An In-orbit Assembly Method for a Regular Hexagon Modular Telescope

Abstract

An in-orbit assembly method for a regular hexagon modular telescope, belonging to the technical field of space telescope assembly. The method is as follows: selection of the locking scheme; determination of the number of assembly module layers; determination of the form of the assembly module; determination of the assembly sequence of the assembly module; establishment of evaluation indicators; quantification of the evaluation indicators; normalization of the original data of the quantified evaluation indicators; weighted calculation of the evaluation indicators; result statistics in the form of a percentage system; and combining the requirements for scores with characteristics, and taking the one with the lowest score as the optimal scheme. The present invention effectively solves the limitations in the existing assembly and docking technologies, especially avoiding the problem of parallel docking that is difficult to achieve in the traditional docking scheme. By proposing and establishing a comprehensive evaluation scheme model, it is possible to scientifically evaluate and select the optimal in-orbit assembly space telescope scheme with feasibility.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to an on-orbit assembly method for a regular hexagon modular telescope, belonging to the technical field of space telescope assembly. Background Art

[0002] Large on-orbit space telescopes, as important tools for modern astronomy and space science research, have a wide range of application fields, including but not limited to in-depth exploration of cosmic evolution, precise detection of Earth-like planets, and comprehensive observations in astrophysics. In addition, such telescopes also undertake multiple tasks such as space target surveillance, space situation awareness, and ground environment monitoring.

[0003] One of the core components of a large space telescope is its optical system, where the size of the lens aperture directly determines the observation ability and effect of the telescope. Currently, the lenses of space telescopes are mainly divided into three types: single-piece lenses, deployable lenses, and assembled lenses. With the increasing requirements for observation accuracy and depth in scientific research, the demand for large-aperture lenses is becoming more urgent. Due to technical limitations, single-piece lenses and deployable lenses are difficult to meet the development needs of current and future large-aperture space telescopes. Therefore, assembled lenses emerge as an innovative solution. It realizes the function of large-aperture lenses through the assembly of multiple sub-lenses, with higher flexibility and scalability. The key to assembled lens technology lies in how to design a reasonable assembly scheme to ensure that each sub-lens can be accurately and stably combined together to form a complete optical system.

[0004] Existing assembly schemes all face challenges in assembly docking technology. Especially, the difficulty of parallel docking is too great, making these schemes difficult to implement in actual operation, seriously restricting the development and application of assembled lens technology.

[0005] In addition, existing assembly schemes also lack a scientific and effective evaluation system. Due to the lack of unified standards and mathematical models, it is extremely difficult to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of different assembly schemes, which undoubtedly increases the difficulty of scheme selection and optimization.

[0006] In view of the above background, the present invention proposes an innovative on-orbit assembly scheme for assembled lenses. This scheme successfully avoids the problem of parallel docking, reduces the assembly difficulty, and improves the assembly accuracy and efficiency. At the same time, the present invention also constructs a mathematical model for evaluating the assembly scheme, providing a scientific basis for the selection and evaluation of the assembly scheme, and filling the gap in the existing technology. Summary of the Invention

[0007] To solve the problems existing in the background art, the present invention provides an on-orbit assembly method for a regular hexagon modular telescope.

[0008] To achieve the above object, the present invention adopts the following technical solution: an on-orbit assembly method of a regular hexagonal modular telescope, the method is as follows:

[0009] S1: Determination of the fully locked on-orbit assembly scheme based on the regular hexagonal modular telescope;

[0010] S101: Selecting a locking scheme: selecting a regular hexagon as a minimum component module, and fully locking a plurality of minimum component modules to form an assembly module;

[0011] S102: Determine the number of assembly module layers: calculate the side length of the minimum component module, and then determine the number of assembly layers of the minimum component module according to the diameter of the launch vehicle;

[0012] S103: Determination of assembly module form:

[0013] S10301: Select xy plane for assembly;

[0014] S10302: Confirm the maximum envelope diameter of the launch vehicle payload;

[0015] S10303: Consider the number of assemblies: the smaller the assembly module, the more assemblies are required, and the more assemblies are required, the more detrimental it is to the accuracy and stability of the telescope;

[0016] S10304: Consider the installation angle: the maximum angle between the two sides is 120°;

[0017] S10305: Based on the number of minimum component modules, the number of minimum component modules constituting the assembly module is listed by enumeration method to be between [3,8].

