進階搜尋


下載電子全文  
系統識別號 U0026-1207201918480600
論文名稱(中文) 開放衞星軟硬體標準改善立方小衞星機上通信
論文名稱(英文) Open Satellite Hardware and Software Standards to Improve CubeSat Onboard Communication
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 工程科學系
系所名稱(英) Department of Engineering Science
學年度 107
學期 2
出版年 108
研究生(中文) 李阿杜
研究生(英文) Artur Scholz
學號 N98014011
學位類別 博士
語文別 英文
論文頁數 111頁
口試委員 指導教授-莊哲男
口試委員-苗君易
口試委員-莊智清
口試委員-林俊良
口試委員-余憲政
中文關鍵字 立方小衛星  控制器區域網路  CANopen  太空標準  開源  MicroPython 
英文關鍵字 CubeSat  CAN  CANopen  Space Standards  Open Source  MicroPython 
學科別分類
中文摘要 近年來,發射在地球軌道上的立方小衛星(CubeSat) 數量急劇增加。到今天為止,已有超過1000個立方小衛星被送往太空。與此同時,大學建立的立方小衛星的任務失敗率達到驚人的40%。這些故障中的許多是由於不正確的審查過程、而且通常具有類似的根本原因,問題出在電力系統和通信系統(包括車載通信)中。不幸的是,分享經驗教訓非常罕見,合作也很少。

本論文的目的是透過採用開放分享哲學、並堅持公開可用的國際太空衞星的標準來提高立方小衛星任務的可靠性。為此,本論文討論了開放分享的好處、以及如何將其應用於立方小衛星的研發,並以案例研究為例。然後查勘兩個大型太空衞星標準化組織發布的標準,以詳細說明哪些標準化組織可能適用於立方小衛星領域。

在論文的後半部分,基於低成本的汽車 (CAN: Controller Area Network) 控制區域網絡總線技術,開發出一種強大且可容錯的衛星線上通信主機。首先,開發了一種線上通信樣機,該樣機直接採用包含控制區域網絡總線的太空標準。然後,開發出更適合應用於嵌入式立方小衛星可容錯的通信主機。

此論文顯示,技術開放分享可以成功應用於立方小衛星的開發,有助於提高立方小衛星操作的可靠性和安全性。此外,立方小衛星的任務和專案之間的合作及互通性、只有在開發人員和用戶遵守共同可用的太空標準、或通過為立方小衛星領域建立專用的通用標準時、才具有經濟價值。
英文摘要 In recent years the number of CubeSats deployed into orbit around Earth has increased dramatically. By today, more than 1000 CubeSats have been sent to space. At the same time, the failure rate of missions is at an alarming 40% for university built CubeSats. Many of those failures are due to improper review and often have similar root causes, located in the power system and communication system (including onboard communication). Unfortunately the sharing of lessons learned is very uncommon and collaboration is also very low.

The purpose of this thesis is to improve reliability of CubeSat missions by adopting open source philosophy and adhering to openly available international space standards. For this, the benefits of open source are discussed and how it can be applied to CubeSat projects, giving a case study as example. Then the standards issued by two large space standardization organizations are surveyed to elaborate which of those have potential application to the CubeSat domain.

In the second half of the thesis a robust and fault tolerant onboard communication bus is then developed based on the low-cost, automotive CAN bus technology. First, a prototype that consists of a direct adoption of a space standard that encompasses the CAN bus is developed. Thereafter, a derivation of it is created that is better suited for the application in the constraint embedded CubeSat environment.

The thesis shows that the open source approach can be successfully applied to CubeSat developments and will help to significantly improve reliability and safety of CubeSat operations. Also, inter-operability among CubeSat missions and project collaboration will only become economic when developers and users adhere to common standards, either adopted from available space standards or by establishing dedicated standards for the CubeSat domain.
