DOCSLIB.ORG

Spacecraft System Failures and Anomalies Attributed to the Natural Space Environment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Spacecraft System Failures and Anomalies Attributed to the Natural Space Environment NASA Reference Publication 1390 - j Spacecraft System Failures and Anomalies Attributed to the Natural Space Environment K.L. Bedingfield, R.D. Leach, and M.B. Alexander, Editor August 1996 NASA Reference Publication 1390 Spacecraft System Failures and Anomalies Attributed to the Natural Space Environment K.L. Bedingfield Universities Space Research Association • Huntsville, Alabama R.D. Leach Computer Sciences Corporation • Huntsville, Alabama M.B. Alexander, Editor Marshall Space Flight Center • MSFC, Alabama National Aeronautics and Space Administration Marshall Space Flight Center ° MSFC, Alabama 35812 August 1996 PREFACE The effects of the natural space environment on spacecraft design, development, and operation are the topic of a series of NASA Reference Publications currently being developed by the Electromagnetics and Aerospace Environments Branch, Systems Analysis and Integration Laboratory, Marshall Space Flight Center. This primer provides an overview of seven major areas of the natural space environment including brief definitions, related programmatic issues, and effects on various spacecraft subsystems. The primary focus is to present more than 100 case histories of spacecraft failures and anomalies documented from 1974 through 1994 attributed to the natural space environment. A better understanding of the natural space environment and its effects will enable spacecraft designers and managers to more effectively minimize program risks and costs, optimize design quality, and achieve mission objectives. .o° 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Scope ......................................................................................................................... 1 Recent Case Histories .................................................................................................................... 1 Environmental Effects o4n Communication Satellites .............................................................. 1 Solar-Terrestrial Phenomena ................................................................................................... 5 SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTS ............................................................................................................ 7 Neutral Thermosphere ................................................................................................................... 7 Environment Definition ........................................................................................................... 7 Spacecraft Effects .................................................................................................................... 7 Representative Cases ............................................................................................................... 9 Skylab ................................................................................................................................. 9 Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF) ......................................................................... 9 Thermal .......................................................................................................................................... 9 Environment Definition ........................................................................................................... 9 Spacecraft Effects .................................................................................................................. 10 Representative Cases ............................................................................................................. 12 Hubble Space Telescope (HST) ....................................................................................... 12 Galileo ............................................................................................................................. 12 GOES-7 ........................................................................................................................... 12 Plasma ......................................................................................................................................... 13 Environment Definition ......................................................................................................... 13 Spacecraft Effects .................................................................................................................. 13 Representative Case ............................................................................................................... 15 Intelsat K ......................................................................................................................... 15 Meteoroids/Orbital Debris ........................................................................................................... 15 Environment Definition ......................................................................................................... 15 Spacecraft Effects .................................................................................................................. 17 Representative Cases ............................................................................................................. 17 Space Shuttle (STS-45) ................................................................................................... 17 Shuttle Windshield Replacement ..................................................................................... 18 HST (STS-31) .................................................................................................................. 18 KOSMOS- 1275 ............................................................................................................... 18 Solar ......................................................................................................................................... 18 Environment Definition ......................................................................................................... 18 Spacecraft Effects .................................................................................................................. 20 V Representative Cases ............................................................................................................. 20 GOES-7 ........................................................................................................................... 20 NOAA- 10 ........................................................................................................................ 20 GOES-5 ........................................................................................................................... 20 Ionizing Radiation ....................................................................................................................... 21 Environment Definition ......................................................................................................... 21 Spacecraft Effects .................................................................................................................. 22 Representative Cases ............................................................................................................. 