DOCSLIB.ORG

Launch and Deployment Analysis for a Small, MEO, Technology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Launch and Deployment Analysis for a Isp = specific impulse, sec Small, MEO, Technology Demonstration k = spring constant, Nt/mm KLC = Kodiak Island Launch Complex Satellite MTO = medium transfer orbit transfer orbit 1 LEO = low earth orbit Tyson Karl Smith 2 LMA = Lockheed Martin Aerospace Stephen Anthony Whitmore M = final mass after insertion burn, kg Utah State University, Logan, UT, 84322-4130 final Mpayload = mass of payload after kick motor jettison, kg A trade study investigation the possibilities of delivering M = propellant mass consumed during a small technology-demonstration satellite to a medium prop earth orbit are presented. The satellite is to be deployed insertion burn, kg in a 19,000 km orbit with an inclination of 55°. This Mstage = mass of expended stage after jettison, payload is a technology demonstrator and thus launch kg and deployment costs are a paramount consideration. NRE = non-recurrent engineering, kg Also the payload includes classified technology, thus a Nspring = number of springs in Lightband® USA licensed launch system is mandated. All FAA- separation system licensed US launch systems are considered during a MTO = MEO transfer orbit preliminary trade analysis. This preliminary trade OSC = Orbital Sciences Corporation analysis selects Orbital Sciences Minotaur V launch R = apogee radius, km vehicle. To meet mission objective the Minotaur V 5th a stage ATK-Star 37FM motor is replaced with the Rp = perigee radius, km smaller ATK- Star 27. This new configuration allows R⊕ = local earth radius, km for payload delivery without adding an additional 6th SDL = Space Dynamics Laboratory stage kick motor. End-to-end mass budgets are SLV = space launch vehicle calculated, and a concept of operations is presented. SMC = USAF Space and Missile Systems Monte-Carlo simulations are used to characterize the Center expected accuracy of the final orbit. An optimal launch trajectory is presented. SSBS = Space Based Space Surveillance mission Nomenclature TLV = target launch vehicle USU = Utah State University a = semi-major axis of orbit, km VAFB = Vandenberg Air Force Base Aref = reference area, m2 WFF = Wallops Flight Facility ATK = Alliant Technology Systems Xmax = spring stroke, mm CCAFB = Cape Canaveral Air Force Base ΔV = required velocity change during orbit CEA = Chemical Equilibrium with insertion, km/sec. Applications (computer program) ΔVavailable = available velocity change for a given CONOPS = concept of operations motor loading, km/sec. C3 = specific launch energy, km2/sec2 ΔV = equivalent launch velocity due to E = separation spring stored potential maneuver maneuvering, km/sec. energy, joules ΔV = equivalent launch velocity along track e = orbit eccentricity track due to earth’s rotation, km/sec EELV = evolved expendable launch vehicle FAA = Federal Aviation Administration η = spring energy storage efficiency μ = planetary gravitational constant for Fspring = spring force, Nt 5 3 2 GFE = government furnished equipment earth, 3.986004418x10 km /sec GPS III = next generation Global Positioning w = argument of perigee, deg. Satellite constellation Ω = right ascension of ascending node, GTO = geostationary transfer earth orbit deg. 5 GUI = graphical user interface Ω⊕ = angular velocity of earth, 7.292155x10 g0 = acceleration of gravity at sea level, rad/sec 9.8067 m/sec2 I = orbit inclination, deg. I. Introduction 1 Graduate Student, Mechanical & Aerospace Sandia National Laboratory is investigating Engineering Dept advanced technologies required for nuclear explosion 2 Assistant Professor, Mechanical & Aerospace monitoring sensors to be deployed with the next- Engineering Dept. 22nd Small Satellite Conference 1 11-14 August, 2008, Logan, Utah generation of Global Positioning System (GPS III) (CCAFB), but this would require an inclination satellites. GPS III is expected to use new sensor and change during launch, which requires additional signal processing technologies. In order to verify that propellant, that in turn results in greater cost and less these technologies are fully developed and space- mass available for the payload. qualified, Sandia is developing a small satellite with A preliminary trade analysis was performed prototype bus architecture. The satellite is to be to consider every available US launch system. The deployed in a medium earth orbit (MEO) and have a preliminary trade relied on manufacturers’ mission mission life between one and three years. This payload charts as well as impulsive ΔV calculations satellite has been named SandiaSat. The Utah State performed using data derived from independently University (USU) Department of Mechanical and published system information. Systems with launches Aerospace Engineering along with The Utah State