Copyright © IFAC Automatic Control in Aerospace,

Onobrunn, Gennany, 1992

GNC AND AUTOMATIC CONTROL SYSTEMS

DEVELOPMENT, VALIDATION AND
VERIFICATION
J. Broquet, B. Claudinon, E. d'Andrimont and A. Benoit
MATRA MARCONI Space, 31 rue des Cosmonautes. 2.1. du Palays. 31077 Toulouse Cedex. France

Abstract : During the last twenty years, Attitude and Orbit Control Subsystems of increasing
performance and complexity have been developed in Europe. The test requirements have followed
the same way. A large experience has been gained in the area of AOCS development and
validation.
In this paper, a description of AOCS test set-ups is given from early experiences in the seventies to
modern developments like TELECOM 2 and HEllOS. The key elements of those test set-ups are
described. The overall development and validation logics for AOCS follows with a specific
discussion of in-orbit experience. Future trends, as seen by the authors, are then identified.
Keywords: AOCS, test, validation, simulation, life cycle, in-orbit experience.

1 - INJRODUcnON
For more than twenty years, European satellite
developments have been subdivided into subsystems. The
Attitude and Orbit Control Subsystem (AOCS) is likely the
most complex one in terms of functional requirements and
interfaces with the satellite system engineering. The
validation and verification of its integrity and performance
has involved complex closed loop test benches where all
equipments of the loop (sensors, computers, electronics,
actuators) are physically implemented with
representative simulation of the satellite attitude motion.
AOCS subsystem tests are the final step of the AOCS
validation process, before delivery and integration onto the
platform. They make safer performance prediction made
with theoretical simulations through a cross-correlation of
the AOCS behaviour in few typical cases. They are also a
powerful way to check the electrical and software integrity
of the subsystem, since all interfaces are then performing
under real situation. Finally, during AOCS subsystem tests,
the first verification of AOCS operability is performed,
thus allowing to anticipate problems which could appear
later in the development or even in orbit.
then to cancel the need for AOCS subsystem tests. The
AOCS function is then verified with uncomplete and
simple environment during system test.
The paper is presenting AOCS subsystem tests as key steps
in a satellite AOCS validation process. Its future, as seen by
the authors, is also addressed.
2 - AOCS TEST SET-UPS
a
2.1 - Foreword
In the seventies, the prime concern when devising AOCS
test benches was to get a good physical representativity of
the satellite dynamics by putting the combined AOCS
sensors and actuators in real motion. For instance, the
MATRA OTS AOCS test set-up, shown in Figure 1, used
an hybrid approach :
- an air bearing table to have free dynamics around the
pitch axis (control through the infra-red earth sensor and
the momentum wheel),
- simulated motions on the roll and yaw axis.

The considerable experience accumulated in-orbit has
increased our confidence in models used especially for
environment and spacecraft dynamics. A continuous
feedback is done to the AOCS design, architecture,
technology and to the validation approach.
For commercial programs, when most of the satellite
technology is recurring, a two steps satellite development is
implemented, leading to avoid subsystem specifications and
A more complex approach was followed by MBB on the
SYMPHONIE satellite with the design of a three axis servo
controlled platform supporting the sensors.
This class of test bench is still in use today, either for small
satellites equipped with simple and relatively low
performance AOCS, or for sounding rockets GNC
subsystems, where the movement can be generated by the
real cold gas thrusters.

