2.11 Environmental Guidelines 19 2.11.1 Assumptions 2.11.2 Shipping/Storage Environment 2.11.2.1 Documentation 2.11.2.2 Instrument Configuration 2.11.3 Integration and Test Environment 2.11.3.1 Documentation 2.11.3.2 Instrument Configuration 2.11.4 Launch Environment 2.11.4.1 Documentation 2.11.4.2 Instrument Configuration 2.11.4.3 Launch Pressure Profile 2.11.4.4 Quasi-static Acceleration 2.11.4.5 Sinusoidal Vibration 2.11.4.6 Random Vibration 2.11.4.7 Acoustic Noise 2.11.4.8 Mechanical Shock 2.11.5 Operational Environment 2.11.5.1 Orbital Acceleration 2.11.5.2 Corona 2.11.5.3 Thermal Environment 2.11.5.4 Radiation Design Margin 2.11.5.5 Total Ionizing 2.11.5.6 Micrometeoroids 2.11.5.7 Artificial Space Debris 2.11.5.8 Atomic Oxygen Environment 2.11.6 Electromagnetic Interference & Compatibility Environment 3 38 3.1 Assumptions 38 3.2 Hosted Payload Worldview 38 3.3 Mission Risk 38 3.4 Instrument End of Life 39 3.5 Prevention of Failure Back-Propagation 39 3.6 Data Guidelines 39 3.6.1 Assumptions 3.6.2 Data Interface 3.6.2.1 Command and telemetry 3.6.2.2 Science 3.6.3 Data Accommodation 3.6.3.1 Command and telemetry 3.6.3.2 Science 3.6.4 Onboard Science Data Storage 3.6.5 Command and Telemetry GEO
Data Interface SpaceWire, RS422, Mil-STD-1553 SpaceWire On-board data storage Instrument Spacecraft Power 28 ± 6 VDC 18 to 36 VDC Discrete PPS line Optional Required Redundancy Optional Required Data, power, Survival Heaters EMI/EMC Tailored Based on inputs Will be tailored from MIL-STD-461F Inputs from RFI responders Overcurrent protection Open Latching Current Limiters (LCL)
Rationale: Defines a verifiable (testable) limit for off-nominal input voltage testing of an instrument. Mechanical Guidelines Assumptions The HPIG mechanical guidelines assume the following regarding the Host Spacecraft: The Host Spacecraft Manufacturer/Systems Integrator and the Instrument Developer will negotiate detailed parameters of the mechanical interface. The Mechanical Interface Control Document (MICD) will record those parameters and decisions. The Host Spacecraft will accommodate fields-of-view (FOV) that equal or exceed the Instrument science and radiator requirements. (It should be noted that FOV requests are best accommodated during the initial configuration of the host. Therefore, FOV may be a limiting factor in determining which host spacecraft is a viable candidate for your payload.) The Host Spacecraft Manufacturer will furnish all instrument mounting fasteners. The Host Spacecraft Manufacturer will provide a glint analysis that demonstrates that no reflected light impinges onto the Instrument FOV, if requested by the Instrument Developer. The Host Spacecraft Manufacturer will furnish the combined structural dynamics analysis results to the Instrument Developer. Mechanical Interface The Instrument should be capable of fully acquiring science data when directly mounted to the Host Spacecraft. If precision mounting is required, the Instrument Provider should assume supplying a mounting plate to meet those requirements. Such an accommodation could affect the Instrument Providers mass budget. Rationale: Broad survey of industry hosted payload accommodations indicate nadir-deck mounting of hosted payloads can be accommodated. Alternative mechanical interface locations or kinematic mounts are not prohibited by this guidance but may increase interface complexity. Mechanical Accommodation Mass The Instrument mass should be less than or equal to 100 kg. Rationale: Based on broad survey of industry hosted payload accommodations, instrument mass of approximately 30kg and below would maximize opportunity for finding a host. Opportunities above 100kg may exist but significantly decrease hosting probability. Volume The Instrument and all of its components should remain within a volume of 0.15 m3 during all phases of flight.
Rationale: Exposure to atomic oxygen degrades many materials and requires mitigation to ensure full Instrument function over the design mission lifetime. Atomic oxygen levels in GEO are negligible and are only significant for GEO-bound Instruments that spend extended times in LEO prior to GEO transfer. Instrument Developers should conservatively estimate the atomic oxygen environment for their Instrument’s specified orbit(s), orbital lifetime and launch date relative to the solar cycle. One source for predictory models is the Community Coordinated Modeling Center (CCMC) at http://ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov/index.php Electromagnetic Interference & Compatibility Environment The Instrument should function according to its specification following exposure to the Electromagnetic Interference and Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMI/EMC) environments as defined in the applicable sections of MIL-STD-461. Rationale: Exposure of the hosted payload instrument to electromagnetic fields may induce degraded performance or damage in the instrument electrical and/or electronic subsystems. The application of the appropriate environments as described in the above noted reference and in accordance with those test procedures defined in, or superior to, MIL-STD-461 or MIL-STD-462, will result in an instrument that is designed and verified to assure full instrument function in the defined EMI/EMC environments. Note: the environments defined in MIL-STD-461 may be tailored in accordance with the Host Spacecraft, launch vehicle and launch range requirements.
Orbital Sciences Corporation, Minotaur IV User’s Guide, Release 1.1, January 2006, available at: Orbital Sciences Corporation, Pegasus User’s Guide, Release 7.0, April 2010, available at: . Rapid III Contract Catalog, NASA Rapid Spacecraft Development Office, available at: . Request for Information and Geostationary Earth Orbit Hosted Payload Opportunities and Accommodations, April 2012, available at: . RFI Responses are proprietary. Sea Launch Company, Sea Launch User’s Guide, Revision D, February 2008, available at: . Space Test Program – Standard Interface Vehicle (STP-SIV) Payload User’s Guide, June 2008. SpaceX, Falcon 1 Launch Vehicle Payload User’s Guide, Revision 7, May 2008, available at: . SpaceX, Falcon 9 Launch Vehicle Payload User’s Guide, Revision 1, 2009, available at: . United Launch Alliance, Atlas V Launch Services User’s Guide, March 2010, available at: . United Launch Alliance, Delta II Payload Planners Guide, December 2006, available at: . United Launch Alliance, Delta IV Payload Planners Guide, September 2007, available at: .