DOCSLIB.ORG

Design Standard Spacecraft Charging and Discharging

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Design Standard Spacecraft Charging and Discharging JERG-2-211A DESIGN STANDARD SPACECRAFT CHARGING AND DISCHARGING May 10, 2012 Revision A Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency JERG-2-211A This is an English translation of JREG-2-211A. Whenever there is anything ambiguous in this document, the original document (the Japanese version) shall be used to clarify the intent of the requirement. Disclaimer The information contained herein is for general informational purposes only. JAXA makes no warranty, express or implied, including as to the accuracy, usefulness or timeliness of any information herein. JAXA will not be liable for any losses relating to the use of the information. Published by Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency Safety and Mission Assurance Department 2-1-1 Sengen Tsukuba-shi,Ibaraki 305-8505, Japan JERG-2-211A － Contents － 1. Purpose and Scope of Application .............................................................................................. 1 2. Related Documents ....................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Applicable documents .................................................................................................................. 2 2.2 References ................................................................................................................................... 2 3. Terminology, Definition, and Abbreviation ..................................................................................... 3 3.1 Terminology and definition .............................................................................................................. 3 3.1.1 Aurora zone .......................................................................................................................... 3 3.1.2 Radiation dose ..................................................................................................................... 3 3.1.3 Wake..................................................................................................................................... 3 3.1.4 Electrostatic breakdown ....................................................................................................... 3 3.1.5 Electrostatic discharge ......................................................................................................... 3 3.1.6 Internal charging ................................................................................................................... 3 3.1.7 Ion engine ............................................................................................................................. 3 3.1.8 L-shell ................................................................................................................................... 3 3.1.9 Outgassing rate .................................................................................................................... 3 3.1.10 Plasma................................................................................................................................ 3 3.1.11 Radiation ............................................................................................................................. 3 3.1.12 Radiation belt ...................................................................................................................... 3 3.1.13 Ram .................................................................................................................................... 3 3.1.14 Surface charging ................................................................................................................ 4 3.1.15 Tether .................................................................................................................................. 4 3.1.16 Thruster .............................................................................................................................. 4 3.1.17 High-energy electron .......................................................................................................... 4 3.1.18 Sputtering ........................................................................................................................... 4 3.1.19 Precipitating electron .......................................................................................................... 4 3.1.20 Differential voltage .............................................................................................................. 4 3.1.21 Inverted potential gradient .................................................................................................. 4 3.1.22 Normal potential gradient ................................................................................................... 4 3.1.23 Primary discharge .............................................................................................................. 4 3.1.24 Primary arc ......................................................................................................................... 4 3.1.25 Secondary arc .................................................................................................................... 4 3.1.26 Non-sustained discharge ................................................................................................... 4 3.1.27 Temporary sustained discharge ......................................................................................... 5 3.1.28 Permanent sustained discharge......................................................................................... 5 3.1.29 Paschen discharge ............................................................................................................. 5 3.1.30 Insulator .............................................................................................................................. 5 3.1.31 High-resistance material ..................................................................................................... 5 3.1.32 Dielectric ........................................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................. 