11
 Figure 1 : OTS AOCS test set-up overview
However, since the accuracy and complexity of AOCS have
increased, the modern AOCS subsystem test benches
design follows a modular approach in which only the
critical sensors are physically stimulated, independently of
the actuators. The following paragraphs present the AOCS
subsystem test set-ups used by MMS for the EUROSTAR
family of Telecommunication satellites, the first generation
of SPOT/ERS observation satellites, and finally the
HELlOS military observation satellite, to be launched in
1994.
They illustrate the modular approach followed which can
be adapted to the specific test requirements of each AOCS.
The availability of standard computers having an ever
greater computing capacity makes possible the simulation
in real time of the satellite dynamics and orbital kinematics
"in-the-loop", with the level of modelling accuracy
necessary with respect to the AOCS performances. Thus
real and accurate motion can be limited to individual
sensors.
2.2 - EUROSTAR telecommunication satellites
An overview photograph of the AOCS subsystem test
facility is shown in Figure 2. One can notice that most
AOCS Flight Model sub-assemblies are present, namely:
- the Control Law Electronics (CLE) Computer on which
the AOCS real-time control software runs,
- one Infra Red Earth Sensor (out of two),
- the two gyropackages,
- the two fixed momentum wheels.
This facility has been used successfully to test the AOCS of
the INMARSAT nand TELECOM 2 satellites, which are
the first of the EUROSTAR family. It has also been used
in a slightly modified version to test the ITALSAT F1
AOCS.
A functional synopsis of the test set-up is shown in Figure
3. The AOCS sensors are either physically installed or
12
simulated:
_ one Infra Red Earth Sensor is optically simulated by an
Earth Simulator. The other one being simulated,
- the two Gyro Packages are stimulated by high accuracy
current generators,
- the simpler sensors of which the models are
straightforward, namely the Solar Array Sun Sensors
(SASS), the Sun Acquisition Sensors (SAS) and the Earth
and Sun elevation Sensor (ESS), are simulated and their
output signals are generated by electrical stimuli
generators.
On the output side of the Actuator Drive Electronics, only
the two fixed momentum wheels are physically installed.
Both the thrusters and the solar array drive motors are
simulated by electric loads incorporating the detection of
the actuator commands.
The loop between the actuator outputs and the sensor
inputs is closed within the test bench by a simulation
software running in real time ; its algorithms model with
high fidelity the dynamics and kinematics of the satellite on
its orbit. It is completed for missing sensors and actuators
by corresponding models: i.e. for actuators the electrical
commands are converted into torques applied around the
satel1ite three axis, through the "actuator transforms" block.
For EUROSTAR satellites having identical AOCS
architectures and closely related characteristics, the AOCS
subsystem test set-up can be simplified to a simpler
scheme, shown in Figure 4. Only a functional breadboard
of the Control Law Electronics computer loaded with the
flight control software is put inside the real time control
loop. All sensors and actuators are simulated. This
approach, which is more economical than a "full fledge"
AOCS test campaign, still permits a thorough validation of
the flight software "in the loop", in real time, with an
accuracy as high as the one obtained with complete control
simulations, which are not run in rea! time.
 Figure 2: EUROSTAR AOCS test set-up overview

AOes Under Test

SASS Simulator
J
~
rh_I ...
,----- SAS Simulator
Simulator

- ESS Simulator AOCS

-- Actuator
Drive
.15010' Array OM
Simulator
~

ra
Control laws Electronics
-InfraRed Electronics
Earth Earth
I---

U
Simulator
~
Fixed
~ Momentum
~
Gyro
Wheels
TMlTC

~
Electrical &
SlImull Command lines

TMJTC Interlace

Sensors Spacecraft Actuators

Transforms I-- Dynamics & Kinematics
Real-Time Simulation
I--- Transforms

Test Monitor

Figure 3 : Functional synopsis of EUROSTAR AOCS test set-up

13
 On the sensor side, all sensors are physically present.
However, only one earth sensor and one sun sensor out of

--. AOCS
Control la. .
Electlonc.
--
....
Figure 4 : Simplified test set-up for recurring AOCS
2.3 - SPOT 1 and ERS 1 Observation Satellites
These two satellites share the same SPOT platform, and
their AOCS architectures are very similar, even if their
flight characteristics are different : SPOT 1 is equipped
with two HRV (High Resolution Visible) cameras, whilst
ERS is equipped with a Synthetic Aperture Radar.
Basically, the same test facility was used for the integration
and validation tests of both satellites ; its functional
synopsis in ERS configuration is shown in Figure 5.
two are stimulated optically, respectively by an earth
simulator and a sun simulator. The redundant sensors are
stimulated by electrical signals injected in the sensor
electronics at the output of the optical to electrical
conversion stage. The gyros are stimulated by very high
accuracy current sources.
On the actuator side, the Solar Array Drive Mechanism is
linked to an active load, with a gyroscope and a motor. The
three reaction wheels and the two magneto-couplers are
also physically installed. Only the thrusters are simulated
by electrical loads incorporating detection circuits to
measure the thrusters firing durations.
As for the EUROSTAR AOCS test set-up, the dynamics
and kinematics of the satellite on its orbit are simulated "in
the loop" in real time, using a simulation software similar
to the one used for functional studies, with some
simpIifications.
The actuators command signals or measured parameters
are converted by the "Actuators Transforms" block to
forces and torques which are input to the dynamics and
kinematics model. This one computes the new state vector
of the satellite (position, attitude and rotation rates) which
are then converted into command signals fed to the earth
and sun simulator motorized tables and the signal
generators emulating the missing sensors outputs.