22 Hipparcos ......................................................................................................................... 22 ETS-6 ............................................................................................................................... 22 HST (STS-31) .................................................................................................................. 22 Geomagnetic Field ....................................................................................................................... 23 Environment Definition ......................................................................................................... 23 Spacecraft Effects .................................................................................................................. 24 Representative Cases ............................................................................................................. 25 ANIK-B ........................................................................................................................... 25 Landsat-3 ......................................................................................................................... 25 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 26 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 27 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................. 29 APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................................ 30 Appendix References ................................................................................................................... 41 vi LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Title Page 1. A breakout of the natural space environments and typical programmatic concerns ............. 2 2. Space environment effects on spacecraft subsystems ............................................................ 3 3. The layers of the Earth's atmosphere ...................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Developments in Observations and Theory for Solar Cycle 22 Laurel, Maryland, 8-9 June 1989
    MA Workshop #2: Developments in Observations and Theory for Solar Cycle 22 Laurel, Maryland, 8-9 June 1989 {i<?',.., '- i _'-_'? ; ._,/ , _t MAX Workshop #2: Developments in Observations and Theory for Solar Cycle 22 Laurel, Maryland, 8-9 June 1989 Edited by Robert M. Winglee University of Colorado Boulder, Colorado Brian R. Dennis NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, Maryland Cover An eruptive prominence associated with the X1.6 3B flare of June 20, 1989. This event and its coronal mass ejection were well observed during the first Max '91 Campaign. This digital H-alpha image was obtained at 15:04 UT ( 4 minutes before the peak of the event in soft X-rays) by the Holloman Solar Observatory of the USAF SOON system. TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface ......................... vii Group Summaries High Energy Flare Physics Group Summary .......... ld] J. M. Ryan and J. D. Kurfess Magnetograph Group Summary ............... 17d_ H. P. Jones Theory and Modeling Group ................ 27_ G. D. Holman Summary of Observations of AR 5395 • . ° • . , , . ° , . 31c_z?:? j /I D. M. Zarro and R. M. Winglee Invited Reviews Scientific Objectives of Solar Gamma-Ray Observations ..... 33_;_/ R. E. Lingenfelter The Gamma-Ray Observatory: An Overview ......... D. A. Kniffen When and Where to Look to Observe Major Solar Flares .... 46_ T. Bai Access to MAX'91 Information via Computer Networks .... 6_. A. L. Kiplinger -7 High Energy Flare Physics Capabilities of GRO/OSSE for Observing Solar Flares . J. D. Kurfess, W. N. Johnson, G. H. Share, S. M. Matz and R. J. Murphy The Solar Gamma Ray and Neutron Capabilities of COMPTEL on the Gamma Ray Observatory ............
    [Show full text]
  • Probability of Collision in the Geostationary Orbit*
    PROBABILITY OF COLLISION IN THE GEOSTATIONARY ORBIT* Raymond A. LeClair and Ramaswamy Sridharan MIT Lincoln Laboratory, 244 Wood Street, Lexington, Massachusetts 02420 USA, Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT/RESUME The initial Geosynchronous Encounter Analysis (GEA) CRDA spanned two years beginning in mid 1997. The advent of geostationary satellite communication During this period, Lincoln Laboratory provided timely 37 years ago, and the resulting continued launch activ- warning of encounters between Telstar 401 and partner ity, has created a population of active and inactive geo- satellites and precision orbits for these objects for use synchronous satellites which will interact, with genu- in avoidance maneuver planning [1]. In all, 32 en- ine possibility of collision, for the foreseeable future. counters between Telstar 401 and a partner satellite As a result of the failure of Telstar 401 three years ago, were supported in 24 months leading to nine avoidance MIT Lincoln Laboratory, in cooperation with commer- maneuvers incorporated into routine station keeping cial partners, began an investigation into this situation. and six dedicated avoidance maneuvers. This process Under the agreement, Lincoln worked to ensure a col- has led to a validated concept of operations for en- lision did not occur between Telstar 401 and partner counter support at Lincoln. satellites and to understand the scope and nature of the Active problem. The results of this cooperative activity and Satellites recent results to carefully characterize the actual prob- SOLIDARIDAD 02 ANIK E1 04-Oct-1999 ability of collision in the geostationary orbit are de- 114 SOLIDARIDAD 1 GOES 07 scribed. ANIK E2 112 MSAT M01 ) ANIK C1 110 GSTAR 04 deg USA 0114 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Commercial Orbital Transportation Services
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Commercial Orbital Transportation Services A New Era in Spaceflight NASA/SP-2014-617 Commercial Orbital Transportation Services A New Era in Spaceflight On the cover: Background photo: The terminator—the line separating the sunlit side of Earth from the side in darkness—marks the changeover between day and night on the ground. By establishing government-industry partnerships, the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program marked a change from the traditional way NASA had worked. Inset photos, right: The COTS program supported two U.S. companies in their efforts to design and build transportation systems to carry cargo to low-Earth orbit. (Top photo—Credit: SpaceX) SpaceX launched its Falcon 9 rocket on May 22, 2012, from Cape Canaveral, Florida. (Second photo) Three days later, the company successfully completed the mission that sent its Dragon spacecraft to the Station. (Third photo—Credit: NASA/Bill Ingalls) Orbital Sciences Corp. sent its Antares rocket on its test flight on April 21, 2013, from a new launchpad on Virginia’s eastern shore. Later that year, the second Antares lifted off with Orbital’s cargo capsule, (Fourth photo) the Cygnus, that berthed with the ISS on September 29, 2013. Both companies successfully proved the capability to deliver cargo to the International Space Station by U.S. commercial companies and began a new era of spaceflight. ISS photo, center left: Benefiting from the success of the partnerships is the International Space Station, pictured as seen by the last Space Shuttle crew that visited the orbiting laboratory (July 19, 2011). More photos of the ISS are featured on the first pages of each chapter.
