Space environment based payload on-orbit verification necessity analysis method

Abstract

The present application relates to the field of space technology test evaluation, and more particularly to a method for analyzing necessity of on-orbit verification of load based on space environment, comprising obtaining test requirement data of space technology to be verified, the test requirement data including environment parameter requirement data, on-orbit operation requirement data, manned spacecraft on-orbit platform resource requirement data, and cost and risk data related to the test; based on the obtained test requirement data, respectively calculating environment irreplaceability comprehensive index N E , human-in-the-loop dependence comprehensive index D H , platform support adaptability comprehensive index A P , and comprehensive benefit gain index G B ; based on the four indexes calculated, according to a preset three-level judgment rule, outputting a manned spacecraft on-orbit test necessity judgment conclusion. The present application quantifies the multi-factor coupled environment irreplaceability, human-machine cooperation irreplaceability and platform matching degree, provides objective decision support for test planning, and optimizes the on-orbit resource allocation of manned spacecraft.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of space technology test and evaluation technology, and in particular to a method for analyzing the necessity of on-orbit verification of payloads based on the space environment. Background Technology

[0002] As space technology develops towards higher reliability, longer lifespan, and stronger autonomy, the research and development of new space payloads and technologies must undergo thorough on-orbit testing to verify their adaptability to the space environment. Currently, the decision-making process regarding whether a technology needs to be tested and verified using a manned spacecraft on-orbit platform relies primarily on qualitative judgments based on engineering experience, lacking a systematic and quantitative scientific evaluation method. This experience-based judgment model directly leads to two prominent resource allocation contradictions: The first type of problem is insufficient verification: Some technologies (such as materials science and biological culture experiments that rely on long-term real microgravity environments or require precise operation by astronauts) should have been verified in orbit using manned spacecraft, but were instead arranged in ground simulation facilities due to the ambiguity of experience-based judgment. Because the ground cannot reproduce a real and comprehensive space environment, the verification is insufficient, technical defects are not exposed in advance, and the risks and costs of subsequent in-orbit applications are increased.

[0003] The second type of problem is over-validation: some technologies (such as those requiring only short-term microgravity or highly automated experiments) could have been validated using lower-cost ground simulation equipment or unmanned satellite platforms, but due to a lack of quantitative evaluation, they have over-utilized the scarce platform resources of manned spacecraft in orbit, resulting in low resource utilization efficiency and crowding out opportunities for scientific research projects that truly need to take advantage of the unique advantages of the space station.

[0004] The root cause of the above two types of problems lies in the following three key flaws in existing analytical methods, and these flaws have a direct causal relationship with the aforementioned problems: 1. A quantitative evaluation index system matching the actual capabilities of manned spacecraft in orbit has not been established. Existing methods do not align with the actual technical parameters of manned spacecraft in orbit (e.g., better than 10). -5 The presence of microgravity levels on the order of g and kilowatts of power supply per rack (e.g., g-level microgravity) makes it difficult for evaluators to accurately determine whether the resource requirements of a technology match the platform's support capabilities. This deficiency directly leads to the problem of over-validation. Because evaluators are unclear about the boundaries of platform capabilities, they tend to push unnecessary high-requirement tests onto manned spacecraft in orbit, resulting in wasted resources.

[0005] 2. The core advantages of "human-in-the-loop" in on-orbit manned spacecraft are not fully reflected. Existing methods lack quantifiable means to assess the unique value of astronauts' non-programmed precision operations, robotic arm collaborative work, and on-orbit emergency response. This deficiency directly leads to insufficient verification. When evaluators cannot quantify the irreplaceable value of astronaut participation, they are prone to underestimating the necessity of on-orbit manned spacecraft for certain human-machine collaboration experiments, thus mistakenly leaving them on the ground and creating potential safety hazards.

[0006] 3. Lack of scientific assessment of the limitations of ground-based simulations of multi-factor coupled space environments. Space environment effects are often the result of the simultaneous coupling of multiple factors such as microgravity, vacuum, radiation, and atomic oxygen. Ground-based simulation facilities have inherent limitations in reproducing such comprehensive environments, and existing methods lack quantitative evaluation tools for this unsimulability. This deficiency also exacerbates the risk of insufficient validation. Due to the lack of quantitative evidence to prove the fundamental inadequacy of ground-based simulations, decision-makers may mistakenly believe that ground-based tests are good enough, thus abandoning validation opportunities that must rely on the real-world environment of manned spacecraft in orbit.

[0007] Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop a systematic, quantitative method for analyzing the necessity of space technology experiments that is closely matched with the actual on-orbit capabilities of manned spacecraft. Summary of the Invention

[0008] In view of this, the present invention aims to provide a method for analyzing the necessity of on-orbit verification of payloads based on the space environment. This method systematically evaluates the dependence of the space technology to be verified on the special on-orbit environment of manned spacecraft, human-in-the-loop characteristics, and platform support capabilities. By using quantitative indicators to overcome the shortcomings of subjective experience judgment, it provides objective decision support for the selection of test projects, thereby fundamentally solving the current contradiction between insufficient and excessive verification, providing objective decision support for space test planning, and optimizing the allocation efficiency of space resources.

[0009] To achieve the above objectives, the technical solution created by this invention is implemented as follows: A method for analyzing the necessity of on-orbit verification of payloads based on the space environment includes the following steps: S1: Obtain test requirement data for the space technology to be verified. Test requirement data includes environmental parameter requirement data, on-orbit operation requirement data, on-orbit platform resource requirement data for manned spacecraft, and cost and risk data related to the test. S2: Based on the acquired test requirement data, calculate the comprehensive index of environmental irreplaceability. Human-loop dependency comprehensive index Platform compatibility comprehensive indicators and comprehensive benefit gain indicators ; S3: Based on the four calculated indicators , , , According to the preset three-level judgment rules, the system outputs the determination of the necessity of manned spacecraft on-orbit testing of the space technology to be verified.

