DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR MONOPULSE

TRACKING SPACECRAFT ANTENNAS

A Thesis

Presented to

the Faculty of the Department of Electrical Engineering

University of Houston

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science

by

Donald S. Eggers

May 1969

501253
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to thank Dr. H. S. Hayre, Major

Professor, for his generous advice and encouragement on

this project, and his committee. In addition, special

thanks are extended to Mr. J. F. Lindsey, Mr. H. D. Cubley,

Mr. I. Ping Yu, Mr. R. J. Chan, and Mr. J. Kelley for their

technical advice and assistance in presentation of analy­

sis and completion of compatibility measurements between

the Apollo spacecraft antenna and ground station equip­

ment.

The author also wishes to thank NASA, Manned Spacecraft

Center, for use of their facilities in performing the com­

patibility tests.
 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR MONOPULSE

TRACKING SPACECRAFT ANTENNAS

An Abstract

of a Thesis

Presented to

the Faculty of the Department of Electrical Engineering

University of Houston

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science

by

Donald S. Eggers

May 1969
 TkBSTRACT

An analysis of amplitude and phase sensing sum and

difference monopulse antenna systems is first made to show

various parameter effects on system performance and to intro­

duce basic differences between the two sensing techniques.

Parameters such as pre-comparator voltage unbalance and

phase shifts, and post-comparator phase shifts are considered.

Next, unique designs and techniques used for the Apollo single

channel monopulse antenna which are considered applicable for

future spacecraft antenna designs are discussed and presented

by simplified formula. The design considerations are pri­

marily related to the microwave performance in the areas of

gain and beamwidth, target acquisition regions, spacecraft

structure effects, and overall system compatibility. Methods

of obtaining theoretical antenna gain and beamwidth values

for circular and square apertures are presented and used to

show the advantages of a circular aperture. The target

acquisition regions are expressed analytically for both

amplitude and phase sensing systems with a discussion of

the technique used on the Apollo antenna for yielding large

acquisition regions. The effects of reflected energy from

spacecraft structure on both amplitude and phase sensing

systems are analyzed and applied to the Apollo antenna con­

figuration as a specific example to show how these effects

can be reduced. Finally, the approach used to analyze overall

system compatibility for the Apollo single channel monopulse

antenna is discussed. Also, the techniques used to measure

system compatibility are illustrated. The favorable compari­

son between analytical and measured values relative to system

compatibility are illustrated.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

I. INTRODUCTION ..................................... 1

II. PARAMETERS EFFECTING PERFORMANCE ................ 4

2.1 Amplitude Comparison System ............... 5

2.2 Phase Comparison System ................... 14

III. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS .......................... 24

3.1 Gain/Beamwidth........................... 24

3.2 Spacecraft Structure Effects .......... 42

3.3 Target Acquisition ........................ 54

3.4 System Compatibility ..................... 59

3.5 Tracking Error Due to Thermal Noise . . . . 73

3.6 Tracking Error Due to Intermodulation . . . 75

3.7 Tracking Error Due to Amplitude Modulation

on Subcarriers.............................. 78

IV. MEASUREMENTS....................................... 84

V. CONCLUSIONS........................................ 88

BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................... 93
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURES PAGE

2-
1 Pure Amplitude Sensing Antenna Configuration . . 6

2
2- Null Depth Vs. Pre-Comparator Phase Shift. . . . 10

2-3 Phase Difference Vs. Angle -6- for Various

(a) Ratios and (b) Pre-Comparator

Phase Shifts...................................... 12

2-4 Boresight Shift Due to Pre-Comparator and

Post-Comparator Phase Shifts ................... 13

2-5 Boresight Shift Vs. Unbalance in Magnitudes

of and .......... 15

2-6 Pure Phase Sensing Antenna Configuration . ... 16

2-7a Phase Difference Vs. Steering Angle ........... 19

2-7b Boresight Shifts Vs. Pre-Comparator Phase

Shifts for Various Ratios................. 19

2-8a Phase Difference ) vs. for various

Voltage Unbalance .............................. 21

2-8b Null Depth Vs. Voltage Unbalance for Phase

Comparison ............................ 21

2- 9 Boresight Shift Due to Voltage Unbalance and

Post-Comparator Phase Shifts ................... 22

3- 1 Apollo Antenna Gain/Beamwidth Requirements . . . 26

3-
2 Power Pattern for Uniform Phase and Amplitude

Illuminated Circular Aperture ................. 30

FIGURE PAGE

3-3 Power Pattern for Uniform Phase and Amplitude

Illuminated Square Aperture ............... 35

3-4 Gain Factor Vs. Half Power Beamwidth for Various

Apertures and Distributions ..................... 40

3-5 Gain Factor Vs. First Null Position for Various

Apertures and Distributions ..................... 41

3-6 Direct and Reflected Energy Toward Antenna . . . 44

3-7 Math Model for Theoretical Boresight Shifts . . . 46

3-8 Boresight Shift Vs. Ratios for Various

Angles.................................... 50

3-9 Boresight Shifts Vs. 4^-, Ratios for Various

A<#
Angles.................................... 52

3-10 Percent Modulation Vs.Tracking Error ........... 56

3-11 CSM-HGA Antenna System .......................... 61

3-12 Basic Comparator Circuit ....................... 62

3-13 Beam Shifts Due to the Sum Pattern Being

Modulated with the Difference Pattern .... 63

3-14 Percent Modulation Vs. Tracking Angle Error . . . 65

3-15 Tracking Signal Processing ..................... 66

3-16 Math Model Used for Tracking Error Analysis . . . 68

3-17 Signal Processing, Multiplexing and Demultiplexing

Waveforms.......................................... 69

3-18 Model of Elevation Channel Tracking Loop . ... 74

FIGURE PAGE

3- 19 RMS Tracking Error Due to Thermal Noise........... 76

4- 1 Test Set Up for Measuring Tracking Errors . . . . 85

 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

2- 1 Parameters and Their Effect on Monopole System

Performance......................................... 23

3- 1 Characteristics of Aperture Power Pattern from

/ Distribution Over Circular Aperture . . . 33

3-2 Characteristics of Aperture Power Pattern for

Various Distributions over Square Aperture . . . 38

3-3 Tracking Error Due to Intermodulation ........... 79

3-4 Peak Tracking Error Due to IAM.................... 81

3-5A Comparison of Analytical and Experimental

Tracking Errors .................................. 82

3- 5B Comparison of Old and New Modulation Indices . . 83

4- 1 Results of Tracking Error Testing ............... 86

5- 1 Parameters and Their Effect on Monopole System

Performance......................................... 8 9
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Weight and size restrictions imposed by space missions

result in emphasis being placed on optimum single channel

monopulse designs. A unique single channel monopulse antenna

system was developed and successfully operated at lunar dis­

tances during the Apollo 8 flight. The purpose of this work

is to present some of the design considerations for an optimum

single channel monopulse tracking antenna system for future

spacecrafts. Some unique designs and techniques used for

the Apollo monopulse antenna which can be applied to future

spacecraft antenna designs are discussed and presented by

simplified formula with emphasis on the microwave design and

system compatibility.

An analysis of the parameters which effect the perfor­

mance of both amplitude and phase comparison systems is first

given in a manner similar to that done by Cohen and Steinmetz

(1959) with the exception of using the . function to

X
approximate antenna patterns. Only the additive sensing

ratio defined by Rhodes (1959) is used due to the restriction

of this work to the sum and difference comparison method.

The methods of establishing the required antenna gain

and beamwidth values for a particular space mission are

 2

presented. The techniques presented by Silver (1949) and

Wolf (1966) for finding theoretical aperture gain and beam­

width values are used to illustrate the advantages of cir­

cular apertures over square apertures and the effects of

various aperture illuminations are studied.

The unambiguous region around the boresight axis bounded

by the first nulls of the sum pattern is defined by Rhodes

(1959) as the usable target acquisition region for both the

phase and amplitude comparison monopulse antenna systems.

Various methods using this criteria are presented to find

the theoretical values of target acquisition regions for

both the phase and amplitude comparison systems.

Spacecraft structure effects on the performance of a

monopulse tracking antenna are discussed. Theoretical values

of boresight shifts as a function of the reflected wave mag­

nitudes are shown for both the phase and amplitude comparison

systems by using the mathematic model described by Thompson

(1966). Various techniques for reducing the reflected energy

effects are also presented.

