CubeSat Constellation Mission Design

AE 4357 Team L Nov 2015 Georgia Institute of Technology
Contents
1
Executive Summary
Mission Objectives & Impact
Science Traceability Matrix and Requirements Flowdown
Performance Requirements
Program Requirements
10
Mission Implementation
11
Payload System
16
Flight System
20
System Engineering
29
10 Risk Identification & Mitigation
37
11 Management, Schedule & Cost
40
12 References
47
13 Nomenclature
49
List of Figures
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
GT SWARM Mission Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Objectives shared by NEO stakeholders. . . . . . . . . . . .
GT SWARM Science Traceability Matrix . . . . . . . . . . .
GT SWARM Science Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
GT SWARM Instrument Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . .
GT SWARM Mission Operations Requirements . . . . . .
GT SWARM Launch Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
GT SWARM Cost Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
GT SWARM Concept of Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Didymoon Mass Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
STK Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mission Life Cycle Functional Diagram . . . . . . . . . . .
Nanocamera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Thermal Imager Picture and Specifications . . . . . . . . .
IR Spectrometer material composition band . . . . . . . . .
NASA Goddard Mini Ion-Neutron Mass Spectrometer . .
Configuration for CubeSat Architecture trade study . . . .
Pugh Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Imager and Diver Functional Diagram with both payloads
SWARM Imager Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
6
8
9
9
10
10
10
11
14
15
17
18
19
20
20
21
21
22
22

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
SWARM Imager Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

EPS Functional Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SWARM Thermal Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SWARM Telecommunications Subsystem Diagram . . . . . . .
SWARM C&DH Subsystem Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mass and Volume Budgets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Power Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SWARM Power Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SWARM Solar Cell Output As A Function of Temperature [18]
Telecommunications Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
V Budgets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Likelihood Consequence Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Quantitative Risk Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Organizational Chart for Group L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cost Estimate Based on Small Satellite Cost Model . . . . . . .
Quick Cost Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Historical Cost Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SWARM Component Level Breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Grass Roots Engineer Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
23
24
25
27
28
29
31
32
32
34
36
38
39
40
43
44
45
46
47
Pass/Fail Criteria for SWARM Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Constraints prescribed by ESA on the CubeSat Opportunity Payload Intersatellite Network Sensors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AIDA Mission Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Near-Earth Asteroids similar to SWARMs target asteroid Didymoon . . . . . . . . . . . .
Different approximated circular orbital parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Average access times for the Imager CubeSat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Thermal Imager Picture and Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SWARM Thermal Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Specifications for the CubeSatShop Nanosatellite Micropropulsion System . . . . . . . .
Miniature Integrated Star Tracker (MIST) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Transceiver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Technology Readiness Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Thermal Budget Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Thermal budget for Cold Case (500 m, = 0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Thermal budget for Hot Case (500 m, = 40) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Data volume for a unit of output data from each of SWARMs science payloads. . . . . .
SWARM Overall Development Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
List of Tables
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1.
8
13
14
15
16
19
21
24
26
26
27
29
35
36
36
37
42
Executive Summary
urrently, there are several existing theories for the origins of Earths water, how chemical
elements are disseminated through space, and the origin of the planetary bodies of the Solar
System. To investigate these problems and to narrow down on specific theories of water origin
or particle disbursement, SWARM will study the formation of astronomical bodies by analyzing the

dissemination of chemical elements after an asteroid impact. In this proposed mission, the impact
crater will be produced when the NASA Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) spacecraft impacts
the Didymoon asteroid at a very large velocity. SWARM (Solar System Water and Rock Measurements)
will complement the European Space Agencys (ESA) Asteroid Impact Mission (AIM) by performing
high-resolution observations of an impact event on the Didymos asteroid systems secondary body to
understand how astronomical bodies form. Additionally, the elemental and isotopic composition of
the secondary body will be analyzed to identify the origin of the binary system and its constitutive
material. The SWARM mission formation is composed of two 3U CubeSats (Diver and Imager). The
Diver CubeSat will analyze the elemental composition of the surface and subsurface material of the
Didymoon asteroid by collecting samples from the impact ejecta plume. The Imager CubeSat will
perform high-resolution thermal and optical observations of the impact event. The proposed AIM,
DART, and SWARM mission will be the first space mission perform high-velocity impact dynamics
modeling using in-situ operations. Moreover, this mission will support and extend existing models of
planetary impact and high kinetic energy collisions with the experimental data from AIM.
In an Op-Ed Space News article from April 22, 2015, the Chief Technology Officer of Terminal
Velocity Aerospace and former NASA Chief Technologist Dr. Robert Braun said, a compelling quest
could be defined focused on the diversity and distribution of liquid resources across the solar system.
[1] Moreover, Andres Galvez, the European Space Agency (ESA) General Studies Program Manager,
stated the following during a press conference about the future of ESAs projects: It is increasingly
clear, directly or indirectly, these [solar system formation] processes might well have played a crucial
role in the development of life on our planet. On one side, through massive collisions and mass
extinctions, on the other by a mass input of the building blocks of life, possibly including Earths
water. As affirmed through both assessments, there exists a critical need for a mission to continue to
isolate the origin of Earths large amounts of water as well as its rock-like and potentially non-chondritic
structure (Wahlund 2015). Although several missions have gathered data to provide evidence for these
points of origin, there is still no consensus primarily because there are not enough in situ measurements
on Near Earth Objects (NEO) to fully support any given hypothesis.
In addition, the theories regarding the origins of the Solar System are still unconfirmed. Junko
Kominami, a professor of Astronomy at the Tokyo Institute of Technology, notes that there are several
hypotheses for the origins of the terrestrial planets, but that no hypothesis is advantageous over another.
However, Kominami believes that the process of colliding and combining minor asteroids is critical
to understanding of the formation of planets [2]. Near Earth asteroids are the result of billions of
years of asteroid collisions. The encounters of these asteroids with other large celestial bodies will
cause imprints into their structures and cause other pieces to break. Currently, there have not been
any space experiments or studies focused on directly observing an asteroid collision event. As a result,
this mission will provide an opportunity to directly observe a collision using ground based and in situ
observations. Observations on the internal structural properties and orbital dynamics will be made
before and after the impact to determine the impacts effect on the astronomical body.
SWARMs solution is to use a optical nanocamera, thermal imager, and mass spectrometer to
characterize the secondary body of the asteroid system. These payload items will be used on two
3U CubeSats that will be transported to the asteroid system from another mothership-like satellite
called AIM. CubeSats are the best option for studying binary asteroid systems for several reasons. First,
CubeSats are low cost. Because of the small amount of mass aboard each CubeSat, launch costs and
overall cost of the satellites will be minimized. Secondly, the mission lifetime is around 3 months.
As a result, building a large satellite would be unnecessary in terms of cost and size since larger
satellites are typically used for missions that will last a year or more. Additionally, CubeSats introduce
redundancy to the proposed mission. Because the AIM and DART mission is so complex, the CubeSats
will serve as both redundant observers of the event and contributing science additions to the mission.
Finally, CubeSats are a key future component of multiple different space missions. Because of this,

it is important to begin testing CubeSat devices and technology in deep space. CubeSats require the
technical testing to ensure that in the future, CubeSats will have the ability to survive traveling further
distances from Earths orbit without suffering from large amounts of radiation damage. As a result,
this mission will feature CubeSats that will demonstrate deep-space optical communication technology
and create an inter-satellite communication network with CubeSats and a lander. As the first mission
of its kind, this mission represents where the future of space technology is heading.
SWARM will cost approximately $5 million including cost of the CubeSats, integration, assembly,
test, program management, launch support, operations support, and ground equipment. This is based
on 4 different cost comparisons: historical cost model, small satellite cost model, Quick cost model,
and a grass roots cost model. The grass roots model was the most influential model because the other
models were poor approximations of this mission. There are no other missions similar to this mission
that a historical cost model would represent an accurate representation of the overall cost. Additionally,
the small satellite cost model is more representative of larger satellites near 100 kg or more. Also, the
quick cost model is a general model that isnt specific to a particular subset of missions. As a result,
the grass roots model presents the most accurate estimate although the other models are taken into
account to provide other cost estimates. In total, $5 million for a CubeSat mission with a high scientific
mission value is relatively inexpensive compared with other missions of similar scientific significance.
This mission is essential now because of the recent water discovery on Mars. In September 2015,
NASA released that their team, in conjunction with Dr. Lujendra Ojha of Georgia Tech, discovered
water on Mars. Specifically, after extracting spectral information from pixels of the CRISM satellites
instrument data, Ojha and his team determined that the salts: magnesium perchlorate, magnesium
chlorate, and sodium perchlorate, had water molecules interspersed in their crystal structures. [5]
In other words, there is strong evidence that the salt particles lined along the steep slopes of Mars
mountainous structures were deposited by flowing water. As a result of this discovery, there is a
large push to discover the origins of water on Earth and see if other celestial bodies carry water. This
mission can not only help isolate where the origin of Earths water, but also whether asteroids were
once capable of providing the same capabilities as Mars. Additionally, one of the top science missions
from the National Academy of Science is to discover the origins of the Solar system. Therefore, one of
the top grants in the United States is geared towards isolating data that can provide more accurate
models for the Solar System.
The return of this mission consists of two major items. First, SWARMs data about the structural
and kinetic dynamics of the binary asteroid system will either confirm or deny several different models
that are proposed for the origin of the Solar System. Second, the elemental data about Didymoon will
isolate whether asteroids of this class can transport water-like particles depending on the collisions of
the asteroids, its spin, its rotational evolution, and its evolutionary coupling. Both of these returns will
prepare future CubeSat missions by specifying which models should be studied further to confirm
their accuracy. For example, if nearby binary asteroid systems dont have properties that are capable of
transporting water, then there is no further reason to explore these systems for these particles.[6]
2.
2.1
Mission Objectives & Impact
Science Objectives
SO1: The impact response of a small body as a function of impact conditions and physical parameters is crucial to understanding the role of collisions in the history of the Solar System.
Dr. Gene Shoemaker, one of the founders of the field of planetary science, proved that asteroid impact
is an important process in planetary formation [8]. This mission objects to further study the role
of asteroidal impact on the formation of astronomical bodies by using collisional data from DARTs

impact event to infer the Solar Systems collisional history. Furthermore, collisional data from DARTs
impact is essential in analyzing and modeling the effects of man-made collisions on asteroids and their
trajectories. This is important in the field of planetary defense, where future missions would entail
man-made collisions in order to deflect asteroids.
SO2: The molecular and isotopic compositions of a binary asteroid system can provide information
on the formation of binary systems, the evolution of the Solar System, and the origins of water on
Earth.
The molecular composition of a solid body provides information about the evolutionary steps the body
may have gone through before arriving at its present state. In addition to the bodys evolutionary steps,
the isotopic composition of an astronomical body can also provide insights into its place of origin.
The most well-known example with regards to this usage of isotopic composition is the Deuterium-toHydrogen (D/H) ratio. It has been determined that bodies with similar D/H ratios originated from the
same part of the protosolar nebula [20]. The D/H ratio can also potentially enable scientists to settle
the debate between the chondritic (asteroidal) or cometary origin of Earths water [7].
2.2
Mission Objectives
Figure 1: GT SWARM Mission Objectives