論文目次 Abstract in Chinese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Abstract in English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3 Thesis Contribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4 Thesis Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2 Open Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1 Open Source is Everywhere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2 Open Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.1 Intellectual Property Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.2 Open Source Licenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3 Downsides of Closed Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3.1 Vendor Lock-In . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3.2 Incompatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3.3 Lack of Technical Insight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.4 Benefits of Open Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.4.1 Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.4.2 Customization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.4.3 Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.4.4 Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.4.5 Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.5 Open Source CubeSat Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.6 Case Study: LibreCube Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.6.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.6.2 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.6.3 Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.6.4 Community Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3 Space Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.1 Need for Standardization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.2 Space Standardization Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.2.1 European Cooperation for Space Standardization . . . . . . . . 31
3.2.2 Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems . . . . . . . . 35
4 CAN Bus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.1 History of CAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.2 CAN Bus Fundamentals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.2.1 Physical Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.2.2 Data Link Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5 ECSS-CAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.1 CAN for Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.2 CANopen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.2.1 Communication Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.2.2 Object Dictionary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.3 ECSS-CAN Bus Protocol Minimal Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.3.1 Communication Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.3.2 Time Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.3.3 Redundancy Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.3.4 Objects and Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.4 Prototype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.4.1 Components and Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.4.2 Implementation Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.5 Prototype Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
5.5.1 Test Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
5.5.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
5.6 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
6 SpaceCAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
6.1 From ECSS-CAN to SpaceCAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
6.2 Features of SpaceCAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6.2.1 Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6.2.2 Bus Access Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
6.2.3 CAN-ID Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
6.2.4 Redundancy Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
6.2.5 Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
6.2.6 Time Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
6.2.7 Message Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
6.2.8 Differences to ECSS-CAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
6.3 Prototype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
6.3.1 Components and Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
6.3.2 Software Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
6.4 Testing and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
6.4.1 Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
6.4.2 Robustness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
6.4.3 Effective Data Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
6.4.4 Power Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
6.4.5 Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
6.5 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
7.1 Final remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
7.2 Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
參考文獻 [1] Thyrso Villela, Cesar A Costa, Alessandra M Brandão, Fernando T Bueno, and Rodrigo Leonardi. Towards the thousandth cubesat: A statistical overview. International Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 2019, 2019.
[2] Stephen A Jacklin. Small-satellite mission failure rates. 2019.
[3] Mark Williamson. Spacecraft technology: the early years, volume 33. IET, 2006.
[4] Asif A Siddiqi. The Soviet Space Race with Apollo. University Press of Florida, 2003.
[5] Martin Sweeting. Uosat - an investigation into cost-effective spacecraft engineering. Radio and Electronic Engineer, 52:363–378, 1982.
[6] Pius Butz and U Renner. Tubsat-c, a microsat-bus for earth observation payloads. In Proceedings of 3rd International Symposium Small Satellites Systems and Services, Annecy, France, 1996.
[7] Christopher Kitts and Robert Twiggs. The satellite quick research testbed (squirt) program. In Proceedings of 8th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites, Logan, Utah, USA, 1994.
[8] F Graziani, F Santoni, F Piergentili, F Bulgarelli, M Sgubini, and S Bernardini. Manufacturing and launching student-made microsatellites: ”hands-on” education at the university of roma. In Proceedings of 55th International Astronautical Congress, Vancouver, Canada, 2004.
[9] Y Nakamura, T Eishima, M Nagai, R Funase, A Enokuchi, K Nakada, Y Cheng, E Toshiyuki Takei, T Funane, F Sasaki, Y Nojiri, T Yamamoto, E Nagayama, and S Nakasuka. University of tokyo’s ongoing student-lead picosatellite projects -cubesat xi and prism. In Proceedings of 55th International Astronautical Congress, Vancouver, Canada, 2004.
[10] Hank Heidt, Jordi Puig-Suari, Augustus Moore, Shinichi Nakasuka, and Robert Twiggs. Cubesat: A new generation of picosatellite for education and industry low-cost space experimentation. In Proceedings of 14th Annual/USU Conference on Small Satellites, Logan, Utah, USA, 2000.
