Webinar Transcript Summary

MBSE for Space Systems Design with Capella: From Simulation Facilities to NEO Detection

January 2026 |  aula Andrea García Suárez & Juan Felipe Ríos (Universidad de Antioquia) | EN   

Video       Slides

Introduction

Space systems are among the most complex engineering environments. They involve multidisciplinary teams, stringent safety constraints, limited budgets, long development cycles, and systems that are difficult or impossible to test under real operating conditions before deployment.

During this webinar, two projects developed at the University of Antioquia in Colombia demonstrated how Model-Based Systems Engineering and Capella can support both ground-based space infrastructure and mission-driven spacecraft design. The first project focused on a modular vacuum chamber for space simulation, while the second addressed a space-based observatory for Near-Earth Object detection.

Although the applications were different, both projects showed how Arcadia helps structure operational needs, define system functions, develop logical and physical architectures, and maintain traceability throughout the design process.

Designing a Modular Space Vacuum Chamber

The first project aimed to develop a proof of concept for a modular vacuum chamber capable of simulating space-like conditions. Such facilities are essential for material qualification, mechanism testing, sensor validation, and specialized experiments.

The objective was not to build the chamber, but to create a complete and consistent system design that could support future construction, integration, maintenance, and service delivery.

The design process began with Operational Analysis. Rather than defining technical solutions immediately, the project first identified the main actors, including users, operators, maintenance technicians, IT administrators, and safety supervisors. Operational scenarios and functional chains were then used to describe activities such as system preparation, evacuation, experiment execution, data acquisition, and safety monitoring.

This early analysis revealed hidden dependencies and safety-critical interactions before any physical architecture was defined.

The System Analysis then established what the vacuum chamber had to achieve, while the Logical Architecture decomposed the system into major subsystems such as vacuum generation, control and automation, safety management, communications, and data acquisition.

In the Physical Architecture, logical functions were allocated to real components, including vacuum pumps, valves, sensors, programmable logic controllers, consoles, and safety devices. The Component Breakdown Structure also distinguished between commercial components, custom hardware, and software elements, supporting early procurement and resource planning.

Designing a Space-Based NEO Observatory

The second project applied the same methodology to a space-based observatory for Near-Earth Object detection.

Ground-based observatories face limitations such as atmospheric interference, weather, restricted fields of view, and difficulty detecting objects approaching from the direction of the Sun. A space-based infrared observatory can overcome many of these constraints.

Operational Analysis was especially important because mission choices directly influenced the architecture. The project evaluated possible operational orbits and selected the L1 Lagrange point because of its favorable observation geometry, communication conditions, and ability to monitor regions close to the Sun.

The mission was structured around two main functional chains: Near-Earth Object detection and target tracking. Modes of operation were also modeled from pre-launch through nominal operations and decommissioning.

The System and Logical Architectures then defined the observatory functions and subsystem interactions. Capella’s System-to-Subsystem transition was used to develop each subsystem in greater detail while preserving requirements allocation and traceability.

The Physical Architecture included elements such as the infrared payload, propulsion system, thermal control system, Sun shield, radiators, thermal straps, and communication equipment.

Preliminary verification and validation were performed using NASA’s GMAT and Python models. Orbital propagation confirmed the suitability of the L1 orbit, while communication analysis showed that a single ground station would not provide sufficient coverage. A network such as NASA’s Deep Space Network was therefore required to meet the mission’s continuous communication objective.

Key Benefits

Across both projects, Capella provided more than a set of diagrams. It enabled traceability from mission objectives and stakeholder needs to logical functions, physical components, procurement decisions, and preliminary verification activities.

The models also supported modularity, reuse, early trade-offs, and iterative correction. When omissions or inconsistencies were identified, they could be corrected directly in the model rather than across disconnected documents.

Q&A Highlights

  • Q: How long did the vacuum chamber model take to develop?
    A: The model was developed by one student over approximately four to five months, with guidance from university professors and an industry advisor.
  • Q: How should organizations with mature SysML practices adopt Capella?
    A: A practical approach is to begin with a small, non-critical pilot project. This allows teams to evaluate Arcadia without immediately creating methodological conflicts or duplicating existing modeling efforts.
  • Q: Was the Arcadia workflow simplified for the presentation?
    A: Yes. The webinar condensed the process for clarity. The actual projects followed the recommended iterative workflow across and between the different Arcadia layers.
  • Q: Which resources are useful for learning Capella for space systems?
    A: The official documentation, Capella forum, webinars, and domain-specific examples are particularly valuable. Existing examples from other industries can also be adapted to space applications.
  • Q: Why was Arcadia selected instead of another methodology?
    A: Arcadia offered a structured but relatively efficient process, clear separation between abstraction levels, strong architectural traceability, and the ability to propagate corrections consistently throughout the model.
  • Q: Can Capella provide full traceability from requirements to verification?
    A: Yes. Requirements can be linked to capabilities, functions, subsystems, physical components, and verification activities, providing end-to-end traceability throughout the design process.
  • Q: Should a Phase B spreadsheet-based project be migrated to Capella?
    A: Capella can still provide value during an advanced phase, particularly for identifying inconsistencies and supporting iteration. However, migration should be assessed against the available time, resources, and expected benefits.
  • Q: Can SysML reference models be implemented in Capella?
    A: Yes, but they require a dedicated implementation because Arcadia is inspired by SysML rather than directly compatible with it.
    By applying the same architecture-driven methodology to both ground infrastructure and operational missions, these projects demonstrated the flexibility of Capella for complex space system design.