2.2.1
MO1
In order to fulfill the first science objective of using collisional data to understand the role of collisions in
the history of the Solar System, the mission purports to collect collisional data through high-resolution
thermal and visual imaging of the impact craters formation and evolution. This information will
enable scientists to measure the changes in crater size and depth over time, as well as the velocity,
size, temperature distribution, and other characteristics of the ejecta plume. This collisional data is key
to understanding the extent to which DARTs impact perturbs the asteroids orbital parameters and
internal structure. about the effects of the collision will in turn allow extrapolation to other bodies in
the Solar System whose craters can be analyzed to obtain an estimate of their collisional history. With
the data returned from SWARM and AIM as a starting point, scientists will be able to create planetary
evolution models that take into account impact events across astronomical time scales.
2.2.2
MO2
Various methods are available through which molecular and isotopic abundances can be measured.
According to Dr. Rob Staehle at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, measurements made in situ by a mass
spectrometer would give the highest fidelity results. SWARMs low orbital velocity due to the target
asteroids low mass makes this mission an ideal one for which mass spectroscopy can be employed.
The benefits of a low orbital velocity on mass spectrometry can be attributed to the fact that a low
velocity provides the spacecraft with adequate residence time to collect samples required for mass
spectrometry.
Figure 2: Objectives shared by NEO stakeholders.
2.3
Knowledge Gain Resulting from SWARM
As mentioned in the previous sections, SWARM is a part of the AIM mission, which is in turn part of
a larger effort called the Asteroid Impact & Deflection Assessment (AIDA) mission. The three main
pillars of the AIM mission are as follows:
Technical demonstration of deep-space optical communications and inter-satellite links
Asteroid deflection assessment by means of kinetic impact
Planetary science study on the history of the Solar System and the formation of celestial bodies,
particularly binary system formation through the YORP spin-up mechanism
The three areas collectively offer the potential for knowledge gains that serve all NEO exploration
stakeholders whose objectives include planetary defense, science, human exploration, and resource
utilization [9]. SWARM will contribute to each of the three aspects of the AIM mission, thereby enabling
many of the knowledge gains shown in Figure 2.
2.3.1
Formation-flying and Inter-satellite Link Technology
Through the technical demonstration on inter-satellite communications links, progress can be made
towards larger satellite constellations that function autonomously through communicating with each
member, much like the eponymous swarm. This is especially important in the current trend towards
accomplishing more with multiple smaller satellites, potentially enabling radical new methods in
constellation-based adaptive synthetic aperture arrays (SAR) for specific high-resolution remote sensing
operations. A very practical example would be the technologies required for precise formation-flying
and real-time communications between the multitude of satellites required to image double-lobed
active galactic nuclei (DRAGNs) and measure energy transport from super-massive black holes to the
intergalactic medium. Towards ESAs agenda, this mission would increase Europes competitiveness
through the qualification of technologies and operations relevant to other missions, in particular in the
area of autonomous guidance, navigation and control, and spacecraft TT&C (Telemetry, Tracking, and
Command) [9].
2.3.2
Impact Models and Scaling Laws
With DARTs impact velocity currently estimated to be around 6.1 km/s which is consistent with
average asteroidal impact velocities, SWARM and AIM will allow verification of hyper-velocity impact

modeling and scaling laws at an unprecedented scale. Through the observation of DARTs impact
event on Didymoon and the measurement of the subsequent crater and plume evolution, the momentum
transfer efficiency can be determined, which is defined as:
=
momentum change
momentum input
(1)
Determination of the momentum transfer efficiency will require the initial state of the asteroid, the
impact velocity, the impact location and angle, and detailed properties of the entire asteroid. SWARM
will measure the impact conditions from a distance orders of magnitude closer to the impact site than
the AIM spacecraft. The momentum transfer efficiency provides a benchmark for the assessment of the
kinetic impact technique for deflecting potentially hazardous asteroids (PHA), and will subsequently
enable the development of higher-fidelity impact models and scaling laws. These models will not only
facilitate the design of similar concepts in the future, but will also enable planetary scientists to better
simulate the early Solar System where collisions between asteroids were commonplace occurrences
that led to the formation of other planetary bodies.
2.3.3
Asteroid Chemical/Minerological Properties
With planetary science being one of AIMs secondary goals, SWARM objects to fulfill this goal by
characterizing the chemical properties of the Didymos system. This mission objective provides an
avenue to perform for the first time molecular analysis on samples from a binary asteroid system
to ascertain the elemental, chemical, and mineralogical composition of the system. Compositional
information is key to constraining the formation of the Didymos system, and can be extrapolated to
other bodies to provide insights into the collisional history, evolution, and lifetime of other asteroid
populations. Furthermore, the ability to determine the composition of binary asteroid systems will help
establish the suitability of these systems as candidates for future explorations and asteroid deflection
tests [10].
2.4
Mission Pass/Fail Criteria
At a minimum, Diver and Imager need to be deployed successfully to ensure the mission is carried out.
The Diver CubeSat needs to intersect the impact ejecta and college sample material to provide an in situ
measurement of the composition without remote sensing. In situ measurements are more accurate and
provide the ability to take higher resolution photos of the ejecta to understand more about the kinetic
impact. However, remote sensing could be used to accomplish this criteria if necessary. One goal of
SWARM is to determine the ejecta plume size and evolution. This is significant to understanding binary
asteroid system origins. Therefore, if this data is corrupted, then our mission has failed. Another goal
of SWARM is to measure the impact the crater size, depth, and rate of growth. The crater provides
more information about how significant collisional evolution is within celestial bodies. AIM cannot
take this data with its instruments so SWARM needs to this data to accomplish its mission. Another
goal is to characterize the temperature change at the point of impact. Heat is transferred due to a
change in the kinetic energy of DART and Didymoon. Therefore, a heat analysis of the point can
show how the impact transferred kinetic energy between the 2 bodies. The D/H ratio will shine light
on whether water particles were once on the asteroid or if the body has the capability to produce
water-like particles. Determining the molecular abundance of molecules and atoms will show at a basic
level what is expected from a binary asteroid system. Finally, the most critical goal is to transfer all of
the scientific data back to a ground station through AIM. The intersatellite link between SWARM and
AIM will need an appropriate data rate to prevent data from being lost in the transfer.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Criteria
Successful Deployment of Imager and Diver CubeSat
Intersect impact ejecta plume and collect sample material
Measure impact ejecta plume and collect sample material
Measure impact crater size, depth, and rate of growth
Characterize temperature change at the impact site during impact
Determine the D/H ratio from plume sample
Determine molecular abundances of C, H, O, N, and Si
Transfer all scientific products back to Earth through AIM using intersatellite links
Minimum
x
x
x
Baseline
x
x
x
x
x
x
Full
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Table 1: Pass/Fail Criteria for SWARM Mission
3.
3.1
Science Traceability Matrix and Requirements Flowdown
Science Traceability Matrix
Figure 3: GT SWARM Science Traceability Matrix
3.2
Programmatic Constraints
Table 2: Constraints prescribed by ESA on the CubeSat Opportunity Payload Intersatellite Network Sensors.
Total Volume
2 x 3U CubeSats
Total Mass
Up to 9kg
Size
3U for each CubeSat
Design Lifetime Interplanetary cruise ( 2 years) Operations (3 months)
Inter-satellite Link
S-band full duplex transceiver
Data rate
Up to 1 Mbps
Total data volume
Up to 1 Gbit allocated for the whole mission
Separation Conditions
0.5 - 2 m/s
4.
4.1
Performance Requirements
Science Requirements
Figure 4: GT SWARM Science Requirements
4.2
Instrument Requirements
Figure 5: GT SWARM Instrument Requirements
4.3
Mission Operations Requirements
Figure 6: GT SWARM Mission Operations Requirements
4.4
Launch Requirements
Figure 7: GT SWARM Launch Requirements
5.
5.1
Program Requirements
Cost Requirements
Figure 8: GT SWARM Cost Requirements
Figure 9: GT SWARM Concept of Operations
5.2
Cost Management and Scope Reduction
a) The mission will actively seek external sources of funding to account for additional costs.
b) Provided that the Science Objectives and Mission Objectives are preserved and that due consideration
has been given to the use of budgeted subsystem contingency and planned scheduled contingency,
the mission shall pursue risk management and descope as a means to control cost.
c) Scope reductions from baseline to minimum science requirements or potential scope reductions
affecting these requirements shall be authorized by the Principal Investigator, Systems Engineer,
and the Program Office.
6.
6.1
Mission Implementation
Concept of Operations
The CONOPS Diagram can be found in Figure 9 below.
6.2
Mission Description AIDA
SWARM consists of two CubeSats that will be CubeSat Opportunity Payload Intersatellite Network
Sensors (COPINS) aboard the European Space Agencys (ESA) Asteroid Impact Mission (AIM), a
mission targeting binary asteroid 65803, Didymos, which in turn comprises half of the Asteroid Impact
& Deflection Assessment (AIDA) mission. The other half of the AIDA mission is a NASA asteroid

impacter called the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART). Table 3 summarizes the planned phases
for each of the four spacecraft involved in the AIDA mission. Upon completion of the scientific
measurements, the SWARM CubeSats will utilize inter-satellite links to relay all collected scientific data
back to Earth through AIM which is itself is an objective of the AIM mission.
6.3
6.3.1
Mission Description SWARM

Launch
As shown in Figure 9 and Table 3, SWARMs journey to the binary asteroid system 65803 Didymos
begins aboard AIMs Soyuz-Fregat launch vehicle at the Guiana Space Center. DART will be launched
after AIM to enable the latter to characterize the asteroid and provide DART with detailed topographical
and guidance information. At the point of AIMs arrival at the binary asteroid 65803 Didymos, it
will be approximately 0.11AU away from Earth [3] and about 35 kilometers from the surface of the
Didymos systems moonlet Didymoon. Upon arrival at the Didymos system, AIM will perform
characterizations and measurements at 35 km and 10 km before maneuvering to within 1 km of the
Didymoon surface to first deploy the SWARM CubeSats and then the MASCOT-2 lander equipped
with a low-frequency radar.
6.3.2
Deployment
Following deployment, SWARM will perform intersatellite link experiments to fulfill one of the primary
AIM objectives, after which the Imager CubeSat will be placed into a lower orbit over the Didymoon
surface at an altitude of 50 meters in order to take high-resolution pictures of the surface regolith and
features. The Imager CubeSat will also measure the elemental composition of the surface using using
an onboard infrared spectrometer. Together, these operations will assist AIM in constraining the initial
conditions of the satellite prior to DARTs impact, which will be crucial in the generation of mass and
shape models of the Didymos binary system.
6.3.3
Impact Event
DARTs trajectory has been designed such that the impact coincides with a close encounter between the
Didymos system and Earth in October 2022. This is when SWARM begins performing its main mission
objectives. The Imager CubeSat, positioned such that it maintains line of sight with the impact site,
will take advantage of its proximity to Didymoon to image the collision at resolutions higher than that
which AIM can achieve. Measurements including crater size, depth, and velocity will enable existing
crater scaling laws to be verified in addition to enabling the determination of the momentum transfer
efficiency [15]. Throughout the impact, the Imager CubeSat will observe the temperature changes
at the target impact site using an onboard thermal imager. This measurement will enable planetary
scientists to determine the binary systems thermal inertia and test the YORP spin-up hypothesis
regarding the Didymos systems formation. In addition, the composition of the crater will be further
analyzed at this time to characterize subsurface elements uncovered by the impact event.
6.3.4
Mass Spectrometry
While the Imager CubeSat records various aspects of the impact event, the Diver CubeSat will proceed
to fly through the impact ejecta plume to collect samples and perform mass spectrometry, revealing
details about the asteroids molecular and isotopic composition. Numerical simulations performed
by Schwartz have provided initial characterization of the ejecta cloud dynamics resulting from the
impact event and contributed to SWARMs working environment definition, thereby facilitating mission
Table 3: AIDA Mission Overview

Date
Oct
2020
July
2021
May
2022
Phase
Launch
Spacecraft
AIM,
SWARM
Launch
DART
Arrival
AIM,
SWARM
May
2022
Early
characterization
AIM
June
2022
Detailed
characterization
AIM
15 Aug
2022
CubeSat
release
AIM,
SWARM
22 Aug
2022
Lander release
AIM
AIM
Sep
2022
Detailed
characterization
SWARM
(Imager)
DART
AIM
Oct
2022
Impact event
SWARM
(Imager)
AIM
SWARM
(Diver)
Oct
2022
Post-impact
SWARM
(Imager)
Notes/Operations
Soyuz-Fregat, Guiana Space Center, Kourou
- Distance from Earth: 1.1 million km (0.11 AU)

- Altitude above Didymoon: 35 km
- Optical communication experiment
- Generate high-resolution 3D model of Didymos system
- Determine physical properties using visual imaging system
- Thermal infrared imaging
- Surface and shallow subsurface sounding
- Imager and Diver CubeSat released
- Deployment velocity: 0.5 - 2 m/s
- SWARM initial diagnostics check
- Inter-satellite link experiment
- MASCOT-2 lander deployed
(of MASCOT lander (Hayabusa-2) heritage)
- Seismic experiments
- Sound deep interior structure of Didymoon
- Constrain Didymoon internal structure
- Characterize surface regolith and features
using high-resolution visual imaging system
- Measure elemental composition of surface
through Near Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS)
- DART mass: >= 300 kg
- Impact velocity: 6.1 km/s
- AIM altitude above Didymoon: 100 km
- 6 90 ,to prevent damage from impact ejecta
- Capture visual and thermal images of impact event
- Capture visual and thermal images of impact event
- Crater size, velocity, temperature
- Ejecta plume distribution, velocity, temperature
- Determination of crater composition using NIRS
- AIM altitude above Didymoon: 10 km
- Measure plume ejecta evolution and temperature
- Measure changes in Didymoon orbital period
- Locate and maneuver to low-velocity region of ejecta plume
- Collect samples from ejecta plume
- Perform mass spectrometry
- Transmit data to AIM
- Transmit data to AIM

