4 Final Report - Emits - ESA
4 Final Report - Emits - ESA 4 Final Report - Emits - ESA
4 Final Report Table 4.5-17. EP mass budget for Option 3 [kg] Fine Pointing Thruster Table 4.5-18. EP power budget for Option 3 [W] Fine Pointing Thruster Main Manoeuvre Thruster HEMPT GIT GIT 860 902 FEEP 834 876 Main Manoeuvre Thruster HEMPT GIT GIT 2571 2138 FEEP 2600 2167 4.5.7.3 Propulsion System Summary The mass of the propulsion system for the three options is summarised in Table 4.5-19. Option 3 is not practical since too massive, complex and expensive. Option 1 is the traditional configuration and is feasible. Option 2 allows to save between 250 and 340 kg (depending on the selected technology) on Option 1 by using EP for station-keeping. However, this mass reduction should be somewhat reduced as it does not take into consideration the additional mass due to an increase in solar array as well as batteries, and potentially PCDU too. An in-depth analysis would be required at a later stage to determine the better of Options 1 and 2. Table 4.5-19. Geo-Oculus propulsion options summary S/C dry mass (no PS) EPS dry mass CPS dry mass TOTAL PS DRY MASS EPS Total Prop. load CPS Total Prop. load TOTAL PROP. LOAD TOTAL PS MASS AT LAUNCH Power requirements [W] Option 1 1668.3 / 189.7 189.7 / 1793.9 1793.9 1983.6 / Option 2 HET 1668.3 92.8 157.2 250.0 83 1404.2 1487.2 1737.2 2895 4.5.8 Structure and Thermal Concept 4.5.8.1 Structure Option 2 HEMPT 1668.3 103.2 133.8 237.0 41.1 1364.4 1405.5 1642.5 6619 Option 3 HEMPT+FEEP 1668.3 287.4 189.7 477.1 573.9 1838.3 2412.2 2889.3 Option 3 GIT+GIT 1668.3 354.4 194.3 548.7 578.2 1888.0 2466.2 3014.9 2138 Page 4-72 Doc. No: GOC-ASG-RP-002 Issue: 2 Astrium GmbH Date: 13.05.2009 2600 Option 3 HEMPT+GIT 1668.3 311.7 189.7 501.4 576.3 1857.7 2434 2935.4 2571 Option 3 GIT+FEEP 1668.3 330.1 189.7 519.8 575.6 1869.5 2445.1 2964.9 Structure design Figure 4.5-13 depicts the structure of the satellite with 4 propellant tanks, based on Astrium’s Eurostar 2167
4 Final 3000 platform. Report The overall S/C structure has a classical "box" shape with a central cylinder (800 mm) as the main structural load path to the launcher. The design will fulfil the satellite strength and stiffness requirements. The instrument is mounted at the top of the platform. Currently, the instrument is connected to the platform by means of three isostatic mounts. It is recommended for future work to revisit the instrument mechanical configuration so that it is supported by four sets of isostatic mounts, turned upside down. This would allow the “head” of an isostatic mount to be fixed to the top of the shear walls, and thus provide a better load path than what is currently depicted. Clearly, this topic has to be iterated with the mechanical design of the payload considering the mechanical load path and thermo-elastic distortions. It should also be noted that due to the width of the instrument being much larger than the central cylinder, it is not possible to fix the isostatic mounts in the current configuration directly to the central cylinder. Figure 4.5-13. Satellite Configuration showing the main structure Primary Structure The satellite primary structure consists of, • A launcher interface ring • A central cone/cylinder structure • 4 shear walls • ±X Upper and lower floors • Upper and lower tank floors • Tank support struts Doc. No: GOC-ASG-RP-002 Page 4-73 Issue: 2 Date: 13.05.2009 Astrium GmbH YS/C XS/C ZS/C
- Page 38 and 39: 3 Final Report Manoeuvre Times and
- Page 40 and 41: 3 Final Report Cloud Amount [%] Num
- Page 42 and 43: 3 Final Report cloud scenes where t
- Page 44 and 45: 4 Final Report Alternative solution
- Page 46 and 47: 4 Final Report The achieved ground
- Page 48 and 49: 4 Final Report board image processi
- Page 50 and 51: 4 Final Report 4.3.3.2 UV-VNIR foca
- Page 52 and 53: 4 Final Report Column decoder 4 out
- Page 54 and 55: 4 Final Report 4.3.3.5 Mechanical a
- Page 56 and 57: 4 Final Report 4.3.3.7 Electrical a
- Page 58 and 59: 4 Final Report 4.3.4 PLM budgets Th
- Page 60 and 61: 4 Final Report 4.4.2 Microvibration
- Page 62 and 63: 4 Final Report Figure 4.4-2: Struct
- Page 64 and 65: 4 Final 4.5 Satellite Report 4.5.1
- Page 66 and 67: 4 Final Report Star Tracker Figure
- Page 68 and 69: 4 Final Report (Spacecraft Computer
- Page 70 and 71: 4 Final Report This is based on a w
- Page 72 and 73: 4 Final Report Reception of the ins
- Page 74 and 75: 4 Final Report Table 4.5-2: Charact
- Page 76 and 77: 4 Final Report Table 4.5-4: Compari
- Page 78 and 79: 4 Final Report Table 4.5-5: EPS fue
- Page 80 and 81: 4 Final Report manoeuvre. It also h
- Page 82 and 83: 4 Final Report Figure 4.5-10: Basel
- Page 84 and 85: 4 Final Report The CPS considered f
- Page 86 and 87: 4 Final Report PPU B* FU XST Page 4
- Page 90 and 91: 4 Final Report The primary structur
- Page 92 and 93: 4 Final Report Direction MTG Scaled
- Page 94 and 95: 4 Final Report 4.6.1.1 High Level F
- Page 96 and 97: 4 Final Report shorter. As a conseq
- Page 98 and 99: 4 Final Report 4.6.2.4 Cloud Cover
- Page 100 and 101: 4 Final Report management functions
- Page 102 and 103: 4 Final Report 4.6.2.8 Ground Stati
- Page 104 and 105: 5 Final Report based on EUMETSAT im
- Page 107 and 108: A Final Report Annex A Abbreviation
- Page 109 and 110: A Final Report ICU Instrument Contr
- Page 111: A Final Report Doc. No: GOC-ASG-RP-
4 <strong>Final</strong><br />
<strong>Report</strong><br />
Table 4.5-17. EP mass budget for Option 3 [kg]<br />
Fine Pointing<br />
Thruster<br />
Table 4.5-18. EP power budget for Option 3 [W]<br />
Fine Pointing<br />
Thruster<br />
Main Manoeuvre Thruster<br />
HEMPT GIT<br />
GIT 860 902<br />
FEEP 834 876<br />
Main Manoeuvre Thruster<br />
HEMPT GIT<br />
GIT 2571 2138<br />
FEEP 2600 2167<br />
4.5.7.3 Propulsion System Summary<br />
The mass of the propulsion system for the three options is summarised in Table 4.5-19.<br />
Option 3 is not practical since too massive, complex and expensive. Option 1 is the traditional<br />
configuration and is feasible. Option 2 allows to save between 250 and 340 kg (depending on the<br />
selected technology) on Option 1 by using EP for station-keeping. However, this mass reduction<br />
should be somewhat reduced as it does not take into consideration the additional mass due to an<br />
increase in solar array as well as batteries, and potentially PCDU too. An in-depth analysis would be<br />
required at a later stage to determine the better of Options 1 and 2.<br />
Table 4.5-19. Geo-Oculus propulsion options summary<br />
S/C dry mass (no PS)<br />
EPS dry mass<br />
CPS dry mass<br />
TOTAL PS DRY MASS<br />
EPS Total Prop. load<br />
CPS Total Prop. load<br />
TOTAL PROP. LOAD<br />
TOTAL PS MASS AT LAUNCH<br />
Power requirements [W]<br />
Option 1<br />
1668.3<br />
/<br />
189.7<br />
189.7<br />
/<br />
1793.9<br />
1793.9<br />
1983.6<br />
/<br />
Option 2<br />
HET<br />
1668.3<br />
92.8<br />
157.2<br />
250.0<br />
83<br />
1404.2<br />
1487.2<br />
1737.2<br />
2895<br />
4.5.8 Structure and Thermal Concept<br />
4.5.8.1 Structure<br />
Option 2<br />
HEMPT<br />
1668.3<br />
103.2<br />
133.8<br />
237.0<br />
41.1<br />
1364.4<br />
1405.5<br />
1642.5<br />
6619<br />
Option 3<br />
HEMPT+FEEP<br />
1668.3<br />
287.4<br />
189.7<br />
477.1<br />
573.9<br />
1838.3<br />
2412.2<br />
2889.3<br />
Option 3<br />
GIT+GIT<br />
1668.3<br />
354.4<br />
194.3<br />
548.7<br />
578.2<br />
1888.0<br />
2466.2<br />
3014.9<br />
2138<br />
Page 4-72 Doc. No: GOC-ASG-RP-002<br />
Issue: 2<br />
Astrium GmbH Date: 13.05.2009<br />
2600<br />
Option 3<br />
HEMPT+GIT<br />
1668.3<br />
311.7<br />
189.7<br />
501.4<br />
576.3<br />
1857.7<br />
2434<br />
2935.4<br />
2571<br />
Option 3<br />
GIT+FEEP<br />
1668.3<br />
330.1<br />
189.7<br />
519.8<br />
575.6<br />
1869.5<br />
2445.1<br />
2964.9<br />
Structure design<br />
Figure 4.5-13 depicts the structure of the satellite with 4 propellant tanks, based on Astrium’s Eurostar<br />
2167
Change language