-.

oaCH Inlef1ace
&
TMlTC

_ra
Tr.,.,orms
~ ..ft
OyMmk:a &. KlMmIIUca
ActUltO,.
Transtorn.
R.aJ.nm. ~mula1k)n

TNt Monitor

Figure 5 : Functional synopsis of ERS AOCS test set-up

14
2.4 - HEllOS observation satelljte
This "second generation" military satellite is under
development. Its AOCS has an architecture similar to the
one used for SPOT and ERS first generation sate11ite, but
is upgraded itself by very high accuracy gyroscopes and the
addition of star sensors.
The AOCS test bench designed by MMS is drawn along the
same lines as the previous SPOT and ERS test benches,
but represents a further step in performance and
complexity, given the very stringent test specifications.
A general view of the test facility is shown in Figure 6, and
the functional synopsis of the test set-up is shown in Figure
7.
The outstanding differences with respect to the SPOT/ERS
facility are a three-axis table capability to stimulate
"physically" the gyros in some phases of the test and a star
simulator to stimulate optically the star sensor. Another
visible difference is the simplification of the solar arra:
drive motor set-up which is no longer loaded. This i
justified by the in-orbit experience of SPOT 1 and SPOT 2
which validated this element characteristics.
A less visible difference is the modularity of the test benel
hardware and software, which allows to test separately eael
major sub-assembly (i.e. the sensors acquisition ani
survival sub-assembly, the solar array and propulsioJ
electronics, and the inertial and magnetic actuator
electronics) in open or closed loop, before runnin,
complete subsystem tests.
In the full HEllOS test configuration, all elements of th,
test set-up are active and work together in real time. Th,
dynamics and kinematics simulation software is identical tl
the one used for functional studies, thanks to the ver
powerful real time computing capability of the test bench.

EARTH
SIMULATOR EARTH
SENSOR
GYROS

STAR SENSOR
~~

3-AX IS TABLE

SUN SIMULATOR

SUN SENSOR

Figure 6 : HEllOS AOCS test set-up overview

15
 AOes Under r ..t

Eorth r
Slmuletor ~ Central
CompuUng
Un~

Solar Array

--_.
&
PropuWon
~-I-"""I EIe",oniea I------=----:----t-i

Inertial
&
Magnttk:
Actuators
Electronlc.e
~

OBCH Interface
&
TMlTe

Spacecraft Actuator.
Sen.,""
Tran.fOlrfW
Dynamics & Klnematlee
R•• I-Tlme Simulation
Tr.....lorm.