5 4. General Requirements ...................................................................................................................... 7 4.1 Principle ........................................................................................................................................ 7 4.2 Surface materials ......................................................................................................................... 7 4.3 Spacecraft for plasma measurement ........................................................................................... 7 4.4 Solar array panel .......................................................................................................................... 7 4.5 High-voltage system ..................................................................................................................... 7 4.6 Internal parts and materials .......................................................................................................... 7 4.7 Tether ........................................................................................................................................... 8 4.8 Electrical propulsion ..................................................................................................................... 8 5. Design Requirements and Design Means ...................................................................................... 9 5.1 Principle ........................................................................................................................................ 9 5.1.1 Program planning ................................................................................................................. 9 5.2 Spacecraft surface ..................................................................................................................... 13 5.2.1 Explanatory comments and Applicability ............................................................................ 13 5.2.2 Basic design requirements ............................................................................................. 13 5.2.3 Conductivity of structural bodies and mechanisms ............................................................ 13 5.2.4 Conductivity of the surface of a spacecraft ........................................................................ 14 i JERG-2-211A 5.2.5 Materials: Electric conductors ............................................................................................ 14 5.2.6 Materials: High-resistance materials .................................................................................. 15 5.2.7 Thermal blanket .................................................................................................................. 16 5.2.8 Conductive coating ............................................................................................................. 16 5.2.9 Intentional electrical potential ............................................................................................. 16 5.2.10 Preventive measures for charged sections ...................................................................... 17 5.3 Satellites for plasma measurement ........................................................................................... 17
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Quantitative Human Spacecraft Design Evaluation Model For
    A QUANTITATIVE HUMAN SPACECRAFT DESIGN EVALUATION MODEL FOR ASSESSING CREW ACCOMMODATION AND UTILIZATION by CHRISTINE FANCHIANG B.S., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2007 M.S., University of Colorado Boulder, 2010 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences 2017 i This thesis entitled: A Quantitative Human Spacecraft Design Evaluation Model for Assessing Crew Accommodation and Utilization written by Christine Fanchiang has been approved for the Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences Dr. David M. Klaus Dr. Jessica J. Marquez Dr. Nisar R. Ahmed Dr. Daniel J. Szafir Dr. Jennifer A. Mindock Dr. James A. Nabity Date: 13 March 2017 The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline. ii Fanchiang, Christine (Ph.D., Aerospace Engineering Sciences) A Quantitative Human Spacecraft Design Evaluation Model for Assessing Crew Accommodation and Utilization Thesis directed by Professor David M. Klaus Crew performance, including both accommodation and utilization factors, is an integral part of every human spaceflight mission from commercial space tourism, to the demanding journey to Mars and beyond. Spacecraft were historically built by engineers and technologists trying to adapt the vehicle into cutting edge rocketry with the assumption that the astronauts could be trained and will adapt to the design. By and large, that is still the current state of the art. It is recognized, however, that poor human-machine design integration can lead to catastrophic and deadly mishaps.
    [Show full text]
  • An Integrated Reliability and Physics-Based Risk Modeling Approach for Assessing Human Spaceflight Systems
    An Integrated Reliability and Physics-based Risk Modeling Approach for Assessing Human Spaceflight Systems Susie Go*a, Donovan Mathiasa, Chris Mattenbergerb, Scott Lawrencea, and Ken Geea a NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, USA b Science and Technology Corp., Moffett Field, CA, USA Abstract: This paper presents an integrated reliability and physics-based risk modeling approach for assessing human spaceflight systems. The approach is demonstrated using an example, end-to-end risk assessment of a generic crewed space transportation system during a reference mission to the International Space Station. The behavior of the system is modeled using analysis techniques from multiple disciplines in order to properly capture the dynamic time- and state- dependent consequences of failures encountered in different mission phases. We discuss how to combine traditional reliability analyses with Monte Carlo simulation methods and physics-based engineering models to produce loss- of-mission and loss-of-crew risk estimates supporting risk-based decision-making and requirement verification. This approach facilitates risk-informed design by providing more realistic representation of system failures and interactions; identifying key risk-driving sensitivities, dependencies, and assumptions; and tracking multiple figures of merit within a single, responsive assessment framework that can readily incorporate evolving design information throughout system development. Keywords: PRA, simulation, physical modeling, reliability modeling, risk-informed design. 1. INTRODUCTION Over the years, NASA has developed a working knowledge and body of standards to guide both the design and the evaluation of safe human space flight systems. These include specific requirements on procedures and best practices in addition to quantitative mission risk requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Spacecraft Research and Design