Compatibility must be established between spacecraft

antenna system and the complex ground station uplink signal

to provide acceptable tracking performance. This was a

major problem for the Apollo antenna design and is expected

to be so for future designs of single channel monopulse

antenna systems.
 3

The system compatibility analysis approach by others

are presented with their results in this paper for possible

applications to future antenna designs. Compatibility tests

performed and the underlying methods as well as results are

also discussed.
 CHAPTER II

PARAMETERS EFFECTING PERFORMANCE

The monopulse tracking technique Rhodes (1959) is based

on three basic postulates which define the meaning of mono­

pulse and its sensing ratio containing the angle information.

The sensing ratio will appear in one of the following forms:

Multiplicative = P(y>e3VW <2-D

or

Additive - (2-2)

where and are the far-field amplitude and

phase patterns, respectively, as a function of the steering

angle off boresight. The additive sensing ratio (-6-^ com­

pares the sum and difference of the received signals for

either amplitude or phase comparison monopulse antenna sys­

tems. The difference of the received signals produces an odd

function (Rhodes, 1959). Since is a ratio, angle

sensing is independent of the absolute level of the received

signals. The additive sensing ratio is employed in this work

because only the sum-and-difference comparison method is

discussed.
 5

Parameters such as antenna pattern voltage unbalance

and aperture phase errors effect the performance of both

amplitude and phase-sensing sum-and-difference monopulse

systems. The parameters produce boresight shifts and de­

gradation in precise angle measurements. An analysis is

presented to illustrate the effects of these parameters on

system performance. Polarization effects are not considered

and the analysis is valid for a linearly or circularly po­

larized wave aligned with the antenna elements. Single

plane monopulse operation is considered for simplicity,

although the analysis applies to a three-dimensional mono­

pulse operation in two orthogonal planes.

2.1 Amplitude Comparison System

A single antenna aperature is used with two feeds mounted

as close as possible at the focal point as illustrated in

Fig. 2-1. Its radiation pattern is displaced from the antenna

boresight axis by an angle which is a function of the dis­

tance of the feed phase centers from the focal point of the

antenna aperture (Cohen and Steinmetz, 1959). The received

signals are unequal unless they arrive along the antenna

boresight axis. When signals arriving on boresight have

equal amplitudes and their difference generated in the com­

parator would produce a null on boresight.

 6

/Z/ -

Figure 2-1. Pure Amplitude Sensing Antenna

Configuration
 7

The output voltage and phase from antenna for the

amplitude or phase comparison systems can be related to the

steering angle and physical parameters by the following

approximations (Rhodes, 1959):

- ,4/ S/» ^(-5 (2-3)

and

_ 42. 5/^
-------- e (2-4)

where A = amplitude factor

= angular scale factor to simulate pattern shapes

= squint angle

-G- = steering angle

= phase function

tj = spacing between feeds

= phase errors before comparator

The sum-and-difference outputs at the comparator are expressed

as

(2-5)

and

(2-6)
 8

A deep and sharp null improves the tracking capability

of a monopulse. Parameters such as squint angles qL ,

pattern beamwidths, and pre-comparator phase shifts <^~ de­

termine the characteristics of the null and can be illustrated

by calculating the null depth. The null depth is defined as

the ratio of the magnitude of the minimum difference voltage

level to the maximum difference voltage level

/ zr. / (Cohen and Steinmetz, 1959). The minimum voltage

Jz7ZS>»iAX.I
level occurs when equals 0 degrees and its magnitude is

a function of the pre-comparator phase shift. The maximum

voltage level magnitude is obtained from either or ^2.

when -&• equals o<_ . In an amplitude comparison system with

equal amplitudes, the difference voltage at equals 0 degrees

in terms of Eqs. (2-3) and (2-4) is given as

(2-7)

with a magnitude of

(2-8)

The magnitude of the difference voltage maximum is equal to

when -&■ is equal to and the null depth becomes

 9

(2-9)

The null depth expressed in db1s verse pre-comparator phase

shifts for various ratios of squint angle to beamwidth

is illustrated in Fig. 2-2. The definitions of beamwidth

and scale factor /<• are also illustrated in Fig. 2-2.

For a given ratio, the null depth decreases as pre­

comparator phase shifts increase, whereas for a given pre­

comparator phase shift it increases as the ratio

increases. Compromise antenna design must take into account

the antenna size limitations, tracking accuracy, and allow­

able phase errors in order to obtain optimum system performance.

Pre-comparator, in conjunction with post-comparator, phase

shifts cause a change in boresight indication (Cohen, 1959)

as seen by taking the difference between the phase angle of

the sum and difference voltage. Using Eqs. (2-5) and (2-6)

with equal amplitudes A , the phase angles are

_/ 5/M
Sum (2-10)

K(e

Difference (2-11)
X= SluS" 5/M
 11

The phase difference shows the response of the

receiver phase detector and the phase reversal point indi­

cates antenna boresight. Figure (2-3) illustrates the phase

difference for various pre-comparator phase shifts

X with a fixed ratio and for two different

ratios with a fixed pre-comparator phase shift. When there

is no pre-comparator phase shift the phase difference

reverses sharply on boresight O° and becomes more

♦
gradual which exhibits a finite slope with increasing pre­

comparator phase shifts or smaller ratios. This

gradual reversal of the phase difference due to

the pre-comparator phase shifts only does not cause a shift

in boresight indication because the phase reversal always

occurs when -G- equals 0 degrees. However, the pre-comparator

phase shifts in conjunction with post-comparator phase shifts

cause a shift in boresight indications as shown in Fig. 2-4.

The importance of maintaining minimum pre-comparator and

post-comparator phase shifts to prevent boresight errors is

evident.

Whenever the magnitudes of X"# and are not iden­

tical, boresight shifts are experienced. This can be observed

by setting the magnitude of the difference voltage Za equal

to zero and finding the value of for this condition.

Equations (2-3) and (2-4) and the assumption that there is no

 14

phase error, yields:

(2-12)

(2-13)

Figure 2-5 shows the voltage unbalance versus boresight shifts

for various values of ratios. Figure 2-5 shows that

for a fixed voltage unbalance, the boresight errors increase

with an increase in pattern beamwidth. A decrease in the

squint angle yields an increase in boresight error for a given

pattern beamwidth.

2.2 Phase Comparison System

Two or more antenna apertures separated by several wave­

lengths are used for the phase sensing antenna system as shown

in Fig. 2-6. Each aperture produces the same radiation pattern

which is symmetrical about their boresight axes. The far field

pattern from each of the apertures almost overlap due to their

individual boresight axis being parallel. This results in

equal amplitude signals in each antenna for received signals.

The phase of the signals in each antenna is a function of

received signal direction off boresight due to the spacing

between apertures. For the received signal direction shown

i li't Jill II'; I: I ,I:I I' i
 16

Figure 2-6. Pure Phase Sensing Antenna Configuration

 17

in Fig. 2-6, the phase of 2T/ is advanced by de­

grees , whereas the phase of 2F;t. is delayed by S>>7

degrees. The addition and subtraction of the feed signals in

the comparator results in a well defined system boresight

axis which is located midway between and parallel to the

individual aperture boresight axis.

In the presence of pre-comparatro phase shifts <5" in a

phase comparison system, the phase reversal point does not

occur when -9— equals 0 degrees but it would shift depending

on the magnitude of (Cohen and Steinmetz, 1959). The new

phase reversal point or null position for an equal amplitude

case can be found by using Eqs. (2-3), (2-4) and (2-6), as

(2-14)

where , o
e/- = O Ai -A a. =■ A

Setting equal to zero and solving for © in terms of

results in

(2-15)
4=
which means that the system boresight has shifted to a new

position of -9- = - which is a function of pre-comparator

A /rd
 18

phase shift and the ratio. The difference in phase

angle between the sum and difference voltages as a function

of the pre-comparator phase shift for equal amplitudes and

no squint angle «*<- can be found from Eqs. (2-3) and (2-4) ,

and is expressed as

The phase angle difference for equal to 0 degrees

and equal to 10 degrees with an ratio of 0.2 is

shown in Fig. 2-7a. The effects of the ratio on the

phase reversal point are illustrated in Fig. 2-7b.