Teat Monhor

Figure 7 : Functional synopsis of HELlOS AOCS test set-up

3 - KEY ELEMENTS OF AOCS TESTS

3.1 - Dynamics simulator
Both one axis and three axis air bearing tables were
developed in the mid-sixties, offering a direct
representation of the system behaviour through a free
dynamics simulator.
A structure, representative of the satellite inertiae,
supports sensors and actuators such as reaction wheels or
cold gas thrusters. This method is mostly adapted to rigid
body dynamics simulation and can still be used for testing
small satellite simple AOCS or sounding rockets control
systems.
A physical approach can also be used to verify a motor in
its mechanical environment. The solar array drive
mechanism (SADM) of SPOT 1, for instance, generates
torque harmonic components which can interact with the
array flexible modes and affect the rate stability of the
platform. A specific set-up has been incorporated in SPOT
1 subsystem test. The SADM is passively loaded by a beam
supporting a gyroscope and actively loaded by an external
torque computed by the test processor. Flexible modes,
torque harmonic components and irregularities are
measured by the gyroscope and fed back.
The increasing complexity and accuracy of modern
spacecraft and AOCS are no longer compatible with a real
physical set-up which is limited by gravity and friction,
limited rates and angles, and built-in parameters. On the
other hand, digital computers are today fast and accurate
enough to run mathematical models of the satellite
dynamics and environment, which provide an extremely
good prediction for exoatmospheric vehicles.
This approach permits a detailed modelling of the
disturbing forces and torques acting on the satellite. A
complete versatility is provided for the mass properties,
initial conditions and range of variation of the dynamic
parameters.The kinematics is generally worked out using a
quaternion representation and it feeds either sensor
models or the commands of physical stimulators.

16
3.2 - Sensors and Actuators
This paragraph is as fast walk-through of the ways sensors
and actuators are handled in the subsystem test set-up
described in the previous chapter.
Infra-red Earth Sensors
Those sensors are used on geostationary (GEO)
communication satellites as well as low earth orbit (LEO)
observation satellites. Their design is complex and
therefore their modelling is not always accurate. This is
why they are physically installed in the test set-ups, and are
stimulated by earth simulators of different types, depending
on the apparent earth diameter.
The type used for LEO satellites is shown in Figure 8. The
rotations around the roll and pitch axis are simulated by a
motorized two axis table. The earth to space transitions are
simulated by heated and cold panels.
Figure 8 : Earth simulator
Sun Sensors
Coarse analog sun sensors are most often simulated.
However, for high accuracy digital sensors (LEO satellites,
GEO 3-axis transfer), a sun simulator of the type shown in
Figure 9 is used. A motorized two axis table simulates the
rotation of the satellite with respect to the sun direction.
Figure 9 : Sun simulator
Stellar Sensors
MMS has designed under CNES contract a star simulator
of which an outline is shown in Figure 10. It has the
capability to simulate simultaneously the movements of
four stars of programmable magnitude. Another and more
complex approach consists in simulating the celestial
sphere, as seen by the sensor. Both approaches have their
merits and drawbacks ; the first one allows for more
accurate positioning of the stars with respect to the sensor
line of sight.
17
ST,\I! SENSOII
Figure 10 : Stellar simulator
Propulsion
Apart from cold gas thrusters, it is not advisable to release
hot gases in clean room environments. However, since the
environment is not representative, the measurements of the
forces and torques would not be significant. This is why the
straightforward method of measuring only the firing times
at the inputs of electrical loads simulating the thruster
command electronics is used. However, it implies that an
accurate model of each thruster in its spacecraft
environment is available.
Fixed momentum and reaction wheels
If the wheels are available, the easiest way consists in
installing them in the AOCS test set-up, and deriving the
torque from measurements of the speed and/or current.
For wheels which are not contained in vacuum enclosures,
it is necessary to install them in a vacuum container.
Mechanisms
The mechanisms which are directly controlled by the
AOCS are the solar array drive mechanisms. The previous
paragraphs have shown that three methods are used :
either to simulate the mechanism or to install it physically,
with or without a mechanical load. In the latter case, if the
combined effects of the motor commands and the solar
panels flexible modes have to be simulated, an active load
is necessary.
Gyroscopes
Because of the difficulty of modelling gyroscopes, it is
preferable to have the real gyroscopes in the loop. The
most basic technique to stimulate them consists in
generating a highly accurate current which is input in the
control loop of the gyroscope. A more representative
method is to use a three axis table. However, the response
time of the table is not always fast enough to simulate the
dynamics of the satellite during manoeuvres.
4 - DEVELOPMENT AND VALlDAUON
LOGICS FOR AOes
The subsystem test facilities above mentioned are major
contributors to AOes development and validation. They
are part of a wider logic which is shown on Figure 11. An
important coordination is led by the AOes functional
studies. They have strong interactions with equipments and
software developments, and with the characterisation of
the satellite dynamics and environment. Having
successfully passed the subsystem tests, the AOes still
requires some verifications at system and satellite level.
Figure 11 : AOes development and verification logics
4.1 - EQ,Jlipment activities
The major milestone of the development of AOCS
equipments (sensors, actuators, electronics) is the
qualification and acceptance. Equipment specifications,
General Design and Interface Requirements are the main
references against which major items are verified :
technological aspects such as reliability and life duration,
power budget, interfaces, and performances aspects such as
noise, biases.
Equipment manufacturers use a dedicated test set-up,
providing high accuracy but limited environment compared
with the subsystem test facility. One output of the
equipment activities is also the mathematical model of the
equipment which will be used for AOes analysis and
simulations. Characterisation and validation of the
equipment model can be necessary and are sometimes
conducted on dedicated rigs (possibly parts of the
subsystem test facility).
18
4.2 - Dynamics and environment
The modelling of the satellite dynamics and environment
used for the AOes simulations is validated through ground
tests and in-orbit experience.
Ground tests can include for example flexible modes
characterisation, sloshing time constant determination with
a drop-free tower, microvibration level measurements. In-
orbit analysis appear however to be very useful to confirm
or complete ground analysis and tests.
4.3 - Functional studies
AOCS development is characterised by a very tough
functional studies activity taking place all along the project.
It consists in AOes functional design and modelling
parameters tuning and optimisation, and performance
prediction through detailed sensitivity analysis and closed-
loop simulations.
Preliminary analysis and simulations contribute to the
delivery of specifications towards equipment
manufacturers, User Requirement Document (URD)
towards the Software Engineer and general subsystem test
bench requirements.
All the mathematical models are coded (usually
FORTRAN or C) and are the building blocks of the
detailed closed-loop simulation software. This computer
program, running faster than real time, sweeping easily
sensitive input parameters (such as satellite mass
properties, sensor and actuator characteristics, initial
conditions) appears to be the major tool for the AOCS
functional prediction (pointing, accuracy and stability,
acquisition capability, fuel budget, etc). Numerous
simulations are run to predict typical, 3 sigma and worst
case performances. Dedicated open-loop simulations are
also produced and delivered to software, equipment and
subsystem test engineers. They constitute reference
simulations which are compared to the results obtained
with the flight software and real hardware submitted to the
same inputs. Any difference must be corrected or judged
acceptable, leading to a cross validation of the detailed
simulation software and associated mathematical models
with the flight software and real equipments.
4.4 - F1i2ht software
The development of the flight software is initiated by
Software Requirement Document (SRD) based on the
User Requirement Document (URD) issued by the AOCS
designers. An iterative early activity permits to simplify and
optimise the functional architecture before entering
detailed analysis and coding. A close cooperation is again
profitable to develop both the flight software algorithms
and its modelling in the closed-loop simulation program of
the study team (high level language prototypes can be
exchanged).
The software validation is achieved against its specification.
Additional verification can be done, using the open-loop
reference simulations generated by the study team.
4.5 - Subsystem tests
This activity starts with the design and the development of The three first items are widely validated during the
the subsystem test facilities. The AOCS equipments, the subsystem tests. Some complementary tests are achieved
flight software, the complementary simulated models will later. A final end-to-end test on the satellite itself is, for
be integrated as soon as possible, first in a preliminary instance, mandatory to check the polarity of the control
version, to permit an early debug of the AOCS elements in loops. Some aspects of the flight procedures can also be
a representative configuration. The relationships between verified later at system level. The fourth item, concerning
the dynamic perfonnance verification, was already
AOCS units and between AOCS and the external
described in the functional studies section. The subsystem
environment is displayed in Figure 12. Four main items
test bench contributes to the mathematical models
must be verified at subsystem level
verification, and to a global typical perfonnance check-out,
- Verification of interfaces between equipments (including
ensuring that no functional aspect has been ignored by the
both Hardware and Software interfaces),
study team's modelling activity. All the verification items,
- Verification of ground command and monitoring
with the associated tests are summarised in Figure 13.
capability,
Verification of AOCS automatic reconfiguration,
- Contribution to AOCS dynamic performance verification.