    Spacecraft Research & Design Center Naval Postgraduate School NAVAL POSTGRADUATESCHOOL Thesis/Research Opportunities The Spacecraft Research and Design Center at the Naval The mission of the Naval Analytical and experimental investigation are performed to develop Postgraduate School consists of six state-of-the art laboratories: technologies for acquisition, tracking and pointing of flexible Postgraduate School is to Fltsatcom Laboratory, Spacecraft Attitude Dynamics and Control spacecraft with optical payloads; active vibration control, Isolation, enhance the security of the Laboratory, Smart Structures laboratory, Spacecraft Design and suppression using smart structures; space robotics, satellite United States of America Center, NPS-AFRL Optical Relay Mirror Spacecraft Laboratory, servicing, space system design, and computer aided design tools. through graduate and and Satellite Servicing Laboratory. These laboratories are used for professional education programs Three-Axis Simulator 1 Three-Axis Simulator 2 instruction and research in space system engineering and space • Slew maneuver torque profile to minimize settling time. focusing on the unique needs of operations curricula. The emphasis has been on providing • Active vibration isolation/suppression using smart sensors students with hands-on experience in the design, analysis, and and actuators the military officers. These programs are sustained by testing of space systems and systems and to provide students research and advanced studies directed towards the needs • Fast steering mirror pointing/jitter control facilities for experimental research. The emphasis in the research • Improved multi-body flexible dynamics and control models of the Navy and DoD. Our goals are to increase the combat h areas is on acquisition, tracking and pointing of flexible • Adaptive Optics Control effectiveness of the armed forces of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Spacecraft Design Innovations in the Apl Space Department
    ERIC J. HOFFMAN SPACECRAFT DESIGN INNOVATIONS IN THE APL SPACE DEPARTMENT The Applied Physics Laboratory has made several important contributions to spacecraft design in the fields of Doppler tracking and navigation, attitude control, mechanisms, drag compensation, antennas, spacebome computing, and autonomous satellite positioning. Many of these innovations have since become standard spacecraft techniques. Others are being rediscovered in the light of renewed interest in small, mission-capable satellites. INTRODUCTION Since its beginning in 1959, the APL Space Department the satellite's orbit. Researchers at other laboratories had has designed, built, and launched fifty-four satellites thought about this problem, but had oversimplified the (Fig. 1). Fifty-one were completely assembled at APL; analysis, concluding (incorrectly) that the orbit could not three (the Delta series) were built jointly with McDonnell be found at all or that it could be found only with low Douglas. An additional twenty-three satellites were fab­ accuracy. Only Guier and Weiffenbach solved the theo­ ricated by government and industry to APL'S designs as retical problem correctly, concluding that a highly accu­ part of the Navy Navigation Satellite System (Transit) rate orbit could be determined using Doppler data gath­ production runs. The Space Department has also provid­ ered from a single pass. ed about seventy scientific instruments and numerous en­ In March 1958, Guier and Weiffenbach were discuss­ gineering subsystems for launch on non-APL spacecraft. ing their Doppler tracking results with Frank T. McClure. Despite its relatively small size, the Space Department It occurred to McClure to invert the problem: if the has been remarkably productive in introducing and im­ position of the satellite were accurately known, Doppler plementing simple and effective technical solutions to data could tell an observer on the ground his unknown spacecraft engineering problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Design and Utilization of the Stanford Vision-Based Navigation Testbed for Spacecraft Rendezvous
    IWSCFF 17-26 DESIGN AND UTILIZATION OF THE STANFORD VISION-BASED NAVIGATION TESTBED FOR SPACECRAFT RENDEZVOUS Connor Beierle,∗ Joshua Sullivan,y and Simone D’Amicoz Vision-based navigation is an enabling technology for the new generation of on-orbit ser- vicing and debris-removal missions. In contrast to legacy metrology systems such as radar, lidar, and the global positioning system, vision sensors are passive, simple, and do not place stringent requirements on the spacecraft design in terms of power, weight, or inter-satellite communication. Most importantly, vision-based navigation has the potential to support ac- curate autonomous relative operations from hundreds of kilometers down to virtually zero separation in many orbit regimes. The demonstration of this capability calls for a new testbed capable of stimulating cameras in a representative sensing environment to assess functional- ity, performance, and robustness of the navigation tasks before deployment in space. Based on typical requirements posed by future autonomous rendezvous missions, the goal of this re- search is to design a virtual-reality sensor-in-the-loop optical stimulator with ten-arcseconds angular resolution and over eight orders of magnitude in radiometric dynamic range. This paper addresses the key challenges in the design, development, calibration, verification, and utilization of such an optical stimulator. A rendezvous hardware-in-the-loop simulation is then conducted to verify the functionality and performance of a new optical angles-only nav- igation article. This test demonstrates a successful estimation and recovery of the relative translational state of a non-stellar object using optical angles-only measurements to within 1% of the ground-truth.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1906.05079V1 [Astro-Ph.IM] 12 Jun 2019
