DOCSLIB.ORG

Small-Satellite Costs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Small-Satellite Costs Small-Satellite Costs David A. Bearden ighly capable small satellites are small systems would become more preva- others used size. Even scarcer than good commonplace today, but this was- lent than the larger systems built during the descriptions of small satellites, however, n’t always the case. It wasn’t until previous 30 years. were guidelines for cost estimation of small- Hthe late 1980s that modern small But exactly which spacecraft fell into the satellite projects. Clearly, a more useful def- satellites came on the scene. This new new category? A precise description of inition of small space systems was needed. breed of low-profile, low-cost space system small satellites, or “lightsats,” as they were By the 1990s, because of increased in- was built by maximizing the use of existing also called, was lacking in the space litera- terest in small satellites for military, com- components and off-the-shelf technology ture of the day. The terms meant different mercial, and academic research applica- and minimizing developmental efforts. At things to different people. Some estab- tions, the Air Force Space and Missile the time, many thought that because of lished a mass threshold (e.g., 500 kilo- Systems Center (SMC) and the National their functional and operational character- grams) to indicate when a satellite was Reconnaissance Office (NRO) asked The istics and their low acquisition costs, these small; others used cost as a criterion; still Aerospace Corporation for information about Crosslink Winter 2000/2001 • 33 1000 specifically tailored to small-satellite pro- grams. To meet this need, Aerospace even- tually developed the Small Satellite Cost Model, a small-satellite trade-study soft- 100 ware tool that captures cost, performance, and risk information within a single frame- work. Before looking at the development of Aerospace’s trade-study tool, though, it DOD large satellites 10 will be valuable to backtrack to the late Modern DOD small satellites Spacecraft bus cost bus Spacecraft 1980s and review just exactly how small- (FY97 dollars in millions) Traditional DOD small satellites spacecraft programs had been perceived. Streamlined Development 1 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Activities Spacecraft bus dry mass (kilograms) In the 1980s, the DOD Advanced Research Projects Agency and the United States Air Dollars-per-kilogram comparison of DOD large satellites (500 dollars per kilogram), modern small satellites (100 dollars per kilogram), and traditional small satellites (150 dollars per kilogram). Data Force Space Test Program served as the pri- points for these three categories cluster differently, and regression analysis shows that each set of mary sources of funding for small satellites, points determines a different cost-estimating relationship.This information confirms the need for a new which typically were used for technology model using contemporary small satellites as its basis. experiments. The Space Test Program co- capabilities and costs of such systems. In re- satellites offer for rapid incorporation of new ordinated experimental payload flights for sponse, Aerospace commissioned a study to technologies? Could they help reduce the the Army, Navy, Air Force, and other gov- compare cost and performance characteris- long development cycle for military space ernment agencies. Reduced development tics of small satellites with those of larger, programs? Were small satellites really eco- complexity and required launch-vehicle traditional systems. Of specific interest was nomical for operational applications, such as size enabled affordable, frequent access to the ability to examine tradeoffs between navigation and communication? space for research applications. Relatively cost and risk to allow assessment of how tra- These questions led to a series of studies low acquisition costs and short develop- ditional risk-management philosophies on technical and economic issues involved ment schedules also allowed university lab- might be affected by the adoption of small- in designing, manufacturing, and operating oratories to participate, providing individ- satellite designs. small satellites. The studies found that ex- ual researchers access to space—a privilege Estimating costs for small systems isting spacecraft cost models, developed previously reserved only for well-funded raised many questions. What parameters during the previous 30 years to support the government organizations. drove the cost of small satellites? Were tra- National Aeronautics and Space Adminis- Small satellites were procured under a ditional parameters known to drive the cost tration (NASA) and the Department of De- specifically defined “low cost” philosophy. of large systems