[0010] Furthermore, comprehensive indicators of environmental irreplaceability The calculation specifically includes the following steps: S211: The Irreplaceable Nature of Computing Microgravity Environments The calculation formula is:

[0011] in, The microgravity level required for the space technology to be verified. The microgravity level measured in orbit for manned spacecraft. This represents the optimal microgravity simulation level on Earth. S212: Computing the irreplaceability of multi-factor coupled environments The calculation formula is:

[0012]

[0013] in, The weighted value is the ground simulability factor. m The number of coupling environmental factors involved in the space technology to be verified; oh i For the first i The coupling weight coefficients of each environmental factor; d i For the first i Ground-based simulability scores for each environmental factor; S213: Based on the irreplaceable nature of microgravity environment Irreplaceable in multi-factor coupled environment Comprehensive index of the irreplaceability of computing environment The calculation method is as follows:

[0014] Where α is the weighting coefficient of the microgravity environment, β is the weighting coefficient of the coupling environment, and α+β=1.

[0015] Furthermore, the coupling weight coefficients of various environmental factors oh i The method for determining it is as follows: Each environmental factor is assigned a basic weight based on its type, with a value ranging from 0.1 to 1.0. If there is a strong interaction between two environmental factors, the base weights of the two environmental factors are increased by 0.2. If multiple environmental factors are required to act synchronously, the base weight of all synchronously acting environmental factors is increased by 0.3.

[0016] Furthermore, the ground-based simulability scores for various environmental factors. d i as follows: Environmental factors include: The ground simulability score for long-term microgravity is 0.2; Space radiation has a ground-based simulability score of 0.3. The high vacuum has a ground-based simulability score of 0.4. Atomic oxygen flux has a ground-based simulability score of 0.3; The ground simulation score for temperature alternation is 0.6; The plasma environment has a ground-based simulability score of 0.3. The magnetic field environment has a ground-based simulability score of 0.5.

[0017] Furthermore, the microgravity environment weighting coefficient α and the coupled environment weighting coefficient β are determined based on the type of space technology to be verified: When the space technology to be verified is a microgravity-dominated technology, α=0.8 and β=0.2; When the space technology to be verified is a radiation-effect-dominated technology, α=0.3 and β=0.7; When the space technology to be verified is a technology with comprehensive environmental effects, α=0.5 and β=0.5.

[0018] Furthermore, the comprehensive index of human-loop dependence The calculation specifically includes the following steps: S221: Calculating Astronauts' Dependence on Fine Maneuvers The calculation formula is:

[0019] in, To enable astronauts to determine the number of non-programmed operations to perform based on real-time conditions. This represents the total number of operations in the experiment. S222: Computational Dependency of Robotic Arm Assisted Operations The calculation formula is:

[0020] in, To test the overall complexity of the requirements for the robotic arm's capabilities; Scoring the equivalent task completion rate achieved by automated equipment or ground-based remote operation; S223: Based on the dependence of astronauts on fine-tuning operations Dependence on robotic arm-assisted operation The human-loop dependency comprehensive index was obtained through weighted calculation. The calculation formula is:

[0021] Furthermore, a comprehensive requirement complexity score is calculated. The score is calculated by summing the scores from four dimensions: path planning complexity, operational accuracy requirements, advanced perception requirements, and human-computer interaction complexity. The score ranges from 0.1 to 0.3 for path planning complexity, 0.1 to 0.3 for operational accuracy requirements, 0.1 to 0.2 for advanced perception requirements, and 0.1 to 0.2 for human-computer interaction complexity. This is the equivalent task completion score. The score range is 0.1-1.

[0022] Furthermore, the platform supports comprehensive compatibility metrics. The calculation formula is: ;

[0023]

[0024]

[0025]

[0026]

[0027] in, For power supply compatibility; The peak power provided for the on-orbit experimental cabinets of manned spacecraft. The peak power required for the test; For data transmission adaptation; The downlink rate for providing experimental data to manned spacecraft in orbit. The downlink rate required for the test data; For weight fit; The maximum weight that the manned spacecraft can bear at its corresponding installation location in orbit. The weight of the test load; For volume adaptation; The available installation volume for on-orbit experimental cabinets or extravehicular platforms for manned spacecraft. The installation volume for the test load; For thermal control compatibility; Maximum heat dissipation capability provided for manned spacecraft in orbit This represents the maximum heat dissipation of the experiment; For power supply adaptability Weighting coefficients; For data transmission adaptation Weighting coefficients; For weight fit Weighting coefficients; For volume adaptation Weighting coefficients; For thermal control adaptability Weighting coefficients; .

[0028] Furthermore, comprehensive benefit gain indicators The calculation formula is:

[0029]

[0030]

[0031]

[0032] in, To save costs and improve efficiency; The additional development costs required to achieve equivalent verification results solely through ground simulation, The simplified proportions of the test equipment were designed to facilitate on-orbit testing using manned spacecraft. To simplify the system and improve efficiency; The cost of fully automated operating mechanisms and remote control systems saved for astronauts' participation; To reduce the cost of redundant design and over-validation by utilizing the real space environment in orbit of manned spacecraft; To reduce benefits by mitigating risks; Estimated losses from on-orbit failures of space technologies to be verified; The probability of on-orbit failure after adopting the alternative solution; This represents the probability of failure in orbit after verification by a manned spacecraft. The total cost of the entire process of manned spacecraft in-orbit testing; The total cost of the entire process for the best alternative.

[0033] Furthermore, the three-level judgment rules are as follows: Level 1 judgment: If ≥85% and If the success rate is ≥70%, it is determined that the test must be carried out in orbit on a manned spacecraft. Level 2 Criterion: If any of the following conditions are met, it is determined that on-orbit testing on a manned spacecraft is recommended: (a) ≥85% and ≥80% and ≥2.0; (b) ≥65% and ≥85% and ≥1.8; (c) ≥80% and ≥65% and ≥2.2; Level 3 Judgment: If <60% and <50% and If the value is less than 1.0, it is determined that no on-orbit testing is required on the manned spacecraft.

[0034] Compared with the prior art, the present invention can achieve the following beneficial effects: 1. Closely integrate with the actual capabilities of manned spacecraft: The parameter thresholds in the indicator system (such as microgravity level, power supply capacity, and robotic arm performance) are all based on the actual design indicators of manned spacecraft in orbit and the actual measured data in orbit, making the evaluation results more meaningful for engineering guidance.

[0035] 2. Scientifically quantify the unsimulability of the space environment: By introducing an environmental coupling unsimulability coefficient, the fundamental limitations of ground equipment in reproducing multi-factor synchronous coupling space environments are clearly quantified, providing a concise and powerful basis for judging the irreplaceability of the environment.

[0036] 3. Precisely focus on the core value of human in the loop: Position the unique value of astronauts in non-programmed precision operations and emergency judgments, and position the value of robotic arms in their ability to complete complex and precise operational tasks. This removes the simple load weight factor and is more in line with actual application scenarios.

[0037] 4. Provide clear decision support: The three-level judgment rules directly output clear conclusions, which helps to identify and avoid two types of problems: insufficient verification and over-verification. It can effectively guide the selection and prioritization of manned spacecraft on-orbit test projects and optimize the allocation of space resources. Attached Figure Description

[0038] The accompanying drawings, which form part of this invention, are used to provide a further understanding of the invention. The illustrative embodiments and descriptions of the invention are used to explain the invention and do not constitute an undue limitation of the invention. In the drawings: Figure 1This is a flowchart illustrating a method for analyzing the necessity of on-orbit verification of payloads based on the space environment, as described in an embodiment of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0039] To make the objectives, technical solutions, and advantages of this invention clearer, the invention will be further described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings and specific embodiments. It should be understood that the specific embodiments described herein are merely illustrative of the invention and do not constitute a limitation thereof.

[0040] It should be noted that, unless otherwise specified, the embodiments and features described in the present invention can be combined with each other.

[0041] In the description of this invention, it should be understood that the terms "center," "longitudinal," "lateral," "upper," "lower," "front," "rear," "left," "right," "vertical," "horizontal," "top," "bottom," "inner," and "outer," etc., indicating orientations or positional relationships based on the orientations or positional relationships shown in the accompanying drawings, are only for the convenience of describing this invention and simplifying the description, and do not indicate or imply that the device or element referred to must have a specific orientation, or be constructed and operated in a specific orientation, and therefore should not be construed as a limitation on this invention. Furthermore, the terms "first," "second," etc., are used for descriptive purposes only and should not be construed as indicating or implying relative importance or implicitly specifying the number of indicated technical features. Thus, features defined with "first," "second," etc., may explicitly or implicitly include one or more of that feature. In the description of this invention, unless otherwise stated, "a plurality of" means two or more.

[0042] In the description of this invention, it should be noted that, unless otherwise explicitly specified and limited, the terms "installation," "connection," and "linking" should be interpreted broadly. For example, they can refer to a fixed connection, a detachable connection, or an integral connection; they can refer to a mechanical connection or an electrical connection; they can refer to a direct connection or an indirect connection through an intermediate medium; and they can refer to the internal connection of two components. Those skilled in the art will understand the specific meaning of the above terms in this invention based on the specific circumstances.

[0043] This invention provides a method for analyzing the necessity of on-orbit payload verification based on the space environment. It constructs a three-dimensional quantitative analysis framework encompassing "environmental irreplaceability, human-in-the-loop dependence, and platform support adaptability," and establishes a corresponding evaluation index system and three-level judgment rules that match the actual technical parameters of on-orbit manned spacecraft. This enables precise judgment on whether technical experiments need to be conducted on-orbit using a manned spacecraft. The core innovation of this method lies in its first systematic quantification of the unsimulability of the multi-factor coupled space environment of a manned spacecraft, the irreplaceability of the collaborative operation between astronauts and robotic arms, and the matching degree of platform support capabilities. This method is applicable to determining whether various space technologies to be verified (such as new space materials, key spacecraft components, advanced electronic equipment, and new life support systems) require on-orbit testing and verification using a manned spacecraft.

[0044] The invention will now be described in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings and embodiments.

[0045] like Figure 1 As shown in the figure, this invention provides a method for analyzing the necessity of on-orbit verification of payloads based on the space environment, including the following steps: S1: Obtain experimental requirement data for the space technology to be verified. The experimental requirement data includes environmental parameter requirement data, on-orbit operation requirement data, on-orbit platform resource requirement data for manned spacecraft, and cost and risk data related to the experiment.

[0046] The experimental requirements data for the space technologies to be verified include data from four dimensions, which serve as the basic input for subsequent quantitative calculations.

[0047] Environmental parameter requirements: including the microgravity level required for the experiment, the types of space environmental factors involved, the magnitude of the parameters of each environmental factor, the duration of environmental effects, and the requirements for the coupling effects of multiple factors (synchronous / sequential effects).

[0048] On-orbit operation requirements data: including the types, frequency, and scenarios of on-orbit operations required by astronauts for the experiment, the proportion of non-programmed judgment operations, and the task requirements, accuracy requirements, and collaboration modes of robotic arm-assisted operations.

[0049] Resource requirements data for manned spacecraft on-orbit platforms: including peak power required for experiments, downlink data rate, total payload mass, payload installation volume, maximum heat dissipation and thermal control requirements.

[0050] Cost and risk data related to the test: including the development cost of the ground equivalent simulation equipment, the simplification ratio of the test device, the total cost of the alternative, the total cost of the manned spacecraft on-orbit test, the estimated loss of the technology on-orbit failure, and the on-orbit failure probability corresponding to different verification schemes.

[0051] S2: Based on the acquired test requirement data, calculate the comprehensive index of environmental irreplaceability. Human-loop dependency comprehensive index Platform compatibility comprehensive indicators and comprehensive benefit gain indicators .

[0052] Irreplaceability Comprehensive Indicators Human-loop dependency comprehensive index Platform compatibility comprehensive indicators and comprehensive benefit gain indicators The four core quantitative indicators are calculated as follows: 1. Irreplaceability Comprehensive Indicators .

[0053] This indicator quantifies the degree to which unverified space technologies require a realistic, comprehensive, and long-term on-orbit space environment for manned spacecraft. It focuses on assessing the limitations of ground-based simulation equipment; a higher value indicates greater difficulty in ground-based simulation and stronger irreplaceable role in the manned spacecraft's on-orbit environment. The calculation process includes the following steps: S211: The Irreplaceable Nature of Computing Microgravity Environments .

[0054] The irreplaceable nature of microgravity environment The formula used to evaluate the technology's requirements for realistic, sustainable microgravity environments that surpass terrestrial simulation capabilities is as follows:

[0055] in, The microgravity level required for the space technology to be verified. The microgravity level measured in orbit for manned spacecraft. This represents the optimal microgravity simulation level on Earth.

[0056] when When the value is >80%, it is determined that the ground simulation environment cannot meet the real microgravity requirements of the space technology to be verified.

[0057] S212: Computing the irreplaceability of multi-factor coupled environments .

[0058] For space technologies that require the simultaneous interaction of two or more space environmental factors to produce coupling effects (such as the performance evolution of materials in a combined microgravity-vacuum-radiation environment), the ground-based simulability weighting value is first calculated. Then through the formula This translates into the irreplaceability of the coupled environment.

[0059] Ground Simulation Weighting The calculation formula is:

[0060] in, m The number of coupling environmental factors involved in the space technology to be verified; oh i For the first i The coupling weight coefficient of each environmental factor is determined based on the importance of the factor in the coupling effect, and its value ranges from 0.1 to 1.0. d i For the first i The ground-based simulability scores for each environmental factor are determined according to Table 1 below: Table 1. Ground Simulation Scoring Table for Environmental Factors

[0061] Coupling weight coefficient The method for determining it is as follows: The first step is to assign basic weights: assign basic weights to each environmental factor according to its type, with a value range of 0.1-1.0.

[0062] For example, long-term microgravity 1.0, space radiation 0.8, atomic oxygen 0.7, high vacuum 0.6, magnetic field environment 0.5, temperature alternation 0.5, and plasma environment 0.4.

[0063] The second step is to correct the coupling strength: if there is a strong interaction between two environmental factors (such as microgravity-fluid behavior, radiation-material property evolution), the basic weight of each environmental factor is increased by 0.2.

[0064] The third step is time synchronization correction: If multiple environmental factors are required to act synchronously rather than sequentially, the base weight of each of the synchronously acting environmental factors is increased by 0.3.

[0065] S213: Based on the irreplaceable nature of microgravity environment Irreplaceable in multi-factor coupled environment Comprehensive index of the irreplaceability of computing environment The calculation method is as follows:

[0066] Where α is the weighting coefficient of the microgravity environment, β is the weighting coefficient of the coupling environment, and α+β=1.

[0067] The weighting coefficients α for the microgravity environment and β for the coupled environment are determined based on the type of space technology to be verified, and the baseline values ​​are as follows: When the space technology to be verified is a microgravity-dominated technology (such as fluid physics and combustion science experiments), α=0.8 and β=0.2; When the space technology to be verified is a radiation-effect-dominated technology (such as radiation damage assessment of electronic devices and materials), α=0.3 and β=0.7; When the space technology to be verified is a comprehensive environmental effect technology (such as material space environment adaptability, device space lifetime assessment), α=0.5, β=0.5.

[0068] If the space technology requirements to be verified have explicitly specified weights, then the calculation will be performed according to the specified values.

[0069] Judgment threshold: ≥75% indicates that the space technology to be verified has a medium to high dependence on the real space environment of manned spacecraft in orbit; ≥85% indicates a strong dependency.

[0070] 2. Human-Loop Dependence Comprehensive Index .

[0071] This indicator quantifies the degree to which unverified space technologies require on-orbit operation, care, and robotic arm assistance from astronauts. It accurately reflects the unique value of on-orbit "human-machine collaboration" in manned spacecraft compared to unmanned platforms. A higher value indicates a stronger reliance on the on-orbit human-in-the-loop capability of the manned spacecraft. The calculation process includes the following steps: S221: Calculating Astronauts' Dependence on Fine Maneuvers .

[0072] Astronauts' dependence on precise operations The formula used to assess the need for non-pre-defined, judgmental operations that astronauts must perform manually or with tools is as follows:

[0073] in, This is to allow astronauts to perform non-programmed operations based on real-time conditions (such as emergency fault handling, on-site sample identification and selection, and flexible on-orbit adjustment of experimental parameters). This represents the total number of operations performed in the experiment.

[0074] The grading criteria are as follows: High dependency: ≥70% (the experiment is highly dependent on the astronauts' flexibility and judgment); Moderate dependence: 40% ≤ <70%; Low dependency: <40%.

[0075] S222: Computational Dependency of Robotic Arm Assisted Operations .

[0076] Dependence on robotic arm-assisted operation To assess the need for on-orbit robotic arm assistance from manned spacecraft, the focus is on the complexity of the operational task rather than the payload weight. The calculation formula is as follows:

[0077] in, To test the overall complexity of the requirements for the robotic arm's capabilities; The score is given to the equivalent task completion rate achieved by automated equipment or ground-based remote operation.

[0078] The experiment scores the overall complexity of the robotic arm's capabilities. The evaluation is based on the dimensions in Table 2: Table 2. Comprehensive Requirements Complexity Scoring Table for Robotic Arm Capabilities in the Experiment

[0079] Equivalent task completion score achieved by automated equipment or ground-based remote operation The score ranges from 0 to 1, and is affected by factors such as ground-to-space communication delay and limitations of on-orbit sensing. The score is ≤0.5.

[0080] S223: Based on the dependence of astronauts on fine-tuning operations Dependence on robotic arm-assisted operation The human-loop dependency comprehensive index was obtained through weighted calculation. The calculation formula is:

[0081] Judgment threshold: ≥65% indicates that the space technology to be verified relies on the "human-in-the-loop" advantage of manned spacecraft in orbit, and unmanned platforms cannot complete the equivalent verification.

[0082] 3. Platform Support for Comprehensive Adaptability Indicators

[0083] This indicator is used to assess the degree of matching between the experimental requirements of the space technology to be verified and the actual platform support capability of the manned spacecraft in orbit. The higher the value, the better the platform adaptability, and the more stably the manned spacecraft can support the development of the space technology to be verified in orbit.

[0084] The multi-dimensional weighted fit model is adopted, which better meets the actual needs of engineering. The calculation formula is as follows: ; The fit of each item is calculated as follows: Power supply compatibility:

[0085] For power supply compatibility; The peak power provided for the on-orbit experimental cabinets of manned spacecraft. The peak power required for the test; Data transmission compatibility:

[0086] For data transmission adaptation; Downlink rate for experimental data provided to manned spacecraft in orbit The downlink rate required for the test data; Weight fit:

[0087] For weight fit; The maximum weight that the corresponding installation location of the manned spacecraft in orbit can bear. The weight of the test load; Size fit:

[0088] For volume adaptation; The available installation volume for corresponding experimental cabinets or extravehicular platforms for manned spacecraft in orbit. The installation volume for the test load; Thermal control compatibility:

[0089] For thermal control compatibility; To provide maximum heat dissipation capability for manned spacecraft in orbit This represents the maximum heat consumption of the experiment.

[0090] For power supply adaptability Weighting coefficients; For data transmission adaptation Weighting coefficients; For weight fit Weighting coefficients; For volume adaptation Weighting coefficients; For thermal control adaptability Weighting coefficients; .

[0091] Judgment threshold: ≥75% indicates that the on-orbit manned spacecraft platform can adequately support the space technology to be verified.

[0092] 4. Comprehensive benefit and gain indicators .

[0093] This indicator quantifies the overall value gain from conducting experiments using manned spacecraft in orbit from the perspective of engineering development benefits. The higher the value, the higher the input-output ratio and the more significant the comprehensive benefits of the project.

[0094] Comprehensive benefit and gain indicators The calculation formula is:

[0095] In the formula, the numerator represents the total benefits brought by the on-orbit manned spacecraft experiment, and the denominator represents the cost difference between the on-orbit manned spacecraft experiment and the best alternative. The calculation methods for each item are as follows: Cost savings This refers to the cost savings from developing equivalent ground-based simulation equipment by utilizing the real-world environment and operational capabilities of a manned spacecraft in orbit. The calculation formula is as follows:

[0096] In the formula, The additional development costs required to achieve equivalent verification results solely through ground simulation (such as building more complex ground simulation equipment). The simplified proportion of the test equipment for conducting experiments in orbit using manned spacecraft is set at a value ranging from 0.1 to 1, subject to expert evaluation.

[0097] System simplification benefits This refers to the simplification of system design and cost savings brought about by utilizing the capabilities of a manned spacecraft's on-orbit platform. The calculation formula is as follows:

[0098] In the formula, The cost of fully automated operating mechanisms and remote control systems can be eliminated due to astronaut participation; To reduce the costs of redundant design and over-validation by utilizing the real space environment in orbit of manned spacecraft.

[0099] Risk reduction benefits This refers to the risk and loss mitigation value resulting from fully validating and reducing the probability of on-orbit failure of technologies through manned spacecraft. The calculation formula is as follows:

[0100] In the formula, Estimated losses from on-orbit failures of space technologies to be verified; The probability of on-orbit failure after adopting alternative solutions (ground simulation or unmanned satellite); This represents the probability of failure in orbit after verification by a manned spacecraft in orbit. Cost difference : The total cost of the entire process of manned spacecraft in-orbit testing (including launch, operation, and resource costs). The total cost of the entire process for the best alternative.

[0101] Judgment threshold: A value of ≥1.5 indicates that, from the perspective of the entire life cycle benefits, conducting experiments in orbit using manned spacecraft has significant positive benefits.

[0102] S3: Based on the four calculated indicators , , , According to the preset three-level judgment rules, the system outputs the determination of the necessity of manned spacecraft on-orbit testing of the space technology to be verified.

[0103] The specific rules for the Level 3 determination are as follows: Level 1 Decision (Strong Necessity): If ≥85% and If the success rate is ≥70%, it is determined that the experiment must be carried out in orbit on a manned spacecraft (the environment is highly irreplaceable and strongly dependent on humans in the loop). Level 2 Criterion (Recommendation): If any of the following conditions are met, it is determined that an experiment should be recommended to be conducted in orbit on a manned spacecraft: (a) ≥85% and ≥80% and ≥2.0; (b) ≥65% and ≥85% and ≥1.8; (c) ≥80% and ≥65% and ≥2.2; Level 3 Judgment (No Need to Conduct): If <60% and <50% and If the value is less than 1.0, it is determined that no on-orbit testing is required on the manned spacecraft (there is no need to occupy the on-orbit resources of the manned spacecraft, and ground simulation or unmanned satellite platforms should be used first).

