report section 5
TRANSCRIPT
Project Bellerophon 207
Author: Nicole Bryan
A.2.0 Avionics
A.2.1 Avionics Introduction The avionics group is responsible for the design of the electrical components onboard our launch
vehicle. A basic avionics system is comprised of navigation, communication, and multi-system
management equipment to allow for accurate control of the vehicle. The employment of an
active navigation system is critical for mission success and to ensure the safety of people,
property, and our vehicle. Communication equipment is necessary for the implementation of the
range safety system and for adherence to FAA regulations. The main pieces of equipment we
identified as part of the multi-system management category include the inertial measurement unit
(IMU), computer processing unit (CPU), sensors, and battery. Communication equipment, self-
destruct hardware, and wiring make up the remainder of the components that will be analyzed in
this section.
Besides component selection, the avionics group performed an analysis on the power and
communications systems employed in our vehicle design. The communications analysis is
necessary to ensure that the signal coverage is large enough and strong enough to handle the
conditions of the launch. The power systems analysis is necessary to aid in sizing a battery that
will be able to support our vehicle’s power usage.
Historically, avionics systems are extremely expensive and contribute largely to the overall cost
of the launch vehicle. For this reason, investigating different ways of reducing this cost was a
vital part of our project. By eliminating excessive system redundancy, using mostly commercial
grade components, and choosing only the individual ‘off-the-shelf’ components we deemed
necessary, we aim to lower the overall cost of an effective avionics system.
Project Bellerophon 208
Author: Nicole Bryan
A.2.2 Design Methods A.2.2.1 Component Ratings According to the NASA Electronics Parts Assurance Group, there are 3 basic ratings of electrical
components. They are:
Level 1: parts are inherently low risk and are suitable for use in all applications including life
support and mission critical systems. Level 1 active parts are reviewed for radiation hardness1.
Level 2: parts have inherently higher risk than level 1 and are considered moderate risk. Level 2
parts are suitable for most general purpose space flight applications but are not recommended for
life support or mission critical applications unless there is on-orbit reparability. Level 2 active
parts need to be evaluated for radiation hardness1.
Level 3: parts are inherently high risk because there is little dependable data or history available
for them and changes in their materials, designs, and processes may occur continuously without
notification. Level 3 parts are intended for mission applications where the use of high risk parts
is acceptable. Level 3 parts should not be used in single-point failure or single-string
applications unless a very high risk for failure or malfunction is acceptable. Level 3 parts must
be evaluated for radiation hardness and radiation testing is recommended1.
Level 1 parts are commonly called ‘space-rated’ or ‘S-Class’. The term ‘Class-B’ is
synonymous with level 2 parts and level 3 components are known as ‘commercial’ electronics.
Each different class has specified requirements for testing procedures. Table A.2.2.1.1 outlines a
few of these parameters.
Project Bellerophon 209
Author: Nicole Bryan
Table A.2.2.1.1 Electronic component rating comparison 1
Commercial requirements S-Class requirements Infinite production lot size Built one at a time
No burn-in testing Extended burn-in time (up to 240 hours)
No detailed failure analysis Extended failure analysis No product lifetime testing 1,000 hour product lifetime testing on every
lot Production method allows for no
traceability Traceable to raw material selection
>1% failure per 1,000 hours is considered acceptable
0.0001% failure rate per 1,000 hours is considered acceptable
The difference in testing procedures and type-ratings accounts for a large price difference in
electronic devices. The avionics group has decided upon the use of non-space-rated
(commercial) electronics with the goal of keeping the overall cost of the vehicle as low as
possible.
References 1 “NEPAG Info.” NASA Electronic Parts Assurance Group [online],
URL: http://nepp.nasa.gov/nepag/info.htm [cited 05 March 2008].
Project Bellerophon 210
Author: Justin M. Rhodes
A.2.2.2 Telecommunications Analysis One of the primary goals of the telecommunication equipment on our launch vehicles is to allow
the vehicle to ‘talk’ with the ground. The telecommunications system keeps mission controllers
informed of the vehicle’s health and its current position as it rises to its destination. The
selection of a signal frequency for the telecommunications system dictates how far the signal can
travel, how much the signal is altered by outside forces, what hardware is needed to build the
system, and the rate at which the system can transmit data. We iteratively evaluated these factors
to determine the signal frequency for our design.
The signal frequency is speed at which the radio waves in the signal will travel. Most
communications frequencies in modern communication exist in the ultra high frequency (UHF)
or the super high frequency (SHF) ranges. The UHF band consists of signal wavelengths 100
millimeters to 1 meter in length and frequencies ranging from 300 Megahertz (MHz) to 3
Gigahertz (GHz). We chose to primarily investigate this frequency range because of its common
use in today’s society for communication. Mobile phones, television signals, two-way radios,
and GPS navigation systems all run on signals in the UHF band, making the technology to
support it common and well-developed.1
We began our investigation by examining the frequency allocations put in place by various
political powers throughout the world. In order to prevent a sort of radio chaos, it is common for
governments and world organizations to divide up the frequency spectrum into segments,
allocating certain divisions for specific uses such as the FM radio range or restricted military
frequencies. In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is in charge
of regulating the use of the radio spectrum. By examining the allocations in use by the FCC, we
were able to select several potential signal frequencies. A listing of some of our options appears
in Table A.2.2.2.1, below.
Project Bellerophon 211
Author: Justin M. Rhodes
Table A.2.2.2.1 Potential Signal Frequencies2
Signal Frequency (MHz) Current Use
15.005-15.010 space research
18.068-18.168 amateur satellite
30.005-30.010 satellite identification and space research
137.00-137.025 space operation
272-273 space operation
400.15-401.00 space operation
1427-1429 space operation, telemetry
1525-1530 space operation, mobile satellite
1755-1850 space operation
2025-2110 space operation
2200-2290 space operation
2290-2300 space operation
As the table above shows, there are many potential frequencies to choose from. To compare the
available frequencies, we prepared a link budget using data from Purdue University’s Cube-Sat
project and varied different parameters to see their effect on the signal strength’s final margin.
In order for the signal make it to its destination, the final margin must be greater than 3 decibels
(dB). The process of constructing a link budget and calculating the system’s final margin is
described in Section A.2.2.3.
The first signal frequency analysis we performed looked at changing the maximum path length
the signal would have to travel and the resulting link budget’s final margin. A representative set
of frequencies was run through this analysis to determine how far we could send the signal
before it would no longer be strong enough to read. Figure A.2.2.2.1, below, shows this process.
Project Bellerophon 212
Author: Justin M. Rhodes
Figure A.2.2.2.1: The final link margin as the path length and signal frequencies change.
(Justin Rhodes)
Figure A.2.2.2.1 shows that as the path length the signal travels increases, the final link margin
decreases. The figure also indicates that as the signal frequency increases, the maximum path
length of a usable signal decreases. Higher frequency signals are more susceptible to
interference and disruption as they pass through space. This decreases the distance they can
successfully travel, suggesting that we can achieve better distance performance by using a lower
frequency signal.
One of the properties of signal frequency is how fast the signal travels through space. High
frequency signals travel very fast, whereas low frequencies move much slower. Due this signal
velocity, a signal being transmitted from a moving vehicle experiences a phenomenon known as
the Doppler shift. To an observer on the ground, the signal will appear to be travelling at a
different speed. This effectively causes the signal to have a different frequency than intended.
The change in the frequency at a given velocity is calculated using Eq. A.2.2.2.1 on the
following page.
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 80000
5
10
15
20
25
Path Length (km)
Link
Mar
gin
(dB
)
401 MHz1.45 GHz2.2 GHz3.0 GHz3 dB Margin
Project Bellerophon 213
Author: Justin M. Rhodes
Δ (A.2.2.2.1)
where Δ is the observed Doppler shift in kHz, f is the signal’s original frequency in kHz, v is
the velocity of the vehicle in meters per second, and c is the speed of light in meters per second.
By varying the vehicle’s velocity, we predicted the Doppler shift for our representative set of
potential signal frequencies, as Fig. A.2.2.2.2, below, shows.
Figure A.2.2.2.2: The Doppler shift effect as the vehicle velocity and original signal frequency change.
