Page 15 - test

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

DFH 4 Series Spacecraft Date : 28 Sept 2014
Page 13 of 38

Loasat-1 Observation Comment /Assessment Cri

 Page 42-74. According to the presentation most  For the category, they mention PFM testing, but
of the hardware is qualified, or flight proven. there is no mention of spacecraft testing at PFM
33.2 % of the hardware is in category C (minor level.
modification) the rest 66.8 % is supposed to be  There is no mention of life test.
qualified. But some items have the “Q” status,  Is the environment for the previous qualification
meaning qualified at unit level but no flight (Vibe, thermal, radiations...) encompassing the
experience. Laosat needs.
 It seems that it is the first usage of the Li-Ion  The learning phase could reserve some surprises.
batteries, category D with the status Q. Same  They claim that the Li-Ion batteries of CAST are
for the panel, structure, and solar cells plus flight proven, they should develop this
others. statement.
They say Flight proven for LEOP mission. But
this doesn’t apply to GEO. A full qual and Life
test should be provided. It is a typical example
where they state qualified. Bit the qual is not
valid for the application in this telecom program

 For Avionics CMU, PFISU, PFLISU, Category  This is border line to be considered as a new
C with the status Q unit. Or as a minimum shall be subject to PFM
test (as well as the satellite itself)
 For AOCS units Cat D, status Q, (RIGA, ADU,  This is border line to be considered as a
Qualification GAE, RIGA, CPS,ATOE..) Category C unit
status  Why the AOCS is different from the Chinasat
one. Why they are using star tracker for this
application.?
 Solar array qualification.  What is presented is very general, and not
convincing if all the potential issues with solar
array (charging, cell performances, radiation
hardness, BAPATA... have been addressed and
flight proven and how it correlates to the in orbit
performances.
 Coherence with the Chinasat presentation has to
be given in particular similar EQX power (680
W) although the size of the panels seems far
reduced
 For others units (page 61 to 71) FOG, CPS,  With these changes it is difficult to concur with
ADU, ISU, CMU, TTU, UCB, BIMU, BCRB) the classification.
several significant changes are introduced
(packaging in a single box, bus voltage to 100
V....)
 Page 74.Onboard software qualification, there  What is the strategy to spec, develop and test
are many items categorized as S1 which new software (incremental validation or other
means “new software” techniques)
 The FDIR implementation is not presented.
 The approach is considers as classic, It is stated  To be more explicit on that.
that the thermal model was qualified for the  Is the model validated for a 8 KW spacecraft.
basis of DFH-4S
Thermal  It will be good to have some key numbers like  It will have been useful to get prediction and to
control the power dissipated W per square meters, + get information on the accuracy of the
subsystem panel size.OSR alpha value to assess the mathematical model by reference to flight
overall thermal design
results in previous program

 Classical subsystem.  To report on corrective action and
UPS
 Page 87 it appears That they experienced some implementation on spacecraft under

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.