Table 4: Near-Earth Asteroids similar to SWARMs target asteroid Didymoon
Asteroids
Diameter (m)
2009 WM1
280
99942 Apophis
330
101955 Bennu
250
2004 FH
30
2002 AA29
60
2010 TK7
200
69230 Hermes
375
2012 DA14
45
2011 XC2
86
Didymoon
170
Mass (kg)
2.9 1010
4 1010
6 1010
2.8 107
2.3 108
1.38 1010
6.7 1010
1.3 108
8.8 108
unknown
Standard Gravitational Parameter (km3 s2 )

1.934532
2.66832
4.00248
0.001867824
0.01534284
0.9205704
4.469436
0.00867204
0.05870304
unknown
Figure 10: Didymoon Mass Analysis

planning in terms of the positioning of the CubeSats during the impact observation phase and the
sample collection phase [11]. Constraining the molecular abundances of such species as C, H, O, N,
CH, H+, and Si, will enable SWARM to achieve its second science objective, as defined in Section 2.1
and provide scientists with the data required to answer questions regarding the origins of the Didymos
binary system and other binary systems in the Solar System. Measurement of the D/H ratio of the
plume ejecta will enable inferences to be made and hypotheses to be answered regarding the origins of
various celestial bodies and also the origins of Earths water [7].
6.4
Trajectory and Maneuver Design
SWARM will be deployed from the AIM spacecraft on August 6, 2022 at a 1 km altitude from Didymoon
with an initial velocity condition relative to AIM of 0.5-2 m/s provided by a AIMs CubeSat deployer.
Because Didymoons mass is currently unknown, asteroid systems of similar size and type in its vicinity
were used to estimate Didymoons mass. Other Near-Earth Asteroids (NEA) similar to Didymoon are
listed in Table 4 below.
(a) STK Top View
(b) STK Isometric View
Figure 11: STK Simulation

Table 5: Different approximated circular orbital parameters.
Orbital Altitude (m) Orbital Period (hrs)
50
113.63
500 m
0.534
9.0776
16.89
Orbital Velocity (m/s)

0.1634
0.1059
0.0517
Because the mass and diameter of an astronomical body are related by approximately a cubic
relationship, a cubic regression was performed on the data shown in Figure 10. As a result of this
cubic interpolation, the mass of Didymoon was approximated to be 6.89 109 kg. Using this value
for the mass, the standard (two-body) gravitational parameter was calculated to be 0.459 m3 /s2 . This
estimated parameter is used throughout the orbit design and analysis of the proposed mission design.
The uncertainties that stem from this estimation are incorporated with additional contingency in the
propulsion and V budgets. The precise impact location of the DART spacecraft is an important
parameter upon which SWARMs trajectory is dependent. Although the DART impact location is
currently unknown, the CubeSats final impact observation orbits are defined relative to the impact
crater and Didymoons rotation axis. It should be noted that the angular rotation rate of Didymoon
about its axis is estimated from gathered light curve data of the Didymos system. These parameters
will be acquired or estimated during the early and detailed characterization phase of the AIM-SWARM
mission as the DART impact date approaches. As the final DART impact parameters are determined,
propulsive burns will be performed to maneuver the SWARM CubeSats into their ideal science orbits.
Given various DART impact locations, the Systems Tool Kit (STK) software package was used to analyze
SWARMs trajectories. Figure 11 displays multiple trajectory view-points displaying important aspects
correlated with orbital paramters and Didymoon after DARTs impact. Furtherore, the important
aspects include SWARMs trajectory in respect to Didymoon, the impact of the crater with its plume
simulated distribution, and SWARMs link to Aim.
As part of the trajectory analysis, the orbits altitude and orientation were varied in order to
optimize the coverage of the impact crater as well as the line of sight to the AIM mothership for
telecommunications. Analysis was performed to study the effect of different altitudes, inclination
angles, and longitudinal ascending node on access and coverage of the hypothetical impact location
and the AIM mothership. Table 5 displays the different approximated circular orbital altitudes, periods,
and velocities.
With the Imager CubeSat capturing optical and thermal images of the crater and ejecta plume, its
orbit needs to be relatively close to the Didymoon surface at 50 meters in altitude. The Diver CubeSat,
on the other hand, will perform mass spectrometry for which collection of impact ejecta samples will
be required. Plume analysis is still inquiring further studies to improve understanding of asteroid
debris propagation and how much ejecta mass would escape Didymoons weak gravitational potential.

Table 6: Average access times for the Imager CubeSat.
3 Month Encounter Count
Average Encounter Duration (hr)
Total Encounter Duration (hr)
208
3.129
650.739
Also taking safety into consideration, we chose CubeSat 2 to have a stationary orbit with respect to the
impact crater at a calculated 396 meters in altitude. Furthermore, multiple propulsive orbit correction
burns will be completed to ensure the maintenance of the final CubeSat orbits. Table 6 shows the access
and coverage of the Imager CubeSat with respect to the impact crater for the mission duration of three
months. With the calculated coverage parameters, the Imager CubeSat will have more than enough
time to collect and transmit the required science data.
6.5
Mission Operations
In terms of timing during the spacecraft mission lifetime, the following functional diagram in Figure
12 outlines each components activities during different cycles of the mission. In terms of coverage,
for the worst case scenario, SWARM will be in contact with AIM during different 25 minute periods
through the 3 month life cycle of the mission. This will allow SWARM to uplink its data to AIM to be
down-linked back to Earth. AIM will be carrying the CubeSats up until AIM arrives at the asteroid
system, when the the Diver and Imager CubeSats are deployed. For guidance and navigation, the star
trackers are powered on right before arriving at the asteroid system to begin the start up procedures
and gathering pointing knowledge.
Before launch, the transceiver is turned on to perform S band downlink tests between SWARM and
AIM to confirm the spacecrafts can communicate to each other. As a result, the power is turned onto
90% system of charge to power the transceiver. The transceiver uses the most power out of several other
components. In terms of power, the operational requirements are shown at different times depending
on the instrument running. For example, powering on the spectrometer shows an increase in power to
15.7 W. In terms of thermal control, the damper and survival heaters are engaged early to keep the
temperature in the spacecraft at a temperature responsible for the components. Finally, the payload
is engaged for measuring and the ground systems are engaged with AIM in order to provide direct
commands to AIM, which will then communicate with SWARM.
7.
Payload System
As described in Section 6, SWARM will utilize four different observation and science payloads to
close its science requirements and ensure that SWARM contributes more than just redundancy to
the AIM mission. The Imager CubeSat will carry the visual and thermal imaging system. This suite
of remote sensing payloads will enable the Imager CubeSat to not only characterize the surface of
Didymoon before the impact, but also observe the impact event as it occurs and the resulting features
with unrivaled fidelity due to its close proximity.
The Diver CubeSat will contain two science payloads a mass spectrometer and an IR spectrometer.
The notion of flying through an ejecta plume caused by a high velocity impact to collect samples
for molecular analysis is difficult to justify for a multi-million dollar flagship mission such as AIM.
However, with CubeSats generally being more expendable than their motherships, SWARM will
significantly increase the scientific value of the AIDA mission, with regards especially to the NEO
stakeholders shown in Figure 2.
Figure 12: Mission Life Cycle Functional Diagram
7.1
7.1.1
Imager CubeSat
Visual Imaging System
AIMs requirements for its visual imaging payload are outlined as follows [10]:
1 meter spatial resolution from a few kilometers away from Didymoons surface
1024 x 1024 pixel array to cover an asteroid of diameter 800 m from 1 km
0.3 m vertical resolution for generation of Digital Terrain Model (DTM)
While adequate for its general characterization purposes of the Didymos binary asteroid system,
AIMs visual imaging system will lose significant spatial resolution when observing the impact event
from its 100-km vantage point (see Table 3). Another issue with the AIM imaging system is the
possibility for obstruction, as was the case with the Deep Impact mission. In this mission, images of
the crater resulting from Tempel 1s collision were unsatisfactory due to an obstruction caused by the
unexpected abundance of fine ejecta [10]. As a result, SWARM will utilize the NanoCamera C1U from
Cubesatshop. This component possesses a 2048x1536 pixel array to ensure a high resolution of the
photos. At 650 km, the camera has a resolution of 80 meters per pixel. Thus, for the science altitude
of 50 m, the camera can achieve a spatial resolution of approximately 6 mm per pixel. This spatial
resolution allows for the accurate characterization of the surface regolith and ejecta plume and satisfies
the instrument requirement in Table 5.
A high resolution photo takes more data than a lower resolution, so in this case, data volume is
the limiting factor. The storage will allow SWARM to process an image before transmitting to the
AIM spacecraft to avoid corrupting the data before it is sent. Additionally, the nanocamera has the
option of PNG compression in order to reduce the size of the data packets while still maintaining
sufficient detail in the image itself. This is discussed further in Finally, during image processing, the
(a) Nanocamera Picture
(b) Nanocamera Specifications
Figure 13: Nanocamera

nanocamera only uses 660 mW of power for a duration of 90 s which is relatively low compared to
the other subsystems power requirements. Imager will be taking photos of several different features
of Didymoon including the crater, plume, and regolith. These photos will be taken at different time
periods that will be before, during, and after DARTs impact. These photos fall in line with the overall
science objectives by providing information about how a kinetic impact on the asteroid affects its
dynamics to understand how early Solar System collisions may have caused the universe to look the
way it does. Figure 13 describes some of the specifications of the nanocamera.
7.1.2
Thermal Imager
The thermal imager provided by FLIR Tau is unmatched in the market. The FLIR Tau 2 thermal imager
camera has radiometry capabilities and an increased sensitivity of 20 mK with frame rates on the order
of 600 Hz. Additionally, the software comes with integrators that allow the camera to have direct
compatibility between different camera formats. The greatest development in the software is the Smart
Scene Optimization, where Tau will automatically adjust the contrast, pitch, and resolution depending
on the temperature, pressure, current levels, etc. Some of the specifications of the thermal imager are
analyzed below, as well as shown in figure 14.
Sensitivity: 20 mK at f/1.0. f/1.0 means that the lux value of the camera is 1.0 lux. Therefore, the
minimum illumination rating necessary to take a video at 60 frames per second is 1 lux. Because
the frame rate is slightly higher than average, this imager requires more light to produce an
acceptable image. 20 mK means that the temperature needed to take a picture of at a distance of
20 m is 270 K. The temperature range of the imager is 25 - 100 C. Therefore, the temperature
falls within the appropriate range necessary for the imager to work at Didymoon.
Pixel Pitch: 17 m. A pixel pitch of 6-8 micrometers is the typical standard for a thermal imager.
Therefore, a pixel pitch of 17 micrometers means the pixels are very sensitive to light and that
the image will respond to all of its surroundings. Moreover, the image quality will be greater

because the pixel resolution will increase since the pixels are smaller but more accurate in their
interpretation of the light source that is taken in.
Time to Image: 4 seconds. This is a relatively quick time. Diver will be moving through the plume
at 0.015 m/s As a result, with a crater in Didymoon about 5 m wide, Diver could take as many as
80 images. This is sufficient to provide detail about several different aspects of the crater and the
resulting plume during an orbit. Additionally, this is assuming a conservative crater that is small.
The expected plume diameter is around 20 m.
Overview
Tau 640 Thermal Imager
Thermal Imager
Uncooled VOx Microbolometer
FPA / Digital Video Display Formats
640 x 512
Analog Video Display Formats 640 x 480 (NTSC); 640 x 512 (PAL)1
Pixel Pitch
17 m
Spectral Band
7.5 - 13.5 m
Full Frame Rates
30 Hz (NTSC)
25 Hz (PAL)
Exportable Frame Rates
7.5 Hz NTSC; 8.3 Hz PAL
Sensitivity (NEdT)
<50 mK at f/1.0
Scene Range (High Gain)
25 C to +135 C
Scene Range (Low Gain)
40 C to +550 C
Figure 14 & Table 7: Thermal Imager Picture and Specifications
7.2
7.2.1
Diver CubeSat
Near-infrared Spectrometer
The purpose of using the Argus 1000 IR spectrometer is to measure the composition of the crater
and the plume. As noted in the requirements, the goal is to study the composition of the materials
on Didymoon to understand how the binary asteroid system formed. The Argus 1000 provides an
affordable and CubeSat-sized option for infrared spectrometry. This package also comes with integrated
optics for remote sensing which will be key during this mission so the Diver can analyze Didymoon
before flying through the plume of materials. The Argus also provides environmentally friendly
monitoring of the CubeSat as well as process control. For example, the integrated optics have no
moving parts which dramatically decreases the amount of metal materials that are needed to connect
certain parts. As a result, at the end of mission, dumping the CubeSats is more environmentally
conscious because fewer parts are being left in space. Additionally, the Peltier-effect cooler provides
enhanced performance of the machine by creating a heat flux between one side of the machine and the
other. As a result, the spectrometer acts as a solid state active heat pump where heat is transferred
from one side of the device to the other, where the direction of heat flow is dependent on the direction
of current flow. Although the device is specifically customized for LEO applications, the spectrometer
operates in the band of 1000 nm to 1700 nm. There are millions of molecules that absorb specific
frequencies within this range, and the characteristics of the molecules on Didymoon will be outlined in
the resulting structure and spectrum developed by the Argus. For example, the resonant frequency of
carbon benzene is around 833 MHz. The length that corresponds to this is about 1200 nm which falls
within the range that Argus is searching. The total range is shown in Figure 15 below.
Figure 15: IR Spectrometer material composition band
Figure 16: NASA Goddard Mini Ion-Neutron Mass Spectrometer