[0104] Space technologies that do not meet all of the above criteria will enter the expert review stage, where a comprehensive decision will be made based on factors such as the importance of the technology, its scientific value, and its prospects for industry application.

[0105] Based on the above calculation and judgment process, a standardized structured analysis report can be generated. The report includes: an overview of the requirements of the space technology to be verified, detailed calculation process and results of each core indicator, benchmarking analysis of test requirements and manned spacecraft on-orbit capabilities, judgment conclusions and detailed basis, estimated test resource usage, and optimization suggestions, providing complete supporting materials for the project initiation decision, resource application, and scheme optimization.

[0106] Example 1 This embodiment 1 takes the necessity assessment of on-orbit testing of a novel aerospace composite material for manned spacecraft as an example, and fully demonstrates the specific implementation process of the present invention. This material is planned to be used in the hinge mechanism of the deployable antenna and solar array of future spacecraft. Its ground tests have shown excellent mechanical properties, but its functional recovery characteristics, radiation damage resistance and fatigue life in long-term space environment are uncertain. It is necessary to use the method of the present invention to assess whether it is necessary to carry out on-orbit testing and verification in manned spacecraft.

[0107] 1. Obtain specific experimental requirements.

[0108] Environmental parameter requirements: Microgravity level: better than 5×10 -5 g; Environmental factors: Requires microgravity, space radiation, and vacuum (<10). -6 An exposure test of at least 90 days was conducted under the simultaneous coupled effects of four factors: Pa, temperature alternation (-100℃ to +100℃).

[0109] On-orbit operation requirements: Astronaut Operation: During the experiment, astronauts need to observe and photograph the sample status every 15 days, and adjust the temperature cycle parameters in real time based on the observation results (a total of about 5 adjustments are required).

[0110] Robotic arm operation: At the end of the experiment, the robotic arm is required to transfer the sample from the exposure platform to the analysis equipment inside the chamber. The transfer path must avoid other loads, and the positioning accuracy is required to be better than ±3mm.

[0111] Resource requirements for manned spacecraft platforms: Peak power: 200W; Data downlink rate: 50Mbps (mainly image data); Load capacity: 25kg; Load volume: 0.1m 3 (A cube with dimensions of approximately 46cm in length, width, and height); Maximum heat dissipation: 150W (active cooling required).

[0112] Cost and risk data requirements (estimated): Additional costs of constructing an equivalent four-factor coupled simulation device on the ground : 8 million yuan; Using manned spacecraft can simplify the design, with an expected simplification ratio. 40%; On-orbit failure probability verified by ground simulation 30%; On-orbit failure probability after on-orbit verification of manned spacecraft 6%; Material failure cost in orbit 50 million yuan (caused by antenna / solar fin failure); Total cost of on-orbit testing of manned spacecraft RMB 12 million (including launch, operation, and resource usage fees); Total cost of the best ground alternative 6 million yuan (long-term vacuum tank + radiation source + temperature circulation platform, but cannot achieve microgravity and complete synchronous coupling).

[0113] 2. Calculate the four indicators.

[0114] 2.1 Comprehensive Index of the Irreplaceability of the Computing Environment .

[0115] 2.1.1 Calculating the irreplaceable nature of microgravity environments .

[0116] Given: =5×10 -5 g, =1×10 -5 g, =1×10 -2 g, substitute The calculation formula is as follows: ; 2.1.2 Calculating the irreplaceability of multi-factor coupled environments .

[0117] Identify coupling factors: microgravity, space radiation, high vacuum, and temperature alternation (4 in total); Determine the ground simulability score d i : Long-term microgravity (>30 days): d 1 = 0.2; Space radiation: d 2 = 0.3; High vacuum: d 3 = 0.4; Temperature alternation: d4 = 0.6; Determine the coupling weight coefficients ( oh i ): Basic weight: microgravity ( oh 1=1.0), radiation ( oh 2=0.8), vacuum ( oh 3=0.6), temperature ( oh 4 = 0.5).

[0118] Coupling strength correction: There is a strong interaction between microgravity and temperature (affecting the phase transition point). oh 1 and oh 4. Each increases by 0.2; strong interaction exists between radiation and materials. oh 2 increased by 0.2.

[0119] Time synchronization correction: requires all four factors to act in perfect synchronization. oh i Increase by 0.3.

[0120] Final weights: oh 1 = 1.0 + 0.2 + 0.3 = 1.5; oh 2 = 0.8 + 0.2 + 0.3 = 1.3; oh 3 = 0.6 + 0.3 = 0.9; oh 4 = 0.5 + 0.2 + 0.3 = 1.0.

[0121] Calculate the ground simulability weighting value : Will oh 1~ oh 4. d 1~ d 4 Substitute The calculation formula is as follows:

[0122]

[0123] 2.1.3 Comprehensive Index of the Irreplaceability of the Computing Environment .

[0124] This experiment employs a comprehensive environmental effect-based technology. We assign weights α=0.5 and β=0.5, and substitute them into... The calculation formula is as follows:

[0125] Conclusion: Based on the threshold ( ≥75% indicates moderate to high dependence. (≥85% is considered strong dependence). This technology has a moderately high dependence on the on-orbit environment of manned spacecraft, but does not meet the strong dependence standard.

[0126] 2.2 Calculate the comprehensive index of human-loop dependency .

[0127] 2.2.1 Calculating the dependence of astronauts on fine-grained operations .

[0128] Given: Number of non-programmed operations =11 times, total number of operations =20 times, substitute The calculation formula is as follows:

[0129] 2.2.2 Calculation of the dependence of robotic arm on assisted operation .

