# Proposal Value Proposition Statement **Please provide a simple statement that summarises why a Defence and/or Security User would be interested in your idea. A good PVPS communicates the problem solved and the clearest benefits to the Defence and/or Security User. You will be able to expand your explanation on the next page, in the 'Desirable' section of the proposal.** Our idea will interest Defence and/or Security User because it proposes a novel solution to achieve large optical apertures capable of fine-resolution imaging for Earth observation/ISR from non-Low Earth Orbit (LEO). It builds on our prior research into on-orbit robotic assembly as a solution to achieving 25 m aperture Earth observation systems capable of 1 m ground spatial resolution from geostationary orbit (GEO). Our prior work demonstrated that apertures of this size can not be realized by a single rocket launch thus requiring the research/development of space robotic technologies. This proposal aims to build on that study to produce a cost-effective ground-based demonstrator of an appropriate testbed. process for apertures at sizes too large to not fit in a single rocket fairing, achievable by robotic on-orbit assembly (r-OOA). Large effective apertures (eg SAR constellations) require formation flying. Both technologies require a strong understanding of spacecraft dynamics. As in-orbit demonstrations are expensive and slow, this proposal aims to develop the UK’s first low-cost ground-based testbed to demonstrate some aspects central to robotic assembly while also providing a stepping stone towards formation flying. The technologies proposed here will also demonstrate how the setup will be extended for future experimentation to serve D&S beyond the current call to align with the strategy of defence suppliers and the broader space industry. # Abstract (Summarise your innovation) - **When submitting your proposal, you are required to include a proposal title and a short abstract. The title, abstract and PVPS you provide will be used by DASA, and other government departments, to describe the project and its intended outcomes and benefits. It will be used at DASA events in relation to this competition and included in documentation such as brochures, and to share with other parts of government with a view to generating additional funding. If your proposal is funded, the proposal title will also be published in the DASA transparency data on [GOV.UK](https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/defence-and-security-accelerator), along with your company name, the amount of funding, and the start and end dates of your contract.** Large aperture space-based imaging systems located at geostationary orbit (GEO) will enable a new generation of Earth Observation missions for both science and surveillance programs. However, launching and operating such large telescopes in the extreme space environment poses practical challenges. One challenges is that manufacturing a monolithic mirrors of an apertures >3 metres. This forced the 6.5 m aperture James Webb Space Telescope to adopt a segmented design using smaller mirrors (1.3 m); apertures ranging from 25 m to 100 m will also exploit segmented mirror designs because even if large mirrors could be made at this size, it would be impossible to stow them in existing launch vehicles, e.g., SpaceX’s Starship's 9m fairing diameter. The folded design of the Webb is infeasible for apertures of 25 m or greater so robotic on-orbit assembly has received considerable interest from space agencies and industry, alike. This proposal aims to build on prior work into using robotic on-orbit assembly to achieve large optical apertures for high-resolution Earth imaging from geostationary orbit. Specifically, it aims to develop a low-cost means of testing robotics hardware and software in a microgravity environment to deliver a rough TRL 6 demonstration of some capabilities that an assembly robot must possess. The ideas underlying this proposal will benefit UK defence and security by building a capability that is needed to tackle the specific challenge stated in this competition. It will also benefit UK society by creating a new facility and research area to upskill the future UK workforce. ```ad-question title: Question **Strategic Fit** - [ ] Briefly explain your idea. - [ ] How is your idea innovative? - [ ] Explain who in Defence and/or Security might use your idea. There are a number of resources available on-line that might help e.g. [www.gov.uk](https://www.gov.uk/), web pages for HM Armed Forces, information about Dstl programmes and strategy documents for various departments. Both Dstl and DE&S have on-line, publicly available magazines that may also assist. - [ ] Identify a clear link to a user need or challenge. **Why does your idea offer advantages when compared to current solutions?** - [ ] Why is your idea different to any current solutions? - [ ] Explain what advantage(s) your idea might offer to Defence and/or Security Users. Advantages might include new or increased capability, decreased costs or time-saving measures. **Exploitation beyond the Project Plan** - [ ] If we fund your project and it is successful, please explain how you will continue developing it beyond the scope of this proposal for Defence and Security, or how you plan to commercialise your work. - [ ] How might your idea be integrated into existing systems and capabilities? ``` ```ad-todo title: Jo and Ralph said to address with these comments Identify a clear link to a user need or challenge. Stress that one can not buy this off-the-shelf. Agriculture or nuclear monitoring benefits. Exploitation beyond the Project Plan: - In regards to integration, one can talk about using current fairings as one example. ``` **Stategic Fit** ```ad-question title: - [ ] Briefly explain your idea. ``` Unprecedented resolutions for space-based intelligence, surveillance & reconnaissance (ISR) and Earth Observation (EO) will be enabled by optical apertures larger than the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), whose aperture is 6.5 m. However, launching and operating these next-generation of larger space telescopes in the extreme space environment poses practical challenges. One major current challenge is that very large mirrors (i.e. apertures larger than 3m) cannot be monolithically manufactured; this is one reason a segmented design was utilized on the JWST and is planned for future systems with primary mirror apertures of up to 100m. Further, even if such large primary mirrors could be made, it is impossible to stow them in the fairings of current and planned launch vehicles- SpaceX’s Starship is the largest launcher but has a 9 m fairing diameter. To overcome this volumetric challenge, the JWST exploited a deployables-based folded-wing design alongside a segmented mirrors design but this is infeasible for apertures as large as 25 m. This aperture size is particularly appealing as it enables 1m spatial resolution of a location on Earth from geostationary orbit (GEO), which this proposal's Chief Investigator has examined in prior work with Airbus and Surrey Satellite Technology Limited (SSTL). In this work, autonomous robotic on-orbit assembly (r-OOA) and rendezvous and berthing (RDv&B) were identified as essential technologies to achieving these high-resolution large optical telescopes at geostationary orbit (GEO) in the CI's prior work; a conceptual image of this is shown in the Figure 1 below. Note that the term "berthing" operation implies robotic capture of an incoming satellite. ![[Fig_1_DASA_Mission_Concept.png]] Such multi-satellite missions are also essential to achieve effective apertures using a constellatioin of satellites that may require formation flying (FF) capabilities; one example is evident in the MoD's planned Project Oberon