DOCSLIB.ORG

FINAL Thesis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FINAL Thesis UC Santa Cruz UC Santa Cruz Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Searching for Organics on the Dwarf Planet Ceres Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5m12g6m2 Author Nayak, Michael Publication Date 2016 License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ 4.0 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ SEARCHING FOR ORGANICS ON THE DWARF PLANET CERES A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in EARTH SCIENCES by Michael Nayak June 2016 The Thesis of Michael Nayak is approved: ____________________________________ Professor Francis Nimmo, chair ____________________________________ Professor Ian Garrick-Bethell ____________________________________ Professor Erik Asphaug ____________________________________ Tyrus Miller Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies Copyright © by Michael Nayak 2016 Table of Contents List of Figures .................................................................................................................... iv Abstract ............................................................................................................................... v Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ vi Chapter 1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 Chapter 2 Science Objectives ................................................................................... 3 2.1. Motivation for Ceres exploration ................................................................... 3 2.2. Plume Chaser as a follow-on to Dawn .......................................................... 6 2.3. Mission Architecture ...................................................................................... 9 2.4. Mission Science Goals and Objectives ........................................................ 11 2.4.1 Mass Spectrometer ................................................................................. 13 2.4.2 Infrared (IR) Spectrometer ..................................................................... 18 2.4.3 Visible Wavelength Camera .................................................................. 19 2.5. Observation Window ................................................................................... 20 Chapter 3 Spacecraft Concept ................................................................................. 24 3.1. Introduction .................................................................................................. 24 3.2. Attitude Determination and Control System (ADCS) ................................. 26 3.3. Propulsion Module ....................................................................................... 27 3.4. Telecommunications .................................................................................... 28 3.5. Trajectory Design ......................................................................................... 29 Chapter 4 Conclusions ............................................................................................ 36 Chapter 5 Supplementary Information .................................................................... 38 Chapter 6 References .............................................................................................. 40 iii List of Figures Figure 2.1: Altitude versus time after impact: Distribution of ejected particle velocities. Velocities are with reference to the Ceres surface. ........................... 21 Figure 3.1: Baseline design for Plume Chaser and Plume Maker .............................. 25 Figure 3.2. Cubesat Ambipolar Thruster (CAT) engine (Aether Industries) .............. 27 Figure 3.3: Interplanetary trajectory for Plume Chaser. Courtesy Fan Yang-Yang. .. 31 Figure 3.4: Interplanetary trajectory for Plume Maker. Courtesy Fan Yang-Yang. ... 31 Figure 3.5: Depth-diameter curves vs. impact angle for impact velocities of (a) 1 km -1 -1 -1 s , (b) 5 km s , (c) 10 km s . Diameter of the crater (Dcrater, blue line), ejected mass in tons (red line) and depth of the crater for an icy surface (Hcrater, green line) are shown. This analysis is based on relations from [Holsapple, 1993] and [Richardson et al., 2007]. ................................................................................... 32 iv Abstract Searching for Organics on the Dwarf Planet Ceres by Michael Nayak The Herschel Space Observatory recently detected the presence of water vapor in observations of Ceres, bringing it into the crosshairs of the search for the building blocks of life in the solar system. I present a mission concept designed in collaboration with the NASA Ames Research Center for a two-probe mission to the dwarf planet Ceres, utilizing a pair of small low-cost spacecraft. The primary spacecraft will carry both a mass and an infrared spectrometer to characterize the detected vapor. Shortly after its arrival a second and largely similar spacecraft will impact Ceres to create an impact ejecta “plume” timed to enable a rendezvous and sampling by the primary spacecraft. This enables additional subsurface chemistry, volatile content and material characterization, and new science complementary to the Dawn spacecraft, the first to arrive at Ceres. Science requirements, candidate instruments, rendezvous trajectories, spacecraft design and comparison with Dawn science are detailed. v Acknowledgements This work was largely performed on location at the NASA Ames Research Center, Mountain View, California. I would like to gratefully acknowledge financial support under and awarded by the Department of Defense, National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate (NDSEG) Fellowship, 32 CFR 168a, with supplementary support provided by Red Sky Research, LLC. Computational support was provided by the NASA Ames Mission Design Division (Code RD) through a contract with the University of California Santa Cruz University Affiliated Research Center (UARC). I owe a huge debt of gratitude to Dr. Pete Worden, Dr. Steve Zornetzer, Dr. Alan Weston (NASA), and Col. Carol Welsch, Lt. Col Joe Nance and Lt. Col Brian Bracy (USAF), for enabling my unconventional departure from the beaten path onto this academic adventure. I sincerely thank my reading committee for their patience in reviewing this work: Francis Nimmo (UCSC), Ian Garrick-Bethell (UCSC) and Erik Asphaug (Arizona State University). I would also like to acknowledge my co-authors on this project, who were all affiliated with the NASA Ames Research Center at the time of publication (2016): David Mauro, Jan Stupl, Jonathan Aziz, Anthony Colaprete, Andres Dono-Perez, Chad Frost, Jonas Jonsson, Christopher McKay, Derek Sears, Michael Soulage, Jason Swenson and Fan Yang-Yang. I acknowledge contributions to this work by Tori Hoehler, Alfonso Davila, Eldar Noe, John Karcz, Andrew Gonzales, Sasha Weston, Benjamin Klamm, Larry Lemke, Hugo Sanchez, Anthony Genova, Brian Lewis and James Bell (Ames vi Research Center) and Benjamin Longmier and David Hash (University of Michigan). In no particular order, I would also like to thank Elizabeth Hyde, Jenna Scarpelli, Jennifer Fish, Christina Doolittle, Kay Nayak, Annie Nayak and Grace Persico. Finally and most importantly, none of this would be possible without the grace and blessing of the Lord. The text of this thesis includes modified reprints of Nayak et al. (2016), Adv. Sp. Res. Vol. 57, Issue 5, pp. 1133-1146; all co-authors are listed above, supported this research and helped design the Plume Chaser mission referenced herein. The text of this paper is used with the permission of all co-authors. Opinions, interpretations and recommendations expressed are mine alone and are not necessarily endorsed by NASA, the US Air Force or the Department of Defense. vii Chapter 1 Introduction The Herschel Space Observatory recently detected the presence of water vapor in observations of Ceres [Küppers et al., 2014], bringing it into the crosshairs of the search for the building blocks of life in the solar system. This work presents a mission concept for a two-probe mission to the dwarf planet Ceres, utilizing a pair of small low-cost spacecraft. The primary spacecraft, Plume Chaser, will carry a mass spectrometer and an infrared spectrometer to characterize the vapor. Shortly after its arrival a second and largely similar spacecraft, Plume Maker, will impact Ceres to create an impact ejecta “plume” timed to coincide with Plume Chaser flying through the ejecta. This rendezvous mission enables additional subsurface chemistry, volatile content and material characterization, as well as new science complementary to that of the Dawn spacecraft. The search for organics and the assessment of habitability form the core of the mission’s objectives, making it a natural follow-on to Dawn. We demonstrate that a pair of spacecraft inside a cost cap of $200M can fulfill these objectives. Science requirements, candidate instruments, rendezvous trajectories, spacecraft design and comparison with science from the Dawn spacecraft are detailed. The low cost of the design enables the exploration of multiple solar system bodies in a reasonable 1 timeframe despite budgetary constraints. The volume of the spacecraft enables launch to Geostationary Transfer Orbit (GTO) as a secondary payload, providing multiple launch opportunities per year. 2 Chapter 2 Science Objectives
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ssc09-Xii-03
    SSC09-XII-03 The Promise of Innovation from University Space Systems: Are We Meeting It? Michael Swartwout St. Louis University 3450 Lindell Boulevard St. Louis, Missouri 63103; (314) 977-8240 [email protected] ABSTRACT A popular notion among universities is that we are innovation-drivers in the staid, risk-adverse spacecraft industry – we are to professional small satellites what small satellites are to the “battlestars”. By contrast, professional industry takes a much different perspective on university-class spacecraft; these programs are good for attracting students to space and providing valuable pre-career training, but the actual flight missions are ancillary, even unimportant. Which opinion is correct? Both are correct. The vast majority of the 111 student-built spacecraft that have flown have made no innovative contributions. That is not to say that they have been without contribution. In addition to the inarguable benefits to education, many have served as radio Amateur communications, science experiments and even technological demonstrations. But “innovative”? Not so much. However, there have been two innovative contributors, whose contributions are large enough to settle the question: the University of Surrey begat SSTL, which helped create the COTS-based small satellite industry. Stanford and Cal Poly begat CubeSats, whose contributions are still being created today. This paper provides an update to our earlier submissions on the history of student-built spacecraft. Major trends identified in previous years will be re-examined with new data -- especially the bifurcation between larger-scale, larger-scope "flagship" programs and small-scale, reduced-mission "independents". In particular, we will demonstrate that the general history of student-built spacecraft has not been one of innovation, nor of development of new space systems -- with those few, extremely noteworthy, exceptions.
