4 Final Report - Emits - ESA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4 Final Report PPU B* FU XST Page 4-70 Doc. No: GOC-ASG-RP-002 Issue: 2 Astrium GmbH Date: 13.05.2009 FU FDV FDV XFC XFC XFC XFC Orientation mechanism (PY) Orientation mechanism (MY) HET2PY Thruster FU XRFS VBA HET1PY Thruster PV XEF HPT (2) Isolation and regulator solenoid valves Plenum FDV LPT (4) HET1MY Thruster PPU A* FU HET2MY Thruster PY TMA MY TMA TSU TSU Figure 4.5-12: GeoOculus EPS Schematic, Option 2, Eurostar 3000 type
4 Final Report As secondary trade-off, the same architecture can be analysed by using HEMPT thrusters with 80 mN nominal thrust and an Isp of 3000 s. Following table summarises the results for mass and power Table 4.5-15: EPS Option 2 Mass Budgets for considered thruster options (figures in kg) SPT-100 80 mN HEMPT TOTAL EPS DRY MASS 92.8 103.2 Total Propellant Load 83.0 41.1 TOTAL EPS BOL MASS 175.8 144.3 Table 4.5-16: EPS Option 2 Power Budgets for considered thruster options (figures in W) SPT-100 80 mN HEMPT Main Thruster(s) Assembly 2404 5553 PCU & Ancillary 227 464 Total 2632 6017 Total (Including Margins) 2895 6619 Although the system based on HEMPT technology is about 20% lighter, it needs twice the power to be run. Decreasing power to match the system based on SPT-100 technology could be achieved by: • either having a 30 mN HEMPT, but thrust times would increase around the nodes, decreasing the efficiency of firing and thus increasing the quantity of propellant to be used • or setting the HEMPT at a lower Isp, but being a more massive thruster of SPT for the same combination of Thrust and Isp, this would not be an option to be considered The final trade-off solution will depend on spacecraft level trade-off analysis. EPS for Option 3 The EPS for Option 3 is based on the general architecture envisaged for carrying on AOCS simulations: • 8 Main (Attitude) Manoeuvre Thrusters (MMTs) of 30 mN each, Isp of 3000 s; • 12 Fine Pointing Thruster (FPT) providing down to 0.1 mN of thrust each The rest of the system has been completed as per Option 3 of Table 4.5-14. Two MMT options have been considered, namely HEMPT and GIT, while smaller GIT (Isp of 3000 s) and FEEP (Isp of 6000 s) have been considered as FPT, making four possible combinations for Option 3. There is little difference in propellant mass (between 574 and 578 kg); the overall EP mass and power budget are shown in Table 4.5-17and Table 4.5-18, respectively.. Doc. No: GOC-ASG-RP-002 Page 4-71 Issue: 2 Date: 13.05.2009 Astrium GmbH
Page 1:
Geo-Oculus: A Mission for Real-Time
Page 7:
DL Final Distribution List Report Q
Page 11 and 12:
TOC Final Table of Content Report D
Page 13 and 14:
1 Final Report 1 Introduction 1.1 S
Page 15:
1 Final Report [RD 7] Candidate Mis
Page 18 and 19:
2 Final Report capability of existi
Page 20 and 21:
2 Final Report Figure 2.3-1: Flood
Page 22 and 23:
2 Final Report Figure 2.3-3: Algal
Page 24 and 25:
2 Final Report Figure 2.3-6: Chloro
Page 26 and 27:
2 Final Report Erosion / Sediment T
Page 28 and 29:
3 Final Report 3 System Requirement
Page 30 and 31:
3 Final Report Furthermore, the mis
Page 32 and 33:
3 Final Report better than 0.5 SSD
Page 34 and 35:
3 Final Report • Image post integ
Page 36 and 37: 3 Final Report Table 3.3-1: Baselin
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 88 and 89: 4 Final Report Table 4.5-17. EP mas
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-
show all

4 Final Report - Emits - ESA

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?