See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262143189

De-Orbit Sail Design for TechDemoSat-1

Conference Paper · January 2013

CITATIONS READS

11 1,750

10 authors, including:

Stephen E. Hobbs J. Kingston

Cranfield University Cranfield University
110 PUBLICATIONS   1,275 CITATIONS    32 PUBLICATIONS   1,698 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Peter C. E. Roberts Boris Snapir

The University of Manchester Gamaya
104 PUBLICATIONS   945 CITATIONS    15 PUBLICATIONS   422 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Passive Bistatic Radar View project

DISCOVERER - VLEO satellites for EO View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Stephen E. Hobbs on 18 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 DE-ORBIT SAIL DESIGN FOR TECHDEMOSAT-1

Stephen Hobbs (1) , Jennifer Kingston (1) , Peter Roberts (1) , Clara Juanes (1) , Richard Sewell (1) ,
Boris Snapir (1) , Fraser Robinson (1) , Josep Vigili Llop (1) , John Hobbs (2) , Manish Patel (3)
(1)
Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedford, MK43 0AL, UK, Email: s.e.hobbs@cranfield.ac.uk
(2)
19 Charlcombe Rise, Portishead, BS20 8NB, UK, Email: john.hobbs@jdhinnovation.co.uk
(3)
Open University, Milton Keynes, UK, Email: m.r.patel@open.ac.uk

ABSTRACT

Space debris mitigation guidelines are widely accepted 2 DE-ORBIT SAIL DESIGN
and increasingly implemented. The guidelines require
The initial concept for Icarus 1 was a small box carried
satellites to be removed from the LEO region within 25
on the satellite’s external surface which would deploy
years of their end of mission. This article describes the
its stowed sail at the end of mission. Deployment
design of a payload, Icarus, to achieve this for the UK’s
would either be triggered autonomously or under
TechDemoSat-1 (TDS-1) mission.
control from the host spacecraft. However, after
Icarus was completed well within a year using limited following a design process for TDS-1 we arrived at a
resources. Its design was adapted to enable this while design which differed significantly from this initial
still meeting the requirements. An important driver was concept.
the need to pose no significant risk to TDS-1.
2.1 TechDemoSat-1
The baseline design is for a randomly tumbling
spacecraft with nominal orbit height of 686 km. TDS-1 is a UK-funded technology demonstration
Additional studies have been made to evaluate how this satellite. It is based on an SSTL-150 bus, and was
performance can be improved using active attitude developed over the period 2010-12; it is due for launch
control. in Q3 2013. The satellite mass is around 150 kg and its
size is 0.9 x 0.7 x 0.7 m3. Figure 1 shows the complete
The paper discusses issues raised in the development of
satellite. Payload experiments from 8 UK organisations
this low-cost drag sail as a practical example of debris
are carried; Cranfield’s payload provides de-orbit at end
mitigation now waiting for launch on TDS-1.
of life to meet debris mitigation requirements.