(Justin Rhodes) In the early design phases of our launch vehicles, it was suggest that the vehicle may reach up to
over 18,000 meters per second during its ascent. As Fig. A.2.2.2.1 shows, at this velocity a high
frequency signal can shift by almost 180 kHz, whereas the 401 MHz signal barely changed 20
kHz. Even at the more moderate velocities, the Doppler shift can mutate the signal by a large
margin. This shift in the frequency will have to be accounted for in ground tracking hardware,
suggesting that a radio system running on a lower frequency may be easier to construct.
Radio communications equipment designed to operate at high frequencies are generally more
complex than their counterparts using lower frequencies. This complexity is caused by the need
to more carefully construct, transmit, and receive the signal to account for higher frequency
signals being more delicate. Factors such as the Doppler shift and the signal degradation as it
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 180000
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Vehicle Velocity (m/s)
Freq
uenc
y S
hift
(kH
z)
401 MHz1.45 GHz2.2 GHz3.0 GHz
Project Bellerophon 214
Author: Justin M. Rhodes
travels through space must be accounted for in the hardware. The cost of a high frequency radio
system is therefore higher than that of a low frequency radio ssystem.3 We are primarily
concerned with cost in the design of our launch vehicles, so we again find an advantage in using
a low frequency signal.
The rate at which the telecommunications system can transmit data from the vehicle to the
ground is also a function of the signal frequency. There are many ways in which a signal can be
changed such that data can be transmitted, and the exact method of data transmission is beyond
the scope of this project. The data rate plays a role in establishing the final link margin of the
system, and we can use it to evaluate the ability of different frequency signals to support the
amount of data the vehicle will need to transmit. Using the same iterative approach as the path
length analysis, the link margin at a range of data rates was calculated for a set of signal
frequencies, as shown in Fig. A.2.2.2.3, below.
Figure A.2.2.2.3: The change in final link margin as more bits per second are transmitted
across a set of different frequencies. (Justin Rhodes)
It can be seen that as more bits per second are pushed through the telecommunications link, the
link margin falls. At a set data rate, as the signal frequency rises, the link margin again falls.
This suggests two things. First, the lower the data rate, the stronger the link margin will be. The
Purdue Cube-Sat project is designed to support data rates up to 8x107 bps. If we can limit the
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
x 107
0
5
10
15
20
25
Data Rate (bps)
Link
Mar
gin
(dB
)
401 MHz1.45 GHz2.2 GHz3.0 GHz3 dB Margin
Project Bellerophon 215
Author: Justin M. Rhodes
amount of data our vehicle needs to transmit, we can greatly increase the strength of our
telecommunications system. Second, lower frequencies are able to sustain better link margins at
higher data rates than higher frequencies. While similar performance may be possible at
extremely lower data rates, as the data rate requirements increase, lower signal frequencies will
enable better signal margins for the system. We note that it is common for systems that require
high data rate capacity, such as communications satellites, to use higher frequency signals.
These systems must support different capacities than our vehicle will need, thus the logic that the
lower frequency signal will be more robust as the data rate increases holds true.
In each parameter of the telecommunications system’s performance, we find that the lower
frequency signals will better support our final link margin. From this analysis, we choose the
401 MHz frequency to support our vehicle telecommunications system. By selecting the signal
frequency, we can then begin a much more detailed link budget analysis and establish other
system design specifications.
References 1 Pozar, David. Microwave Engineering, Wiley, New York, NY, 2004. 2 "FCC Radio Spectrum Homepage." Federal Communications Commission [online], 2007. URL: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/spectrum [cited 26 February 2008]. 3 Filmer, David. “Link Budget Analysis,” AAE 450 Lecture, Department of Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering, Purdue University. 23 January, 2008.
Project Bellerophon 216
Author: Justin M. Rhodes
A.2.2.3 Link Budget Analysis In order for our vehicle to effectively communicate with a tracking station, a communications
“link” is established. This link is made between two radio systems: a transmitter on the launch
vehicle and a receiver on the tracking system. It should be noted that the tracking system can be
in the form of a ground station, an aircraft in flight, or a satellite in orbit – the link will be similar
across all of these systems. Within the link, a number of factors are analyzed in a linear format,
each contributing a signal strength component. Each component is calculated in decibels (dB), a
dimensionless unit related to the strength of the signal. By converting signal strengths to
decibels, these components can be added together to form the link budget for the vehicle. The
final result from the link budget is the link margin. The link margin describes the final signal
strength once the signal has completed its full path from the transmitter to the receiver. If this
signal strength falls below 3 dB, the signal is considered to be below half strength, making signal
reception and analysis unreliable. Our design has a final margin of 39.22 dB, well above the
3 dB limit. The process below outlines the methodology for constructing and evaluating a link
budget analysis for one of our launch vehicles.
The first step in establishing a link budget is to select a signal frequency. The frequency plays an
important role throughout the link budget. It is a major part in determining the physical system
design and evaluating items such as space and propagation signal loss. For our vehicles, a base
frequency of 401 MHz was selected, as described in section A.2.2.2 of this report.
Once the signal frequency has been selected, the transmitter power, in Watts, is put into the link
budget. The transmitter power helps establish the initial signal strength and is largely dictated by
the vehicle’s size and power limits. More power will allow for a more powerful signal, but that
power will require a larger battery to support it. This causes an undesirable increase in the mass
of the vehicle.
The vehicle itself is made up of physical systems that must be manufactured and assembled
together in the final design configuration. These physical systems will always have certain
imperfections inherent in the materials and construction. In order to account for the
imperfections in the radio system, a line loss factor is added into the link budget for both the
Project Bellerophon 217
Author: Justin M. Rhodes
transmitter and receiver. This is an estimated value based on historical data from other radio
communication systems. For our link budgets, an estimate of 1 dB was chosen to represent the
line loss on both the transmitter and receiver.1
The next step in the link budget process is to select the transmitter antenna’s beamwidth. Radio
antennas are essentially pieces of metal that radiate radio waves. The most basic antenna will
emit radio waves of equal strength in every direction. This is inefficient, as a lot of power is
wasted sending waves in directions that are not needed. A more efficient solution is to alter the
construction of the antenna such that the radiation pattern is no longer spherical but is instead a
series of lobes. Most of the signal strength will be focused in the main lobe, and the design will
attempt to minimize the size and strength of the subsequent side lobes. The antenna beamwidth
is a property of the main lobe. This allows for a stronger signal to be sent across a smaller area,
but it uses less power than its omnidirectional equivalent. By knowing the beamwidth, an
approximation of the maximum antenna pointing offset angle is also factored into the link
budget. This approximation allows the analysis to account for errors due to the antenna pointing
in a slightly different direction than intended. Based on other communications systems, we
chose a maximum offset of 27 degrees for our transmitting antenna.1
Knowing the antenna’s beamwidth and the signal frequency, the peak antenna gain for the
transmitter is calculated. The gain value represents the change in the signal radiation pattern
caused by selecting the desired beamwidth. The gain is recorded in decibels for addition in the
link budget and is calculated using Eq. A.2.2.3.1, below.
44.3 20log (A.2.2.3.1)
where G is the peak antenna gain in decibels and is the antenna beamwidth in degrees.
At this point, a feasibility check can be made by calculating the transmitter’s required antenna
diameter. The diameter is directly related to the signal frequency and the antenna beamwidth,
and is calculated from Eq. A.2.2.3.2, below.
(A.2.2.3.2)
Project Bellerophon 218
Author: Justin M. Rhodes
where D is the required diameter in meters, f is the signal frequency in GHz, and is the antenna
beamwidth in degrees.
The launch vehicle design constrained the antenna diameter to be within the diameter of the
second stage of the vehicle, but it is assumed that the antenna diameter calculated is that of a
dipole antenna. A dipole antenna is essentially two poles of metal stacked end to end. We
assumed that a more advanced antenna design, one that would have a capacity equivalent to that
of our dipole calculations, could be used instead, but the design of such a system is beyond the
scope of this report. For the purposes of signal coverage, we assumed that this more advanced
design would provide a nearly spherical coverage pattern.
If the antenna sizing is acceptable, the antenna pointing loss is then calculated. This calculation
represents the loss in signal strength due to the antenna pointing error and the chosen beamwidth,
as shown in Eq. A.2.2.3.3.