[0018] S104: Determine the assembly sequence of the assembly modules.

[0019] S2: Evaluate the assembly scheme based on the analytic hierarchy process and select the optimal assembly scheme.

[0020] S201: Establishment of evaluation indicators;

[0021] The evaluation indexes in S201 include the type of assembly module, the size of the assembly module, the number of assemblies, and the assembly method.

[0022] S202: Quantification of evaluation indicators;

[0023] S20201: Quantify the types of assembly modules by the number of components in the form of assembly modules;

[0024] S20202: Quantify the size D of the assembly module by the weighted average of the smallest components that make up the assembly module. The calculation formula is as follows:

[0025]

[0026] In formula (1):

[0027] n is the total number of the smallest component modules;

[0028] m is the number of types of assembly modules;

[0029] S20203: Quantify the assembly times by the final assembly times when the assembly is completed;

[0030] S20204: Quantify the assembly method N by the weighted average of different docking methods during assembly. The calculation formula is as follows:

[0031]

[0032] In formula (2):

[0033] a is the assembly difficulty of the assembly surface.

[0034] S203: Calculate the evaluation score, and select the one with the lowest score as the optimal solution.

[0035] S20301: Normalize the original data of the quantified evaluation indicators. The normalization calculation formula is as follows:

[0036]

[0037] In formula (3):

[0038] i is the original data of the i-th evaluation indicator that needs to be normalized;

[0039] x i is the value after normalization of the i-th original data;

[0040] X i is the value of the i-th original data;

[0041] X max is the maximum value of the original data in the evaluation indicator corresponding to the i-th original data;

[0042] X min is the minimum value of the original data in the evaluation indicator corresponding to the i-th original data;

[0043] S20302: Perform weighted calculation on the evaluation indicators:

[0044] S20303: Conduct result statistics in the form of a percentage system. The result statistics formula is as follows:

[0045]

[0046] In formula (4):

[0047] S is the score of the solution;

[0048] Q i is the weight of the evaluation index;

[0049] S20304: Combine the requirements of the features for the scores, and select the one with the lowest score as the optimal solution.

[0050] Compared with the prior art, the beneficial effects of the present invention are as follows:

[0051] The present invention effectively solves the limitations in the existing assembly docking technology, especially avoids the problem of parallel docking that is difficult to achieve in the traditional docking solution. By proposing and establishing a comprehensive evaluation solution model, it is possible to scientifically evaluate the feasible on-orbit assembly space telescope solutions and select the optimal ones. In addition, the present invention ensures the feasibility of the four-layer assembly space telescope on-orbit assembly and provides multiple assembly strategies. At the same time, the provided evaluation model is not only applicable to this field, but also can be extended to the selection evaluation of other assembly solutions, providing a quantitative standard for the selection of the optimal on-orbit assembly solution, and having important technical innovation value and practical application significance. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0052] Figure 1 is a schematic diagram of the form of the assembly module of the present invention, which are 7 + 8 type, 8 + 2 type, 4 + 6 type, 5 type and 4 + 2 type in sequence;

[0053] Figure 2 is a schematic diagram of the assembly method and the corresponding assembly difficulty;

[0054] Figure 3 is a schematic diagram of the optimal solution of the four-layer assembly solution of the present invention;

[0055] Figure 4 is a schematic diagram of the evaluation index;

[0056] Figure 5 is a flowchart of the assembly solution evaluation model;

[0057] Figure 6 is a schematic diagram of the calculation method of the side length of a regular hexagon. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EMBODIMENTS

[0058] Next, the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention will be clearly and completely described in conjunction with the accompanying drawings in the embodiments of the present invention. Obviously, the described embodiments are only a part of the embodiments of the invention, rather than all the embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by those of ordinary skill in the art without making creative efforts shall fall within the protection scope of the present invention.