    [Show full text]
  • User's Guide for GOES-R XRS L2 Products
    User's Guide for GOES-R XRS L2 Products Janet Machol, Stefan Codrescu and Courtney Peck 6 April 2021 Contents 1 Summary 2 2 XRS L2 Products Overview 2 2.1 Science Quality versus Operational XRS Data . .3 2.2 Flare Magnitudes . .3 2.3 XRS Response Functions . .3 3 1-second Irradiances Product 4 4 1-minute Averages Product 5 5 Flare Summary and Flare Detection Products 6 6 Flare Location Product 7 7 Daily Background Product 8 8 Plots 9 9 Acknowledgements 11 10 References 11 A Flare Detection Algorithm 12 A.1 Flare Detection Algorithm . 12 A.2 Algorithm Steps . 13 A.2.1 (Steps 1-6) Prepare data and do simple comparisons . 14 A.2.2 (Steps 8a-f) Check for start of flare . 14 A.2.3 (Steps 9a-e) Rising flare . 15 A.2.4 (Steps 10a-b) Declining flare . 15 A.2.5 (Steps 11a-e) Final steps to exit . 16 A.3 Algorithm Inputs . 16 B Flare Location Algorithm 18 C Daily Background Algorithm 20 1 1 Summary The GOES X-Ray Sensor (XRS) measurements have been a crucial component of space weather operations since 1975, providing an accurate measurement of geo-effective X-ray irradiance from second-to-second real- time conditions to solar-cycle time scales (Garcia, 1994). XRS measurements are in two bandpass channels commonly referred to as the XRS-A (0.05-0.4 nm) and XRS-B (0.1-0.8 nm), both of which are in the soft X-ray portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. This User's Guide discusses the algorithms used to generate the GOES-R XRS L2 data products.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Satellite Communications Technology and Systems
    International Technology Research Institute World Technology (WTEC) Division WTEC Panel Report on Global Satellite Communications Technology and Systems Joseph N. Pelton, Panel Chair Alfred U. Mac Rae, Panel Chair Kul B. Bhasin Charles W. Bostian William T. Brandon John V. Evans Neil R. Helm Christoph E. Mahle Stephen A. Townes December 1998 International Technology Research Institute R.D. Shelton, Director Geoffrey M. Holdridge, WTEC Division Director and ITRI Series Editor 4501 North Charles Street Baltimore, Maryland 21210-2699 WTEC Panel on Satellite Communications Technology and Systems Sponsored by the National Science Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration of the United States Government. Dr. Joseph N. Pelton (Panel Chair) Dr. Charles W. Bostian Mr. Neil R. Helm Institute for Applied Space Research Director, Center for Wireless Deputy Director, Institute for George Washington University Telecommunications Applied Space Research 2033 K Street, N.W., Rm. 304 Virginia Tech George Washington University Washington, DC 20052 Blacksburg, VA 24061-0111 2033 K Street, N.W., Rm. 340 Washington, DC 20052 Dr. Alfred U. Mac Rae (Panel Chair) Mr. William T. Brandon President, Mac Rae Technologies Principal Engineer Dr. Christoph E. Mahle 72 Sherbrook Drive The Mitre Corporation (D270) Communications Satellite Consultant Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922 202 Burlington Road 5137 Klingle Street, N.W. Bedford, MA 01730 Washington, DC 20016 Dr. Kul B. Bhasin Chief, Satellite Networks Dr. John V. Evans Dr. Stephen A. Townes and Architectures Branch Vice President Deputy Manager, Communications NASA Lewis Research Center and Chief Technology Officer Systems and Research Section MS 54-2 Comsat Corporation Jet Propulsion Laboratory 21000 Brookpark Rd.