    Draft version June 13, 2019 Typeset using LATEX twocolumn style in AASTeX61 A THOUSAND EARTHS: A VERY LARGE APERTURE, ULTRALIGHT SPACE TELESCOPE ARRAY FOR ATMOSPHERIC BIOSIGNATURE SURVEYS Daniel´ Apai,1 Tom D. Milster, Dae Wook Kim,2 Alex Bixel,3 Glenn Schneider,3 Ronguang Liang,4 and Jonathan Arenberg5 1Steward Observatory and the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721 2James C. Wyant College of Optical Sciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721 3Steward Observatory, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721 4College of Optical Sciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721 5Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems, Redondo Beach, CA 90278 (Received July 1, 2016; Revised September 27, 2016; Accepted June 13, 2019) Submitted to AJ ABSTRACT An outstanding, multi-disciplinary goal of modern science is the study of the diversity of potentially Earth-like planets and the search for life in them. This goal requires a bold new generation of space telescopes, but even the most ambitious designs yet hope to characterize several dozen potentially habitable planets. Such a sample may be too small to truly understand the complexity of exo-earths. We describe here a notional concept for a novel space observatory designed to characterize 1,000 transiting exo-earth candidates. The Nautilus concept is based on an array of inflatable spacecraft carrying very large diameter (8.5m), very low-weight, multi-order diffractive optical elements (MODE lenses) as light-collecting elements. The mirrors typical to current space telescopes are replaced by MODE lenses with a 10 times lighter areal density that are 100 times less sensitive to misalignments, enabling light-weight structure.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrating Spacecraft Systems
    NASA TECHNICAL NOTE __NASA TN- D-3049.- < o* d 0 Cr) d z c 4 VI 4 z NASA TN D-3049 INTEGRATING SPACECRAFT SYSTEMS By Allen L. Franta Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, Md. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION For sale by the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information Springfield, Virginia 22151 - Price $0.30 ABSTRACT The integration of a satellite or spacecraft system consists of combining the mechanical and electrical subsystem elements into a single entity through the application of logical processes, and takes into account the physical and functional aspects of the subsystem interre- lationships. It is characterized by three levels of effort: (a) project management integration, (b) integration of physical systems, and (c) in- tegration by subsystem Combination through advanced design. The over-all coordination of a spacecraft project is a responsibility of a project management group assigned the task of translating functional concepts into an operating spacecraft. The actual physical integration of a spacecraft system is accomplished through the combined work of a mechanical integration group and an electronic integration group work- ing together in a concerted effort. Subsystem combination through advanced electronic design is a more sophisticated form of partial spacecraft integration. It is accomplished through improved circuit design utilizing the most advanced electronic packaging techniques. ii CONTENTS Abstract ................................ .. ii INTRODUCTION .......................... .. 1
    [Show full text]
  • System Engineering of Photonic Systems for Space Application
    System Engineering of Photonic Systems for Space Application Michael D. Watson and Jonathan E. Pryor NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL 35812 Abstract The application of photonics in space systems requires tight integration with the spacecraft systems to ensure accurate operation. This requires some detailed and specific system engineering to properly incorporate the photonics into the spacecraft architecture and to guide the spacecraft architecture in supporting the photonics devices. Recent research in product focused, elegant system engineering has led to a system approach which provides a robust approach to this integration. Focusing on the mission application and the integration of the spacecraft system physics incorporation of the photonics can be efficiently and effectively accomplished. This requires a clear understanding of the driving physics properties of the photonics device to ensure proper integration with no unintended consequences. The driving physics considerations in terms of optical performance will be identified for their use in system integration. Keywords: System Engineering, Optical Transfer Function, Optical Physics, Photonics, Image Jitter, Launch Vehicle, System Integration, Organizational Interaction 1. INTRODUCTION TO SYSTEM ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES Engineering of photonics systems has many effects that must be accounted for in order to support the optical functions. The photonic system’s interaction with the spacecraft and the environment has many different and complex effects.1,2 There are 4 system engineering aspects that must be understood in order to properly define and develop any system: Mission Context, Driving Physics, Organizational Dynamics, and Policy & Law constraints. The Mission Context sets many of the environments and system parameters. Astronomy missions (x-ray, ultra violet, visible, infrared), solar physics, planetary observation, planetary landers, planetary rovers, or launch vehicle monitoring are all missions with very different environments and spacecraft busses.