[0059] An on-orbit assembly method for a regular hexagon modular telescope, the method comprising the following steps:

[0060] S1: Determination of the full-lock on-orbit assembly scheme for the regular hexagon modular telescope;

[0061] S101: Selection of the locking scheme: Select a regular hexagon as the smallest component module, and fully lock multiple smallest component modules to form an assembly module;

[0062] There are three regular polygons that can tile a plane without overlapping, namely: equilateral triangle, square, and regular hexagon. Among these three regular polygons, since the regular hexagon can occupy the largest area with the least amount of material, the regular hexagon is selected as the smallest component module.

[0063] S102: Determination of the number of layers of the assembly module: As shown in the appendix Figure 6 shown, calculate the side length of the smallest component module according to the hexagonal circumcircle formula, and then determine the number of assembly layers of the smallest component module according to the diameter of the launch vehicle, preferably 4 layers;

[0064] S103: Determination of the form of the assembly module:

[0065] S10301: Since the installation tolerance of the z-axis is the largest, the x-y plane is selected for assembly in the present invention, and installation by moving the z-axis is not considered;

[0066] S10302: Confirm the maximum envelope diameter (4.5 m) of the payload of the launch vehicle, as it is difficult to transport if it is too large;

[0067] S10303: Consider the number of assembly times: The smaller the assembly module, the more assembly times, and the more assembly times, the less conducive to the accuracy and stability of the telescope;

[0068] S10304: Consider the installation angle: Currently, the existing assembly technology can only be installed within a maximum included angle of 120° between two sides, and parallel installation and locking cannot be performed;

[0069] S10305: Classify by the number of the smallest component modules, and list by the enumeration method (there are many assembly schemes of the assembly module obtained by the enumeration method, but the three points of S10302 - S10304 need to be considered comprehensively, so only some representative schemes are listed): If the number of the smallest component modules forming the assembly module is between [3, 8], the form of the assembly module is shown in Table 1:

[0070] Table 1 Preliminary screening results of the form of the assembly module

[0071] Module style Installation times Remarks 7 + 8 type 4 There is a problem with parallel locking 6 + 6 type 5 There is a problem with parallel locking 8 + 2 type 6 The 8 - type is damaged and not easy to replace 5 type 6 There is a problem with parallel locking 4 + 6 type 6 The 4 - type needs to be used as the last installation block 4 + 2 type 9 The possible shape and size of the 4 - type may not meet the requirements 4 + 3 type 9 There is only one feasible solution 3 + 3 type 10 The installation times are relatively many

[0072] S104: Determination of the assembly sequence of the assembly module.

[0073] A reasonable assembly sequence based on the selection of assembly modules, that is, it satisfies the movement and installation of the assembly modules in the x-y plane formed by the telescope mirror surface, without interference and can avoid parallel installation.

[0074] S2: Evaluate the assembly scheme based on the analytic hierarchy process and select the optimal assembly scheme.

[0075] S201: Establishment of evaluation indicators: The evaluation indicators include

[0076] a. The types of assembly modules, which are mainly related to the manufacturing cost of mold manufacturing;

[0077] b. The size of the assembly module (maintenance cost);

[0078] c. The number of assembly times (assembly accuracy and stability): that is, the number m of assembly modules;

[0079] d. The assembly method (assembly difficulty).

[0080] S202: Quantification of evaluation indicators;

[0081] For the above evaluation indicators, among them, the size of the assembly module, the types of assembly modules, and the number of assembly times can be directly quantified, while the assembly method needs to be defined artificially.

[0082] S20201: Quantify the types of assembly modules according to the composition quantity in the form of assembly modules. For example, if the form of the assembly module is 4 + 6 type, then the types of assembly modules are two;

[0083] S20202: Quantify the size D of the assembly module according to the weighted average of the smallest component modules that make up the assembly module. The calculation formula is as follows:

[0084]

[0085] In formula (1):

[0086] n is the total number of the smallest component modules;

[0087] m is the number of types of assembly modules;

[0088] S20203: Quantify the number of assembly times according to the final number of assembly times when the assembly is completed;

[0089] S20204: Quantify the assembly method N according to the weighted average of different docking methods during assembly. The calculation formula is as follows:

[0090]

[0091] In formula (2):

[0092] a is the assembly difficulty of the assembly surface. As Figure 2 shown, for the same assembly module, the assembly difficulty is different under different assembly sequences, which is mainly related to the number of mating surfaces and the mating method of each mating surface. The assembly method essentially refers to the assembly difficulty. Since the mating difficulties of different surfaces of the locking interface are different, it can be quantified.