comprising a constellations of SAR imagers, shown in the figure below: ![[Fig2_DSTL_Oberon.png]] Thus there are 3 essential technologies that need developing to achieve large or effective aperutres, namely: - r-OOA - RDV&B - FF In-orbit demonstrations of these 3 technologies are typically separate multi-million pound missions of their own- a process that requires specific hardware for each mission affected by slow iteration cycles. However, innovations in ground-based microgravity demonstrations offer cheaper and faster testing cycles prior to in-orbit operations; down-selection of proved technologies could also follow the priorities at the moment of time. This proposal aims to develop a ground-based facility towards developing and testing these technologies in a faster and cheaper manner than is currently unavailable in the UK. Another advantage of ground-based platforms is in its reusablity and extensibility: mockups of satellite simulators could be re-used in various mission scenarios such as orbital debris capture or servicing and refuelling of satellites. In summary, our idea is to develop a ground-based microgravity environment that is reusable and easily extensible in demonstrating three ISR-relevant technologies: r-OOA, RDv&D, and FF. An exemplar of such a ground-based demonstrator at the Naval Postgraduate School in California is shown in the Figure below; this will be explained in greater detail in "Feasibiilty". ![[Fig_3_DASA_NPS_Space_Robotics_Testbed.png]] The primary technical objectives of this proposal are as follows: 1. To develop a UK first testbed capable of microgravity dynamics and control of multi-body and multi-spacecraft systems; 2. To develop ground-based demonstrator that showcases robotic operations relevant towards in-space assembly of large optical apertures informed by our prior work on this specific challenge; 3. To extend this testbed towards constellation and FF demonstrators needed to achieve large effective apertures. ```ad-question title: - [ ] How is your idea innovative? ``` The proposed idea is innovative because: 1. it will lead to the UK's first ground-based testbed capable of proving both orbital robotics and formation flying technologies accounting for microgravity dynamics; 2. it will be a world first lab-based demonstration of robotic in-space assembly capabilityies relevant to achieving large optical apertures; 3. demonstrating the relocatable autonomous robot proposed here will have ramifications in other orbital operations such as in-space servicing/manufacturing and active debris removal; this is indicated by our project's advisory members comprising various industry leaders in space robotics. ```ad-question title: - [ ] Explain who in Defence and/or Security might use your idea. There are a number of resources available on-line that might help e.g. [www.gov.uk](https://www.gov.uk/), web pages for HM Armed Forces, information about Dstl programmes and strategy documents for various departments. Both Dstl and DE&S have on-line, publicly available magazines that may also assist. ``` The delivery of such ground-based demonstrators for ISR are clearly stated as a Priority in the DSS (item c, page 23). However, there are other reasons why Defence and Security would be interested in this idea: 1. The idea directly addresses presents Challenge 1 by developing innovative technologies essential to deploying large apertures for **fine resolution imaging** for Earth Observation from non-Low Earth Orbit (LEO), thus aligning itself to the Defence Strategy. 2. The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has a keen interest in high-resolution surveillance capabilities; the proposed mission would provide a pathway towards realising persistent surveillance at 1 metre spatial resolution with a 25-metre large aperture telescope. 3. The developments proposed would further space technologies in themes set out by the [Defence Space Strategy](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/defence-space-strategy-operationalising-the-space-domain) and the National Space Strategy. 4. The development of on-orbit robotics can be used in servicing, maintenance to extend the life of military space assets. They can also support debris removal missions to ensures safe operating environments for military satellites. 5. The UK-allied US Space Command identified two Chinese GEO satellites with robot arms (Shijian-17 and Shijian-21) as space-based weapons as they could grapple other satellites. Developing similar capabilities is in keeping with the DSS. Further, B. Chance Saltzman the first US Space Force Lieutenant General also believes a partnership with the UK Space Command would be "very fruitful over the years to come." Links to relevant news articles are provided in the References section. Some relevant weblinks: a. https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/space/space-command-identifies-new-chinese-space-based-weapon b. https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1516245/china-space-technology-threat-london-conference-nuclear-latest-news-ont c. https://eurasiantimes.com/china-says-its-powerful-robotic-snake-can-crush-enemy-satellites/ ```ad-question title: - [ ] Identify a clear link to a user need or challenge. ``` 1. The aforementioned Airbus-funded study indicates a user need for high resolution imagery; this research determined that autonomous orbital robotic manipulators are one of the main technologies needing development given that they can not be bought off-the-shelf. 2. This study also led to the conclusion that orbital robot arms would be the first technology demonstration mission on the roadmap towards; thus the work proposed to DASA would feed straight into developing such a mission. 3. Need for testbeds: Informal conversations with engineers in the UK space industry (e.g.,. MDA UK, ClearSpace) indicate a strong desire for UK-based access to air-bearing robotic simulators. ```ad-question title: **Why does your idea offer advantages when compared to current solutions?** - [ ] Why is your idea different to any current solutions? ``` The JWST is the largest optical imager that can be launched monolithically in a single launch vehicle; bringing it into operation in-orbit requires deployables. Building high-resolution space-based Earth imagers of 25m aperture cannot be achieved via deployable systems alone (though they are also needed)- they require robotics, which is what our proposal aims at developing. Further, our proposal focuses on their autonomy, which is remarkably different from the astronaut-controlled robotics used in assembling the ISS (International Space Station). Thus our idea is different because it focuses on developing autonomous on-orbit robotic assemblers, which are yet to be developed. From conversations with the UK space industry, the proposed idea to develop a ground-based demonstrator is unprecedented because there is no comparable facility here that they can exploit. Some of these companies we have engaged with have also expressed an interest in using such a facility, if available. Another reason the proposed idea is different that, beyond the scope of the call, we aim to integrate sensor payloads (e.g., antennas) into the simulator. Thus, it would expand to eventually test imager performance on a satellite in a space-relevant environment. ```ad-question title: - [ ] Explain what advantage(s) your idea might offer to Defence and/or Security Users. Advantages might include new or increased capability, decreased costs or time-saving measures. ``` Three advantages of our idea are: 1. A new capability in ground-based demonstration of microgravity robotic operations which we know UK-based industry lacks but desires access to. For example, MDA UK and ClearSpace have expressed an interest in using air-bearing simulators for orbital robotics experiments, which we aim to develop through this proposal. They could be an end-user of our facility in the UK. 2. Our idea also offers decreased cost for testing than in-orbit demonstrations. Access to such a ground-based facility also offers more rapid experimental data collection and insights than orbital demonstrations. 