LIDAR Type selection

Laser:
Two most common lasers available for spacecraft
• 1064nm
• 532nm
• So there is no overlap with the near IR system 532nm is selected

The most mature space based LIDAR technology are solid state lasers
• Have the advantage of being able to survive a wide range of temperatures
• The most common being Nd-YAG which also attains high wall plug efficiency
Detector:
Reflector type telescopes are more commonly used than their refractor type counter parts
• Lower mass and volume
• Most space proven of these are cassegrain designs
Most suitable detector material would be silicon based
• Works for short wavelength
• Wildly commercially available for such an application with many more than more exotic materials being space proven.
• The graph shows blue enhance Si PIN has near 100% internal photon response at specified wavelength which is also desirable.
LIDAR selection
There main classes of LIDAR suitable:
• Scanning
• well tested in space and are well suited tracking a single object
• however contain moving parts which increases risk of failure
• scanning ability is most likely not needed
• Spatial light modulator (SLM)
• still under development and no product as of yet is space tested
• Detector Arrays
• Greater number of detectors for longer integration times and longer dwell time to maximises target detection
• Presents a greater challenge to calibrate and at a greater expense
• Two most common Flash or Continuous wave (CW)
• CW often suffers from phase integer ambiguity problems, severely limits the range making it unsuitable for a
max range of 7500m
• CW suffers from motion blur called ‘flying pixels’.
• Hence flash detect array would be most suitable for this mission
LIDAR selection
Array material, two most popular:
• key parameter to consider is if the wavelength is in the spectral range of
the detector and its quantum efficiency
• Two most common:
• Charge-Coupled Devices (CCDs)
• higher fill factors, quantum and detection efficiency
• Disadvantage is losses due to charge transfer, meaning at long ranges it will be less efficient detecting low
intensity signals.
• Complimentary Metal-Oxide Semiconductor (CMOS) detectors
• Dissipates less energy, the package volume is much less and allows faster output.
• Much higher price for the added complexity.
• Cost permitting CMOS would be most suitable here

Further considerations:
• ‘Predicted on’ system turns on when asteroid in range
• laser only around 10% efficient will mean large heat dissipation needed but around 250k
operating temperature of silicon not to bad.
• Use thermal electric cooler
LIDAR selection
Nosie
• The biggest source for the detector would be from the sun,
• Mitigated by using a filter
• one properly designed can reduce the detectable bandwidth up to 1nm
• Reflecting filters are generally can be more precisely calibrated and don’t run the risk of
being overheated like absorbing filters.
Reduce to reduce false detection:
• Solar
• In the asteroid belt, approximately 0.18W or 4.9e+17 photos per second will fall on detector at
532nm,
• using proper algorithms like steady-source subtraction this can generally be ignored if not
saturating the sensor.
• Signal processing noise
• minimized by using the lowest noise ADCs available
• Dark noise
• Less for cooler systems, or send multiple pulses and compare
• Thermal noise
• Reduce by shielding or lower system temperature
LIDAR selection
• Presumptions, drawing inspiration from OSIRIS-rex mission
• Resolve asteroid diameter, 30m at range 7500m
• Resolve minimum debris diameter, 0.2m at range 1000m
• Typical detector cell pitch =
To resolve target :
To resolve debris : [smallest, hence this will drive specs]
Hence with 2 pixel coverage, minimum IFOV =
Minimum optics diameter =

Minimum focal length =

Thus minimum
To reduce mechanical components and areas of failure a gimbal wouldn’t be included so
the FOV=FOR, for a minimum 20 degree FOV used in previous missions:
𝑁𝑜 𝑝𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑙𝑠=𝐹𝑂𝑉/𝐼𝐹𝑂𝑉=

So approximately detector size

Where:
Design trade offs
Once the signal to noise ratio (SNR) has been specified, design trade off could be weighed within
the weight power, volume, and data budgets of the probe:
• The signal to noise ratio for a LIDAR can be found to be
•
• Where:
•
•
• E.g. to reduce power needed could increase aperture
• Increasing the integration capacitor
• increases dynamic range and integration time
• decrease resolution and FOV
• longer integration time
• increase sensitivity but reduces sharpness
sources
https://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/3994/08Sep_Gast.pdf;sequence=1
http://old.esaconferencebureau.com/docs/default-source/17m03_presentations/focal-plane-and-d
etector.pdf?sfvrsn=0
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/spectra/am1.5/astmg173/astmg173.html
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140000616.pdf
https://www.asteroidmission.org/instrumentation/