Advertisement

A reference architecture for satellite control systems

  • Adair José RohlingEmail author
  • Valdemar Vicente Graciano Neto
  • Mauricio Gonçalves Vieira Ferreira
  • Walter Abrahão Dos Santos
  • Elisa Yumi Nakagawa
Review Article
  • 25 Downloads

Abstract

Software for satellite control systems (SCS) domain performs a relevant role in space systems, being responsible for ensuring the functioning of the satellites, from the orbit launch to the end of their lifetime. Systems in this domain are complex and are constantly evolving due to technological advancement of satellites, the significant increase in controlled satellites, and the interoperability among space organizations. However, in order to meet such complexity and such evolution, the architectures of these systems have been usually designed in an isolated way by each organization and hence may be prone to recurrent efforts and difficulties of interoperability. In parallel to this scenario, reference architecture, a special type of software architecture that aggregates knowledge of a specific domain, has performed an important role for the success in development, standardization, and evolution of systems in several domains. Nevertheless, the usage of reference architecture has not been explored in the SCS domain. Thus, this article presents a reference architecture for satellite control systems (SCS-RA). Results achieved from usage of SCS-RA in the development of a microsatellite control system for National Institute for Space Research showed a significant reduction of effort, benefits of interoperability, scalability, and sharing of ground resources.

Keywords

Satellites control Reference architecture Software component 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development - CNPq (Grant N. :300394/2017-9) and São Paulo Research Foundation - FAPESP (Grant N. 2017/06195-9).