3. The proposed testbed can also be used towards other multi-satellite experiments such as formation flight needed for missions such as Project Oberon. ```ad-question title: **Exploitation beyond the Project Plan** - [ ] If we fund your project and it is successful, please explain how you will continue developing it beyond the scope of this proposal for Defence and Security, or how you plan to commercialise your work. - [ ] How might your idea be integrated into existing systems and capabilities? - How might your idea be integrated into existing systems and capabilities? ``` ```ad-hint collapse: closed title: Hints from [section 6] ## 6. Accelerating and exploiting your innovation It is important that over the lifetime of DASA competitions, ideas are matured and accelerated towards appropriate end-users to enhance capability. How long this takes will depend on the nature and starting point of the innovation. ### 6.1 A clear route for exploitation For DASA to consider routes for exploitation, ensure your deliverables are designed with the aim of making it as easy as possible for collaborators/stakeholders to identify the innovative elements of your proposal. All proposals to DASA should articulate the expected development in technology maturity of the potential solution over the lifetime of the contract and how this relates to improved capability against the current known (or presumed) baseline. ### 6.2 How to outline your exploitation plan (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/competition-space-to-innovate-campaign-charlie-drop/space-to-innovate-campaign-charlie-drop-competition-document#accelerating-and-exploiting-your-innovation) A higher technology maturity is expected in subsequent work. Include the following information to help the assessors understand your exploitation plans to date: - the intended Defence or Security users of your final product and whether you have previously engaged with them, their procurement arm or their research and development arm - awareness of, and alignment to, any existing end user procurement programmes - the anticipated benefits (for example, in cost, time, improved capability) that your solution will provide to the user - whether it is likely to be a standalone product or integrated with other technologies or platforms - expected additional work required beyond the end of the contract to develop an operationally deployable commercial product (for example, “scaling up” for manufacture, cyber security, integration with existing technologies, environmental operating conditions) - additional future applications and wider markets for exploitation - wider collaborations and networks you have already developed or any additional relationships you see as a requirement to support exploitation - how your product could be tested in a representative environment in later works - any specific legal, ethical, commercial or regulatory considerations for exploitation. ### 6.3 Is your exploitation plan long term? Long term studies may not be able to articulate exploitation in great detail, but it should be clear that there is credible advantage to be gained from the technology development. Include project specific information which will help exploitation. This competition is being carried out as part of a wider MOD programme and with cognisance of cross-Government initiatives. We may collaborate with organisations outside of the UK Government and this may provide the opportunity to carry out international trials and demonstrations in the future. The outputs of any supplier contracts may be shared in accordance with the rights secured under DEFCON 705, which may include sharing through the strategic relationship between Dstl and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. In addition the outputs may be shared with UK allied partners under the FVEYS (The Five Eyes is an intelligence alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States) Defence community agreement TTCP (The Technical Cooperation Program) and the FVEYS intelligence community (SQUARE DANCE). ``` We will continue developing the idea beyond the scope of this proposal for Defence and Security in the following ways: 1. We have previously collaborated with D&S suppliers, SSTL and Airbus, on on-orbit robotics research for large optical telescopes, which we will continue to build upon. 2. We are currently in the process of agreeing an NDA with ClearSpace Ltd, who are addressing the space debris problem with robotics to secure the space environment which benefits military satellites. This will lead currently to collaborative resarch on ground-based demonstrators of space robotics systems. 3. We are also discussing the use of the testbed proposed here with UKAEA-RACE, who are partnering with Satellite Applications Catapult on future robotic on-orbit servicing of satellites. 4. We will also consider registering as a UK Plc with support from incubator programs (e.g., ESA BIC, Dstl incubator programs) to create an avenue to become commercial suppliers to the MoD. Thus this idea will be developed alongside a wide set of players in the UK space industry as they stand to gain from this research. Integration into existing systems and capabilities: - We are in discussions with the European Space Agency (ESA) on sharing space simulator designs, which will integrate with their work on orbital robotics. This is in part driven by our conversations with ClearSpace, who are based in London but rely on ground-based testing at ESA-ESTEC in Holland. - Prof. Yang Hao, co-I on this proposal, is a world-leading expert in antenna technology. Latter work packages of this proposal explore how his antennas research can be integrated with the spacecraft simulators developed via this proposal in a formation flying or constellation perspective. This would support evaluating the performance of antennas in a space-relevant testbed alongside formation flying algorithms for satellites. ```ad-question collapse: open title: Question C **Technical Credibility** - [ ] Please provide details of the work completed to date and information about how that work was funded. - [ ] For the proposed project, provide all relevant technical details. Assessors need to be able to decide if your technology is going to work, so make sure you provide enough detail on how the technology will be developed and tested.  - [ ] Assume that Assessors will have at least degree level education in relevant subjects. You can add figures if you feel they assist but use sparingly as they detract from Assessors reading the application. - [ ] Demonstrate that the proposal is scientifically, technically and practically feasible within the proposed project timescales, and has a robust testing regime with clear and quantifiable measures of progress and performance. **Risk** - [ ] Your proposal must demonstrate awareness of all the main risks the project will face (including contractor or equipment failure, recruitment delays, etc.), with realistic management, mitigation and impact minimisation plans for each risk. Please fill this detail in the table provided in this form (titled ‘Project Risk Register’ on the Additional information step) **Expertise and Capability** - [ ] Please complete the Key Project Technical Team’ table (on the Additional information step) - [ ] Please provide a brief overview of your physical resources (facilities, equipment, etc.) and capabilities which will be used to complete the project. ``` ```ad-todo title: Ralph comments at meeting - "provide all relevant technical details" (Speak at a science level as this is scientist to scientist). - Bids fail without technical detail. - "a robust testing regime" is something people miss out on. ``` ```ad-question title: Question C **Technical Credibility** - [ ] Please provide details of the work completed to date and information about how that work was funded. ``` Below, we provide details on prior work, which is broken down by Chief Investigator's work: 1. The initial developments of related research was performed for Airbus and SSTL as end-users for a study to determine how on-orbit robotic systems could be used to assemble large aperture optical EO telescopes capable of high-resolution diffraction-limited imaging from GEO. For the purpose of this study, the end-users defined high resolution as 1m ground spatial resolution and diffraction limited imaging was assumed to be acceptable at a wavelength of 0.55 microns. This can be shown to be achieved by a GEO-based imager with a 25 m aperture, which can not be achieved via a single launch of a monolithic telescope (this was explained in "Desirability"). Thus, a set of trade-off studies led to the conclusion that an autonomous robotic arm capable of relocating to different points of a satellite would be the most efficient and least risky means of assembling such a large aperture. As part of this work, subsystem-level designs of a space telescope and robotic assembly systems were derived, calling upon on the vast open literature on both systems. This then fed into the development of a mission architecture to achieve the assembly of a 25 m space telescope for EO from GEO (an image of this mission concept was shown in "Desirability"). Furhter, three in-orbit demonstrations (incl. two at LEO) that precede this large telescope were also developed. The first of these is a LEO-based demonstration mission of a relocatable robotic arm (see Fig_4_DASA_LEO_demo_robot.png). ![[Fig_4_DASA_LEO_demo_robot.png]] The open literature, also showed various relevant ground-based testbeds for demonstrating various technologies (such as r-OOA, RDV&B) relevant to achieving these large optical apertures. 2. At QMUL, the CI has kickstarted a space robotics research group aimed that supports in-space assembly technology development and verification. Towards this end, QMUL has recently acquired a flat granite table that is used in ground-based space robotics experiments (discussed in the next section). They have also funded two PhD studentships (one starting in Sept 2023 to support this research). The current PhD student is investigates computational multi-body contact dynamics models for space manipulators in scenarios related to assembly and debris mitigation. The following references relate directly to Challege 1 authored by the CI: - Nanjangud, A., Blacker, P.C., Bandyopadhyay, S. and Gao, Y., 2018. Robotics and AI-enabled on-orbit operations with future generation of small satellites. _Proceedings of the IEEE_, _106_(3), pp.429-439. - Nanjangud, A., Underwood, C.I., Bridges, C.P., Saaj, C.M., Eckersley, S., Sweeting, M. and Bianco, P., 2019, October. Towards robotic on-orbit assembly of large space telescopes: Mission architectures, concepts, and analyses. In _Proceedings of the International Astronautical Congress, IAC_ (pp. 1-25). International Astronautical Federation. - Nanjangud, A., Blacker, P.C., Young, A., Saaj, C.M., Underwood, C.I., Eckersley, S., Sweeting, M. and Bianco, P., 2019. Robotic architectures for the on-orbit assembly of large space telescopes. In _Proceedings of the Advanced Space Technologies in Robotics and Automation (ASTRA 2019) symposium_. European Space Agency (ESA). - Nair, M., Saaj, C., Esfahani, A., Nanjangud, A., Eckersley, S. and Bianco, P., 2020. In-space robotic assembly and servicing of high-value infrastructure. ```ad-question collapse: open - [ ] For the proposed project, provide all relevant technical details. Assessors need to be able to decide if your technology is going to work, so make sure you provide enough detail on how the technology will be developed and tested. ``` # Goal This project aims to achieve a ground-based demonstration of the above LEO mission of a relocatable autonomous robot attached to a base spacecraft that is needed for r-OOA of large telescopes. A secondary goal is to extend the testbed towards demonstrations of formation flying antenna systems and robotic berthing of a secondary satellite. Below we describe our approach alongside evidence-based justifications of our approach. <u>Comment on need for autonomy</u>: Current space robotic arms such as the ISS's remote manipulator system is tele-operated by astronauts. While this leverages the closed-loop control capabilities that only humans can provide, it leads to greater cost and risk which is addressed by slower operations than the same work done by autonomous systems. Further, astronauts do not currently operate in non-LEO conditions and tele-operation of GEO robots from Earth will be plagued by latency (240ms)- this makes it imperative to mature the autonomy stack in both robotic and satellites. # Ground-based microgravity testing - Before a space mission, all spacecraft, components, and software must be tested in relevant conditions pre-flight. However, microgravity is the among the more challenging aspects of space to recreate in laboratory conditions. Various approaches have been developed to simulate microgravity conditions on Earth such as: - parabolic flights in an aircraft that simulate 25 seconds of microgravity in a free-fall. - drop towers simulating 10 seconds of microgravity. - weight-reducing suspension systems; - underwater tests with neutral buoyancy vehicles; and - air-bearing based systems, which are our chosen setup. ## Air-bearing dynamics simulators review Air-bearing microgravity simulators have been used since the start of the space race for faithful dynamics representation of single-body spacecraft in 3 rotational degrees-of-freedom (DoF) to verify attitude control systems. Such simulators are also called spherical simulators. **_Planar air-bearings dynamics simulators_** were recently developed for microgravity dynamics experiments involving multi-link robot arms attached to spacecraft spacecraft and/or multi-satellite systems (needed for missions to robotically assemble large telescopes or formation flying for large effective apertures, respectively). An example of a state-of-the-art testbed in California was shown in the "Desirability" section in "Fig_3_DASA_NPS_Space_Robotics_Testbed.png". These testbeds comprise four main elements: - Air-bearing spacecraft/space robot simulators - large flat-floor (typically made of granite) - motion tracking cameras, and - external computers wirelessly communicating with one or more of the simulators. Planar air-bearings provide one rotational and two translational DoF for a plastic puck on a plane to achieve a combination of torque-free rotational motion and force-free translational motion. One side of the bearing is attached to a satellite mockup and the other is separated from the table by pushing out a film of pressurized gas/air, which allows the mockup to glide without friction on the surface. A schematic of this operation and an image of the real system is shown in "Fig5_Air_bearing_operating_principle.png". Thus, using air-bearings in spacecraft dynamics simulators decouples a mockup's dynamics from the environment and allows its motion to be controlled purely by on-board computers and actuators; all power for other on-board systems is also supplied by internal sources. In this way, air-bearings permit simulating kinematic and differential kinematic aspects of spacecraft motion as well as a portion of its dynamics. ![[Fig5_Air_bearing_operating_principle.png]] Planar air-bearing microgravity simulators have the widest adoption as they can be used to perform a diverse set of experiments related to formation flights, rendezvous missions, on-orbit robotics, and docking systems; with some small modifications, they can also be used to test landing gears and locomotion methods for low-g bodies. This dictates our decision for using them but they also provide some of the following advantages over other systems listed above: 1. Air-bearing based systems ensure smaller disturbances than parabolic flight and similar disturbances compared to most drop towers. 