DOCSLIB.ORG

Rule-Based Graph Theory to Enable Exploration of the Space System Architecture Design Space

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rule-Based Graph Theory to Enable Exploration of the Space System Architecture Design Space RULE-BASED GRAPH THEORY TO ENABLE EXPLORATION OF THE SPACE SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE DESIGN SPACE A Dissertation Presented to The Academic Faculty By Dale Curtis Arney In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in Aerospace Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology August 2012 Copyright © 2012 by Dale Arney RULE-BASED GRAPH THEORY TO ENABLE EXPLORATION OF THE SPACE SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE DESIGN SPACE Approved by: Dr. Alan W. Wilhite, Chairman Dr. Ryan P. Russell School of Aerospace Engineering School of Aerospace Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Georgia Institute of Technology Dr. Trina M. Chytka Dr. Vitali V. Volovoi Space Mission Analysis Branch School of Aerospace Engineering NASA Langley Research Center Georgia Institute of Technology Dr. Daniel P. Schrage School of Aerospace Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Date Approved: June 27, 2012 To my wife Jennifer Two roads diverged in a wood, And apparently, we took the longer one. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... vi LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... xiii NOMENCLATURE ........................................................................................................ xv SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... xix CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1 1.1. Motivation ................................................................................................................ 1 1.2. Research Goals and Objectives ................................................................................ 9 1.3. Problem Statement ................................................................................................. 11 1.4. Dissertation Overview ........................................................................................... 18 CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................... 20 2.1 Space System Architecture Modeling ..................................................................... 20 2.1.1. EXAMINE .................................................................................................. 20 2.1.2. Object Process Network (OPN) .................................................................. 23 2.1.3. Logistics Network ....................................................................................... 26 2.1.4. Overview ..................................................................................................... 27 2.2. Graph Theory ......................................................................................................... 27 2.3. Performance Modeling........................................................................................... 32 2.4. Cost Estimation ...................................................................................................... 36 2.5. Architecture Optimization Methods ...................................................................... 39 2.6. System Architecture Evaluation Criteria ............................................................... 44 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 51 3.1. Applying Graph Theory to a Space System Architecture ...................................... 51 3.2. Graph Generation Model ....................................................................................... 53 3.3. Design Space Exploration ...................................................................................... 59 3.3.1. System Map Overview ................................................................................ 59 3.3.2. Rule-Based Graph Traversal ....................................................................... 62 3.3.3. System Hierarchy ........................................................................................ 66 3.4.2. System Modeling ........................................................................................ 70 iii 3.5. Exploration of the Space System Architecture Design Space ............................... 74 3.5.1. Optimization Method .................................................................................. 75 3.5.2. Selection Criterion ...................................................................................... 78 CHAPTER 4 VALIDATION ......................................................................................... 80 4.1. Lunar Mission Design Space ................................................................................. 80 4.2. Architecture Definition .......................................................................................... 81 4.3. Analysis Results and Validation ............................................................................ 88 4.3.1. Analysis Results .......................................................................................... 89 4.3.2. Validation .................................................................................................... 98 CHAPTER 5 FLEXIBLE PATH DESIGN SPACE EXPLORATION ................... 101 5.1. Flexible Path Design Space ................................................................................. 101 5.1.1. System Architecture Design Space Representation .................................. 102 5.1.2. Baseline System Architectures ................................................................. 106 5.2. Design Space Exploration Results ....................................................................... 110 5.2.1. GEO System Architecture Results ............................................................ 111 5.2.2. Lunar System Architecture Results .......................................................... 116 5.2.3. NEO System Architecture Results ............................................................ 121 5.2.4. Evolutionary Exploration Program ........................................................... 125 5.3. Design Space Implications ................................................................................... 