12 (A.2.2.3.3)
where is the antenna pointing loss in decibels, e is the antenna pointing offset in degrees, and
is the antenna beamwidth in degrees. The net gain of the antenna is then found by adding the
negative pointing loss to the peak antenna gain.
The transmitter system and its antenna are now complete. As another feasibility check, the
equivalent isentropic radiated power (EIRP) of the antenna can be found by adding the
transmitter power, the transmitter line loss, and the net antenna gain together. Calculating the
EIRP compares the antenna to the “ideal” antenna which radiates at equal power in every
direction. This also allows for comparison against other communications systems.
In order to reach the desired tracking station, the signal that the transmitter emits must now fly
through space to reach its intended receiver. Space is an unfriendly place for signals, filled with
pesky items such as radiation and an atmosphere filled with water molecules that do their best to
Project Bellerophon 219
Author: Justin M. Rhodes
degrade our poor little signals. In order to account for this in our link budget, a space loss value
is calculated using the empirical formula shown in Eq. A.2.2.3.4, below.
147.55 20 log 20log (A.2.2.3.4)
where is the signal loss due to space, S is the maximum signal path length in meters, and f is
the signal frequency in Hz. A more detailed path length analysis is needed to directly account
for signal refraction and bending through the atmosphere. For the purposes of this analysis, a
maximum path length of 5,000 kilometers was assumed.
In addition to the signal loss due to the signal’s trip through space, there is an additional loss due
to signal propagation and polarization as it travels toward its destination. In our analysis, we
estimated this to be -0.3 dB based off of other communications systems. We feel that this
assumption is reasonable, as the loss is typically low for low frequency signals such as the one
we selected. As the signal frequency gets above the 20 GHz range, the propagation and
polarization losses can become much more significant.1
If we are following the signal as it progresses through the communications link, it will now
arrive at the tracking station, entering the receiver as it is picked up through the receiving
antenna. The evaluation of the receiving antenna is very similar to that of the transmitting
antenna above, but now we are allowed the freedom of choosing the antenna size. This allows us
to balance weaknesses in the transmitter by making a more robust receiver. A large antenna
using more power can make up for a weaker signal strength coming from the vehicle.
By choosing the receiving antenna diameter, its peak gain can be calculated using the empirical
formula given in Eq. A.2.2.3.5, below.
Project Bellerophon 220
Author: Justin M. Rhodes
159.59 20 log 20 log 10log (A.2.2.3.5)
where is the peak receiving antenna gain in decibels, is the receiving antenna diameter in
meters, f is the signal frequency in Hz, and is the antenna gain towards the satellite. In this
case, is assumed to be 0.55, based on other communications systems.
The receiving antenna beamwidth can be found by solving Eq. A.2.2.3.2 for using the desired
receiving antenna diameter. Likewise, the receiving antenna pointing loss can be calculated
from Eq. A.2.2.3.3, assuming e to be the same as the transmitting antenna. The net gain for the
receiving antenna comes from the peak gain calculated in Eq. A.2.2.3.5 added to the negative
pointing loss, giving us a complete evaluation for the tracking station.
The signal has now travelled from its origin to its destination, but there are still several factors to
be considered before the final margin can be calculated. The system noise temperature is a
property of the atmosphere in which the antennas exist at a certain point in time. The exact
calculation of this property is beyond the scope of this report, and as such an estimate of
135 Kelvin was taken based off of other communications systems.1
One of the key properties of a communications system is how much data it can send across the
link in a set amount of time. Assuming a digital system, this data rate is measured in bits per
second. Our vehicles are designed to be as simple as possible, which allows us to severely limit
the required data rate for the communications link. Sources suggest that telemetry and tracking
data can easily be communicated on the order of one thousand bits per second.2 Allowing for
small amounts of additional data and the possibility of multiple streams of telemetry data being
sent, we selected a data rate of 9,600 bps.
Having the data rate, the energy per bit to noise power ratio ( ) can be calculated. This is a
normalized signal to noise ratio that will form the first main component of the final link margin.
The calculation of the ratio is given by Eq. A.2.2.3.6, below.
Project Bellerophon 221
Author: Justin M. Rhodes
228.6 10 log 10 log (A.2.2.3.6)
where is the energy per bit to noise power ratio, P is the transmitter power, Lf is the
transmitter line loss, Gt is the net transmitter gain, Lpr is the receiving antenna pointing loss, Ls is
the loss due to space, La is the propagation and polarization loss, Gr is the net receiver gain, T is
the system noise temperature in degrees Kelvin, and R is the data rate in bps. With the exception
of the system noise temperature and data rate, all values are in units of decibels. From this, the
carrier to noise density ratio can also be calculated for use in further analysis. This ratio comes
from Eq. A.2.2.3.7.
10 log (A.2.2.3.7)
where is the carrier to noise signal ratio, in decibel-Hertz, is the energy per bit to noise
power ratio in decibels, and R is the data rate in bits per second.
Using data from other communications systems, the required value is equal to 9.6 decibels.
For the final margin, this required value is subtracted from the found above. The last piece of
the margin to be considered is an additional implementation loss due to imperfections in the
system as a whole. Based on other systems, we allow a loss of 2 dB due to implementation
issues. The final margin of the system can now be concluded as the value from Eq. A.2.2.3.6
minus the required and the implementation loss. The link budget listed in Table A.2.2.3.1,
below, follows this procedure.
Project Bellerophon 222
Author: Justin M. Rhodes
Table A.2.2.3.1 Vehicle Link Budget Analysis
Item Symbol Value Units frequency f 401 MHz transmitter power P 5 Watts transmitter line loss Lf -1 dB-W antenna gain towards vehicle η 0.55 dB transmit antenna beamwidth θt 60 degrees peak transmit antenna gain Gpt 8.74 dB-i transmit antenna diameter Dt 0.87 m transmit antenna pointing offset et 27 degrees transmit antenna pointing loss Lpt -2.43 dB transmit antenna gain (net) Gt 6.31 dB-i equiv isotropic radiated power EIRP 12.30 dB-W propagation path length S 5,000 km space loss Ls -158.49 dB propagation & polarization loss La -0.30 dB receive antenna diameter Dr 10 m peak receive antenna gain (net) Grp 29.88 dB-i receive antenna beamwidth θr 5.24 deg receive antenna pointing error er 0.20 deg receive antenna pointing loss Lpr -0.02 dB receive antenna gain Gr 29.86 dB-i system noise temp Ts 135 K data rate R 9,600 bps Eb/No Eb/No 50.82 dB carrier to noise density ratio C/No 90.64 dB-Hz bit error rate eb 1x10-5 bps required Eb/No (Eb/No)required 9.60 dB implementation loss -2 dB final margin 39.22 dB
The link budget analysis above represents the final link budget for our launch vehicles. Each
vehicle will be carrying the same avionics package onboard, thus only one link budget is
required. The final margin of 39.22 dB is well above the absolute minimum of 3 dB required.
We feel this will allow the vehicle to survive a large margin of error potentially caused by using
cheaper components and less professional design methods.
Project Bellerophon 223
Author: Justin M. Rhodes
References 1. Filmer, David. “Link Budget Analysis,” AAE 450 Lecture, Department of Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering, Purdue University. 23 January, 2008. 2. Wertz, James R., and Wiley J. Larson, eds. Space Mission Analysis and Design, 3rd ed., Torrance, Kluwer Academic and Microcosm Press, 1999.
Project Bellerophon 224
Author: Timothy Lorenzana
A.2.2.4 Range Safety Considerations The range safety subsystem in our launch vehicle exists to ensure public safety during the launch
and flight of our vehicle. Public safety is defined as preventing damage or harm to people or
property. If the launch vehicle behaves erratically, fails to remain within its flight corridor, or
malfunctions in a way which prevents it from reaching orbit, then the range safety system can be
used to terminate the flight and recall the launch vehicle to Earth.
The term ‘Range Safety Officer’, or RSO, describes an individual who is responsible for the
remote destruction and consequent flight termination of the launch vehicle should it be deemed a
hazard1. To ensure public safety, the RSO and the personnel working under him/her may
evaluate the launch vehicle design as well as oversee the manufacturing and design process. The
RSO monitors both the launch vehicle and environmental conditions prior to launch for anything
that may necessitate the postponement of the launch. Finally, the RSO monitors and tracks the
launch vehicle during flight. The RSO’s job duration ends when the launch vehicle is destroyed
or reaches orbit2. In our case, we prefer the latter and define ‘orbit’ as an altitude of 300km, as
described in the mission statement.
To maintain public safety, the launch vehicle must fly within a predetermined flight corridor.
The flight corridor is an imaginary boundary that exists in a space above the launch range. The
flight corridor is implemented so that if the launch vehicle loses power during flight, the vehicle
will fall to the ground in an uninhabited area. However an engine failure outside the flight
corridor means it may fall on people or property. Therefore if the launch vehicle exits the flight
corridor, the RSO must destroy the launch vehicle to ensure public safety. Destruction of the
launch vehicle will be done remotely using explosive charges placed aboard the launch vehicle,
due to their high reliability1.
Project Bellerophon 225
Author: Timothy Lorenzana
The manner in which the launch vehicle is destroyed is highly circumstantial. In most cases, it is
common to terminate the launch vehicle’s propulsion system prior to destruction. Afterwards,
two real options are available. The first option is to detonate the explosive charges aboard the
launch vehicle while it is still in flight. Detonating the charges allows the debris to dissociate
through the air, lessening the force of impact. The second option is to leave the launch vehicle
intact. Not detonating the charges allows for a localized debris field2. Choosing either option is
the responsibility of the RSO and depends on the current situation. In a study presented in the
book “Streamlining Space Launch Range Safety”, it was shown that the malfunctioning rocket is
often destroyed from dynamic forces before ground personnel reacted.
Flight tracking of the launch vehicle is also monitored internally and flight termination may be
initiated automatically, without input from the RSO. The avionics of the launch vehicle will use
sensor data that pertains to positioning, such as the inertial measurement unit, to initiate flight
termination. The data is used by the flight computer to determine the vehicle’s current position in
relation to its intended flight path. If the computer determines that it is outside of the designated
flight corridor, then the computer will initiate termination automatically. Automated termination
is used as a compliment to the RSO and is not intended to replace him/her.
The Federal Aviation Regulations, or FARs, require that the launch vehicle has at least two
adequate and independent components relaying tracking information from the vehicle to the
ground. According to the FARs, it is acceptable to lose one of the two components needed for
tracking. However, if both components are lost, it is immediate cause to terminate the launch
vehicle. The launch vehicle must be destroyed even if there is no indication that it is straying
from the intended flight path. The launch vehicle is destroyed in this situation to ensure public
safety. It is understood that requiring two components is a form of redundancy used to ensure
public safety and mission success rather than for functionality. This point is used as a guideline
when designing a complete subsystem.
We found through research that companies such as Honeywell and L3 Communications
manufacture and sell complete range safety packages. Honeywell has a system called Ballistic
Project Bellerophon 226
Author: Timothy Lorenzana
Missile Range Safety Technology. They claim their system has everything required for a total
mobile range safety solution3. Likewise, L3 Communications has their version of a range safety
system. However, Honeywell’s and L3 Communications packages are too complicated and
considered out of scope for this project. Also, the costs of Honeywell’s and L3 Communications
systems significantly over expand the design budget and are disregarded.
Many components from our existing avionics package will be used to create a partial range
safety subsystem. Using existing components will save on complexity, weight, and cost. The
avionics flight computer (central processing unit) is incorporated into the design and used to
perform the task of autonomous vehicle termination. The subsystem will also use the existing
inertial measurement unit and sensor package. The inertial measurement unit is needed to relay
the tracking data to the flight computer so it can perform its assigned task. The existing sensor
package is needed to relay vehicle health data back to the RSO, which will aid in his task.
The range safety subsystem also requires components that are not in our existing avionics
package. These components include a transmitter, receiver, antenna, global positioning unit,
explosive charges, and associated safe/arm devices.
A separate transmitter and receiver can be combined into one unit called a transceiver. The
transceiver and antenna will be used as a dedicated relay for the destruct signal. It is also a good
idea for the transceiver to be encrypted. The encryption will protect the launch vehicle from
anyone other than the RSO implementing the destruct command. Aerocomm manufactures an
adequate transceiver called the AC4424. The AC4424 transceiver operates on an S-band
frequency, so the chosen antenna must also match this operating frequency in order to function.
Using the I-Fuze S-band antenna from Syntronics will be adequate. Finally, using a global
positioning unit, or GPS, will act as a second, redundant unit working with the inertial
measurement unit.
Price estimates for the explosives and associated safe/arm devices are not included in this report.
This was done because no research material was found on the subject and thus, an analysis could
not be performed.
Project Bellerophon 227
Author: Timothy Lorenzana
References 1“Range Safety.” Wikipedia [online], URLhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_safety [cited 25 March 2008]. 2Committee on Space Launch Safety (author), Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (author), National Research Council (author). Streamlining Space Launch Range Safety, National Academics Press, 2000. 3“Range Safety.” Honeywell Aerospace [online], URL: http://www.honeywell.com/sites/aero/Range-Safety.htm [cited 27 March 2008].
Project Bellerophon 228
Author: Nicole Bryan
A.2.2.5 Sensor Selection An important part of fulfilling system requirements and reducing the system failure rate includes
the implementation of a variety of different sensors. We have identified pressure sensors,
thermal sensors, force sensors, and flow sensors as being the four most common types. Each of
these senses and transmits data, allowing for an accurate assessment of the overall health of the
launch vehicle. While sensor prices and features are included in this section, control
mechanisms for managing the systems they are used on were determined to be beyond the scope
of this project.
The avionics group has decided to use non-space-rated sensors in the design of our launch
vehicle due to the analysis and information presented in Section A.2.2.1. Table A.2.2.5.1 shows
typical price values for these non-space-rated sensors.
Table A.2.2.5.1 Non-space-rated sensors 1 2 3 4
Sensor type Part number Manufacturer Unit price Thermal TS3-85 Cantherm $10.29 Pressure 2000260 Measurement Specialties Inc. $104.06 Flow 26616 Gems Sensors, Inc. $154.95 Force FSS1500NSR Honeywell Sensing and
Control $46.56
We have budgeted $789.65 to account for the sensors on our vehicle. Included in this estimate
are 2 non-space-rated sensors of each type (thermal, pressure, flow, and force) and a safety factor
of 1.25 to account for any inaccuracies.
For comparison, Table A.2.2.5.1 shows available pricing information for some typical space-
rated sensors.
Project Bellerophon 229
Author: Nicole Bryan
Table A.2.2.5.2 Space-rated sensors 3 Sensor type Part number Manufacturer Unit price Thermal S311-641/04 Honeywell Sensing and
Control $800
Pressure PPTR Honeywell Sensing and Control
$970
Honeywell Sensing and Control is currently one of the largest manufacturers of space-rated
avionics. Most other companies, however, note that they can manufacture a space-rated sensor if
given complete specifications for the part. Price estimates for specialty parts are not included in
this study due to the lack of attainable information.
References 1"Liquid Level and Interface Sensors." Fluid Components International LLC [online], 2006. URL: http://www.fluidcomponents.com/Aerospace/Products/LiquidLevel/A_ProdLiquid.asp [cited 26 February 2008]. 2"Sensors by Measurement Specialties." Measurement Specialties, Inc. [online], 2007. URL: http://www.meas-spec.com/myMeas/default/index.asp [cited 26 February 2008]. 3"Space Applications." Honeywell Aerospace [online], 2007. URL: http://www.honeywell.com/sites/aero/Space_Solutions.htm [cited 26 February 2008]. 4“Cantherm Thermal Sensoring Products.” Cantherm-Canadian Thermostats and Control Devices, Inc [online], 2008. URL: http://www.cantherm.com/products/control_thermostats/index.html [cited 26 March 2008].
Project Bellerophon 230
Author: Nicole Bryan
A.2.2.6 Inertial Measurement Unit Selection An inertial measurement unit (IMU) is the main component of an inertial guidance system used
in aerospace vehicles.3 An IMU works by sensing its own rate and direction of motion using a
combination of accelerometers and gyroscopes. These measurements can, then, allow a
guidance computer to track its position. In accordance with an IMU, many vehicles employ
additional systems to correct inaccuracies such as ‘drift’. Due to the short nature of the use of
our particular IMU and the goal for cost-effectiveness, we have chosen not to include any of
these corrective systems in our avionics configuration.
