https://doi.org/10.5028/jatm.v11.

1086 ORIGINAL PAPER

xx/xx

Single-Bus and Dual-Bus Architectures

of Electrical Power Systems for Small
Spacecraft
Jesus Gonzalez-Llorente1,2*, Aleksander Andrzej Lidtke1, Ronald Hurtado2, Kei-Ichi Okuyama1

How to cite
Gonzalez-Llorente J; Lidtke AA; Hurtado R; Okuyama K (2019)
Gonzalez-Llorente J https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6525-7657 Single-Bus and Dual-Bus Architectures of Electrical Power Systems
Lidtke AA https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7571-3422 for Small Spacecraft. J Aerosp Technol Manag, 11: e4419.
https://doi.org/10.5028/jatm.v11.1086
Hurtado R https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3584-6191
Okuyama K https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3275-7572

ABSTRACT: Nowadays, it has become possible for universities and new businesses to launch satellites of reduced size and
cost fulfilling viable missions. Nevertheless, there is still a considerable failure rate that reduces the expected lifetime of these
spacecraft. One of the main causes of failure is the power system. Redundancy is one of the main options to enhance its lifetime
and lower the failure rate. However, cost, mass, and complexity increase due to redundancy, making it more difficult to complete
the projects. Thus, it is necessary to enhance the lifetime of power systems while keeping the development process simple and
fast. This paper proposes two configurations of an electrical power system with duplicate components: single-bus configuration
has been designed for a nanosatellite not yet launched and dual-bus configuration for a micro deep-space probe launched into
a heliocentric orbit. The design and implementation of two dual electrical power systems are described; measurements and
on-orbit data of the electrical power system of the micro deep-space probe are also presented, demonstrating that the dual-bus
electrical power system can be successfully used in spacecraft. Lastly, conclusions regarding the redundancy considerations for
small satellite electrical power systems are drawn based on these two examples.

KEYWORDS: Small satellites, Solar-powered spacecraft, Redundant components, Power conditioning, Nanosatellites,
Redundancy.

INTRODUCTION

The development of spacecraft by universities has been focused on small satellites, which include nanosatellites, picosatellites
and miniaturised deep space probes. Specifically, most university-class missions have adhered to the CubeSat specification to
easily obtain a launch opportunity and used Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) components (Carrara et al. 2017) to shorten
the development time. The popularity of university-built CubeSats can be demonstrated by reviewing the number of university
missions already launched; 266 university-class missions had launched until the end of 2015 (Swartwout and Jayne 2016). Moreover,
a new business based on a constellation of CubeSats conducting Earth observation is in operation (Crisp et al. 2015). Similarly,
interplanetary and deep-space exploration missions have also been developed by universities (Yoon et al. 2014; Babuscia et al.
2015; Sarli et al. 2015).

1.Kyushu Institute of Technology – Department of Applied Science for Integrated Systems Engineering – Kitakyushu/Fukuoka – Japan.
2.Universidad Sergio Arboleda – Escuela de Ciencias Exactas e Ingeniería – Bogotá – Colombia.
*Correspondence author: [email protected]
Received: Feb. 18, 2018 | Accepted: Mar. 22, 2019
Section Editor: Alison Moraes

J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v11, e4419, 2019
 Gonzalez-Llorente J; Lidtke AA; Hurtado R; Okuyama K
02/15
xx/xx

One implicit goal of CubeSat development is having fast and low-cost projects; however, the high probability of failure is a
common drawback associated with these projects. The failure rate of university-class missions is about 40% (Swartwout and Jayne
2016). The electrical power system (EPS) is one of the main causes of failures of CubeSat missions both in early mission phase
and during the first three months (Langer and Bouwmeester 2016). Thus, improving the reliability of the EPS will significantly
reduce the failure rate of these missions.
In small satellites, simple configurations have predominantly been used for implementing the electrical power systems (Okada
et al. 2013; Edries et al. 2016). The power source (PS) of small satellites is typically based on solar cells and lithium batteries as
a secondary source (Frost et al. 2015). The electrical power is transferred from the solar cells to the batteries and the spacecraft
subsystems using either Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) or Direct Energy Transfer (DET) architectures (Patel 2005; Mourra
et al. 2010). In any case, a battery charge regulator (BCR) is required to protect the battery against overvoltage or overcurrent, and
power conditioning modules (PCM) are needed to regulate and distribute the voltage for satellite subsystems. Figure 1a shows
the architecture of a simple EPS, showing its interfaces with main subsystems of the spacecraft: On-board Computer (OBC),
Communication System (COM), Attitude Determination and Control System (ADCS), and Payload (PL). Figure 1b shows the
block diagram of main components of a PCM.

(a) (b)
EPS OBC PCM

Specific electrical bus to spacecraft loads

Regulated
eletrical bus
Battery
bus Regulators
and
COM protections
Distribution
Solar and fault
BCR PCM
panel protection .
Monitoring .
Battery bus ADCS and
.
control
Battery

PL
Communication interface to OBC

Figure 1. (a) Architecture of simple electrical power system on a small spacecraft and its interfaces with other subsystems.
(b) Block diagram of a PCM indicating functional components.

Placing two identical components in parallel significantly increases the reliability of a system, reduces the operating stress
on the components and prolongs their expected life (Patel 2005). Splitting the power conditioning unit has been studied in
high-power spacecraft to ease thermal control and to double the output power capacity (Loche et al. 2011). In this paper, two
configurations with dual electrical power systems are presented. These configurations have been developed for a nanosatellite and
a micro deep-space probe, Shinen-2 (Kuroiwa et al. 2016), launched in December 2014 on-board H-IIA-202. The next section
of this paper presents the general approach to the implementation of the dual-bus electrical power systems for two cases. Then,
a detailed comparison of the two case studies for a nanosatellite and deep-space probe is made. Because the two missions have
different needs, this comparison is focused on showing the performance of different units used in the implementation of the EPS,
not the overall systems. The objective is to provide reference designs of the EPS functional units for future spacecraft. The results
section shows measurements of the performance of the two case studies including on-orbit data from the deep-space probe, and
the theoretical failure rate is discussed. Finally, conclusions regarding the merits of a dual-bus EPS architecture in the context of
small satellites are drawn.