available from WFF were given priority in the trade University Space Dynamics Laboratory (SDL) are analysis. Launches from the west coast test range at developing the notional mission plan, concept of Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) are operations (CONOPS), preliminary satellite and incompatible with the required orbit inclinations, and ground station designs, launch options, and were not considered for this mission. associated cost estimates. This paper addresses the launch and deployment options for this mission. A. Preliminary Launch Systems Trade Analysis Fundamental mission objectives require the payload The Current Federal Aviation Administration to be delivered to a circular orbit at 19,000 km ii altitude at an inclination of 55o. The orbit right (FAA)-certified launch systems licensed to carry a ascension, argument of perigee, and true anomaly classified USA payload are listed below (vendor in (phasing within the orbit) are not critical to mission. parenthesis). The deployment orbit was selected to be a “junk orbit” and post mission de-orbit of both the payload - Atlas (United Launch Alliance), and expended apogee kick stage is not required. It is - Athena (Lockheed Martin Aerospace), anticipated that the completed SandiaSat system will - Delta (United Launch Alliance), be available for launch during the first quarter of - Pegasus (Orbital Sciences Corporation), calendar year 2012. - Taurus (Orbital Sciences Corporation), - Minotaur (Orbital Sciences Corporation), - Falcon (Space-X), II. Launch Vehicle Selection - Space Shuttle (United Space Alliance, NASA), - Zenit3SL (Sea Launch Odyssey LTD, Multi- A wide array of launchers are available to deliver the National). payload. Many factors drive the selection of the best commercial launch systems. Figure 1 shows the characteristics of the Atlasiii In selecting a launcher for this mission the family of launch systems including payload to LEO, launch vehicle needs to be able to deliver the payload payload to geostationary transfer orbit (GTO), launch mass to the required orbit while allowing for costs in US dollars (Circa 2002), date of the first sufficient mass margin. The MEO orbit selected for flight, and available launch sites. All of the members this study is considerably higher then the usual orbits of this launch family have medium- or heavy-lift considered for small launch systems. Usually for GTO capability, and were primarily designed for MEO orbits a medium-lift launch vehicle is selected, large military payloads or for sizeable geostationary but due to the small payload mass (< 350 kg) communications satellite. They all possess “excess launchers originally used for Low Earth Orbit (LEO) lift” capability and have launch costs that vary for were considered. $75-110 million. For this small technology- Primary constraints for the SandiaSat demonstration program the costs of these systems mission are 1) cost, 2) security, 3) launch site were considered to be prohibitive. availability. The payload is a part of a technology demonstration and not an operational mission, thus launch and delivery costs are a paramount consideration. The payload includes classified technologies, thus the launcher is required to be a USA licensed launch system. Also the high inclination (55°) orbit favors a launch out of NASA Wallops Flight Facility (WFF).i It is possible to reach this orbit from Cape Canaveral Air Force Base 22nd Small Satellite Conference 2 11-14 August, 2008, Logan, Utah Figure 1. Atlas Series Launch Systems. The Falcon 1 has insufficient lift capacity and is eliminated from consideration. The Zenit costs Figure 2 shows the characteristics of the exceed $75 million and combined with the launch Athenaiv,v and Deltavi family of launch systems. logistics eliminated this system from consideration. Payload data to LEO, to geostationary transfer orbit During the late 1990’s, riding along with the Space (GTO), launch costs in US dollars, date of the first Shuttle as a secondary payload on one of the ISS flight, and available launch sites are all shown. The supply missions would have been an attractive Delta III and IV systems have excess ΔV capability option. But with the impending retirement of the and launch costs that vary from $85 to 170 million. space shuttle in 2010, the shuttle was eliminated from These costs are considered prohibitive for this consideration for this mission. The larger Space-X mission. The Athena I system has insufficient lift Falcon 9 medium-lift launch vehiclexi is not capability and was eliminated from consideration. considered to be of sufficient maturity to be The Athena II and Delta II launch systems have at recognized during this trade analysis. least minimal lift capacity for the MEO mission, and have moderate costs varying from $22 million (Athena II)
Recommended publications
  • Call for M5 Missions