    [Show full text]
  • Genesat (Launched Dec 2006), – Pre-Sat/Nanosail-D (Aug 2008) – Pharmasat (Launched May 2009), – O/OREOS (Planned May
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Free Flyer Utilization for Biology Research John W. Hines Chief Technologist, Engineering Directorate Technical Director, Nanosatellite Missions NASA-Ames Research Center NASA Applications of BioScience/BioTechnology HumanHuman ExplorationExploration EmphasisEmphasis FundamentalFundamental ExploratiExploratioonn Subsystems BiologyBiology Subsystems EmphasisEmphasis HumansHumans SmallSmall OrganismsOrganisms (Mice,(Mice, Rats) Rats) TiTissussue,e, O Orrgansgans MammalianMammalian CellsCells Human Health Emphasis ModelModel Organisms, BioMolecules Organisms, BioMolecules MicrobesMicrobes 2 4 Free-Flyer Utilization Free Flyer Features • Advantage: Relatively inexpensive means to increase number of flight opportunities • Capabilities: – Returnable capsule to small secondary non-recoverable satellites, and/or – In-situ measurement and control with autonomous sample management • Command and Control: Fully automated or uplinked command driven investigations. • Research data: Downlink and/or receipt of the samples • Collaborations: Interagency, academic, commercial and international Russian Free Flyers Early Free Flyers NASA Biosatellite I, II, 1966-67 NASA Biosatellite III, 1969 Nominal 3d flights Nominal 20d flight • Response to microgravity & • Spaceflight responses of non-human radiation: various biological species primates • Onboard radiation source Timeline of Russian-NASA Biology Spaceflights Collaborations Bion* Characteristics Bion Rationale • Increases access to space • Proven Platforms
    [Show full text]
  • Aeronautics and Space Report of the President
    Aeronautics and Space Report of the President Fiscal Year 2009 Activities Aeronautics and Space Report of the President Fiscal Year 2009 Activities The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 directed the annual Aeronautics and Space Report to include a “comprehensive description of the programmed activities and the accomplishments of all agencies of the United States in the field of aeronautics and space activities during the preceding calendar year.” In recent years, the reports have been prepared on a fiscal-year basis, consistent with the budgetary period now used in programs of the Federal Government. This year’s report covers Aeronautics and SpaceAeronautics Report of the President activities that took place from October 1, 2008, through September 30, 2009. TABLE OF CONTENTS National Aeronautics and Space Administration . 1. Fiscal Year 2009 Activities Year Fiscal • Exploration Systems Mission Directorate 1 • Space Operations Mission Directorate 10 • Science Mission Directorate 18 • Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate 25 Department of Defense . 41 Federal Aviation Administration . 45 . Department of Commerce . 51. Department of the Interior . 81. Federal Communications Commission . 103 U.S. Department of Agriculture. 107 National Science Foundation . 115 . Department of State. 125 Department of Energy. 129 Smithsonian Institution . 137. Appendices . 149 . • A-1 U S Government Spacecraft Record 150 • A-2 World Record of Space Launches Successful in Attaining Earth Orbit or Beyond 151 • B Successful Launches to Orbit on U S Vehicles 152 • C Human Spaceflights 155 • D-1A Space Activities of the U S Government—Historical Table of Budget Authority in Millions of Real-Year Dollars 156 • D-1B Space Activities of the U S Government—Historical Table of Budget Authority in Millions of Inflation-Adjusted FY 09 Dollars 157 • D-2 Federal Space Activities Budget 158 • D-3 Federal Aeronautics Activities Budget 159 Acronyms .
    [Show full text]
  • Commercial Space Tourism: Impediments to Industrial Development and Strategic Communication Solutions
    Commercial Space Tourism: Impediments to Industrial Development and Strategic Communication Solutions Authored By Dirk C. Gibson University of New Mexico USA eBooks End User License Agreement Please read this license agreement carefully before using this eBook. Your use of this eBook/chapter constitutes your agreement to the terms and conditions set forth in this License Agreement. Bentham Science Publishers agrees to grant the user of this eBook/chapter, a non-exclusive, nontransferable license to download and use this eBook/chapter under the following terms and conditions: 1. This eBook/chapter may be downloaded and used by one user on one computer. The user may make one back-up copy of this publication to avoid losing it. The user may not give copies of this publication to others, or make it available for others to copy or download. For a multi-user license contact [email protected] 2. All rights reserved: All content in this publication is copyrighted and Bentham Science Publishers own the copyright. You may not copy, reproduce, modify, remove, delete, augment, add to, publish, transmit, sell, resell, create derivative works from, or in any way exploit any of this publication’s content, in any form by any means, in whole or in part, without the prior written permission from Bentham Science Publishers. 3. The user may print one or more copies/pages of this eBook/chapter for their personal use. The user may not print pages from this eBook/chapter or the entire printed eBook/chapter for general distribution, for promotion, for creating new works, or for resale.
    [Show full text]
  • USA Space Debris Environment and Operational Updates
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration USA Space Debris Environment and Operational Updates Presentation to the 47 th Session of the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space United Nations 8-19 February 2010 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Presentation Outline • Evolution of Low Earth Orbit Satellite Population • Space missions in 2009 • Collision Avoidance Maneuvers • GEO Population and Retirement of USA GEO Spacecraft in 2009 • Satellite Fragmentations in 2009 • Inspection of Hubble Space Telescope • First International Conference on Orbital Debris Removal 2 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Growth of the Cataloged Satellite Population in Low Earth Orbit: Numbers of Objects • The number of cataloged objects in low Earth orbit has increased 62% since 1 January 2007. 12000 11000 Total Objects Iridium 33 and Cosmos 2251 Collision Fragmentation Debris 10000 Spacecraft 9000 Mission -related Debris Destruction of Fengyun-1C 8000 Rocket Bodies 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 Number of CatalogedCatalogedObjects Objects ofof Number Number 2000 1000 0 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 3 • National Aeronautics and Space Administration tons per year. ISSbelow (data does year. per c notinclude tons orbi Earth growththe mass rate inlowof Recently, Mass in Orbit (millions of kg) in Population SatelliteCataloged the of Growth 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 1957 1959 Low Earth Orbit: Mass of Objects of Mass Earth Orbit: Low 1961 1963 1965 Mission-related Debris Mission-related Debris Fragmentation Bodies Rocket Spacecraft Objects Total 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 4 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 omponents) t has averaged 50 averaged has metric t 1993 1995 1997 Mir De-orbit Mir 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA Space Missions of 2009 • Twelve NASA space missions were undertaken in 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • Pharmasat: Drug Dose Dependence Results from an Autonomous Microsystem-Based Small Satellite in Low Earth Orbit A.J