Inertial measurement units are available in many configurations and have a vast amount of
specifications associated with them. The main specifications we are concerned with are its
ability to handle high g-loading and have a sampling rate greater than 100Hz to comply with
requirements specified by the dynamics and control group. The Landmark 10 MEMS IMU,
manufactured by Gladiator Technologies, proved to meet these requirements, however, it is not
considered ‘space-rated’. It can handle approximately 12 g’s of acceleration and has a data
sampling rate of 200 Hz.2 This g-loading is sufficient because is higher than the requirement of
6gs provided by the trajectory group. Some of the critical features of this item are noted in Table
A.2.2.5.1.
Table A.2.2.5.1: LMRK10IMU-300-12 Data Sheet 2
Parameter Value Units Range (accel axis) 300 deg/sec Range (rate axis) 12 g's Bias (in run stability) 10 to 100 deg/hr Temperature Range Operating -40 to 85 deg C Non-operating -55 to 85 deg C Update rate 200 Hz Power Consumption 280 at 3.3 V MW Size 5 x 4.5 x 3 cm Weight 108 g
Project Bellerophon 231
Author: Nicole Bryan
According to an official price quote by Mike Abbott (Manager Sales & Quality Assurance,
Gladiator Technologies), this item has a unit price of $3,495. However, because Gladiator
Technologies recognizes Purdue University as an accredited institution, a discount is given that
reduces the unit price to $2,695. Including shipping costs, the price for a commercial IMU is
approximately $3,300.2
According to Honeywell’s website, the unit price for a space-rated IMU is approximately
$15,000-$20,000.1 These systems are often configured in a redundant manner for use in a launch
vehicle, making the total estimated price even higher. Due to the fact that the IMU from
Gladiator Technologies possesses the critical and necessary specifications that we require, we
have decided that it is acceptable to employ a commercial IMU in our design.
References 1"Space Applications." Honeywell Aerospace [online], 2007. URL: http://www.honeywell.com/sites/aero/Space_Solutions.htm [cited 26 February 2008]. 2 “Digital MEMS IMU.” Gladiator Technologies [online], 2007. URL: http://www.gladiatortechnologies.com/product_LANDMARK10_IMU.htm [cited 26 March 2008]. 3Wertz, James R., and Wiley J. Larson, eds. Space Mission Analysis and Design, 3rd ed., Torrance, Kluwer Academic and Microcosm Press, 1999.
Project Bellerophon 232
Author: Nicole Bryan
A.2.2.7 Central Processing Unit Selection A central processing unit (CPU) describes a class of logic machines that can execute computer
programs. The CPU is one of the most crucial components of any electrical system and, because
of its importance, typical launch vehicle CPUs are extremely expensive. For our application, the
CPU will function as our primary flight computer.
The RAD6000 radiation-hardened single board computer was manufactured by IBM for BAE
Systems and has been used onboard numerous NASA spacecraft. In addition to 77 satellites (as
of 2003), the processor is/was used in the Spirit and Opportunity Mars rovers, the Mars
Pathfinder lander, the Deep Space 1 probe, and the Genesis and Stardust sample return missions.
The computer has a maximum clock rate of 33 MHz and a processing speed of about 35 MIPS.
In addition to the CPU itself, the RAD6000 has 128 MB of ECC RAM. The flight boards in this
system have switchable clock rates of 2.5, 5, 10, or 20 MHz. The unit cost for a RAD6000
Central Processing Unit is approximately $250,0001. Because of the high cost of this system,
other options were considered.
Commercial CPUs are not radiation-hardened and do not undergo the extensive testing
procedures that the space-rated CPUs do. These CPUs are mass produced with a variety of
possible specifications and have a very large price range. Based upon the current cost of a
commercial computer, we are able to estimate this cost to be approximately $1,000. We
budgeted $10,000 for this system to account for redundant hardware, an extended software
development cycle, and radiation hardening. We think this system will be sufficient for use in
our launch vehicle due to the relatively low altitude of our flight and the minimal processing
power required.
References 1Scott, Tim. "RAD 6000 Processor." BAE Systems [online], 2008. URL: http://www.baesystems.com/ProductsServices/bae_prod_s2_rad6000.html [cited 26 February 2008].
Project Bellerophon 233
Author: Nicole Bryan
A.2.2.8 Power Budget Analysis To aid in battery sizing, a power budget analysis was performed using the silver-zinc battery
specifications obtained from BST Systems. Due to the lack of information regarding system
power usage on a launch vehicle, an estimation of 200 Watts was assumed. This value portrays
the typical power usage for a small satellite according to the Space Mission Analysis and Design
text [1] . Because our system is so simple and lacks many of the complicated systems aboard a
small satellite, we believe this estimate is reasonable. Other parameters in the analysis included
the vehicle flight time and balloon rise time. These were based off of the trajectory code’s
output for the nominal trajectory and are in agreement with the final trajectory created by D&C.
Next, we determined the breakdown of percent operating power based upon seven primary
categories that require electrical power. These included payload, propulsion, attitude control,
communications, command and data handling, thermal control, and power management1. By
multiplying the percent of operating power by the total system power of 200 Watts, we were able
to determine the approximate amount of power (in Watts), for each system. Dividing the
wattage of each system by the flight or rise time, we obtained the energy consumption in Watt-
hours. Using an energy density of a typical silver-zinc battery (approximately 110 Wh/kg)2, we
were able to divide the energy consumption by this value and obtain a mass, in kg, for a battery.
Included in our analysis is a safety factor of 1.5. This allowed for the analysis to be valid for a
total system power of 300 Watts. Tables A.2.2.8.1, A.2.2.8.2, and A.2.2.8.3 show the details of
this analysis for each payload.
Project Bellerophon 234
Author: Nicole Bryan
Table A.2.2.8.1 Power budget analysis for a 200g payload
Flight time Rise time Vehicle System % operating
power Power (W)
Energy consumption (Wh)
Mass (kg)
Power (W)
Energy consumption (Wh)
Mass (kg)
Payload 5 10 1.49 0.01 10 30 0.27 Propulsion 35 70 10.43 0.09 0 0 0.00 Attitude Control 15 30 4.47 0.04 0 0 0.00 Communications 10 20 2.98 0.03 20 60 0.55 Command and Data Handling
5 10 1.49 0.01 10 30 0.27
Thermal 5 10 1.49 0.01 0 0 0 Power Management
25 50 7.45 0.07 10 30 0.27
Total 100 200 29.80 0.27 50 150 1.36 Total with Safety Factor (1.5)
300 44.70 0.41 75 225 2.05
Assumptions: 200 g payload, 3 hour rise time, 536.4 second flight time. Total system power of 200 W, silver-zinc battery with energy density of 110 Wh/kg.
Table A.2.2.8.1 Power budget analysis for a 1kg payload
Flight time Rise time Vehicle System % operating
power Power (W)
Energy consumption (Wh)
Mass (kg)
Power (W)
Energy consumption (Wh)
Mass (kg)
Payload 5 10 1.43 0.01 10 30 0.27 Propulsion 35 70 10.02 0.09 0 0 0.00 Attitude Control 15 30 4.29 0.04 0 0 0.00 Communications 10 20 2.86 0.03 20 60 0.55 Command and Data Handling
5 10 1.43 0.01
10 30 0.27
Thermal 5 10 1.43 0.01 0 0 0 Power Management
25 50 7.16 0.07
10 30 0.27
Total 100 200 28.63 0.26 50 150 1.36 Total with Safety Factor (1.5)
300 42.94 0.39
75 225 2.05
Assumptions: 1 kg payload, 3 hour rise time, 515.3 second flight time. Total system power of 200 W, silver-zinc battery with energy density of 110 Wh/kg.