[0130] Task requirement complexity score : Path planning complexity: Requires non-preset, obstacle avoidance path → 0.3 points; Operational accuracy requirement: better than ±3mm → 0.3 points (better than ±5mm); Advanced perception requirements: Requires precise visual servo positioning → 0.2 points; Human-computer interaction complexity: Transfer under astronaut supervision → 0.1 points (non-close collaboration); total: =0.3+0.3+0.2+0.1=0.9.

[0131] Automation equivalent completion : Ground-based remote operation suffers from time delays and faces difficulties in obstacle avoidance and precise positioning. =0.4.

[0132] Will =0.9、 =0.4 Substitute The calculation formula is as follows:

[0133] because It may exceed 100%, but this invention sets an upper limit of 100%, therefore =100% indicates that the task's requirements for the robotic arm's capabilities far exceed those of automated alternatives.

[0134] 2.2.2 Calculate the comprehensive index of human-loop dependency .

[0135]

[0136] in conclusion: A value greater than 65% indicates that the experiment relies on the "human-in-the-loop" advantage of manned spacecraft in orbit.

[0137] 2.3 Computing platform supports comprehensive adaptability indicators .

[0138] Assuming the weights are evenly distributed (each dimension is equally important): = = = = =0.2.

[0139] The compatibility of each component is calculated based on the on-orbit baseline capability of the manned spacecraft, with all components having a compatibility of 100%. Substituting these values ​​into the formula: Given: =3kW =200W, =1Gbps=1000Mbps =50Mbps, =1000kg, =25kg, =0.15m 3 , =0.1m 3 , =500W, =150W, then: Power supply compatibility: ; Data transmission compatibility: ; Weight fit: ; Size fit: ; Thermal control compatibility: .

[0140] Comprehensive calculation: .

[0141] in conclusion: The value is well above the 75% threshold, indicating that the on-orbit platform support capability of manned spacecraft is fully met.

[0142] 2.4 Calculate the comprehensive benefit gain index .

[0143] Cost savings =800×(1 0.4)=4.8 million yuan; System simplification benefits =100+150=2.5 ​​million yuan; Risk reduction benefits =5000×(0.30 0.06)=12 million yuan; Total benefits: =480+250+1200=19.3 million yuan; Cost difference: =1200-600=6 million yuan;

[0144] in conclusion: It is much greater than the threshold of 1.5, and the benefits are significant.

[0145] 3. Three-level judgment and conclusion.

[0146] Summary of calculation results: =70.8% =68.5%, =100% =3.22, according to the three-level judgment rule: Level 1 criterion (strong necessity): Must meet the following conditions. ≥85% and ≥70%.

[0147] This embodiment 1 and None of them met the standards and did not meet the Level 1 judgment criteria.

[0148] Level 2 assessment (recommended): Check three conditions: (a) ≥85% and ≥80% and ≥2.0; Not met; condition (a) is not satisfied.

[0149] (b) ≥65% and ≥85% and ≥1.8 , , All conditions (b) are met, and the criteria for secondary judgment are met.

[0150] All conditions are met (D_H=68.5%≥65%, A_p=100%≥85%, G_B =3.22≥1.8).

[0151] (c) ≥80% and ≥65% and ≥2.2 The standard was not met, and condition (c) was not satisfied.

[0152] Level 3 Judgment (No need to conduct): Must meet the following conditions simultaneously. <60% and <50% and <1.0, which is not satisfied in this embodiment 1.

[0153] Final conclusion: It is recommended to conduct experiments on a manned spacecraft in orbit.

[0154] Main basis: The experiment is highly dependent on the precision operation capability of the robotic arm. =100%) and the astronauts' on-orbit judgment and adjustment ( =55%), platform support capabilities are fully matched ( =100%), and the overall benefit gain is very significant ( =3.22). Although the environment is irreplaceable ( Although the percentage of manned spacecraft in orbit is 70.8%, which does not meet the strong dependence standard, the unique advantages of "human in the loop" and the extremely high input-output ratio make it reasonable to conduct experiments using manned spacecraft on-orbit platforms.

[0155] It should be understood that the various forms of processes shown above can be used to reorder, add, or delete steps. For example, the steps described in this invention disclosure can be executed in parallel, sequentially, or in different orders, as long as the desired result of the technical solution disclosed in this invention can be achieved, and this is not limited herein.

[0156] The specific embodiments described above do not constitute a limitation on the scope of protection of this invention. Those skilled in the art should understand that various modifications, combinations, sub-combinations, and substitutions can be made according to design requirements and other factors. Any modifications, equivalent substitutions, and improvements made within the spirit and principles of this invention should be included within the scope of protection of this invention.

Claims

1. A method for analyzing the necessity of on-orbit verification of payloads based on the space environment, characterized in that, Includes the following steps: S1: Obtain test requirement data for the space technology to be verified. Test requirement data includes environmental parameter requirement data, on-orbit operation requirement data, on-orbit platform resource requirement data for manned spacecraft, and cost and risk data related to the test. S2: Based on the acquired test requirement data, calculate the comprehensive index of environmental irreplaceability. Human-loop dependency comprehensive index Platform compatibility comprehensive indicators and comprehensive benefit gain indicators ; Comprehensive index of environmental irreplaceability The calculation specifically includes the following steps: S211: The Irreplaceable Nature of Computing Microgravity Environments The calculation formula is: in, The microgravity level required for the space technology to be verified. The microgravity level measured in orbit for manned spacecraft. This represents the optimal microgravity simulation level on Earth. S212: Computing the irreplaceability of multi-factor coupled environments The calculation formula is: in, The weighted value is the ground simulability factor. m The number of coupling environmental factors involved in the space technology to be verified; ω i For the first i The coupling weight coefficients of each environmental factor; δ i For the first i Ground-based simulability scores for each environmental factor; S213: Based on the irreplaceable nature of microgravity environment Irreplaceable in multi-factor coupled environment Comprehensive index of the irreplaceability of computing environment The calculation method is as follows: Where α is the weighting coefficient of the microgravity environment, β is the weighting coefficient of the coupled environment, and α+β=1; Human-Loop Dependence Composite Index The calculation specifically includes the following steps: S221: Calculating Astronauts' Dependence on Fine Maneuvers The calculation formula is: in, To enable astronauts to determine the number of non-programmed operations to perform based on real-time conditions. This represents the total number of operations in the experiment. S222: Computational Dependency of Robotic Arm Assisted Operations The calculation formula is: in, To test the overall complexity of the requirements for the robotic arm's capabilities; Scoring the equivalent task completion rate achieved by automated equipment or ground-based remote operation; S223: Based on the dependence of astronauts on fine-tuning operations Dependence on robotic arm-assisted operation The human-loop dependency comprehensive index was obtained through weighted calculation. The calculation formula is: ； S3: Based on the four calculated indicators , , , According to the preset three-level judgment rules, the system outputs the determination of the necessity of manned spacecraft on-orbit testing of the space technology to be verified.