J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v11, e4419, 2019
 Single-Bus and Dual-Bus Architectures of Electrical Power Systems for Small Spacecraft
xx/xx
03/15

APPROACH OF DUAL-BUS ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE

Most spacecraft are designed to achieve specific missions performing different functions in science, technology demonstration
or education. For university-class spacecraft, receiving the housekeeping data of the satellite is usually considered minimum
success of the mission because one of the primary objectives is education. It is thus considered sufficient for the team, formed
mainly of students, to be able to develop a functional spacecraft. In cases with multiple mission objectives, it is usual to consider
multiple reliability requirements; achieving any of these requirements is a level of the mission success (Hecht 2011). For example,
in the hypothetical case of one spacecraft with two missions and two payloads (PL-1 and PL-2), the mission requirements could
include the following:
• At least PL-1 shall be operational for minimum success of mission 1;
• At least PL-2 shall be operational for minimum success of mission 2;
• Both PL-1 and PL-2 shall be operational for full mission success.
Usually, including more components needed to satisfy the minimum success is a common way to increasing the reliability of
the mission. However, more components usually increase the cost and development time. As figure of merit (FOM), probability
of failure (given by 1 – reliability) and cost of units in parallel can be used as trade-off criteria when designing an architecture
with redundancy. The theoretical relationship between these two FOMs – that does not account for e.g. cost reduction with mass
production – is shown in Fig. 2. It can be seen that the highest increase in reliability (or the highest decrease of probability of
failure) is achieved with two components in parallel and the cost is increased linearly with the number of units (Patel 2005). Thus,
two EPS designs approach are presented below: single-bus electrical with two units and two units in a dual-bus; adding subsequent
buses would follow the law of diminishing returns but would be associated with substantial increases in cost and complexity.

0.20
4c PF
Cost
Probability of failure (PF)

0.13 3c

Cost
0.07 2c

0.01 1c

1 2 3 4
Number of units in parallel

Figure 2. Probability of failure and cost versus the number of units in parallel. Decrease of probability of failure for units
placed in parallel is minimum for more than three units; however cost is increasing significantly.

SINGLE-BUS ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEM

A generalized architecture of the considered single bus EPS is shown in Fig. 3. The architecture is split into two systems, EPS 1
and EPS 2. Each EPS consists of a power source (PS), battery, BCR and PCM. In a simple case, both systems have the same power
capability and can provide the power required for all operation modes of the spacecraft. However, this case might be unattractive
due to the mass and dimensional penalties implied by duplicating every component.

J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v11, e4419, 2019
 Gonzalez-Llorente J; Lidtke AA; Hurtado R; Okuyama K
04/15
xx/xx

One variation of the redundant architecture is to size the power sources of EPS 2 for operation of only the essential elements
needed to achieve the minimum success of the mission (Fig. 3b). For example, only OBC, COM and payload 2 (PL-2) may need
to be powered from this bus; it means that ADCS is only an essential element for mission of payload (PL-1).

(a) (b)

PS BCR PCM OBC PS BCR PCM OBC

COM COM
Battery Battery
EPS 1 EPS 1

ADCS ADCS

PS BCR PCM PS BCR PCM

PL - 1 PL - 1

Battery Battery
PL - 2 PL - 2
EPS 2 EPS 2

Figure 3. (a) Architecture of single bus electrical power system with duplicated EPS. (b) A failure in EPS 1 will prevent the
operation of PL-1 and ADCS indicated by the red marks. EPS 2 can be designed to support essential elements for minimum
satellite success, i.e. OBC, COM and PL-2.
In the case where EPS 2 only needs to provide power for selected subsystems, the
In the case where EPS
number 2 only needs
of solar cells toand
provide powercapacity
battery for selected subsystems,
are calculatedthe number of solar
according to cells
the and battery
power capacityof
profile
are calculated according to the power profile of these subsystems. The capacity of battery-2 in Wh (EBattery2) is calculated by (Eq. 1)
these subsystems. The capacity of battery-2 in Wh (EBattery2) is calculated by (Eq. 1)
𝑃𝑃𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 .𝑇𝑇𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 +𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶.𝑇𝑇𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶+𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃1 .𝑇𝑇𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃1 (1)
𝐸𝐸𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵2 = (1)
𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵2 .𝜂𝜂2

where: POBC, PCOM, PPL1, TOBC, TCOM, TPL1 are the power and time required for OBC, COM
where: POBC, PCOM, PPL1, TOBC, TCOM, TPL1 are the power and time required for OBC, COM and PL1 during eclipse; DODBattery2 is the
and PL1
depth of discharge during and
for battery-2; η2 is theDOD
eclipse; efficiency ischarge/discharge
of the
Battery2 discharge for battery_2; and η2 is the
the depth of modules.

DUAL-BUSefficiency
ELECTRICAL of the charge/discharge
POWER SYSTEM modules.
The spacecraft can include redundancy of subsystems different to the EPS such as OBC and COM to increase the probability
of mission success. These additional subsystemsDual-Bus Electrical
are not necessarily Power
identical to avoidSystem
the same errors when executing the same
operation, e.g. two communication subsystems might use different frequency bands (Del Corso et al. 2011). The dual-bus architecture
The spacecraft
for this case can be implemented as showncan include
in Fig. 4. Here,redundancy of subsystems
the two power buses are separated.different
Thus, EPS 2to the EPS
provides powersuch
just toas
the communication (COM-2), the controller unit (OBC-2) and the secondary payload (PL-2).
The mainOBCreasonand COMdual
to include toelectrical
increase thesystems
power probability of mission
is to reduce success.
the failure rate These
of the whole additional
spacecraft. subsystems
Thus, the spacecraft
should be able to operate when one of the power systems fails. This is the case for the micro deep-space probe Shinen-2, where
the dual-busare not necessarily
is implemented: identical
one bus provides to avoid
power the same
to the sensing payloaderrors when
(radiation executing
particle the one
detector) and same operation,
communication
subsystem, while the other bus provides power to another communication subsystem that is sufficient for up- and down-link on its
e.g.
own. Different two communication
approach subsystems
is implemented in the nanosatellite.might
It is notuse
madedifferent frequency
fully redundant becausebands (Del Corso
the secondary et al.
power system

2011). The dual-bus architecture for this case can be implemented as shown in Fig. 4. Here,
J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v11, e4419, 2019

the two power buses are separated. Thus, EPS 2 provides power just to the communication
 Single-Bus and Dual-Bus Architectures of Electrical Power Systems for Small Spacecraft
xx/xx
05/15

can only provide power for minimum operating conditions. Namely, OBC and COM have backup power lines from a separate
power source. These two power systems will be analyzed in next section.

(a) (b)
OBC-1 OBC-1

PS BCR PCM COM-1 PS BCR PCM COM-1

ADCS-1 ADCS-1

Battery Battery
PL - 1 PL - 1
EPS 1 EPS 1

PS BCR PCM COM-2 PS BCR PCM COM-2

OBC-2 OBC-2

Battery Battery
PL - 2 PL - 2
EPS 2 EPS 2

Figure 4. (a) Architecture of dual-bus electrical power system with duplicate components. (b) A failure, indicated by the red
marks, in EPS 1 will cause the loss of OBC-1, COM-1, ADCS-1 and PL-1. However, COM-2, OBC-2 and PL-2 can still operate
receiving the power from EPS 2.