[11] Isaac Nason, Jordi Puig-Suari, and Robert Twiggs. Development of a family of picosatellite deployers based on the cubesat standard. In Proceedings of Aerospace Conference. IEEE, 2002.
[12] Michael Taraba, Christian Rayburn, Albert Tsuda, and Charles MacGillivray. Boeing’s cubesat testbed-1 attitude determination design and on-orbit experience. In Proceedings of 23th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites, Logan, Utah, USA, 2009.
[13] Ian F Akyildiz and Ahan Kak. The internet of space things/cubesats: A ubiquitous cyber-physical system for the connected world. Computer Networks, 150:134–149, 2019.
[14] Michael Swartwout. The first one hundred cubesats: A statistical look. Journal of Small Satellites, 2(2):213–233, 2013.
[15] Kirk Woellert, Pascale Ehrenfreund, Antonio J Ricco, and Henry Hertzfeld. Cubesats: Cost-effective science and technology platforms for emerging and developing nations. Advances in Space Research, 47(4):663–684, 2011.
[16] Christopher Boshuizen, James Mason, Pete Klupar, and Shannon Spanhake. Results from the planet labs flock constellation. 2014.
[17] Martin Langer and Jasper Bouwmeester. Reliability of cubesats –statistical data, developers’ beliefs and the way forward. 08 2016.
[18] Lars Alminde, Morten Bisgaard, Dennis Vinther, Tor Viscor, and Kasper Z. Østergard. The aau-cubesat student satellite project: Architectural overview and lessons learned. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 37(6):949 – 954, 2004. 16th IFAC Symposium on Automatic Control in Aerospace 2004, Saint-Petersburg, Russia, 14-18 June 2004.
[19] David A Wheeler. Why free-libre/open source software (floss)? look at the numbers! 2011.
[20] Emanuele Principi, Vito Colagiacomo, Stefano Squartini, and Francesco Piazza. Low power high-performance computingon the beagleboard platform. In 2012 5th European DSP Education and Research Conference (EDERC), pages 35–39. IEEE, 2012.
[21] Massimo Banzi and Michael Shiloh. Getting started with Arduino: the open source electronics prototyping platform. Maker Media, Inc., 2014.
[22] Robert Viseur. From open source software to open source hardware. In IFIP International Conference on Open Source Systems, pages 286–291. Springer, 2012.
[23] Erik Rubow. Open source hardware. Technical report, Citeseer, 2008.
[24] Jonathan Lock. Open source hardware. Technical report, Department of Technology Management and Economics, Chalmers University of Technology, 2013.
[25] Harvey Anderson and Tiki Dare. Passport without a visa: Open source software licensing and trademarks. International Free and Open Source Software Law Review, 1(2):99–110, 2010.
[26] Andrew Katz, LLP Moorcrofts, Moorcrofts LLP Partner, James House, and Mere Park. Towards a functional licence for open hardware. International Free and Open Source Software Law Review, 4(1):41–62, 2012.
[27] John R Ackerman. Toward open source hardware. U. Dayton L. Rev., 34:183, 2008.
[28] Mark H Webbink. Packaging open source. International Free and Open Source Software Law Review, 1(2):83–98, 2010.
[29] Myriam Ayass and Javier Serrano. The cern open hardware licence. International Free and Open Source Software Law Review, 4(1):71–78, 2012.
[30] Kris Ven, Jan Verelst, and Herwig Mannaert. Should you adopt open source software? Software, 25(3):54–59, 2008.
[31] Barry Phillips. Designers: The browser war casualties. Computer, 31(10):14–16, 1998.
[32] Steve McConnell. Code Complete. Microsoft press, 2004.
[33] Tor Viscor. Sseti–past, present and future. In Proceedings of 20th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites, Logan, Utah, USA, 2006.
[34] Ilkka Tuomi. Networks of Innovation. Oxford University Press Oxford, 2002. [35] Zachary Manchester, Mason Peck, and Andrew Filo. Kicksat: A crowd-funded mission to demonstrate the world’s smallest spacecraft. 2013.