Voltage unbalance in a phase comparison system affects

the system performance in a way similar to the pre-comparator

phase shifts in amplitude comparison system. The null depth

tends to decrease and the phase difference reversal

near boresight becomes more gradual. Equations (2-5) and (2-6)

yield the null depth, for no phase shift and squint angle (as

defined previously for the amplitude comparison system) as

-A 3-
(2-17)

which is a function of voltage unbalance. Again, using

Eqs. (2-5) and (2-6), phase difference between the sum and
 20

difference voltages as a function of voltage unbalance is

where

The effects of voltage unbalance on null depth and the phase

difference Sa) are illustrated in Figs. 2-8a and 2-8b,

respectively. When voltage unbalance and post-comparator

phase shifts exist, boresight shifts similar to those for an

amplitude comparison system with pre-comparator and post­

comparator phase shifts would result as shown in Fig. 2-9 for

a post-comparator phase shift of 20 degrees and a voltage

unbalance of 0.4 db.

A summary of various parameters and their effects on

performance for both amplitude and phase comparison systems

is givne in Table 2-1. Boresight shifts in an amplitude

comparison systems are primarily due to voltage unbalance

whicl those for a phase comparison system are caused by

pre-comparator phase shifts. The null depths can be decreased

by pre-comparator phase shifts and voltage unbalance for

amplitude and phase comparison systems, respectively.

 TABLE 2-1

PARAMETERS AND THEIR EFFECT ON MONOPOLE SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

EFFECTS PARAMETERS

Pre- & Post­ Voltage Unbalance

Pre-Comparator Voltage Comparator & Post-Comparator
Phase Shift Unbalance Phase Shift Phase Shifts

Amplitude Comparison

Boresight Shifts X X*

Decrease in Null Depth X

Gradual Phase Reversal X

Phase Comparison

Boresight Shifts X X*

Decrease in Null Depth X

Gradual Phase Reversal X

♦Secondary effects

N>
W
 CHAPTER III

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

3.1 Gain/Beamwidth

The spacecraft antenna gain is dictated by the required

signal-to-noise ratios at the earth stations for reception of

intelligible information transmissions from maximum distances

and is inversely proportional to its beamwidth as illustrated

by the emprical equation for a parabolic reflector (Jasik,

1961)

(3-1)

where and are the 3 db beamwidths in the two principal

planes expressed in degrees.

Variable beamwidths were found to be necessary for the

present Apollo antenna as well as for future spacecraft mono­

pulse antennas operating over large distances primarily due

to the earth's rotation, thus requiring handover capabilities

from one earth station to another. Thus when the spacecraft

antenna is tracking the primary earth station, sufficient gain

must be available at the secondary station to receive the

carrier and ranging signals for smooth handover when the pri­

mary station rotates from the spacecrafts field of view.

Three different transmit beamwidths of the Apollo Command

Service Module S-Band high gain antenna were used to solve the
 25

station handover problems. The three antenna beamwidth gains

are compared to the minimum required primary station gains as

a function of distance in Fig. 3-1 which also shows the antenna

gains at the secondary station while tracking the primary

station. This figure also shows the worst case tracking errors

and their effect on antenna gain and beamwidth performance

curves. The minimum gain requirements were based on circuit

margin calculations for full up-and-down-link modes between

spacecraft and primary ground stations. Those for the sec­

ondary station were based on reception of voice from the

spacecraft. Post flight analysis of the data from Apollo 8

showed that the only carrier was needed at the secondary

stations for smooth handover. The carrier margin at lunar

distance is approximately -10 db as compared to the 4.72 db

value shown in Fig. 3-1, which was the original design re­

quirement. This reduction in secondary station gain means

the Apollo high gain antenna could have been designed for only

two beamwidths (wide and narrow).

Similar curves showing the gain requirements at the

primary and secondary stations can be obtained for any

planetary mission. These curves specify the necessary antenna

gains and the number of beams needed for adequate communica­

tions and station handover capabilities.

 27

Theoretical gain and beamwidth can be determined for

various apertures by calculating their far-field radiation

patterns in terms of the aperture distribution function

using Maxwell's equations (Wolfe, 1966)

- iv -- 1— vx
<7 a* € (3-2)

and

(3-3)

which are in terms of the magnetic vector potential and

the electric vector potential A" where

(3-4)

and

(3-5)

respectively, where

(3-6)

and
 28

(3-7)

7" and // are the electric and magnetic surface current

densities and At is the unit vector normal to the elemental

aperture area. A is the distance from the incremental area

to the far-field observation point and A is the wave number.

Various distribution functions for a particular aperture

are referenced to a uniform phase and amplitude distribution

by a gain factor, defined by Silver (1949) as

gT" (3-8)
where = gain factor of aperture distribution function

Gr = theoretical gain of pattern produced by the

aperture function under consideration

(Maximum gain obtained due to uniform

A?
amplitude illumination across the

aperture)

A. = wavelength

The maximum gain factor for a given aperture is unity and is

obtained by normalizing the power pattern to unity for a

uniform phase and amplitude distribution.

Only circular and square aperture geometries are con­

sidered since they are most applicable to monopulse antenna

 29

systems. No attempt is made to discuss the excitation of the

fields in the aperture. The normalized far-field pattern of

a circular aperture shown in Fig. 3-2 is given by Silver (1949)

as
2fr !
zr/ j.\ C \ 4/- k'X

) J ,,

where = radius of aperture

V* = f/a-
vj, = = p*4. swe-

d = , aperture diameter

and equals the normalized aperture distribution

function. This expression is valid for fields with constant

phase across the aperture. If the aperture distribution is

not dependent on the angular coordinate Eq. (3-9) becomes

iZ</
zFi<^)/Ta? \ 4^) (3-10)
O

In case of a uniform phase and amplitude distribution across

the circular aperture f(hJ =• / in Eq. (3-10) and performing

integration leads to

1 Ji(***) (3-11)
Figure 1*2, Ipowet Pati^enr ior Urtiforrt Pha^e and
: - ‘ 1..............i- - -j
!Amplitude Illuriinatdd Ciitdtilaii Aperture r
 31
The power pattern Er(x>.) normalized to unity for the

above aperture illumination is shown in Fig. 3-2. The first

null position occurs at X<u = 3.84 and the corresponding posi­

tion is given by

The half-power point occurs at ><*• = 1.6, therefore, the half­

power beamwidth is

(3-13)

which can be approximated as

Another circular aperture distribution is uniform phase

with amplitude tapering toward the edge of the aperture. Such

distributions producing different tapers can be expressed as

(Silver, 1949)

where (3-14)

A substitution of this expression in Eq. (3-10), the integra­

tion results in

(3-15)

and its normalized power pattern characteristics are shown in

 32

Table 3-1 for increasing values of . This shows that an

increase in tapering decreases the gain factor, reduces side

lobe levels, and increases the beamwidth.

The theoretical gains of a circular aperture can be

determined from Eq. (3-8) as

(3-16)

and the inclusion of the loss factor in Eq. (3-15) yields

a realistic gain value as

(3-17)

This loss factor usually ranges from 0.50 to 0.80 and con­

siders such factors as mismatch losses and resistive losses,

etc.

The far-field pattern for a square aperture shown in

Fig. 3-3 is given by Silver (1949) as

(3-18)

where O-. = length of aperture sides

normalized aperture distribution function.

For a uniform phase and amplitude distribution

the far-field apttern is

 33

TABLE 3-1

CHARACTERISTICS OF APERTURE POWER

r, r )
PATTERN FROM (/- DISTRIBUTION

OVER CIRCULAR APERTURE

g Half-Power -O- Fist Side Lobe

Variable Gain Beamwidth ❖ Position of db Below Peak
P Factor in Degrees First Zero Value

0 1.00 58.5 K sin -17.6

1 0.75 72.8^. sin-1 -24.6

2 0.56 84.25. sin -30.6

3 0.44 94.5 A sin

d

4 103.5 jl- sin

d
 34

(3-19)

and for either of the two principal planes

Eq. (3-19) becomes

5/z,
(3-20)

where

The normalized power pattern ^(-*9 for the uniform

phase and amplitude distribution for a square aperture is

shown in Fig. 3-3.

