Page 13 - test

Ref : CM-DFH4-2014-1
BEAZLEY Issue : 1

DFH 4 Series Spacecraft Date : 28 Sept 2014
Page 11 of 38

Topic Observation Comment /Assessment Cri

failure and what they implement to secure the
mission (Failure Detection, Identification,
Recovery. FDIR).What is the organization
structure that they put in place to ensure the
required high quality level for the design,
manufacturing, testing of any unit (manufacture
internally within CAST or externally). What is
the visibility they have on units manufactured
outside China with respect on any problems
which may have arisen on similar units on other
satellite (confidentiality/ITAR issues).
 There is no consolidated schedule for each  To be provided
spacecraft, neither a consolidated for all
Schedule spacecrafts under consideration. .
 Three launches are scheduled for the first  .This seems very challenging with limited
quarter of 2017 Chinasat 16, 9 and Chinasat resources.
18)
Table 5-2-a Programmatic aspects assessment

5.3 PROGAMMATIC ASPECTS SUMMARY
Based on the above table the main concerns are:

 The resources allocated to these programs, including test facilities conflict management.
 The ITAR and control export licenses, with parts / units procured from US or confidentiality issues with other
manufacturer outside China. How they managed to get parts subject to ITAR restrictions without violating the
rules and the discrimination against China. The in-orbit data let us to believe that they should be using some rad
hard parts since they are not suffering a high rate of degradations or SEU events.
 How they implement corrective actions and lessons learned from previous programs. And to qualify the
resulting modification (example SADM/E )
 The categorization of units (qualification status) is questionable. Do they have a process to analyze the
qualification status of all equipments at the beginning of the program (EQSR = Equipment Qualification Status
Review) with involvement of the customer to concur with the classification.
 More equipment should be PFM as well as the satellites themselves.
 Stating that going from a Ku band RX to a Ka band Rx is a minor modification, or going from what has been
qualified in LEO orbit (Li Ion battery) is applicable to GEO orbit is questionable. It is not clear from where
they purchase some key and critical components such as Rx, THAT, IMUX with dielectric, OMUX, RF sensing
Electrical thrusters, WG etc..
 Qualification of their antenna technology and its stability with respect of its thermal environment is unknown .
Accuracy of their model to predict antenna performance.
 The document as provided let us to believe that they completely under estimate the difficulties to master some
technology such as electrical propulsion.
 The mass and the power of some payload are far higher than the capability given in the document “Heritage of
CAST and DFH series DFH spacecraft. It is stated for DFH 4S spacecraft that the payload capability is 450Kg
/4 KW (page 39) when the payload of China 16 is 600 Kg (with the laser Peggy back payload) and 3.7 KW. But
it is also stated that the structure of this satellite has been w qualified on DFH-4S that is to say with a lower
payload mass

This document is proprietary of BEAZLEY© and must be treated on a confidential basis. It may be used solely by BEAZLEY, use or reproduction, of the document and the
Contained therein, for any other purposes without BEAZLEY written consent is prohibited.