[0093] S203: Calculate the evaluation scores, and select the one with the lowest score as the optimal solution.

[0094] S20301: Normalize the original data of the quantified evaluation indicators to unify the order of magnitude;

[0095] When obtaining the original data, the original orders of magnitude of different original data are different, which will interfere with the scoring. The original data is shown in Table 2. Therefore, it is necessary to normalize the original data to remove the influence of the order of magnitude. For the assembly method that requires parallel assembly of two surfaces, since the current technology cannot achieve it, its difficulty is defined as ∞.

[0096] Table 2 Original data table

[0097] Assembly module style Installation times Assembly difficulty Module type Module size 7 + 8 type 4 ∞ 2 7.5 6 + 6 type 5 ∞ 2 6 8 + 2 type 6 9.17 2 5 5 type 6 ∞ 1 5 4 + 6 type 6 9 2 5 4 + 2 type 9 9.56 2 3.3 4 + 3 type 9 8.33 2 3.3 3 + 3 type 10 8.6 2 3

[0098] The formula for normalization is as follows:

[0099]

[0100] In formula (3):

[0101] i is the original data of the i-th evaluation indicator to be normalized;

[0102] x i is the value of the i-th original data after normalization;

[0103] X i is the value of the i-th original data;

[0104] X max is the maximum value of the original data in the evaluation indicator corresponding to the i-th original data;

[0105] X min is the minimum value of the original data in the evaluation indicator corresponding to the i-th original data;

[0106] For example:

[0107] If the number of assembly times needs to be normalized, then the normalization calculation for the 4+6 type is The normalized data is shown in Table 3:

[0108] Table 3 Normalized data

[0109] Module style Installation times Assembly difficulty Module type Module size 7 + 8 type 0 ∞ 1 1 6 + 6 type 0.17 ∞ 1 0.67 8 + 2 type 0.33 0.68 1 0.44 5 type 0.33 ∞ 0 0.44 4 + 6 type 0.33 0.55 1 0.44 4 + 2 type 0.83 1 1 0.07 4 + 3 type 0.83 0 1 0.07 3 + 3 type 1 0.22 1 0

[0110] S20302: Calculate the weighted values of the evaluation indicators. The weights can be selected arbitrarily, as shown in Table 4:

[0111] Table 4 Weight Assignment for Four Evaluation Indicators

[0112]

[0113]

[0114] S20303: Conduct result statistics in the form of a 100-point system. The result statistics formula is as follows:

[0115]

[0116] In formula (4):

[0117] S is the score of the solution;

[0118] Q i is the weight of the evaluation indicator;

[0119] After conducting result statistics in the form of a 100-point system, the scores are shown in Table 5:

[0120] Table 5 Score Table for Assembly Solutions

[0121] Module style Installation times Assembly difficulty Module type Module size Score 7 + 8 type 0 ∞ 1 1 ∞ 6 + 6 type 0.17 ∞ 1 0.67 ∞ 8 + 2 type 0.33 0.68 1 0.44 50.9 5 type 0.33 ∞ 0 0.44 ∞ 4 + 6 type 0.33 0.55 1 0.44 45.7 4 + 2 type 0.83 1 1 0.07 86.9 4 + 3 type 0.83 0 1 0.07 46.9 3 + 3 type 1 0.22 1 0 63.8

[0122] S20304: Combine the requirements of the features for the scores, and select the solution with the lowest score as the optimal solution.

[0123] Table 6 Relationship Table between Features and Score Requirements

[0124]

[0125]

[0126] The lower the score, the better the assembly solution. The final 4+6 solution is the current optimal solution, as shown in the appendix Figure 3 as follows.