In order to analyze the pattern characteristics as

functions of various square aperture distributions, the

two-dimensional aperture function is considered as

the product of two one-dimensional aperture functions which

means

(3_

Equation (3-18) now becomes

Since the two orthogonal aperture distribution can be added

 35

Figure 3-3. Power Pattern For Uniform Phase and

Amplitude Illuminated Square Aperture

 36

by superposition, one principal plane can be assumed uniformly

illuminated for calculating the effects of non-uniform distri-

butions in the other principle plane. Assume that the = 7^

principal plane is uniformly distributed with

pattern. Then Eq. (3-22) with normalization for the far-field

in the plane reduces to

^-W-- (3_2
-/

Where xx, -

and X - normalized distance along aperture which

is a pattern produced by a line source distribution.

The theoretical gain of a line source is x in

terms of the gain factor which was previously defined and

the theoretical gain of a square aperture is <=

A1 J
Considering a uniformly illuminated line source and square

aperture ('gz-l, g ) the square aperture with sides

theoretical gain becomes

<5r = (3-2

or

and the theoretical gain of the line source with sides is

 37

(3-25)

Therefore, the useful relationship exists between the theoretical

gain of the square aperture and line source equal to the length

of the side of the square which is

(3-26>

(3-27)

in terms of the gain factor, and for

a loss factor. Pattern characteristics of square apertures

for various aperture amplitude distributions with constant

phase are obtained from the calculated patterns using Eq. (3-23)

and are illustrated in Table 3-2.

Phase errors across the aperture can be incorporated to

alter the pattern shapes for various aperture distributions.

The usual phase errors are the linear, quadratic or cubic.

In order to calculate these effects an additional phase angle

is introduced in Eq. (3-10) for the circular array which

becomes

(3-28)

O
 38

TABLE 3-2

CHARACTERISTICS OF APERTURE POWER

PATTERN FOR VARIOUS DISTRIBUTIONS

OVER SQUARE APERTURE

■d" First
Gain Half-Power Position of Side Lobe
Distribution Factor Beamwidth £• First Null db Below
Function Variable In Degrees In Radians Peak Value

K_
Uniform 1.0 50.5 hz -13.2
4. A.
/(x;-/ A/^/
-o /x/^/
____<1______________

H
o

Parabc)lic 1.0 50.5 A, -13.2

I
I

o*#
o
co

0.994 52.7 K-
A- 1.06 -15.8
/xl-il A
o
in

0.920 55.6 Jk. 1.14 -17.1

4. A-
o
o

0.833 65 K_ 1,43 "fc -20.6

a-
-! X 1

h, = o h.
Cosine 1.0 50.5A (X. -13.2
A.
’
.o$
i 0.810 68.7 Jv 1.5A -23.0
<»U A.
/X/^
2 0.667 83.0 -h=- 2 K- -32.0

3 0.575 95.0 A 2.5

4*.
-40.0
... i
'4 0.515 3 -48.0
-L L__ <K.
Triancjular 0.75 73.4 2 hz -26.4
A. A.
7-/x/
/XI 1

-! i( /
 39

where = phase departure at edge of aperture and k*

(linear), (quadratic), and k3 (cubic). In case of a

square aperture. Eq. (3-23) becomes

(3-29)

where = phase departure at edge of aperture and

(linear), X^(quadratic) and X3 (cubic).

A linear phase error only shifts the pattern maximum

whereas the pattern shape has the same form as that of a

uniform phase case. A quadratic phase error reduces gain

and raises both the side-lobe level and the level of the

minima when compared to a uniform phase illumination. Cubic

phase error tilts the beam in a way similar to that caused

by the linear error and produces main lobe asymetry while

side lobes increase on one side of the main lobe and decrease

on the other side. These phase errors offer no advantages

over amplitude tapers for shaping patterns from the apertures

of a monopulse antenna. The quadratic phase error is the only

one of these used to some extent for a monopulse application

because of the symmetrical aspects.

The circular aperture exhibits more desirable character­

istics for a monopulse antenna application than the square

aperture as shown in Figs. (3-4) and (3-5), and which illustrates

- < ::i! IHH L |ir ■. il« [1- till till
BsBsi
zE: - 1 <-J T-; BJ | z| 1EEz 1 BEEE:E® WT M - 44

i|Bii4h-44|E:E14Eli|iEE4eii-$$S
iEiEyi|EiOiti:yi|yy|iyi||:5g

11; ffi
|| SSS|BJ||||||||ig
ste y 1 i 1111 Bl Im WBM

BSsiyyiilyyyy:|i||tiyy:yy|i 0::yE:iy:0iH:0::ii4Eyyy||ii:$E|y

■ I Mi#
fMIM
^^hi£S»i£*ie‘E1141EE^|||g;|te tt:Etg$HEEE

Bi ::::::::::::::::::::
|4:;EEE^g||g±8l8S:?SSSS-E*E:^iE
4-...... ---.1$------
-h-T-^C----^- --------------------
------------ _L.-+---+
----- ------- $ .......... -i-8-
:L_--+----.,--J :.J:L-

tN1.|llii II |. U |.| liLi 1 IJll-UilJ-TriJ-144-i-U 111! L '-i-lji'iU'-yB1"-

4|-;-B||EigiffiE±||gEg^^||EgE;|4EE

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEiE^EEEE^EESE^E^Eg^O^^^
■i—yl--7---^:|-------------------- ^-±---^-t--S—±-

4E;EE14±gBEEEEEEEg^^igEg±E$S|ES±^g
-E;EEEgEEEEgEEEEEEE4E|4EEE;iElE;^5||||^S

|.| l.l-.l-l-1 |.|j--|IMillWl II1 11.IMII 1 llMM

lyyiyiiyOOHyEEiEOiElMgElBigl

----- 4..„±±.x—liB+P- th--4#•■ M

i 4 id. fig __ B
it feft ^8 E|
wSweBeiS
li: ■hlbglfl |b|4|Bi.1 JilE
:T-t-1 i$|£E4||4EEi +iK t* 411 H
•1 i-i4+‘ml +tl -H+h-H-I+I-IlHllllLUI|lillHiH-|4llllllllllil'l ~H~i 11 i I4i 1 i 1 I t 114111IH1 fli- 4• i-ti i Mi kill Ikliii
 42

the half power beamwidths and positions of the first nulls

versus the gain factor for circular and square apertures

with various amplitude distributions. The uniformly illumi­

nated circular aperture provides the same gain as a square

aperture while yielding a larger half power beamwidth and a

greater distance from the peak of the beam for the first null.

Also, a comparison of the side lobe levels in Tables 3-1 and

3-2 shows that the circular aperture levels are lower than

those for the square aperture.

Maintaining the first null a maximum distance away from

the peak of the beam has a definite advantage fro a monopulse

antenna application. The first null distance is directly re­

lated to the available target acquisition angle. The target

acquisition angle increases as the first null distance is

increased from the peak of the beam. This aspect is discussed

in more detail in the target acquisition section of this report.

3.2 Spacecraft Structure Effects

The performance of a monopulse antenna system is degraded

by energy reflected from the spacecraft structure, and the

degree of such degradation is a function of the antenna radia­

tion pattern and its height above structure, geometry and

roughness of the structure, and scanning limits.

The surface roughness criterion for non-grazing angles

states that the standard deviation <5 of a surface must be

 43

less than « r* f°r the surface to be classified as

smooth

_ k
(3-30)

The spacecraft surfaces are smooth according to this criterian.

Furthermore, it may be considered flat due to its radius of

curvature being large with respect to the wavelength and hence

reflections from it would be specular, in fact ideally specular

because of its conductivity.

Ray traces and image theory are used to approximate the

effects of antenna height, spacecraft geometry, and pattern

characteristics as shown in Fig. 3-6 for two different antenna

heights above the Apollo Command and Service Module. Ray

traces 1, I1 and 2, 2* show that doubling the present height

111 would decrease the magnitude of the reflected wave be­

cause it enters the antenna aperture at a greater angle off

boresight and would be attenuated more due to the

amplitude characteristics of the antenna pattern. Also, rays

3, 31 shows that the antenna at height Zjii would not be

effected by the reflected wave for the same transmitted signal

look angle which yields rays 1, 1* for antenna height A

The reflected wave appears to come from an image source

and cause the antenna to see two transmitted signals separated

Figure 3-6. Direct and Reflected Energy Toward Antenna
>^>
>6*
 45

by an arrival angle . This causes the antenna to seek the

resultant of the two transmitted signals and produce boresight

errors as a function of:

a) Relative amplitude of the direct and reflected waves

b) The angle between the direct and reflected waves

c) The relative phase angle J" between the direct and

reflected waves.

Theoretical values of boresight errors in the azimuth or

elevation planes due to reflections from spacecraft structure

may be obtained for a phase comparison system using the mathe­

matical model (Thompson, 1966) shown in Fig. 3-7. The reflected

wave generates an additional pattern which adds vectorally to

those given by Eqs. (2-3) and (2-4), resulting in the following

comparator output sum and difference voltages for no squint

angle case:

(3-31)

and

(3-32)

where d = antenna phase center separation

= sum output voltage of comparator

 46

Figure 3-7. Math Model for Theoretical Boresight

Shifts
 47

-^4 = difference output voltage of comparator

Ad = amplitude factor of direct wave

Ar = amplitude factor of reflected wave

= angle between direct and reflected waves

= angle from direct wave to boresight axis

= phase difference between direct and reflected

wave

= phase function of direct wave

function of reflected wave

In order to find the value of for to be a maximum.

Eq. (3-32) is changed to the magnitude and phase form by using

the cosine law:

O. C *- ZA-c. c»sA-
(3-33)

which results in

(3-34)

Since the magnitude squared of is a function of and

it can be expressed as (Thompson, 1966)

(3-35)
 48

and differentiating this equation with respect to yields

the conditions for a null results as

- ^Ce-Vcos^ (3-36)

Equation (3-36) is differentiated with respect to to find

the value of J" which maximizes -e- (Thompson, 1966) to

yield
•Sin S — o

(3"37)

A substitution of the above values of in Eq. (3-32) and

—X
the setting of equal to zero for the null condition

results in

y Aj sinK®- £ h. j (3-38

Equation (3-38) may be simplified by assuming the antenna

to be isotropic. This assumption does not produce appreciable

errors if the angles are restricted to values relatively

smaller than the half power beamwidth of the antenna aperature

and Eq. (3-38) reduces to

(3-39)
 49

If the half power beamwidth of the antenna aperture is small

to allow small angle approximations, boresight error can be

found from Eq. (3-39) as

(3-40)

and

(3-41)

The specific spacecraft and antenna configurations

determine whether Eq. (3-38) or its simplified forms dis­

cussed above are applicable in order to determine theoretical

values of boresight shifts. For the Apollo configuration

illustrated in Fig. 3-6, Eq. (3-40) was used to find bore­

sight shifts shown in Fig. 3-8 since large aperture half

power beamwidths and -5 angles were involved.

The mathematical model shown in Fig. 3-7 can also be

used to determine theoretical values of boresight shifts

for an amplitude comparison system. As the phase center

separation d approaches zero, the comparator output sum

and difference voltages become

 51

and

i_-c(»^) ~0-43)

where c*. = squint angle.

The maximum boresight shifts occur for the relative

phases of J”- and ft* in a way similar to the phase

comparison system. A substitution of these values in Eq. (3-43)

**
and setting 2Fa equal to zero for the null condition results

in

_ sm *-(***•)_ 4- ^>2 $)1>k(6 ^-0) 7

K(*-*) " *(*+*) ~ J (3-44)

For antenna apertures with small half-power beamwidths

and restricting the angles to less than the aperture beam­

width, small angle approximations are used in Eq. (3-44), re­

sulting in maximum boresight shifts of

(3-45)

and

S= D (3-46)

The theoretical boresight shifts as a function of the

ratio and J? angles are shown in Fig. 3-9 for an

-4J
 53

amplitude comparison system.

Equations (3-32) and (3-43) for the phase and amplitude

comparison systems, respectfully, show that the relative

magnitude -r-r and the relative phase angle J are the

two parameters available for reducing the reflected wave

effects. In practice, the reduction of the relative magni­

tude is accomplished by one or a combination of the

following:

a) Addition of absorbing material over the spacecraft

surface to reduce the magnitude of the reflected

wave.

b) Scattering the reflected wave by making the space­

craft surface rough or adding a series of reflecting

fences.

c) Increasing the aperture height above the spacecraft

surface which increases the angle and allows

more attenuation of the reflected wave due to the

element pattern geometry.

d) The reflected wave can be reduced by orienting the

spacecraft to make very large to obtain large

attenuation from element pattern geometry.

The last method was used for the Apollo configuration to cope

with the reflected wave effects.

 54

3.3 Target Acquisitions

The maximum acquisition angle is defined as the maximum

angle off boresight at which a target can be acquired without

the possibility of false lock-on. This simply means that the

maximum acquisition angle would be less than the first am­

biguous null (difference pattern is equal to zero) angle away

from the boresight axis for the sum and difference monopulse

system. The angle to the sum pattern for both phase and amp­

litude comparison systems which is the upper bound on unam­

biguous angular range (Rhodes, 1959) satisfies the above

conditions.

Equations (2-3) and (2-4), with no squint angle and

precomparator phase error, yield the sum and difference output

voltages for a single plane phase comparison system as

and

- K»- Ke- (3-48)

If one setts 2T€ equal to zero, the following expression

for determining the nulls of the sum pattern results

 55

J2 cos^ — ° (3-49)

where

The first sum pattern null occurs when is equal to

radians which implies its angular postiion from the boresight

axis to be

-/
5m e =
(3-50)

Equation (3-50) shows the dependency of the acquisition angle

on the spacing between centers.

In order to find the ambiguous nulls or possible false

lock-on angles off boresight for a phase comparison system.

Eq. (3-48) is set equal to zero, or

(3-51)

where

The first ambiguous null occurs when equals /?* radians

and its angular position from the boresight axis is

-/
sme - (3-52)

The first sum pattern null and ambiguous null for the

narrow beam array of the Apollo phase comparison antenna are

 56

calculated to be 5.25 degrees and 10.6 degrees, respectively.

The phase center spacing is equal to 30.4 inches and the

wavelength A. is equal to 5.6 inches. Figure 3-10 illustrates

the ambiguous and unambiguous regions for the actual narrow

beam tracking error curve. The above calculated values com­

pare favorably with the actual values shown in Fig. 3-10.

Using Eqs. (2-3) and (2-4) and assuming no pre-comparator

phase errors, the sum and difference output voltages for a

single plane amplitude comparison system are

(3-53)

and

(3-54)

where ,
(p - O

Then in Eq. (3-53) is set equal to zero in order to

find the sum pattern null angles as follows:

-&• 4-p4- _ -5#>1

(3-55)

whre k =
/e e c e w r /^ o fx /Z ^ r /S '*

Figure 3-10. Percent Modulation Vs. Tracking Error

 58

= angle between the first nulls of element pattern

as shown in Fig. 2-2

= squint angle

Ai = Ax.

The ambiguous nulls can be found by setting £n Eq. (3-54)

equal to zero

y l. (3-56
- -6- "tAH ke*- /rorz.

The sum pattern nulls and ambiguous nulls for the ampli­

tude comparison system are dependent on the squint angle o<-

and the defined beamwidth of the element patterns. For

a beamwidth equal to 10 degrees and an o*- equal to 2 degrees,

the first sum pattern null and ambiguous null position from

boresight are calculated to be 6.24 degrees and 12.42 degrees,

respectively.

It is apparent from the relations expressed above that

the maximum acquisition angle decreases as antenna gains be­

come larger for both amplitude and phase coparison systems.

The acquisition angle for the Apollo narrow beam array was

found not large enough to satisfy mission requirements.

Therefore, a wide beam array yielding an acquisition region

of t 60 degrees from boresight was used to acquire the target.

When the target moved to wihtin ± 1 degree from boresight the

 59

logic circuitry automatically switched in the narrow beam

array. This technique eliminated the possible false lock-

on positions within a region of + 60 degrees from boresight

and is certainly applicable for future spacecraft antenna

designs.

3.4 System Compatibility

The monopulse antenna system must be compatible with

the space mission, and various equipment interfaces. Achiev­

ing compatibility for a particular mission usually requires

unique modifications to the basic antenna design. The purpose

of this section is to discuss the unique designs of the Apollo

monopulse antenna system which are applicable to future space­

craft antenna systems.

Weight and size restrictions imposed by the Apollo mission

resulted in development of a unique single channel monopulse

antenna system using the phase comparison technique. A great

deal of emphasis was placed on establishing a compatible inter­

face between antenna, the S-band receiver and the ground sta­

tion uplink signal to be rewarded with the advantages of a

single channel monopulse system. Discussions of the antenna

operational and interface characteristics will be beneficial

to future antenna design considerations.

The Apollo antenna consists of two phase comparison mono­

pulse arrays each having four radiating elements for dual

 60

plane tracking. One array produces a broad beam which is

used for acquisitions while the other array having a narrow

beam is used for tacking. The antenna configuration is shown

in Fig. 3-11.

The comparator circuitry is the same for both the broad

and narrow beam arrays and is illustrated in Fig. 3-12. The

lobing switches essentially directional couplers with diodes

that are biased forward or reversed to cause open and shorted

terminal conditions which produce the necessary elevation and

azimuth difference patterns. These patterns are used to modu­

late the sum pattern at specific times through the directional

coupler at the received frequency only which produces beam

shifts as shown in Fig. 3-13. This technique produces error

signals which are encoded as 50 cycle amplitude modulation on

the ground station uplink carrier. The percent of modulation

is expressed as

y/
X. yoo
(3-57)

The percent modulations may also be expressed for the azimuth

and elevation planes in terms of the shifted beams illustrated

in Fig. 3-13 or

/^/ -i&i
X/do (3-58)
IS! + JeU -
 61

Figure 3-11. CSM-HGA Antenna System (Osborn, 1969)

 62

CONPWZZ/M-r/ON

/££kr»w«R
S i.c-A)Ze _C5-Z>)Z'S» = -(?♦»)fCB<-c),-^et
Ce-A)ze - cs-p)Z2. - -(*fS>CcrP)«

Figure 3-12. Basic Comparator Circuit (Osborn, 1969)

Figure 3-13. Beam Shifts Due to the Sum Pattern Being

Modulated with the Difference Pattern

 64

for the azimuth plane and

(3-59)

for the elevation plane where the R, 2. , u. i and P subscripts

represent right, left, up and down beam positions. Typical

percent modulation per degrees off boresight or error signal

curves for the wide and narrow beam arrays are shown in Fig. 3-14.

A functional block diagram shown in Fig. 3-15 illustrates

tracking signal processing system. The sum signal modulated

by the azimuth and elevation difference signals which produces

the desired 50 cycle amplitude modulation is processed to the

receiver. A sample of the signal which contains the 50

cycle amplitude modulation is conditioned and delivered to the

synchronous demodulator which extracts suitable servo error

signals to drive the antenna.

Incompatibilities between the Apollo antenna system and

the ground station up-link in the form of excessive.tracking

errors were noted during ground testing. The up-link is com­

posed of a carrier which is phase modulated by a voice sub­

carrier (3OKH3 ) , and updata subcarrier (7OKM3 ) , and

pseudo-random noise ranging, where the voice and updata sub­

carriers are frequency modulated. Extensive analysis and

additional testing was performed to determine the causes of

in
 66

Figure 3-15. Tracking Signal Processing

 67

excessive tracking errors which can now be identified as:

a) Intermodulation of the pseudo-random noise ranging

signal with the voice and updata subcarriers appear­

ing as an extraneous signal in the tracking channel.

b) Residual amplitude modulation of the subcarriers by

the ground station subcarriers oscillators (SCO's)

introducing an effect in the tracking channel.

c) Static boresight shifts are introduced when excessive

tracking channel noise appears.

The analysis was performed by TRW Systems Group (Chan, et al,

1968; Sullivan, et al, 1967) and the approach with results

is discussed here. Additional analysis details can be obtained

from the referenced papers. The compatability testing was

performed at the Manned Spacecraft Center's antenna range

under the writers direction and is discussed in the measure­

ments section of this report.

The mathematical model used for the analysis is shown in

Fig. 3-16 and the signal processing, multiplexing, and de­

multiplexing waveforms are illustrated in Fig. 3-17. The sum

signal is expressed as

$»»/'««#• * (3_60)

and the azimuth and elevation difference signals as:

Figure 3-16. Math Model Used for Tracking Error Analysis

o>
00
 69

ToTAi. WPjL#KK. pfOPU4.ATie,»

5y VA#yc.K fiRRoR.

5tl?)aj r Sl^J<y

O 5" Io IS Zo
/*?><■ 1.15<?C.ORPj
^IRVA-F/O#/ /lULr/pZ^XIfVO /AeipfuTW /iruz.riFZ.FXiiv» anp
#\HP PEMULTlPlffX !M<r \pAVFFO1tM Per,ut.r,pz.6:x'F6 k/AvEPogp

A jl ui;fcortP5 ZY/pz. <s<fc. ex'f ps

Figure 3-17. Signal Processing, Multiplexing and

Demultiplexing Waveforms
 70
^3 t 4- 4>vtj3
(3-61)

V<£)a1 ■= 5/M pct v- 4> to*]

(3-62)

where "sp' = carrier frequency

(>bt) = carrier phase modulation consisting of PRN

ranging, update and voice subcarriers

- magnitudes of sum, elevation difference, and

azimuth difference signals.

The tracking error information in the azimuth and elevation

planes is contained in the following expressions

(3-63)

(3-64)

where ^3 = degrees of tracking error in the elevation

and azimuth planes

%JLJ'*no^ = percent modulation per degree tracking

error for elevation and azimuth channels

produced by the sum pattern being modulated

by the various difference patterns

in order to show the effects of intermodulation products on

 71

tracking errors, the phase modulation is retained on the

carrier and the output from the 10 KHz filter becomes

= (3-65)

+■ X(^)c°5

where multiplexing waveforms for elevation and

azimuth planes which are shown in Fig.

A/tfc) = band-limited white Gaussian random process

of mean zero and one-sided spectral density ^5

centered about with bandwidth 3/F"

WJ, X^) = independent bandwidth white Gaussian random

processes of mean zero and one-sided spectral

density^^ from zero to

The VCO output signal is proportional to Cos wc where

bias and noise phase errors are neglected which means the co­

herent amplitude detector references can be represented by

^ue to JX- phase shift from the VCO output. This

yields a coherent amplitude detector output voltage of

=■ s/n one /" \/(£)i

\C05

where

for total uplinks.

 72
and Cr(i) = PRN ranging code which takes on the values

± 1

= PRN modulation index

<• = Updata subcarrier modulation index

= Voice subcarrier modulation index

= Voice angle modulation

Data angle modulation

An expansion of the Bessel function and the separation

of the DC value of (due to the AC coupling prior to

the error detectors), results in the normalized output volt­

age of the elevation error detector, expressed as

M(t>3d - ---- -J (3,67,

/
where = demultiplexing waveform for the elevation

channel as shown in Fig. 3-17

fs Jo L-S^To = DV value of VCt);L

Neglecting higher order harmonics and assuming that no beat

frequencies exist between the voice and updata subcarriers

due to their separation, Eq. (3-67) becomes

v^)3jljl -- hl.tpu Vtoho,ie Stolt 4- W)IWEtMro Sttoh (3-68)

ytt)
where V^noise
To(0c)g;(ffr)c»7^-
 73

Vf/Jintermod t-b
To(^g)

- 2_32^1cbkt)
To(^) J

The following properties of the multiplexing and demultiplexing

waveforms were used to obtain Eq. (3-68) in the above form:

- 56^ZtZ
5U)»5 Slt)^ -- 5bL>^
sttu - o (3_69)
Sttti. 6(4)0.). = °

The first term of Eq. (3-68) is desired signal due to a

track error in the elevation plane. The second term is an

extraneous signal due to thermal noise. The third term is

an extraneous signal caused by intermodulation between the

ranging signal and the voice and updata subcarriers due to the

coherent amplitude detection of a phase modulated"signal .

Equation (3-68) in conjunction with the elevation tracking

loop shown in Fig. 3-18 was utilized to evaluate tracking

errors. Only the elevation channel is analyzed since only

relative effects are of interest.

3.5 Tracking Error Due to Thermal Noise

The mean square thermal noise tracking error for the

elevation channel can be expressed as

(B/b) (3-70)
/**-N0»E —- ------ z----------- ;----------- ------- ------- ----
Jo(5v)cos(Sy IF
 74

^^A/aiE * Vtt")jNn'efioo

Figure 3-18. Model of Elevation Channel Tracking

Loop
 75

where g/F = bandwidth

= one sided closed loop noise bandwidth of

antenna servo

tnjl = 3.5% per degree

Figure 3-19 shows the tracking error due to thermal noise as

a function of signal-to-noise ratio and received signal power

for various modulation indices showing the degree of modula­

tion affects on tracking errors.

3.6 Tracking Error Due to Intermodulation

Equation (3-68) and the tracking loop of Fig. 3-18 yields

the tracking error due to intermodulation as

+«^=(z97

A substitution of the Fourier series expansions of the de­

multiplexing waveform and the PRN ranging wide in Eq. (3-71)

and setting and equal to a constant (no

modulation on subcarriers) results in the following peak

tracking errors due to intermodulation:

a) For voice

(3-72)

— sun < (t6$v - ymuJvp-nwo

7*/eAGK/A/6

. . . .. L

Figure 3-19 :1MS Tlackiihg Error Dihe to Thermal Noise

»oi i i
-fol -101 -/00 -78 -76 -TV -72 -7» -88 -8C. -8V -82

-7 -II 8 5-7 7 n #3 <s

 77

b) For update
z> - TiW y
prt w«i h=l
w«t T«(S‘)

where due to 2 KHz low pass filter

1»K = the hth Fourier coefficient of the de­

multiplexing signal

P = PRN code component integer

/H = odd integer for harmonics of PRN code

component

d-Fvip = the pth code component of the mth Fourier

coefficient of the PRN code

= constants due to no modulated subcarriers

Only the frequency components which fall within the servo loop

bandwidth are determined which means that the follow-

terms of Eqs. (3-72) and (3-73) must satisfy the following

conditions:
For Eq. (3-72) j "^sv-Wi Svp 4-v\"^o— Bs (m Odd)

and j£$v— f®! — Bs

and

For Eq. (3-73) (Bs (>«Odd)

and
 78

The root mean square tracking error which is the square root

of one half times the sum of the squares of the peaks of the

components within the servo bandwidth C 2- is considered

to be a reasonable estimate. Table 3-3 shows the calculated

elevation channel tracking errors due to intermodulation for

various modulation of the voice and updata subcarriers. These

results show that tracking errors are related to various com­

binations of modulation indices which means that trade-offs

must be made between antenna performance and uplink quality.

3.7 Tracking Error Due to Amplitude Modulation on Subcarriers

Assuming noise is introduced elsewhere. Eq. (3-66) becomes

/in Sltj-i Stoo^jcos

where

= voice subcarrier = mu 5^60,^! "t"

= updata subcarrier = s,MWvvn_ V"

/>ni/yn2.= modulation index for AM

voice and command angle modulation assumed to

be zero

An upplication of the analysis approach for finding the inter­

modulation tracking errors to the elevation channel loop shown

in Fig. 3-18, the peak tracking error due to AM modulation on

the subcarrier is found to be

 19
TABLE 3-3

TRACKING ERROR DUE TO INTERMODULATION

Tracking Error
Modulation (Degrees)
Sy Sr (RMS) (Peak)
fcAPJANS

1.85, 0, 0.8 0.08 0.24

1.45, 0, 0.51 0.02 0.06

0.95, 0, 0.29 0.01 0.03

1.0, 0.76, 0.5 0.01 0.03

0, 1.85, 0.8 0.08 0.24

1.20, 0, 0.38 0.013 0.04

1.0, 1.0, 0.44 0.017 0.05

 80
J-
X -2- -Z
_ I f4T> gK J
) f /<2/Ti(Sv)wi
) V<5^5") J 13-74 >

The calculated peak tracking errors due to 50 hz AM modulation

on the voice and updata subcarriers are shown in Table 3-4 for

the elevation channel. These results show that the tracking

error is directly proportional to the AM index of modulation

when they are the same for each subcarrier. This is also true

for only one subcarrier on the uplink. Therefore, the residual

amplitude modulation of the ground station subcarrier oscillators

must be maintained at a very low level when interfaced with this.

Table 3-5A shows a comparison of analytical and test re­

sults for various modulation indices. Also, in Table 3-5B, the

original modulation iridices are compared to the values that are

now used for the Apollo program as a result of analysis and tests.
 81

TABLE 3-4

PEAK TRACKING ERROR DUE TO IAM

Combinations Peak Tracking Error

(Degrees)
(Radians) 1% A14 0.1% AM

0.5, 1.0, 0.76 0.155 0.015

0.44, 1.0, 1.0 0.212 0.021

0.0, 1.1, 1.1 0.262 0.026

 82

TABLE 3-5A

COMPARISON OF ANALYTICAL AND

EXPERIMENTAL TRACKING ERRORS

Analytical
Modulation Test Results Results
Indices Total Tracking Total Tracking
(RAD) Mode Error (Deg) Error (Deg)

0.8 1 PRN
1.85 a) 30 kHz (w/o tape) 0.36 0.24
1.85 b) 30 kHz (w/tape) SCO = ±7.5 kHz 0.36 —
1.85 c) 30 kHz (w/tape) SCO = 5.0 kHz 0.33 —
0.38 PRN
1.20 2 a) 30 kHz (w/o tape) 0.20 0.04
1.20 b) 30 kHz (w/tape) SCO = ±7.5 kHz 0.20 —
1.20 c) 30 kHz (w/tape) SCO = ±7.5 kHz 0.0 —
0.5 PRN
1.0 a) 30 kHz (w/o tape) 0.2 0.03
0.76 3 70 kHz (w/o data) -
1.0 b) 30 kHz (w/tape) SCO = ±7.5 kHz 0.2 —
0.76 70 kHz (w/data) SCO = ±7.5 kHz
0.44 PRN
1.0 a) 30 kHz (w/o tape) 0.0 0.05
1.0 4 70 kHz (w/o data)
1.0 b) 30 kHz (w/tape) SCO = ±7.5 kHz 0.0 —
1.0 70 kHz (w/data) SCO = ±7.5 kHz
0.8 PRN
1.85 5 a) 70 kHz (w/o data) 0.27 0.24
1.85 b) 70 kHz (w/data) SCO = ±7.5 kHz 0.33 —
0.38 PRN
1.20 6 a) 70 kHz (w/o data) 0.22 0.04
1.20 b) 70 kHz (w/data) SCO = ±5 kHz 0.22 —
 83

TABLE 3-5B

COMPARISON OF OLD AND NEW MODULATION INDICES

PRN Ranging J?y Voice Sv UP Data So

Mode
Old New Old New Old New

1 0.8 0.38 1.85 1.20 0 0

5 0.8 0.38 0 0 1.85 1.20

3 0.5 0.44 1.0 1.0 0.76 1.0

 CHAPTER IV

MEASUREMENTS

A test was performed to determine the compatibility

of the Apollo single channel monopulse tracking antenna

with the Manned Space Flight Network (MSFN) ground stations.

These tests were conducted at the Manned Spacecraft Center

located in Houston, Texas. A microwave link was set .up be­

tween the building having the ground station equipment and

the anechoic chamber where the spacecraft antenna was mounted

on a positioner as illustrated in Fig. 4-1. The ground station

uplink signals were transmitted over the microwave link between

the two buildings and retransmitted from the apex of the an­

echoic chamber to the spacecraft antenna.

The spacecraft S-band transponder receives the uplink

(Z/owhich is modulated by the antenna sum and dif­

ference patterns. The transmitted signal of 2287.5 mHz was

recorded so that the variations in the recorded RF levels

could be converted to degrees of tracking error.

Various uplink modes with different modulation indices

were tested. The voice subcarrier was frequency modulated

with a voice tape in some cases. Table 4-1 illustrates the

measured tracking error for the modes tested with various

modulation indices. As previously illustrated in Table 3-5A,

 85

S/toCEOKA pr /^UlP/ZfHT SUH-P/NGr fo

Figure 4-1. Test Set Up for Measuring Tracking Errors

 86

TABLE 4-1

RESULTS OF TRACKING ERROR TESTING

Modulation Test Results

Indices Total Tracking
(RAD) Mode Error (Deg)

0.8 PRN 0.36

1.85 1 a) 30 kHz (w/o tape)
1.85 b) 30 kHz (w/tape) SCO = 7.5 kHz 0.36
1.85 c) 30 kHz (w/tape) SCO = 5.0 kHz 0.33
0.38 PRN
1.20 2 a) 30 kHz (w/o tape) 0.20
1.20 b) 30 kHz (w/tape) SCO = 7.5 kHz 0.20

1.20 c) 30 kHz (w/tape) SCO = 7.5 kHz 0.0

0.5 PRN
1.0 a) 30 kHz (w/o tape) 0.2
0.76 3 70 kHz (w/o data)
1.0 b) 30 kHz (w/tape) SCO = 7.5 kHz 0.2

0.76 70 kHz (w/data) SCO = 7.5 kHz

0.44 PRN
1.0 a) 30 kHz (w/o tape) 0.0

1.0 4 70 kHz (w/o data)

1.0 b) 30 kHz (w/tape) SCO = 7.5 kHz 0.0

1.0 70 kHz (w/data) SCO =7.5 kHz

0.8 PRN
1.85 5 a) 70 kHz (w/o data) 0.2?

1.85 b) 70 kHz (w/data) SCO =7.5 kHz 0.33

0.38 PRN
1.20 a) 70 kHz (w/o data) 0.22

1.20 b) 70 kHz (w/data) SCO = 5 kHz 0.22

 87

which gives the comparison between the analytical and measured

tracking error values. The wrost case of tracking errors

occured when a combination of PRN ranging and either of the

30 kHz or 70 kHz subcarriers which is verified by the analysis

and test results. The modulation indices that were changed due

to the analysis and test results were previously shown in

Table 3-5B.
 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS

Parameters such as precomparator phase shifts, post­

comparator phase shifts, and unsymmetrical antenna patterns

(which cause voltage unbalances) effect the performance of

both amplitude and phase comparison monopulse tracking sys­

tems. Table 5-1 summarizes the effects these parameters

have on system performance. Voltage unbalances before and

in the comparator are the main contributors to boresight

shifts for an amplitude comparison system. The main con­

tributors to boresight shifts for a phase comparison system

are phase shifts before and in the comparator. The secondary

effects which cause boresight shifts listed in the table for

both amplitude and phase comparison systems can be reduced

considerably by adjusting out any post comparator errors.

The null depth must be maintained as deep as possible

for accurate tracking capability. The null depths decrease

as pre-comparator phase shifts increase for an amplitude com­

parison system whereas for the phase comparison system, the

null depth decreases as the voltage unbalance increases be­

tween the individual element patterns.

The gain beamwidth requrements for the spacecraft

monopulse antenna are determined by the maximum communication

 TABLE 5-1

PARAMETERS AND THEIR EFFECT ON MONOPOLE SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

EFFECTS PARAMETERS

Pre- & Post­ Voltage Unbalance

Pre-Comparator Voltage Comparator & Post-Comparator
Phase Shift Unbalance Phase Shift Phase Shifts

Amplitude Comparison

Boresight Shifts X X*

Decrease in Null Depth X

Gradual Phase Reversal X

Phase Comparison

Boresight Shifts X X*

Decrease in Null Depth X

Gradual Phase Reversal X

*Secondary effects

CO
kD
 90

distances, the amount of earth coverage at a certain radiation

level, and the required signal to noise ratios necessary for

successful communication events. An aperture configuration

and illumination function which maximizes beamwidth as well

as gain should be selected. Larger beamwidths cover more of

the earth at the required radiation level and allow an increase

in the tracking error budget. More than one beamwidth would

be necessary to provide the required gains and to amply illumi­

nate the earth's disk for adequate ground station hand-over

capabilities as the communication distances vary. The widebeam

used for earth illumination at short distances can also be used

for initial target acquisition at any distance. This technique

was utilized for Apollo which provided an unambiguous null region

(free of false lock-on possibilities) of plus or minus 60 de­

grees from the boresight position for initial target acuisition.

The logic circuitry automatically switches to narrow beam track­

ing when the target is moved to within plus or minus one degree

from boresight. This technique is certainly applicable for

future spacecraft antenna design.

The circular aperture exhibits more desirable gain and

beamwidth qualities when compared to the square aperture. The

uniform illuminated circular aperture yields the same gain as

a square aperture while providing a larger half power beamwidth

and a greater distance from the peak of the beam to the first
 91

null which is illustrated (see Figs. 2-6 and 2-7). For a

uniform illuminated case, the circular aperture half power

beamwidth is 15.8% greater than the square apertures when

the diameter of the circular aperture equals the side length

of the square aperture.

The boresight shifts caused by the reflected energy

from the spacecraft structure arriving at the antenna aperture

depend on the phase and amplitude relations between the direct

and reflected waves for a given angle between the direct

and reflected waves. Optimizing the aperture height above

structure and reducing the magnitude of the reflected wave

are the most practical ways to reduce boresight shifts. Ex­

tendable booms could be deployed to position the antenna

aperture at the optimum height above structure after the

launch phase. The magnitude of the reflected wave can be

reduced by adding absorber material over the spacecraft sur­

face. For the Apollo configuration, the absorbing material

would have to yield a reflected to direct wave ratio of

greater than 20 db to maintain boresight shifts of less than

2.5 degrees for a -5 angle of 26 degrees as illustrated in

Fig. 3-8. The available prototype absorber would yield the

needed high attenuation characteristics for large angles of

normal incidence. Attitude control was implimented to pre­

vent the effects of reflected energy from spacecraft structures

 92

for Apollo instead of absorber material which was more com­

patible with launch schedules.

The single channel monopulse antenna systems are more

applicable for spacecraft use than the multiple channel sys­

tems due to the weight, size, and simplicity advantages.

Decreasing the uplink modulation indices for the PRN ranging,

voice and data subcarriers was found to be a compromising

solution for the compatibility problems and it resulted in

minimum modifications to spacecraft and ground station. The

analysis and testing of the total system compatibility early

in the development programs is essential in order to optimize

the receiver and antenna interfaces to eliminate performance

dependency on modulation indices.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Chan, R. J. Tracking Effect Due to IAI4 on the Uplink Mode

Containing Both S-Band Subcarriers, Contract No. NAS 9-
4810, TRW Systems Document No. 05952-H454-R0-00, March,
1968.

Chan, R. J. and C. C. Wang. Boresight Shift Analysis for

the Apollo LM and CSM Tracking Systems and Comparison
of CSM Test Results with Analytical Results, Contract
No. NAS 9-4810, TRW Systems Document No. 05952-H408-R0-00
February, 1968.

Cohen, William and C. M. Steinmetz. "Amplitide and Phase

Sensing Monopulse System Parameters," Microwave Journal,
Vol. 2, No. 10, Part I, October, 1959, pp. 27-33.

Cohen, William and C. M,. Steinmetz. "Amplitude and Phase

Sensing Monopulse System Parameters," Microwave Journal,
Vol. 2, No.11, Part 2, November, 1959, pp. 33-38.

Evans, G. C. "Influence of Ground Reflection Radar Target

Tracking Accuracy," Proc. IEEE, Vol. 113, No. 8, August,
1966, pp. 1281-1286.

Jasik, H. Antenna Engineering Handbook. McGraw Hill, 1961.

Kraus, John. Antennas. McGraw Hill, 1950.

Mogatogan, R. L., et al. RF Earth Sensor 60 Day Study Final

Report for Apollo CSM High Gain Antenna, Palmo Victor
Company Document No. R-3028-3953, October, 1965.

Osborn, J. D. CSM-HGS Interchangability Study-Antenna and

RF Circuitry Terminal Characteristics Envelope, Contract
No. NAS 9-8166, TRW Systems Document No. 11176-H129-R0-00
February, 1969.

Page, R. M. "Monopulse Radar," IRE Convention Record, Part 8,

March, 1955, pp. 132-134.

Rhodes, D. R. Introduction to Monopulse, McGraw Hill, 1959.

Silver, Samuel. Microwave Antenna Theory and Design. McGraw

Hill, 1949.
 94

Sullivan, D. P, C. C. Wang and R. J. Chan. Preliminary

Analysis of the LM and CSM Antenna Tracking Systerns,
Contract No. NAS 9-4810, TRW Systems Document No.
05952-H320-R0-00, October, 1967.

Thompson, A. S. "Boresight Shift in Phase Sensing Monopulse

Antennas Due to Reflected Signals," Microwave Journal,
Vol. IX, No. 5, May, 1966.

Walker, S. H. and J. D. Osborn. "Investigation of a Non-

Ambiguous Monopulse Antenna," Microwave Journal, Vol. 10,
No. 13, December, 1967, pp. 39-44.

Wolfe, E. A. Antenna Analysis. John Wiley and Sons, 1966.