COMPARISON OF TWO CASES OF DUAL-BUS ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEM

SPACECRAFT DESCRIPTION
The nanosatellite taken as example here is a three-unit (3U) CubeSat with dimensions 30 × 10 × 10 cm and mass of 4 kg
(Fig. 5a). The main mission is to take a photograph of the Earth using a camera developed with COTS components. Moreover,
this is a university-class mission that involves students in the development team as part of education and research projects.

(a) (b)

Figure 5. Example of two small spacecraft with body mounted solar arrays: (a) Nanosatelite following the three unit CubeSat
dimensions; (b) Micro deep-space probe Shinen-2.

The exemplar micro deep-space probe Shinen-2, has a quasi-spherical shape, diameter of about 50 cm and mass of 18 kg
(Fig. 5b). This probe was developed with three purposes: firstly, to demonstrate a structure based on Carbon Fiber Reinforced

J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v11, e4419, 2019
 Gonzalez-Llorente J; Lidtke AA; Hurtado R; Okuyama K
06/15
xx/xx

Thermoplastic (CFRTP); secondly, to measure radiation from Earth to deep space with a charge particle detector, and thirdly, to
demonstrate a deep space communication method (Bendoukha et al. 2016).

COMPARISON OF ARCHITECTURES
The electrical power system of Shinen-2 uses a dual-bus system with duplicate components, as described in the previous
section. A block diagram of the dual electrical power system of Shinen-2 is shown in Fig. 6. This redundant system aims to have
an independent power line for each communication line. Thus, EPS 1 provides power to the main communication line (COM-1)
that includes the beacon transmitter (TX-Beacon), the OBC-1 and the main payload (PL-1). The EPS 2 provides power to the
deep-space communication (COM-2) that is itself a technology demonstration payload (PL-2). Both power systems include
Solar Array Panels (SAPs) as power source (PS), Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) as BCR, Power Conditioning Module
(PCM) and protections.

OBC-1

PS-2 BCR-2 PCM-2 OBC-2

PS-1 BCR-1 PCM-1 CCU-1

COM-2
COM-1
(PL-2)
Battery-2
Battery-1

PL-1:
EPS 1 EPS 2
CD

Figure 6. Electrical power system architecture of micro deep-space probe Shinen-2.

ADCS
PS-1 BCR-1 PCM-1

PL

Battery-1
EPS 1
COM-2

PS-2 BCR-2 PCM-2 COM-1

Battery-2 OBC

EPS 2

Figure 7. Power distribution of nanosatellite. EPS 2 has enough installed capacity to power only the OBC and COM-2 subsystems,
while EPS 1 can power all subsystems. Hot redundancy is used selecting DC-DC converters that support parallel connection.

J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v11, e4419, 2019
 Single-Bus and Dual-Bus Architectures of Electrical Power Systems for Small Spacecraft
07/15
xx/xx

Instead of using the dual-bus power system, the electrical power system of the nanosatellite uses a single-bus electrical power
system. However, the components of EPS 2 are sized for minimum operation condition (OBC and COM-1), as described in previous
section, and EPS 1 is sized for full operation (OBC, COM-1, COM-2, ADCS and PL). EPS 2 is called secondary power system and
provides less power than the solar arrays used in the EPS 1 (main power system). The operating modes relying on the secondary
power system are designed to use only the essential subsystems and have a positive power budget. A block diagram of the EPS
of the nanosatellite is shown in Fig. 7. The description of each component is presented in the following section. Implementation
of hot redundancy can be used by careful selection of DC-DC converters that achieve stable voltage regulation and load sharing
when operated in a parallel connection (Mishra 2019).

SOLAR ARRAY CONFIGURATION

The nanosatellite is a 3U CubeSat with six sides on which the solar panels are body-mounted, as shown in Fig. 5a. In this case,
the panels on the 3U faces of the satellite are the power source for the primary power system (EPS 1), while the solar panels on the
1U faces are connected to the secondary power system (EPS 2). As described before, the secondary power system has less installed
power, which is sufficient only for minimum operation of the satellite. The micro deep-space probe has 13 sides with solar arrays,
7 sides for EPS and 6 sides for EPS 2. Thus, both power systems have almost the same amount of installed power.
In the nanosatellite, the solar panels are composed of multijunction solar cells with efficiency of 30%, an open circuit voltage
of 2.7 V, and a short circuit current of 0.520 A (Azur Space 2016). Each solar panel of the primary system consists of 6 solar cells
connected in series to obtain a voltage of 16.2 V with a short circuit current of 0.520 A and maximum power of 7.2 W. The two
solar panels of the secondary system are composed of 2 solar cells in series. Therefore, their open circuit voltage is 5.4 V, the short
circuit current is 0.520 A and maximum power is 2.4 W.
Different to the nanosatellite, the solar array in the micro deep-space probe Shinen-2 uses Silicon solar cells with efficiency of
17 %, open circuit voltage of 0.632 V and short circuit current of 1.12 A. The solar array consists of five such solar cells connected
in series and generates at most 2.78 W. In Shinen-2, 11 solar arrays are installed on seven sides as power source of EPS 1 (30.58 W),
while the EPS 2 consists of 10 arrays (27.8 W) distributed on six sides.
In brief, the nanosatellite has one kind of array of solar cells for each subsystem, i.e., the solar arrays are in a dual-bus
configuration because they are not connected. The installed power in the primary EPS is 21.6 W raised using three solar arrays,
and the secondary EPS has installed power of 4.8 W with two arrays. The micro deep-space probe has only one kind of array that
is used for the two subsystems. The summary of solar arrays configuration of both spacecraft is shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Specification of solar array configuration for each EPS of the nanosatellite and micro deep-space probe.

Solar array features

Spacecraft Subsystem
Isc (A) Voc (V) Pm (W) Number of arrays
Primary 0.52 16.2 7.2 3
Nanosatellite
Secondary 0.52 5.4 2.4 2
Bus-1 1.12 3.16 2.78 11
Micro deep-space probe
Bus-2 1.12 3.16 2.78 10

BATTERY CONFIGURATION
The same battery cell, lithium-ion, is used in both spacecraft because this kind of cells has become the preferred choice
for most of the small satellites. Thus there is enough space heritage to rely on this energy storage technology (Chin et al. 2018;
Navarathinam et al. 2011). These cells have the following characteristics: nominal voltage of 3.7 V with a capacity of 3200 mAh
(Sanyo Energy 2012). Even though both spacecraft use the same battery cells, the battery array is different for each spacecraft and
for each subsystem. The battery array configuration is summarized in Table 2.

J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v11, e4419, 2019
 Gonzalez-Llorente J; Lidtke AA; Hurtado R; Okuyama K
08/15
xx/xx

Table 2. Specification of battery configuration for each EPS of the nanosatellite and micro deep-space probe.