    [Show full text]
  • JERG-2-000 Spacecraft Design Standard
    JERG-2-000A SPACECRAFT DESIGN STANDARD March 29, 2013 Revision A Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency JERG-2-000A This is an English translation of JERG-2-000. Whenever there is anything ambiguous in this document, the original document (the Japanese version) shall be used to clarify the intent of the requirement. Disclaimer The information contained herein is for general informational purposes only. JAXA makes no warranty, express or implied, including as to the accuracy, usefulness or timeliness of any information herein. JAXA will not be liable for any losses relating to the use of the information. Published by Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency Safety and Mission Assurance Department 2-1-1 Sengen Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki 305-8505, Japan i JERG-2-000A Contents 1. SCOPE ............................................................................................................................ 1 2. RELATED DOCUMENTS ................................................................................................ 1 2.1 Applicable Documents .............................................................................................. 1 3. DEFINITION OF TERMS ................................................................................................. 1 4. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LIFECYCLE AND DESIGN STANDARD OF SPACECRAFTS .............................................................................................................. 3 5. MEANING AND STRUCTURE OF DESIGN STANDARD ................................................ 4 6. APPLICATION
    [Show full text]
  • The Spacecraft Design/Flight Experience at the Undergraduate Level
    Session 1302 The Spacecraft Design/Flight Experience at the Undergraduate Level Lieutenant Colonel Billy R. Smith, Jr., PhD United States Air Force Department of Aerospace Engineering United States Naval Academy Professor Daryl Boden Department of Aerospace Engineering United States Naval Academy Mr Robert Bruninga Department of Aerospace Engineering United States Naval Academy Professor (Emeritus) William Bagaria Department of Aerospace Engineering United States Naval Academy On 30 September 2001, at 0240Z, the United States Naval Academy launched its own space program with the first successful flight of the USNA Small Satellite Program. USNA-1, Prototype Communications Satellite (PCSat) lifted off from Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation’s Kodiak Launch Complex on Kodiak Island, AK aboard the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Kodiak Star Athena I rocket. PCSat successfully separated from the payload upper deck (PUD) (the shelf that supported the satellites during flight) on schedule. First contact with PCSat took place 97 minutes after launch via portable ground equipment carried to Alaska by the PCSat launch support team. With PCSat, USNA joins Weber State University and the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) in the small group of purely undergraduate institutions that have enjoyed success with student-designed and built small satellites. The PCSat development effort was an ambitious attempt to inject reality into the First Class (senior) design experience for Astronautics students. The Department of Aerospace Engineering requires Astronautics students to complete a spacecraft design course (EA470) during the spring semester of their First Class year. This course challenges the students to consolidate and focus all of the mathematical, scientific, and engineering skills acquired in the major on conceptualization and design of a workable spacecraft.
    [Show full text]
  • Failures in Spacecraft Systems: an Analysis from The
    FAILURES IN SPACECRAFT SYSTEMS: AN ANALYSIS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF DECISION MAKING A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Purdue University by Vikranth R. Kattakuri In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering August 2019 Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana ii THE PURDUE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL STATEMENT OF THESIS APPROVAL Dr. Jitesh H. Panchal, Chair School of Mechanical Engineering Dr. Ilias Bilionis School of Mechanical Engineering Dr. William Crossley School of Aeronautics and Astronautics Approved by: Dr. Jay P. Gore Associate Head of Graduate Studies iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am extremely grateful to my advisor Prof. Jitesh Panchal for his patient guidance throughout the two years of my studies. I am indebted to him for considering me to be a part of his research group and for providing this opportunity to work in the fields of systems engineering and mechanical design for a period of 2 years. Being a research and teaching assistant under him had been a rewarding experience. Without his valuable insights, this work would not only have been possible, but also inconceivable. I would like to thank my co-advisor Prof. Ilias Bilionis for his valuable inputs, timely guidance and extremely engaging research meetings. I thank my committee member, Prof. William Crossley for his interest in my work. I had a great opportunity to attend all three courses taught by my committee members and they are the best among all the courses I had at Purdue. I would like to thank my mentors Dr. Jagannath Raju of Systemantics India Pri- vate Limited and Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Small Satellite Solutions with Large Satellite Implications
    SSC08-III-8 Plug and Play – Small Satellite Solutions with Large Satellite Implications Lee Thienel, Guy Robinson, Dale Stottlemyer, Rus Burgess Libration Systems Management, Inc. 2301 Yale Boulevard, SE, Suite C3, Albuquerque, New Mexico 76106; 505.243.6767 [email protected], [email protected] [email protected], [email protected] Scott Clough Vantage Systems Inc. 4600 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 100, Lanham, MD 20706; 301.459.6007 [email protected] ABSTRACT The Plug N Play concept has roots that reach back decades and has implications that reach decades into the future. The aerospace industry has tried to achieve a reusable modular satellite from time to time to leverage recurring design costs and by reusing them change them into nonrecurring costs. The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) is working on a new approach to implement a modern version of a standardized bus definition. It started with standardization efforts for NASA and DoD MMS (Multimission Modular Satellite) missions of the 1970’s and 1980’s.It has evolved to today’s applications in small responsive space satellite programs. The potential applications of Plug N Play concepts to large satellite programs can reduce costs as well as minimize assembly, integration and test timelines. Today we have to ask “Are the large satellite houses ready to adapt a new paradigm that will reduce satellite cost, and shorten the Integration and Test cycle?” INTRODUCTION focused on Earth orbit science and exploration. NASA Modular satellites are coming of age with the projects was building their Great Observatories – Hubble Space Telescope, the Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory, the such as AFRL’s Plug and Play Satellite (PnPSat).
    [Show full text]