    Call for M5 Missions

    ESA UNCLASSIFIED - For Official Use M5 Call - Technical Annex Prepared by SCI-F Reference ESA-SCI-F-ESTEC-TN-2016-002 Issue 1 Revision 0 Date of Issue 25/04/2016 Status Issued Document Type Distribution ESA UNCLASSIFIED - For Official Use Table of contents: 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Scope of document ................................................................................................................................................................ 3 1.2 Reference documents .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 List of acronyms ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3 2 General Guidelines ................................................................................................................ 6 3 Analysis of some potential mission profiles ........................................................................... 7 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................. 7 3.2 Current European launchers ...........................................................................................................................................
  • Launch and Deployment Analysis for a Small, MEO, Technology Demonstration Satellite

    Launch and Deployment Analysis for a Small, MEO, Technology Demonstration Satellite

    46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit AIAA 2008-1131 7 – 10 January 20006, Reno, Nevada Launch and Deployment Analysis for a Small, MEO, Technology Demonstration Satellite Stephen A. Whitmore* and Tyson K. Smith† Utah State University, Logan, UT, 84322-4130 A trade study investigating the economics, mass budget, and concept of operations for delivery of a small technology-demonstration satellite to a medium-altitude earth orbit is presented. The mission requires payload deployment at a 19,000 km orbit altitude and an inclination of 55o. Because the payload is a technology demonstrator and not part of an operational mission, launch and deployment costs are a paramount consideration. The payload includes classified technologies; consequently a USA licensed launch system is mandated. A preliminary trade analysis is performed where all available options for FAA-licensed US launch systems are considered. The preliminary trade study selects the Orbital Sciences Minotaur V launch vehicle, derived from the decommissioned Peacekeeper missile system, as the most favorable option for payload delivery. To meet mission objectives the Minotaur V configuration is modified, replacing the baseline 5th stage ATK-37FM motor with the significantly smaller ATK Star 27. The proposed design change enables payload delivery to the required orbit without using a 6th stage kick motor. End-to-end mass budgets are calculated, and a concept of operations is presented. Monte-Carlo simulations are used to characterize the expected accuracy of the final orbit.
  • Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Support to Commercial Space Launch

    Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Support to Commercial Space Launch

    The Space Congress® Proceedings 2019 (46th) Light the Fire Jun 4th, 3:30 PM Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Support to Commercial Space Launch Thomas Ste. Marie Vice Commander, 45th Space Wing Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings Scholarly Commons Citation Ste. Marie, Thomas, "Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Support to Commercial Space Launch" (2019). The Space Congress® Proceedings. 31. https://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings/proceedings-2019-46th/presentations/31 This Event is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Space Congress® Proceedings by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Support to Commercial Space Launch Colonel Thomas Ste. Marie Vice Commander, 45th Space Wing CCAFS Launch Customers: 2013 Complex 41: ULA Atlas V (CST-100) Complex 40: SpaceX Falcon 9 Complex 37: ULA Delta IV; Delta IV Heavy Complex 46: Space Florida, Navy* Skid Strip: NGIS Pegasus Atlantic Ocean: Navy Trident II* Black text – current programs; Blue text – in work; * – sub-orbital CCAFS Launch Customers: 2013 Complex 39B: NASA SLS Complex 41: ULA Atlas V (CST-100) Complex 40: SpaceX Falcon 9 Complex 37: ULA Delta IV; Delta IV Heavy NASA Space Launch System Launch Complex 39B February 4, 2013 Complex 46: Space Florida, Navy* Skid Strip: NGIS Pegasus Atlantic Ocean: Navy Trident II* Black text – current programs;
  • The Speed of a Geosynchronous Satellite Is ___

    The Speed of a Geosynchronous Satellite Is ___

    Physics 106 Lecture 9 Newton’s Law of Gravitation SJ 7th Ed.: Chap 13.1 to 2, 13.4 to 5 • Historical overview • N’Newton’s inverse-square law of graviiitation Force Gravitational acceleration “g” • Superposition • Gravitation near the Earth’s surface • Gravitation inside the Earth (concentric shells) • Gravitational potential energy Related to the force by integration A conservative force means it is path independent Escape velocity Example A geosynchronous satellite circles the earth once every 24 hours. If the mass of the earth is 5.98x10^24 kg; and the radius of the earth is 6.37x10^6 m., how far above the surface of the earth does a geosynchronous satellite orbit the earth? G=6.67x10-11 Nm2/kg2 The speed of a geosynchronous satellite is ______. 1 Goal Gravitational potential energy for universal gravitational force Gravitational Potential Energy WUgravity= −Δ gravity Near surface of Earth: Gravitational force of magnitude of mg, pointing down (constant force) Æ U = mgh Generally, gravit. potential energy for a system of m1 & m2 G Gmm12 mm F = Attractive force Ur()=− G12 12 r 2 g 12 12 r12 Zero potential energy is chosen for infinite distance between m1 and m2. Urg ()012 = ∞= Æ Gravitational potential energy is always negative. 2 mm12 Urg ()12 =− G r12 r r Ug=0 1 U(r1) Gmm U =− 12 g r Mechanical energy 11 mM EKUrmvMVG=+ ( ) =22 + − mech 22 r m V r v M E_mech is conserved, if gravity is the only force that is doing work. 1 2 MV is almost unchanged. If M >>> m, 2 1 2 mM ÆWe can define EKUrmvG=+ ( ) = − mech 2 r 3 Example: A stone is thrown vertically up at certain speed from the surface of the Moon by Superman.
  • Small Space Launch: Origins & Challenges Lt Col Thomas H