References

  1. 1.
    Dvorak T (2009) NASA study on flight software complexity. In: Proceedings of AIAA Infotech@Aerospace conference. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.  https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2009-1882
  2. 2.
    Shames P, Yamada T (2003) Reference architecture for space data systems. In: Proceedings of the 5th international symposium on reducing the cost of spacecraft ground systems and operations. Jet Propulsion Lab, PasadenaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sorensen T, Pilger E, Yost B, Nunes M, Differding J (2012) Plug and play mission operations. In: 2012 IEEE aerospace conference.  https://doi.org/10.1109/AERO.2012.6187394
  4. 4.
    SpaceWorks Enterprises, Inc. (SEI) (2017) 2017 Nano/microsatellite market forecast. http://spaceworksforecast.com/docs/SpaceWorks_Nano_Microsatellite_Market_Forecast_2017.pdf. Accessed 26 June 2017
  5. 5.
    Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) (2005) Cross support reference model—part 1: space link extension services. Recommended Standards CCSDS-910.4-B-2, Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) (2006) Cross support concept—part 1: space link extension services. Informational Report 910.3-G-3. Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shames P, Yamada T (2004) Tools for describing the reference architecture for space data systems. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena. https://trs.jpl.nasa.gov/handle/2014/38436
  8. 8.
    Chamoun JP, Risner S, Beech T, Garcia G (2006) Bridging ESA and NASA worlds: lessons learned from the integration of Hifly ®/SCOS-2000 in NASA’s GMSEC. In: IEEE aerospace conference.  https://doi.org/10.1109/AERO.2006.1656140
  9. 9.
    Sullivan T, Sather D, Nishinaga R (2009) A flexible satellite command and control framework. Crosslink Mag 10:24–29Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) (2013) Reference architecture for space information management. Informational report CCSDS-312.0-G-1, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smith D, Grubb T, Esper J (2008) Linking and combining distributed operations facilities using NASA’s “GMSEC” systems architectures. In: Proceedings of the international conference on space operations (SPACEOPS ’08), HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Oussalah MC (2014) Software architecture, vol 2. Wiley, LondonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Martínez-Fernández S (2013) Towards supporting the adoption of software reference architectures: an empirically-grounded framework. In: Proceedings of the 11th international doctoral symposium on empirical software engineering, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nakagawa EY, Antonino PO, Becker M (2011) Reference architecture and product line architecture: a subtle but critical difference. In: Proceedings of the 5th European conference on software architecture (ECSA’11), pp 207–211Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cloutier R, Muller G, Verma D, Nilchiani R, Hole E, Bone M (2010) The concept of reference architectures. Syst Eng 13:14–27Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jones TC (1986) Programming productivity: steps toward a science. McGraw-Hill Education, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tracz W (1998) Software reuse myths. ACM SIGSOFT Softw Eng Notes 13:17–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wentzel KD (1994) Software reuse-facts and myths. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on software engineering (ICSE ’94), pp 267–268Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Panunzio M (2011) Definition, realization and evaluation of a software reference architecture for use in space applications. Ph.D. thesis, University of Bologna, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) (2013) Mission operations message abstraction layer; recommended standards CCSDS 521.0-B-2. Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nakagawa EY, Ferrari FC, Sasaki MMF, Maldonado JC (2011) An aspect-oriented reference architecture for software engineering. J Syst Softw 84:1670–1684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Guessi M, Oliveira LBR, Garcés L, Oquendo F (2015) Towards a formal description of reference architectures for embedded systems. In: Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on exploring component-based techniques for constructing reference architectures (CobRA ’15), pp 17–20Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Weyrich M, Ebert C (2016) Reference architectures for the internet of things. IEEE Softw 33:112–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Martínez-Fernández S, Ayala CP, Franch X, Nakagawa EY (2006) A survey on the benefits and drawbacks of AUTOSAR. In: Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on automotive software architecture (WASA ’15), pp 19–26Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Clement SJ, McKee D W, Xu J (2017) Service-oriented reference architecture for smart cities. In: Proceedings of the 11th IEEE symposium on service-oriented system engineering (SOSE ’17), pp 81–85Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Klein J, Buglak R, Blockow D (2016) A reference architecture for big data systems in the national security domain. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on big data software engineering (BIGDSE ’16), pp 51–57Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) (2008) Reference architecture for space data systems. Recommended practice CCSDS-311.0-M-1, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Panunzio M, Vardanega T (2013) On software reference architectures and their application to the space domain. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on software reuse (ICSR ’13), pp 144–159Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Duro N, Moreira F, Rogado J, Reis J, Peccia N (2005) Technology harmonization-developing a reference architecture for the ground segment software. In: IEEE aerospace conference, pp 3968–3979Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nakagawa EY, Guessi M, Maldonado JC, Feitosa D, Oquendo F (20014) Consolidating a process for the design, representation, and evaluation of reference architectures. In: Proceedings of the 11th working IEEE/IFIP conference on software architecture (WICSA ’14), pp 143–152Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) (2017) Online index of objects launched into outer space. http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/osoindex/search-ng.jspx. Accessed 10 Aug 2017
  32. 32.
    Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) (2017) UCS Satellite Database. http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/space-weapons/satellite-database. Accessed 08 May 2017
  33. 33.
    Wertz JR, Larson WJ (1999) Space mission analysis and design. Springer, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Arza M, Dreihahn H (2012) SLE Routing—simplified station access for mission operations. In: Proceedings of the international conference on space operations (SPACEOPS ’12), StockholmGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    NASA (2014) NASA’s mission operations and communications services. Technical report, Washington. https://deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov/files/dsn/6_NASA_MOCS_2014_10_01_14.pdf. Accessed 27 May 2017
  36. 36.
    NASA (2015) Deep space network services catalog. Technical report 820-100. https://deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov/files/dsn/820-100-F1.pdf. Accessed 07 Apr 2017
  37. 37.