    PHARMASAT: DRUG DOSE DEPENDENCE RESULTS FROM AN AUTONOMOUS MICROSYSTEM-BASED SMALL SATELLITE IN LOW EARTH ORBIT A.J. Ricco1*, M. Parra1, M. Piccini1, D. Ly1, D. Niesel2, M. McGinnis2, A. Kudlicki2, J.W. Hines1, L. Timucin1, C. Beasley1, R. Ricks1, M. McIntyre1, C. Friedericks1, M. Henschke1, R. Leung1, M. Diaz-Aguado1, C. Kitts3, I. Mas3, R. Rasay3, E. Agasid1, E. Luzzi1, K. Ronzano1, D. Squires1, B. Yost1 1Small Spacecraft Division, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California, USA 2University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, USA 3Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, California, USA ABSTRACT cost and other limitations of human-tended space biological ex- We designed, built, tested, space-qualified, launched, and periments while expanding the range of launch opportunities. downlinked bioanalytical data from PharmaSat, the first fully On May 19, 2009, the 5.1-kg PharmaSat spacecraft launched autonomous outer-space pharmaceutical dose-response bioanalyti- as a secondary payload aboard a Minotaur I rocket from Wallops cal system on a free-flying satellite. PharmaSat tracks microorgan- Flight Facility, Virginia. This “hitchhiker” approach to space ism culture population density and metabolic activity in 48 microw- science offers much lower launch costs (about $40,000/kg) than ells via 3-color optical absorbance. Its 5.1-kg total mass includes dedicated space biology missions, but can add operational con- solar cells, integrated spacecraft “bus” module (power/batteries/ straints: PharmaSat was delivered for test and launch-vehicle control/communications), and a sealed containment vessel housing integration nearly 7 weeks before launch; no power was available the biofluidic, optical, thermal, and sensor subsystems.
    [Show full text]
  • Cubesat Mission Integration: a Launch Vehicle Perspective
    CubeSat Mission Integration: A Launch Vehicle Perspective Scott Schoneman Manager, Mission Development Minotaur Launch Vehicles CubeSat Developers Summer Workshop Utah State University, Logan UT 11-12 August 2007 Innovation You Can Count On™ Agenda z Orbital’s Historical Perspective z Recent and Current CubeSat Missions z Sage Advice from the Rocket Guys Launch Vehicle Products Space Launch Vehicles Interceptor Launch Vehicles Target Launch Vehicles z In the Last 25 Years, the Company Has Developed and Built, or Is Now Under Contract to Produce, 610 Launch Vehicles ¾ 433 Launch Vehicles Built and Delivered During 1982-2006 ¾ 177 Additional Vehicles Under Contract for 2007-2014 Deliveries z Orbital’s Main Launch Vehicles Are Fully Developed and In Production ¾ 98% Full Mission Success Achieved Over Last 10 Years ¾ 100% Full Mission Success Achieved Over Last 5 Years Orbital’s Multiple Payload Space Launch Experience z Orbital Has Averaged >2 Spacecraft/Mission Across All Space Launch Missions ¾ 37 Pegasus Missions, 81 Spacecraft: >2/Mission ¾ 7 Taurus Missions, 11 Spacecraft: ~1.4/Mission ¾ 7 Minotaur I Missions, 16 Spacecraft: ~2.3/Mission – 24 Spacecraft, 3.4/Mission if six picosats separated from OPAL spacecraft (JAWSAT mission) and two from MightySat are counted Pegasus Taurus Minotaur I BATSAT/ SNOE JAWSAT GFO/ ORBCOMM TERRIERS/ MUBLCOM COSMIC Minotaur Family of Launch Vehicles Minotaur Family Flight History and Firm Manifest Minotaur I TacSat-2 ORS Demonstration z Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) Demonstration ¾ Rapid Launch