128 5.3.1. Launch Vehicle Selection ......................................................................... 128 5.3.2. Propellant Depots and On-Orbit Refueling ............................................... 137 5.3.3. Aggregation Strategy ................................................................................ 144 5.3.4. Comparison between IMLEO and RNPV................................................. 150 5.3.5. Summary ................................................................................................... 153 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK .......................................... 155 6.1. Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 155 6.2. Future Work ......................................................................................................... 158 APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................ 162 APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................ 168 APPENDIX C ................................................................................................................ 175 C.1. Launch Vehicles .................................................................................................. 175 iv C.2. Propellant Depot .................................................................................................. 187 C.3. Aggregation Strategy........................................................................................... 191 APPENDIX D ................................................................................................................ 200 D.1. Crew .................................................................................................................... 200 D.2. Crew Capsule ...................................................................................................... 200 D.3. Lunar Descent Stage ........................................................................................... 203 D.4. Lunar Ascent Stage ............................................................................................. 205 D.5. Launch Vehicle ................................................................................................... 207 D.6. Propulsive Stage .................................................................................................. 208 D.7. Propellant Depot ................................................................................................. 211 D.8. Surface Habitat .................................................................................................... 212 D.9. In-Space Habitat .................................................................................................. 213 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 215 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Notional Cost, Freedom, and Knowledge in the Design Process [17],[18],[19] . 4 Figure 2: Design Reference Architecture 5.0 Trade Tree [16] ..........................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • OUFTI-1 Environmental Impact Assessment
    Date: 11/02/2016 Issue: 1 Rev: 1 Page: 1 of 11 OUFTI-1 Environmental Impact Assessment Reference 3_OUF_ENV_IMPACT_1.0 Issue/Rev Issue 1 Rev 0 Date 11/02/2016 Distribution OUFTI-1 team OUFTI-1 Environmental Impact Assessment Date: 11/02/2016 Issue: 1 Rev: 1 Page: 2 of 11 AUTHORS Name Email Telephone X. Werner [email protected] +32 4 366 37 38 S. De Dijcker [email protected] +32 4 366 37 38 RECORD OF REVISIONS Iss/Rev Date Author Section/page Change description 1/0 11/02/2016 X.Werner, All Initial issue S. De Dijcker Copyright University of Liège [2016]. OUFTI-1 Environmental Impact Assessment Date: 11/02/2016 Issue: 1 Rev: 1 Page: 3 of 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Authors ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Record of revisions ..................................................................................................................... 2 1. Activities and Objectives ................................................................................................... 4 1.1. Project description ....................................................................................................... 4 1.2. Soyuz launch vehicle ................................................................................................... 5 1.3. Arianespace ................................................................................................................. 7 1.4. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Design for Demise Analysis for Launch Vehicles
    A first design for demise analysis for launch vehicles Henrik Simon, Stijn Lemmens Space debris: Inactive, manmade objects in space Source: ESA Overview Introduction Fundamentals Modelling approach Results and discussion Summary and outlook What is the motivation and task? INTRODUCTION Motivation . Mitigation: Prevention of creation and limitation of long-term presence . Guidelines: LEO removal within 25 years . LEO removal within 25 years after mission end . Casualty risk limit for re-entry: 1 in 10,000 Rising altitude Decay & re-entry above 2000 km Source: NASA Source: NASA Solution: Design for demise Source: ESA Scope of the thesis . Typical design of upper stages . General Risk assessment . Design for demise solutions to reduce the risk ? ? ? Risk A Risk B Risk C Source: CNES How do we assess the risk and simulate the re-entry? FUNDAMENTALS Fundamentals: Ground risk assessment Ah = + 2 Ai � ℎ = =1 � Source: NASA Source: NASA 3.5 m 5.0 m 2 2 ≈ ≈ Fundamentals: Re-entry simulation tools SCARAB: Spacecraft-oriented approach . CAD-like modelling . 6 DoF flight dynamics . Break-up / fragmentation computed How does a rocket upper stage look like? MODELLING Modelling approach . Research on typical design: . Elongated . Platform . Solid Rocket Motor . Lack of information: . Create common intersection . Deliberately stay top-level and only compare effects Modelling approach Modelling approach 12 Length [m] 9 7 5 3 2 150 300 500 700 800 1500 2200 Mass [kg] How much is the risk and how can we reduce it? SIMULATIONS Example of SCARAB re-entry simulation 6x Casualty risk of all reference cases Typical survivors Smaller Smaller fragments fragments Pressure tanks Pressure tanks Main tank Engine Main structure + tanks Design for Demise .
    [Show full text]
  • Enabling Interstellar Probe
    This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit: http://www.elsevier.com/copyright Author's personal copy Acta Astronautica 68 (2011) 790–801 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Acta Astronautica journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/actaastro Enabling interstellar probe Ralph L. McNutt Jr.a,n, Robert F. Wimmer-Schweingruber b,1, the International Interstellar Probe Team a The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, 11100 Johns Hopkins Road, M/S MP3-E128, Laurel, MD 20723, USA b Institut fuer Experimentelle und Angewandte Physik, University of Kiel, Leibnizstrasse 11, D-24118 Kiel, Germany article info abstract Article history: The scientific community has advocated a scientific probe to the interstellar medium for Received 15 February 2010 over 30 years. While the Voyager spacecraft have passed through the termination shock Received in revised form of the solar wind, they have limited lifetimes as their radioisotope power supplies 16 June 2010 decay. It remains unclear whether they can reach the heliopause, the boundary between Accepted 2 July 2010 shocked solar wind and interstellar plasmas, and, in any case, they will not reach the Available online 17 August 2010 undisturbed interstellar medium.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Paper
    GIOVE-A’S FREGAT DISPOSAL ASSESSMENT D. Navarro-Reyes(1), R. Zandbergen(2), D. Escobar(3) (1)ESA/ESTEC, Keplerlaan 1, 2200 AG Noordwijk, The Netherlands, Email: [email protected] (2) ESA/ESOC, Robert-Bosch-Str. 5, D-64293 Darmstadt, Germany, Email: [email protected] (3)GMV at ESOC, ESA/ESOC Robert-Bosch-Str. 5, D-64293 Darmstadt, Germany, Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT dedicated stations deployed around the world. The Galileo constellation is defined as a Walker 27/3/1 and is composed of 3 equally-spaced orbital planes with a Galileo will be Europe’s own global navigation satellite nominal inclination of 56 degrees and a semi-major axis system, providing a highly accurate, guaranteed global of 29,600 km. Each plane will contain nine equally- positioning service under civilian control. Following the spaced satellites plus a spare satellite. The first launches approval of Galileo in 1999, a demonstration element are foreseen in 2010, with the full constellation was added – the Galileo System Test Bed (GSTB) with deployed by end 2013. the GIOVE-A and GIOVE-B satellites – to allow early experimentation with the navigation signals and services Following the approval of Galileo in 1999, a before committing to the final constellation design. demonstration element was added – the Galileo System Test Bed (GSTB) with the GIOVE-A and GIOVE-B GIOVE-A (launched on 28 Dec 2005) and GIOVE-B satellites, whose mission was: (launched on 26 April 2008) were injected in the Galileo operational orbit (semi-major axis 29600 km, x To secure use of the frequencies allocated by the circular orbit, inclination 56 degrees) by direct injection International Telecommunications Union (ITU) for with Soyuz/FREGAT launch vehicle.
    [Show full text]
  • Please Type Your Paper Title Here In
    Estimating the Reliability of a Soyuz Spacecraft Mission Michael G. Lutomskia*, Steven J. Farnham IIb, and Warren C. Grantb aNASA-JSC, Houston, TX – [email protected] bARES Corporation, Houston, TX Abstract: Once the US Space Shuttle retires in 2010, the Russian Soyuz Launcher and Soyuz Spacecraft will comprise the only means for crew transportation to and from the International Space Station (ISS). The U.S. Government and NASA have contracted for crew transportation services to the ISS with Russia. The resulting implications for the US space program including issues such as astronaut safety must be carefully considered. Are the astronauts and cosmonauts safer on the Soyuz than the Space Shuttle system? Is the Soyuz launch system more robust than the Space Shuttle? Is it safer to continue to fly the 30 year old Shuttle fleet for crew transportation and cargo resupply than the Soyuz? Should we extend the life of the Shuttle Program? How does the development of the Orion/Ares crew transportation system affect these decisions? The Soyuz launcher has been in operation for over 40 years. There have been only two loss of life incidents and two loss of mission incidents. Given that the most recent incident took place in 1983, how do we determine current reliability of the system? Do failures of unmanned Soyuz rockets impact the reliability of the currently operational man-rated launcher? Does the Soyuz exhibit characteristics that demonstrate reliability growth and how would that be reflected in future estimates of success? NASA’s next manned rocket and spacecraft development project is currently underway.
    [Show full text]
  • The Annual Compendium of Commercial Space Transportation: 2017
    Federal Aviation Administration The Annual Compendium of Commercial Space Transportation: 2017 January 2017 Annual Compendium of Commercial Space Transportation: 2017 i Contents About the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation The Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation (FAA AST) licenses and regulates U.S. commercial space launch and reentry activity, as well as the operation of non-federal launch and reentry sites, as authorized by Executive Order 12465 and Title 51 United States Code, Subtitle V, Chapter 509 (formerly the Commercial Space Launch Act). FAA AST’s mission is to ensure public health and safety and the safety of property while protecting the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States during commercial launch and reentry operations. In addition, FAA AST is directed to encourage, facilitate, and promote commercial space launches and reentries. Additional information concerning commercial space transportation can be found on FAA AST’s website: http://www.faa.gov/go/ast Cover art: Phil Smith, The Tauri Group (2017) Publication produced for FAA AST by The Tauri Group under contract. NOTICE Use of trade names or names of manufacturers in this document does not constitute an official endorsement of such products or manufacturers, either expressed or implied, by the Federal Aviation Administration. ii Annual Compendium of Commercial Space Transportation: 2017 GENERAL CONTENTS Executive Summary 1 Introduction 5 Launch Vehicles 9 Launch and Reentry Sites 21 Payloads 35 2016 Launch Events 39 2017 Annual Commercial Space Transportation Forecast 45 Space Transportation Law and Policy 83 Appendices 89 Orbital Launch Vehicle Fact Sheets 100 iii Contents DETAILED CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .
    [Show full text]
  • SOYUZ THROUGH the AGES the R-7 Rocket That Led to the Family of Soyuz Vehicles Launching Today Lifted Off for the First Time Onfeb
    RUSSIAN SPACE SOYUZ THROUGH THE AGES The R-7 rocket that led to the family of Soyuz vehicles launching today lifted off for the first time onFeb. 17, 1959. The last launch, on Dec. 27, 2018, was number 1,898. Irene Klotz and Maxim Pyadushkin Vostochny Cosmodrome anufactured by the Progress Rocket Space Center in Sama- Evolution of Soyuz-Family Launch Vehicles ra, Russia, the medium-lift expendable booster originally was used for Soviet-era human space missions and later became the R-7 Soyuz Soyuz-L workhorse for the country’s civilian and military space programs. M 1957 First launch of the ICBM (SS-6 1966-76 (32 launches, 1970-71 (three launches, Sapwood) that served as a basis for including 30 successful, all successful, The first rocket officially named Soyuz was launched in Soviet/Russian launch vehicles from Baikonur) from Baikonur) 1966 and has since flown 1,050 times, of which 1,023 were including the Soyuz family successful. Production of Soyuz rockets peaked in the early Soyuz 1980s at about 60 vehicles per year. Medium-Class Launch Vehicle Russia began offering Soyuz launch services internationally in the mid-1980s through Glavkosmos, a commercial entity set up to sell Soviet rocket and space technologies. Manufacturer: Progress Rocket Space Soyuz-U/-U2 Soyuz-M Center, Samara, Russia In 1996, Russia created Starsem, a joint venture (35% ArianeGroup, 25% Roscosmos, 25% RKTs Progress, 15% 1991 Breakup of the 1973-2017 1971-76 (eight launches, Soviet Union, (859 launches, including all successful, from Plesetsk) Dimensions Arianespace) that had exclusive rights to provide commercial launch services on Soyuz launch vehicles.
    [Show full text]
  • Here the Italian Space Agency ASI Holds 30% of the Shares and the Rest Is the Property of Avio Spa
    Goliat the first Romanian satellite is approaching the launch date- less than 6 months since Romania will have its first space mission At a recent press conference, Jean-Yves Le Gall the director of ArianeSpace, shared with the public the plans of the company for 2011. Like for the last year we will have a busy schedule with not less than 12 launches (double than for 2010). As before the central point will be the veteran Ariane 5 rocket, but part of the new managerial strategy, ArianeSpace will look also for the segment of medium and small launchers meeting the demands of the worldwide customers. It is hoped that some part of the operations will be transferred gradually to these niches and thus to be over passed the record set last year when approximately 60% of the world GEO telecom satellites have been launched by ArianeSpace. The perspectives are very good with another 12 additional GEO transfer contracts being signed in 2010 (about 63% from the international commercial market). The technical procedures which make sure these flights are accomplished are also at the highest standards (proved by the last 3 launches of 2010 separated by one month each i.e. October, November and December) and the Ariane 5 rocket, because of the proven reliability has became today the preferred of the commercial launches (since December 2002 when the version ECA has been put into operation and when the inaugural flight ended by loosing the 2 satellite transported onboard-Stentor and Hot Bird 7- the rocket has an impressive record of 36 successful flights).
    [Show full text]
  • Failures in Spacecraft Systems: an Analysis from The
    FAILURES IN SPACECRAFT SYSTEMS: AN ANALYSIS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF DECISION MAKING A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Purdue University by Vikranth R. Kattakuri In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering August 2019 Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana ii THE PURDUE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL STATEMENT OF THESIS APPROVAL Dr. Jitesh H. Panchal, Chair School of Mechanical Engineering Dr. Ilias Bilionis School of Mechanical Engineering Dr. William Crossley School of Aeronautics and Astronautics Approved by: Dr. Jay P. Gore Associate Head of Graduate Studies iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am extremely grateful to my advisor Prof. Jitesh Panchal for his patient guidance throughout the two years of my studies. I am indebted to him for considering me to be a part of his research group and for providing this opportunity to work in the fields of systems engineering and mechanical design for a period of 2 years. Being a research and teaching assistant under him had been a rewarding experience. Without his valuable insights, this work would not only have been possible, but also inconceivable. I would like to thank my co-advisor Prof. Ilias Bilionis for his valuable inputs, timely guidance and extremely engaging research meetings. I thank my committee member, Prof. William Crossley for his interest in my work. I had a great opportunity to attend all three courses taught by my committee members and they are the best among all the courses I had at Purdue. I would like to thank my mentors Dr. Jagannath Raju of Systemantics India Pri- vate Limited and Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • U S E R M a N U
    •Introduction 6/04/01 11:09 Page 1 SOYUZ USER’ S MANUAL ST-GTD-SUM-01 - ISSUE 3 - REVISION 0 - APRIL 2001 © Starsem 2001. All rights reserved. •Introduction 6/04/01 11:09 Page 2 •Introduction 6/04/01 11:09 Page 3 SOYUZ USER’S MANUAL ST-GTD-SUM-01 ISSUE 3, REVISION 0 APRIL 2001 FOREWORD Starsem is a Russian-European joint venture founded in 1996 that is charged with the commercialization of launch services using the Soyuz launch vehicle, the most frequently launched rocket in the world and the only manned vehicle offered for commercial space launches. Starsem headquarters are located in Paris, France and the Soyuz is launched from the Baikonour Cosmodrome in the Republic of Kazakhstan. Starsem is a partnership with 50% European and 50% Russian ownership. Its shareholders are the European Aeronautic, Defence, and Space Company, EADS (35%), Arianespace (15%), the Russian Aeronautics and Space Agency, Rosaviacosmos (25%), and the Samara Space Center, TsSKB-Progress (25%). Starsem is the sole organization entrusted to finance, market, and conduct the commercial sale of the Soyuz launch vehicle family, including future upgrades such as the Soyuz/ST. Page3 •Introduction 6/04/01 11:09 Page 4 SOYUZ USER’S MANUAL ST-GTD-SUM-01 ISSUE 3, REVISION 0 APRIL 2001 REVISION CONTROL SHEET Revision Date Revision No. Change Description 1996 Issue 1, Revision 0 New issue June 1997 Issue 2, Revision 0 Complete update April 2001 Issue 3, Revision 0 Complete update ST-GTD-SUM-01 General modifications that reflect successful flights in 1999-2000 and Starsem’s future development plans.
    [Show full text]
  • Space Activities 2018
    Space Activities in 2018 Jonathan McDowell [email protected] 2019 Feb 20 Rev 1.4 Preface In this paper I present some statistics characterizing astronautical activity in calendar year 2018. In the 2014 edition of this review, I described my methodological approach and some issues of definitional ambguity; that discussion is not repeated here, and it is assumed that the reader has consulted the earlier document, available at http://planet4589.org/space/papers/space14.pdf (This paper may be found as space18.pdf at the same location). Orbital Launch Attempts During 2018 there were 114 orbital launch attempts, with 112 reaching orbit. Table 1: Orbital Launch Attempts 2009-2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Average USA 19.0 24 20 22 30 31 Russia 30.2 32 26 17 19 17 China 14.8 16 19 22 18 39 Europe 11 12 11 11 11 Japan 4 4 4 7 6 India 4 5 7 5 7 Israel 1 0 1 0 0 N Korea 0 0 1 0 0 S Korea 0 0 0 0 0 Iran 0 1 0 1 0 New Zealand 0 0 0 0 3 Other 9 10 13 13 16 Total 79.0 92 87 85 91 114 The Arianespace-managed Soyuz launches from French Guiana are counted as European. Electron is licensed in the USA but launched from New Zealand territory. However, in late 2018 New Zealand registered the upper stages from the Jan 2018 Electron launch with the UN. Based on this, in rev 1.4 of this document I am changing Electron to count as a New Zealand launch vehicle.
    [Show full text]
  • The Physics of Space Security a Reference Manual
    THE PHYSICS The Physics of OF S P Space Security ACE SECURITY A Reference Manual David Wright, Laura Grego, and Lisbeth Gronlund WRIGHT , GREGO , AND GRONLUND RECONSIDERING THE RULES OF SPACE PROJECT RECONSIDERING THE RULES OF SPACE PROJECT 222671 00i-088_Front Matter.qxd 9/21/12 9:48 AM Page ii 222671 00i-088_Front Matter.qxd 9/21/12 9:48 AM Page iii The Physics of Space Security a reference manual David Wright, Laura Grego, and Lisbeth Gronlund 222671 00i-088_Front Matter.qxd 9/21/12 9:48 AM Page iv © 2005 by David Wright, Laura Grego, and Lisbeth Gronlund All rights reserved. ISBN#: 0-87724-047-7 The views expressed in this volume are those held by each contributor and are not necessarily those of the Officers and Fellows of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Please direct inquiries to: American Academy of Arts and Sciences 136 Irving Street Cambridge, MA 02138-1996 Telephone: (617) 576-5000 Fax: (617) 576-5050 Email: [email protected] Visit our website at www.amacad.org or Union of Concerned Scientists Two Brattle Square Cambridge, MA 02138-3780 Telephone: (617) 547-5552 Fax: (617) 864-9405 www.ucsusa.org Cover photo: Space Station over the Ionian Sea © NASA 222671 00i-088_Front Matter.qxd 9/21/12 9:48 AM Page v Contents xi PREFACE 1 SECTION 1 Introduction 5 SECTION 2 Policy-Relevant Implications 13 SECTION 3 Technical Implications and General Conclusions 19 SECTION 4 The Basics of Satellite Orbits 29 SECTION 5 Types of Orbits, or Why Satellites Are Where They Are 49 SECTION 6 Maneuvering in Space 69 SECTION 7 Implications of
    [Show full text]