    Noguero J, Garcia GJ, Beech TW (2005) Mission control system for Earth observation missions based on SCOS-2000. In: IEEE aerospace conference, pp 4088–4099Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Morel T, Lopez T, Casas N (2014) Deploying operational multi-satellite control centres on virtual environments. In: International conference on space operations (SPACEOPS ’14), PasadenaGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mayorga A (2006) An auto configuration system for the GMSEC architecture and API. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE international conference on space mission challenges for information technology (SMC-IT’06), PasadenaGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gudmundsson V, Schulze C, Ganesan D, Lindvall M, Wiegand R (2015) Model-based testing of NASA’s GMSEC, a reusable framework for ground system software innovations in systems and software engineering (ISSE), 11:217-232Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kruchten P, Obbink H, Stafford J (2006) The past, present, and future for software architecture. IEEE Softw 23:22–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Shaw M, Clements P (2006) The golden age of software architecture. IEEE Softw 23:31–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Angelov S, Grefen P, Greefhorst D (2012) A framework for analysis and design of software reference architectures. Inf Softw Technol 54:417–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bayer J, Ganesan D, Girard J, Knodel J (2004) Definition of reference architecture based on existing systems. Technical report 034.04/E, Fraunhofer IESE. http://publica.fraunhofer.de/dokumente/N-21572.html. Accessed 07 Dec 2016
  45. 45.
    Cloutier R, Muller G, Verma D, Nilchiani R, Hole E, Mary Bone (2010) The concept of reference architectures. Syst Eng 13:1098–1241Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Dobrica L, Niemelä E (2008) An approach to reference architecture design for different domains of embedded systems. In: International conference on software engineering research and practice (SERP ’08), pp 287–293Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Nakagawa EY, Oquendo F, Becker M (2012) RAModel: a reference model for reference architectures. In: Joint working IEEE/IFIP conference on software architecture and European conference on software architecture (WICSA-ECSA), pp 297–301Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Angelov S, Trienekens J, Grefen P (2008) Towards a method for the evaluation of reference architectures: experiences from a case. In: Proceedings of the 2nd European conference on software architecture (ECSA ’08), pp 225–240Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Graaf B, van Dijk, H van, Deursen A (2005) Evaluating an embedded software reference architecture—industrial experience report. In: Proceedings of the 9th European conference on software maintenance and reengineering (CSMR ’05), pp 354–363Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Gallagher B (2000) Using the architecture tradeoff analysis method to evaluate a reference architecture: a case study. Technical report CMU/SEI-2000-TN-007. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Santos JFM, Guessi M, Galster M, Feitosa D, Nakagawa EY (2013) A checklist for evaluation of reference architectures of embedded systems. In: 25th International conference on software engineering and knowledge engineering (SEKE ’13), pp 451–454Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kruchten P (1995) The 4+1 view model of architecture. IEEE Softw 12:42–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rozanski N, Woods E (2005) Software systems architecture: working with stakeholders using viewpoints and perspectives. Addison-Wesley Professional, BostonGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Reid S (2012) European technology harmonisation on ground software systems: reference architecture and ICDs. In: Proceedings of the international conference on space operations (SPACEOPS ’12), StockholmGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    European Cooperation for Space Standardization (ECSS)(2000) ECSS-E-ST-70C. Space engineering—ground systems and operations—part 1A: principles and requirements. ECSS Standards, ECSS Ground Systems and Operations Working Group, NoordwijkGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) (2010) Mission operations services concept. Informational report CCSDS-520.0-G-3. Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    European Cooperation for Space Standardization (ECSS) (2009) ECSS-E-ST-40. Space engineering—software general requirements. ECSS Standards ECSS-E-ST-40 Working Group, NoordwijkGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    European Cooperation for Space Standardization (ECSS)(2008) ECSS-E-ST-70-31C. Space engineering—ground systems and operations—monitoring and control data. ECSS Standards, ECSS-E-ST-70-31 Working Group, NoordwijkGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) (2010) Mission operations reference model. Recommended practice CCSDS 520.1-M-1. Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS)(2009) Mission operations common object model. Draft recommendation CCSDS-521.1-R-1. Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) (2008) Spacecraft monitor and control-core services. Draft recommendation CCSDS-522.0-R-2. Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Nakagawa EY, Maldonado JC (2008) Reference architecture knowledge representation: an experience. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on sharing and reusing architectural knowledge (SHARK ’08), pp 51–54Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Guessi M, Bueno L, Oliveira R, Nakagawa EY (2011) Representation of reference architectures: a systematic review. In: 23 rd International conference on software engineering and knowledge engineering (SEKE ’11), pp 782–785Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    IEEE and ISO/IEC (2000) Systems and software engineering. In: IEEE recommended practice for architectural description of software-intensive systems (ISO/IEC 42010 IEEE Std 1471-2000), pp c1-24Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    European Cooperation for Space Standardization (ECSS) (2004) ECSS-E-10 Part 1B—system engineering—part 1: requirements and process. ECSS Standards, ECSS-E-10 Part 1 Working Group, NoordwijkGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    NASA (2007) NASA systems engineering handbook revision 2. Technical report SP-2016-6105 Rev2, Washington. https://www.nasa.gov/connect/ebooks/nasa-systems-engineering-handbook. Accessed 07 Nov 2017
  67. 67.
    Martínez-Fernández S, Ayala CP, Franch X (2013) REARM: a reuse-based economic model for software reference architectures. In: Proceedings of the13th international conference on software reuse (ICSR ’13), pp 97–112Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Lau KK, Wang Z (2007) Software component models. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 33:709–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Li J, Gupta A, Arvid J, Borretzen B, Conradi R (2007) The empirical studies on quality benefits of reusing software components. In: Proceedings of the 31st annual international computer software and applications conference (COMPSAC 2007), pp 399–402Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Mili H, Mili F, Mili A (1995) Reusing software: issues and research directions. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 23:528–562CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Graciano NVV, Garcés L, Guessi M, Oliveira LB, Oquendo F (2015) On the equivalence between reference architectures and metamodels. In: Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on exploring component-based techniques for constructing reference architectures, (CobRA ’15), pp 21–24Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute for Space Research (INPE)São José dos CamposBrazil
  2. 2.Federal University of Technology - Paraná (UTFPR)GuarapuavaBrazil
  3. 3.University of São Paulo (USP)São CarlosBrazil

Personalised recommendations