Battery array features

Spacecraft Subsystem
No series No. Parallel No. cells
Primary 2 2 4
Nanosatellite
Secondary 1 2 2
Bus-1 1 16 16
Small probe
Bus-2 1 16 16

POWER REGULATOR
The nanosatellite uses MPPT in the main power system to obtain the maximum power from the solar panels by using the
integrated circuit LT3652, which implements a Constant voltage (CV) MPPT technique (Brito et al. 2013). In addition, the LT3652
is a battery management chip that regulates and protects the batteries during charging. The panels on opposite faces of the satellite
are connected to the same MPPT because they do not receive solar radiation at the same time. The secondary system does not
use MPPT technique because the solar panels in the secondary system have a maximum voltage of 5 V and the DET connection
is the most appropriate for low-voltage solar panels (Erb et al. 2011).
The micro deep-space probe uses MPPT for each solar array. This arrangement is more effective in this case because the solar
arrays will receive solar radiation at different angles. Thus they will have different maximum power points. The SPV1040 IC was
used to track maximum power. This IC also detects the voltage of the battery to protect it during charging. Table 3 summarizes
the characteristics of two ICs.

Table 3. Summary characteristics of the MPPT integrated circuits used in the nanosatellite and the micro deep-space probe.

SPV1040 LT3652
Topology Boost Buck
MPPT Perturb and observe Constant voltage
Input voltage (V) 0.3 to 5.3 4.9 to 32.0
Maximum current (A) 1.8 2.0
Temperature range (°C) –40 to 125 -40 to 125

POWER CONDITIONING AND DISTRIBUTION UNIT

In the nanosatellite, the primary PCMs consist of two buck DC-DC converters to generate 5 and 3.3 V (the used IC was
TPS62143). These converters have a maximum efficiency of 90% and an input voltage range from 3 to 17 V. The buck topology
was selected because the input voltage in the converters is always above of the output voltage. The input voltage is 13.48 V if the
solar panels are illuminated and 7.2 V (the battery voltage) in eclipse.
The secondary PCMs are composed of two buck-boost DC-DC converters to generate the same voltages of 5 and 3.3 V as
the primary PCMs. The buck-boost topology was selected because the input voltage range for the converters is from 3.2 to 4.2 V,
corresponding to the secondary battery voltage.
In the case of Shinen-2, the two PCUs use the same kind of PCM. The main PCM consists of boost converters to generate 5.0 V
from the battery bus, which can vary from 2.8 to 4.2 V. This conversion is implemented using the LT1370 IC, which is a high
frequency switching regulator with minimum voltage of 2.7 V and maximum current of 6 A. In addition, the LT1316 is used to
provide 5.0 V to digital circuits. This is a boost-type switching regulator that provides maximum current of 0.5 A.

J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v11, e4419, 2019
 Single-Bus and Dual-Bus Architectures of Electrical Power Systems for Small Spacecraft
09/15
xx/xx

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

RESULTS OF IMPLEMENTATION AND MEASUREMENTS
The array of six triple junction solar cells, used in the nanosatellite case, is shown in Fig. 8a. The percentage of the area covered
by the solar cells is 60%. The hexagonal solar panel of Shinen-2 is shown in Fig. 8b. This solar panel consists of three primary
arrays of five silicon solar cells each. The percentage of the array area covered by solar cells is 70%.

(a) (b)

Figure 8. (a) Solar panel of the nanosatellite; (b) Solar panel of the micro deep-space probe.

The board of the electrical power system of nanosatellite is shown in Fig. 9. Both primary and secondary systems are included
in the same PCB, and a PC/104-compatible connector is used as the only interface. In this case with redundancy in the same
PCB, proper routing and isolation methodology is followed to avoid failure propagation between the circuits. A functional test
was completed to verify the operation of the power conditioning unit and measure the converters’ efficiency in obtaining 5.0 V
and 3.3 V. The results of these efficiency tests are shown in Fig. 10, respectively. The maximum efficiency was 93.87% for the 5.0 V
regulator (TPS62143) and 87.4% for the 3.3 V regulator (TPS62142). These efficiencies were consistent with the efficiencies of
around 90% specified by the manufacturer.

CSKB Primary
system
BCR1 BCR2

PCM PCM5V
PCM 3.3V
Control 3.3V
module Management
PCM5V and
protection Secondary
system
BCR3

Figure 9. PCB including the two electrical power systems of the nanosatellite.

J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v11, e4419, 2019
 Gonzalez-Llorente J; Lidtke AA; Hurtado R; Okuyama K
10/15
xx/xx

100 5V
3.3V
95

90
Efficiency (%)

85

80

75

70

65
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Load current (A)

Figure 10. Converter efficiency with input voltage of 7.2 V for output voltage of 5 V (TPS62143)
and output voltage of 3.3 V (TPS62142).

The printed circuit board of the power conditioning unit of the Shinen2 is shown in Fig. 11. In addition to the power conditioning
modules, this board includes a microcontroller, and voltage and current sensors used to acquire housekeeping data. The results
of efficiency tests of the DC-DC converter (LT1370) when it operates at battery voltage of 3.7 V to generate the regulated but at
5V are shown in Fig. 12.

Figure 11. EPS board with the power conditioning unit of the micro-deep space probe.

Even though Shinen-2 was able to communicate until it reached the distance of 2.3 million km from Earth, the telemetry data
about power systems was only analyzed until 700.000 km because beyond this range the signal was weak and difficult to decode.
This is about twice the distance from Earth to the Moon (Kuroiwa et al. 2016). Even within this distance, it was difficult to reliably
decode all transmitted telemetry, which renders the usable data scarce.
The histories of the Shinen-2 EPS 1 battery voltage are shown in Fig. 13. The data are plotted against the distance between
Shinen-2 and the Earth. The operating voltage varied between 3.88 and 4.06 V, which is similar to the battery of EPS 2. Figure 14
shows the solar array current telemetry; the solar array EPS 1 was located on square face where only one array could be installed,

J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v11, e4419, 2019
 Single-Bus and Dual-Bus Architectures of Electrical Power Systems for Small Spacecraft
11/15
xx/xx

100

95

90
Efficiency (%)

85

80

75

70

65
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Load current (A)

Figure 12. Converter efficiency with input voltage of 3.7 V for output voltage of 5 V (LT1370).

4.10

4.05

4.00
Voltage (V)

3.95

3.90

3.85
0 200000 400000 600000 800000
Distance (km)

Figure 13. Battery voltage of EPS-1 of Shinen-2 micro deep-space probe, obtained from the spacecraft telemetry.

2.5

2.0
A
1.5 B
Current (A)

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5
0 200000 400000 600000 800000
Distance (km)

Figure 14. Solar array current of one array on square face (A) and three arrays on hexagonal face (B) of Shinen-2 micro
deep-space probe, obtained from spacecraft telemetry.