7.2.2
Compact Ion and Neutral Mass Spectrometer
The Heliophysics Division of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center has developed a compact Ion and
Neutral Mass Spectrometer (INMS) for in situ measurements of molecular and isotopic composition
of the ejecta plume. Displayed in Figure 16 , the INMS can detect and characterize neutrals and ions
of particular energy levels based on Time of Flight (TOF) binning. From the INMS, the data package
includes 400 mass bins for neutrals and ions and a sampling rate as fast as 10 millisecond per frame.
This component is desirable because it is a mass spectrometer built specifically for small satellites
[16]. This instrument weighs only 560 grams, requires a nominal power of 1.6 W, and takes up about
1.5 U volume. The INMS component was recently launched on the ExoCube 3U CubeSat mission in
early 2015 with another mission launch planned for 2016.
For both of the stated missions incorporating the INMS, the end user was able to specify additional
requirements for the instrument. As originally designed, the INMS allows for the in situ measurement
of ions and neutrals H, He, N, O, N2, and O2. This set of ions and neutrals were chosen by the ExoCube
mission towards the global and storm-time characterization of the thermosphere and exosphere.
However, for future missions such as with SWARM, additional technology development and research
can be performed on the current INMS to measure the ions and neutrals of interest at the Didymoon
asteroid. Per the SWARM mission, this allows for the accurate determination of the deuterium-tohydrogen ratio and other species of interest that will characterize the composition and spectral class of
the Didymoon asteroid.
8.
8.1
Flight System
Spacecraft Architecture
Determination of the scientific instruments to meet the mission objected was evaluated through
trade analysis emphasizing observation, composition, kinematics, and plume sample collections.
Development of six configurations, three for each Cubesat, were generated in respect to instrumentation
Figure 17: Configuration for CubeSat Architecture trade study

Table 8: Architecture
Architecture 1
Configuration 1 and 6
Architecture 2
Architecture 3
Architecture 4
Configuration 2 and 4 Configuration 3 and 5 Configuration 1 and 5
options considered. Figure 17 display the configurations development.

The following configurations are used to develop four mission architectures, each containing one
diver and one imager. Configuration 1 and 6 are the baseline configurations for which represents our
baseline architecture design. The architectures were developed to meet to best meet all science, data,
volume and mass expectations. Different instruments within the given modes
The overall functional diagram showing the interactions between each subsystem of the architecture
is listed in Figure 19 below. The power bus provides power to each of the subsystems by drawing power
from the Electrical Power subsystem. The link between C&DH and Telecommunications provides
directional information from the OBC to the antenna for pointing accuracy and allows a direct data
storage link for the commands once they are uplinked. C&DH also connects directly to the payload
instruments to provide command information directly to the payload. Finally, a link exists between
ADCS and the thruster to provide a quicker reaction to a need to change the pointing of the CubeSats.
Figure 18: Pugh Evaluation
Figure 19: Imager and Diver Functional Diagram with both payloads
Figure 20: SWARM Imager Model

8.1.1
3D Model
The 3D models are shown in figures 20 and 21.
8.2
8.2.1
Spacecraft Subsystems
Structure
The ISIS 3U CubeSat Structure was chosen due to the modular design, high TRL and aluminum
material. The ISIS structure mass has passed and is expected to be flown in the next 12 months. This
also has to do with the absorptivity and how the type of material has to be a particular type of of
aluminum grade structures. The absorptivity of the aluminum structure allows for less damage due to
radiation. Additionally, the thermal range of the structure is from 40 80 C which is ample for this
mission. The modular design allows for a simpler model design due to the availability of space with
certain components as seen in Figure 20. In terms of loading, because the Imagers heaviest component
is the star tracker, the star tracker has been placed near the middle of the CubeSat to prevent excessive
loading on the weak points located near the edges of the inner and outer cube. For the Diver, the
mass spectrometer has been placed in this position. Additionally, the volume of the mass spectrometer
is large and placing the spectrometer in its own cube eliminates vibrational responses from other
components that might affect the spectrometers performance.
Figure 21: SWARM Imager Model

8.2.2
Electrical Power Subsystem
The EPS board is responsible for controlling the power subsystem as a whole by providing an interface
for each of the components to interact. As seen in Figure 22, the EPS board is connected to the solar
arrays, the Power Distribution Module (PDM), and the On Board computing unit which includes
the Command and Data Handling. The board monitors the output of the solar arrays to confirm
the appropriate amount of power is being used to power the spacecraft. Moreover, the solar panels
need to be maintained at the appropriate temperature to maintain the overall spacecrafts power at
the peak operation power point. Additionally, the power is restricted to and from the batteries to
ensure sufficient energy is being stored. The EPS board used is a Clyde Space Power Management and
Distribution (PMAD) module. This board provides three main advantages:
The Clyde Space PMAD has a robust flight heritage. The PMAD was used on the ANDESITE 3U
Configuration from Boston University and AOSAT from Arizona State University. Clyde Space
has also developed a 3U specific flight package that can handle the solar array configuration and
includes built in power tracking in addition to over-current and battery under voltage protection.
The PDM distributes power and has the ability to switch the power users on and off to prevent
a component from overheating. Each circuit connected to the module is protected because the
power is moved along specific power buses which are connectors that supply the power and data
to each component.
SWARM will utilize lithium ion batteries because of the high energy density relative to other
sources. Unfortunately, as SWARM moves further from the Sun into extremely cold temperatures,
the batteries become unstable and can break down. Therefore, SWARM will utilize damper
heaters to heat the batteries to prevent damage. Additionally, the batteries have a finite, up to
2,000, number of charges. To maximize the battery life, the depth of discharge will never exceed
20%. Unfortunately, SWARM cannot add more batteries to offset the redundancy requirements
because of limits to the mass and volume of the CubeSats.

Part names
C1U nanocamera
Star Tracker
S band transceiver
Operating Temperatures
0
-20
-40
60
40
60
Survival Temperatures
-40
-40
-60
85
85
80
Table 9: SWARM Thermal Analysis
(a) EPS Overall Layout
(b) EPS Physical Layout
Figure 22: EPS Functional Diagrams

8.2.3
Thermal Management
For the thermal management process, the initial analysis is focused towards defining the optimal and
survival temperatures for CubeSats. The average temperature of the spacecraft was computed by
assuming the spacecraft external surfaces are the boundary conditions. From the boundary conditions,
average power consumption and heating conditions were used to apply the law of thermodynamics.
From the first law of thermodynamics, the heat energy coming into an isolated system must be equal
to the heat energy leaving the system. The heat energy inside the CubeSat would be based on the solar
constant, the area of the solar panels, and the absorptivity of the CubeSat. The heat energy outside of
the CubeSat would be based on the heat from the Suns radiation, the emissivity of the surface, and the
geometry planes. The thermal management process was analyzed by assuming the spacecraft was a
single thermal boundary. The Stefan Boltz law treats the radiation from the spacecraft as a black body,
where the emissive power is proportional to temperature to the fourth power. This law assumes the
black body radiance will be radiating energy in all directions isotropically. The temperatures calculated
from the Stefan-Boltz equation provide the initial state of constant temperatures throughout the CubeSat.
Figure /refminandmax lists the minimum and maximum survival and operating temperatures for each
component to perform a thorough thermnal budget seen in Section 9.
Figure 23: SWARM Thermal Analysis

8.2.4
Propulsion
It was determined that propulsion systems would be required in order to place the Imager and Diver
CubeSats in their respective science orbits. Because of the Didymos binary systems low gravity, the
SWARM CubeSats will require very little V to perform orbital corrections, as will be further discussed
in Section 9.1.5. The key drivers behind the propulsion system were mass, volume, power, and risk, all
of which were to be minimized. Chemical propulsion systems were ruled out from the beginning due
to the excessive V provided, the high risk imposed upon AIM by the SWARM CubeSats, and the large
amount of propellant required. Likewise, electric propulsion systems such as ion thrusters produced
by Busek Co Inc. and Aerojet Rocketdyne were relegated due to relatively large power requirements on
the order of tens of Watts.
The remaining technologies under consideration were thus cold-gas systems and the nascent microelectrospray propulsion systems. A decision was made to select a cold-gas propulsion system based on
the following arguments:
SWARM mission development phase would be too short (5 years) for adequate maturation of
CubeSat-ready micro-electrospray technologies because current developments remain in the
conceptual phase.
Cold-gas propulsion systems are inherently simpler in terms of operation compared to the
complex microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) required by electrospray thrusters.
Cold-gas propulsion systems have been flight-tested on CubeSat architectures [17].

The cold-gas thruster chosen for the SWARM CubeSats is the Nanosatellite Micropropulsion System
from CubeSatShop. Figure 10 below details the specifications and features of this propulsion device.
Table 10: Specifications for the CubeSatShop Nanosatellite Micropropulsion System
Nominal Thrust
100 uN to 10mN
Thrust Control
1 to 100%, 1% resolution
Impulse Duration
2ms to unlimited
Specific Impulse 50s - 100s (warm gas option)
Pointing Resolution
0.1 arcsec
Minimum total system mass
300 gram
Maximum required power
2 Watt
Supply Voltage
12 Volt
Operational Temperature
-20 C to +70 C
A 1/3 U configuration was chosen for the propulsion system because of the minimal V requirements.
In addition to meeting the mass, power, and temperature constraints (See Section 9.1, the device is also
capable of functioning as an attitude control system.
8.2.5
Attitude Determination & Control
The attitude determination and control system focuses on meeting the science and mission requirements
which consists of ensuring pointing is known to within four degrees of freedom and making sure the
spacecraft angular and translational state vector is known at all times. The required instruments will
include a sensor and a control actuator. Due to IMU and gyroscope lack of absolute measurements,
other instruments would be required for precision. However, due to volume constraints, star trackers
was determined to be the best device to consume volume on both CubeSats while still meeting the
mission requirements. The Miniature Integrated Star Tracker (MIST) was chosen as it poses a pointing
knowledge within 4 degrees of the registration area of interest and enables determination of the
CubeSats state vector at all times. Figure 11 provides MIST specifications qualified for SWARMs
mission duration.
Table 11: Miniature Integrated Star Tracker (MIST)
Attitude Performance
Attitude Knowledge Error 30 arcsec ( 1 sigma)
Update Rate
10 Hz
Slew Tolerance (no degradation)
1deg/sec
Slew Tolerance (w/degradation)
5deg/sec
Time to First Star ID
< 1 sec
Mission Performance
Mission Life
2 yrs
Power Consumption
<5W
SEE Mitigation SEL, SEFI and SEU
MIST will primarily serve as the attitude determination system and secondary for the attitude
control system since the Nanosatellite Micropropulsion System can also provide attitude control.

