DOCSLIB.ORG

Orbital Debris Program Office, with Full Support from the HST Program at GSFC, NASA Curation Office at JSC, NASA Hypervelocity Impact Technology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Orbital Debris Program Office, with Full Support from the HST Program at GSFC, NASA Curation Office at JSC, NASA Hypervelocity Impact Technology National Aeronautics and Space Administration Orbital Debris Quarterly News Volume 14, Issue 1 January 2010 Inside... NASA and DARPA Sponsor International Avoiding Satellite Debris Removal Conference Collisions in 2009 2 NASA and DARPA (Defense Advanced result was reinforced by the first accidental collision MMOD Inspection of Research Projects Agency) jointly sponsored between two large intact satellites, Iridium 33 and the HST Wide Field the first-of-its-kind International Conference on Cosmos 2251, in February 2009 (ODQN, April Planetary Camera 2 Orbital Debris Removal; held in Chantilly, VA, 2009, pp 1-2). These events, along with the Chinese Radiator Update 3 8-10 December 2009. Fengyun-1C anti-satellite (ASAT) test in 2007, have In 2005, NASA conducted an analysis using significantly increased the number of 10 cm and Shielding Against its long-term debris environment evolutionary larger objects in orbit and provided the impetus for Micrometeoroid and model, LEGEND, which clearly showed that the the debris removal conference (see Figure 1). Orbital Debris Impact number of debris larger than 10 cm would continue Although one of the primary goals of the with Metallic Foams 4 to increase due to collisions between existing conference was to exchange ideas for technical An Updated resident space objects, even if no new satellites were launched (ODQN, April 2006, pp 1-2). This Assessment of continued on page 2 the Orbital Debris Non-Mitigation Projection (averages and 1-ı from 100 MC runs) Environment in LEO 7 70000 Abstracts from the LEO (200-2000 km alt) NASA Orbital Debris 60000 MEO (2000-35,586 km alt) Program Office 9 GEO (35,586-35,986 km alt) Meeting Report 9 50000 Space Missions and 40000 Orbital Box Score 11 30000 20000 Effective Number of Objects (>10 cm) (>10 Objectsof Number Effective 10000 0 1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090 2110 2130 2150 2170 2190 2210 A publication of Year the NASA Orbital Figure 1. Updated (includes Fengyun-1C ASAT and Iridium/Cosmos collisions) projection of the runaway growth of Debris Program Office >10 cm resident space objects if postmission disposal measures are not implemented. Figure includes 1 σ uncertainties. Orbital Debris Quarterly News NASA-DARPA Conference continued from page 1 solutions to debris removal, the conference Solutions, and Laser Systems. the 14th Air Force’s Joint Space Operations also covered areas including economic factors In addition to the technical presentations, Center (JSpOC), who discussed Space and incentives, international legal issues, and four keynote addresses also were given. Bryan Situational Awareness. identifying stakeholders and building support O’Connor, Chief for Safety and Mission No evident consensus or conclusions were for debris removal. Assurance at NASA HQ, gave the first keynote reached at the conference. Removing existing, The conference was well attended by address on “Space Operations Safety.” Don non-cooperative objects from Earth orbit is about 275 participants from 9 foreign countries Kessler, former NASA Senior Scientist for an extremely difficult and likely expensive task. and the U.S. More than 50 presentations were Orbital Debris, presented “The Kessler Although some of the techniques for removal grouped into 10 sessions: Understanding Syndrome: Implications to Future Space discussed at the Conference have the potential the Problem, A Solution Framework, Legal Operations” during a working lunch address. On of being developed into technically feasible and Economic Issues/Incentives, Operation day 2 of the conference, Dr. Heiner Klinkrad systems, each concept seems to currently suffer Concepts, Using Environmental Forces, gave the noon keynote talk on “Space Debris from either a lack of development and testing Capturing Objects, Orbital Transfer Solutions, Environment Remediation Concepts.” The or economic viability. ♦ Technical Requirements, In Situ vs. Remote final keynote speaker was Col. Chris Moss from Avoiding Satellite Collisions in 2009 All NASA programs and projects operating recomputation of the conjunction assessment operating in concert with NASA Earth maneuverable spacecraft in low Earth orbits with updated tracking data and a shorter observation satellites (Table 1). Only two of the (LEO) or in geosynchronous orbits (GEO) propagation period (i.e., time