still applicable? How did fense (DOD), were of limited utility because They were smaller in size and were built small systems compare with large ones? of fundamental differences in technical with maximum use of existing hardware. A Did small-satellite acquisition philoso- characteristics and acquisition and develop- smaller business base (i.e., a reduced num- phies, which prompted reductions in levels ment philosophies between small-satellite ber of participating contractors) was in- of oversight, independent reviews, and pa- and traditional-satellite programs. volved in the development process, and it perwork, enable a reduction in cost-per-unit This finding prompted NASA and DOD was perceived that small satellites repre- capability? What advantages might small to seek cost-analysis methods and models sented a niche market relative to the more prevalent large systems. Mission timelines 10000 from approval to launch were on the order of 24 to 48 months, with an on-orbit life of 6 to 18 months. Launch costs, either for an 1000 existing dedicated small launcher or for a secondary payload on a large launcher, re- mained high, but developments such as the 100 Pegasus air-launched vehicle and new small launchers (such as Taurus and Athena) offered promise of lowering these Total satellite cost Total 10 Traditional NASA missions costs. Additionally, small-satellite flight (FY98 dollars in millions) NASA faster-better-cheaper missions and ground systems typically used the most mature hardware and software avail- 1 able to minimize technology-development 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 and flight-certification costs. Satellite launch mass (kilograms) Emerging advances in microelectronics, This graph compares the dollars-per-kilogram ratio for traditional NASA missions (900 dollars per kilo- software, and lightweight components en- gram) with the ratio as noted in NASA’s faster-better-cheaper missions (120 dollars per kilogram). It’s abled system-level downsizing. Spacecraft clear that the different sets of data points determine markedly different cost-estimating regimes. often cost more than $200 thousand per 34 • Crosslink Winter 2000/2001 1000 800 600 400 200 Cost model estimate/actual cost (percent) 0 MACSAT Microsat LOSAT-X ALEXIS STEP 0 STEP 1 HETERADCAL SAMPEX Clementine NEAR Satellite A cost-percentage comparison that makes use of an older model and the up- the actual cost, and for RADCAL, with a percentage of 801%, the older dated dollars-per-kilogram relationships shown in previous graphs to estimate model’s estimated cost was nine times the actual cost. Because the esti- modern small-satellite costs. Each bar’s height represents the percentage dif- mates far outweighed the real cost in many cases, the chart illustrates the ference between a satellite’s estimated cost and its actual cost. Thus for inadequacy of a traditional cost model for modern small satellites. Clementine, with a percentage of 109%, the older model’s estimate was twice kilogram and could reach $1 million per money, small-spacecraft programs came to space. The development of a broad array of kilogram with delivery-to-space costs in- be perceived as fast-paced, streamlined de- expendable launch vehicles provided in- cluded. With miniaturization, every kilo- velopment activities. Dedicated project creased access to orbit for many different gram saved in the spacecraft bus or instru- leaders with small teams were given full kinds of payloads. Satellite programs at- ments represented a possible saving of up technical and budgetary responsibility with tempted to incorporate advanced technol- to five kilograms in launch, onboard goals tailored around what could be done ogy and demonstrate that fast development propulsion, and attitude-control systems inexpensively on a short schedule. Fixed- cycles, low acquisition costs, and small mass. Reduced power demands from mi- price contracts became the norm, and re- flexible project teams could produce highly croelectronics, instruments, and sensors quirement changes (and associated budget- useful smaller spacecraft. This different could produce similar payoffs. For inter- ary adjustments) were held to a minimum. paradigm opened up new classes of space planetary missions, reduced mass had the The Next Decade applications, notably in Earth science, capability to produce indirect cost savings With the advent of the 1990s came a move- commercial mobile-communications, and through shorter transit times and mission ment toward realizing routine access to remote-sensing arenas. duration. All this downsizing eliminated the need for large facilities and costly equipment such as high bays, clean-room Cost vs. Pointing Accuracy areas, test facilities, and special handling y = 1.67 + 12.98 x –0.5 equipment and containers. 32.00 16 data points Cost vs. Satellite Dry Mass Engineering