Project Bellerophon 235
Author: Nicole Bryan
Table A.2.2.8.3 Power budget analysis for a 5kg payload
Flight time Rise time Vehicle System % operating
power Power (W)
Energy consumption (Wh)
Mass (kg)
Power (W)
Energy consumption (Wh)
Mass (kg)
Payload 5 10 1.57 0.01 10 30 0.27 Propulsion 35 70 11.01 0.10 0 0 0.00 Attitude Control 15 30 4.72 0.04 0 0 0.00 Communications 10 20 3.15 0.03 20 60 0.55 Command and Data Handling
5 10 1.57 0.01
10 30 0.27
Thermal 5 10 1.57 0.01 0 0 0 Power Management
25 50 7.87 0.07
10 30 0.27
Total 100 200 31.46 0.29 50 150 1.36 Total with Safety Factor (1.5)
300 47.19 0.43
75 225 2.05
Assumptions: 5 kg payload, 3 hour rise time, 566.3 second flight time. Total system power of 200 W, silver-zinc battery with energy density of 110 Wh/kg.
The mass of the battery that supports the vehicle during flight is much smaller than the one used
during the balloon’s rise, as expected, due to the launch configuration. The validity of this
analysis is based on the fact that the smallest battery BST Systems makes for launch vehicles
weighs approximately 2kg2. Table A.2.2.8.4 shows a summary of the results.
Table A.2.2.8.4 Battery mass summary Payload size Battery mass for
flight time Battery mass for rise time
Units
200 g 0.27 1.36 kg 1 kg 0.26 1.36 kg 5 kg 0.29 1.36 kg
Note: These results are nominal and do not include a safety factor. References 1Wertz, James R., and Wiley J. Larson, eds. Space Mission Analysis and Design, 3rd ed., Torrance, Kluwer Academic and Microcosm Press, 1999. 2“BST Products.” BST Systems, Inc.[online], URL: http://www.bstsys.com [cited 25 March 2008].
Project Bellerophon 236
Author: Danielle Yaple
A.2.2.9 Battery Selection The specifications for the battery we are using to support the launch vehicle were chosen by
examining batteries that were historically used in space applications and then finding the one that
best fits our needs. Our first source of information was a NASA document titled, “Battery
Selection Practice for Aerospace Power Systems”. This document outlined features to consider
when picking a battery for an aerospace purpose. The best type of battery for use in our vehicle
is a primary battery. Primary batteries are not rechargeable and are used for short durations
similar to our mission. Secondary batteries are used more for long-term missions and satellites.
We limit the primary battery choices to three options: Lithium/Monoflouride (Li/CF),
Lithium/Thionyl Chloride (Li/SOCl2), and Silver/Zinc (Ag/Zn).
Table A.2.2.8.1 Primary Battery Selection Criteria
LiCF Li SOCl2 AgZn
Watt-Hours/Kilogram 130 185 110
Watt-Hours/Liter 160 240 200
Discharge Rate Low Moderate High
Failure Tolerance Low Low High
Cell Voltage 2.95V 3.1V 1.5V
Experience Level High Moderate High
Costs Low Low Low
As shown in the table above, the Silver/Zinc battery has the highest failure tolerance. The
Silver/Zinc batteries have been used on all the Apollo missions and the Delta Rockets. The
Lithium/Monoflouride and Silver/Zinc have similar energy densities (Watt-hour/kg and Watt-
hour/liter). The Lithium/Thionyl Chloride battery is a fairly new battery with limited experience.
Thus, we determined that the Lithium/Thionyl Chloride would have had too great a start up cost
and failure rate for just a slight gain in performance. Because Silver/Zinc batteries have a high
discharge rate, a high failure tolerance, high experience level, and relatively low cost, we chose
to use a Silver/Zinc battery as our primary power source.
Originally we placed one battery on the top stage of the launch vehicle. This design idea was
quickly discarded due to the fact that our battery outweighed the two smaller payloads.
Project Bellerophon 237
Author: Danielle Yaple
Currently, the design consists of two batteries, one that will be on the gondola to control the
ignition of the first stage and another one which will be located with the CPU and Telecom
systems in the skirt between the second and third stage. The additional cost of having a second
battery is outweighed by the cut in cost due to having less weight on the rocket.
A lot of considerations were taken into account during our battery selection process. However
we were not able to make select a specific battery. Due to unknown parameters in the engines
and other systems, the full power needed was only approximated and not exact. This is a
limitation in our analysis. Also, we only analyzed traditional space-capable batteries. Though
there are significant assumptions made in our avionic analysis, our avionics package is a good
basis for a small payload launch system.
References 1NASA SP-172, "Batteries for Space Power Systems," NASA 1968.
2 “Nickle-cadmium battery.” Wikipedia [online], URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel-cadmium_battery [cited 25 March 2008].
3 “Silver-oxide battery.” Wikipedia [online], URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver-oxide_battery [cited 25 March 2008].
4 “Lithium battery.” Wikipedia [online], URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_battery [cited 25 March 2008].
5Ritchie, A.G. Military Applications of Reserve Batteries, Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 2006.
6 “Silver-sinc battery designs principal characteristics.” Eaglepitcher Technologies, Inc. [online], URL: http://www.eaglepicher.com/NR/rdonlyres/E1F7CBAC-733A-45DC-A2E5-0604EF16737A/0/AgZnPrincipalDesign.pdf [cited 25 March 2008].
7 “BST Products.” BST Systems, Inc.[online], URL: http://www.bstsys.com [cited 25 March 2008]. 8 “Saft lithium battery cells.” Rathbone Energy [online], URL: http://www.rathboneenergy.com/batteries/battery_cells_by_mfg/saft/saft_lithium_cells.htm [cited 25 March 2008].
Project Bellerophon 238
Author: Justin M. Rhodes
A.2.2.10 Power Distribution We designed the power distribution system for our launch vehicles based off of information
taken from the Vanguard family of launch vehicles. Our design uses wiring that matches the
MIL-W-16878 specification, which was used on the Vanguard vehicles and is still used in
modern aerospace manufacturing. The power distribution accounts for 2 kg in the first stage, 2
kg in the second stage, and 1 kg in the third stage of the launch vehicles. This mass distribution
is calculated using 10-gage and 22-gage wiring. These two wire sizes were chosen to reflect
average sizes used in the Vanguard vehicles.1 Using cost data from a modern manufacturer, we
budgeted $500 for the power distribution materials.2 Installation costs were budgeted at $7,500
using the average salary of an aviation electrician over a four week time period.3
One third of the wiring is assumed to be the heavier 10-gage wiring. This is used to transport
power from the main battery located in the second stage to devices in the first and third stages.
The rest of the wiring is made up of 22-gage material, reflecting smaller power channels to
individual devices after the bulk of the power has been delivered via the 10-gage wiring. We use
a simplified power distribution system in this analysis as an exact design requires detailed
information about every electronic component in the vehicle, such as the sensor packages,
ignition systems, and fuel supply requirements. Other detailed components of a power
distribution system include power relays and timers, switches, and electrical connectors. These
are neglected in our high level analysis.
The exact power distribution system is unique to each launch vehicle. Due to the similarities in
our three launch vehicles, we have applied the same approximate design across all of the designs.
Project Bellerophon 239
Author: Justin M. Rhodes
References 1. Klewans, B., “The Vanguard Satellite Launching Vehicle”, The Martin Company, Engineering Report Number 11022, Baltimore, MD, April 1960. 2. TexWire Wire and Cable, personal communication, 04 March, 2008. 3. "Average Aircraft Electrician Salary." Salary.com [online], Jan. 2008. URL: http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_compresult_national_SC16000294.html [cited 21 February 2008].
Project Bellerophon 240
Author: Timothy Lorenzana
A.2.2.11 Tracking Considerations We used the ground tracking code for this analysis. The code provides an understanding of our
signal projection capabilities for our telecommunications system design. The tracking code,
AAE450_Ground_Tracking.m, works by using trajectory data and a simplified signal theory in
order to calculate a ground signal path and coverage area for the system. The signal analysis will
tell us where the receiving ground stations need to be located in order to pick up the signal that is
being broadcast from the launch vehicle.
For the simplified signal theory we make a few initial assumptions. First, we assume that the
Earth is spherical in shape. Second, we assume that the area where the signal intercepts the Earth
is circular. Third, we neglect any antenna mounting errors or design issues. Fourth, we neglect
any atmospheric anomalies which may refract the signal.