to the encounter) maneuvers involved close approaches by intact are required to have periodic conjunction will reveal a more distant miss-distance and a vehicles (one a spacecraft and one a rocket assessments performed for the purpose of lower risk of collision. It is not uncommon for body). The other maneuvers were needed to avoiding collisions with other known resident collision avoidance maneuvers to be planned but avoid collisions with smaller debris, including space objects. These conjunction assessments canceled when new assessments are completed. twice with debris from the Chinese anti-satellite are conducted by the Joint Space Operations For example, the International Space Station test of 2007 and once with debris from the Center (JSpOC) of the U.S. Strategic Command was prepared to conduct a collision avoidance collision of the Iridium 33 and the Cosmos at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. For maneuver on 17 March to evade a piece of debris 2251 satellites in February of 2009. the International Space Station and the Space from a former Soviet satellite which exploded in On a separate occasion in March 2009, Shuttle, these assessments are typically updated 1981. A later conjunction assessment revealed the crew of the International Space Station three times per day. For robotic satellites, which that the maneuver was not necessary. The debris had to retreat temporarily into their Soyuz normally operate at higher altitudes where reentered the Earth’s atmosphere on 4 April, return spacecraft when debris from a U.S. upper atmospheric drag effects are less pronounced, no longer posing a threat to the International stage were projected to make a close approach the assessments are updated daily, on average. Space Station or other satellites. (ODQN, Vol. 13, Issue 2, p. 3). The elliptical The conjunction assessment alert messages During 2009 conjunction assessments nature of the debris’ orbit (about 145 km by from JSpOC identify the object which is led to eight collision avoidance maneuvers by 4230 km) contributed to a late notification of expected to come near the NASA spacecraft NASA spacecraft, in addition to a collision the conjunction, leaving too little time to prepare along with information on the predicted avoidance maneuver of a French satellite for a collision avoidance maneuver. ♦ time and distance of closest approach, as well as the uncertainty associated with the TableTable 1. Collision1. Collision Avoidance Avoidance Maneuvers Maneuvers in 20092009 prediction. Typically, alert messages are issued if the calculated miss-distance is within a few Spacecraft Maneuver Date Object Avoided kilometers of the NASA spacecraft. While the TDRS 3 27 Janaury Proton rocket body sensors of the U.S. Space Surveillance Network ISS 22 March CZ-4 rocket body debris are tasked to collect additional tracking data to refine the close approach prediction, NASA Cloudsat 23 April Cosmos 2251 debris specialists compute the actual probability of EO-1 11 May Zenit rocket body debris collision. In the case of human space flight, collision avoidance maneuvers are normally ISS 17 July Proton rocket body debris conducted if the risk of collision is greater Space Shuttle 10 September ISS debris than 1 in 10,000. In general, robotic spacecraft PARASOL (France)* 29 September Fengyun-1C debris accept higher levels of risk, i.e., on the order of 1 in 1,000. Aqua 25 November Fengyun-1C debris Most alert messages do not result in Landsat 7 11 December Formosat 3D collision avoidance maneuvers. Often, a * Operating in NASA-led Earth observation network www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov MMOD Inspection of the HST Wide Field Planetary Camera 2 Radiator Update The initial micrometeoroid and orbital debris (MMOD) impact inspection of the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) Wide Field Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2) radiator was completed in September 2009. The task was led by the NASA Orbital Debris Program Office, with full support from the HST Program at GSFC, NASA Curation Office at JSC, NASA Hypervelocity Impact Technology Facility at JSC, and NASA Meteoroid 300.00 µm 300.00 µm Environment Office at MSFC. The objective of the inspection is to Figure 1. A typical impact crater on the WFPC2 radiator where the impacting particle did not penetrate the paint layer document and analyze the MMOD (left) and a typical crater where the impacting particle went through the paint and damaged the metal part of the impact damage on the radiator, and radiator (right). then apply the data to validate or improve the near-Earth MMOD environment definition. Two instruments were used