    Small Space Launch: Origins & Challenges Lt Col Thomas H

    Small Space Launch: Origins & Challenges Lt Col Thomas H. Freeman, USAF, [email protected], (505)853-4750 Maj Jose Delarosa, USAF, [email protected], (505)846-4097 Launch Test Squadron, SMC/SDTW Small Space Launch: Origins The United States Space Situational Awareness capability continues to be a key element in obtaining and maintaining the high ground in space. Space Situational Awareness satellites are critical enablers for integrated air, ground and sea operations, and play an essential role in fighting and winning conflicts. The United States leads the world space community in spacecraft payload systems from the component level into spacecraft, and in the development of constellations of spacecraft. The United States’ position is founded upon continued government investment in research and development in space technology [1], which is clearly reflected in the Space Situational Awareness capabilities and the longevity of these missions. In the area of launch systems that support Space Situational Awareness, despite the recent development of small launch vehicles, the United States launch capability is dominated by an old, unresponsive and relatively expensive set of launchers [1] in the Expandable, Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELV) platforms; Delta IV and Atlas V. The EELV systems require an average of six to eight months from positioning on the launch table until liftoff [3]. Access to space requires maintaining a robust space transportation capability, founded on a rigorous industrial and technology base. The downturn of commercial space launch service use has undermined, for the time being, the ability of industry to recoup its significant investment in current launch systems.
  • Design of the Trajectory of a Tether Mission to Saturn

    Design of the Trajectory of a Tether Mission to Saturn

    DOI: 10.13009/EUCASS2019-510 8TH EUROPEAN CONFERENCE FOR AERONAUTICS AND AEROSPACE SCIENCES (EUCASS) DOI: Design of the trajectory of a tether mission to Saturn ⋆ Riccardo Calaon , Elena Fantino§, Roberto Flores ‡ and Jesús Peláez† ⋆Dept. of Industrial Engineering, University of Padova Via Gradenigio G/a -35131- Padova, Italy §Dept. of Aerospace Engineering, Khalifa University Abu Dhabi, Unites Arab Emirates ‡Inter. Center for Numerical Methods in Engineering Campus Norte UPC, Gran Capitán s/n, Barcelona, Spain †Space Dynamics Group, UPM School of Aeronautical and Space Engineering, Pz. Cardenal Cisneros 3, Madrid, Spain [email protected], [email protected], rfl[email protected], [email protected] †Corresponding author Abstract This paper faces the design of the trajectory of a tether mission to Saturn. To reduce the hyperbolic excess velocity at arrival to the planet, a gravity assist at Jupiter is included. The Earth-to-Jupiter portion of the transfer is unpropelled. The Jupiter-to-Saturn trajectory has two parts: a first coasting arc followed by a second arc where a low thrust engine is switched on. An optimization process provides the law of thrust control that minimizes the velocity relative to Saturn at arrival, thus facilitating the tethered orbit insertion. 1. Introduction The outer planets are of particular interest in terms of what they can reveal about the origin and evolution of our solar system. They are also local analogues for the many extra-solar planets that have been detected over the past twenty years. The study of these planets furthers our comprehension of our neighbourhood and provides the foundations to understand distant planetary systems.
  • L AUNCH SYSTEMS Databk7 Collected.Book Page 18 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM Databk7 Collected.Book Page 19 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM

    L AUNCH SYSTEMS Databk7 Collected.Book Page 18 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM Databk7 Collected.Book Page 19 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM

    databk7_collected.book Page 17 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM CHAPTER TWO L AUNCH SYSTEMS databk7_collected.book Page 18 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM databk7_collected.book Page 19 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM CHAPTER TWO L AUNCH SYSTEMS Introduction Launch systems provide access to space, necessary for the majority of NASA’s activities. During the decade from 1989–1998, NASA used two types of launch systems, one consisting of several families of expendable launch vehicles (ELV) and the second consisting of the world’s only partially reusable launch system—the Space Shuttle. A significant challenge NASA faced during the decade was the development of technologies needed to design and implement a new reusable launch system that would prove less expensive than the Shuttle. Although some attempts seemed promising, none succeeded. This chapter addresses most subjects relating to access to space and space transportation. It discusses and describes ELVs, the Space Shuttle in its launch vehicle function, and NASA’s attempts to develop new launch systems. Tables relating to each launch vehicle’s characteristics are included. The other functions of the Space Shuttle—as a scientific laboratory, staging area for repair missions, and a prime element of the Space Station program—are discussed in the next chapter, Human Spaceflight. This chapter also provides a brief review of launch systems in the past decade, an overview of policy relating to launch systems, a summary of the management of NASA’s launch systems programs, and tables of funding data. The Last Decade Reviewed (1979–1988) From 1979 through 1988, NASA used families of ELVs that had seen service during the previous decade.
  • Review of Nasa's Acquisition of Commercial Launch Services

    Review of Nasa's Acquisition of Commercial Launch Services

    FEBRUARY 17, 2011 AUDIT REPORT OFFICE OF AUDITS REVIEW OF NASA’S ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL LAUNCH SERVICES OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL National Aeronautics and Space Administration REPORT NO. IG-11-012 (ASSIGNMENT NO. A-09-011-00) Final report released by: Paul K. Martin Inspector General Acronyms COTS Commercial Orbital Transportation Services CRS Commercial Resupply Services DOD Department of Defense EELV Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle ELV Expendable Launch Vehicle ESMD Exploration Systems Mission Directorate GAO Government Accountability Office GLAST Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope IBEX Interstellar Boundary Explorer ICBM Intercontinental Ballistic Missile ICESat-II Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite IDIQ Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity ISS International Space Station LADEE Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer LCROSS Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite LRO Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter LSP Launch Services Program NLS NASA Launch Services OCO Orbiting Carbon Observatory OIG Office of Inspector General PPBE Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution SMAP Soil Moisture Active Passive SMD Science Mission Directorate SOMD Space Operations Mission Directorate ULA United Launch Alliance REPORT NO. IG-11-012 FEBRUARY 17, 2011 OVERVIEW REVIEW OF NASA’S ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL LAUNCH SERVICES The Issue Commercial U.S. launch services providers compete domestically and internationally for contracts to carry satellites and other payloads into orbit using unmanned, single-use vehicles known as expendable launch vehicles (ELVs). However, since the late 1990s the global commercial launch market has generally declined following the downturn in the telecommunications services industry, which was the primary customer of the commercial space industry. Given this trend, U.S. launch services providers struggling to remain economically viable have been bolstered by the Commercial Space Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-303), which requires NASA and other Federal agencies to plan missions and procure space transportation services from U.S.
  • Up, Up, and Away by James J

    Up, Up, and Away by James J

    www.astrosociety.org/uitc No. 34 - Spring 1996 © 1996, Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 390 Ashton Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94112. Up, Up, and Away by James J. Secosky, Bloomfield Central School and George Musser, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Want to take a tour of space? Then just flip around the channels on cable TV. Weather Channel forecasts, CNN newscasts, ESPN sportscasts: They all depend on satellites in Earth orbit. Or call your friends on Mauritius, Madagascar, or Maui: A satellite will relay your voice. Worried about the ozone hole over Antarctica or mass graves in Bosnia? Orbital outposts are keeping watch. The challenge these days is finding something that doesn't involve satellites in one way or other. And satellites are just one perk of the Space Age. Farther afield, robotic space probes have examined all the planets except Pluto, leading to a revolution in the Earth sciences -- from studies of plate tectonics to models of global warming -- now that scientists can compare our world to its planetary siblings. Over 300 people from 26 countries have gone into space, including the 24 astronauts who went on or near the Moon. Who knows how many will go in the next hundred years? In short, space travel has become a part of our lives. But what goes on behind the scenes? It turns out that satellites and spaceships depend on some of the most basic concepts of physics. So space travel isn't just fun to think about; it is a firm grounding in many of the principles that govern our world and our universe.
  • GPS Applications in Space