[0127] For those skilled in the art, it is obvious that the present invention is not limited to the details of the above exemplary embodiments, and the present invention can be implemented in other forms without departing from the spirit or basic characteristics of the present invention. Therefore, from any point of view, the embodiments should be regarded as exemplary and non-limiting. The scope of the present invention is defined by the appended claims rather than the above description. Therefore, all changes falling within the meaning and scope of the equivalent conditions of the claims are intended to be included in the present invention. Any reference signs in the claims should not be regarded as limiting the claimed rights.

[0128] In addition, it should be understood that although this specification is described according to embodiments, not every embodiment only includes an independent technical solution. This narrative manner of the specification is only for clarity. Those skilled in the art should regard the specification as a whole, and the technical solutions in each embodiment can also be appropriately combined to form other embodiments that can be understood by those skilled in the art.

Claims

1. An on-orbit assembly method for a regular hexagonal modular telescope, characterized in that: The method comprises the following steps: S1: Determination of the fully locked on-orbit assembly scheme based on the regular hexagonal modular telescope; The S1 comprises the following steps: S101: Selecting a locking scheme: selecting a regular hexagon as a minimum component module, and fully locking a plurality of minimum component modules to form an assembly module; S102: Determine the number of assembly module layers: calculate the side length of the minimum component module, and then determine the number of assembly layers of the minimum component module according to the diameter of the launch vehicle; S103: Determine the assembly module form; The S103 comprises the following steps: S10301: Select xy plane for assembly; S10302: Confirm the maximum envelope diameter of the launch vehicle payload; S10303: Consider the number of assemblies: the smaller the assembly module, the more assemblies are required, and the more assemblies are required, the more detrimental it is to the accuracy and stability of the telescope; S10304: Consider the installation angle: the maximum angle between the two sides is 120°; S10305: Based on the number of minimum component modules, the number of minimum component modules constituting the assembly module is between [3, 8] by enumeration; S104: Determine the assembly sequence of the assembly modules; S2: Evaluate the assembly scheme based on the analytic hierarchy process and select the optimal assembly scheme.

2. The on-orbit assembly method of a regular hexagonal modular telescope according to claim 1, characterized in that: The S2 comprises the following steps: S201: Establishment of evaluation indicators; S202: Quantification of evaluation indicators; S203: Calculate the evaluation score, and the one with the lowest score is the optimal solution.

3. The on-orbit assembly method of a regular hexagonal modular telescope according to claim 2, characterized in that: The evaluation indexes in S201 include the type of assembly module, the size of the assembly module, the number of assemblies, and the assembly method.

4. The on-orbit assembly method of a regular hexagonal modular telescope according to claim 3, characterized in that: The S202 comprises the following steps: S20201: Quantify the types of assembly modules by the number of components in the form of assembly modules; S20202: Quantify the size D of the assembly module by the weighted average of the smallest components that make up the assembly module. The calculation formula is as follows: In formula (1): n is the total number of the smallest component modules; m is the number of types of assembly modules; S20203: Quantify the number of assembly times based on the final number of assembly times when the assembly is complete; S20204: Quantify the assembly method N by the weighted average of different docking methods during assembly. The calculation formula is as follows: In formula (2): a is the assembly difficulty of the assembly surface.

5. The on-orbit assembly method of a regular hexagonal modular telescope according to claim 4, characterized in that: The S203 comprises the following steps: S20301: normalize the original data of the quantified evaluation index. The normalization calculation formula is as follows: In formula (3): i is the original data of the i-th evaluation index that needs to be normalized; x i is the normalized value of the i-th original data; X i is the i-th original data value; X max is the maximum value of the original data in the evaluation index corresponding to the i-th original data; X min is the minimum value of the original data among the evaluation indicators corresponding to the i-th original data; S20302: Weighted calculation of evaluation indicators: S20303: The result is counted in percentage form. The result counting formula is as follows: In formula (4): S is the solution score; Q i is the weight of the evaluation index; S20304: Based on the score requirements of the features, the solution with the lowest score is the optimal solution.

Images