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Flight Results from the Pharmasat Biological Microsatellite Mission
    SSC09-IV-10 Initial Flight Results from the PharmaSat Biological Microsatellite Mission Christopher Kitts, Karolyn Ronzano, Richard Rasay, Ignacio Mas, Jose Acain, Michael Neumann, Laura Bica, Paul Mahacek, Giovanni Minelli, Erin Beck, Steve Li, Brian Gamp, Seamus Agnew, John Shepard Robotic Systems Laboratory, Santa Clara University, 500 El Camino Real, Santa Clara CA 95053 [email protected] John Hines, Elwood Agasid, Charlie Friedericks, Matthew Piccini, Macarena Parra, Linda Timucin, C. Beasley, Mike Henschke, Ed Luzzi, Nghia Mai, Mike McIntyre, Robert Ricks, Antonio Ricco, David Squires, Bruce Yost, Greg Defouw, Aaron Schooley, Diana Ly, Millan Diaz-Aguado, Eric Stackpole, Orlando Diaz, Tammy Doukas Small Spacecraft Office, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field CA 94035; [email protected] David Niesel, Michael McGinnis The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston TX, 77555; [email protected] ABSTRACT The mission of the PharmaSat biological microsatellite is to investigate the efficacy of anti-fungal agents in the spaceflight environment. The satellite uses autonomous, in situ bio-analytical and sample management technologies in order to culture and characterize the growth of multiple samples of yeast, which are exposed to differing levels of an anti-fungal agent during their growth cycle. The satellite uses a 10 cm x 10 cm x 30 cm Cubesat-class structure with body-mounted solar panels, an ISM-band transceiver, and a simple PIC-class microcontroller for the main flight computer. PharmaSat was launched on May 19, 2009 from Wallops Flight Facility as a secondary payload on a Minotaur launch vehicle. During the first week of operation, the primary biological experiment was conducted, and data from this experiment was downloaded thereby achieving mission success.
    [Show full text]
  • Microbiological Experiments Onboard Cubesats – a Review and Prospects
    1st Latin American IAA CubeSat Workshop - Techn Session XIII: PAYLOAD 1 December 8-11, 2014, Brasília, Brazil IAA-BR-14-13-03 Microbiological Experiments Onboard CubeSats – A Review and Prospects Luis Zea* Since the beginning of CubeSat operations, most missions have focused on technology demonstration, student outreach, and, to a lesser extent, on in- situ scientific research; namely, space environment characterization. Never- theless, there have been four CubeSats with a space life sciences focus. GeneSat-1, launched in 2006, proved the feasibility of conducting microbio- logical experiments onboard a CubeSat. Using E. coli as a model organism, it successfully acquired and transmitted growth and gene expression data back to Earth. PharmaSat, launched in 2009, was designed and built to ana- lyze yeast and antifungal treatment, and to assess drug action in space. This second mission further demonstrated that CubeSats could serve as cost- effective platforms to answer fundamental biological questions. O/OREOS followed suit in 2010, housing two independent scientific payloads and in- creasing the mission duration from two weeks to over six months. In 2014, SporeSat was launched as a technology demonstrator for lab-on-a-chip de- vices using the fern Ceratopteris richardii as a model organism. Although life sciences experiments onboard pico- and nano-satellites are still far from being a trend, these four NASA Ames satellites have shown that this is fea- sible. This paper analyzes these CubeSats from engineering and program- matic points of view. Satellite subsystems, e.g. power and communication, and their ground control systems are described. Operational parameters such as orbital information are also detailed.