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 1998 Year in Review
    Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (AST) January 1999 COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION: 1998 YEAR IN REVIEW Cover Photo Credits (from left): International Launch Services (1998). Image is of the Atlas 2AS launch on June 18, 1998, from Cape Canaveral Air Station. It successfully orbited the Intelsat 805 communications satellite for Intelsat. Boeing Corporation (1998). Image is of the Delta 2 7920 launch on September 8, 1998, from Vandenberg Air Force Base. It successfully orbited five Iridium communications satellites for Iridium LLP. Lockheed Martin Corporation (1998). Image is of the Athena 2 awaiting its maiden launch on January 6, 1998, from Spaceport Florida. It successfully deployed the NASA Lunar Prospector. Orbital Sciences Corporation (1998). Image is of the Taurus 1 launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base on February 10, 1998. It successfully orbited the Geosat Follow-On 1 military remote sensing satellite for the Department of Defense, two Orbcomm satellites and the Celestis 2 funerary payload for Celestis Corporation. Orbital Sciences Corporation (1998). Image is of the Pegasus XL launch on December 5, 1998, from Vandenberg Air Force Base. It successfully orbited the Sub-millimeter Wave Astronomy Satellite for the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. 1998 YEAR IN REVIEW INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION In 1998, U.S. launch service providers conducted In addition, 1998 saw continuing demand for 22 launches licensed by the Federal Aviation launches to deploy the world’s first low Earth Administration (FAA), an increase of 29 percent orbit (LEO) communication systems. In 1998, over the 17 launches conducted in 1997. Of there were 17 commercial launches to LEO, 14 these 22, 17 were for commercial or international of which were for the Iridium, Globalstar, and customers, resulting in a 47 percent share of the Orbcomm LEO communications constellations.
    [Show full text]
  • Quarterly Launch Report
    Commercial Space Transportation QUARTERLY LAUNCH REPORT Featuring the launch results from the previous quarter and forecasts for the next two quarters 4th Quarter 1997 U n i t e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n • F e d e r a l A v i a t i o n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n A s s o c i a t e A d m i n i s t r a t o r f o r C o m m e r c i a l S p a c e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n QUARTERLY LAUNCH REPORT 1 4TH QUARTER 1997 REPORT Objectives This report summarizes recent and scheduled worldwide commercial, civil, and military orbital space launch events. Scheduled launches listed in this report are vehicle/payload combinations that have been identified in open sources, including industry references, company manifests, periodicals, and government documents. Note that such dates are subject to change. This report highlights commercial launch activities, classifying commercial launches as one or more of the following: • Internationally competed launch events (i.e., launch opportunities considered available in principle to competitors in the international launch services market), • Any launches licensed by the Office of the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation of the Federal Aviation Administration under U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Commercial Spacecraft Mission Model Update
    Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC) Report of the COMSTAC Technology & Innovation Working Group Commercial Spacecraft Mission Model Update May 1998 Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation Federal Aviation Administration U.S. Department of Transportation M5528/98ml Printed for DOT/FAA/AST by Rocketdyne Propulsion & Power, Boeing North American, Inc. Report of the COMSTAC Technology & Innovation Working Group COMMERCIAL SPACECRAFT MISSION MODEL UPDATE May 1998 Paul Fuller, Chairman Technology & Innovation Working Group Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC) Associative Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation Federal Aviation Administration U.S. Department of Transportation TABLE OF CONTENTS COMMERCIAL MISSION MODEL UPDATE........................................................................ 1 1. Introduction................................................................................................................ 1 2. 1998 Mission Model Update Methodology.................................................................. 1 3. Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 2 4. Recommendations....................................................................................................... 3 5. References .................................................................................................................. 3 APPENDIX A – 1998 DISCUSSION AND RESULTS........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • <> CRONOLOGIA DE LOS SATÉLITES ARTIFICIALES DE LA