2. Typically, the microgravity conditions created by air-bearing systems last from several minutes and even up to 1 hour- remarkably longer than parabolic flights and drop towers. 3. Neutral buoyancy tanks require specialised hardware to work underwater, which slows down rapid prototyping and testing. The higher drag of water is another drawback. ## Air-bearing space robot simulator (ABSRS) The current example of a state-of-the-art ABSRS was recently built at the Naval Postgraduate School in California (see "Fig_6_Air_bearing_space_robot_simulator.png"). Here, each manipulator link includes all of the hardware required to operate independently from every other link; it contains its own power system, communications, harmonic drive servomotor with integrated encoder, controller, torque sensor, computing platform. Each link is placed on an air-bearing. The polycarbonate link bodies are produced via additive manufacturing, allowing quick and inexpensive generation of differently sized links (with different mass and inertia properties); with instrumentation, each link weighs 3 kg and is 40 cm long. The base link of the robotic manipulator is attached rigidly to a 10 kg Floating Spacecraft Simulator square footprint of 0.2 m × 0.2 m, a height of 0.8 m. It also floats via three air bearings over a granite monolith to simulate the reduced gravity and quasi-frictionless environment of space in a plane. The compressed air for all air bearings is provided by the main tank on the base spacecraft; the feed tubing is daisy-chained from link to link. Communication between the space manipulator, VICON workstation, and other PC is achieved by sending and receiving data packets using the TCP/UDP protocol over an ad-hoc Wi-Fi network. Visual pose estimation is performed using an overhead VICON motion capture system; this is augmented by an on-board one-axis fiber optics gyroscope. ![[Fig_6_DASA_Air_bearing_space_robot_simulator.png]] A real time application interface (RTAI) patched Server Edition Ubuntu 14.04 operating system is used to provide real-time execution capabilities of the guidance, navigation, and control algorithms. These algorithms were developed in MATLAB/Simulink, compiled in a development machine, and later transferred to the simulator’s internal memory prior to execution. ## 1. QMUL ABSRS development The NPS ABSRS described above has been used to investigate coupled nonlinear dynamics of spacecraft with manipulators and various autonomous control experiments (e.g., safe capture of another spacecraft). However, a limitation of this testbed is that it cannot currently be used for experiments related to in-orbit assembly of large apertures given that the arm cannot relocate to different points of the base- our previous work with Airbus and SSTL clarifies the need for this robot locomotion capability. Another limitation is that their system lacks vision systems on the ABSRS for relative navigation and visual servoing instead relying on external cameras for posr estimation. In this project, we will overcome these two limitations to demonstrate an ABSRS with a relocatable arm with a vision system that is attached to the FSS that exploits QMUL's existing large granite table (2 m by 3 m). We will do so by using the open-sourced design of the NPS system as a starting point. This testbed will be developed to study multi-link manipulator dynamics; their autonomous relocation to different points of the FSS; and FSS attitude control that rejects the disturbance from the arm during its accumulated motion and also its locomtion, which will impart contact forces to the FSS. A dynamics simulator with one ABSRS is sufficient for the testing of actuators and control algorithms. But the capabilities of the testbed can also be increased with more FSS with grapple fixtures, which are needed to simulate rendezvous and berthing (i.e., robotic capture)- this is capability is also essential for assembling large optical telescope. Further, two or more FSS can also be used to demonstrate relative navigation in multi-satellite formations that is needed to create large effective apertures. In our work, we will take initial steps on this front by developing a second FSS that is useful in these two additional scenarios. ## 2. Autonomy experiments on ABSRS Experiments will be performed using the developed ABSRS in the following two contexts: - **Context 1**: Spacecraft with mass comparable to manipulators (such as in the LEO demonstration mission described above) are yet to fly in space; controlling their coupled dynamics towards achieving the desired autonomous behaviours (e.g., relocation to other parts of the base) is the key challenge. In these systems, the base vehicle experiences disturbances while the robot performs tasks involving large articulations (during pick-and-place operations). Contact-induced disturbances during robot locomotion can also destabilize the base. Thus, we will perform two experiments relevant to base stabilization under two operational modes: - Experiment 1 (E1) with free-floating base where manipulator motions are planned such as to minimize disturbance torques imparted to the base. - Experiment 2 (E2) with free-flying base where the base's position/attitude is autonomously controlled via thrusters/attitude control actuators during robotic task execution. - **Context 2**: A third experiment (E3) will involve the ABSRS and another FSS to demonstrate the manipulator's ability to safely capture a free-floating satellite. ```ad-question collapse: open - [ ] Assume that Assessors will have at least degree level education in relevant subjects. You can add figures if you feel they assist but use sparingly as they detract from Assessors reading the application. ``` ```ad-question collapse: open - [ ] Demonstrate that the proposal is scientifically, technically and practically feasible within the proposed project timescales, and has a robust testing regime with clear and quantifiable measures of progress and performance. ``` ## Feasibility and Robustness of Testing Regimes Overall, the proposed project is scientifically, technically, and practically feasible within the proposed project timescales (24 months). The use of planar air-bearing based spacecraft dynamics simulators is widespread in the USA and China; there is only one setup in the UK at the Surrey Space Centre, but it appears to not have seen much use in the last 5 years. The proposed ground-based demonstrator at QMUL will offer a unique testbed towards tackling the challenge of achieving large apertures with robotic in-space assembly and, in the future, effective apertures via formation flying demonstrations. In this writeup, we have also compared air-bearing setups to other options for simulating microgravity to justify that they offer the most robust testing regime alongside numerous other benefits. %%The testing regime is robust and provides clear and quantifiable measures of progress and performance. The development of a ==computational model== will further guide the design of the ==multifunctional morphing composite materials==, ensuring the project objectives are met.