during the 6-week inspection at GSFC – a laser scanner for a quick map of the distribution of impact features on the surface and a digital microscope for detailed two- and three-dimensional imagery of individual impacts. In addition, a laser template projector was designed and set up to record the coordinates of individual impact features. The inspection was limited to features larger than about 300 µm across, because this is approximately the threshold for the smallest MMOD particles that are important for satellite impact risk assessments. By the end of the inspection, a total of 685 MMOD impact features were identified and documented. The largest one has a crater diameter of topofthepaint 1.6 mm with a surrounding spall zone about 1.4 cm across (on the painted radiator surface). The outermost layer of the radiator is a 4-mm thick aluminum plate coated with thermal control paint. The majority of the topofthealuminum bottom ofthecrater documented impacts did not penetrate inaluminum the paint layer. The crater on the left in Figure 1 is a typical example, whereas the crater on the right shows a different Figure 2. The image and measurements of one of the MMOD impact craters on the WFPC2 radiator.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Kessler Syndrome
    Kessler Syndrome March 20, 2021 What is Kessler Syndrome? The Kessler syndrome, also called the Kessler effect, collisional cascading or ablation cascade, is a scenario in which the density of objects in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) is high enough that collisions between objects could cause a cascade where each collision generates space debris that increases the likelihood of further collisions. Who proposed it? It is a theory proposed by NASA scientist Donald J. Kessler in 1978, used to describe a self-sustaining cascading collision of space debris in LEO. In an article published on June 1, 1978 in the American Journal of Geophysical Research, the authors Donald J. Kessler and Burton G. Cour-Palais, two NASA experts, identified the risk of an exponential increase in the number of space debris or orbital debris under the effect of mutual collisions. The two authors believed that a belt formed by these objects or fragments of objects around the Earth would soon form. Eventually threatening space activities, this phenomenon will be popularized a few years later under the name of Kessler syndrome Implications One implication is that the distribution of debris in orbit could render space activities and the use of satellites in specific orbital ranges impractical for many generations. The Kessler syndrome is troublesome because of the domino effect and feedback runaway wherein impacts between objects of sizable mass spall off debris from the force of the collision Every satellite, space probe, and manned mission has the potential to produce space debris. A cascading Kessler syndrome becomes more likely as satellites in orbit increase in number.
    [Show full text]
  • Detecting, Tracking and Imaging Space Debris
    r bulletin 109 — february 2002 Detecting, Tracking and Imaging Space Debris D. Mehrholz, L. Leushacke FGAN Research Institute for High-Frequency Physics and Radar Techniques, Wachtberg, Germany W. Flury, R. Jehn, H. Klinkrad, M. Landgraf European Space Operations Centre (ESOC), Darmstadt, Germany Earth’s space-debris environment tracked, with estimates for the number of Today’s man-made space-debris environment objects larger than 1 cm ranging from 100 000 has been created by the space activities to 200 000. that have taken place since Sputnik’s launch in 1957. There have been more than 4000 The sources of this debris are normal launch rocket launches since then, as well as many operations (Fig. 2), certain operations in space, other related debris-generating occurrences fragmentations as a result of explosions and such as more than 150 in-orbit fragmentation collisions in space, firings of satellite solid- events. rocket motors, material ageing effects, and leaking thermal-control systems. Solid-rocket Among the more than 8700 objects larger than 10 cm in Earth orbits, motors use aluminium as a catalyst (about 15% only about 6% are operational satellites and the remainder is space by mass) and when burning they emit debris. Europe currently has no operational space surveillance aluminium-oxide particles typically 1 to 10 system, but a powerful radar facility for the detection and tracking of microns in size. In addition, centimetre-sized space debris and the imaging of space objects is available in the form objects are formed by metallic aluminium melts, of the 34 m dish radar at the Research Establishment for Applied called ‘slag’.