    [Show full text]
  • Countdown Test Cheers Launch Team
    Manifestdestiny Coolfuel National Aeronautics and NASA's newest Mixed Fleet Manifest A safer T-38 fuel with a higher "flash point" Space Administration rearranges several of the next Space Shuttle is being tested at Ellington Field. LyndonB. JohnsonSpace Center missions. Chart on Page 3. Story on Page 4. Houston, Texas vo sp_ace NewSeptember s9, 1988 undupNo. 26 'It's the final stretch' , Countdown test cheers launch team The STS-26 crew boarded Discov- Readiness Review scheduled for i ery on Launch Pad 39B Thursday Tuesday at Kennedy,and, at present, morning to go through a final dress nothing has appeared that would rehearsal of the return to flight with interrupt the flow toward launch, he Kennedy Space Center's Firing Room said. "We're still looking at sometime team. in the last week of Septemberfor The Terminal Countdown Demon- launch." stration Test {TCDT),or "dry count," This week, technicians at the pad began with a call to stations for the are performing a borescope inspec- launch team at 5 tion of the Orbi- nesday, and the oxygen {GOX) simulatedcount- system. Three a.m.CDTWed-.._" _` ' ST S.26 tGer'sOXflogaseow controlus J.scP_o_ _r_,u,_ thdoewnT-began19 hourat The Return to Flight valve parts were Construction workers tear down a temporary wall separating Bldg. 9B from Bldg. gA Wednesday as mark. T-0, the removed from the new 26,000-square-foot facility nears completion. 9B will house Space Station training and test culminationof the test,occurred about Discovery last weekend in an effort equipment, including mockupssuch as the one at left.
    [Show full text]
  • The Relative Timing of Supra-Arcade Downflows in Solar Flares
    A&A 475, 333–340 (2007) Astronomy DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077894 & c ESO 2007 Astrophysics The relative timing of supra-arcade downflows in solar flares J. I. Khan, H. M. Bain, and L. Fletcher Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland, UK e-mail: [email protected] Received 14 May 2007 / Accepted 11 August 2007 ABSTRACT Context. Supra-arcade downflows (generally dark, sunward-propagating features located above the bright arcade of loops in some solar flares) have been reported mostly during the decay phase, although some have also been reported during the rise phase of solar flares. Aims. We investigate, from a statistical point of view, the timing of supra-arcade downflows during the solar flare process, and thus determine the possible relation of supra-arcade downflows to the primary or secondary energy release in a flare. Methods. Yohkoh Soft X-ray Telescope (SXT) imaging data are examined to produce a list of supra-arcade downflow candidates. In many of our events supra-arcade downflows are not directly observed. However, the events do show laterally moving (or “waving”) bright rays in the supra-arcade fan of coronal rays which we interpret as due to dark supra-arcade downflows. The events are analysed in detail to determine whether the supra-arcade downflows (or the proxy waving coronal rays) occur during a) the rise and/or decay phases of the soft X-ray flare and b) the flare hard X-ray bursts. It is also investigated whether the supra-arcade downflows events show prior eruptive signatures as seen in SXT, other space-based coronal data, or reported in ground-based Hα images.
    [Show full text]
  • Iilglnal RECEIVED FEB 2 0 1992 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Federal Commlllicalions Commission Washington, D.C
    IIlGlNAl RECEIVED FEB 2 0 1992 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Federal Commlllicalions Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 Office of the Secretary In re Petition of ) ««1- lq5\ iU:W\~ OIVISj0]~ ) INTEfit/i-\ i ,. ACIU fiES cor~/::\i1~-)\~ '~:~~!fF1 [.L:n~AU COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORPORATION ) ) ",,.., , For repeal of section 25.131(j) (1) ) fEB 2. --t -.. -- of the Commission's Rules and, in the ) interim, for waiver of that section ) as it applies to services provided ) via the INTELSAT K satellite ) PETITION FOR REPEAL AND, IN THE INTERIM, FOR WAIVER communications Satellite Corporation, through its COMSAT World Systems business unit ("COMSAT"), pursuant to sections 1.401 and 1.3 of the Commission's Rules, hereby petitions for repeal of section 25.131(j) (1) of those Rules and, in the interim, for waiver of that section of the Rules as it applies to services provided via the new INTELSAT K satellite. Section 25.131(j) (1) currently specifies that receive-only earth stations operating with INTELSAT space stations (except for receive-only earth stations used to receive INTELNET I services) shall file an FCC Form 493 requesting a license for such stations. DISCUSSION The Commission has long since decided not to require licenses for domestic receive-only earth stations. This policy - 2 - was first adopted in 1979,1 and the trend toward deregulation of such stations has been continued in two subsequent orders, in 19862 and 1991. 3 Today, domestic receive-only earth stations are sUbject only to a voluntary registration program. The Commission also determined in its 1986 Equatorial ruling that receive-only earth stations operating with the INTELSAT system for the provision of INTELNET I services need not be SUbject to any licensing requirement.