J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v11, e4419, 2019
 Gonzalez-Llorente J; Lidtke AA; Hurtado R; Okuyama K
12/15
xx/xx

and solar array of EPS 2 was located on hexagonal face where three arrays were installed (Fig. 8b). It can be observed that 0.8 A
and 2.4 A were obtained for EPS 1 and EPS 2, respectively; these values are close to the current at maximum power (1.0 A).
than two than components
two OF could be could
components placedbeinplaced parallelintoparallel furthertoreduce furtherPFreduce . Also Pnote that PF
F. Also note that PF
than two components DISCUSSIONcould be placed
FAILURE RATE in parallel to further reduce PF. Also note that PF
The nanosatellite than and twothe components
deep-space could
probe usethe be
single- placed in parallel
and dual-bus tosystems,
further reduce P F. Also note that of PF
analyzedhere is the probability
analyzedhere is the of failure,
probability of i.e.failure, complement
i.e. the ofpower
complement reliabilityǤ of
respectively.
reliabilityǤ
These are variations
analyzedhere
educe PF. Also isnote
the probability
the simplest possible
that of failure,
PF architecture of ani.e. the complement
electrical power system with of reliabilityǤ
no redundancy. This section presents an analysis of these
architectures analyzedhere
focused on the failure is probability.
the probability of failure, i.e. the complement of reliabilityǤ
For the simplest, For theAsimplest, single string single arrangement
string arrangement from Fig.from 15c, Fig. the failure
15c,a failure
the probability
failure is
probability is
of reliabilityǤ For theGiven simplest,
components singleand stringB, e.g.arrangement
overcurrent protection from Fig. 15c, theICs,
and regulation failure
each with probability is
probability PA and PB. Different
arrangements For the simplest, single string arrangementoffrom Fig. 15c, the failure PF. Note probability
that the is
the highest the theofthree
ofhighest these presented
of
components
the three inwillFig.
presented
result 15inin(DeGroot
different
Fig. 15
failure
andprobabilities
(DeGroot Schervish and
the complete
2014)
Schervish (Eq.2014) A-B assembly,
2): (Eq. 2):
the the
5c, highestfailureof the three
probability
analysis presented presented
is applies
here in directly
Fig. 15to(DeGroot the EPS architectures and Schervish presented2014) before, (Eq.even though2): the actual equations may need to
be written for more the
than highest
thantwo only of
two the
components three presented
components. couldLimiting be in Fig.
placed
the analysis 15
in to(DeGroot
parallel
only two to and
further
components Schervish reduce
makes the2014)
Presults (Eq.
F. Also more2): note that PF
succinct.
𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹,𝑐𝑐 = 𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴 𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹,𝑐𝑐∪=𝐵𝐵)𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴 = 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴∪ + 𝐵𝐵)𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵=−𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴+𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵𝑃𝑃Ǥ𝐵𝐵 − 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵 Ǥ (2) (2)
rvish 2014) (Eq. 2):𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹,𝑐𝑐 favored
It is therefore = 𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴over∪an 𝐵𝐵)in-depth
= 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴 + 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵 −
failure 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵 Ǥ analysis of the presented
probability (2) exemplar EPS architectures.
Different waysanalyzedhere
in which components is 𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹,𝑐𝑐
the A = B𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴
probability
and can be∪arranged
of𝐵𝐵)failure,
= 𝑃𝑃are 𝐴𝐴 + 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵the
i.e. − 𝑃𝑃complement
schematically 𝐴𝐴 𝑃𝑃shown
𝐵𝐵 Ǥ in Fig.to (2)sake of clarity, only
of15.reliabilityǤ
For the
However,However, such a system such aissystem
the least is complicated
the least and thus and
complicated the quickest
thus the test
quickest and to test and
However,
(2) such a issystem
dual redundancy shown, even is the though leastmore complicated
than two components and thuscould thebequickest
placed in parallelto testtoand further reduce PF. Also note
However,
For the simplest, such a system
single is the arrangement
string least complicated and thus the
the quickest to test andis
implement.that PF analyzed
Moreover,
implement.
here isitthe
Moreover,
probability
requires it the ofleast
failure,
requires
i.e. thespace,
PCB
the least
complement
PCB which of reliability.
space, might which befrom Fig.
an important
might be
15c, design
an important
failure probability
design
implement.
hus the quickest Moreover,
Forto thetest itand
simplest,requires
single string the least PCB space,
arrangement from Fig. which 15c, the might failure beprobability
an important designof the three presented in
is the highest
implement.
the highest Moreover,
of the three itpresented
requires the in least15PCB
Fig. (DeGroot space, and which might be
Schervish 2014)an important 2): design
Fig.
consideration 15 (DeGroot
consideration
and
for satellites Schervish 2014)
with highwith
for satellites
(Eq. 2):
volume highconstraints
volume constraints such as CubeSats. such as CubeSats. Thus, such Thus,a (Eq. such a
consideration
might be an important for satellitesdesign with high volume constraints such as CubeSats. Thus, such a
consideration for satellites 𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹,𝑐𝑐 = 𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴 with∪high =volume
𝐵𝐵)projects 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴 + with 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵constraints
𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵 Ǥ such
− limited as CubeSats. (2) Thus, such a
design might designbemight favored be in schedule-constrained
favored in schedule-constrained projects with resources,
limited resources, e.g. e.g. (2)
design
as CubeSats. might Thus, be favored such ain schedule-constrained projects with limited resources, e.g.
design might However, be favored
suchfailure a systemin schedule-constrained
is the probability
least projects with limited resources,to test e.g.
educational nanosatellite
educational projects. projects.
nanosatellite The Theprobabilityfailure of complicated of the and
the fully-redundant thus(cross-
fully-redundant the quickest (cross- and
educational
with limited resources, nanosatellite
However, such e.g. projects. The failure probability of the fully-redundant
a system is the least complicated and thus the quickest to test and implement. Moreover, it requires the least (cross-
educational
implement. nanosatellite
Moreover, projects.the
it consideration
requires The
forleast failure
PCB probability
space, which ofmight the fully-redundant
be an (cross-
strapped) strapped)system shown in Fig. 15b in is given asis the failure of failure
both A ofcomponents or both orimportant
both B design