    [Show full text]
  • Solving the Space Debris Crisis Paul B
    Journal of Air Law and Commerce Volume 83 | Issue 3 Article 2 2018 Solving the Space Debris Crisis Paul B. Larsen Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc Part of the Air and Space Law Commons Recommended Citation Paul B. Larsen, Solving the Space Debris Crisis, 83 J. Air L. & Com. 475 (2018) https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol83/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Air Law and Commerce by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. SOLVING THE SPACE DEBRIS CRISIS PAUL B. LARSEN* ABSTRACT Space debris is a growing public safety problem. As described by the Kessler Syndrome,1 the increasing accumulation of debris will soon hinder and eventually preclude access to outer space unless the trend is swiftly reversed. The Inter-Agency Space Deb- ris Coordination Committee’s (IADC) Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines, as adopted by the United Nations (UN) Committee for the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS), are voluntary but are enforced as mandatory regulations by major space pow- ers; however, the guidelines only apply to new debris. The Euro- pean Space Agency’s (ESA) 2017 Space Debris Conference concluded that existing space debris guidelines are inadequate and must be further strengthened in order to successfully con- trol space debris.2 * The author taught air and space law for more than forty years respectively at Southern Methodist University and at Georgetown University.
    [Show full text]
  • Satellite Systems
    Chapter 18 REST-OF-WORLD (ROW) SATELLITE SYSTEMS For the longest time, space exploration was an exclusive club comprised of only two members, the United States and the Former Soviet Union. That has now changed due to a number of factors, among the more dominant being economics, advanced and improved technologies and national imperatives. Today, the number of nations with space programs has risen to over 40 and will continue to grow as the costs of spacelift and technology continue to decrease. RUSSIAN SATELLITE SYSTEMS The satellite section of the Russian In the post-Soviet era, Russia contin- space program continues to be predomi- ues its efforts to improve both its military nantly government in character, with and commercial space capabilities. most satellites dedicated either to civil/ These enhancements encompass both military applications (such as communi- orbital assets and ground-based space cations and meteorology) or exclusive support facilities. Russia has done some military missions (such as reconnaissance restructuring of its operating principles and targeting). A large portion of the regarding space. While these efforts have Russian space program is kept running by attempted not to detract from space-based launch services, boosters and launch support to military missions, economic sites, paid for by foreign commercial issues and costs have lead to a lowering companies. of Russian space-based capabilities in The most obvious change in Russian both orbital assets and ground station space activity in recent years has been the capabilities. decrease in space launches and corre- The influence of Glasnost on Russia's sponding payloads. Many of these space programs has been significant, but launches are for foreign payloads, not public announcements regarding space Russian.
    [Show full text]
  • Highlights in Space 2010
    International Astronautical Federation Committee on Space Research International Institute of Space Law 94 bis, Avenue de Suffren c/o CNES 94 bis, Avenue de Suffren UNITED NATIONS 75015 Paris, France 2 place Maurice Quentin 75015 Paris, France Tel: +33 1 45 67 42 60 Fax: +33 1 42 73 21 20 Tel. + 33 1 44 76 75 10 E-mail: : [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Fax. + 33 1 44 76 74 37 URL: www.iislweb.com OFFICE FOR OUTER SPACE AFFAIRS URL: www.iafastro.com E-mail: [email protected] URL : http://cosparhq.cnes.fr Highlights in Space 2010 Prepared in cooperation with the International Astronautical Federation, the Committee on Space Research and the International Institute of Space Law The United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs is responsible for promoting international cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space and assisting developing countries in using space science and technology. United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs P. O. Box 500, 1400 Vienna, Austria Tel: (+43-1) 26060-4950 Fax: (+43-1) 26060-5830 E-mail: [email protected] URL: www.unoosa.org United Nations publication Printed in Austria USD 15 Sales No. E.11.I.3 ISBN 978-92-1-101236-1 ST/SPACE/57 *1180239* V.11-80239—January 2011—775 UNITED NATIONS OFFICE FOR OUTER SPACE AFFAIRS UNITED NATIONS OFFICE AT VIENNA Highlights in Space 2010 Prepared in cooperation with the International Astronautical Federation, the Committee on Space Research and the International Institute of Space Law Progress in space science, technology and applications, international cooperation and space law UNITED NATIONS New York, 2011 UniTEd NationS PUblication Sales no.
