Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T03:21:34.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

X-band compact choke horn antenna with circular polarization and isoflux pattern for nanosatellite applications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2015

Eric Arnaud*
Affiliation:
XLIM – CNRS, 123 Avenue Albert Thomas, 87060 Limoges Cedex, France
Luc Duchesne
Affiliation:
SATIMO, 17 Avenue de Norvège, 91140 Villebon Cedex, France
Kevin Elis
Affiliation:
CNES, 18 Avenue Edouard Belin, 31401 Toulouse Cedex 9, France
Jamil Fouany
Affiliation:
XLIM – CNRS, 123 Avenue Albert Thomas, 87060 Limoges Cedex, France
Thierry Monediere
Affiliation:
XLIM – CNRS, 123 Avenue Albert Thomas, 87060 Limoges Cedex, France
Marc Thevenot
Affiliation:
XLIM – CNRS, 123 Avenue Albert Thomas, 87060 Limoges Cedex, France
*
Corresponding author: E. Arnaud Email: eric.arnaud@xlim.fr
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents a tradeoff between isoflux pattern quality and X-band antenna compactness for nanosatellite applications. Having an isoflux radiation and a circular polarization (CP) generally causes a large antenna size which is incompatible for these applications. A new design of an antenna is done with the following maximum antenna dimensions: a diameter of 90 mm and a height of 20 mm above the nanosatellite platform. The isoflux pattern is slightly degraded while a good CP and realized gain are kept. The structure is a compact choke horn. It presents an axial ratio lower than 3 dB and a RG close to 0 dB over a 400 MHz bandwidth (8.0–8.4 GHz). It has been realized and successfully measured.

Information

Type
Research Paper
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and the European Microwave Association 2015 
Figure 0

Fig. 1. View of the platform “cubesat 3U”.

Figure 1

Table 1. Antenna requirements.

Figure 2

Fig. 2. Comparison of the design from Brachat (left) and the proposed one (right).

Figure 3

Fig. 3. Simulated RHCP and LHCP radiation patterns (φ = 0° plane) (a), Simulated RG at θ = 65° versus azimuth angle (b), simulated AR radiation patterns (φ = 0° plane) (c), simulated AR at θ = 65° versus azimuth angle (d).

Figure 4

Fig. 4. Simulation of the feed: (four coaxial probes).

Figure 5

Fig. 5. Simulated AR radiation patterns (φ = 0° plane) (a), simulated AR at θ = 65° versus azimuth angle (b).

Figure 6

Fig. 6. Simulation of the whole antenna.

Figure 7

Fig. 7. Simulation of the whole antenna with the 3U (a) or 6U (b) platform.

Figure 8

Fig. 8. 6U platform: simulated RHCP and LHCP radiation patterns (φ = 0° plane) (a), simulated RG at θ = 65° versus azimuth angle (b), simulated AR radiation patterns (φ = 0° plane) (c), simulated AR at θ = 65° versus azimuth angle (d).

Figure 9

Fig. 9. 6U platform and 0 mm: simulated AR radiation patterns (plane φ = 0°) (a), simulated AR at θ = 65° versus azimuth angle (b).

Figure 10

Fig. 10. Drawing (bottom view (a), 3U perspective view (b), and 6U perspective view (c)) and the photography (d) of the manufactured antenna positioned on our antenna test range support.

Figure 11

Fig. 11. Four-way divider with phase shifter performances: amplitude unbalance (a) and phase unbalance (b).

Figure 12

Fig. 12. 3U Platform: return loss (a), directivity and realized gain (b), simulated RHCP and LHCP radiation patterns (φ = 0° plane) (c), measured RHCP and LHCP radiation patterns (φ = 0° plane) (d), RG at θ = 65° versus azimuth angle (e), AR radiation patterns (plane φ = 0°) (f), AR at θ = 65° versus azimuth angle (g).

Figure 13

Fig. 13. 6U Platform: return loss (a), directivity and realized gain (b), simulated RHCP and LHCP radiation patterns (φ = 0° plane) (c), measured RHCP and LHCP radiation patterns (φ = 0° plane) (d), RG at θ = 65° versus azimuth angle (e), AR radiation patterns (φ = 0° plane) (f), AR at θ = 65° versus azimuth angle (g).