    [Show full text]
  • Space Security 2010
    SPACE SECURITY 2010 spacesecurity.org SPACE 2010SECURITY SPACESECURITY.ORG iii Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publications Data Space Security 2010 ISBN : 978-1-895722-78-9 © 2010 SPACESECURITY.ORG Edited by Cesar Jaramillo Design and layout: Creative Services, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada Cover image: Artist rendition of the February 2009 satellite collision between Cosmos 2251 and Iridium 33. Artwork courtesy of Phil Smith. Printed in Canada Printer: Pandora Press, Kitchener, Ontario First published August 2010 Please direct inquires to: Cesar Jaramillo Project Ploughshares 57 Erb Street West Waterloo, Ontario N2L 6C2 Canada Telephone: 519-888-6541, ext. 708 Fax: 519-888-0018 Email: [email protected] iv Governance Group Cesar Jaramillo Managing Editor, Project Ploughshares Phillip Baines Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Canada Dr. Ram Jakhu Institute of Air and Space Law, McGill University John Siebert Project Ploughshares Dr. Jennifer Simons The Simons Foundation Dr. Ray Williamson Secure World Foundation Advisory Board Hon. Philip E. Coyle III Center for Defense Information Richard DalBello Intelsat General Corporation Theresa Hitchens United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research Dr. John Logsdon The George Washington University (Prof. emeritus) Dr. Lucy Stojak HEC Montréal/International Space University v Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1 Acronyms PAGE 7 Introduction PAGE 11 Acknowledgements PAGE 13 Executive Summary PAGE 29 Chapter 1 – The Space Environment:
    [Show full text]
  • Financial Operational Losses in Space Launch
    UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE FINANCIAL OPERATIONAL LOSSES IN SPACE LAUNCH A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY By TOM ROBERT BOONE, IV Norman, Oklahoma 2017 FINANCIAL OPERATIONAL LOSSES IN SPACE LAUNCH A DISSERTATION APPROVED FOR THE SCHOOL OF AEROSPACE AND MECHANICAL ENGINEERING BY Dr. David Miller, Chair Dr. Alfred Striz Dr. Peter Attar Dr. Zahed Siddique Dr. Mukremin Kilic c Copyright by TOM ROBERT BOONE, IV 2017 All rights reserved. \For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?" Luke 14:28, KJV Contents 1 Introduction1 1.1 Overview of Operational Losses...................2 1.2 Structure of Dissertation.......................4 2 Literature Review9 3 Payload Trends 17 4 Launch Vehicle Trends 28 5 Capability of Launch Vehicles 40 6 Wastage of Launch Vehicle Capacity 49 7 Optimal Usage of Launch Vehicles 59 8 Optimal Arrangement of Payloads 75 9 Risk of Multiple Payload Launches 95 10 Conclusions 101 10.1 Review of Dissertation........................ 101 10.2 Future Work.............................. 106 Bibliography 108 A Payload Database 114 B Launch Vehicle Database 157 iv List of Figures 3.1 Payloads By Orbit, 2000-2013.................... 20 3.2 Payload Mass By Orbit, 2000-2013................. 21 3.3 Number of Payloads of Mass, 2000-2013.............. 21 3.4 Total Mass of Payloads in kg by Individual Mass, 2000-2013... 22 3.5 Number of LEO Payloads of Mass, 2000-2013........... 22 3.6 Number of GEO Payloads of Mass, 2000-2013..........
    [Show full text]
  • Launch Services Overview to the Planetary Exploration Decadal Survey Committee
    Launch Services Overview to the Planetary Exploration Decadal Survey Committee November 17, 2009 Bill Wrobel NASA / SOMD Agenda • Overview • Manifest • Launch Vehicles • Issues 2 Overview • NASA’s Launch Services Program (LSP) was consolidated at KSC in 1998 – LSP provides acquisition, technical management, mission integration and launch management • NASA utilizes a mixed fleet of vehicles (small, medium & intermediate) with varying levels of performance used to support a mix of mission sizes – Mainly for Science Mission Directorate payloads, but SOMD (TDRS) and other government agencies also use NASA launch services – Launches conducted from multiple ranges; CCAFS, VAFB, RTS, WFF, and Kodiak • Vehicles are selected from the NASA Launch Services Contract (NLS) – Through competition based on mass, orbit, class of payload, and best value – Current NLS contract expires in 2010, RFP released to extend the contract • Most recent contract action purchased four intermediate class missions – TDRS – K & L, RBSP and MMS • Important issues – Loss of Medium Class launch service provider, which has been 50% of NASA missions historically – Compressed manifest – Possibility that NASA incurs a portion of the intermediate class infrastructure costs post 2010 3 Launch Services Program Roles & Responsibilities • Identify & Aggregate NASA Space Launch Requirements • Provide Launch Services for Other Agencies, Upon Request • Procure Commercially Available Expendable Launch Vehicle Launch Services to meet Spacecraft mission requirements • Overall Integration
    [Show full text]