Joshua M.

Kovitz, Jean Paul Santos, Yahya Rahmat-Samii,

Neil F. Chamberlain, and Richard E. Hodges

Enhancing
Communications for
Future Mars Rovers
Using high-performance circularly polarized patch
subarrays for a dual-band direct-to-Earth link.

T
he recent success of the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) has garnered worldwide interest in
further exploration of Mars. In this article, we discuss our latest developments in circularly
polarized (CP) patch subarrays to be integrated into a larger 30-dB gain array. This larger array
will facilitate an enhanced dual-band direct-to-Earth (DTE) link with NASA’s Deep Space
Network at the X band. The frequency ratio between both bands is rather small, with a value of 1.17,
and current dual-band or wide-band CP patch elements are not easily suited for X-band frequencies,
antenna array requirements, or the harsh environments in space.
Our array elements are single-feed and single-layer, easing fabrication requirements. Each ele-
ment achieves circular polarization through an optimized CP half E-shaped patch design. More
importantly, the subarray achieves the desired directivity, axial ratio (AR), and impedance matching
performance with a compact design, allowing straightforward integration into the larger array for
future Mars rovers. Our measurements of the 4 × 4 subarray prototype demonstrate the desired per-
formance for creating an X-band DTE link.

The Path Toward an Enhanced DTE Mars Rover Link

Space exploration has been an exciting enterprise in understanding our universe. The excitement
comes not only from fundamental discoveries that strengthen our scientific knowledge but also from
the evolution of the various technologies needed to support space exploration missions. NASA is no
exception, cultivating spacecraft technologies to reliably gather valuable scientific knowledge for study.
In interplanetary and deep space missions, NASA’s Deep Space Network is the primary conduit for
communicating with spacecraft. For current Mars rovers, which include the Mars Exploration Rover
Opportunity and the MSL Rover Curiosity, science data are returned to Earth using an ultrahigh-fre-
quency band relay link to a spacecraft in orbit around Mars, such as the Mars Reconnaissance Orbit-
er depicted in Figure 1. The Mars orbiter subsequently relays the science data to Earth, transmitting
from a Small Deep-Space Transponder (SDST) X-band radio and a high-gain antenna (HGA) [1],
[2]. Opportunity and Curiosity are also equipped with a mechanically steerable X-band HGA and an
SDST radio with a 15-W output. This system is used for commanding the rovers directly from Earth
on the uplink and for sending mainly small amounts of telemetry directly to Earth on the downlink.

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MAP.2017.2706651

Date of publication: 16 June 2017

50 1045-9243/17©2017IEEE August 2017 IEEE Antennas & Propagation Magazine


The current X-band HGA has a 25-dB gain [3]–[6]. Unfor-
tunately, the relatively large space loss of the DTE link and the
relatively low effective radiated power from the rover HGA
preclude the practical transmission of science data directly to
Earth. However, with the recent success of larger rovers, such
IEEE Antennas & Propagation Magazine August 2017
mars rover—NASA/JPL-CALTECH,
satellite, space, and earth—images licensed by ingram publishing
as Curiosity, high-performance DTE communication systems
are now a viable option for future large-rover missions. The per-
formance upgrade relies on a larger power amplifier and a larger
antenna system. Developing a novel antenna—with higher gain
and power handling than the current X-band HGA—would
51