[36] Dirk Geeroms, Sabine Bertho, Michel De Roeve, Rik Lempens, Michiel Ordies, and Jeroen Prooth. Ardusat, an arduino-based cubesat providing students with the opportunity to create their own satellite experiment and collect real-world space data. ESA Publications Division C/O ESTEC, 2015.
[37] Sanghyuck Han, Yeonju Choi, Dong-Hyun Cho, Won-Sub Choi, Hyeon Cheol Gong, Hae-Dong Kim, and Gi-Hyuk Choi. Analysis of cubesat development status in korea. Journal of the Korean Society for Aeronautical & Space Sciences, 45(11):975–988, 2017.
[38] Alexander Chin, Roland Coelho, Ryan Nugent, Riki Munakata, and Jordi Puig-Suari. Cubesat: the pico-satellite standard for research and education. In AIAA Space 2008 Conference & Exposition, page 7734, 2008.
[39] Jordi Puig-Suari, Clark Turner, and William Ahlgren. Development of the standard cubesat deployer and a cubesat class picosatellite. In 2001 IEEE Aerospace Conference Proceedings (Cat. No. 01TH8542), volume 1, pages 1–347. IEEE, 2001.
[40] Wenschel Lan, Jonathan Brown, Armen Toorian, Roland Coelbo, Lori Brooks, Jordi Puig-Suari, and Robert Twiggs. Cubesat development in education and into industry. In Space 2006, page 7296. 2006.
[41] Dan Ohlsson, Henrik Löfgren, Emil Vinterhav, and Stefan Strålsjö. Enabling advanced missions on small platforms through designing cost effective spacewirebased avionics solutions in the cubesat form factor: Spacewire missions and applications, short paper. In 2016 International SpaceWire Conference (SpaceWire), pages 1–5. IEEE, 2016.
[42] Bryan Klofas, Jason Anderson, and Kyle Leveque. A survey of cubesat communication systems. In 5th Annual CubeSat Developers’Workshop, 2008.
[43] Daniel J White, Ioannis Giannelos, Agisilaos Zissimatos, Eleytherios Kosmas, Dimitrios Papadeas, Pierros Papadeas, Matthaios Papamathaiou, Nikolaos Roussos, Vasileios Tsiligiannis, and Ioannis Charitopoulos. Satnogs: satellite networked open ground station. 2015.
[44] Kyle Leveque, Jordi Puig-Suari, and Clark Turner. Global educational network for satellite operations (genso). 2007.
[45] Wolfgang Heinen and Martin Unal. Scheduling tool for estrack ground station management. In SpaceOps 2010 Conference Delivering on the Dream Hosted by NASA Marshall Space Flight Center and Organized by AIAA, page 2263, 2010.
[46] D Evans Coelho and O Koudelka. Ccsds mission operations services on ops-sat. In 10th IAA Symposium on Small Satellites for Earth Observation, 2015.
[47] Mehran Sarkarati, Mariella Spada, Mario Merri, Jens Raymaekers, and Kim Nergaard. Meteron ccsds mo compliant telerobotic services talk dtn. In SpaceOps 2014 Conference, page 1871, 2014.
[48] Sam Cooper. Ccsds mo in space. In SpaceOps 2012, page 1291637. 2012.
[49] Malcolm Macdonald and Viorel Badescu. The international handbook of space technology. Springer, 2014.
[50] Ian F. Akyildiz and Ahan Kak. The internet of space things/cubesats: A ubiquitous cyber-physical system for the connected world. Computer Networks, 150:134 – 149, 2019.
[51] Armen Poghosyan and Alessandro Golkar. Cubesat evolution: Analyzing cubesat capabilities for conducting science missions. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 88:59 – 83, 2017.
[52] Jasper Bouwmeester, Martin Langer, and Eberhard Gill. Survey on the implementation and reliability of cubesat electrical bus interfaces. CEAS Space Journal, 9(2):163–173, 2017.