%% ## Robust yet cost-effective testing environment - One of the earliest experimental campaigns on small spacecraft-manipulator systems began in 1987 under Dr. Kazuya Yoshida at Japan’s Tohuku University with the Experimental Free-Floating Robot Satellite (EFFORTS-1, Figure 4) [13]. By this time, experimentation on spacecraft robotics had taken place in multiple different experimental environments including parabolic airplane flight, neutral buoyancy pools, and tethered suspension [13]. The best testing environment, of course, would have been outer space, but limited access prevented such an opportunity to all but a few. The most practical method—the one employed by Yoshida, by the experimental campaign for this thesis, and still the most common method for spacecraft robotics experimentation [14]—was employing a flat, smooth surface over which a robot could float on air bearings. - “The simulation of docking or capture maneuvers bears the inherent risk of collisions or unintentionally high contact forces, in particular if the maneuvers are conducted in real-time. While the dangers of damaging collisions can to some extent be countered by range safety equipment and software limits, they must also be addressed by the robustness of the hardware of the simulation system. In robustness, dynamics and kino-dynamics simulation systems typically have an advantage over kinematics and hybrid simulation systems. The test vehicles in dynamics simulators commonly have low mass and low inertias, and are free to move in the event of a collision, so that contact between vehicles is less probable to cause serious damage. Kinematics and hybrid simulators, on the other hand, use powerful positioning mechanisms and massive, oftentimes full-scale simulation vehicle. Therefore, the dangers of damaging the setup during collisions are substantially higher. They can be addressed with hardware and software limits for relative velocities, accelerations, or trajectories, or using bumpers in the design of the vehicles.” (Wilde et al., 2019, p. 5) ```ad-question title: - [ ] Please provide a brief overview of your physical resources (facilities, equipment, etc.) and capabilities which will be used to complete the project. ``` We have unlimited access to a well-equipped laboratory with facilities for prototype manufacturing, high performance computing, and testing. This will facilitate us to complete the project within the proposed timeline. • Workshops for Composite Manufacturing facilities (Resin transfer moulding, 3D printers, Compression Moulding, Laser cut, etc). • Environmental chamber with wide temperature (-68°C to 180°C). • Mechanical Testing Facilities (Instron Testers for quasi-static and fatigue tests). • Materials Characterisation Lab (DSC, FTIR, DMA, etc.) • NanoVision microscopy unit (SEM, TEM). • Access to QMUL High-Performance Computing (HPC) cluster of 12,500 cores. • Commercial finite element software (ABAQUS) and COMSOL Multiphysics for simulations. • Dedicated technical support within the School of Engineering and Materials Science. ```ad-question title: These two are addressed in a different part of the form **Risk** - [ ] Your proposal must demonstrate awareness of all the main risks the project will face (including contractor or equipment failure, recruitment delays, etc.), with realistic management, mitigation and impact minimisation plans for each risk. Please fill this detail in the table provided in this form (titled ‘Project Risk Register’ on the Additional information step) **Expertise and Capability** - [ ] Please complete the Key Project Technical Team’ table (on the Additional information step) ``` The various risks and key technical team members are described on the project Technical Team table. ```ad-question **Project Delivery:** - [ ] Include a clear project plan with milestones. - [ ] We need to be able to understand the different stages of the work planned, how they link together, where things are reliant on each other and how long each stage should take so that we are able to assess the viability of the output. - [ ] Provide a GANTT chart as an attachment. (An Excel version is acceptable). - [ ] Please fill in the Project Risk Register (mandatory) and GFA (Government Furnished Assets) Table (optional) on Additional information step. **Value for Money:** - [ ] Please explain why your work should be funded by DASA. - [ ] What other funded sources have been considered, what private funding routes have you approached and why haven’t you pursued those routes? - [ ] Please explain the socio-economic impact the technology/solution could have to the UK. - [ ] You must make DASA aware should you plan to submit or have submitted the same project to any other funding body. **Justification of Resources:** - [ ] Justify the expenditure you have proposed with reference to staffing, equipment, materials, consumables, collaborators and overheads and travel and subsistence. ``` ```ad-todo title: Ralph and Jo comments Value for Money: - Please explain why your work should be funded by DASA: - Not suitable for VC funding. Also not suitable for industry funding at this time. EPSRC does not fund space research. - Can leverage industry investment at a later date; for example, No one else aligns funding with funding for space projects. - Ralph adds the detail that dependency between work packages be defined. - Using a PhD student to support the work- if this is done then, add comments under justification of resources. ``` ```ad-question title: **Project Delivery:** - [ ] Include a clear project plan with milestones. ``` This project is divided into three interconnected work packages (WPs). The description of tasks (T), deliverables (D), milestones (M) of WPs are detailed below and in the Gantt Chart. The PDRA will lead the computational modelling part, while the QMUL-funded PhD student will drive the hardware-oriented portions of the research programme. - WP1: Modelling and simulation of space robot (Months 1-6) T1.1: CAD design of ABSRS that emulates the relocatable robot of LEO demonstrator mission based on NPS designs (Months 1-2) In prior work, the first technology demonstration mission (prior to assembling GEO-based 25 m optical telescope) was of a robot arm capable of moving to different locations of a small satellite via "end-over-end" walking (see Fig_4_DASA_LEO_demo_robot.png). To emulate this mission concept, we will develop a CAD model that appropriately modifies the aforementioned NPS ABSRS. T1.2: Acquire COTS components for ABSRS (Months 1-2) In parallel with T1.1 and based off the NPS simulator, relevant actuators, sensors, and on-board computers will be purchased. In addition, a motion tracking system dedicated to this system will also be acquired and installed for experiments in WP2. An initial design that covers the working area of the large granite monolith at QMUL has been developed with Qualisys, our preferred vendor. T1.3: Multi-body dynamics and controls simulation studies (Months 2-6) A simulation-based investigation into the dynamics of a relocatable manipulator with spacecraft will be performed. As the manipulator and spacecraft masses are comparable in the LEO mission and ABSRS, a significant coupling in their dynamics is expected which destabilizes the spacecraft so the corresponding control will also bed developed. This has not previously been done in either the free-floating or free-flying cases, which we will cover during the entire project. D1: Progress report with design/bill of materials for the ABSRS and ground-based facility updates will be provided at first meeting. D2: Technical report on design, dynamics, and control of a robotic arm capable of relocation to different parts of a satellite mockup at second meeting. M1: Ground-testbed's core setup completed; foundational computational study on dynamics and control of relocatable space manipulators completed. - WP2: Development of and experiments on Free-floating ABSRS for base spacecraft (i.e., the base space craft will