Mars
Reconnaissance
Orbiter
Indirect (Relay)
Communications
DTE
Communications
Future Mars Rovers
FIGURE 1. Current Mars rover communications primarily
use a satellite relay to communicate with Earth. Our vision
in this article is to develop a high-performance antenna
array significantly enhancing DTE links for Mars rovers.
(Mars Rover and Mars Orbiter images courtesy of NASA/JPL-
Caltech. Earth image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.)
Subarray Tiles
CP
Elements
Waveguide to Stripline
Connectors
To Transceiver
1–16 Waveguide
Power Divider
FIGURE 2. An exploded view of the complete 30-dBic array
consisting of 4 × 4 subarrays. Each subarray is fed by the
1-to-16 waveguide power divider with high-power handling
(100 W). Our goal is to develop a high-performance CP
subarray for such an array implementation.
enable greater flexibility and higher data rates. The big question
is: which class of antenna would be suited for this goal?
Based on a study performed at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Labo-
ratory for enhanced DTE communications, the following key
requirements were identified for a potential enhanced HGA
system in future Mars rovers:
■■ right-hand circular polarization (RHCP)
■■ a boresight gain above 30 dBic at the transmit (Tx) band
(8.425 GHz)—assuming that a circular polarization gain in
units of dBic is defined as G RH (i, z) = ^4rU RH (i, z) h Pin,
where U RH is the radiation intensity of the RHCP compo-
t (i, z) | 2 /2h
nent defined by U RH (i, z) = r 2 | E (r, i, z) ·R
52
and Pin is the input power to the antenna, with the RHCP
polarization vector being defined as R t = (it - jzt ) / 2
■■ operational frequency bands at a 70-MHz bandwidth cen-
tered at 8.425 GHz for transmit downlink (Tx: Mars to
Earth) and at a 47-MHz bandwidth centered at 7.1675 GHz
for receive uplink (Rx: Earth to Mars)
■■ power handling of 100 W continuous wave in the Mar-
tian atmosphere
■■ beam steerable in azimuth and elevation using a mechani-
cal gimbal
3
■■ an antenna volume less than 38 × 38 × 5 cm .
The specific frequency bands were allocated to the Mars 2020
mission, and we use them to demonstrate our concept for future
missions operating in similar bands. An important aspect of
this enhanced novel design was the accommodation of the
larger antenna on the rover, including its stowage during launch,
cruise, entry, descent, and landing. This constrained the vol-
ume of the design (not including the gimbal system). Circular
polarization was chosen for interoperability with Deep Space
Network Earth stations. Using circular polarization removes
the need for polarization alignment and reduces atmospheric
effects, such as Faraday rotation. Meeting each of these indi-
vidual requirements is difficult in itself. Simultaneously meeting
all these requirements, however, is a complex task that requires
a delicate antenna design balance.
A wide variety of antenna techniques were considered
in solving this design problem. Some examples include
reflector antennas [7], waveguide slot arrays [8], and con-
tinuous transverse stub arrays [9]. The array architecture
shown in Figure  2 was proposed as a compromise to meet
mass, volume, and power handling requirements, which we
found that none of the other antenna concepts met. This
architecture consists of smaller patch subarray tiles fed by
a waveguide power divider, as illustrated in Figure 2. The
waveguide power divider enables high-power handling from
the transceiver. For this array architecture, the development
of the CP subarray tiles remains one of the most important
steps, where the requirements of being dual-band, CP, and
fabrication friendly for X-band frequencies must be satisfied.
DUAL-BAND CP PATCH ELEMENT DESIGN
THE CURRENT STATE OF THE ART IN THE LITERATURE
In any array design, the heart of the challenge lies with the
proper design of the array elements. Since the element per-
formance tends to dictate the array performance, choosing
the right element is a crucial task. Finding a single-layer,
single-feed element that supports circular polarization over
two frequency bands is not straightforward, especially if
the frequency ratio is low. Traditional CP patch antennas
are fairly narrow band, where their combined |S11| # -10 dB
and AR # 3 dB bandwidth is usually less than 2% [10].
Adding dual-band performance in both S11 and AR further
compounds the difficulty. Researchers have investigated
different techniques to add dual-band performance in CP
patch antennas, including stacked patch antennas [11]–[14],
August 2017 IEEE Antennas & Propagation Magazine
slotted patch shapes [15], [16], and slotted ground planes
[17], [18]. The issues with many of these designs is that they
require multiple layers or very thin slots that could not
be effectively scaled to X-band frequencies. Some designs
(such as the slotted ground plane design) do not have those
issues, but they do result in reduced antenna directivity,
because the slot radiates behind the antenna. Other anten-
nas managed to obtain nice dual-band features, but the
frequency ratio between the two operational bands was
quite large.
Wide-band single-layer CP patch antennas offer another
possibility in meeting the dual-band CP requirement. The
bandwidth required to support both Tx and Rx would
be a 16.1% AR-S11 bandwidth. Designs such as the CP
E-shaped patch antenna [19]–[21], the CP U-slot patch
antenna [22], the L-shaped probe [23], and the capacitively
compensated traditional CP patch antenna [10] have shown
increased bandwidth by using thick, low-permittivity sub-
strates. The advantage of such patch elements is that they
can be single-fed on a single layer, reducing various fabri-
cation complexities and other mechanical issues that could
be encountered in multilayer CP patch antennas. The CP
E-shaped patch antenna has been able to achieve up to
a 17% AR-S11 bandwidth, which would match  our design
requirements. The only catch is that this wideband patch
design is too large to place into a planar array design, con-
sidering that the width in [21] was 0.7m 0 at the upper fre-
quency. Designs such as the L-shaped probe are difficult
to fabricate and might be prone to mechanical failure in
space applications. Our literature search did not produce
any other possible wideband design suitable for our appli-
cation. Since the CP E-shaped patch antenna showed a
wide bandwidth with a simple fabrication procedure, we
used it as the starting point for a deeper search. This began
our investigation into a new shape that would offer dual-
band capabilities.
PROPOSED CP HALF E-SHAPED PATCH DESIGN
One development to support the needed requirements above
is through the use of the CP half E-shaped patch antenna
shown in Figure 3, which has shown CP bandwidths similar
to its counterparts. The design features a nearly 50% size
reduction [24] from the CP E-shaped patch antenna [21].
The basic idea behind the CP half E-shaped patch antenna
is to add a shorting bar across the slot of the half E-shaped
patch antenna in [25]. Without the shorting bar, the half
E-shaped patch antenna would be linearly polarized in the
y direction, according to the coordinate system in Figure  3.
This  shorting bar enables a new mode to radiate in the
x direction and can be tuned to provide circular polarization,
as shown in [26].
To test the performance of the CP half E-shaped patch
antenna, the CP half E-shaped design was developed in
the X band. The goal was to achieve good CP performance,
defined as S 11 # −10 dB and AR # 3 dB, within both
the Rx and Tx frequencies [27]. Previous S-band designs
IEEE Antennas & Propagation Magazine August 2017
50 mm
50 mm z
W
Ws B yf
4.318 mm
Ls xf
y
x Ps
L
εr = 1.96
Ground
Plane
FIGURE 3. The CP half E-shaped antenna geometry. The
design exhibits dual-band CP support within a compact size.
TABLE 1. THE DIMENSIONS OF THE CP
HALF E-SHAPED PATCH IN THE X BAND
(IN MILLIMETERS).
Design W L Ls Ws Ps yf xf ,
X band 15.1 11.5 9.8 3.0 3.3 1.6 0.9 2.3
of the CP half E-shaped antennas show a very wide-band
S 11 response, yet only a single resonance in AR [24]. How-
ever, by increasing the substrate thickness, wide-band or
dual-band AR-S11 designs may be possible. These previous
S-band designs developed at the University of Califor-
nia, Los Angeles (UCLA), were frequency scaled to the
X band and reoptimized for a Rogers RT Duroid 5880LZ
substrate, which has a permittivity of e = 1.96. This sub-
strate is lightweight and offers a low z-axis coefficient of
thermal expansion to avoid via failure during the thermal
cycle. The thickest available substrate is 4.318 mm. The
­d imensions of the CP half E-shaped patch antenna were
tuned until good AR-S11 performance was obtained. The
tuned X-band design parameters are listed in Table  1.
As shown by the results in Figure 4, wide-band S 11 was
achieved, and a dual-band AR was observed. Note that
the measured AR  performance did not quite fall within
the desired bands, but we fixed this through the use of
­optimization when incorporating the element into the sub-
array, as described later.
The radiation patterns are also decent in both the Tx and
Rx bands, with a slight beam squint in the Tx band shown
in Figure 5. Beam squints are fairly common with thick-
substrate CP patch antennas and have been further investi-
gated on the CP E-shaped patch in [28]. The results in [28]
reveal that the beam tilt is likely due to higher-order modal
distributions causing variations in the electric field phase at
the antenna aperture. From these results, one might assert
that the beam tilt in the CP half E-shaped patch in the Tx
frequency is most likely due to similar phase variations at
the aperture. More importantly, good array performance
53
 was still demonstrated in spite of these beam squints. With-
0 12 in the array environment, the beam squint of the CP half
E-shaped patch antenna was diminished due to the array
–5 10
Rx Tx
factor. In summary, the CP half E-shaped patch antenna
–10 8 provides good dual-band performance with its compact size.
|S11| (dB)