    [Show full text]
  • Orbital Debris: a Chronology
    NASA/TP-1999-208856 January 1999 Orbital Debris: A Chronology David S. F. Portree Houston, Texas Joseph P. Loftus, Jr Lwldon B. Johnson Space Center Houston, Texas David S. F. Portree is a freelance writer working in Houston_ Texas Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................ iv Preface ........................................................................................................................... v Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................... vii Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................ ix The Chronology ............................................................................................................. 1 1961 ......................................................................................................................... 4 1962 ......................................................................................................................... 5 963 ......................................................................................................................... 5 964 ......................................................................................................................... 6 965 ......................................................................................................................... 6 966 ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • International Space Station Environmental Control and Life Support System Status: 2009 - 2010
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20100021979 2019-08-30T09:51:08+00:00Z International Space Station Environmental Control and Life Support System Status: 2009 - 2010 David E. Williams' and Jason R. DakeZ NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas, 77058 and Gregory J. Gentry3 Boeing Space Exploration — International Space Station, Houston, Texas, 77058 The International Space Station (ISS) Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLS) system includes regenerative and non -regenerative technologies that provide the basic life support functions to support the crew, while maintaining a safe and habitable shirtsleeve environment. This paper provides a summary of the U.S. ECLS system activities over the past year, covering the period of time between March 2009 and February 2010. The ISS continued permanent crew operations, with the start of Phase 3 of the ISS Assembly Sequence and an increase of the ISS crew size from three to six. Work continues on the last of the Phase 3 pressurized elements. I. Introduction HE ISS is a global partnership of 15 nations representing six space age ncies, including the United States TNational Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Russian Space Agency (Roscosmos), European Space Agency (ESA), Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), Canadian Space Agency (CSA), and Italian Space Agency (ASI). The participating countries are Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy; Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United States, and the United Kingdom. The ISS operates at an altitude of approximately 310 to 350 km (170 to 190 nautical miles) and an inclination of 51.6° to the equator. The International Space Station Program is divided into three phases.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Radiation Measurements by Btn and R3dr Instruments Outside International Space Station
    Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. Space Research and Technology Institute. Aerospace Research in Bulgaria. 32, 2020, Sofia DOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/arb.v32.e01 COMPARISON OF RADIATION MEASUREMENTS BY BTN AND R3DR INSTRUMENTS OUTSIDE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION Tsvetan Dachev1, Jordanka Semkova1, Borislav Tomov1, Yury Matviichuk1, Plamen Dimitrov1, Nikolay Bankov1, Rositza Koleva1, Malina Jordanova1, Maxim Litvak2, Igor Mitrofanov2, Dmitry Golovin2 Alexander Kozyrev2, Alexey Malakhov2, Maxim Mokrousov2, Anton Sanin2, Vladislav Tretyakov2, Viacheslav Shurshakov3, Victor Benghin3, Olga Ivanova3 1Space Research and Technology Institute – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences 2Space Research Institute – Russian Academy of Sciences 3Institute of Bio-medical problems, Moscow, Russia Keywords: Radiation Measurements, International Space Station Abstract The article presents the first attempt to analyze data obtained simultaneously by the Russian BTN and Bulgarian R3DR instruments, flown in 2010 on the “Zvezda” module of the International space station (ISS). Both instruments have well established sensitivity against gamma radiation. This was verified in space, when the Russian spacecraft Soyuz TMA-16, initially docked to the aft port of the “Zvezda” module, was relocated to the zenith-facing port of the “Poisk” module on January 21, 2010. This maneuver brings a gamma ray source in the angle of view of both the BTN and R3DR instruments. The comparison of the data, after the relocation, for the first channels of the spectrometers reveals that they are elevated. This situation continues till March 18, 2010 when Soyuz TMA-16 spacecraft was undocked from the ISS and landed. The final part of the paper, investigate the decrease of the R3DR instrument dose rates in the region of the South Atlantic anomaly (SAA), generated by the additional mass of the Soyuz TMA-16 spacecraft.