lack any actuators for its position and attitude control thrusters and attitude control) (Months 5-15) T2.1: Manipulator Assembly, Integration, and Testing (Months 5-9) The previously developed manipulator link designs (T1.1) will be manufactured and integrated with the COTS electronics and air-bearings (T1.2) followed by testing. The air-bearings are fed by compressed air-tanks and for this portion, we will assume one end of the manipulator will be stably attached to a platform. T2.2: Free-floating base AIT w/ manipulator (Months 8-12) The manipulator will be integrated to a free-floating spacecraft simulator (free-FFS); this is expected to take a little over 3 months and starts before T2.2 ends; this is to iterate on the interface design between the free-FFS and arm to both ensure relocation while ensuring air supply is unaffected to the arm while relocating. T2.3: Free-floating experiments (Months 12-15) Having achieved a functional prototype of the free-floating ABSRS, we will conduct a variety of experiments that verify the simulated developments of free-floating systems in T1.1. Much of the control software architecture will exploit solutions provided by the Robot Operating System (ROS) as it provides an excellent framework for rapidly integrating sensors and actuators typically found on current robotic systems using its wide array of readily available software drivers for these components. D3: Final report outline (mandatory deliverable) will be provided in the third meeting. D4: Air-bearing manipulator prototype will be presented at third meeting. D5: Progress report on the development of free-floating ABSRS will also be shown in fourth meeting. D6: Technical report with a demonstration of the free-floating ABSRS where the manipulator relocates to different points of the base spacecraft will be provided at the fifth meeting. M2: UK's first ground-based ABSRS experiments completed; foundational computational study on dynamics and control of relocatable space manipulators completed. - WP3: Development of and experiments on free-flying ABSRS T3.1 : Free-floating base AIT w/ manipulator (Months 14-18) The free-FSS (T2.2) will be integrated with the COTS spacecraft actuators (T1.2), i.e., solenoid valves for thrusters and appropriate reaction wheel. We anticipate this task will take a little over 3 months. T3.2 : Free-flying system experiments (Months 17-21) Having achieved a functional prototype of the free-floating ABSRS, we will conduct experiments that verify the simulated developments of free-flying systems in T1.1. This will also allows us to compare results with findings in T2.3. T3.3 : Formation flying antennas concepts (Months 22-24) During this period we will revisit the challenge of radar imaging of formation flying satellites that will blend with the co-I's area of expertise. Progress on the free-flying simulators will also influence this in developing a first-order design of a simulator that integrates with the co-I's radar imaging payloads. This will feed into the final report (D9). D7: Costing for follow-on work with descriptions of the work will be provided at the sixth meeting. D8: At the seventh meeting, a prototype/demonstration of the free-flying version of the ABSRS (i.e. robotic relocation experiments being performed on an actuated base spacecraft) will be presented. D9: Final report on the project on developing the UK's first ABSRS relevant for in-space assembly of large optical aperture systems and future work needed on formation flying demonstrations with the testbed will be provided at the eighth/final meeting. M3: A UK first ground-based ABSRS relevant to robotic on-orbit assembly of large apertures with the capability of future experiments in formation flying to achieve effective apertures achieved. [[unused SSC RAS4OOS docs]] ```ad-question title: - [x] We need to be able to understand the different stages of the work planned, how they link together, where things are reliant on each other and how long each stage should take so that we are able to assess the viability of the output. ``` ```ad-question title: - [x] Provide a GANTT chart as an attachment. (An Excel version is acceptable). ``` - [[DASA Gantt uneditable.png]] - [[DASA Gantt editable]] ```ad-question title: Separate part of form collapse: close - [ ] Please fill in the Project Risk Register (mandatory). ``` ```ad-question title: **Value for Money:** - [x] Please explain why your work should be funded by DASA. ``` ## Reasons for DASA to fund this work - The main reason DASA should fund this work is the perfect alignment of the proposal with Challenge 1's statement seeking "novel solutions to achieving into large aperture optical telescopes (or effective apertures) for fine-resolution imaging from GEO"; robotic on-orbit assembly and formation flying are essential novel solutions, as described in the Chief Investigator's prior research supporting UK space industry. - Moreover, the proposed project aims to develop ground-based demonstrators that support ISR from space, which is a DSS priority (item c, page 23). - This work also aligns with DASA’s focus on advancing cutting-edge technology for defence and security applications. - The project also involves collaboration between researchers from different disciplines, including materials science and engineering, which could lead to interdisciplinary knowledge exchange and innovation. - Locating the ground-based demonstrator at a university where future engineers are trained would enhance skills and talent pool in the defence space enterprise thus aligning with DSS strategic theme 3. - This university-based research also aligns with DSS's cross cutting principle to support scientific collaboration, research development and further enhance engagement with academia. ```ad-question title: - [x] What other funded sources have been considered, what private funding routes have you approached and why haven’t you pursued those routes? ``` ## Other funding sources considered - EPSRC was considered as a funding source but they do not support space robotics technology R&D, the unique area of our proposal. - The Royal Society also does not provide the volume of support needed for recruiting postdocs and equipment purchases needed for such a project. - While the CI was supported by industry for analytical research (i.e., prior research on robotic in-space assembly), this was facilitated by a strategic agreement between SSTL (an Airbus subsidiary) and the Surrey Space Centre. - Industry does not typically support capital equipment purchases for lab-based on-ground demonstrators of orbital assembly and formation flying technologies as they are not directly commercially lucrative. They typically make use of facilities at ESA and other research institutions for R&D work. Some of our industry contacts have expressed an interest in using the testbed proposed in this study for their experiments; they have also expressed interest in potentially becoming paying customers for this testbed as a service. - We are currently in discussions of industry-funded PhD studentships with some industry partners but this support would not cover capital equipment purchases. - From a **private investment** perspective, the CI unsuccessfully applied to YCombinator (a California-based startup accelerator) in Sept 2022- their portfolio primarily comprises highly lucrative commercial software products (e.g., Airbnb, Stripe) whereas ours is a space hardware idea, which has a longer timeline to deliver sizeable commercial profit while also requiring fundamental R&D. This makes it less appealing for startup accelerators. - Lastly, the Chief Investigator was also invited to ARIA's roundtable on space technologies and subsequently invited to apply for ARIA's Program Manager role to direct a £50 million vision. His proposal to achieve in-orbit