2. The method for analyzing the necessity of on-orbit verification of payloads based on the space environment according to claim 1, characterized in that, Coupling weight coefficients of various environmental factors ω i The method for determining it is as follows: Each environmental factor is assigned a basic weight based on its type, with a value ranging from 0.1 to 1.

0. If there is a strong interaction between two environmental factors, the base weights of the two environmental factors are increased by 0.

2. If multiple environmental factors are required to act synchronously, the base weight of all synchronously acting environmental factors is increased by 0.

3.

3. The method for analyzing the necessity of on-orbit verification of payloads based on the space environment according to claim 1, characterized in that, Ground-based simulateability scores for various environmental factors δ i as follows: Environmental factors include: The ground simulability score for long-term microgravity is 0.2; Space radiation has a ground-based simulability score of 0.

3. The high vacuum has a ground-based simulability score of 0.

4. Atomic oxygen flux has a ground-based simulability score of 0.3; The ground simulation score for temperature alternation is 0.6; The plasma environment has a ground-based simulability score of 0.

3. The magnetic field environment has a ground-based simulability score of 0.

5.

4. The method for analyzing the necessity of on-orbit verification of payloads based on the space environment according to claim 1, characterized in that, The microgravity environment weighting coefficient α and the coupling environment weighting coefficient β are determined based on the type of space technology to be verified: When the space technology to be verified is a microgravity-dominated technology, α=0.8 and β=0.2; When the space technology to be verified is a radiation-effect-dominated technology, α=0.3 and β=0.7; When the space technology to be verified is a technology dominated by comprehensive environmental effects, α=0.5 and β=0.

5.

5. The method for analyzing the necessity of on-orbit verification of payloads based on the space environment according to claim 1, characterized in that, Overall requirement complexity score The score is calculated by summing the scores from four dimensions: path planning complexity, operational accuracy requirements, advanced perception requirements, and human-computer interaction complexity. The score ranges from 0.1 to 0.3 for path planning complexity, 0.1 to 0.3 for operational accuracy requirements, 0.1 to 0.2 for advanced perception requirements, and 0.1 to 0.2 for human-computer interaction complexity. This is the equivalent task completion score. The score range is 0.1-1.

6. The method for analyzing the necessity of on-orbit verification of payloads based on the space environment according to claim 1, characterized in that, Platform supports comprehensive compatibility metrics The calculation formula is: ； in, For power supply compatibility; The peak power provided for the on-orbit experimental cabinet of the manned spacecraft. The peak power required for the test; For data transmission adaptation; The downlink rate for providing experimental data to manned spacecraft in orbit. The downlink rate required for the test data; For weight fit; The maximum weight that the manned spacecraft can bear at its corresponding installation location in orbit. The weight of the test load; For volume adaptation; The available installation volume for on-orbit experimental cabinets or extravehicular platforms for manned spacecraft. The installation volume for the test load; For thermal control compatibility; The maximum heat dissipation capability provided for manned spacecraft in orbit This represents the maximum heat dissipation of the experiment; For power supply adaptability Weighting coefficients; For data transmission adaptation Weighting coefficients; For weight fit Weighting coefficients; For volume adaptation Weighting coefficients; For thermal control adaptability Weighting coefficients; .

7. The method for analyzing the necessity of on-orbit verification of payloads based on the space environment according to claim 1, characterized in that, Comprehensive benefit and gain indicators The calculation formula is: in, To save costs and improve efficiency; The additional development costs required to achieve equivalent verification results solely through ground simulation, The simplified proportions of the test equipment were designed to facilitate on-orbit testing using manned spacecraft. To simplify the system and improve efficiency; The cost of fully automated operating mechanisms and remote control systems saved for astronauts' participation; To reduce the cost of redundant design and over-validation by utilizing the real space environment in orbit of manned spacecraft; To reduce benefits by taking risks; Estimated losses from on-orbit failures of space technologies to be verified; The probability of on-orbit failure after adopting the alternative solution; This represents the probability of failure in orbit after verification by a manned spacecraft. The total cost of the entire process of manned spacecraft in-orbit testing; The total cost of the entire process for the best alternative.

8. The method for analyzing the necessity of on-orbit verification of payloads based on the space environment according to claim 1, characterized in that, The specific rules for the Level 3 determination are as follows: Level 1 judgment: If ≥85% and If the success rate is ≥70%, it is determined that the test must be carried out in orbit on a manned spacecraft. Level 2 Criterion: If any of the following conditions are met, it is determined that on-orbit testing on a manned spacecraft is recommended: (a) ≥85% and ≥80% and ≥2.0; (b) ≥65% and ≥85% and ≥1.8; (c) ≥80% and ≥65% and ≥2.2; Level 3 Judgment: If <60% and <50% and If the value is less than 1.0, it is determined that no on-orbit testing is required on the manned spacecraft.

Images