Figure 12 : AOCS verification items

Major verification layer Secondary layer

Unit performance Unit test & analysis Subsystem test

SfW performance SfW test Subsystem test

Interfaces between units Subsystem test Satellite test

(+ polarity check)

Ground command & monitoring Subsystem test System test

capability

Automatic reconfiguration Subsystem test System test. Satellite test

Dynamic performance Studies & detailed simulations Subsystem test

. unit models . unit test & analysis · subsystem test
. SfWmodel . SfW test · subsystem test
. dynamics & environment . ground tests · flight experience

Figure 13 : AOCS verification layers

19
5 - IN-ORBIT EXPERIENCE RETIJRN
5.1 - Failures or anomalies
An unpleasant but highly valuable experience gain is
unwillingly earned through in-orbit failures and severe
anomalies. The thermal failure propagation within the Bus
Regulator Electronics of TELECOM 1-B has for instance
led to the physical segregation of nominal and redundant
functions into separate boxes. Early gyro failures on-board
a number of satellites have emphasized the interest of in-
orbit reconfiguration capability with minimum hardware,
even through survival modes and degraded performances.
According to a compilation of 355 all origin malfunctions
publicly reported in 1965-1990 by Ray Sperber on
geostationary communications satellites, the AOCS is the
second misbehaving subsystem, causing 20 % of the failures
(the payload being the first cause with 40 % of the
failures).
More fortunately the very good behaviour of HIPPARCOS
under an unforeseen severe environment on its elliptical
orbit also brings new lessons.
5.2 - Technolo"ical return
A very profitable return is gained through detailed analysis
on satellites which behave globally correctly or reveal only
minor disfunctioning. Sensors and actuators in one hand,
satellite dynamics and environment (e.g. disturbing
torques) in the other hand are mainly concerned. A
clarification of these activities, with their usual feedback is
proposed in Figure 14 and a series of examples from MMS
experience follows.
Some phenomena which are neglected or unmodelled for a
satellite can sometimes suggest innovative concepts for a
new generation. For example, the observation of a dynamic
coupling between solar array slewing and satellite nutation
on TELECOM 1 (which used a normal mode with thruster
control) permitted to design the EUROSTAR nutation
control associated with the Solar Sailing (it uses solar array
products of inertia created by a deliberated 2 deg. tilt with
respect to the nominal axis.
FUGHT
ANALYSIS
GROUND
KNOWLEDGE
Disturbing torques verification on ground is very limited.
The prediction mainly relies on analytical models, which
can be highly complex or necessitate input parameters
difficult to verify. An accurate in-orbit analysis was
conducted recently on SPOT 1 through an inhibition of the
magnetorquers over several orbits (reaction wheels
evolution directly revealing the external torques). A
residual internal magnetic momentum could then be found
with the right orientation compatible with an Invar element
of the payload which had not been demagnetised. On
INMARSAT n, the analysis of the solar torques
enlightened an unmodelled wind-mill torque of about 2.10-
6 Nm which indeed enlarge the solar sailing torque
capability. Repeatable on each satellite, and since on
TELECOM 2, it was found to be caused by a thermal
retrodiffusion of the array back side towards the lateral
flaps. Another learning was gained on TELECOM 2 during
East-West station keeping maneuvers. The analysis of the
torque produced by the plume interaction on the lateral
antenna dishes permitted to adjust an accomodation
coefficient in the prediction software (parameter related to
the ratio of speculor reflection on the dishes).
Some elements contributing to the modelling of the
satellite dynamics are also difficult to analyse and test on
ground.
For a spinning satellite with a large amount of liquids,
stability margins or dedamping time constants are a critical
area and can have an impact on the satellite mass budget.
SKYNET 4 confumed a good accuracy of the sloshing tests
which had been achieved at INTESPACE Toulouse.
TELECOM 2 transfer phases analysis confirmed the
"equivalent solid" approach developed by MMS to predict
free and perturbed motion (during apogee boost) of a
spinner with an inertia ratio close to unity. This flight
experience could permit to save several kilograms of
equilibrium masses on future spinning spacecraft.
Analyses recently conducted on HIPPARCOS attitude
estimation have permitted to determine thermo-elastic
distorsion (between star mapper and gyros) and confirm at
FEEDBACK FROM least for one axis the ground analysis and tests which had
FUGHT ANAL y~
been quite complex.

G<.08AL CHECK·OUT t- TYP ICAl ANO 3"

PERFO PREDICTED
POOf\ Three-axis stabilization raises also some concerns in the
I
AT THIS LEVEl
o OF OYNAMIC PERFO ! THROUGH MOORS,
TESTS , ANAlYS IS
UNlESS DISCREPANCY dynamic modelling area. One is the damping ratio of the
solar array (or other appendage) flexible modes. Analyses
on SPOT 1 in 1987 confir!l1ed about 5.10-3 as it was
AVERAGE
CONARNATION
UNrTAGEJNG considered for analysis. But recent in-orbit tests on
TELECOM 2 proved a higher figure than assumed, i.e.
about 10-2 instead of 3.10-3. With resonance peaks twice
REFINEMENT
(E-a PARAMETERS - ">CH smaller than foreseen, the design of the station keeping
ATTlNG) DESIGN O PTI MIZATION

PARTIAl
control laws would become less difficult and less expensive.
GROUND
TESTS Many other lessons were learned from flight experience in
the area of earth luminance variations, solar array drive
VERIFICATION OF
ANAlYTICAL MOOElS
~ UNC ERTAIN ~ R ICH

(f .G FOURIERANALYSIS)
MOOELS
' _ _ _ _ _--..J.
UNIOUE VERIFIC ATION mechanism perturbations, chemical thrusters ageing ... It is
NO GROUND
TESTS
never easy to process rough telemetry and fight against
everlasting problems of labels, formats and scaling... but
UNEXPECTED
BEkAVtQI.JR
_ lJ U-OOEUED
PHENOMENA
I~
_ ">C"
L ESSONS LEARNEO
this is a unique way to improve the quality and
NEW CONTROl. CONC EPT
effectiveness of future systems while optimizing their
' - - - - ; E "URQSA="'
' V .,.,
,, . ,
design and cost.
Figure 14 : Flight experience contribution

20
6 - FUTURE TRENDS Another large set-up, the six degrees of freedom Docking
The presented AOCS validation approach which involves a Dynamics Test Facility developed under CNES contract is
multi steps verification ending with a complete closed loop shown in Figure 16.
hardware/software test has been proven to be a safe and It permits to test new hardware ~nder realistic conditions.
efficient way to secure our satellite operation and A full scale docking mechanism front end has been
performance. developed for ESA and is shown implemented for
The very good performance and behaviour of all AOCS validation.
developed by european companies are certainly due to this
Rendezvous sensor, targets and hand controllers for
widely used approach.
spationautes training are also in the loop.
Subsystem tests are now structured with a flexible
architecture that allows to accomodate easily new control
systems such as guidance, navigation and control (GNC)
systems which are to be developed in the very near future.
A full computer simulated motion dynamics gives now a
much better performance and representativity, together
with a large flexibility for adaptation to new and complex
dynamical motion. Real motion simulation is to be
considered with new sensors and actuators, when dynamic
conditions are to be tested or when it is the cheapest way to
stimulate their inputs.
Most of the electronics and software involved in the control
systems will be progressively introduced in the test,
replacing the related simulated model and thus validating
both the model quality and hardware/software interfaces.
When considering emerging needs for Europe space
activities, it will be necessary on the one hand to develop Figure 16 : Dynamic Docking Test Facility
large motion simulator to validate orbital manoeuvring
systems such as those required for autonomous rendez-
vous, capture and robotics. On the other hand, the As a conclusion, we can expect in the coming years an
emerging very high pointing accuracy systems require increasing interest for end to end testing of dynamics
complex end to end performance test which largely include control systems more particularly focused on the new
the pointing subsystem. technologies validation:

A photograph of a large robotic arm and associated test - test benches more integrated with system elements for
set-up is shown in Figure 15. They are developed under very high accuracy pointing,
CNES contract and offer a representative 2-axis zero-g - more complex and larger control system test facilities for
environment to test large external manipulator control. orbital operation.

Figure 15 : MFB Robotics Arm test set-up

21