[53] Carlos Leandro Gomes Batista, Anderson Coelho Weller, Eliane Martins, and Fátima Mattiello-Francisco. Towards increasing nanosatellite subsystem robustness. Acta Astronautica, 2018.
[54] Muriel Noca, Fabien Jordan, Nicolas Steiner, Ted Choueiri, Florian George, Guillaume Roethlisberger, Noémy Scheidegger, Herveé Peter-Contesse, Maurice Borgeaud, Renato Krpoun, et al. Lessons learned from the first Swiss pico-satellite: SwissCube. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites, 2009.
[55] NE Cornejo, J Bouwmeester, and GN Gaydadjiev. Implementation of a reliable date bus for the Delfi nanosatellite programme. In Small Satellites for Earth Observation: 7th International Symposium of the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA), 4-8 May 2009, Berlin, Germany, 2009.
[56] E. Oland. The HiNCube student satellite - Lessons learned. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Recent Advances in Space Technologies, pages 429–432, June 2015.
[57] Louis E. Frenzel. Chapter twenty - mil-std-1553. In Louis E. Frenzel, editor, Handbook of Serial Communications Interfaces, pages 89 – 92. Newnes, Oxford, 2016.
[58] R. Killough. Integrating CCSDS and MIL-STD-1553: What you should know. In Proceedings of IEEE Aerospace Conference, volume 4, pages 4–1917–4–1926 vol.4, 2002.
[59] Doug Roberts and Steve Parkes. Spacewire missions and applications. In 2010 SpaceWire International Conference, volume 13, 2010.
[60] Stefan van der Linden, Jasper Bouwmeester, and Ales Povalac. Design and validation of an innovative data bus architecture for cubesats. In 14th Reinventing Space Conference, 2016.
[61] G. Casarosa, M. Apuzzo, L. Fanucci, and B. Sarti. Characterization of the emc performances of the can bus in a typical system bus architecture for small satellites. In 9th EUROMICRO Conference on Digital System Design (DSD’06), pages 338–345. IEEE, 2006.
[62] RJE Jansen, S Lindner, G Furano, C Boatella-Polo, and B Glass. Radiation and high-voltage tolerant space can driver in standard low-voltage 3.3-v cmos technology. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 64(8):2204–2211, 2017.
[63] Herbert J Kramer and Arthur P Cracknell. An overview of small satellites in remote sensing. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 29(15):4285–4337, 2008.
[64] C Underwood, G Richardson, and J Savignol. SNAP-1: A Low Cost Modular COTS-Based Nano-Satellite–Design, Construction, Launch and Early Operations Phase. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites, 2001.
[65] M. Khurram and S. M. Y. Zaidi. CAN as a spacecraft communication bus in LEO satellite mission. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Recent Advances in Space Technologies, pages 432–437, June 2005.
[66] Klaus Janschek and Annerose Braune. Application of industrial CAN bus technology for LEO-satellites. Acta Astronautica, 46(2):313 – 317, 2000. 2nd IAA International Symposium on Small Satellites for Earth Observation.
[67] Ali Al Suwaidi. DubaiSat–2 Mission Overview. In Proceedings of SPIE Remote Sensing 2012 ’Sensors, Systems, and Next-Generation Satellites’, volume 8533-30, pages 85330W–1, 2012.
[68] H. Kayal, F. Baumann, K. Briess, and S. Montenegro. BEESAT: A Pico Satellite for the On Orbit Verification of Micro Wheels. In 3rd International Conference on Recent Advances in Space Technologies, pages 497–502, June 2007.
[69] Pavel Brandstetter, Jan Michalik, and Jan Vanek. Workplace for measurement of selected parameters of communication buses. In Applied Electronics (AE), 2010 International Conference on, pages 1–4. IEEE, 2010.
[70] Junli Liu, Jianfeng Wan, and Yanyan Yan. Study on canbus control systemoriented simulation platform based on the node task. Procedia Engineering, 15:3984 – 3988, 2011. CEIS 2011.
[71] Amy J.C. Trappey, Charles V. Trappey, Usharani Hareesh Govindarajan, Allen C. Chuang, and John J. Sun. A review of essential standards and patent landscapes for the internet of things: A key enabler for industry 4.0. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 33:208 – 229, 2017.
[72] Road vehicles – Controller area network (CAN) – Part 1: Data link layer and physical signalling, 2003. ISO-11898-1.
[73] Road vehicles – Controller area network (CAN) – Part 2: High-speed medium access unit, 2003. ISO-11898-2.
[74] Olaf Pfeiffer, Andrew Ayre, and Christian Keydel. Embedded networking with CAN and CANopen. Copperhill Technologies Corporation, Greenfield, MA, USA, 2008.
[75] Konrad Etschberger. Controller Area Network: Basics, Protocols, Chips and Applications. IXXAT Automation GmbH, Weingarten, Germany, 2001.
[76] Space Engineering - CANbus Extension Protocol, 2015. ECSS-E-ST-50-15C.
[77] Gianluca Furano, Farid Guettache, Giorgio Magistrati, Gabriele Tiotto, Carlos Urbina Ortega, and Alberto Valverde. CanOpen on RASTA: The Integration of the CanOpen IP Core in the Avionics Testbed. In DASIA 2013, volume 720, 2013.
[78] Chris Taylor, Gianluca Furano, Alberto Valverde-Carretero, Kostas Marinis, Giorgio Magistrati, Luca Bolognino, King Lam Richard Jansen, Maurizio Caramia, Angel Grau Llovera, Jean Dalenq, et al. Can in space-status and future after ecss-e-st-50-15c release. In DASIA 2015-Data Systems in Aerospace, volume 732, 2015.
[79] CANopen Application Layer and Communication Profile, 2011. CiA-301.
[80] Spacecraft Onboard Interface Services, 2013. CCSDS-850.0-G-2.
[81] Time Code Formats, 2010. CCSDS-301.0-B-4.
[82] Sebastian Plamauer and Martin Langer. Evaluation of MicroPython as Application Layer Programming Language on CubeSats. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Architecture of Computing Systems, pages 1–9. VDE, 2017.
[83] Damien George, David Sanchez de la Llana, and Tiago Jorge. Porting of MicroPython to LEON Platforms. In DASIA 2016, volume 736, 2016.
[84] Artur Scholz, Tian-Hao Hsiao, Jer-Nan Juang, and Claudiu Cherciu. Open source implementation of ecss can bus protocol for cubesats. Advances in Space Research, 62(12):3438 – 3448, 2018. Advances in Technologies, Missions and Applications of Small Satellites.
[85] Road vehicles – Diagnostics on Contoller Area Networks (CAN) – Part 2: Network layer services, 2004. ISO-15765-2.
[86] David Evans and Mario Merri. Ops-sat: A esa nanosatellite for accelerating innovation in satellite control. In SpaceOps 2014 Conference, page 1702, 2014.
[87] Teaching control engineering concepts using open source tools on a raspberry pi board. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 48(29):99 – 104, 2015. IFAC Workshop on Internet Based Control Education IBCE15.
[88] AA Vaartjes, RJ Hamann, and R Amini. Integration and verification of a command and data handling subsystem for nano-satellite projects with critical time constraints: Delfi-c 3. In Proceedings of the 58th International Astronautical Congress, 2007.
[89] F Distler, G Gold, K Thurn, J Schür, and M Vossiek. Crosstalk simulation of multiple insulated twisted pairs based on transmission line theory. In 2017 IEEE 21st Workshop on Signal and Power Integrity (SPI), pages 1–4. IEEE, 2017.
[90] Joachim Charzinski. Performance of the error detection mechanisms in can. In Proceedings of the 1st International CAN Conference, volume 9, 1994.
論文全文使用權限
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2019-08-28起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2019-08-28起公開。


  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館
    聯絡電話:(06)2757575#65773
    聯絡E-mail:etds@email.ncku.edu.tw