A Novel Method for Fault Tolerance Intelligence Advisor System (FT-IAS) for Mission Critical Operations

  • M. Balaji
  • C. MalaEmail author
  • M. S. Siva
Part of the Intelligent Systems Reference Library book series (ISRL, volume 185)


In Communication and inter-planetary missions, satellites are placed in elliptical parking orbits (EPO). This is followed by a series of maneuvers which subsequently positions the spacecraft in the de-sired Orbit. Liquid Apogee Motor (LAM) mode is a thruster firing mode used for orbit raising with the help of sensors such as Dynamically Tuned Gyroscopes (DTG), Digital Sun Sensors (DSS), Star Sensors (SS) and actuators such as thrusters. In the LAM mode, the output from the selected sensor is used to update the spacecraft attitude and this is compared with the desired attitude steering profile to derive the error in the attitude. The controller then corrects the spacecraft attitude error along the three axes. Presently, in the absence of sensor data during LAM mode, the burn is terminated by the on-board software logic and the spacecraft is normalized by ground intervention. But during mission critical operations, like in interplanetary missions, this logic fails to meet the mission requirements since there is no other opportunity to carry out the burn. In this context, a new fault tolerant intelligence approach is required. This chapter discusses the design and implementation of a new logic introduced in on-board software, to overcome LAM termination, in case of failure of sensor data updates. It also highlights the recovery time for various combinations of sensor failures.


  1. 1.
    Ammann, P. E, Knight J C, Data Diversity: An Approach to Software Fault Tolerance. Proceedings of FTCS-17, IEEE Transactions on Computers, 37 321–354 (1988)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Takano, T., Yamada, T., Kanekawa, N.: Fault-tolerance experiments of the Hiten onboard space computer, Digest of papers. In: Fault-Tolerant Computing: The Twenty-First International Symposium (1991)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Knight, J.C., Anderson, T.: A framework for software fault tolerance in real-time systems, vol. 9, pp. 55–364. Computing Laboratory, University of New-Castle-upon-Tyne (1983)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dilenno, T.R., Yaskin, D.A., Barton, J.H.: Fault tolerance testing in the advanced automation system. In: IEEE Technical Symposium, USA (1991)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Huang, Y., Kintala, C.: Software Implemented Fault Tolerance: Technologies and Experience. AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ 07974Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Koppel, C.R.: Low Thrust Orbit Transfer Optimiser for a Spacecraft Simulator 6th ICATT, Darmstadt (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deprit, A., et al.: Computation of ephemerides by discrete Chebyshev approximations. Navigation 26(1), 1–11 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sheela, B.V., Padmanabhan, P.: Compressed polynomial approach for onboard ephemeris representation. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 13(4), 765–767 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dakshayani, B.P., Rao, S.V.: Onboard ephemeris representation by a polynomial approach. J. Spacecr. Technol. 3(2), 7–12 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dakshayani, B.P., Nagamani, T., Satheesha, A.L., Ashwin, G.S., Ravikumar, L., Kiran, B.S.: Onboard Orbit and Attitude Representation Algorithm of IRNSS (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kiran, B.S., Gopinath, N.S., Negi, K.: MARS Orbiter mission design – Preliminary Analysis (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of CSENational Institute of TechnologyTiruchirappalliIndia
  2. 2.CDAD-I, CDSG, U R Rao Satellite Centre, ISROBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations