DOCSLIB.ORG

Future Spacecraft Propulsion Systems Enabling Technologies for Space Exploration (Second Edition) Paul A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Future Spacecraft Propulsion Systems Enabling Technologies for Space Exploration (Second Edition) Paul A Future Spacecraft Propulsion Systems Enabling Technologies for Space Exploration (Second Edition) Paul A. Czysz and Claudio Bruno Future Spacecraft Propulsion Systems Enabling Technologies for Space Exploration (Second Edition) Published in association with Praxis Publishing Chichester, UK Professor Paul A. Czysz Oliver L. Parks Endowed Chair in Aerospace Engineering Parks College of Engineering and Aviation St Louis University St Louis Missouri USA Professor Claudio Bruno Dipartimento di Meccanica e Aeronautica Universita` degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza Rome Italy SPRINGER–PRAXIS BOOKS IN ASTRONAUTICAL ENGINEERING SUBJECT ADVISORY EDITOR: John Mason, M.Sc., B.Sc., Ph.D. ISBN 978-3-540-88813-0 Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York Springer is part of Springer-Science + Business Media (springer.com) Library of Congress Control Number: 2008939148 Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside those terms should be sent to the publishers. First Edition published 2006 # Praxis Publishing Ltd, Chichester, UK, 2009 Printed in Germany The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. Cover design: Jim Wilkie Project management: OPS, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK Printed on acid-free paper Contents Preface ............................................. xi List of figures ........................................ xv List of tables ......................................... xxiii Introduction .......................................... 1 1 Overview ......................................... 11 1.1 The challenge .................................. 11 1.1.1 Historical developments ...................... 12 1.2 The challenge of flying to space ...................... 13 1.3 Operational requirements .......................... 15 1.4 Operational space distances, speed, and times ............. 18 1.5 Implied propulsion performance ...................... 23 1.6 Propulsion concepts available for Solar System exploration .... 28 1.7 Bibliography................................... 34 2 Our progress appears to be impeded ....................... 35 2.1 Meeting the challenge. .......................... 35 2.2 Early progress in space. .......................... 36 2.3 Historical analogues .............................. 41 2.4 Evolution of space launchers from ballistic missiles ......... 43 2.5 Conflicts between expendable rockets and reusable airbreathers . 52 2.6 Commercial near-Earth launchers enable the first step ....... 59 2.6.1 On-orbit operations in near-Earth orbit: a necessary second step .............................. 63 vi Contents 2.6.2 Earth–Moon system advantages: the next step to estab- lishing a Solar System presence . .............. 65 2.6.3 The need for nuclear or high-energy space propulsion, to explore the Solar System ..................... 65 2.6.4 The need for very-high-energy space propulsion: expand- ing our knowledge to nearby Galactic space......... 66 2.6.5 The need for light speed–plus propulsion: expanding our knowledge to our Galaxy ..................... 66 2.7 Bibliography .................................. 66 3 Commercial near-Earth space launcher: a perspective ............. 69 3.1 Energy, propellants, and propulsion requirements .......... 73 3.2 Energy requirements to change orbital altitude ............ 75 3.3 Operational concepts anticipated for future missions......... 78 3.4 Configuration concepts ............................ 80 3.5 Takeoff and landing mode.......................... 93 3.6 Available solution space ........................... 97 3.7 Bibliography................................... 103 4 Commercial near-Earth launcher: propulsion................... 105 4.1 Propulsion system alternatives ....................... 106 4.2 Propulsion system characteristics ..................... 108 4.3 Airflow energy entering the engine .................... 109 4.4 Internal flow energy losses.......................... 113 4.5 Spectrum of airbreathing operation .................... 120 4.6 Design space available—interaction of propulsion and materials/ structures..................................... 122 4.7 Major sequence of propulsion cycles ................... 127 4.8 Rocket-derived propulsion.......................... 132 4.9 Airbreathing rocket propulsion....................... 135 4.10 Thermally integrated combined cycle propulsion ........... 138 4.11 Engine thermal integration ......................... 141 4.12 Total system thermal integration ..................... 142 4.13 Thermally integrated enriched air combined cycle propulsion . 147 4.14 Comparison of continuous operation cycles .............. 150 4.15 Conclusions with respect to continuous cycles ............. 156 4.16 Pulse detonation engines ........................... 158 4.16.1 What is a pulse detonation engine?. .............. 158 4.16.2 Pulse detonation engine performance ............. 159 4.17 Conclusions with respect to pulse detonation cycles ......... 165 4.18 Comparison of continuous operation and pulsed cycles ....... 166 4.19 Launcher sizing with different propulsion systems .......... 170 4.20 Structural concept and structural index, ISTR............. 172 4.21 Sizing results for continuous and pulse detonation engines..... 174 4.22 Operational configuration concepts, SSTO and TSTO........ 179 Contents vii 4.23 Emerging propulsion system concepts in development ........ 185 4.24 Aero-spike nozzle ............................... 195 4.25 ORBITEC vortex rocket engine ..................... 196 4.25.1 Vortex hybrid rocket engine (VHRE) ............. 197 4.25.2 Stoichiometric combustion rocket engine (SCORE) .... 199 4.25.3 Cryogenic hybrid rocket engine technology ......... 200 4.26 Bibliography................................... 200 5 Earth orbit on-orbit operations in near-Earth orbit, a necessary second step ............................................ 209 5.1 Energy requirements.............................. 212 5.1.1 Getting to low Earth orbit: energy and propellant require- ments .................................. 212 5.2 Launcher propulsion system characteristics ............... 216 5.2.1 Propellant ratio to deliver propellant to LEO ........ 216 5.2.2 Geostationary orbit satellites sizes and mass......... 220 5.3 Maneuver between LEO and GEO, change in altitude at same orbital inclination ............................... 221 5.3.1 Energy requirements, altitude change ............. 223 5.3.2 Mass ratio required for altitude change ............ 223 5.3.3 Propellant delivery ratio for altitude change ......... 228 5.4 Changes in orbital inclination ....................... 230 5.4.1 Energy requirements for orbital inclination change .... 231 5.4.2 Mass ratio required for orbital inclination change ..... 234 5.4.3 Propellant delivery ratio for orbital inclination change . 237 5.5 Representative space transfer vehicles .................. 240 5.6 Operational considerations ......................... 242 5.6.1 Missions per propellant delivery................. 243 5.6.2 Orbital structures .......................... 244 5.6.3 Orbital constellations ........................ 245 5.6.4 Docking with space facilities and the International Space Station ................................. 247 5.6.5 Emergency rescue vehicle with capability to land within continental United States ..................... 252 5.7 Observations and recommendations.................... 252 5.8 Bibliography................................... 253 6 Earth–Moon system: establishing a Solar System presence ......... 255 6.1 Earth–Moon characteristics ......................... 256 6.2 Requirements to travel to the Moon ................... 259 6.2.1 Sustained operation lunar trajectories ............. 262 6.2.2 Launching from the Moon surface ............... 263 6.3 History ...................................... 268 6.3.1 USSR exploration history .................... 268 6.3.2 USA exploration history...................... 269 viii Contents 6.3.3 India exploration history ..................... 270 6.3.4 Japan exploration history ..................... 270 6.4 Natural versus artificial orbital station environments ........ 270 6.4.1 Prior orbital stations ........................ 271 6.4.2 Artificial orbital station ...................... 271 6.4.3 Natural orbital station ....................... 274 6.5 Moon base functions ............................. 277 6.5.1 Martian analog............................ 277 6.5.2 Lunar exploration .......................... 278 6.5.3 Manufacturing and production site. .............. 280 6.6 Bibliography................................... 280 Patent literature on MagLev ........................ 282 Websites on MagLev ............................. 282 7 Exploration of our Solar System .......................... 283 7.1 Review of our Solar System distances, speeds, and propulsion requirements................................... 283 7.2 Alternative energy sources: nuclear energy . .............. 288 7.3 Limits of chemical propulsion and alternatives
Load more

Recommended publications
  • On-Orbit Propulsion System Performance of ISS Visiting Vehicles
    On-Orbit Propulsion System Performance of ISS Visiting Vehicles Mary Regina M. Martin*, Robert A. Swanson†, and Ulhas P. Kamath‡ The Boeing Company, Houston, TX 77059 and Francisco J. Hernandez§ and Victor Spencer** NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX 77058 The International Space Station (ISS) represents the culmination of over two decades of unprecedented global human endeavors to conceive, design, build and operate a research laboratory in space. Uninterrupted human presence in space since the inception of the ISS has been made possible by an international fleet of space vehicles facilitating crew rotation, delivery of science experiments and replenishment of propellants and supplies. On-orbit propulsion systems on both ISS and Visiting Vehicles are essential to the continuous operation of the ISS. This paper compares the ISS visiting vehicle propulsion systems by providing an overview of key design drivers, operational considerations and performance characteristics. Despite their differences in design, functionality, and purpose, all visiting vehicles must adhere to a common set of interface requirements along with safety and operational requirements. This paper addresses a wide variety of methods for satisfying these requirements and mitigating credible hazards anticipated during the on-orbit life of propulsion systems, as well as the seamless integration necessary for the continued operation of the ISS. Nomenclature ΔT = change in temperature in °C ΔV = change in velocity in m/s F = thrust in kgf (1 kgf = 9.807 N) Isp = specific impulse in seconds K1 = constant derived from the acceptance test data for each type of thruster K2 = constant derived from the acceptance test data for each type of thruster m = mass of propellant consumed in kg 2 Pavg = average pressure of all tanks feeding a thruster in kg/cm Ton = total on-time in seconds I.
    [Show full text]
  • STI Program Bibliography
    Scientific and Technical Information Program Affordable Heavy Lift Capability: 2000-2004 This custom bibliography from the NASA Scientific and Technical Information Program lists a sampling of records found in the NASA Aeronautics and Space Database. The scope of this topic includes technologies to allow robust, affordable access of cargo, particularly to low-Earth orbit. This area of focus is one of the enabling technologies as defined by NASA’s Report of the President’s Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy, published in June 2004. Best if viewed with the latest version of Adobe Acrobat Reader Affordable Heavy Lift Capability: 2000-2004 A Custom Bibliography From the NASA Scientific and Technical Information Program October 2004 Affordable Heavy Lift Capability: 2000-2004 This custom bibliography from the NASA Scientific and Technical Information Program lists a sampling of records found in the NASA Aeronautics and Space Database. The scope of this topic includes technologies to allow robust, affordable access of cargo, particularly to low-Earth orbit. This area of focus is one of the enabling technologies as defined by NASA’s Report of the President’s Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy, published in June 2004. OCTOBER 2004 20040095274 EAC trains its first international astronaut class Bolender, Hans, Author; Bessone, Loredana, Author; Schoen, Andreas, Author; Stevenin, Herve, Author; ESA bulletin. Bulletin ASE. European Space Agency; Nov 2002; ISSN 0376-4265; Volume 112, 50-5; In English; Copyright; Avail: Other Sources After several years of planning and preparation, ESA’s ISS training programme has become operational. Between 26 August and 6 September, the European Astronaut Centre (EAC) near Cologne gave the first ESA advanced training course for an international ISS astronaut class.
    [Show full text]
  • Spacecraft Propulsion
    SPACECRAFT PROPULSION WITH THRUST AND PRECISION INTO SPACE SPACECRAFT PROPULSION THRUST AND PRECISION INTO SPACE ArianeGroup is a market leader in spacecraft propulsion systems and equipment. Since over 50 years, customers worldwide benefit from a competitive portfolio of high quality products and services. We cover the complete range of products and services related to orbital propulsion, from chemical monopropellant systems for smaller satellites to chemical bipropellant systems for larger platforms and completed with the electric propulsion portfolio based on the RIT technology. At ArianeGroup, customers have a single point of contact for the complete propulsion system at all phases of the value chain. From system design up to after-launch services. All key equipment of ArianeGroup propulsion systems (thrusters, propellant tanks and fluidic equipment) are produced in-house. 2 ALL ABOUT PRECISION With our orbital propulsion thrusters and engines our customers can be ensured that their mission requirements related to propulsion will be fulfilled with accurate precision. Our biggest orbital propulsion thruster, the 400N apogee engine, has placed hundreds of satellites in its final orbit With micro precision the RIT µX thruster brings space missions to the exact orbit 2 3 SPACECRAFT PROPULSION ELECTRIC PROPULSION Radio frequency ion propulsion for orbit raising, station keeping and deep space missions ArianeGroup’s electric space propulsion expertise is based on the space proven Radio Frequency Ion Technology (RIT). Within this field, we produce complete propulsion systems, modules, thrusters and related components. This technology features numerous advantages like high specific impulse therefore maximum propellant saving. Low system complexity is another strength of the RIT Technology.
    [Show full text]
  • Crustal and Time-Varying Magnetic Fields at the Insight Landing Site on Mars
    ARTICLES https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-020-0537-x Crustal and time-varying magnetic fields at the InSight landing site on Mars Catherine L. Johnson 1,2 ✉ , Anna Mittelholz1, Benoit Langlais3, Christopher T. Russell4, Véronique Ansan 3, Don Banfield 5, Peter J. Chi 4, Matthew O. Fillingim 6, Francois Forget 7, Heidi Fuqua Haviland 8, Matthew Golombek9, Steve Joy 4, Philippe Lognonné 10, Xinping Liu4, Chloé Michaut 11, Lu Pan 12, Cathy Quantin-Nataf12, Aymeric Spiga 7,13, Sabine Stanley14,15, Shea N. Thorne 1, Mark A. Wieczorek 16, Yanan Yu4, Suzanne E. Smrekar9 and William B. Banerdt 9 Magnetic fields provide a window into a planet’s interior structure and evolution, including its atmospheric and space environ- ments. Satellites at Mars have measured crustal magnetic fields indicating an ancient dynamo. These crustal fields interact with the solar wind to generate transient fields and electric currents in Mars’s upper atmosphere. Surface magnetic field data play a key role in understanding these effects and the dynamo. Here we report measurements of magnetic field strength and direction at the InSight (Interior Exploration using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy and Heat Transport) landing site on Mars. We find that the field is ten times stronger than predicted by satellite-based models. We infer magnetized rocks beneath the surface, within ~150 km of the landing site, consistent with a past dynamo with Earth-like strength. Geological mapping and InSight seismic data suggest that much or all of the magnetization sources are carried in basement rocks, which are at least 3.9 billion years old and are overlain by between 200 m and ~10 km of lava flows and modified ancient terrain.
    [Show full text]
  • Specifics of Small Satellite Propulsion: Part 1
    SSC01-XI-6 Specifics of Small Satellite Propulsion: Part 1 Vadim Zakirov and Martin Sweeting Surrey Space Centre University of Surrey Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, United Kingdom fax: +44 1483 879503 tel: +44 1483 879817 e-mail: [email protected] Peter Erichsen Space Systems Division Swedish Space Corporation P.O.Box 4207, Strandvägen 86, SE-171 04 Solna, Sweden fax: +46 8 98 70 69 tel: +46 8 627 6313 e-mail: [email protected] Timothy Lawrence European Office of Aerospace Research and Development 223/231 Old Marylebone Rd., London, NW1 5TH, United Kingdom fax: +44 2075 144960 tel: +44 2075 144285 e-mail: [email protected] Abstract. Small satellite propulsion is a subject of unique constraints and requirements. Based on University of Surrey experience in small satellite building and operation, these features are listed and explained. Available volume is often identified as the most severe constraint for a small satellite with power and cost being the other two major constraints. Mass is often only of secondary importance for small satellites. Propulsion dry mass fraction for a spacecraft grows upon the system scaling-down. For small spacecraft propulsion fraction can easily exceed 85%. In such a case, a combination of independent systems for multi- functional propulsion mission scenarios would aggravate the situation. Moreover, specific impulse is not a factor reflecting small satellite propulsion system performance since spacecraft velocity change is also a function of propulsion dry mass fraction. New conceptual and design solutions are suggested for small satellite propulsion with respect to its specific constraints and requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Space Propulsion Technology for Small Spacecraft
    Space Propulsion Technology for Small Spacecraft The MIT Faculty has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters. Citation Krejci, David, and Paulo Lozano. “Space Propulsion Technology for Small Spacecraft.” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 106, no. 3, Mar. 2018, pp. 362–78. As Published http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2017.2778747 Publisher Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Version Author's final manuscript Citable link http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/114401 Terms of Use Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike Detailed Terms http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ PROCC. OF THE IEEE, VOL. 106, NO. 3, MARCH 2018 362 Space Propulsion Technology for Small Spacecraft David Krejci and Paulo Lozano Abstract—As small satellites become more popular and capa- While designations for different satellite classes have been ble, strategies to provide in-space propulsion increase in impor- somehow ambiguous, a system mass based characterization tance. Applications range from orbital changes and maintenance, approach will be used in this work, in which the term ’Small attitude control and desaturation of reaction wheels to drag com- satellites’ will refer to satellites with total masses below pensation and de-orbit at spacecraft end-of-life. Space propulsion 500kg, with ’Nanosatellites’ for systems ranging from 1- can be enabled by chemical or electric means, each having 10kg, ’Picosatellites’ with masses between 0.1-1kg and ’Fem- different performance and scalability properties. The purpose tosatellites’ for spacecrafts below 0.1kg. In this category, the of this review is to describe the working principles of space popular Cubesat standard [13] will therefore be characterized propulsion technologies proposed so far for small spacecraft.
    [Show full text]
  • Propulsion Systems Design and Integration Engineering Solutions for Space Science and Exploration
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Marshall Space Flight Center Propulsion Systems Design and Integration Engineering Solutions for Space Science and Exploration Engine Systems Main Propulsion Systems Spacecraft Propulsion Systems Advanced Propulsion The Propulsion Systems Design & Integration Division (ER20) provides technology development, system design, expert technical evaluation, and systems integration to advance the next generation of space transportation systems and assure continued safe operation of existing systems. ER20 responds directly to customers requiring system level technology and concept evaluation, analysis, and maturation, detailed system development and propulsion component integration, test verification planning, evaluation, and certifi- cation. The division also provides sustaining engineering for operations support for space transportation propulsion systems. ER20 provides engineering expertise for all transportation mission phases including boost, upper stage, in-space, and extraterrestrial descent/ascent applications. ER20 expertise includes liquid propulsion systems including cryogenics and storable propellants supporting a wide range of propulsion systems. Liquid systems expertise ranges from low thrust pres- sure fed in-space propulsion systems to high thrust, pump fed booster propulsion systems. In addition, this division supports non-chemical and nuclear propulsion and power systems, such as plasma systems and nuclear electric and thermal systems. Facilities available to the division include
    [Show full text]
  • Aerobraking to Lower Apogee in Earth Orbit with the Small Payload Orbit Transfer (SPORT™) Microsatellite Vehicle
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by DigitalCommons@USU SSC01-XI-8 Aerobraking to Lower Apogee in Earth Orbit with the Small Payload ORbit Transfer (SPORT™) Microsatellite Vehicle Paul Gloyer AeroAstro, Inc. 160 Adams Lane, Waveland, MS 39576 228-466-9863, [email protected] Tony Robinson AeroAstro, Inc. 520 Huntmar Park Drive, Herndon, VA 20170 703-709-2240 x133, [email protected] Adeena Mignogna AeroAstro, Inc. 520 Huntmar Park Drive, Herndon, VA 20170 703-709-2240 x126, [email protected] Yasser Ahmad Astronautic Technology Sdn. Bhd. 520 Huntmar Park Drive, Herndon, VA 20170 703-709-2240 x138, [email protected] Abstract. AeroAstro, Inc. and Astronautic Technology Sdn. Bhd. (a Malaysian space company) are commercially developing the Small Payload ORbit Transfer (SPORT) vehicle, which uses advanced earth aerobraking technology to achieve efficient orbit transfer from Geosynchronous-Transfer Orbit (GTO) to Low Earth Orbit (LEO). After being delivered to GTO by a large launch vehicle, such as Ariane, SPORT uses its onboard propulsion system to adjust its perigee altitude to about 150 km. At this altitude, the large deployable aerobrake produces enough drag to reduce the apogee altitude from 36,000+ km to about 1,000 km in approximately 300 orbits. Upon reaching the target apogee altitude, the propulsion system is used to raise the perigee to the desired altitude, thereby allowing SPORT to release its payload. Aerobraking technology enables orbit transfer in a cost-effective manner, reducing the overall mass of the spacecraft by drastically reducing the amount of propellant required to achieve the maneuver.
    [Show full text]
  • Re-Usable Launch and Payload Delivery System MDDP 2012/3
    Group 2 Re-usable Launch and Payload Delivery System MDDP 2012/3 Re-usable Launch and Payload Delivery System MDDP Group 2 James Dobberson Robert Taylor Matthew Chapman Timothy West Mukudzei Muchengeti William Wou Group 2 Re-usable Launch and Payload Delivery System MDDP 2012/3 1. Contents 1. Contents ..................................................................................................................................... i 2. Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. ii 3. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 4. Down Selection and Integration Methodology ......................................................................... 2 5. Presentation of System Concept and Operations ...................................................................... 5 6. System Investment Plan ......................................................................................................... 20 7. Numerical Analysis and Statement of Feasibility .................................................................. 23 8. Conclusions and Future Work ................................................................................................ 29 9. Launch Philosophy ................................................................................................................. 31 10. Propulsion ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mars Aerocapture/Aerobraking Aeroshell Configurations by Abraham Chavez
    Mars Aerocapture/Aerobraking Aeroshell Configurations by Abraham Chavez This presentation provides a review of those studies and a starting point for considering Aerocapture/Aerobraking technology as a way to reduce mass and cost, to achieve the ambitious science returns currently desired What is Aerocapture: is first of all a very rapid process, requiring a heavy heat shield resulting in high g-forces, Descent into a relatively dense atmosphere is suffciently rapid that the deceleration causes severe heating requiring What is Aerobraking: is a very gradual process that has the advantage that small reductions in spacecraft velocity are achieved by drag of the solar arrays in the outer atmosphere, thus no additional mass for a heat shield is necessary. an aeroshell. Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture, University of Houston College of Architecture Aerocapture vs Aerobraking Entry targeting burn Atmospheric entry Atmospheric Drag Aerocapture Reduces Orbit Period Periapsis Energy raise dissipation/ maneuver Autonomous Aerobraking (propulsive) guidance Target ~300 Passes Jettison Aeroshell Hyperbolic Through Upper orbit Approach Atmosphere Controlled exit Orbit Insertion Pros Cons Burn Uses very little fuel--significant mass Needs protective aeroshell savings for larger vehicles Pros Cons Establishes orbit quickly (single pass) One-shot maneuver; no turning back, Little spacecraft design impact Still need ~1/2 propulsive fuel load much like a lander Gradual adjustments; can pause Hundreds of passes = more chance of Has
    [Show full text]
  • Envision – Front Cover
    EnVision – Front Cover ESA M5 proposal - downloaded from ArXiV.org Proposal Name: EnVision Lead Proposer: Richard Ghail Core Team members Richard Ghail Jörn Helbert Radar Systems Engineering Thermal Infrared Mapping Civil and Environmental Engineering, Institute for Planetary Research, Imperial College London, United Kingdom DLR, Germany Lorenzo Bruzzone Thomas Widemann Subsurface Sounding Ultraviolet, Visible and Infrared Spectroscopy Remote Sensing Laboratory, LESIA, Observatoire de Paris, University of Trento, Italy France Philippa Mason Colin Wilson Surface Processes Atmospheric Science Earth Science and Engineering, Atmospheric Physics, Imperial College London, United Kingdom University of Oxford, United Kingdom Caroline Dumoulin Ann Carine Vandaele Interior Dynamics Spectroscopy and Solar Occultation Laboratoire de Planétologie et Géodynamique Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy, de Nantes, Belgium France Pascal Rosenblatt Emmanuel Marcq Spin Dynamics Volcanic Gas Retrievals Royal Observatory of Belgium LATMOS, Université de Versailles Saint- Brussels, Belgium Quentin, France Robbie Herrick Louis-Jerome Burtz StereoSAR Outreach and Systems Engineering Geophysical Institute, ISAE-Supaero University of Alaska, Fairbanks, United States Toulouse, France EnVision Page 1 of 43 ESA M5 proposal - downloaded from ArXiV.org Executive Summary Why are the terrestrial planets so different? Venus should be the most Earth-like of all our planetary neighbours: its size, bulk composition and distance from the Sun are very similar to those of Earth.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of GEO Satellites Using Chemical and Electric Propulsion
    A Comparison of GEO Satellites Using Chemical and Electric Propulsion David Thomas1 University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 80309 May 4, 2016 A telecommunication satellite in a geostationary orbit requires a significant amount of propellant for station-keeping maneuvers, in addition to the propellant needed for transfer from GTO to the geostationary orbit. The propellant mass significantly increases the launch mass of the spacecraft, requiring a larger launch vehicle and increasing the cost of launch. However, low-thrust electric propulsion can lower the necessary propellant mass and reduce the launch cost. This paper seeks to explore the mass savings of electric propulsion through simple numerical simulations. Analysis indicates that the launch mass of an electric satellite is only 45% of that for a satellite with conventional, chemical propulsion. Nomenclature A = cross-sectional area (m2) AU = astronomical unit a = acceleration (m/s2) a = semi-major axis (km) CR = coefficient of reflectivity c = speed of light (299,792,458 m/s) ECEF = Earth-centered, Earth-fixed (coordinate frame) ECI = Earth-centered, inertial (coordinate frame) F = thrust (N) GEO = geostationary orbit GTO = geostationary transfer orbit 2 g0 = standard gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/s ) J2, J3 = Earth gravitational field parameters Isp = specific impulse (s) i = inclination (°) K = control gain LEO = low Earth orbit MMH = monomethylhydrazine MON = mixed oxides of nitrogen mi = initial mass (kg) mf = final mass (kg) R0 = one astronomical unit (149,597,870.7 km) RE = Earth radius (6,378.1363 km) r = position vector (km) SRP = solar radiation pressure r = orbital radius (km) t = time (s) V = speed (km/s) XIPS = xenon ion propulsion system 1 Aerospace Engineering Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309.
    [Show full text]