    1 SATELITES ARTIFICIALES. Capítulo 5º Subcap. 10 <> CRONOLOGIA DE LOS SATÉLITES ARTIFICIALES DE LA TIERRA. Esta es una relación cronológica de todos los lanzamientos de satélites artificiales de nuestro planeta, con independencia de su éxito o fracaso, tanto en el disparo como en órbita. Significa pues que muchos de ellos no han alcanzado el espacio y fueron destruidos. Se señala en primer lugar (a la izquierda) su nombre, seguido de la fecha del lanzamiento, el país al que pertenece el satélite (que puede ser otro distinto al que lo lanza) y el tipo de satélite; este último aspecto podría no corresponderse en exactitud dado que algunos son de finalidad múltiple. En los lanzamientos múltiples, cada satélite figura separado (salvo en los casos de fracaso, en que no llegan a separarse) pero naturalmente en la misma fecha y juntos. NO ESTÁN incluidos los llevados en vuelos tripulados, si bien se citan en el programa de satélites correspondiente y en el capítulo de “Cronología general de lanzamientos”. .SATÉLITE Fecha País Tipo SPUTNIK F1 15.05.1957 URSS Experimental o tecnológico SPUTNIK F2 21.08.1957 URSS Experimental o tecnológico SPUTNIK 01 04.10.1957 URSS Experimental o tecnológico SPUTNIK 02 03.11.1957 URSS Científico VANGUARD-1A 06.12.1957 USA Experimental o tecnológico EXPLORER 01 31.01.1958 USA Científico VANGUARD-1B 05.02.1958 USA Experimental o tecnológico EXPLORER 02 05.03.1958 USA Científico VANGUARD-1 17.03.1958 USA Experimental o tecnológico EXPLORER 03 26.03.1958 USA Científico SPUTNIK D1 27.04.1958 URSS Geodésico VANGUARD-2A
    [Show full text]
  • Quarterly Launch Report
    Commercial Space Transportation QUARTERLY LAUNCH REPORT Featuring the launch results from the previous quarter and forecasts for the next two quarters 1st Quarter 1998 U n i t e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n • F e d e r a l A v i a t i o n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n A s s o c i a t e A d m i n i s t r a t o r f o r C o m m e r c i a l S p a c e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n QUARTERLY LAUNCH REPORT 1 1ST QUARTER 1998 REPORT Objectives This report summarizes recent and scheduled worldwide commercial, civil, and military orbital space launch events. Scheduled launches listed in this report are vehicle/payload combinations that have been identified in open sources, including industry references, company manifests, periodicals, and government documents. Note that such dates are subject to change. This report highlights commercial launch activities, classifying commercial launches as one or more of the following: • Internationally competed launch events (i.e., launch opportunities considered available in principle to competitors in the international launch services market), • Any launches licensed by the Office of the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation of the Federal Aviation Administration under U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • ODQN 4-1.Pub
    A publication of The Orbital Debris Program Office NASA Johnson Space Center Houston, Texas 77058 January 1999 Volume 4, Issue 1. Project Reviews International Space Station Debris Risk Assessment Process Dana M. Lear, Eric L. Christiansen element, conceptually a small, flat panel, which Since the first ISS M/OD assessments, Finite is used to define all of the outermost ISS The 8th International Space Station Integrated Element Models (FEMs) have been used to surfaces. The current ISS FEM consists of Meteoroid & Orbital Debris Threat Assessment define the physical shape of ISS surfaces. The approximately 90,000 of these elements (Figure (ITA) is currently underway, with release smallest analysis feature on the FEM is the 1). Each element has an associated Property planned for early 1999. Ana- Identification Number, or lysts at the NASA/Johnson PID, and a Ballistic Limit Space Center’s Hypervelocity Equation, or BLE. Impact Technology Facility Groups of elements are (HIT-F) have been producing used to make up module ITAs since the early 1990s in surface features; these in support of the International turn are used to make up Space Station effort. Frequent ISS modules. The ISS assembly plan changes modules are then have facilitated the need to re- assembled further into a peat the assessments every 9 to complete ISS FEM. This 12 months. Although the as- FEM information is used sessments typically require 6 by the analysis computer months to produce, each is the program, BUMPER-II, to result of many years of testing perform the fundamental and research. The overall as- M/OD risk calculations.