demonstration of key autonomous space robotics technologies towards robotic on-orbit assembly was unsuccessful- one reason may have been that ARIA's stated focus areas did not include space technologies. Thus, we have applied a portfolio approach to secure funding for work related to this proposal, which aligns perfectly only with this specific DASA Space To Innovate challenge. ```ad-question title: - [x] Please explain the socio-economic impact the technology/solution could have to the UK. ``` **Societal benefit** - Delivering on Net Zero for the UK via space-based solar power has received significant attention off late, which will be a tremendous benefit to the UK at a time of rising energy costs and impacts to the climate. However, the resulting solar collectors are of kilometre scales which, like large optical apertures, require advances in robotic on-orbit assembly technologies. Thus, the solutions offered in this project could impact the space-based energy solutions that will benefit the UK. - The ground-based facility resulting from this projects will be used to train many future space engineers at QMUL over the coming decades, which will lead to the upskilling of the future UK workforce. - Space-based imagery is already used to support agricultural operations leading to improved crop yield; building the next-generation large optical EO telescopes can continue to offer benefits to agriculture. - Supporting the growth of sovereign UK Space industry in on-orbit servicing, assembly, manufacturing as well as active debris removal is clearly stated in the Integrated Review 2023 (item 35, page 22-23), which this project built towards technically and also with collaborators. **Economic benefit** - In-orbit robotics has critical applications for D&S, as discussed in "Desirability". It also offers purely commercial opportunities in assembly, servicing, and maintenance of future habitats, in-space factories, etc. Thus this work lays clear pathways to push towards the UK government's Space Innovation and Growth Strategy target of creating a £40Bn UK space industry by 2030. ```ad-question title: - [x] You must make DASA aware should you plan to submit or have submitted the same project to any other funding body. ``` We do not plan to submit elsewhere with this idea as no other funding body supports academics developing technologies to achieve **fine resolution imaging** for Earth Observation. We declare this proposal has not been submitted to any other funding bodies. ```ad-question title: **Justification of Resources:** - [x] Justify the expenditure you have proposed with reference to staffing, equipment, materials, consumables, collaborators and overheads and travel and subsistence. ``` ```ad-hint collapse:closed title: Hint from [Section 7.8](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/competition-space-to-innovate-campaign-charlie-drop/space-to-innovate-campaign-charlie-drop-competition-document#how-to-apply) ### 7.8 What your resourcing plan should include Your resourcing plan must identify, where possible, the nationalities of proposed employees that you intend to work on this contract. #### If your proposal is recommended for funding In the event of a proposal being recommended for funding, the DASA reserves the right to undertake due diligence checks including the clearance of proposed employees. Please note that this process will take as long as necessary and could take up to 6 weeks in some cases for non-UK nationals. You must identify any [ethical / legal / regulatory factors](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/defence-and-security-accelerator-ethical-legal-and-regulatory-guidance) within your proposal and how the associated risks will be managed, including break points in the project if approvals are not received. [MODREC](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/defence-and-security-accelerator-ethical-legal-and-regulatory-guidance#mod-research-ethics-committee) approvals can take up to 5 months therefore you should plan your work programme accordingly. If you are unsure if your proposal will need to apply for MODREC approval, then please refer to the [MODREC Guidance](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/defence-and-security-accelerator-ethical-legal-and-regulatory-guidance) for Suppliers or contact your Innovation Partner for further guidance. Requirements for access to Government Furnished Assets (GFA), for example, information, equipment, materials and facilities, may be included in your proposal. DASA cannot guarantee that GFA will be available. If you apply for GFA, you must include an alternative plan in case it is not available. **Failure to provide any of the above listed will automatically render your proposal non-compliant.** ``` - The “costs table” shows the funding breakdown for the amount of £499,992 (100% of full economic costing), for which we are seeking DASA's support for this 24-month project. - Staffing costs: - One Postdoctoral Research Assistant (PDRA) will be hired for 24 months who will work 37.5 hrs/week (100% FTE) on this project. The nationality of this candidate is unknown at this moment in time. We will ensure they are from a country that meets export control rules for our advisory board (who are from the US, UK, and Europe) and MoD while respective diverse hiring practices. - CI (Angadh) will dedicate 8hrs/week (18.66% FTE) for the duration of the project. CI is an Indian citizen with Indefinite Leave to Remain; he will take up UK citizenship when eligible in Nov. 2025. - Co-I (Prof. Yang Hao, British citizen) will dedicate 1hr/week (5.33% FTE) for the duration of the project. His involvement is two-fold. Firstly, to provide mentorship to the CI as a highly successful senior researcher working with QinetiQ. Secondly, to identify pathways for integrating spacecraft simulators developed here with his antennas research towards delivering formation flying antennas with large effective apertures. - Note that in addition to this, QMUL is providing a funded PhD student to the CI support this project- this student identifies as a woman of Mexican nationality. The student will start in September 2023, which is the right timing for this project. Also note that this is not costed to DASA and is thus not included in project costs. This information is included to indicate the strong show of support from QMUL towards this project. - Equipment costs (£38,599) are based on a quote for Qualisys' state-of-the-art motion tracking systems, a core component of any such facility. - £52,601 materials/consumables towards developing ABSRS (one free-flying)- a free-floating base will also be made as part of WP2. We believe this is sufficient based both on our literature survey as well as conversations with other experts. However, if there are any leftover components and there is additional time, we will exploit this to make a second free-flying spacecraft simulator that could be used in future formation flying demonstrations, as well. - £20,000 has been allocated towards travel and subsistence to cover for attending meetings and project events with DSTL/DASA for the team (£1500). In addition, we aim to attend at least two conferences relevant to the space community hosted by AIAA (SciTech in 2024 and Spaceflight Mechanics in 2025) and ESA (ASTRA is their flagship space robotics conference, which will happen in 2025), respectively; we have allocated £15,000 for conference attendance. In addition, we are in the process of agreeing research visits for the entire team who will share know-how on developing air-bearing simulators; for this purpose we have allocated the remaining £3,500. Additional funds (if needed) will be secured through internal QMUL grants and external awards. - This project will not require MODREC approvals as it has no human test subjects.