AR (dB)
–15 6
–20 4 CONFIGURATION OF THE 4 × 4 SUBARRAY
With the selection of the CP half E-shaped patch element
–25 2
for the array, a proper array configuration must be chosen to
Rx Tx
–30 0 achieve the highest gain possible within a nominal footprint
7 7.5 8 8.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
while avoiding any grating lobe effects. An important con-
Frequency Frequency sideration for array planning in this context is beam steering.
(GHz) (GHz)
Mars rover systems utilize mechanical gimbals to steer the
Simulation Simulation HGA beam [3], and it is likely that future rovers will use a
Measurement Measurement similar gimbal. Mechanically steered systems avoid the com-
(a) (b) plex feed networks needed in electronically steered phased
arrays [29]. This reduces our requirements to a broadside-
directed array, simplifying the feed network design to obtain
FIGURE 4. (a) The simulated (in HFSS) and (b) measured S 11
and AR performance of the CP half E-shaped patch element. equal phase and magnitude for the element excitations. For
A good dual-band performance can be observed at the the subarray, the physical area is limited to 9.5 × 9.5 cm2 ,
Rx/Tx bands. which is 1/16 of the total array area requirement of 38 × 38 cm2.
With this requirement, the maximum
directivity associated with this subar-
ray area can be calculated using
0 0
–30 30 –30 30 4 rA p
D0 = , (1)
m2
–60 60 –60 60
where A p is the physical area of
–10 0 dB –10 0 dB
–20 –20 the subarray, m is the wavelength,
–90 –30 90 –90 –30 90 and 100% aperture efficiency h ap is
assumed. The maximum directivity of
120 120 this 9.5 × 9.5-cm2 area is 19.52 dBic
–120 –120
at the Tx frequency and 18.11 dBic at
–150 150 –150 150 the Rx frequency. The key to realiz-
180 180 ing this maximum possible directiv-
(a) (b) ity is to choose an array configuration
that utilizes the aperture area most
0 0 efficiently and avoids grating lobe
–30 30 –30 30 effects. Another important aspect in
this investigation is to prevent the ele-
–60 60 –60 60
ments from touching each other. Even
–10 0 dB –10 0 dB
–20 –20 though the CP half E-shaped patch
–90 –30 90 –90 –30 90 antenna has a compact size of 15.1 ×
11.5 mm2, mutual coupling can still be
–120 120 –120 120
strong because of the thick substrate.
Several possible array configurations
150 –150 150 were examined. The representative con-
–150
180 180 figurations include 3 × 3, 3 × 3 without a
(c) (d) center element, and 4 × 4, as depicted
in Figure 6. For each array topology,
RHCP–Simulation LHCP–Simulation the feed network simplicity, grating
RHCP–Measurement LHCP–Measurement lobe effects, directivity, and mutual
coupling were considered in detail.
FIGURE 5. The radiation pattern of the X band CP half E-shaped patch antenna at Among these three candidates, the
the Rx band: (a) z = 0c , (b) z = 90c , and at the Tx band, (c) z = 0c , and (d) z = 90c. 4 × 4 configuration was attractive
LHCP: left-hand circular polarization. in its feed network sim­plicity and

54 August 2017 IEEE Antennas & Propagation Magazine

radiation pattern performance. In particular, a corpo-
rate feed network could easily be manifested using four
stages of 2-to-1 power dividers in a single layer. Also, 2-to-1
power dividers are the easiest divider to make broadband.
The 3 × 3 configuration, in contrast, would be forced to
(a) (b) (c)
use two stages of 3-to-1 power dividers, which are not as
easily made broadband. Multiple stripline layers could be
used to create the two stages, but this comes at the cost of FIGURE 6. These subarray topologies were compared to
choose the configuration that meets the requirements:
further fabrication and mechanical complexity.
(a) 3 × 3, (b) 3 × 3 without center, and (c) 4 × 4.
The 4 × 4 subarray’s radiation performance was calculated
based on array theory and showed desirable performance. The
element pattern uses a cos q (i) pattern [30], which takes on
0

Normalized Pattern (dB)

Normalized Pattern (dB)

the form 0
Rx Tx Rx Tx
−10 −10
f (i, z) = e ^it cos q x (i) - jzt cos q y (i) h, i # 90c, (2)
-jz

2 −20 −20
where the beamwidths in the xz and yz planes would be
−30 −30
controlled by the q x and q y values, respectively. Our
calculations used q x = 1.7 and q y = 1.6 at the Tx band −40 −40
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 0 15 30 45 60 75 90
as well as q x = 1.4 and q y = 1.0 for the Rx band. The q
θ (°) θ (°)
values are based on a −10-dB beamwidth match with the
(a) (b)
CP half E-shaped patch element patterns for each fre-
quency. The radiation pattern shows good sidelobe levels,
with minimal radiation toward the horizon (i = 90c). FIGURE 7. The radiation pattern ( z = 0c cut) of the 4 × 4
subarray configuration with a center-to-center element
This is observed at both the Tx and Rx frequencies, as
spacing of 23.75 mm: (a) a subarray and (b) a full array with
observed in Figure 7. The maximum subarray directiv- 16 × 16 elements.
ity achieved by the 4 × 4 subarray is higher than the
3 × 3 and the 3 × 3 without center array configurations
at a value of 19.89 dBic and 18.49 dBic for the Tx and Rx
frequencies, respectively. The directivities of the full array
having 16 × 16 elements were 31.6 dBic and 30.2 dBic for
the Tx and Rx frequencies, respectively.

DESIGN OF THE X-BAND OPTIMIZED SUBARRAY USING CP

HALF E-SHAPED ELEMENTS
The next challenge to overcome was integrating the CP half
E-shaped element into a 4 × 4 subarray. Mutual coupling and
other unwanted effects can deteriorate the desired perfor-
mance. Using the CP half E-shaped element described in
the previous section, a 4 × 4 array was created. It is further
revealed that the AR performance for the 4 × 4 array was
dramatically detuned when the element was placed in the
array environment. Particle swarm optimization (PSO) [31],
[32] was then used to reoptimize the elements in the array
­environment. The “4 × 4 Feed N ­ etwork Design” section
details the stripline feed network design used to feed each
­element. The section concludes with the discussion of the
integration of the elements and the feed network.
ELEMENT OPTIMIZATION USING A COAX FEED MODEL
Modeling the array using currently available simulation tools
can be accomplished in many ways. As a first step, we simu-
lated the 4 × 4 subarray by explicitly placing 16 copies of the
CP half E-shaped element in an ANSYS HFSS simulation
model as shown in ­Figure 8. Each of the 16 elements was
individually excited with a separate 50-Ω coaxial cable. This
FIGURE 8. The CP half E-shaped patch subarray is simulated
under the 4 × 4 subarray configuration to evaluate its
performance. Coaxial feeds are used to excite each element
individually.
coaxial excitation’s performance is similar to a via connected
to a stripline feed network underneath the patch ground
plane. The center-to-center element spacing was 23.75 mm
(or 0.67 m 0 at the Tx). As shown in Figure 9 under “origi-
nal design,” the impedance-matching performance (C) is
adequate, achieving levels below −10 dB in both the Tx and
Rx bands. The AR performance is decent in the Rx band but
dramatically increases in the Tx band. This confirms that
interactions between the elements have indeed worsened the
performance of the previously tuned single CP half E-shaped
element. This is expected because of the close spacing of the
elements and the weak confinement of the fields underneath
the elements. The weak field confinement can be explained
by the use of thick substrates, where the fringe fields tend

IEEE Antennas & Propagation Magazine August 2017 55

 to extend further than patch antennas with thin substrates.
These effects ultimately result in poor AR performance at the
Tx frequency, leaving us with only one choice: optimization.
Nature-inspired optimization techniques offer an inter-
esting approach to the antenna design problem [32]. Algo-
rithms such as PSO mimic observed processes in nature
to help guide the search for a good design [31]. PSO is
employed to help improve the performance of the array.
Our particular case requires good performance for both
S 11 and AR at the Rx and Tx bands. Thus, we used the
­f itness function
f (x) = max (VSWR (fRx), VSWR (fTx), 2 AR (fRx), 2 AR (fTx)), 
(3)
where x = [W, L, L s, W s, Ps, yf , xf , ,] is the vector of optimiza-
tion parameters illustrated in Figure 3, VSWR is the voltage
standing wave ratio and AR is the AR in magnitude (not in
decibels). The frequencies were set to fRx = 7.1675 GHz
and fTx = 8.425 GHz. We scaled the AR performance by
2 within the fitness function to equalize the goals for each
parameter as VSWR = 2 and 2 AR = 2 for an AR of 3 dB.
Notice that every element shares the same geometry, e.g.,
W, L, ,, and so forth.
With the array explicitly implemented in HFSS, i.e.,
without periodic boundary conditions, the AR performance
0 10
–5
8
–10
AR (dB)
could be easily deduced by setting equimagnitude, equi-
phase excitation coefficients for the elements, and com-
puting the respective AR at i = 0. The VSWR, however,
proved to be a more challenging parameter to compute.
The difficulty can be visualized by examining Figure  10.
There are two components that should be included to
compute the final array VSWR performance: the feed
network (with M + 1 ports) and the antenna array (with M
input ports). If we designate the left (input) port of the feed
network as port 1, then the remaining ports 2, 3,…, M + 1
are connected to the antenna array. The active reflection
coefficient available in HFSS can give a rough idea about
the array input VSWR performance, but it does not include
the feed network effects. There are two options to include
the feed network effects. The first is to draw the stripline
feed network explicitly in HFSS underneath the ground
plane of the elements. Unfortunately, the simulation time
for such a model can take an extremely long time because
of the fine geometric features within the feed network. The
second option is to use an approximate circuit model. Using
a similar approach to that in [21], the circuit model assumes
an ideal, lossless, reciprocal 1-to-M power divider provid-
ing equimagnitude, equiphase excitations to each of the
elements. The source impedance is assumed to be Z 0 /M,
and each port exciting the elements is assumed to have a
characteristic impedance of Z 0 . In our case, M = 16. With
this model, we are implicitly assuming that the impedance
conversion is obtained. In other words, we are excluding
the effects of the impedance transformers, assuming that a
dual-band or wideband transformer can be integrated into
the design without significant performance degradation.

6
Γ (dB)

–15 The impedance matching C can be found by computing V - in

4 for a given V +
in . By writing the (M + 1) # (M + 1) S-parameter
–20
–25 2 matrix S p for the feed network as
Rx Tx Rx Tx
–30 0
Sp = = G, (4)
7 7.5 8 8.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 S p, 11 s Tps

Frequency (GHz) Frequency (GHz) s ps Slp
(a) (b)
Original Design Optimized Design where S p, 11 is a scalar and s ps is a column vector defined as
s Tps = 6S p, 21 ... S p,(M +1) 1@, the submatrix Slp is found by delet-
FIGURE 9. The performance of the coax-fed array model ing the first row and column from S p as
before and after optimization: (a) the impedance matching
R V
performance C = V -in /V +in and (b) the broadside AR S S p, 22 S p, 23 g S p, 2 (M +1) W
performance, which shows significant improvements from PSO. S S p, 32 S p, 33 g S p, 3 (M +1) W
Slp = S W .(5)
S h h j h W
SS p,(M +1) 2 S p,(M +1) 3 g S p,(M +1)(M +1)W
T X
Sp SL
Z0/M Z0 From Figure 10, we have the equations
1-to-M .. M-Element
Vin+ Power . V - = S L V +(6)
Array
Divider
; in+E = S p ; in-E .(7)
V0 Vin– V- V+

V– V+ V V
By substituting (4) into these equations, one can finally obtain

= S p, 11 + s Tps ^S -
L - Slp h s ps . (8)
-
FIGURE 10. A circuit model used to predict the impedance C = V+in 1 -1

matching performance of the 4 × 4 subarray, where M = 16. V in

56 August 2017 IEEE Antennas & Propagation Magazine

 In this equation, HFSS computes the values for the the integrated array assembly. In practice, more vias could be
array S-parameter matrix S L, and the elements of S p can be placed to improve the isolation among the ports, but from our
derived based on our assumptions for the particular network results, the four vias around each port were sufficient. In look-
configuration. In our case, a T-junction power divider was ing at both the S 11 and S 1n simulation results in Figure 12,
chosen for our feed network, whose ideal S-parameter matrix adequate performance was achieved.
is given as The S 1n coefficients were acquired from HFSS and were
used to predict the radiation pattern and the directivity
R V
S 0 M M g M W
S M 1 -M 1 g 1 W
1 S W
Sp = M 1 j j h W .(9)
M SS
h 1 j 1 -M 1 W
SS W 2 4 10 12
M 1 g 1 1 - MW
T X
Once C is computed, the VSWR can be obtained:
VSWR = (1 +| C |) / (1 -| C |). Note also that if the S-param-
eters are known versus the frequency for the 1-to-16 power
3 5 11 13
­divider network, these can be used for S p. In this article, we
used the simplified, ideal model given by (9), since the feed net- 1
work was being designed in parallel.
6 8 14 16
The approximate circuit model reduced the computational
time to find an optimized solution, because small features seen
in the stripline network were not simulated. The optimization
was performed on the whole 4 × 4 array environment, where
each element’s dimensions were changed identically. As the
results show in Figure 9 under “optimized design,” the optimi- 7 9 15 17
zation was successful not only in maintaining proper impedance
matching performance in both the Tx and Rx frequencies but FIGURE 11. The 4 × 4 subarray feed network implementation
in significantly improving the AR performance. It should be in the stripline. Note that four grounding vias were placed
emphasized that the impedance matching performance was around each port to improve isolation and minimize parallel-
slightly degraded for the “optimized design” case, but this sac- plate mode excitation. In practice, more vias are typically
rifice enabled a significant improvement in the AR at the Tx added for improved performance.
frequencies. The power of the PSO procedure is in systematical-
ly finding a design that balances the performance requirements.
0
4 × 4 FEED NETWORK DESIGN
–10
The next step in the design process was the feed network. The Rx Tx
|S11| (dB)

feed point was placed at the center so that each branch to each –20
element was equidistant to the other branches, establishing an
equiphase design. The feed network is shown in Figure 11. We –30
used a binomial impedance transformer and power dividers to –40
equally split the power in the feed network while maintaining a 7 7.5 8 8.5
broadband impedance matching. The feed network was imple- Frequency (GHz)
mented in stripline to avoid unwanted radiation. (a)
The 1-to-16 power divider was designed with coaxial –10
m=2 m=3
outputs  to simplify the model and mimic probe-fed, imped- –11 m=4 m=5
ance-matched patch antennas. Grounding vias along the trans- Rx Tx m=6 m=7
|Sm1| (dB)

–12 m=8 m=9

mission line were also recommended [33], [34], separated with m = 10 m = 11
–13
a spacing s as m = 12 m = 13
–14 m = 14 m = 15
m Tx m Tx m = 16 m = 17
#s# , (10) –15
8 2
7 7.5 8 8.5
Frequency (GHz)
where m Tx is the wavelength at the Tx frequency in free space.
(b)
This spacing was used to prevent a potential difference between
the ground planes. Therefore, four vias were placed around FIGURE 12. The S-parameters of the feed network: (a) Good S11
each port in the feed network shown in Figure 11, with a performance was achieved and (b) nearly equal power was
spacing of m Tx /6 to ease the handmade fabrication process of delivered to the loads within the Rx and Tx bands.

IEEE Antennas & Propagation Magazine August 2017 57


TABLE 2. THE ELEMENT DIMENSIONS
AFTER OPTIMIZATION IN THE SUBARRAY
ENVIRONMENT (IN MILLIMETERS).
Design W L Ls Ws Ps
After 14.0 12.0 8.52 2.62 4.72
PSO
using array theory. The results shown in Figure 13 are com-
pared to an ideal array having perfect uniform amplitude
coefficients that achieves the desired broadside radiation
pattern. The radiation patterns of the actual coefficients
and the uniform amplitude coefficients match well, achiev-
ing good broadside radiation with minimal sidelobe levels.
The directivity is also quite high, where 19.9 dBic and
18.5 dBic at the Tx and Rx frequencies, respectively, closely
match the estimates given in the “Configuration of the 4 × 4
Subarray” section.
INTEGRATION OF FEED NETWORK AND CP ELEMENTS
Now that each of the components for the array were devel-
oped, the 4 × 4 CP half E-shaped element array and the
uniform amplitude and phase stripline feed network could
0
UA Coefficients
Normalized Pattern (dB)
be integrated to form the final array assembly. The overall
layer stack-up is shown in Figure 14. The SMA connector,
stripline feed network, and antenna elements are integrated
together in HFSS. To continue to find the best performance,
yf xf , the assembly dimensions were further manually tuned. The
2.46 1.71 1.09 parameters include the line widths of the stripline, the dimen-
sions of the patch elements, and the length of the quarter-wave
transformers. We tuned the length of the quarter-wave trans-
formers to the Tx frequency, since the impedance matching
performance is more critical when transmitting from the rover.
Looking at the results in Figure 15, this integrated assembly
achieved a wide AR-S11 bandwidth. The radiation patterns of
the assembly in Figure  16 also achieved very good broadside
radiation. The simulation results show that the achieved direc-
tivity is 19.19 dBic and 18.09 dBic at the Tx and Rx frequen-
cies, respectively.
SUBARRAY FABRICATION AND MEASUREMENTS
The final integrated design was studied, and its performance
adequately met the requirements; therefore, a prototype could
be assembled. Each layer in the prototype was fabricated using
photolithography. The insertion of vias and the combining of
each of the layers of the prototype were done by hand assem-
bly through a systematic procedure. A vector network analyzer
was used to measure the S 11 performance, and the UCLA
spherical near-field chamber was used to measure the AR,
directivity, and radiation patterns. These measurements were
then compared to simulation. The radiation characteristics
shown in Figure 16 match well with those of simulations. The

Actual Coefficients
–10 fabricated prototype and pattern coordinate system are shown
in Figure 17. The radiation patterns in both frequencies have
low sidelobe levels and exhibit good broadside radiation, which
–20
shows that the array factor greatly reduces the effect of the
beam squints for this size of array.
–30 The measured AR in Figure 15 is much better than the
simulated AR, while the directivity is 18.74 dBic and 17.85 dBic
for the Tx and Rx frequencies, respectively. The directivities
–40
0 20 40 60 80 compare well within the simulation results, and the slight
θ (°) drop is caused by slightly larger sidelobes and off-axis cross
polarization. The S11 discrepancy between simulation and
FIGURE 13. The simulated radiation pattern z = 0° at the Tx measurement was studied intensively, and it was found that the
band shows that good broadside radiation was achieved. reason for the difference was the fabrication tolerances created
Similar results were observed in the Rx frequency. UA: through the chemical etching. When the stripline widths were
uniform amplitude. measured after fabrication, the widths were not the same as
those simulated in HFSS. When looking
at the percent difference, noticeable
Antenna Layer
4.318-mm Rogers changes were observed. The dimen-
Duroid 5880LZ sions of the two designs are shown
in Table  3. Even though the changes
Ground Plane
0.787-mm Rogers 5880LZ are not altogether drastic ( # 8 mils),
Stripline Layer
0.787-mm Rogers 5880LZ the characteristic impedance Z 0 can
Ground Plane
be dramatically changed as seen in
SMA Connector Table 3. Although the array produced
good S 11 performance, more precise
FIGURE 14. The previously developed components are integrated together to form fabrication methods could improve
the final subarray assembly. performance to avoid these differences.

58 August 2017 IEEE Antennas & Propagation Magazine

PERFORMANCE IN A 16 × 16 ARRAY CONFIGURATION
Future Mars rovers ultimately would use an array of these subar- 0
rays (Figure 2) to achieve the 30-dBic gain required to commu- –30 30
nicate back to Earth. Integrating 4 × 4 of these subarrays results in 60
–60
the required gain. Figure 18 plots the directivity along z = 0c for
–10 0 dB
the array (using a similar coordinate system orientation as shown –20
in Figure 17). The center-to-center spacing between each of the –90 –30 90
subarrays is 9.5 cm. With a center-to-center element spacing of
23.75 mm, the elements are uniformly spaced throughout the –120 120
entire 16 × 16 array. The radiation patterns were found by taking
the simulated subarray in HFSS and applying the respective array –150 150
180
factor. Each subarray was excited with equal amplitudes, which
(a)
is reflected in the . -13 dB sidelobes in the pattern. Mutual
0
coupling within each 4 × 4 subarray was incorporated through –30 30
full-wave analysis within HFSS, but the mutual coupling between
each subarray was not incorporated into the simulation. –60 60
Since the array is steered toward broadside and the sub- –10 0 dB
array patterns account for their internal mutual coupling, –20
–90 –30 90
the radiation pattern is well predicted by this approximation
within the main beam and first few sidelobes, as observed by
–120 120
previous studies shown in [35]. Furthermore, these studies in
[35] reveal that the directivity calculation is not significantly
–150 150
impacted. The half-power beamwidths are roughly 5.7c and 180
4.76c for the Rx and Tx bands, respectively. Similar perfor- (b)
mance was also observed in the z = 90c plane. Clearly, if 0
lower sidelobes are desired, then a nonuniform amplitude –30 30
taper can be implemented in the power dividing network.
–60 60
The gain to maintain the high data rate link is 28.8 dBic and
30 dBic for the Rx and Tx frequencies, respectively. Since wave- –10 0 dB
–20
guide power dividers and their respective components have –90 –30 90
been well characterized in the literature, we can do a simple
calculation to estimate the gain of our entire system. Gain/
–120 120
loss numbers are listed in Table 4. The simulated maximum
directivity values are also provided. –150 150
180
(c)
0
–30 30
0 12
–60 60
–10 10
–10 0 dB
–20 8 –20
–90 –30 90
|S11| (dB)

AR (dB)

–30 6
–120 120
–40 4

–50 –150 150

2 180
–60 Rx Tx 0 (d)
7 7.5 8 8.5
RHCP–Simulation
Frequency (GHz) LHCP–Simulation
RHCP–Measurement
S11 Simulated AR Simulated LHCP–Measurement
S11 Measured AR Measured

FIGURE 16. The simulated and measured radiation patterns

FIGURE 15. The simulated and measured AR-S11 performance of the X-band CP half E-shaped array for the (a) Rx band at
of the subarray assembly. Reasonably good impedance z = 0c, (b) Rx band at z = 90c, (c) Tx band at z = 0c, and (d)
matching and broadside AR were obtained. Tx band at z = 90c.

IEEE Antennas & Propagation Magazine August 2017 59

 TABLE 3. THE FABRICATION TOLERANCES TABLE 4. THE GAIN/LOSS BUDGET FOR
OF THE TRANSMISSION LINE. THE PROPOSED ARRAY ARCHITECTURE.
Desired Z0 HFSS Width Actual Width Actual Z0 Quantity Rx (7.1675 GHz) Tx (8.425 GHz)
35 Ω 2.30 mm 2.18 mm 38.5 Ω Simulated directivity 30.12 dBic 31.25 dBic
50 Ω 1.42 mm 1.23 mm 57.5 Ω Simulated subarray loss 0.5 dB 0.59 dB
70.7 Ω 0.81 mm 0.63 mm 83.3 Ω Waveguide feed loss 0.08 dB 0.07 dB
Waveguide probe loss 0.10 dB 0.10 dB
Mismatch loss 0.58 dB 0.38 dB

9.5 cm Total loss 1.26 dB 1.14 dB

Estimated gain 28.9 dBic 30.11 dBic
Gain requirement 28.8 dBic 30.0 dBic

includes the interconnect loss. The waveguide losses are com-

puted for the waveguide length needed to feed the 16 subar-
9.5 cm rays as well as the waveguide-to-coax transition. The mismatch
y loss is also included, and the listing shows the mismatch losses
associated with the measured subarray impedance matching
performance. These values are a bit higher because of issues
encountered  in handcrafting these multilayer boards. It is
believed that fabricating the design with automated multi-
x layer processing (versus handmaking the antenna) will lead
to improved performance and improve the overall gain of the
design at both frequencies. Despite this issue, the estimated gain
shows that we achieved the overall gain requirement with a small
margin to spare, an important outcome for this project.
FIGURE 17. The top view of the final prototyped CP half
E-shaped patch array. CONCLUSIONs
An antenna system with a 30-dBic gain and high-power handling
has been conceptualized and designed with the aim to support
the return of science data through the Mars rover DTE link. The
30 30 antenna design requirements call for simultaneous dual-band,
Directivity (dBic)

Directivity (dBic)

20 20
high-gain, compact, and CP performance. In this article, a CP
Simulated

Simulated

10
0 0
–10
–20
–20 –10 0 10 20
θ (°)
(a)
RHCP
FIGURE 18. The simulated directivity of the full 30-dBic array
at z = 0c for the (a) Rx band and (b) Tx band. The patterns
were computed using the array factor for 4 × 4 subarrays
spaced 9.5 cm with equal amplitudes.
The losses are detailed in Table 4. The subarray loss is given
by the HFSS simulation, assuming the Groiss model having
0.5-μm root-mean-square surface errors and a ­17.5-μm copper
cladding thickness for all copper conductors [36]. Dielectric
losses were included in the simulation as well. The interconnect
was modeled in the simulation, and thus the subarray efficiency
10
half E-shaped patch antenna was used, featuring a compact,
single-feed, single-layer design amenable to array applications.
–10
The design eases the fabrication complexity while still achieving
–20
good AR-S11 and radiation pattern performance. To support the
–20 –10 0 10 20
high-gain requirement, a 4 × 4 subarray configuration featuring
θ (°)
a stripline feed network with grounding vias was developed. The
(b)
stripline feed network is designed so as to provide broadside radia-
LHCP tion with minimal back radiation. These components are then
integrated, first through a full-wave simulation in HFSS and finally
through a fabricated prototype. The design was measured using
the facilities at UCLA and demonstrated good performance. In
summary, the developed 4 × 4 subarray proved to be a strong
design candidate that can support the challenging requirements
of such a mission without added fabrication complexity.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported in part by a Strategic University
Research Partnerships grant through the Jet Propulsion Labora-
tory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, under con-
tract with NASA.

60 August 2017 IEEE Antennas & Propagation Magazine

AUTHOR INFORMATION
Joshua M. Kovitz (jmkovitz@ucla.edu) received his Ph.D.
degree in electrical engineering from the University of Califor-
nia, Los Angeles (UCLA), in 2015. He is currently a postdoctoral
scholar at UCLA. His research focuses on open challenges with-
in the emerging areas of reconfigurable antennas, cognitive radi-
os, CubeSats, and millimeter-wave antennas.
Jean Paul Santos (jpsant2006@ucla.edu) received his M.S.
degree in electrical engineering from the University of
California, Los Angeles (UCLA), in 2015. He is currently pursu-
ing his Ph.D. degree at UCLA while working as an antenna/radio
frequency engineer for the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons
Division at Point Mugu, California. His current research involves
electrically small antenna design and array concepts.
Yahya Rahmat-Samii (rahmat@ee.ucla.edu) is a University
of California, Los Angeles, distinguished professor. He is a hold-
er of the Northrop Grumman chair in electromagnetics and a
member of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering. He won
the 2011 IEEE Electromagnetics Field Award and is the recipi-
ent of the 2016 IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society John
Kraus Antenna Award.
Neil F. Chamberlain (Neil.F.Chamberlain@jpl.nasa.gov) is
a senior engineer in the Flight Communications Systems Section
at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California.
Richard E. Hodges (Richard.E.Hodges@jpl.nasa.gov) is the
supervisor of the Spacecraft Antennas Group and principal engi-
neer at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Califor-
nia. His current research interests include spaceborne deploy-
able reflectarray antennas, deployable reflectors, and waveguide
slot array antennas.
REFERENCES
[1] NASA. (2014, Nov.). Technologies of broad benefit: telecommunications,
[Online]. Available: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mer/technology/bb_telecommunications
.html
[2] D. Bell, S. Allen, N. Chamberlain, M. Danos, C. Edwards, R. Gladden, D.
Herman, S. Huh, P. Ilott, T. Jedrey, T. Khanampornpan, A. Kwok, R. Mendoza,
K. Peters, S. Sburlan, M. Shihabi, and R. Thomas, “MRO relay telecom support
of Mars science laboratory surface operations,” in Proc. IEEE Aerospace Conf.,
2014, pp. 1–10.
[3] A. Olea, A. Montesano, C. Montesano, and S. Arenas, “X-band high gain
antenna qualified for Mars atmosphere,” in Proc. 2010 4th European Conf.
Antennas Propagation (EuCAP), 2010, pp. 1–5.
[4] P. R. Brown, R. E. Hodges, and J. C. Chen, Antennas for Deep Space Appli-
cations. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2012, pp. 664–694.
[5] J. Taylor, A. Makovsky, A. Barbieri, R. Tung, P. Estabrook, and A. G.
Thomas. (2005, Oct.). Mars Exploration Rover telecommunications. [Online].
Available: http://descanso.jpl.nasa.gov/DPSummary/MER_article_
cmp20051028.pdf
[6] A. Makovsky, P. Ilott, and J. Taylor. (2009, Nov.). Mars Science Laboratory
telecommunications system design. [Online]. Available: http://descanso.jpl.nasa
.gov/DPSummary/Descanso14_MSL_Telecom.pdf
[7] Y. Rahmat-Samii and R. Haupt, “Reflector antenna developments: A per-
spective on the past, present, and future,” IEEE Antennas Propag. Mag., vol. 57,
pp. 85–95, Apr. 2015.
[8] R. Elliott, “The design of waveguide-fed slot arrays,” in Antenna Handbook,
Y. Lo and S. Lee, Eds. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1988, pp. 805–842.
[9] W. W. Milroy, “Continuous transverse stub element devices and methods of
making same,” U.S. Patent 5,266,961, Nov. 1993.
[10] J. M. Kovitz and Y. Rahmat-Samii, “Using thick substrates and capacitive
probe compensation to enhance the bandwidth of traditional CP patch anten-
nas,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 62, pp. 4970–4979, Oct. 2014.
[11] C. Su and K. Wong, “A dual-band GPS microstrip antenna,” Microwave
Opt. Technol. Lett., vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 238–240, 2002.
IEEE Antennas & Propagation Magazine August 2017
[12] P. Nayeri, K.-F. Lee, A. Z. Elsherbeni, and F. Yang, “Dual-band circu-
larly polarized antennas using stacked patches with asymmetric U-slots,” IEEE
Antennas Wireless Propag. Lett., vol. 10, pp. 492–495, 2011.
[13] “A dual-band circularly-polarized stacked patch antenna with a small
frequency-ratio,” in Proc. IEEE Antennas Propagation Soc. Int. Symp., Orlando,
FL, 2013, pp. 942–943.
[14] Nasimuddin, X. Qing, and Z. N. Chen, “A wideband circularly polarized
stacked slotted microstrip patch antenna,” IEEE Antennas Propag. Mag., vol.
55, no. 6, pp. 84–99, 2013.
[15] K.-P. Yang and K.-L. Wong, “Dual-band circularly-polarized square microstrip
antenna,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 377–382, 2001.
[16] W. Liao and Q.-X. Chu, “Dual-band circularly polarized microstrip antenna
with small frequency ratio,” Prog. Electromagnet. Res. Lett., vol. 15, pp.
145–152, 2010.
[17] Nasimuddin, Z. N. Chen, X. Qing, “Dual-band circularly polarized
S-shaped slotted patch antenna with a small frequency-ratio,” IEEE Trans.
Antennas Propag., vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 2112–2115, 2010.
[18] X. Bao and M. Ammann, “Dual-frequency circularly-polarized patch anten-
na with compact size and small frequency ratio,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag.,
vol. 55, no. 7, pp. 2104–2107, 2007.
[19] F. Yang, X. Zhang, X. Ye, and Y. Rahmat-Samii, “Wide-band E-shaped
patch antennas for wireless communications,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag.,
vol. 49, no. 7, pp. 1094–1100, 2001.
[20] A. Khidre, K. Lee, F. Yang, and A. Elsherbeni, “Wideband circularly polar-
ized E-shaped patch antenna for wireless applications,” IEEE Antennas Propag.
Mag., vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 219–229, 2010.
[21] J. M. Kovitz, H. Rajagopalan, and Y. Rahmat-Samii, “Design and imple-
mentation of broadband MEMS RHCP/LHCP reconfigurable arrays using
rotated E-shaped patch elements,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 63, pp.
2497–2507, June 2015.
[22] K.-F. Tong and T.-P. Wong, “Circularly polarized U-slot antenna,” IEEE
Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 55, pp. 2382–2385, Aug. 2007.
[23] S. S. Yang, K. Lee, A. A. Kishk, and K. Luk, “Design and study of wideband
single feed circularly polarized microstrip antennas,” Prog. Electromagnet. Res.,
vol. 80, pp. 45–61, 2008.
[24] J. M. Kovitz, J. P. Santos, and Y. Rahmat-Samii, “The CP half E-shaped
patch: Evolving from linear polarization to compact single feed circularly polar-
ized antennas,” in Proc. IEEE Antennas Propagation Soc. Int. Symp., Vancou-
ver, BC, Canada, 2015, pp. 1918–1919.
[25] R. Chair, C. L. Mak, K.-F. Lee, K.-M. Luk, and A. A. Kishk, “Miniature
wide-band half U-slot and half E-shaped patch antennas,” IEEE Trans. Anten-
nas Propag., vol. 53, pp. 2645–2652, Aug. 2005.
[26] J. Kovitz, H. Rajagopalan, and Y. Rahmat-Samii, “Circularly polarised
half E-shaped patch antenna: A compact and fabrication-friendly design,” IET
Microw. Antennas Propag., vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 932–938, 2016.
[27] W. Langston and D. Jackson, “Impedance, axial-ratio, and receive-power
bandwidths of microstrip antennas,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 52, pp.
2769–2774, Oct. 2004.
[28] J. M. Kovitz and Y. Rahmat-Samii, “Understanding the radiation pattern
anomalies in the broadband CP reconfigurable E-shaped patch,” in Proc. IEEE
Antennas Propagation Soc. Int. Symp., Memphis, TN, 2014, pp. 1580–1581.
[29] R. Haupt and Y. Rahmat-Samii, “Antenna array developments: A perspec-
tive on the past, present and future,” IEEE Antennas Propag. Mag., vol. 57, pp.
86–96, Feb. 2015.
[30] Y. Rahmat-Samii and S.-W. Lee, “Directivity of planar array feeds for satel-
lite reflector applications,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 31, no. 3, pp.
463–470, 1983.
[31] J. Robinson and Y. Rahmat-Samii, “Particle swarm optimization in electro-
magnetics,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 397–407, 2004.
[32] Y. Rahmat-Samii, J. M. Kovitz, and H. Rajagopalan, “Nature-inspired opti-
mization techniques in communication antenna designs,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 100,
pp. 2132–2144, July 2012.
[33] D. Pozar, Microwave Engineering, 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2005.
[34] I. Rosu. Microstrip, stripline, and CPW design. [Online]. Available: http://
www.qsl.net/va3iul/Microstrip_Stripline_CPW_Design/Microstrip_Stripline_
and_CPW_Design.pdf
[35] A. A. Kishk, “Prediction of large array characteristics from small array
parameters,” in Proc. 2007 2nd European Conf. Antennas Propagation
(EuCAP), Nov. 2007. doi: 10.1049/ic.2007.1111.
[36] S. Groiss, I. Bardi, O. Biro, K. Preis, and K. Richter, “Parameters of lossy
cavity resonators calculated by the finite element method,” IEEE Trans. Magn.,
vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 894–897, 1996.

61