    [Show full text]
  • About the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (Ast) and the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (Comstac)
    2000 COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION FORECASTS Federal Aviation Administration’s Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (AST) and the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC) May 2000 ABOUT THE ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION (AST) AND THE COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE (COMSTAC) The Federal Aviation Administration’s senior executives from the U.S. commercial Associate Administrator for Commercial Space space transportation and satellite industries, Transportation (AST) licenses and regulates U.S. space-related state government officials, and commercial space launch activity as authorized other space professionals. by Executive Order 12465, Commercial Expendable Launch Vehicle Activities, and the The primary goals of COMSTAC are to: Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, as amended. AST’s mission is to license and • Evaluate economic, technological and regulate commercial launch operations to ensure institutional issues relating to the U.S. public health and safety and the safety of commercial space transportation industry property, and to protect national security and foreign policy interests of the United States • Provide a forum for the discussion of issues during commercial launch operations. The involving the relationship between industry Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 and the and government requirements 1996 National Space Policy also direct the Federal Aviation Administration to encourage, • Make recommendations to the Administrator facilitate, and promote commercial launches. on issues and approaches for Federal policies and programs regarding the industry. The Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC) provides Additional information concerning AST and information, advice, and recommendations to the COMSTAC can be found on AST’s web site, at Administrator of the Federal Aviation http://ast.faa.gov.
    [Show full text]
  • Table 3–51. Space Shuttle Missions Summary (1989–1998) 3–51
    databk7_collected.book Page 370 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM 370 Table 3–51. Space Shuttle Missions Summary (1989–1998) (Continued) Flt No. Mission/Orbiter Dates Crew Major Payloads 73 STS-74/Atlantis November 12, 1995 – CDR: Kenneth D. Cameron NASA Payload Deployed: None November 20, 1995 PLT: James D. Halsell, Jr. Second Shuttle-Mir docking MS: Chris A. Hadfield, Jerry L. Ross, William S. McArthur, Jr. 74 STS-72/Endeavour January 11, 1996 – CDR: Brian Duffy NASA Payload Deployed and Retrieved: DATABOOKNASA HISTORICAL January 20, 1996 PLT: Brent W. Jett, Jr. SPARTAN-OAST Flyer MS: Leroy Chiao, Retrieved Japanese Space Flyer Unit Winston E. Scott, Koichi Wakata, Daniel T. Barry 75 STS-75/Columbia February 22, 1996 – CDR: Andrew M. Allen NASA-Italian Space Agency Payload March 9, 1996 PLT: Scott J. Horowitz Deployed: Tethered Satellite System MS: Jeffrey A. Hoffman, (TSS)-1R Maurizio Cheli, Carried USMP-3 Claude Nicollier PC: Franklin R. Chang-Diaz PS: Umberto Guidoni 76 STS-76/Atlantis March 22, 1996 – CDR: Kevin P. Chilton NASA Payload Deployed: None March 31, 1996 PLT: Richard A. Searfoss Third Shuttle-Mir docking MS: Ronald M. Sega, Michael R. Carried SPACEHAB Single Module Clifford, Linda M. Godwin, Shannon W. Lucid (to Mir) 77 STS-77/Endeavour May 19, 1996 – CDR: John H. Casper NASA Payload Deployed and Retrieved: May 29, 1996 PLT: Curtis L. Brown, Jr. SPARTAN-207 carrying Inflatable MS: Andrew S.W. Thomas, Antenna Experiment Daniel W. Bursch, Mario Runco, Jr., Carried SPACEHAB research module Marc Garneau databk7_collected.book Page 371 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM Table 3–51.