    [Show full text]
  • Rule Number 7 of the 365 Days of Astronomy Podcast States The
    Hi this is Steve Nerlich from Cheap Astronomy www.cheapastro.com and this is Finishing the ISS. The clock is ticking with only five more Space Shuttle launches confirmed to complete – at least the USA’s contribution to – the International Space Station. This podcast is about how all that will happen – and what happens then. Commenced in 1998, the construction of the ISS was sadly interrupted with the destruction of the Columbia orbiter in mission STS 107 in February 2003 – followed by a subsequent two year hiatus while the Space Shuttle program was reconfigured. Of course the Russians have done their bit keeping the station manned and flying before and after the Columbia disaster – as well as contributing some important components, including the original Zarya module that started it all, the Zvezda, the Pirs – and just a couple of weeks ago, on the 12th of November 2009, the Poisk. Other international players have also got their modules in place now, with the European Columbus module delivered in February 2008 and the Japanese Kibo module in May 2008. As of today, the ISS is 108 by 73 by 20 metres and weighs over 300 metric tonnes. It is composed of 10 pressurised modules and a huge Integrated Truss Structure supporting 16 large solar arrays in addition to four smaller arrays on some of the Russian modules. With all the planned solar arrays now in place the ISS has become brighter than Venus and replaces it as the second brightest object in the night sky after the Moon. The recent launch of STS 129 in November 2009 represents the 31st visit of a space shuttle to the ISS and brings up two Express Logistics Carriers – Express is an acronym for Expedite the Processing of Experiments to the Space Station.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017-2018 New Music Festival
    3 events I 10 world premieres I 55 performers Scott Wheeler, Composer-in Residence Lisa Leonard, Director January 19- January 21, 2018 SPOTLIGHT I:YOUNG COMPOSERS Friday, January 19 at 7:30 p.m. Étude électronique (2018) Matthew Carlton World Premiere (b. 1992) Fanfare for Duane for Brass Quintet (2016) Trevor Mansell World Premiere (b. 1996) Alexander Ramazanov, Abigail Rowland, trumpet Shaun Murray, French horn Nolan Carbin, trombone Helgi Hauksson, bass trombone Mitología de las Aguas Leo Brouwer I. Nacimiento del Amazonas (b.1939) II. El lago escondido de los Mayas III. El Salto del Angel IV. El Güije (duende) de los ríos de Cuba Emilio Rutllant, flute Sam Desmet, guitar Piano Sonata No.1 “Passato di Gloria” (2016) Alfredo Cabrera I. Scherzo Scuro – Cala l’oscurita – Scherzo Scuro (b. 1996) II. OmbrainPartenza III. La Rigidità di Movimento Matthew Calderon, piano INTERMISSION Three Selections from The Gardens (2017) Anthony Trujillo I. The Gardens (b. 1995) III. The Guardian IV. The Offering Teresa Villalobos, flute; Jonathan Hearn, oboe Christopher Foss, bassoon Isaac Fernandez & Tyler Flynt, percussion Darren Matias, piano Katherine Baloff & Yordan Tenev, violins William Ford-Smith, viola Elizabeth Lee, cello; Yu-Chen Yang, bass Reminiscent Waters (2016) Matthew Carlton Sodienye Finebone, tuba Kristine Mezines, piano Five Variations on a Gregorian Chant (2016) Trevor Mansell World Premiere Guzal Isametdinova, piano Homage to Scott Joplin (2017) Trevor Mansell World Premiere Darren Matias, piano Kartoffel Tondichtung für Solo Viola und Reciter (2016) Commisssioned by Miguel Sonnak Alfredo Cabrera Text: Joseph Stroud Kayla Williams, viola Alfredo Cabrera, reciter Six Variations on Arirang (2017) Trevor Mansell Trevor Mansell, oboe John Issac Roles, bassoon Darren Matias, piano Lucidity (2016) Matthew Carlton Guzal Isametdinova, piano; Joshua Cessna, celeste; Darren Matias, electric organ MASTER CLASS with SCOTT WHEELER Saturday, January 20 at 1:00 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • A Call for a New Human Missions Cost Model