    GPS Applications in Space

    Space Situational Awareness 2015: GPS Applications in Space James J. Miller, Deputy Director Policy & Strategic Communications Division May 13, 2015 GPS Extends the Reach of NASA Networks to Enable New Space Ops, Science, and Exploration Apps GPS Relative Navigation is used for Rendezvous to ISS GPS PNT Services Enable: • Attitude Determination: Use of GPS enables some missions to meet their attitude determination requirements, such as ISS • Real-time On-Board Navigation: Enables new methods of spaceflight ops such as rendezvous & docking, station- keeping, precision formation flying, and GEO satellite servicing • Earth Sciences: GPS used as a remote sensing tool supports atmospheric and ionospheric sciences, geodesy, and geodynamics -- from monitoring sea levels and ice melt to measuring the gravity field ESA ATV 1st mission JAXA’s HTV 1st mission Commercial Cargo Resupply to ISS in 2008 to ISS in 2009 (Space-X & Cygnus), 2012+ 2 Growing GPS Uses in Space: Space Operations & Science • NASA strategic navigation requirements for science and 20-Year Worldwide Space Mission space ops continue to grow, especially as higher Projections by Orbit Type* precisions are needed for more complex operations in all space domains 1% 5% Low Earth Orbit • Nearly 60%* of projected worldwide space missions 27% Medium Earth Orbit over the next 20 years will operate in LEO 59% GeoSynchronous Orbit – That is, inside the Terrestrial Service Volume (TSV) 8% Highly Elliptical Orbit Cislunar / Interplanetary • An additional 35%* of these space missions that will operate at higher altitudes will remain at or below GEO – That is, inside the GPS/GNSS Space Service Volume (SSV) Highly Elliptical Orbits**: • In summary, approximately 95% of projected Example: NASA MMS 4- worldwide space missions over the next 20 years will satellite constellation.
  • Minotaur I User's Guide

    Minotaur I User's Guide

    This page left intentionally blank. Minotaur I User’s Guide Revision Summary TM-14025, Rev. D REVISION SUMMARY VERSION DOCUMENT DATE CHANGE PAGE 1.0 TM-14025 Mar 2002 Initial Release All 2.0 TM-14025A Oct 2004 Changes throughout. Major updates include All · Performance plots · Environments · Payload accommodations · Added 61 inch fairing option 3.0 TM-14025B Mar 2014 Extensively Revised All 3.1 TM-14025C Sep 2015 Updated to current Orbital ATK naming. All 3.2 TM-14025D Sep 2018 Branding update to Northrop Grumman. All 3.3 TM-14025D Sep 2020 Branding update. All Updated contact information. Release 3.3 September 2020 i Minotaur I User’s Guide Revision Summary TM-14025, Rev. D This page left intentionally blank. Release 3.3 September 2020 ii Minotaur I User’s Guide Preface TM-14025, Rev. D PREFACE This Minotaur I User's Guide is intended to familiarize potential space launch vehicle users with the Mino- taur I launch system, its capabilities and its associated services. All data provided herein is for reference purposes only and should not be used for mission specific analyses. Detailed analyses will be performed based on the requirements and characteristics of each specific mission. The launch services described herein are available for US Government sponsored missions via the United States Air Force (USAF) Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC), Advanced Systems and Development Directorate (SMC/AD), Rocket Systems Launch Program (SMC/ADSL). For technical information and additional copies of this User’s Guide, contact: Northrop Grumman
  • NASA Process for Limiting Orbital Debris

    NASA Process for Limiting Orbital Debris

    NASA-HANDBOOK NASA HANDBOOK 8719.14 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Approved: 2008-07-30 Washington, DC 20546 Expiration Date: 2013-07-30 HANDBOOK FOR LIMITING ORBITAL DEBRIS Measurement System Identification: Metric APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE – DISTRIBUTION IS UNLIMITED NASA-Handbook 8719.14 This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 of 174 NASA-Handbook 8719.14 DOCUMENT HISTORY LOG Status Document Approval Date Description Revision Baseline 2008-07-30 Initial Release Page 3 of 174 NASA-Handbook 8719.14 This page intentionally left blank. Page 4 of 174 NASA-Handbook 8719.14 This page intentionally left blank. Page 6 of 174 NASA-Handbook 8719.14 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 SCOPE...........................................................................................................................13 1.1 Purpose................................................................................................................................ 13 1.2 Applicability ....................................................................................................................... 13 2 APPLICABLE AND REFERENCE DOCUMENTS................................................14 3 ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS ...........................................................................15 3.1 Acronyms............................................................................................................................ 15 3.2 Definitions .........................................................................................................................