    [Show full text]
  • Access to Space
    databk7_collected.book Page 989 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM INDEX A (Office of Space Science), 585 Advanced Transportation Technology, 101 Academic programs, 10, 14 Advanced X-ray Astronomical Facility (AXAF) Accelerometer, 959 approval of, 576 "Access to Space" study, 22, 80, 172 AXAF-I, 653 ACE-Able Engineering, Inc, 857 AXAF-S, 653 Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor budgets and funding for, 653–54, 779 (ACRIM), 421, 480 Chandra (AXAF), 576, 579, 652, 655–57, Acuña, Mario H., 940, 945, 953, 956 838–41 Adamson, James C. characteristics, instruments, and experiments, STS-28, 360, 380 654–57, 838–41; Advanced Charged Couple STS-43, 363, 409 Imaging Spectrometer (ACIS), 656, 657, Adrastea, 711 839, 840; High Energy Transmission Grating Advanced Carrier Customer Equipment Support (HETG) spectrometer, 657, 839–40, 841; System, 223 High Resolution Camera (HRC), 656, 657, Advanced Charged Couple Imaging Spectrometer 839, 840; High Resolution Mirror Assembly, (ACIS), 656, 657, 839, 840 654, 656–57; Low Energy Transmission Advanced Communications Technology Satellite Grating (LETG) spectrometer, 657, 839–40; (ACTS), 161, 252, 254, 366, 454 Science Instrument Module (SIM), 657 Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE), 140, deployment of, 579 579, 604–5, 606, 607, 772, 781, 806–9 development of, 652, 653 Advanced Concepts and Technology, Office of objective of, 589, 652–53 (Code C) Advisory Committee on the Future of the U.S. budgets and funding for, 13, 33, 35, 89, 91, 94, Space Program, 204–5, 287, 564 100 Aero Corporation, 894, 897
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Development Activities in Hollow Cathode Technology*†
    IEPC-01-270 Recent Development Activities in Hollow Cathode Technology*† Michael J. Patterson and Matthew T. Domonkos National Aeronautics and Space Administration Glenn Research Center MS 301-3 21000 Brookpark Road Cleveland, Ohio 44135 216-977-7481 [email protected] Christian Carpenter and Scott D. Kovaleski QSS Group, Inc. Cleveland, Ohio IEPC-01-270 A number of hollow cathodes have been recently developed at NASA Glenn Research Center for a variety of electric propulsion applications. These include 3.2 mm, 6.4 mm, and 12.7 mm diameter hollow cathodes for emission currents ranging from 100 mA to 100 Amperes. Engineering model assemblies have been fabricated for 10 A, 25 A, and 40 A applications, and flight units have been manufactured for 10 A and 25 A operation. Cathode components, as well as complete assemblies, have been delivered and flown for space missions, including the International Space Station, Deep Space One, and STEX. On-going activities at NASA GRC include development of engineering model low-current (<2 A) hollow cathodes, low-flow hollow cathodes, and high-current (40- and 100-A class) hollow cathodes. Tests to reduce environmental and interface requirements for long-life operation have also been conducted. Commercialization activities, to transfer cathode technology to aerospace and non-aerospace users, are also being pursued. Introduction beam neutralization functions. Near-term applications for HCAs for both ion and Hall propulsion call for With the success of the NASA Solar Electric Propulsion emission currents ranging from as low a 100 mA to 100 Technology Applications Readiness program ion Amperes.
    [Show full text]
  • Abbreviations Bibliography Cur
    The international trade in launch services : the effects of U.S. laws, policies and practices on its development Fenema, H.P. van Citation Fenema, H. P. van. (1999, September 30). The international trade in launch services : the effects of U.S. laws, policies and practices on its development. H.P. van Fenema, Leiden. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/1887/44957 Version: Not Applicable (or Unknown) Licence agreement concerning inclusion of doctoral thesis in the License: Institutional Repository of the University of Leiden Downloaded from: https://hdl.handle.net/1887/44957 Note: To cite this publication please use the final published version (if applicable). Cover Page The handle http://hdl.handle.net/1887/44957 holds various files of this Leiden University dissertation. Author: Fenema, H.P. van Title: The international trade in launch services : the effects of U.S. laws, policies and practices on its development Issue Date: 1999-09-30 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS a fortiori with greater reason a 1'Americaine = American-style a.o. = among other (things) AADC Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation ABM (Treaty) Anti-Ballistic Missile (Treaty) ACDA Arms Control and Disarmament Agency ad hoc concerned with a particular end/purpose or formed/ used for a specific or immediate problem/need AECA = Arms Export Control Act AFB Air Force Base AIA(A) Aerospace Industries Association (of America) ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking APMT Asia-Pacific Mobile Telecommunications art. = article artt. articles AST = Associate Administrator of Commercial Space Transportation AW/ST Aviation Week & Space Technology bona .fide in good faith BXA Bureau of Export Administration c.q.
    [Show full text]