    A Call For A New Human Missions Cost Model NASA 2019 Cost and Schedule Analysis Symposium NASA Johnson Space Center, August 13-15, 2019 Joseph Hamaker, PhD Christian Smart, PhD Galorath Human Missions Cost Model Advocates Dr. Joseph Hamaker Dr. Christian Smart Director, NASA and DoD Programs Chief Scientist • Former Director for Cost Analytics • Founding Director of the Cost and Parametric Estimating for the Analysis Division at NASA U.S. Missile Defense Agency Headquarters • Oversaw development of the • Originator of NASA’s NAFCOM NASA/Air Force Cost Model cost model, the NASA QuickCost (NAFCOM) Model, the NASA Cost Analysis • Provides subject matter expertise to Data Requirement and the NASA NASA Headquarters, DARPA, and ONCE database Space Development Agency • Recognized expert on parametrics 2 Agenda Historical human space projects Why consider a new Human Missions Cost Model Database for a Human Missions Cost Model • NASA has over 50 years of Human Space Missions experience • NASA’s International Partners have accomplished additional projects . • There are around 70 projects that can provide cost and schedule data • This talk will explore how that data might be assembled to form the basis for a Human Missions Cost Model WHY A NEW HUMAN MISSIONS COST MODEL? NASA’s Artemis Program plans to Artemis needs cost and schedule land humans on the moon by 2024 estimates Lots of projects: Lunar Gateway, Existing tools have some Orion, landers, SLS, commercially applicability but it seems obvious provided elements (which we may (to us) that a dedicated HMCM is want to independently estimate) needed Some of these elements have And this can be done—all we ongoing cost trajectories (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Small Satellites and Space Debris Mitigation
    chapter 11 Small Satellites and Space Debris Mitigation Cordula Steinkogler* i Introduction Almost six decades of spaceflight have left a large quantity of debris in outer space. Due to the continuous increase in space activities, the amount of space debris is constantly growing. While in 2005 the total mass of catalogued objects in Earth orbit was an estimated 5,000 tons, this number had risen to approxi- mately 6,000 tons by 2010 and amounts to over 6,600 tons today.1 At present, approximately 17,000 space objects with sizes ranging from a few centimetres to several meters are officially catalogued.2 Of these, however, only approximately * The author would like to thank Prof Otto Koudelka (Graz University of Technology), Dr Manuel Metz (German Aerospace Center), Attila Matas (ITU) and Vladimir Agapov (Russian Academy of Sciences) for the valuable advice and useful material they provided on technical matters. 1 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, ‘Monthly Effective Mass of Objects in Earth Orbit by Region’ (Orbital Debris Quarterly News, January 2015) <http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa .gov/newsletter/newsletter.html>. 2 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, ‘Satellite Box Score’ (Orbital Debris Quarterly News, January 2015) <http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/newsletter/newsletter.html>. See also United States Strategic Command, ‘Satellite Situation Report’ <https://www.space-track.org> (as of 6 June 2015). Note that according to the esa space debris risk assessment model esa MASTER 2009 the current number of space objects larger than 10 cm is approximately 29,000. See Institute of Aerospace Systems – Technische Universität Braunschweig, Maintenance of the esa MASTER Model – Final Report (European Space Agency 2011) 336.
    [Show full text]