8.2.6
Telecommunications
Analyzing Table 12, the Clyde Space S band transceiver is the best option for SWARMs purposes
because this component is easily integrated with the solar array and the Power Module. Although
the transmit power is high and the temperature range is limited compared to other options, the high
transmit frequency will allow SWARM to downlink information at an appropriate rate. SWARM will
also be utilizing
Table 12: Transceiver
Manufacturer
Temperature Range ( C)
Mass (g)
Volume dimensions (mm)
Transmit Power (W)
Transmit Frequency (MHz)
Transmit RF Power (dBm)
Modulation
Data rates (bit/s)
Cost
Clyde Space
-25 - 61
<90
96x90x10
4-10
420-450
27-33
GMSK, AFSK,AX.25
1200, 9600
12,831.00
ISIS
-30 - 58
85
96x90x15
.5
400-450
25-27
BPSK
1200,2400,4800,9600
12,682.00
Analog Devices Inc.

-40 - 85
80
100x100x20
1-13
160-650
29-58
2FSK, 3FSK, 4FSK
4800,9600
5,000.00
Figure 24 identifies the outline of the overall telecommunications subsystem. The transceiver
communicates to the antenna which direction to point to either uplink or downlink data. The OBC
communicates to the transceiver what current process is being run. Data storage connects to the OBC
to store data, and the payload connects to the OBC so that the data from the payload can be stored
or downlinked as decided by the OBC. SWARM will utilize a Clyde Space CS-CPUT-STX-02 S band
patch antenna optimized for low mass and small size requirements. The reasoning for this is further
explained in the Telecommunication Link Budget section. Compression algorithms are being considered
onboard in order to reduce the storage requirement and increase the amount of data transferred to
AIM during a specific downlink time.
Figure 24: SWARM Telecommunications Subsystem Diagram

8.2.7
C&DH, Flight Software
C&DH will utilize a ring topology such that each component is touching the onboard computer directly.
This will ensure that each subsystem is communicating with the computer so that each system receives
attention in the case of an emergency and it takes less time to fix a problem. Figure 25 shows a basic
functional diagram of SWARMs system. The four bottom processes monitor the output of different

systems to prevent problems from occurring. An analog to digital converter (ADC) converts the voltages
to a signal that the computer can understand. The computer monitors the results from thermistors
that measure temperature within the spacecraft, voltages that are excessively high across any given
component, the amount of power going to certain components, and the voltage generated by the solar
panels. Additionally, the processor is connected to the flash memory in order to store data sent from
the payload onto a temporary storage device if downlink capabilities are not readily available. Finally,
the processor connects to a data bus in order to tell the spacecraft when to uplink or downlink.
In terms of software, the primary responsibility will be to confirm the release of the antenna to
maintain appropriate communications. In addition, the software will warn SWARM when data is
being prepared to be taken, uplinked, or downlinked. Without this communication, data could be lost
when transmitted. To prevent this from happening, SWARMs software interface is a set from Clyde
Space that has a TRL of 8 and has been used on multiple CubeSat flights to prevent any errors from a
software standpoint.
Figure 25: SWARM C&DH Subsystem Diagram

8.2.8
Payload Accommodations
If extra space is opened up for the launch such that the solar panels can be integrated outside of the
CubeSats instead of inside, then space will open up inside the CubeSat such that more components
could be added without restrictions in terms of volume. Additionally, SWARM will utilize a flight
adapter developed by Moog Inc. that will reduce the amount of vibrations felt by SWARM during the
flight since the larger AIM satellite can withstand greater vibrational loads. Additionally, SWARM will
utilize propulsive adapter rings so that the payload can travel beyond the launch vehicle insertion orbit.
This will allow SWARM to more quickly enter our orbit following deployment without waiting for
the power and thruster to insert SWARM. Another option being considered is to use Wafer adapters
such as the Cubestack in order to launch SWARM as a potential tertiary payload in the case that other
payloads are considered for the Soyuz launch. These adapters can also mount to 24 inch surfaces like
in the larger ESPA Grande adapter in the case that the space for the payload increases.
9.
9.1
9.1.1
System Engineering
Technical Resource Budgets with Descriptions

Mass Budget & TRLs
Analyzing the mass budgets between the Diver and the Imager, both have evenly distributed budgets
where no one component is overriding the mass constraint as seen in Figure 26. Looking at figures e
and f, the margin of the mass and volume for both CubeSats is positive. Although the margin for the
Diver volume is small, the contingency is built into each component so that even with a small margin
the volume should still be large enough. Additionally, the margin value is mostly due to the mass
spectrometer. This component has a large given volume, but there are other commercial vendors that
may be able to provide another spectrometer with similar specifications besides Goddard Space Flight
Center. Another important note is that the transceiver is lighter for the Diver than the Imager because
the Diver needs more power in order to downlink more data. As a result, the Diver has a larger model
of the Clyde Space transceiver which includes more subcomponents, and as a result, has a greater mass.
Finally, the solar panels are the majority of the volume for the Imager because more power is needed.
The solar panels will be inside of the CubeSat during the flight to Didymoon. After release, the solar
panels will unfold and a little more volume will be available with Imager.
(a) Imager Mass and Volume Budget
(b) Diver Mass and Volume Budget
Figure 26: Mass and Volume Budgets
Table 13: Technology Readiness Levels

Object
Mass Spectrometer
Thermal Imager
Nanocamera
Cold gas thruster
Star Tracker
Transceiver
On-board Computer
Solar Panels
EPS + batteries
Structure
TRL
6
3
7
5
7
6
8
7
6
7
Heritage
Dellingr
none
PlanetLabs
SloshSat
CSTB3 (Boeing)
DUSTIE (Virginia Tech)
numerous
ELFIN (Helio1, UCLA)
InflateSAIL
ALICE
Availability
Goddard Space Flight Center
FLIR Systems, Inc.
Innovative Solution In Space
Blue Canyon Tech
Clyde Space
Clyde Space
Clyde Space
Innovation Solutions in Space

9.1.2
Power Budget
As set by current CubeSat standards and requirements, the power must be off for launch. Following
the ejection from the fairing, SWARMs batteries must power components until detumbling is complete
and the solar panels can be deployed to begin providing power. As seen in Figure 12, the batteries can
supply idle power for up to 3 hours so that in the event that multiple pieces of hardware are in use
during this time, the power supply will still be sufficient. Another requirement for CubeSats is that the
hardware is completely enclosed in a skeleton. As a result, a charging method has been established for
the batteries. A Universal Serial Bus (USB) cord and adapter can be inserted into the PDM to allow the
battery to charge up to a full 30 Watt-Hours (WH) to begin detumbling and deploy the solar panels.
As noted in Figure 27, the maximum power requirement of the Imager and the Diver during
utilization of the thermal imager or mass spectrometer is about 29.7 W and 25.0 W, respectively. On the
other hand, for uplinking and downlinking processes, the nominal power needed to do so is about 24.1
W and 20.8 W. Therefore, to find the total energy needed for every hour to downlink data, multiply
the power by the time. With a downlink time with AIM of close to 4 hours out every 4.5 hour period,
the total energy that the spacecraft will need during downlink is about 116 W-hr. Secondly, the total
energy that must be delivered by the batteries each orbit is around 3.49 W-hr after taking into account
the power necessary for the payload subsystems. This is calculated from performing a calculations
based on the eclipse of the solar panels. If the solar panels are in eclipse for 10 minutes of every orbit,
during this time, the batteries can store up to 3.49 W-hr. To power the spacecraft for 10 minutes only
uses about 0.5 W-hr assuming the spacecraft only reaches nominal power mode during eclipse. Then,
assuming that the batteries are only 90% efficient to be conservative (even though the ideal efficiency is
98%), the total amount of energy drained from the batteries each downlink is around 3.87 W-hours.
The solar panels must replace this energy when the thermal imager or mass spectrometer are not
running. Again assuming that there is about 10 minutes of charging in any given orbit for charging
the batteries, then the spacecraft must supply 2.75 W to the ADCS system (Star tracker) and 0.03 W to
the transceiver, which leaves 6.2 W available to charge the batteries. Assuming a charging efficiency
of 60 %, the batteries can gain 3.24 W, which will charge about 70% of each battery. Therefore, more
work needs to be done on assuring the batteries can provide full power during eclipse from the Sun.
The degradation of the batteries is found using equation 2 where D is the degradation per year of the
batteries and L is the satellite lifetime in years.
L d = (1 D ) L
(2)
The Clyde-Space 3U solar panels have an initial voltage of 15 V, and during cruise at -10 C, the
panels can provide about 21.15 V. As SWARMs heliocentric orbit radius increases, the panels can only
provide 25.13 V. In terms of power, this corresponds to about 32.75 W of power available after leaving
Earth, and after maintaining cruise, an increase to about 36.18 W available. The panels also have an
efficiency of approximately 28.3% thats taken into account in these calculations. The necessary area of
solar panels is shown in the calculation below with the following requirements: 1) Providing 32.75 W
during daylight and eclipse, 2) Able to withstand eclipse duration of 100 minutes, 3) Have a design
lifetime of about 3 months. The following equations were used to calculate the power requirements
listed in Figure 28. The significant variable in the table is Psa . Psa is the amount of power the solar panels
can provide for the CubeSat. This value will confirm that the area of the solar panels is appropriate
to provide an abundant amount of power for the components in the maximum power configuration.
Using this approach, the required solar panel size for each CubeSat is about 0.32 m2 . Consequently, 3U
solar panels from Clyde Space were chosen to satisy the maximum power requirements. A description
of the variables is given in the nomenclature section.
(a) Imager Power Budget
(b) Diver Power Budget
Figure 27: Power Budget
Psa =
Pe Te /Xe + Pd Td /Xd
P
= P Td L
EOL
BOL d
Asa = Psa /PEOL
(3)
(4)
(5)
Figure 28: SWARM Power Variables

As noted in Figure 29 below, the ability of the solar arrays to produce power depends on the ambient
temperature. These models were created from data taken from the Lithium Thionyl Chloride batteries.
Models created for other batteries with similar trendlines were also included. For a conservative
analysis, an additional contingency of 10% was incorporated under the assumption that the actual
battery wont produce the full amount of power calculated for this model. According to the model,
at lower temperatures the solar cells operate more efficiently and produce higher peak voltages. As
a result, heat needs to be dissipated from the cells for efficient operation. Additionally, there is an
optimal point at which for a given temperature, the power is the highest. This is known as the peak
power point, and its value is about 3.7 A for the 0 degree Celsius case and 3.96 A for the -25 degree
Celsius case. As a result of this data, SWARM will utilize a front mounted two unit (2U) panel and two
single deployed 2U panels on the sides. This will provide sufficient power for the maximum peak case
and allow the batteries to store energy during non-peak times.
Figure 29: SWARM Solar Cell Output As A Function of Temperature [18]

9.1.3
Telecommunications Link Budget
The driving requirement for the Telecommunication system is the necessity of a data rate near
10 Mbps to communicate data to AIM. Additionally, the data must be reliable and require little
power consumption to prevent overheating of batteries and loss of power from short circuits. The
telecommunication system contains the following components:

Antenna: Both CubeSats have a Clyde Space CS-CPUT-STX-02 S band patch antenna optimized
for low mass and small size requirements. The patch, monopole antenna will be fixed to the side
of the CubeSat so that it acts like a flat, thin printed circuit board with an antenna embedded
inside it. A monopole is a single radiating wire with low gain and approximately spherical
radiation profile. This is favorable for SWARM because the complexity of the relatively low
complexity and pointing requirements of each CubeSat.
Transceiver: The Syrlink S band transceiver is composed of a transmitter and receiver circuit.
Modulation is unnecessary for SWARMs purposes because phase or frequency shifting is
primarily used for long range signal transmissions where high bandwidth and efficiency are
critical to successful communications. As a result, this design is robust and flexible because the
implementation is straightforward. As a backup, a secondary radio operating on the 2.4 GHz S
band is being considered to even further solidify SWARMs downlink rate capability throughout
the mission. This backup transceiver provides data rates up to 2 Mbps.
Looking at the Telecommunications budget outlined in Figure 30, the total available normalized
signal to noise ratio (Eb/No) is positive which signifies a positive link margin. As a result, SWARM
has a greater predicted Eb/No than what is required. The orange values in the tables are values that
were manually varied in order to comply with the telecommunications requirements which state that
SWARM must maintain a 10 Mbps data rate downlink to AIM and have constant uplink or downlink
available with AIM. The uplink and downlink frequencies are both 2.3 GHz as a result of using an S
band transceiver. The chosen antenna for the SWARM CubeSats has a 55% efficiency and 7.6 degree2
coverage area. The transmit power requirement is a result of the transceiver choice. As a result,
the equivalent isotropic radiated power (EIRP) is about 22.4 dBW. EIRP represents the power of the
transceiver minus the losses from the output transmission and other hardware involved between the
transmitter and antenna, plus the gain. In other words, this is the amount of power that an isotropic
radiator with no losses would need in order to radiate with a power flux density similar to the beam
peak of the antenna. The major losses are listed under the Propagation Range section of each table.
The atmospheric losses are slightly lower than normal because Didymoon is about 1.1 AU from the
Sun such that the radiation environment may be slightly less disturbed due to the lack of magnetic and
electrical fields interacting with electrons. The line loss is also minuscule because the distance between
the transmit and receive antennas is less than 1 km as both SWARM and AIM are within 100 km of
the binary asteroid system. Equation 6 below shows the free space loss. This loss is the largest factor
in terms of reduction in power flux density resulting from geometric dispersion of electromagnetic
radiation. In Equation 7, C represents the total power at the receiver amplifier. Pr is the actual received
power. Using equation 8, the total received power comes to -78.4 dBm. Using this value to calculate the
received Eb/No the result comes to 0.65 dB as noted in table 30 above. Finally, the total available Eb/No
is so large for both scenarios because the losses due to the atmosphere or line losses are relatively low
because of the mission. This allows for a relatively efficient number of users per channel so that data
can be successfully sent from SWARM to AIM without having interruption from channel switching by
the OBC.
4r 2
)
C = EIRP + Gr Ls L atm Lin L Tx

Ls = (
Pr =
Pt Gt Gr
(4d/)2
Eb
Pt Gt Gr
Pr 2
2
=
sin
(
)
=
sin ( )
No
N
(4d/)2 kTs R
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(a) Uplink Budget
(b) Downlink Budget
(c) Final Characteristics
Figure 30: Telecommunications Budget

In the case that SWARM needs to downlink information to Earth because AIM has a rupture
in communications, a solid state power amplifier (SSPA) will be included to amplify power. SSPA
has a relatively low mass and volume compared to a traveling wave tube amplifier, and its power
levels require 5 W or less at certain operational states. SWARMs antenna was chosen knowing that a
relatively small gain is able to accomplish the requirement of downlinking data at 10 Mbps to AIM.
The smaller gain of the Clyde Space antenna allows for a full 3 dB beamwidth of 7 degrees and the
option of a conical beam. Additionally, this antenna can be used to reduce the amount of transmitter
power required to support emergency communications in the event that either the Imager of Diver
spacecraft necessitates immediate assistance. Finally, an S band transceiver is the ideal choice for this
mission because AIM has an antenna with a high gain while SWARMs is low. Therefore, the link is RF
frequency independent to a first order. The decision of the transceiver is then driven by mass, cost, and
availability where S band provides the best options when compared with higher bands like X, Ku, and
Ka bands.
9.1.4
Thermal Energy Balance
A thermal budget was performed using the process outlined in [18]. The first step is calculating
different parts of the mission profile as listed in Table 14 below.
Type of orbit
Inclination
Design lifetime
Altitude
Orientation
Spin Axis
Power Dissipation Goal
Temperature Requirements for Internal Average
Configuration
Elliptical (e=0.7)
23
3 months
500 m
Spinning rectangular prism (assumption)
Perpendicular to orbit plane
3 W with a 6 W peak every 20 minutes
-15 - 20 C
l=10 cm, w = 10 cm, h = 30.4 cm | 25 % covered with solar cells
Table 14: Thermal Budget Parameters

The next step is to compute the thermal heating environment for each heat node at different points
in the mission profile. This involved identifying the minimum, maximum, and average heat flux from
each component at different time periods and averaging over the time and area of the node. Then the
absorbed environmental heat can be found on each object or surface using equation 10 below where
is the solar source and is the infrared source from the IR spectrometer. The other variables are
detailed in the nomenclature section. Next, the total IR dissipation is found by summing all external
surfaces of the spacecrafts geometry using equation 11. Subsequently, a steady state heat balance
equation is used assuming the satellite is an isothermal object including the total power dissipated from
Table 14. The equation is 12. Finally, the temperatures for the maximum and minimum heat loads are
found using the maximum and minimum surface properties along with the internal heat dissipation
and then solving for T from equation 13. Tables 15 and 16 shows the thermal balance for the maximum
and minimum thermal cases on each surface. The key to note is that the final thermal value for the
cold and hot case are within the range of temperatures survivable by each component noted above.
Qenv = S[ A P + RA R ] + eIRA IR
(10)
en A n
(11)
n =1
Qenv + Qin = T
en A n
n =1
(12)

Q = AS eT 4
Surface Num
Descrip.
Area (m2 )
1
2
3
4
5
6
Zenith-Y
Nadir -Y
Sun-P
A-Sun-P
Ram-R
A-Ram-R
Total
.03
.03
.03
.03
.03
.03
.18
Inc.
Inc.
Solar Albedo
101.3
7.2
20.9
0.09
18.2
0.09
18.1
99.3
7.6
99.3
7.6
307.28
93
Inc.
Earth IR
53.1
20.4
20.3
17.9
17.9
129.6
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
(13)
Absorbed
Absorbed
Solar + alb Didymoon IR
56.76
0
23.9
62.3
3.2
14.2
3.2
14.2
56.74
14.1
56.74
14.1
200.54
118.9
Elec.
Power
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
3
Qin
69.2
40.4
19.8
19.8
69.1
69.1
287.4
Rad Area/
abs Area
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
Temp ( C)
15.3
-13.7
-17
-15
11.3
11.4
-7.7
Table 15: Thermal budget for Cold Case (500 m, = 0)
Surface Num
Descrip.
Area (m2 )
1
2
3
4
5
6
Zenith-Y
Nadir -Y
Sun-P
A-Sun-P
Ram-R
Ram-R
Total
.03
.03
.03
.03
.03
.03
.18
Inc.
Inc.
Solar Albedo
42.3
12.4
25.1
267.4
6.8
0.0
1.5
38.8
3.9
38.8
3.9
399.7
41.2
Inc.
Earth IR
63.6
14.5
15.1
14.7
14.7
122.6
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
Absorbed
Absorbed
Solar + alb Didymoon IR
77.5
0
45.8
79.3
273.2
14.9
0.83
14.7
34.1
7.5
34.1
7.5
465.53
124.0
Elec.
Power
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
3
Qin
77.5
89.5
285.6
12.7
42.6
42.6
550.5
Rad Area/
abs Area
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
Temp ( C)
15.3
-20.8
62
-24
-5.4
-5.4
21.7
Table 16: Thermal budget for Hot Case (500 m, = 40)
9.1.5
V Budgets
SWARMs trajectory requires a change in velocity for insertion and maneuvering throughout the course
of the mission due to the complexity of Didymoons unknown parameters. Change in velocity due to
insertion was taken into account for semi-major axis change and inclination changes throughout the
mission duration assuming the gravitational parameter differ from iteration processes simulated until
negligible error is determined in real time. Similar iteration processes are also taken into account for
continuous maneuvering to adopt to the smallest eccentricity possible. Station keeping helps us secure
the best orbit iterated and obtain the best corresponding orbit generated going forward. Contingency
is taken into account for the possibility of different deployment locations and error considered for
Didymoons mass analysis. Figure 31 display the calculated change in velocity for both the imager and
diver.
Figure 31: V Budgets

9.1.6
Data Volume and Data Return Strategy
As shown in Table 2, the SWARM CubeSats will have a total data volume that will not exceed 125
MB. It is expected that the majority of this data volume will originate from the visual imaging system
aboard the Imager CubeSat. Based on the specifications of the visual imaging system shown in Section

7.1.1, the size of each image can be determined as follows:
3 10 bits 1 byte 2048 1546 pixels
pixel
8 bits
image
12 MB/image
Image size =
(14)
The 12 MB value in Equation 14 is given for an uncompressed 3-megapixel RGB image. Assuming
PNG compression by the Imager CubeSats onboard computer, the size of each image captured by the
Nanocamera can be reduced to around 1 MB [19]. Raw images from the thermal imager are comprised
of absolute temperature values at each pixel. As such, given the thermal imagers 640 480 resolution,
1 byte
the file size for each thermal image has been estimated to be around (640 480) 10 bits 8 bits 384
KB.
Given existing data sizes from desktop-class mass spectrometers and the similar output data files
between mass spectrometry and infrared spectroscopy, the data volume for the mass and infrared
spectrometers was estimated to be on the order of 150 kB per run. Table 17 below summarizes the
estimated data volumes for each science payload for a single output.
Table 17: Data volume for a unit of output data from each of SWARMs science payloads.
Visual Imaging System
1 MB
Thermal Imaging System

384 kB
IR Spec
150 kB
Mass Spec
150 kB
In order to meet the data bandwidth constraints, the total number of images and spectroscopic
measurements will be optimized for maximum science return given DARTs impact conditions, and
the exposure times for the thermal imager will be minimized. SWARM will relay all relevant science
data and housekeeping data to AIM, which will then transmit the data back to a ground station on
Earth using its optical communications system. The data volume to be transferred is in accordance
with the telecommunications link budget described in Section 9.1.3
10.
10.1
Risk Identification & Mitigation
Likelihood and Consequence Chart
In Figure 32, the top four risks for the SWARM program are listed on a likelihood and consequence
chart. This graphic identifies what the probability is that a given risk will occur and the detriment that
would be caused if the event occurred. For example, analyzing the structural damage event, one can
assume that a very small piece of the plume from Didymoon hits the side of one the SWARM CubeSats
and inserts a small dent into the structure. There are grave consequences because this could cause
many problems. For example, the thermal control could be unstable since the heat from the dampers
could escape, causing some components to fail due to extreme temperature fluctuations. Moreover,
the pressure within the spacecraft would fluctuate, potentially causing components to shift position
within the spacecraft. This would alter the attitude control of one of the SWARM CubeSats which
would be very difficult, or even impossible, to correct from a ground system standpoint. Additionally,
the likelihood of a structural damage is likely because the Diver CubeSat is flying through a plume
full of dust and ejecta debris. After NASAs DART spacecraft impacts the planet, dust is expected to
emerge from the planet. However, some of the dust may contain particles of solid rock that can cause
Figure 32: Likelihood Consequence Chart

greater damage. It is possible to analyze before entering the plume, but it will be difficult to tell the
damage capable of those particles because the material may be detrimental as well.
10.2
Risk Handling Method
1. Solar Panel Damage