PCB space, which might be an important design satellites with high volume constraints suchB as CubeSats. Thus,
system shown Fig. 15b given as the both A components
strapped) system
the fully-redundant shown
such a design (cross-
might in beFig.favored15binisschedule-constrained
given as the failure projects ofwith both A components
limited or both Bnanosatellite projects. The
resources, e.g. educational
strapped)
consideration system shown(cross-strapped) system shown in Fig. 15b is givenofasboth
in Fig. 15b is given as the failure A components or both B
components (Eq. 3): (Eq. 3): for satellites with high volume constraints such as CubeSats. Thus, such a
failure probability of the fully-redundant the failure of both A components
components
components
oth A components or(Eq.
both 3):Bor both B (Eq. 3):
components
components (Eq.be3):favored in schedule-constrained projects with limited resources, e.g.
𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹,𝑏𝑏 = 𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴 1 ∩=design
𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹,𝑏𝑏 2 ) ∪1 𝑃𝑃(𝐵𝐵
𝐴𝐴𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴 ∩might
𝐴𝐴 1)∩ ∪𝐵𝐵𝑃𝑃(𝐵𝐵2) = ∩ 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴) =+ 𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵1𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵2 + − 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴1𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴 2−
𝐴𝐴2 𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵
𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃 2. 𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃 . (3)
1𝐴𝐴 𝐵𝐵𝑃𝑃 (3)
𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹,𝑏𝑏 = 𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴1 ∩ 𝐴𝐴2 ) ∪ 𝑃𝑃(𝐵𝐵1 ∩ 𝐵𝐵2 ) = 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴1 𝑃𝑃1𝐴𝐴2 +1 2𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵21 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵2𝐴𝐴−
2 1 𝑃𝑃 1 𝐵𝐵2
𝐴𝐴1 𝐴𝐴 2 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵 1 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵 2 . 1 2
𝐴𝐴 𝐵𝐵 (3) 1 𝐵𝐵 2
𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹,𝑏𝑏 = 𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴
educational 1 ∩ 𝐴𝐴2 ) ∪ 𝑃𝑃(𝐵𝐵
nanosatellite 1 ∩ 𝐵𝐵2 )The
projects. = 𝑃𝑃failure
𝐴𝐴 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴2 + 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵1 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵2 − 𝑃𝑃of
probability 𝐴𝐴1 𝑃𝑃 𝐴𝐴 2 𝑃𝑃fully-redundant
the 𝐵𝐵 1 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵 2 . (3)
(3)
(cross-
The dualThe redundant
dual redundant power system
power shown systeminshown Fig. 115a in Fig. offers 15aa offers middle a ground
middle ground
𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃 The 𝑃𝑃 . dual redundant
1 𝐴𝐴 2 𝐵𝐵 1 𝐵𝐵 2
(3) power system shown in Fig. 15a offers a middle ground
strapped) Thesystem dual redundant
shown in systems. Fig.power 15b system is given shown in Fig.of 15a bothoffers a middleorground
between the fully redundant
between the fully redundant and single-string and single-string Its failureasIts
systems.
the failure
probability
failure probability is given A
asiscomponents
(Eq.
given as (Eq.
both B
between the
5a offers a middle fully redundant
The dualground and single-string systems. Its failure probability
redundant power system shown in Fig. 15a offers a middle ground between the fully redundant and single-string is given as (Eq.
systems. Its between
components
failure probability theisfully given redundant
(Eq. 3):(Eq. 4): and single-string systems. Its failure probability is given as (Eq.
as
4): 4):
re4):
probability is given as (Eq.
4): 𝐹𝐹,𝑏𝑏 = 𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴1 ∩ 𝐴𝐴2 ) ∪ 𝑃𝑃(𝐵𝐵1 ∩ 𝐵𝐵2 ) = 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴 + 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵 − 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵 . (3)
𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹,𝑎𝑎 = (𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐴𝐴 ∪ =
𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵(𝑃𝑃 ) ∩ (𝑃𝑃 2 )∪ ∩𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵(𝑃𝑃
1 𝐴𝐴 ∪ 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴
) =∪ (𝑃𝑃 +=𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵(𝑃𝑃 1)(𝑃𝑃 2+ + 𝑃𝑃1𝐵𝐵2 )2 =+ 𝑃𝑃1 ) 2= 1 2
𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹,𝑎𝑎 = (𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴1 ∪ 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵1𝐹𝐹,𝑎𝑎 ) ∩ (𝑃𝑃 1 ∪ 𝑃𝑃 𝐵𝐵1 ) = 2(𝑃𝑃 𝐴𝐴2 +𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴21))(𝑃𝑃 1 𝐴𝐴 𝐴𝐴
+ 2 𝑃𝑃 )(𝑃𝑃
1𝑃𝑃 ) 𝐵𝐵= 1  𝐴𝐴2 𝐵𝐵2
1 𝐴𝐴2 𝐵𝐵2 𝐴𝐴1 𝐵𝐵1 𝐴𝐴2 𝐵𝐵2
The 𝑃𝑃dual
𝐹𝐹,𝑎𝑎 =redundant
(𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴1 ∪ 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵1power ) ∩ (𝑃𝑃system 𝐴𝐴2 ∪ 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵2shown ) = (𝑃𝑃in 𝐴𝐴1 + 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵 )(𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴2offers + 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵 ) = 
= 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴1 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴2 + = 𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴1𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵2 + + 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵1𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴2 + + 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵1𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵2 + − 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴1𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴2 𝑃𝑃 −𝐵𝐵 𝑃𝑃
2
− 𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵1𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵2 𝑃𝑃− 𝐴𝐴 𝑃𝑃
2
−Fig.
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴1𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃1𝐴𝐴15a
2
𝑃𝑃
− 𝐵𝐵 𝑃𝑃
1
− 𝑃𝑃 2𝑃𝑃a middle −
ground
(4)
)(𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴2 + 𝑃𝑃=𝐵𝐵2𝑃𝑃)𝐴𝐴1= 𝐴𝐴 𝐴𝐴 𝐴𝐴 𝐵𝐵 𝐵𝐵 𝐴𝐴 𝐵𝐵 𝐵𝐵
𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴2 + 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴1 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵2 + 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵1 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴2 + 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵1 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵2 − 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴1 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴2 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵2 − 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵1 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵2 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴 2 − 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴1 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴2 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵1 −
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 𝐴𝐴 1 𝐴𝐴 2 𝐵𝐵 2 𝐵𝐵 1 𝐵𝐵 2 𝐴𝐴 2 𝐴𝐴 1 𝐴𝐴 2 𝐵𝐵1