Figure A.2.2.11.1 shows the propagation of a directional and omnidirectional antenna. Our
telecommunications system design uses a cluster of directional antennas. However, as stated in
section A.2.2.3 of this report, we can assume the cluster of directional antennas to propagate as
an omnidirectional antenna. Therefore, we will be using the omnidirectional antenna to perform
the ground tracking analysis. Finally, we assume the signal propagation from an omnidirectional
antenna to be spherical in shape. Figure A.2.2.11.2 defines the signal geometry that we use to
perform our analysis.
Project Bellerophon 241
Author: Timothy Lorenzana
Figure A.2.2.11.1: Antenna assumptions.
(Timothy Lorenzana)
Figure A.2.2.11.2: Signal cone geometry.
(Timothy Lorenzana)
Project Bellerophon 242
Author: Timothy Lorenzana
After defining the signal geometry, we derive Eq. (A.2.2.11.1) through Eq. (A.2.2.11.7) to model
the propagation.
Eq. (A.2.2.11.1) defines the variable θ in Fig. A.2.2.11.2
( )Sh1cos−=θ (A.2.2.11.1)
where h is the altitude of the launch vehicle and S is a line from the origin of the signal to the
point of contact where the maximum path length of the signal touches the Earth. The path length
is a constant and was determined from the link budget analysis in section A.2.2.3 of this report.
Eq. (A.2.2.11.2) defines the radius of the circle where the signal touches the Earth
( )θsinSr = (A.2.2.11.2)
where r is the radius of the circle where the signal touches the Earth, and S is a line from the
origin of the signal to the point of contact where the maximum path length of the signal touches
the Earth.
Combining Eqs. (A.2.2.11.1) and (A.2.2.11.2), we get Eq. (A.2.2.11.3), defined below
( )( )ShSr 1cossin −= (A.2.2.11.3)
where r is the radius of the circle where the signal touches the Earth, S is a line from the origin of
the signal to the point of contact where the maximum path length of the signal touches the Earth,
and h is the altitude of the launch.
Project Bellerophon 243
Author: Timothy Lorenzana
In order to plot the signal propagation where the signal intercepts the Earth, a conversion
constant is needed. The conversion constant converts between kilometers and degrees. the
conversion constant is calculated using Eq. (A.2.2.11.4) defined below
3602 EarthR
cπ
= (A.2.2.11.4)
where c is the conversion constant in kilometers per degree, and REarth is the radius of the Earth
in kilometers.
The longitude coordinate of the signal position is calculated using Eq. (A.2.2.11.5) below
crx /)cos(γ= (A.2.2.11.5)
where x is the longitude coordinate in degrees, r is the signal coverage radius in kilometers, γ is a
vector which ranges from 0 to 360 degrees, and c is the conversion constant in kilometers per
degree.
The latitude coordinate of the signal position is calculated using Eq. (A.2.2.11.6) below
cry /)sin(θ= (A.2.2.11.6)
where y is the latitude coordinate in degrees, r is the signal coverage radius in kilometers, γ is a
vector which ranges from 0 to 360 degrees, and c is the conversion constant in kilometers per
degree.
The longitude and latitude coordinates of the signal position are then added to the ground track
longitude and latitude coordinates. Adding the two coordinates together results in a signal path
that will change as the launch vehicle ascends. The ground distance covered during vehicle
ascent is then calculated by subtracting the position when the vehicle reaches orbit from the
position when the vehicle is released from the balloon.
Project Bellerophon 244
Author: Timothy Lorenzana
Fig. A.2.2.11.3 below defines the geometry used to approximate the signal coverage area.
Figure A.2.2.11.3: Ground track signal geometry.
(Timothy Lorenzana)
The total signal coverage area is approximated using a combination of two half circles, two
rectangles, and two triangles as stated in Eq. (A.2.2.11.7) below.
( )⎥⎦⎤
⎢⎣⎡ −+++= rRdrdrRA2122
2222 ππ (A.2.2.11.7)
where A is the approximated signal coverage area in square kilometers; R is the initial signal
coverage radius in kilometers; r is the final signal coverage radius in kilometers; and d is the sum
of the balloon drift distance and the ground distance covered, in kilometers.
The ground track for the 200g payload launch vehicle is shown in Fig. A.2.2.11.4. A ground
track for the 1kg payload launch vehicle is shown in Fig. A.2.2.11.5. A ground track for the 5kg
payload launch vehicle is shown in Fig. A.2.2.11.6.
Project Bellerophon 245
Author: Timothy Lorenzana
Figure A.2.2.11.4: Track from balloon release to orbit for 200g payload launch vehicle.
(Timothy Lorenzana)
Figure A.2.2.11.5: Track from balloon release to orbit for 1kg payload launch vehicle.
(Timothy Lorenzana)
Project Bellerophon 246
Author: Timothy Lorenzana
Fig. A.2.2.11.6: Track from balloon release to orbit for 5kg payload launch vehicle.
(Timothy Lorenzana)
The blue outline in Fig. A.2.2.11.4, Fig. A.2.2.11.5, and Fig. A.2.2.11.6 represents the North, the
South, and the Central Americas. The red line in Fig. A.2.2.11.4, Fig. A.2.2.11.5, and Fig.
A.2.2.11.6 represents the ground track from balloon release until the launch vehicle reaches
orbit. The distance between the Florida coast (blue) until the start of the launch vehicle ground
track (red) in Fig. A.2.2.11.4, Fig. A.2.2.11.5, and Fig. A.2.2.11.6 represents the drift distance
covered by the balloon. The green circles in Fig. A.2.2.11.4, Fig. A.2.2.11.5, and Fig. A.2.2.11.6
represent the signal coverage areas at arbitrary instances in time. Since the signal coverage areas
are quite large and overlap extensively, the final coverage area for each launch vehicle is
approximated as the initial coverage area.
In Fig. A.2.2.11.4, Fig. A.2.2.11.5, and Fig. A.2.2.11.6, the final signal coverage area contains
the entire ground track. This means that only one ground station is necessary to cover the entire
ascent of the launch vehicle. Existing ground tracking station locations were researched.
However, due to time constraints, no optimization concerning the ground station location was
performed. In order to receive transmissions from the vehicle during ascent, any location within
the initial green circle is assumed to an adequate ground station location. Costs concerning the
tracking station are discussed in section A.9.2.1 of this report.
Project Bellerophon 247
Author: Timothy Lorenzana
Table A.2.2.11.1 below gives the balloon drift distance from ground release until each launch
vehicle separates from the balloon.
Table A.2.2.11.1 Balloon Drift Distance
Launch Vehicle Payload Drift Distance Units 200 g 120.74 km 1 kg 120.45 km 5 kg 121.74 km
Balloon drift is discussed in section A.4.2.1.2.2 of this report.
Table A.2.2.11.2 below gives the ground distance covered for each of the launch vehicles during
ascent.
Table A.2.2.11.2 Ground Distance Covered
Launch Vehicle Ground Distance Units 200 g 236.10 km 1 kg 355.16 km 5 kg 215.12 km
The 1kg payload launch vehicle takes longer to reach orbit, thus the ground distance covered is larger than its counterparts.
Table A.2.2.11.3 below gives the total signal coverage area for each of the launch vehicles.
Table A.2.2.11.3 Signal Coverage Area
Launch Vehicle Signal Area Units 200 g 1.6036e+008 km2 1 kg 1.6155e+008 km2 5 kg 1.6016e+008 km2
The 1kg payload launch vehicle takes longer to reach orbit, thus the signal coverage area is larger than its counterparts.
Project Bellerophon 248
Author: Nicole Bryan
A.2.3 Avionics Closing Comments Historically, the cost for a complete and sophisticated avionics package is well over $1,000,000.
Throughout the vehicle design process, the goal of the avionics group was to determine the
differences in available systems and to eliminate redundant or unnecessary components. We
accomplished this goal by employing commercial components into our final launch vehicle
design.
In a subsequent design, the team members should start with a broad knowledge of electrical
systems. The avionics team spent a good amount of time learning the most basic concepts of
power systems and this left less time for design. The group should further investigate the power
budget to come up with a better estimated value for the total system power, or find a way to
derive it themselves. The basic concept and structure for this analysis is provided in section
A.2.2.8. Also, the team should investigate the electrical systems behind engine ignition and
launch vehicle separation, as these systems were not included in our analysis due to their
complicated nature. The material presented in this report provides a basic overview of the
avionics components or systems we have chosen to employ in our launch vehicle design. The
main goal of a subsequent vehicle design would be to expand on and strengthen each of these
sections to the best of their knowledge.