(a) In terms of solar panel damage, the risk mitigation method is to store adequate power in the
batteries in the case that one of the solar panels goes down. If a SWARM CubeSat stores up
to 10 W at all times in the batteries, then in the case that one 40 cm x 40 cm solar panel goes
down the CubeSat can continue current operations. Subsequently, the SWARM CubeSats
will only utilize certain components simultaneously in order to preserve power. As a result,
the transceiver will only run once the batteries have saved up to 6 W of power and run off of
the solar panel power until the power has been diminished. Any extra power needed will be
used from the lithium ion batteries.
2. On Board Computing Software Interface Corrupt
(a) If the on board computing experiences a software corruption in the code such that errors
are encountered, then this will cause several problems. SWARM will be unable to provide
accurate or precise data because the spectrometer wont have an interface to use for measuring
plume width or height. The attitude control will have trouble interacting with the propulsion
system in order to communicate the necessary pointing accuracy and knowledge instructions.
Therefore, to avoid any significant problems occurring, a second optional software uplink
will be installed onto the spacecraft so that if one version becomes corrupt, the other version
can be installed virtually from a ground system.
3. Structural Damage
(a) To avoid allowing structural damages to affect the overall attitude control of the spacecraft,
there will be a set of reaction wheels installed onto the spacecraft to allow for attitude control
stabilization even with punctured areas outside the subsystems. Structural damages can
cause attitude changes by changing the distribution of mass in the spacecraft. A change in
pressure would cause a force, which could move the components. This momentum shift
Figure 33: Quantitative Risk Analysis

would result in a change in forces which would require reaction wheels. Reaction wheels
have a high torque that can overcome the adverse gravity forces interacting on SWARM
with holes causing pressure equalization with space. This is assuming that any of the
holes that could be caused are smaller than 1 m. None of the particles from the plume
should be greater than this size. If so, then since space is a vacuum, the pressure inside the
spacecraft will remain relatively the same for a 3 month duration unless there are more than
30 punctured holes of this size. However, this case is quite unlikely. The problem with this
plan is desaturation of the reaction wheels which would result in the necessitating other
components to provide for in order to desaturate. Moreover, SWARM is flying through the
plume at a low velocity so the need to handle this problem is slightly diminished. However,
because the SWARM mission occurs in a dangerous environment (high speed dust and rock
clouds) that no spacecraft has been in before, it is difficult to plan for these sorts of events in
Phase A. Part of the mitigation will be spending time, money, and tasking personnel towards
researching this in depth later.
4. Damaged Communication Feeds
(a) If the transceiver band becomes saturated from a short link distance, then the bit error rate in
the sent transmission will be exponentially higher and AIM may not be able to appropriately
decode the bits. As a result, the data from SWARM could be potentially lost since the
communication system is essentially ineffective. The risk management plan for this problem
is to reduce the transmit power of the transmission.
The information in Figure 33 is a quantitative risk analysis to provide support in terms of analytical
data to the claims made in the NASA likelihood and consequence chart. The risk factors given to each
of the risks mentioned are equated using Equation 15 where I is the impact, P is the probability, E is
the effectiveness, and C is the control. A risk factor is a relative value identifying the amount of risk
involved with a certain object or idea, usually on a range from 0 to 100. Impact quantifies the impact of
the risk; Probability quantifies the likelihood of it occurring; Effectiveness quantifies how effectively the
spacecraft can take care of the problem; Control is how well can the problem be contained before it
Figure 34: Organizational Chart for Group L

affects other areas of the spacecraft. Adding in these two other factors compared with what the L-C
chart presents, the most risk averse item is the structural damage to SWARM because there is little
control over what might occur from an accident of this caliber.
RiskFactor = IxP[
11.
11.1
C 10 E
10 C
+( x
)]
10
10
10
(15)
Management, Schedule & Cost
Management Plan
The organizational structure for this mission is similar to that of a space mission conducted by NASA
as seen in Figure 34. Each members knowledge, experience, and skill set are assessed before primary
assignments are made, ensuring efficient utilization of human resources so as to have each member
draw on his or her full potential. The program office is at the top of the organizational hierarchy.
The office consists of Dr. Lightsey, Jason Swenson, and Terry Stevenson who provide and maintain
standards and criteria pertaining to the projects, including the requests for proposals (RFP). The office
provides advice and assistance as needed to the mission team. The project systems engineer, Jeremiah
Robertson, is below the program office. This individual ensures the integrity of the project during all
points on the project timeline. He develops deadlines and schedules for major milestones, facilitates
team meetings, manages overall team logistics, and most importantly, maintains contact with the
program office to guarantee that the quality of work being produced is in line with what is expected
of the RFP. Assisting Jeremiah with his duties as systems engineer is Julian Brew. Below the systems
engineer, the organizational structure is divided into individual subsystems. Each subsystem is led
by a subsystem lead. These individuals are responsible for maintaining channels of communication
between subsystems to ensure proper integration and an organized flow of information. Because this
mission is a student project with only five team members, each member will be the leads on more than
one subsystem while simultaneously assisting with different subsystems.

The main purpose behind this organizational structure is to maintain an open channel with the
program office. By having a single member who is responsible for staying in touch with the program
office, questions and concerns can be communicated directly to the program office through the point of
contact as needed. It is hoped that this method of handling communications will be efficient not only
in terms of time but also in terms of the transfer of information between the program office and each
team. By having a project systems engineer, a functional team leader will facilitate team dynamics by
resolving any technical disputes, ensure the balance between science, risk and cost, and ensure overall
team efficiency. Finally, the project systems engineer will set and maintain schedules such that all
deadlines are met and all tasks are completed in a timely fashion to a reasonable quality. For instance,
if a certain subsystem is under performing, the project systems engineer will provide assistance to help
bring the subsystem up to speed, and coordinate with the program office if a higher level individual is
needed to advise the matter.
11.2
Program Schedule
Looking at the SWARM schedule proposal in Table 18, the current status of the SWARM project is
that SWARM is in the Mission Design Review (MDR) phase under phase A: Concept and Technology
Development. Although the CONOPS are finalized, there are still changes being made to the overall
mission because AIMs spacecraft design is changing as well. SWARM is working together with
AIM to take measurements on the binary asteroid system. AIM will focus more on determining the
probability an asteroid can produce smaller bodies given certain inputs of kinetic impacts into a second
dynamics equation. As AIMs mission requirements change, SWARM will edit requirements in order
to appropriately downlink the data and stay within a certain range of AIM to test the deep space
communication system between CubeSats. After 1 month of MDR, the System Requirements Review
(SRR) takes place to make sure the requirements are reasonable and fit within AIMs overall mission
and science goals. The SRR is expected to begin in early December 2015. The entire Requirements
Review and Design Review will take approximately 3 months which is based on a similar process that
occurred with a previous CubeSat design at Northwest Missouri State University.
Finally, after finalizing the technology and design components of the CubeSats, the risks are evaluated
and the components are analyzed to make sure the functional and operational requirements of SWARM
are met based on the previous design decision. This preliminary design review (PDR) is essential to
the mission because this step ensures that all the requirements and technology are appropriate for the
mission. The PDR is expected to begin in late March 2016. There is no way to proceed with regards
to the mission until the PDR is completed. Currently, the PDR is set to begin in early January 2016
assuming the project continues from the end of this semester. Following the PDR, the quality of the
design is refined several times in order to ensure the requirements will be met. This step is the Critical
Design Review (CDR), and it is expected to begin in August 2016. The only baseline design that will
remain is to ensure the minimum success criteria are always met.
Following the CDR comes the operational and test readiness review. This life cycle step ensures that
there are test plans in place to test the various components of the spacecraft. This includes software
verification and validation, hardware data capacity limits, attitude determination and control time tests,
etc. In this phase, all of the parts will be ordered and the spacecraft building will commence. After
the spacecraft is developed, functional testing will begin to make sure that each component performs
the function as intended. This step will begin in August 2017. Finally, the Flight Readiness Review
(FRR) is performed to ensure that all tasks and reviews have been observed and completed so that the
spacecraft is ready for launch. This is expected to begin in early February 2018, but may extend longer
Table 18: SWARM Overall Development Schedule

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Name
Pre Phase A: Concept Studies
MCR/MDR
Evaluate feasible technologies
Requirements Analysis
Functional System Definition
Technical Approach
Phase A: Concept Development
SRR/SDR
Orbit Determination
Trade Studies
Budgets (Mass, Power, Telecomm, etc.)
Risk/Cost Evaluation
Component Selection and Evaluation
Iterate to lower cost
Mission Tradeoff Analysis (TOPSIS)
Phase B: Preliminary Design
PDR
Present Design
Ensure Requirements fulfilled
Risks Mitigated if possible
Meets functional operational needs
Phase C: Final Design
CDR
Design to baseline
Select models to use
Sensitivity Analysis
Tradeoff and Decision Analysis
Phase D: Assembly, Integration, Test
SIR
Order parts
Delivery of components
Functional testing of components
Assemble Cubesat components
TRR
Functional Testing of Assembly
ORR
Operation Testing
FRR
Receive certification
Phase E: Operations and Sustainment
Post Launch Assessment
Operations
Closeout
Duration (days)
43
43
15
12
6
10
104.182
104.182
25
18.182
22
39
21
20
30
110.36
110.36
1 day
30.303
30
30
228.36
228.36
13
15
150
20
520
300
60
80
70
90
70
70
120
120
30
30
160
2
140
18
Start
9/1/2015
9/1/2015
9/1/2015
9/22/2015
10/8/2015
10/16/2015
10/12/2015
10/12/2015
10/12/2015
11/16/2015
12/10/2015
1/11/2016
11/16/2015
12/15/2015
1/11/2016
1/25/2016
1/25/2016
1/25/2016
2/22/2016
4/4/2016
5/16/2016
3/9/2016
3/9/2016
3/22/2016
3/9/2016
6/27/2016
5/9/2016
1/23/2017
1/23/2017
1/23/2017
4/17/2017
8/7/2017
11/13/2017
3/19/2018
3/19/2018
6/25/2018
6/25/2018
12/10/2018
12/10/2018
1/21/2019
1/21/2019
1/23/2019
8/7/2019
Finish
10/30/2015
10/30/2015
9/22/2015
10/8/2015
10/16/2015
10/30/2015
3/4/2016
3/4/2016
11/13/2015
12/10/2015
1/11/2016
3/4/2016
12/14/2015
1/11/2016
2/22/2016
6/27/2016
6/27/2016
1/26/2016
4/4/2016
5/16/2016
6/27/2016
1/23/2017
1/23/2017
4/7/2016
3/30/2016
1/23/2017
6/3/2016
1/21/2019
3/19/2018
4/17/2017
8/7/2017
11/13/2017
3/19/2018
6/25/2018
6/25/2018
12/10/2018
12/10/2018
1/21/2019
1/21/2019
9/2/2019
1/23/2019
8/7/2019
9/2/2019
Predecessors
3
4
5
9
10
11
9
13
11
14
15
19
20
21
26
30
31
32
33
35
37
39
41
42
Figure 35: Cost Estimate Based on Small Satellite Cost Model

than the allotted 4 months because of failures in functional testing that could occur.
As a result, the reviews set in the Gantt chart are based on an ideal situation. Each of the time
estimates in the Gantt Chart can have a 30% contingency added to the estimate, along with a 10%
margin because this is a similar contingency and margin to the TRL estimates for the subsystems.
Adding these margins to each review creates a total review timeline of 51.3 months. This timeline
would mean that phase E: Operation and Sustainment would begin in late October 2019. This is ideal
because AIM prepares to launch the Soyuz vehicle in Spring 2020. Therefore, not only is there a margin
and contingency, but there is still a little extra time beyond those estimates in the worst case scenario
that the schedule runs out of contingency and margin.
11.3
Cost Estimate
For cost, there were several different models used to evaluate the cost of SWARM. One of these methods
was the small satellite cost model as represented in Figure 4. This model was developed in 1996 by
The Aerospace Corporation as a parametric cost model for predicting development and first unit cost
for spacecraft weighing less than 500 kg. This cost estimating relationship predicts the aggregate of
non-recurring and recurring costs. The model is based on data from 53 individual satellites, of which
most are smaller than 100 kg. After evaluating the cost of each subsystem, and analyzing the external
components including engineering labor, integration and test, program level management, etc., the final
mission cost estimate is $7.64 million. Although the Small Satellite Cost Model is typically used for
satellites larger than CubeSats, this is a parametric cost model that was developed primarily because
other cost models were overestimating costs by millions of dollars. As a result, this model is accurate
because a more reasonable estimate is made for a near planetary spacecraft.
Figure 35 illustrates the Quick Cost Model used to evaluate the cost of the SWARM program as

well. NASA developed the Quick Cost Model in 2010 from historic cost data. In 2011 Joe Hamaker, the
former director of NASAs Headquartered Cost Analysis Division, revised the cost model to include
top level trade studies such that the CER predicts full program cost for development plus first unit cost.
This version also includes over 100 data points from instrument contractors to more accurately predict
the payload costs depending on the mission needs. As a result, there is an emphasis on contractor
costs and one of the CERs is chosen for the payload depending on the technology (planetary optical,
microwaves, IR, particle fields, etc.)
Figure 36: Quick Cost Model

Looking at the Quick Cost Model in Figure 36, the cost comes to exactly $7 million. This is within a
5% overall cost margin of the final cost from the small satellite cost model. The historical cost model in
Figure 37 uses solely historical data based on the mass of previous satellites to estimate the current cost
of SWARM. Other similar projects are listed in the first column. Additionally, three of the four listed
producers are universities with programs that produce similar CubeSats. The Planet Labs final cost/kg
was calculated by taking the total cost of Planet Labs development of the Dove satellites including
research and development, engineers, components, integration, etc. and dividing by the mass of the
Figure 37: Historical Cost Model

number of satellites developed for the DOVE project. Using $7 million as the estimate, the overall cost
per kg of SWARM becomes $1.4 million per kg which is similar to that of the Air Force project. This
shows that SWARMs cost for development is reasonable. Although each of the satellites listed in the
chart are Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites, each satellite is a 3U CubeSat with a substantial payload
similar to SWARM. As a result, the main difference in cost will be due to propulsion cost increases to
fly to Didymoon and to provide more power for each component. However, for the most part, each of
the satellites are a similar size and volume, and thus, this model presents a method of verifying that
SWARMs cost are not extravagant compared to other missions.
Finally, SWARMs subcomponents level breakdown of each item and labor cost is listed in Figure 38
and 39. This model provides a grass root approach to estimating the cost by identifying the actual cost
of components and the engineers for the mission, and summing each component to find a grand total.
Although some components for the design have not been finalized because requirements are still being
shifted according to ESAs mission requirements, for the most part, most components are solidified
and costs have been identified from the respective commercial vendor. As seen from the breakdown
of the components, the most expensive component is the micropropulsion unit necessary for each
satellites including the thruster, fuel, and fuel tank in its cost. Each satellite will need a .015 m/s V
to change attitude at 2 points during the flight. Although this is a minuscule amount of change, to
keep the satellite within a specified range of Didymoon, thrust is needed due to the small magnetic
field around Didymoon. There is little force to keep Imager or Diver within 100 m of Didymoon. As a
result, a consistent thrust is needed to keep both satellites within close proximity. The total cost of the
subsystem components comes to $849,583.57. This includes the components for the Imager and Diver
satellites, including both payloads. Finally, when we add a contingency to this budget considering the
TRL levels of each component, the total cost increases to $932,483.80.
Figure 38: SWARM Component Level Breakdown

For the cost of the engineers below, each cost was calculated from an approximate value for the type
of individual performing the task. For example, a graduate students approximate cost for a yearly rate
on the project is $50,000. This yearly rate is converted to an hourly rate, and then multiplied by the
students expected number of work hours through the mission timeline to find the exact cost/students.
For a staff member, the cost of the project is about $70,000 and the cost for a professor is $90,000. Finally,
the amount of money per student is multiplied by the number of students on that subsystem and the
total cost is calculated to be $123,630.14.
Figure 39: Grass Roots Engineer Cost
11.4
Descope Options
The payload descope plan presented here describes an initial attempt at specifying descope options.
It will be revisited and updated, if needed, in the month after the SCR to quantify the impact on the
mission performance and mission requirements. The first payload component descope option is the
reduction of the resolution of the visible spectrum monochrome nanocamera. The rationale is the
reduction of cost, power required, and image size. The impact is a reduction of the data that has to
be stored for processing and possible downlink. The second payload component descope option is
eliminating the microprocessor inherent with the mass spectrometer and using the bus computer to
run the payload science algorithms. The rationale is the reduction of cost, power and volume required.
The impact is a reduction in the CPU cycles allocated to payload science algorithms and a reduction
of the reliability of the overall OBC architecture. The third payload component descope option is
the elimination of the IR spectrum camera. The rationale is the reduction in cost, power and volume
required. The impact is a reduction in the science to be performed, increase the risk to the mission
due to the inability to observe Didymoon during the eclipse side of the orbit. Imaging of the plume in
Didymoon during eclipse is also eliminated. However, the imaging of the plume might be performed
by the visible spectrum camera depending on the changes in requirements. It is also important to
note that two ADCS descope options have already been exercised. They consist of eliminating the star
tracker for using a less accurate sun sensor in conjunction with IMU and reaction wheels. The rationale
is the reduction of cost, power, and internal volume requirements. The impact is a reduction of the
reliability of the ADCS [14].
12.
References
References
[1] Braun, Robert D. "Water Worlds." Editorial. Op Ed. Space News, 22 Apr. 2015.

[2] Kominami, Junko, and Eiichiro Kokubo. "Formation of Terrestrial Planets from Protoplanets. I.
Statistics of Basic Dynamical Properties." The Astrophysical Journal 642 (n.d.): 1131-139. The
American Astronomical Society, 10 May 2006.
[3] Asteroid Impact Mission. European Space Agency, 12 Apr. 2015.
[4] AIM Mission Profile. European Space Agency, 26 Mar. 2015.
[5] Leu, Chelsea. "NASA Discovers Evidence for Liquid Water on Mars." Science. Wired Magazine, 28
Sept. 2015.
[6] Bottke, William F. "The Yarkovsky and YORP Effects: Implications for Asteroid Dynamics." Annual
Review of Earth Planetary Science 34th ser. (2006): 157-91.
[7] Rivkin, A.S., Howell, E.S., Vilas, F., Lebofsky, L.A., 2002. "Hydrated minerals on asteroids: the
astronautical record." In: Bottke, W.F., Cellino, A., Paolicchi, P., Binzel, R.P., Asteroids III. Univ. of
Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ, pp. 235-253.
[8] Taylor, G., "The Composition of Asteroid 433 Eros" PSRD: Asteroid 433 Eros.
[9] Galvez, A., Carnelli, I., Khan, M., Martens, W., Michel, P., Ulamec, S., and Hriscu, A., "Asteroid
Investigation Mission: The European Contribution to the AIDA EU-US Cooperation."
[10] Michel, P., Biele, J., Delbo, M., Jutzi, M., Libourel, G., Murdoch, N., Schwartz, S., Ulamec,
S., Vincent, J. "Final Report - Asteroid Impact Monitoring Environmental and Instrumentation
Requirements." AIM Advisory Team, 12 Apr. 2014.
[11] Schwartz S. R., Yu Y., Michel P., Jutzi M., and Richardson D. C. "NEOShield: the fate of ejecta from
a kinetic impactor strike on a near-earth object." 4th Planetary Defense Conference, Frascati, Italy,
2015.
[12] Boroson, D.M.; Scozzafava, J.J.; Murphy, D.V.; Robinson, B.S.; Shaw, H., "The Lunar Laser
Communications Demonstration (LLCD)," in Space Mission Challenges for Information Technology,
SMC-IT Third IEEE International Conference on , vol., no., pp.23-28, 19-23 July 2009.
[13] Wertz, James Richard. Space Mission Engineering: The New SMAD. Hawthorne, CA: Microcosm,
2011.
[14] Harris, Kristia. "Application for RSO Automated Proximity Analysis and IMAging (ARAPAIMA):
Development of a Nanosat-based Space Situational Awareness Mission." Embry Riddle Aeronautical
University (2014): n. pag. Rpt. in Red Sky Research Inc. By Michael McGarvey.
[15] Holsapple, K. A., and R. M. Schmidt. "On the Scaling of Crater Dimensions: 1. Explosive Processes."
J. Geophys. Res. Journal of Geophysical Research 85.B12 (1980): 7247.
[16] Fox, Karen C. "NASA Goddard Built Instrument, Smallest of Its Kind, Provides Big Payback."NASA, 1 Sept. 2015.
[17] Daniel Selva, David Krejci, "A survey and assessment of the capabilities of Cubesats for Earth
observation", Acta Astronautica, Volume 74, May 2012, Pages 50-68, ISSN 0094-5765.
[18] Wertz, James Richard., David F. Everett, and Jeffery John. Puschell. Space Mission Engineering:
The New SMAD. Hawthorne, CA: Microcosm, 2011.
[19] "Optimizing Web Graphics: Compression." Optimizing Web Graphics: Compression. WebReference, 24 Feb. 2000. Web. 24 Nov. 2015.
[20] Hartogh, William. "D/H ratio affecting stars within the Solar System". Stanford University lecture.
12 Apr. 2011.
13.
Nomenclature
SWARM
Solar System Water And Rock Measurements
ESA
European Space Agency
AIM
Asteroid Impact Mission
AIDA
Asteroid Impact and Deflection Assessment
DART
Double Asteroid Redirection Test
W
Watts
A
Amps
V
Volts
WH
Watt-Hours
ISIS
Innovative Solutions in Space
BCT
Blue Canyon Technologies
GSFC
Goddard Space Flight Center
PHA
Potentially Hazardous Asteroid
PMAD
Power Management And Distribution
PDM
Power Distribution Module
EPS
Electrical Power Subsystem
D/H
Deuterium-to-Hydrogen ratio
USB
Universal Serial Bus
Pe
CubeSat power requirements during eclipse
Te
period of the eclipse orbit
Td
period of the daylight orbit
Xe
efficiency of path from solar array to batteries to loads during eclipse
Xd
efficiency of path from solar array to batteries to loads during daylight
Psa
Final power supplied by the solar arrays
Po
Power supplied per meter squared
Id
Inherent degradation of the solar cells as a percentage
theta
sun incidence angle between the vector normal to the array surface and the Sun line
PBOL
Power available at beginning of life per m2
PEOL
Power available at the end of life per m2
Asa
Area of solar arrays necessary to provide power at each point in life
NEO
Near-Earth Object
Mbps
Megabits per second
TT&C
Tracking, Telemetry, and Command
Eb/No
Normalized Signal to Noise ratio
EIRP
Equivalent Isotropic Radiated Power
DTM
Digital Terrain Model
S
Solar irradiance of Didymoon
R
Percentage of solar irradiance reflected from Didymoon
IR
Irradiance of IR energy from Didymoon
AP
Projected area towards the Sun
AR
Area exposed to reflected solar energy from Didymoon
A IR Area exposed to IR energy emitted from Didymoon

CubeSat Constellation Mission Design

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CubeSat Constellation Mission Design

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

AE 4357 Team L Nov 2015 Georgia Institute of Technology

Mission Objectives & Impact

Science Traceability Matrix and Requirements Flowdown

10 Risk Identification & Mitigation

11 Management, Schedule & Cost

GT SWARM Mission Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

AE 4357 Team L Nov 2015 Georgia Institute of Technology

SWARM Imager Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pass/Fail Criteria for SWARM Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

AE 4357 Team L Nov 2015 Georgia Institute of Technology

AE 4357 Team L Nov 2015 Georgia Institute of Technology

Mission Objectives & Impact

AE 4357 Team L Nov 2015 Georgia Institute of Technology

Figure 1: GT SWARM Mission Objectives

AE 4357 Team L Nov 2015 Georgia Institute of Technology

Figure 2: Objectives shared by NEO stakeholders.

Knowledge Gain Resulting from SWARM

Formation-flying and Inter-satellite Link Technology

Impact Models and Scaling Laws

AE 4357 Team L Nov 2015 Georgia Institute of Technology

Asteroid Chemical/Minerological Properties

Mission Pass/Fail Criteria

AE 4357 Team L Nov 2015 Georgia Institute of Technology

Table 1: Pass/Fail Criteria for SWARM Mission

Science Traceability Matrix and Requirements Flowdown

Science Traceability Matrix

Figure 3: GT SWARM Science Traceability Matrix

AE 4357 Team L Nov 2015 Georgia Institute of Technology

Figure 4: GT SWARM Science Requirements

Figure 5: GT SWARM Instrument Requirements

AE 4357 Team L Nov 2015 Georgia Institute of Technology

Mission Operations Requirements

Figure 6: GT SWARM Mission Operations Requirements

Figure 7: GT SWARM Launch Requirements

Figure 8: GT SWARM Cost Requirements

AE 4357 Team L Nov 2015 Georgia Institute of Technology

Figure 9: GT SWARM Concept of Operations

Cost Management and Scope Reduction

The CONOPS Diagram can be found in Figure 9 below.

Mission Description AIDA

AE 4357 Team L Nov 2015 Georgia Institute of Technology

Mission Description SWARM

AE 4357 Team L Nov 2015 Georgia Institute of Technology

Table 3: AIDA Mission Overview

- Distance from Earth: 1.1 million km (0.11 AU)

AE 4357 Team L Nov 2015 Georgia Institute of Technology

Standard Gravitational Parameter (km3 s2 )

Figure 10: Didymoon Mass Analysis

Trajectory and Maneuver Design

AE 4357 Team L Nov 2015 Georgia Institute of Technology

(a) STK Top View

(b) STK Isometric View

Figure 11: STK Simulation

Orbital Velocity (m/s)

AE 4357 Team L Nov 2015 Georgia Institute of Technology

AE 4357 Team L Nov 2015 Georgia Institute of Technology

Figure 12: Mission Life Cycle Functional Diagram

AE 4357 Team L Nov 2015 Georgia Institute of Technology

(a) Nanocamera Picture

(b) Nanocamera Specifications

Figure 13: Nanocamera

AE 4357 Team L Nov 2015 Georgia Institute of Technology

Tau 640 Thermal Imager

Figure 14 & Table 7: Thermal Imager Picture and Specifications