between= 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴1 fully

𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵the 𝑃𝑃
𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴2 +redundant
𝑃𝑃 +
𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴1 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵2 + and
𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃
𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵1 𝑃𝑃single-string
𝑃𝑃
𝐴𝐴2 + 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵1 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵2 −
. (4)
𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴1 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴2 𝑃𝑃
systems. − 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵1 𝑃𝑃probability
Its𝐵𝐵2failure 𝐵𝐵2 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴 2 − 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴is 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴2 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵1 as
1 given
− (Eq.
1 𝐵𝐵 2 𝐴𝐴 1𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃 1𝑃𝑃 2 + 1𝑃𝑃 2
𝐴𝐴 𝐴𝐴 𝐵𝐵 𝐵𝐵 𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃 1 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵 2. (4)
𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵1 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵2 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴 2 − 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴1 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴2 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵1 − 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵1 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵2 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴1 + 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴1𝐵𝐵𝑃𝑃1𝐴𝐴2𝐵𝐵𝑃𝑃2𝐵𝐵1𝐴𝐴𝑃𝑃1𝐵𝐵 2. 𝐴𝐴1 𝐴𝐴2 𝐵𝐵(4)
4): 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵1 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵2 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴1 + 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴1 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴2 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵1 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵 2. (4)
By notingBy that 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴1 , 𝑃𝑃that
noting 𝐴𝐴2 , 𝑃𝑃
𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴11,, 𝑃𝑃
and, 𝑃𝑃 ,areand always less than less or equal to 1.0, one can
(4) By noting that 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴1 , 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴2 , 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵1 , and 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵2𝐴𝐴2are 𝐵𝐵always
𝑃𝑃 𝐵𝐵2
1
𝑃𝑃 𝐵𝐵2 than or equal to 1.0, one canto 1.0, one can
less
are always than or equal
By noting that PA,1, PBy 𝑃𝑃
noting
, PB,1 and𝐹𝐹,𝑎𝑎PB,2= (𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴always
that
are 𝑃𝑃1𝐴𝐴1∪, 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃less
𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵21, )than
𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵∩1 ,or (𝑃𝑃
and𝐴𝐴2 𝑃𝑃
equal ∪𝐵𝐵to 𝑃𝑃are
1.0,) one
2 𝐵𝐵2
= can
always (𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴observe+ 𝑃𝑃than
1less 𝐵𝐵
)(𝑃𝑃Por
that
1
<+PF,a
F,b2 equal
𝐴𝐴 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵<2 )Pto =  that the
F,c 1.0, one can
, i.e.
observe that P < P < P , i.e. that the fully cross-strapped system has the lowest
A,2
observe F,b that P
F,a < P
F,c < P , i.e. that the fully cross-strapped system has the lowest
hanobserve
or equal thatfully
toPF,b
cross-strapped system
1.0,<one PF,acan < PF,b has the F,alowest failureF,c probability of all three. However, this assumes that the connections between
F,c, i.e. that the fully cross-strapped system has the lowest
components A observe and B havethat =the𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴same
1PF,b
𝑃𝑃 𝐴𝐴2 < P+
failure𝑃𝑃 1 𝐵𝐵<
𝑃𝑃
probability
𝐴𝐴F,a +P𝑃𝑃 F,c as, 𝑃𝑃
𝐵𝐵 i.e.
in𝐴𝐴2the +that𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵1of
case 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵single-string
the − 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴1cross-strapped
2 fully
𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴2system.
𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵2 −This 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵1might
𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵system
𝑃𝑃not−
2 𝐴𝐴 2
be𝑃𝑃 𝐴𝐴1 𝑃𝑃
has
the the
case
𝐴𝐴 𝑃𝑃if the−
2 𝐵𝐵lowest
failure probability
failure probability of all three. of allHowever, three. However,
2 this 1assumes
this assumesthat the thatconnections the connections between between
1
failure
pped systemprobability
has theoflowest all three. However, this assumes that the connections between
failure
J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São Joséprobability
dos Campos, v11,of e4419,all2019𝑃𝑃three.
𝐵𝐵1 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵2 𝑃𝑃However, + 𝑃𝑃in𝐴𝐴1the 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴2this
𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵1 𝑃𝑃assumes
𝐵𝐵 2 .single-string that(4) the connections between
components A and B have
components A andthe B same
have the failuresame probability 𝐴𝐴1 as
failure probability case
as inof the case of single-string system. system.
atcomponents
the connections A and B have the same failure probability as in the case of single-string system.
between
components By noting A and B that have 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴1the, 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴same , 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵1 failure
, and 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵probability are always as in less thethan caseorofequal single-string
to 1.0, one system.
can
2 2
 Single-Bus and Dual-Bus Architectures of Electrical Power Systems for Small Spacecraft
xx/xx
13/15

connections are realized with harness, and are manufactured and tested by inexperienced students, for example (Shirasaka et al.
2010). Depending on the complexity of the circuits that components A and B require, the complexity of the complete A-B system
in the fully cross-strapped configuration might reach a level where design flaws will be difficult to identify in a timely fashion,
thus leading to an on-orbit failure or missing the launch window.
Even though PF,a is theoretically higher than the failure probability of the fully redundant system, PF,b, the reduced system
complexity might result in lower PF in practice due to design errors and insufficient testing (Shirasaka et al. 2010). Still, PF,a of
the dual bus system is less than the PF,c of the single string system. Moreover, if the secondary power system is scaled to only
provide the power necessary to satisfy the primary mission objectives, as in the discussed case of the nanosatellite, the increase
in reliability is associated with modest mass and size penalties, as opposed to implementing full redundancy. An extreme case of
this design approach is Shinen-2 that, as shown in Fig. 6, consists of two single string systems, one of which is designed to operate
a communications subsystem. This reduced the systems complexity to the minimum, while lowering the probability of failure of
the telecommunications subsystem as a whole, i.e. failure of both communication lines

(a)

A1 B1

A2 B2

(b)
A1 B1

A2 B2

(c)

A B

Figure 15. Schematic representations of the two components A and B arranged in architectures with varying levels of
redundancy: (a) Dual redundant power system, (b) Fully redundant (cross-strapped) power system and (c) Single string system.

CONCLUSIONS

The design and implementation of two electrical power systems were presented and illustrated using examples of a nanosatellite
and a micro deep-space probe. Both systems had independent solar array inputs and independent battery arrays. Thus the power
conditioning unit was split in two separate units in both cases. The efficiency of the COTS DC-DC converters used as power

J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v11, e4419, 2019
 Gonzalez-Llorente J; Lidtke AA; Hurtado R; Okuyama K
14/15
xx/xx

conditioning modules was determined by experiment. In addition, telemetry data showed battery voltage and current of solar
panels of the micro deep-space probe.
These two examples were cases of single-bus and dual-bus electrical power systems. On the one hand, for the case of the
nanosatellite, the two PCMs were rated at different power output to a single-bus, making the secondary system a backup unit
that enabled minimum functionality. On the other hand, the electrical power system of the micro deep-space probe was split in
two almost identical units (EPS 1 and EPS 2). Each EPS had an independent power bus and, therefore, Shinen-2 operated using
a dual-bus electrical power system that had two communication subsystems powered by different power buses.
The advantages of using various configurations of power buses on small satellites were discussed in the context of mass-efficiency-
development-random failure trade-off. It was shown, based on the two above satellite examples, that using a dual-power bus can
offer increased reliability at a modest increase in mass, volume and complexity, which is also proportional to development risk.
Therefore, it is recommended to evaluate the dual-bus power architecture when choosing the EPS architecture for small satellites.
A new satellite mission is being operated by the Kyushu Institute of Technology to continue the evaluation of the redundant
electrical power systems in a sun-synchronous orbit. Sensors of solar panel temperatures, sun sensors for attitude determination,
and current and voltage measurements at more locations in the EPS will be included to better understand the dual-bus electrical
power system behavior.

AUTHOR’S CONTRIBUTION

Conceptualization, Gonzalez-Llorente J; Methodology, Gonzalez-Llorente J and Lidtke AA; Investigation, Gonzalez-Llorente

J, Lidtke AA, Hurtado R and Okuyama K; Writing – Original Draft, Gonzalez-Llorente J, Lidtke AA and Hurtado R; Writing –
Review and Editing, Gonzalez-Llorente J, Lidtke AA and Okuyama K; Funding Acquisition, Okuyama K, Gonzalez-Llorente J
and Hurtado R; Resources, Gonzalez-Llorente J and Hurtado R; Supervision, Okuyama K.

FUNDING

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan [https://doi.org/10.13039/501100001700].

REFERENCES

Azur Space (2016) 30% triple junction gaas solar cell. Azur Space; [accessed 2017 March 3]. http://www.azurspace.com/
images/0003429-01-01_DB_3G30C-Advanced.pdf

Babuscia A, Cheung K-M, Divsalar D, Lee C (2015) Development of cooperative communication techniques for a network of small
satellites and CubeSats in deep space: the SOLARA/SARA test case. Acta Astronautica 115:349-355. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
actaastro.2015.06.001

Bendoukha SA, Okuyama K, Bianca S, Nishio M (2016) Control system design of an ultra-small deep space probe. Energy Procedia
100:537-550. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.10.216

Brito MAG, Galotto L, Sampaio LP, Melo GA, Canesin CA (2013) Evaluation of the main MPPT techniques for photovoltaic applications.
Industrial Electronics, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 60(3):1156-1167. http://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2012.2198036

Carrara V, Januzi RB, Makita DH, Santos LFDP, Sato LS (2017) The ITASAT cubesat development and design. Journal of Aerospace
Technology and Management 9(2):138-147. https://doi.org/10.5028/jatm.v9i2.614

Chin KB, Brandon EJ, Bugga RV, Smart MC, Jones SC, Krause FC, West WC, Bolotin GG (2018) Energy storage technologies for small
satellite applications. Proceedings of the IEEE 106(3):419-428. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2018.2793158

J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v11, e4419, 2019
 Single-Bus and Dual-Bus Architectures of Electrical Power Systems for Small Spacecraft
15/15
xx/xx

Crisp NH, Smith K, Hollingsworth P (2015) Launch and deployment of distributed small satellite systems. Acta Astronautica 114:65-78.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2015.04.015

DeGroot MH, Schervish MJ (2014) Probability and Statistics. 4th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Del Corso D, Passerone C, Reyneri L, Sansoe C, Speretta S, Tranchero M (2011) Design of a university nano-satellite: the piCPoT case. IEEE
Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems 47(3):1985-2007. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAES.2011.5937278

Edries MY, Tanaka A, HORYU-IV Team, Cho M (2016) Design and testing of electrical power subsystem of a lean satellite, HORYU-IV. Trans
JSASS Aerospace Tech Japan 14:7-16. https://doi.org/10.2322/tastj.14.Pf_7

Erb DM, Rawashdeh SA, Lumpp Jr. JE (2011) Evaluation of solar array peak power tracking technologies for CubeSats. Presented at: AIAA/
USU Conference on Small Satellites; Logan, USA.

Frost C, Shimmin R, Agasid E, Burton R, Carlino R, Defouw G, Perez AD, Karacalioglu AG, Klamm B, Rademacher A, et al. (2015) Small
spacecraft technology state of the art. (TP-2015-216648). NASA Technical Publication.

Hecht M (2011) Risk and Reliability. In: Wertz, J, Everett DF, Puschell JJ, editors. Space mission engineering: the new SMAD. Hawthorne:
Microcosm press.

Kuroiwa F, Okuyama K, Nishio M, Morita H, Szasz B, Bendoukha S, Saganti P, Holland D (2016) A design method of an autonomous control
system for a deep-space probe. Trans JSASS Aerospace Tech Japan 14(ists30):105-112. https://doi.org/10.2322/tastj.14.Pf_105

Langer M, Bouwmeester J (2016) Reliability of CubeSats – statistical data, developers’ beliefs and the way forward. Presented at: AIAA/
USU Conference on Small Satellites; Logan, USA.

Loche D, Labille J-M, Wallecan F, Goeij O (2011) Mono-bus and dual-bus power architecture trade-off for high power LEO Satellite. Presented
at: 9th European Space Agency; Saint Raphael, France.

Mishra S (2019) Power supplies for consumer electronic devices. IEEE Potentials 38(1):8-13. https://doi.org/10.1109/
MPOT.2018.2850478

Mourra O, Fernandez A, Tonicello F (2010) Buck Boost Regulator (B2R) for spacecraft Solar Array Power conversion. Presented at: 25th
Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition; Palm Springs, USA. https://doi.org/10.1109/APEC.2010.5433399

Navarathinam N, Lee R, Chesser H (2011) Characterization of Lithium-Polymer batteries for CubeSat applications. Acta Astronautica
68(11-12):1752-1760. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2011.02.004

Okada K, Seri Y, Shibagaki R, Masui H, Cho M (2013) On-orbit results of the power system on-board nano-satellite Horyu-II. Presented at:
29th International Symposium on Space Technology and Science; Nagoya, Japan.

Patel M (2005) Spacecraft power system. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Sanyo Energy (2012) Datasheet of Panasonic Lithium Ion NCR18650B. Panasonic; [accessed 2018 February 5]. http://www.batteryspace.
com/prod-specs/NCR18650B.pdf

Sarli BV, Ariu K, Yano H (2016) PROCYON’s probability analysis of accidental impact on Mars. Advances in Space Research 57(9):2003-
2012. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2015.11.007

Shirasaka S, Ishibashi K, Nakasuka S (2011) Study on reasonably reliable systems engineering for nano-satellite, The Proceedings of the
Space Engineering Conference 19:F4.1-4. https://doi.org/10.1299/jsmesec.2010.19._F4-1_

Swartwout M, Jayne C (2016) University-class spacecraft by the numbers: success, failure, debris. (but mostly success.). Presented at:
AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites; Logan, USA.

Yoon S, Shin Y, Jeon J, Seo Y, Jeon J, Woo J, Seon J (2014) Analysis of the charged particle radiation effect for a CubeSat transiting from
Earth to Mars. Current Applied Physics 14(4):575-581. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cap.2014.01.018

J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v11, e4419, 2019