatings
Radiator
Heatpipe
Coatings
Mechanisms
Hinges (Dutchspace)
Solar Array Drive (Oerlikon)
Hold down and release mechanism
(frangibolt NEA)

Communications
2 x S-Band antennas (STT)
MGA (RYMSA)
TMTC electronics (STT)
S-Band antennas (STT)
TMTC electronics (STT)
Data Handling System
(DHS)
ADPMS (Verhaert Space) ADPMS (Verhaert Space)
AOCS
4 x star trackers (DTU)
5 x MEMS Gyros (Systron Donner)
Reaction wheels (Dynacon)
2 x star trackers (DTU)
Gyros (Systron Donner)
Reaction wheels (Dynacon)
Propulsion System
Electric Thrusters (RIT-2 EADS ST)
or
Cold gas (Marotta thrusters, ATK
tank)
Cold gas (Marotta thrusters,ATK
tank)
Formation Flying
Equipments
S-band antenna triplet (SAAB helix
antenna)
3 x RX/TX S-band antennas (STT)
2 x RF electronics (Thales)
GPS antenna +receiver (Astrium)
CLS optical head +electronics unit
(EADS Sodern)
HPOM DWI (Astrium)
S-band antenna triplet (SAAB
helix antenna)
3 x RX/TX S-band antennas
(STT)
2 x RF electronics (Thales)
GPS antenna +receiver (Astrium)
CLS OEU +target (laser diodes)
DWI target beam splitter +FLS
Power
Battery (SAFT)
PCDU (Verhaert Space)
Battery (SAFT)
PCDU (Verhaert Space)
Solar Array Solar Cells (Galileo Avionica)
Instrument
Coronagraph optics, electronics
(LAM)
Shadow Position Sensor (LAM)
Occulter Position sensor (LAM)
ARaSS (LAM)
Figure 7-3: Coronagraph and Occulter spacecraft subsystems


PROBA3-ASU-RPT-14
Issue 01
Page 19 of 20

8 PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENT
PROBA-3 will be a more complex programme both technically and industrially than previous PROBA
missions. This will provide an opportunity to test the new industrial and engineering processes which
will be necessary for future large operational Formation Flying programmes.
A programme organisation structure for the development and operations phases of PROBA-3 is
shown in Figure 8-1.

Figure 8-1: Programme Organisation Diagram

The space segment is organised under an industry prime who is responsible to ESA. PROBA-3 is a
programme in which all aspects of the space segment specification and design are closely inter-
related, yet these activities are distributed among several members of the industrial team.
ESA would be responsible for:
setting mission and system requirements
managing the ESA funded Formation Flying technology programmes to TRL 5
interface between PROBA-3 and nationally funded Formation Flying technology programmes
interface between PROBA-3 and the coronagraph science payload (assumed to be nationally
funded)
launch segment comprising VEGA and the PRM
LEOP
operations


PROBA3-ASU-RPT-14
Issue: 01
Page 20 of 20

The Industrial team would be responsible for:
mission and system design
spacecraft specification, design, and AIT
payload Interface Engineering and payload AIT
management of the ESA Formation Flying technology developments from TRL 5 to TRL 6
system AIT
specific ground segment facilities (e.g. mission simulator)
operations support
The outline of the Phase B/C/D programme schedule is shown in Figure 8-2.

Slice 1 System Review/Event Date
PRR J une 2007
Phase B KO J anuary 2008
SRR April 2008
PDR J anuary 2009
FF Technologies at TRL 5
Slice 2 System Review/Event Date
CDR J uly 2010
Formation Flying Technologies at TRL 6
FAR October 2011
Launch J une 2012
Operations start September 2012
Figure 8-2: PROBA-3 schedule milestones

9 CONCLUSION
The Phase A Study has shown that the PROBA-3 mission is technically feasible and a closed system
design has been achieved which meets the mission and system requirements. The driving
requirements are:
The Coronagraph Formation Flying position control accuracies, in particular the lateral
accuracy.
The requirement on the Lisa Pathfinder PRM for the Coronagraph/Occulter stack to have
natural frequency >50 Hz.
The requirement to have nothing protruding from the Occulter disk.
The Study has identified a number of areas for follow-on work which would retire technical and
programme risks prior to the start of the implementation phase.


PROBA-3 Phase A Study Executive Summary Report

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

PROBA-3 Phase A Study Executive Summary Report

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

PROBA-3 Phase A Study

Executive Summary Report

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen