| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| DARPA Releases "System F6" Program Details |
| 2007-07-28 |
| The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) released a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) on Friday for the agency's System F6 program. DARPA is soliciting innovative proposals for the performance of research, development, design, and testing to support the agency's System F6 concept. Also known as "Future Fast, Flexible, Fractionated, Free-Flying Spacecraft united by Information exchange". The objective of the System F6 program is to demonstrate the feasibility and benefits of a satellite architecture wherein the functionality of a traditional “monolithic” spacecraft is replaced by a cluster of wirelessly interconnected spacecraft modules. Each such “fractionated” module can contribute a unique capability, e.g., command and data handling, guidance and navigation, payload, etc., or it replicates the capability of another module. The fractionated modules can be physically connected once in orbit or remain nearby to each other in a loose formation, or cluster. Harnessed together through a wireless network they create a virtual satellite delivering capability, which is at least equivalent to the monolithic spacecraft. "Concurrently, they significantly enhance flexibility and robustness, and reduce risk through the mission life and spacecraft development cycle," DARPA said in the BAA. Proposed research under the BAA should investigate innovative approaches that enable revolutionary advances in science, devices, or systems. With a network of wirelessly connected modules, cluster navigation capability becomes a key concern. It is envisioned that separate modules could be launched independently. As such, there will be a need for these modules to gather, dock and/or virtually dock. "If under attack, these modules must undock, disperse, and re-dock." DARPA said. "The F6 network should have the qualities of the best war fighting networks of today," DARPA said, "specifically, it should be self-forming, reliable, have high availability, and be robust (and therefore self-healing)". DARPA list the following advantages to the fractionated System F6 approach: * Diversification of launch and on-orbit failure risk. * Survivability enhancement from a variety of natural and manmade threats (e.g. antisatellite weapons). * Reliability enhancement through emergent sharing of subsystem resources across multiple stand-alone fractionated systems. * Scalability in response to service demand fluctuations. * Upgrade ability in response to technological obsolescence. * Incremental deployment of capability to orbit. * Graceful deterioration of capability on-orbit. * Robustness in response to funding fluctuations and requirements changes. * Reduced integration and testing due to subsystem decoupling. * Decoupling of requirements between modules and multiple payloads. * Decoupling of security constraints between payload(s) and rest of spacecraft. * Production learning across multiple similar modules. * Reliability learning across multiple similar modules. * Enabling very large spacecraft beyond capability of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle. * Enabling spacecraft to be launched with smaller, faster vehicles. * Enabling development of smaller payload nodes decoupled from spacecraft. * Reducing the economic barrier to entry for non-traditional spacecraft vendors. System F6 program objectives: * Each spacecraft module shall be on a smallsat/microsat scale (300 kilograms wet mass). Wet mass should include propellant required for insertion into the prescribed mission orbit from an assumed launch vehicle, a planned one-year of system lifetime operation after the scheduled launch of the final module, and propellant required for any orbital debris mitigation. * First launch shall be planned to occur within four years of program start. * Modules may be distributed across multiple launches. * The launch vehicle(s) required shall be commercially available, manufactured in the US, and have demonstrated at least one successful previous launch. * The on-orbit lifetime design of the system shall be at least one year after the launch of the final spacecraft. No P, requirements will be issued, but all designs should retain a fault tolerant strategy that limits the effects of single part failures on the ability to command each spacecraft, as well as to limit any navigational threats during cluster operations (e.g. a thruster inadvertently stuck open). |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #6 It seems to miss the word "secure"... |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2007-07-28 23:24 |
| #5 By the way, Dale Brown I think wrote a similar thing years ago in his "Old Dog" techno-thrillers. NIRT-Sats I thknk he called them. Once again sci-fi (military sci-fi) beats us to the punch. the only problem is "not invented here" syndrome the big aerospace companies have. They are invest in monolithic, big vehicles and the launch facilities, engineering methods, etc that come with them. "But this has always worked, its proven" is what we got back. Yeah, proven, blah, Right up until you lose too many satellites to the Chinese and are blind and have no alternatives. Too inflexible for modern combat, too brittle to survive in the future. Glad someone is changing it. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2007-07-28 22:43 |
| #4 We dreamed this one up in an unclassified area with some Northrop Grumman and Lockheed boys (and one girl) 3+ years ago. Looking at the Iridium orbital coverage, for example. Or elliptical orbits, or the mid-orbits McCaw was going to use. Constraints: individual plane must have same basis for lateral comms, data bus, control bus and power bus. Must small/light to be launchable by alternate means with minimal preparation (think B52 at high altitude launching like it did the old X-15's). Must be inexpensive enough to launch many of them. Must support the following types of configurations based on modular components (power supply, antennas, controls, orbital processors, sensors): communications link (to/from ground), communications relay (satellite to satellite, with lasers = uninterceptable), electro-optical, infrared imaging, infrared non-imaging, radar imaging, lidar imaging (allegedly sees deep into water), elint sweep/tipper, elint focused, orbital weather, specialized/covert comms. Basically, we came up with several standard pwoer supply types, several common communications types, and guessed at the needs for some of the other components. Turned making satellites into a exercise in Legos. Also rendered Chinese ASAT efforts moot - why bother if we have so many of them up there, and we can have spares parked, as well as replacements on-orbit in very short order. We used the Iridium sytem for orbital mechanics, and figured at any given time, any given place on earth would be visible to 1-2 EO satellites 2-4 elints, 1 comm links, 1 IR, 1 special imager (Lidar/IR) and 0-1 experimental/special purpose, in addition to all the planes that can see that point having visibility to each other (for relaying commands) and to the comm relay satellites. Advantages also include the ability to simply come up with better payloads as tech gets better, pop them on, and fly them out. As it stands now, if we pitch a defense or intelligence satellite into the drink, thats billions down the drain. One of these is 1/10th that at most. There's other stuff that is not classified, but I don't feel comfortable about talking to it with whats in that article. Never heard a thing after we sent it up the food chain. I guess someone read it. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2007-07-28 22:39 |
| #3 "Future Fast, Flexible, Fractionated, Free-Flying Spacecraft united by Information exchange". Their media guy needs to limit himself to one Rockstar. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2007-07-28 20:39 |
| #2 Networked satellites. Similar to computers that are networked together. Not sure about how the web server is set up for Rantburg, but sometimes their are really three different servers networked togeter. One for the web page outline, another for a database that has the content, a third for authentication if required, to change content. Much faster and more powerfull than one server. But that is if you have many customers, thus the need for speed, power and bookoo disk space. |
| Posted by: Ulomons Untervehr3521 2007-07-28 19:26 |
| #1 Yeah, sounds possible, right after we take care of the religion of blood and Al Gore's carbon footprint. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2007-07-28 19:12 |