Project Bellerophon 249
Compiled By: Justin M. Rhodes
A.2.4 User’s Guide to Running the Avionics Code Compiled by Justin Rhodes The avionics code collection consists primarily of small scripts designed to analyze and visualize different aspects of the telecommunications systems onboard the launch vehicle. Due to the nature of the topic, much of our analysis was performed at a high level, leaving fewer direct calculations than other areas of the project. Below you will find our efforts to quantify and support our chosen design. Index fnc_link_budget.m J. Rhodes page 2 margin_vs_distance.m J. Rhodes page 4 bps_eval.m J. Rhodes page 6 doppler_shift.m J. Rhodes page 8 AAE450_Ground_Tracking.m T. Lorenzana page 9
Project Bellerophon 250
Compiled By: Justin M. Rhodes
User’s Guide for fnc_link_budget.m Written by Justin M. Rhodes
Revision 1.0 – 30 January 2008 Description: The function fnc_link_budget.m accepts a series of input parameters that describe the basic design of a telecommunications system. These inputs are then processed through the link budget calculations to determine the link budget margin and several other system design parameters. Assumptions: The following variables were assumed to have certain values. An explanation of these assumed values can be found Section A.2.2.3.
Variable Name Description Assumed Value
transmit_line_loss Signal line loss on the transmitted [dB] -1
propagation_polarization_lossSignal loss caused by propagation and polarization effects [dB]
-0.3
receive_pointing_offset Pointing error on the receiving antenna [degrees] 0.2
system_noise_temp Noise temperature level of the path through which the signal travels [Kelvin]
135
required_signal_to_noise Required level of signal to noise ratio for the system [dB] 9.6
implementation_loss Signal loss due to issues resulting from putting the whole system together [dB]
-1
Call line: The function can be called with the following line of code: [margin, transmit_diameter, eirp, receive_beamwidth] = fnc_link_budget(frequency, transmit_power, transmit_beamwidth, transmit_pointing_offset, path_length, receive_diameter, data_rate)
Project Bellerophon 251
Compiled By: Justin M. Rhodes
Inputs: All of the variables that are passed into the function are described below: Variable Name Description frequency Signal frequency [GHz] transmit_power Power supplied to the transmitter [Watts]
transmit_beamwidth Beamwidth angle of the transmitting antenna’s main lobe. This is a property of the antenna design. [degrees]
transmit_pointing_offset Pointing error in the transmitting antenna [degrees]
path_length Maximum path length the signal is required to travel [km]
receive_diameter Diameter of the receiving antenna, assuming a dipole antenna [m]
data_rate Required data rate across the telecom link [bps] Outputs: All of the variables that returned by the function are described below: Variable Name Description margin Final signal link margin [dB]
transmit_diameter Diameter of the transmitting antenna to support the design, for a dipole antenna [m]
eirp Equivalent isotropically radiated power – the amount of power an isotropic antenna would have to emit for this design. Design comparison tool. [dB-Watts]
receive_beamwidth Pointing error in the transmitting antenna [degrees]
Project Bellerophon 252
Compiled By: Justin M. Rhodes
User’s Guide for margin_vs_distance.m Written by Justin M. Rhodes
Revision 1.0 – 30 January 2008 Description: The script margin_vs_distance.m calculates the final signal margin for a range of maximum path lengths. Multiple signal frequencies can be evaluated at once. The resulting data is then plotted for visual analysis. Uses: This script calls the following function: fnc_link_budget.m User Inputs: All of the variables that are initially set in the script are described below: Variable Name Description transmit_power Power supplied to the transmitter [Watts]
transmit_beamwidth Beamwidth angle of the transmitting antenna’s main lobe. This is a property of the antenna design. [degrees]
transmit_pointing_offset Pointing error in the transmitting antenna [degrees]
receive_diameter Diameter of the receiving antenna, assuming a dipole antenna [m]
data_rate Required data rate across the telecom link [bps]
max_path Maximum path length the signal is required to travel. Path lengths from 0 to max_path are evaluated. [km]
Project Bellerophon 253
Compiled By: Justin M. Rhodes
Sample Output: This script produces a figure in the following format:
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
0
5
10
15
20
25
Path Length (km)
Link
Mar
gin
(dB
)
401 MHz1.45 GHz2.2 GHz3.0 GHz3 dB Margin
Project Bellerophon 254
Compiled By: Justin M. Rhodes
User’s Guide for bps_eval.m Written by Justin M. Rhodes
Revision 1.0 – 30 January 2008 Description: The script bps_eval.m calculates the final signal margin for a range of required data rates. Multiple signal frequencies can be evaluated at once. The resulting data is then plotted for visual analysis. Uses: This script calls the following function: fnc_link_budget.m User Inputs: All of the variables that are initially set in the script are described below: Variable Name Description transmit_power Power supplied to the transmitter [Watts]
transmit_beamwidth Beamwidth angle of the transmitting antenna’s main lobe. This is a property of the antenna design. [degrees]
transmit_pointing_offset Pointing error in the transmitting antenna [degrees]
receive_diameter Diameter of the receiving antenna, assuming a dipole antenna [m]
path_length Maximum path length the signal is required to travel [km]
max_datarate Required data rate across the telecom link. Values from 0 to max_datarate are evaluated. [bps]
Project Bellerophon 255
Compiled By: Justin M. Rhodes
Sample Output: This script produces a figure in the following format:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
x 107
0
5
10
15
20
25
Data Rate (bps)
Link
Mar
gin
(dB
)
401 MHz1.45 GHz2.2 GHz3.0 GHz3 dB Margin
Project Bellerophon 256
Compiled By: Justin M. Rhodes
User’s Guide for doppler_shift.m Written by Justin M. Rhodes
Revision 1.0 – 30 January 2008 Description: This script doppler_shift.m calculates Doppler shift in kHz at a given vehicle velocity. Multiple signal frequencies can be evaluated at once. The resulting data is then plotted for visual analysis. User Inputs: All of the variables that are initially set in the script are described below:
Variable Name Description
delta_v Row array of velocity values to evaluate in the form of [startvalue:increment:endvalue]. [m/s]
frequency Row array of signal frequencies to evaluate. [MHz] Sample Output: This script produces a figure in the following format:
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 180000
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Vehicle Velocity (m/s)
Freq
uenc
y S
hift
(kH
z)
401 MHz1.45 GHz2.2 GHz3.0 GHz
Project Bellerophon 257
Compiled By: Justin M. Rhodes
User’s Guide for AAE450_Ground_Tracking.m Written by Timothy Lorenzana
Revision 9 - 27 March 2008 Description: The purpose of this code is to have a graphical representation of the signal projection from the launch vehicle to the ground. The computational computer language used was MATLAB. The code works by using nominal trajectory data and simplified signal theory, as discussed in section A.2.2.10 of this report, in order to calculate a ground signal path and coverage area. Assumptions: The code assumes the balloon drifts in only one direction, to the East, of its initial launch point. The code also assumes the Earth only rotates about its North Celestial Pole. Input Section: The code has two input sections. The first input section is titled “User Defined Inputs”. The only input here is the maximum path length for the telecommunications system being used. The second input is a load file titled “ephemeris.text”. This file is an output of the trajectory code, and its contents can be found in trajectory portion of the appendix. The inputs used in this code are listed below. Variable Name Description path_l Maximum antenna path length [km] t = ephemeris(:,1) Time vector [seconds] x = ephemeris(:,2) Position vector in the Cartesian coordinate system [meters] y = ephemeris(:,3) Position vector in the Cartesian coordinate system [meters] z = ephemeris(:,4) Position vector in the Cartesian coordinate system [meters]
Output Section: The code outputs a figure with the Earth plotted in blue, the ground track plotted in red, and the signal coverage area plotted in green. The code also outputs the total distance covered by the ground track, and an approximate signal coverage area.
Project Bellerophon 258
Compiled By: Justin M. Rhodes
The variables given as outputs of this code are given in the table below.
Variable Name Description ground_track Total ground distance covered during ascent [km] signal_area Approximate signal coverage area [km2]
Sample Output: This code produces a figure in the following format: