Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rouzbeh Amini
Promoter: Prof. Eberhard Gill (LR) Daily supervisor: Georgi Gaydadjiev (EWI) Feb. 11, 2009
1
Contents
1. Project Objectives 2. Wireless on-board communication 3. Power management a. Simulation environment b. Attitude determination c. Power management 4. Conclusion
Project objectives
i. Determining useful COTS wireless standards for onboard communication Evaluating WiFi, Zigbee and Bluetooth as three potential
candidates (COTS standards)
ii. Design a system level power managemer for a set of Attitude Determination and Control System sensors and actuators onboard spacecraft and evaluate the energy efficiency of the system and functionality for a given operation scenario.
Part I
Wireless on-board
Motivation
Wired CDHS designs [1]: Wires/connectors failure Costly late design change Development time overhead Undesired ground loops EMC and crosstalk Test/integration difficulties Final installation of Spacecraft harness at Lockheed Martin Limited design flexibility Mass overhead of cables/wires (6-10 %)
[1] Amini, R., et al.., "New generations of spacecraft data handling systems: Less Harness , More Reliability", In the Proceedings of IAC06, 2006 5
Wireless on-board
Possibilities: 1. Developing a new standard 2. COTS standards, e.g., WiFi, Zigbee and Bluetooth In both cases the following issues should be evaluated for each subsystem: Communication bandwidth Computational overhead Data integrity and fault tolerance Volume, mass and power usage overhead Power management and autonomy
1- Practically, not every subsystem can enjoy a wireless communication link 2- Power management plays a great role in increasing autonomy
Fly-by-wireless plane (AIVA) developed in Portugal (2m Long 4m Wingspan 25kg)
Comparison of standards
WiFi is more suitable for long range and high data rate communication
Bluetooth and ZigBee are low power and low data rate standards
ZigBee is more flexible and configurable Bluetooth supports a higher data rate and consumes more power [2]
[2] Amini, R., Gaydadjiev, G, Gill, E., "The Challenges of Intra-Spacecraft Wireless Data Interfacing", In the Proceedings of IAC07, India 2007
Wireless Sensor Network Wireless Ad-hoc Network OWSAN >100 (1000s) 10-100 <10 Densely Relatively Sparsely Closely Prone to Failure Not Prone to Failure Not prone to Failure broadcast Point-to-Point Point-to-Point Very frequent Almost steady Steady Limited Rechargable Rechargable but Limited Local ID Global ID Local ID Low-Medium correl. No - low correlation High correlation
Part II
Power Management
Power Management
Goal to achieve: Maximizing power usage efficiency of Attitude Determination System (ADS) of a microsatellite in a realistic scenario
Three scenarios are designed: 1- Pointing mode: the spacecraft points to a certain location on Earth for a short period of time. High accuracy requirements (< 1deg) 2- Tracking mode: the spacecraft tracks the ground station. The accuracy demand is lower than the pointing mode. Medium accuracy requirements (< 3deg) 3- Spacecraft stabilization: the spacecraft is only stabilized to perform the science mission. Low accuracy requirements(< 10deg)
ADS accuracy defines: Type of employed sensors energy consumption Sampling frequency data rate energy consumption Onboard computation load energy consumption Following sensors are selected: 3-axis magnetometer 3-axis Gyroscope 6 sunsensors
Simulation Environment Matlab/Simulink - Environment simulation - Spacecraft simulation - Attitude determination tools - Power manager
Simulation environment
Case study: BIRD satellite Dimension: 620x550x620mm Weight: 92kg
Following models are build and tested: Orbit propagator (SGP4) Ephemeris (Sun, Earth, Eclipse) Magnetic field model (IGRF) Spacecraft dynamics and kinematics External disturbances (radiation and gravity) Deterministic determination algorithms Kalman filter determination algorithms
Power management
i.
ii.
Dynamic centralized approach Changes the sensing accuracy to reduce data rate Changes the duration of the idle/on/off time Uses an algorithm to estimate the sensor's data Decides which set of sensors should be used to use the least power to achieve the acceptable accuracy
iii. Dynamic de-centralized: Similar to centralized approach but the decision making is put on the sensors side. Sensors should communicate and find the best solution Neural network decision making (Training and learning) Fuzzy logic decision making Seems to be suitable for space apps due to calm and predictable nature of space and ADS in our case. Etc.
Conclusion
Examining more Eclipse scenarios to improve the ADS and tune it Examining different scenarios of absence of sensor measurements Examining Unscented filters for ADS Designing predictive power management schemes to maintain the performance