1 INTRODUCTION
So far use of space has been unsustainable and new
ways of building and operating satellites are required.
Space debris mitigation is becoming a standard aspect of
satellite design. Guidelines were developed by the
Inter-agency Debris Coordination Committee (IADC)
and these are now being codified as international
standards (e.g. ISO 24113). In low Earth orbit (LEO)
this means designing methods of removing the satellite
from the LEO region within 25 yr once its mission is
over.
Many design solutions exist to de-orbit LEO satellites,
ranging from carrying extra propellant for a final de-
orbit manoeuvre to carrying an additional payload
specifically for this purpose. The Space Research Figure 1. General view of TDS-1 design just prior to
Centre at Cranfield University has studied drag build. Icarus 1 is the frame around the panel at right.
augmentation for several years and has developed
concepts for de-orbit device payloads suitable for small 2.2 Requirements
satellites. The project described here concerns the
Icarus 1 is built to satisfy two top-level requirements:
design, manufacture and test of a drag sail (“Icarus 1”)
for the UK’s TechDemoSat-1 (TDS-1) satellite. 1. Create no additional risk for the host spacecraft,
2. De-orbit TDS-1 within 25 yr after the end of its
 mission. with no sail deployed. This product is a constant as the
drag area varies (assuming constant mass), and so can
Current debris mitigation requirements state the de-orbit
be used to estimate the required additional area.
reliability should be at least 90% (e.g. ISO 24113).
However, the host spacecraft requires a much higher The drag area is estimated using the rule for a randomly
level of reliability in terms of posing no risk and hence tumbling cuboid (e.g. ISO 27852): for TDS-1 this is
this became our primary requirement. Several 0.94 m2., and the area-time product (actually ballistic
subsidiary requirements are derived from the top-level coefficient – time product) for an initial circular orbit at
requirements. 686 km is 1.42 m2 kg-1 yr (a conservative value, perhaps
by a factor of 2-3, due to the atmospheric model used –
Primary requirement:
which was based on MSIS and had no time
1. Prior to deployment the mechanism shall be dependence). If a randomly tumbling flat plate is added
restrained to prevent inadvertent release, to the satellite, its area should be ≥6.6 m2 to ensure de-
2. Actuation shall be triggered with an arm / fire orbit within 25 yr.
architecture,
From this area, the boom length needed is calculated to
3. Actuation shall be under control of the host
be 1.35 m.
spacecraft,
4. The payload shall pose minimal hazard to the
2.3 Aerostability
space environment.
Aerostability, i.e. a tendency for the satellite to acquire
Secondary requirement:
a steady attitude relative to the flow, can be beneficial in
1. The deployed sail shall be large enough to two ways:
achieve de-orbit within 25 yr,
2. The reliability of operation shall be 90% or  If drag is maximised for the stable attitude then
better. de-orbit lifetime is minimised,
 Aerostable designs tend to show less
In addition, there are several desirable features which variability of lifetime relative to completely
we sought to achieve: flat surfaces.
 Adopt a simple design since this is generally The sail is designed so that the entire system (spacecraft
improves reliability, plus sail) is marginally aerostable, i.e. the aerodynamic
 TDS-1 with deployed sail should be aerostable, torques act to turn the sail so that it is perpendicular to
 The mass budget is approximately the mass of the flow. However, the system is un-damped and so it
(chemical) propellant needed to achieve de-orbit. will oscillate around this state. Perturbations due to
changes in atmospheric density may lead to periods of
These requirements were flowed down to detailed tumbling, but on average the cross-section to the flow
requirements on each sub-system / component. compared to a simple tumbling case is increased. Six
2.2.1 Constraints DOF Monte Carlo simulations of orbital decay using
drag sails [1] have shown that a slightly canted sail
Constraints had an important influence on the project. design, to form a shallow rectangle based pyramid,
The main constraints are: produces a good balance of robustness of the deorbit
 Project timescale ~12 months, time prediction, and minimisation of the deorbit time for
 Budget for the whole project (including labour a specific sail size.
< £100k),
 Manufacturing / test facilities are those available 2.4 Concept of Operation
at Cranfield University or for modest cost A simple concept of operation was adopted. This had
elsewhere. the benefit of enabling a shorter development time and
These strongly encouraged the use of simple technology of providing additional reassurance to the host
and COTS parts. The requirement which it was most spacecraft operators. The concept identifies two phases:
difficult to obtain evidence to validate is the deployment 1. Payload is stowed from final integration until the
reliability. This has not been formally validated but end of the operational mission,
instead is partially justified from a range of tests feasible 2. Release is triggered by the host spacecraft: this
on Earth’s surface in 1 g. starts the de-orbit phase which ends with the
2.2.2 Requirements Analysis satellite burning-up on re-entry into Earth’s
atmosphere.
The first parameter to derive from the requirements was
the required sail area. Simple orbit propagation tools No capability apart from the ability to deploy the sail is
were used to estimate the area-time product for TDS-1 assumed of the host. If any propulsive capability or
Figure 2. Conceptual design chosen for the booms. Figure 3. Test deployment of the drag sail. Icarus is
attitude control remains then one or both of these can be mounted on the frame used for ground handling and the
used to achieve de-orbit more quickly and reliably. vibration tests; the image also illustrates the sail fold
Attitude measurement would help monitor successful pattern.
deployment of the sail.  Suppliers and specialist facilities were used for
some specific tasks (e.g. specialist test,
2.5 Summary of ICARUS Design machining of large or complex items).
The payload design process involved a set of prototypes Managing a process which involved such a range of
to test a range of design concepts. The initial tasks were partners was one of the main project management
to identify a configuration for stowing and deploying the challenges.
sail area. From several design concepts we chose to use
rigid struts (aerospace grade Al tubing) joined by tape 3.2 Testing
hinges for the booms, and then to stow these booms and
the sail in a frame which fits around the edges of one of The test plan was derived from our risk register.
the larger spacecraft panels. Several types of test were performed:
Figure 2 shows the conceptual design for the booms  Characterisation: technology not yet well-
made from rigid struts. From prototype tests it seemed understood for space use had to be characterised
that symmetric boom designs were less susceptible to adequately. This included testing some cable
manufacturing inaccuracies: the chosen boom design cutters and the CuBe tape springs.
uses this, which also gives some deployment  Space compatibility: several materials or
redundancy. The strut length is constrained by the components had not been widely used in space
length of the shortest side of the panel: in our case the before. For these it was necessary to test
strut length was ~0.65 m. compatibility with vacuum and the temperatures
likely to be experienced. We were less
concerned with radiation hardness since no
electronic components were used and sensitive
3 MANUFACTURE AND AIT areas are shielded from UV.
The design allowed most manufacturing and testing to  Vibration testing: the full payload was subjected
be done at Cranfield. Where necessary, facilities at to a range of vibration tests, to ensure it would
other organisations (e.g. Open University large vacuum survive launch.
chamber) were used.  Functional: Tests to assure us that successful
deployment was highly likely were performed.
3.1 Manufacture Mechanisms designed to deploy in zero g are
difficult to test on Earth’s surface.
Manufacturing tasks fall into three categories:
The first three of these relate to the primary requirement
 Local workshops were used for general tasks (pose no risk to the host); the final one addresses the
such as basic machining, finishing, and second requirement (de-orbit the satellite).
prototyping.
 Some new processes had to be developed, in
particular the copper-beryllium (CuBe) tape
spring manufacture and the sail fold pattern.
4 DISCUSSION doubled relative to random tumbling. The doubling in
drag force means that the same orbit decay rate is now
The project has raised a range of issues which provide
experienced for a satellite higher than the nominal orbit
lessons for future de-orbit payloads. A few of these are
by ln 2 x (atmospheric scale height), i.e. where the
discussed here.
density has halved. Figure 4 shows typical values of the
scale height for LEO. Since the scale height is 70-100
4.1 Lessons Learned km at typical orbit heights, the increase in orbit height
Drag sails / drag augmentation is appropriate for small achievable is approximately 0.693 x 70 ≈ 50 km.
satellites (up to perhaps 1 tonne) in LEO (to around 700
km). For larger satellites, the mass of the booms
increases disproportionally and other technologies are
more appropriate. In higher orbits the atmospheric
density is too low for drag to usefully de-orbit satellites.
Some practical issues highlighted by the project include:
 Mechanisms designed to operate in zero g are
difficult to validate in 1 g. A combination of
conservative design, analysis, and partial testing
has been used to build confidence in the current
design.
 Atmospheric models have to be used with care,
since there is significant variability around
heights of 400 – 800 km (which is the crucial
range for drag augmentation devices). Some of
this variability is natural, a useful model must Figure 4. Scale height vs altitude from the MSIS
include density variation through the solar cycle atmosphere at various times in the solar cycle (solid
since the desired de-orbit time is no more than line: 10th percentile, dotted line: mean, dashed line: 90 th
one or two solar cycles. There is also some percentile).
disagreement between models which
inexperienced users may be confused by. 4.2.2 Using SRP
In a university context, there are many additional SRP can be used to remove energy from the orbit in two
benefits of a project like Icarus. Students have been ways. It may be useful at or slightly above the height at
heavily involved and have gained enormous benefit which drag and SRP are close in magnitude. The first, a
from the experience. The project has also significantly direct method, is to orient the satellite to generate a SRP
increased the experience of the wider department which force which opposes the velocity. This requires a
has benefits for all aspects of our work – for research cyclical variation of the attitude synchronised with the
and for teaching. orbit period.

4.2 Attitude Control During De-Orbit The second method is indirect, and uses SRP to increase
orbit eccentricity. This tends to lower the perigee,
If the host spacecraft has attitude control when the sail is which exposes the satellite to higher atmospheric
deployed then improved performance can be obtained in density and thus increases the rate of orbit decay (since
two ways: density does not vary linearly with height).
 Orient the satellite to maximise drag, The optimal contribution of SRP to reducing orbit
 Control attitude to make optimum use of solar lifetime is not simple to assess. We do not believe that
radiation pressure (SRP). SRP will be widely used for this purpose because of the
complex design and control task, and because it appears
The benefits of the first are relatively simple to quantify.
to be practically useful only for a relatively narrow
Using SRP is more complicated since it can remove
range of orbit heights.
energy directly and indirectly and either may be
optimal.
4.2.1 Drag Maximisation
5 CONCLUSIONS
Attitude control can be used to increase drag by
Icarus 1 has been a successful project for Cranfield
orienting the maximum drag area perpendicular to the
University’s Space Group. Within severe constraints of
velocity. If a single surface dominates the drag area
time and resource, a de-orbit device payload has been
(e.g. a large deployed sail) then the drag force can be
 designed, manufactured and tested, and is now
integrated on the host spacecraft and ready for launch in
Q3 2013. Some of the key project conclusions are:
Drag sails have a useful role to play in debris mitigation:
small – medium satellites in LEO can benefit from this
low-cost, simple technology.
Requirements need to be carefully analysed. In the
current context, the primary requirement is to pose no
risk to the host spacecraft; successful de-orbit is then a
secondary requirement –albeit an important one.
Technology demonstration missions have an important
role to play. TDS-1, as a UK example, had led to a
range of innovations and wider benefits now ready for
further exploitation across the UK.

6 REFERENCE
1. Roberts, P.C.E., and Harkness, P.G. (2007). Drag
sail for end-of-life disposal from low Earth orbit. J.
Spacecraft and Rockets, 44(6), 1195-1203.
2. ISO 24113
3. ISO 27852

View publication stats