    [Show full text]
  • Testing the Theory of Radiation Belt Electron Loss by Hiss and Electromagnetic Ion Cyclotron Waves
    c Copyright 2019 Ling Zheng Testing the theory of radiation belt electron loss by hiss and electromagnetic ion cyclotron waves Ling Zheng A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Washington 2019 Reading Committee: Michael P. McCarthy, Chair Robert Holzworth Robert Winglee Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Earth and Space Sciences University of Washington Abstract Testing the theory of radiation belt electron loss by hiss and electromagnetic ion cyclotron waves Ling Zheng Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Professor Michael P. McCarthy Department of Earth and Space Sciences Hiss, chorus and electromagnetic ion cyclotron waves (EMIC wave) are three major wave modes that are widely investigated and included in the radiation belt electron models to explain electron precipitation. The quasi-linear theories of electron loss through pitch angle diffusion by hiss and EMIC waves were proposed in 1970s. Since then the testing of the theories is still going on though some progresses had been made. Comparison of theoretical predictions to electrons distribution at loss cone is one effective way to evaluate the theories. The main obstruction of loss cone testing was from the lack of measurements of the electron loss cone distribution with enough pitch angle and energy resolution and simultaneous wave activities at the heart of radiation belt. This thesis is devoted to testing the hiss and EMIC waves diffusion theories from the perspective of the electron loss cone distribution by utilizing the previously unnoticed overlap of UARS and CRRES missions in 1991. The conclusions are as following: (1) Two cases showing the consistency between quasi-linear theory of hiss diffusion and observed loss cone distribution are found.
    [Show full text]
  • Prototype Design and Mission Analysis for a Small Satellite Exploiting Environmental Disturbances for Attitude Stabilization
    Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis and Dissertation Collection 2016-03 Prototype design and mission analysis for a small satellite exploiting environmental disturbances for attitude stabilization Polat, Halis C. Monterey, California: Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/48578 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA THESIS PROTOTYPE DESIGN AND MISSION ANALYSIS FOR A SMALL SATELLITE EXPLOITING ENVIRONMENTAL DISTURBANCES FOR ATTITUDE STABILIZATION by Halis C. Polat March 2016 Thesis Advisor: Marcello Romano Co-Advisor: Stephen Tackett Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704–0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington, DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED (Leave blank) March 2016 Master’s thesis 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS PROTOTYPE DESIGN AND MISSION ANALYSIS FOR A SMALL SATELLITE EXPLOITING ENVIRONMENTAL DISTURBANCES FOR ATTITUDE STABILIZATION 6. AUTHOR(S) Halis C. Polat 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING Naval Postgraduate School ORGANIZATION REPORT Monterey, CA 93943-5000 NUMBER 9.
    [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]
  • IMTEC-89-46FS Space Operations: Listing of NASA Scientific Missions
    C L Listing of NASA Scientific Missions, 1980-2000 -- ‘;AO,~lM’I’kX :-8!)- .^. .I ., ^_. ._ .- __..... ..-... .- .._.-..-.. -_----__-.- _.____-___-- UnIted States General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548 Information Management and Technology Division B-234056 April 7, 1989 The Honorable Bill Nelson Chairman, Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications Committee on Science, Space, and Technology House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: As requested by your office on March 14, 1989, we are providing a list of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) active and planned scientific missions, 1980-2000.~ We have included missions with the following status: l launches prior to 1980, and those since 1980 that either ended after 1980 or are currently approved by NASA and remain active; and . planned launches that have been approved or proposed by NASA. As agreed, our compilation covers the following four major scientific disciplines: (1) planetary and lunar, (2) earth sciences, (3) space physics, and (4) astrophysics. Appendixes II-V present this information, includ- ing mission names and acronyms, actual or anticipated launch dates, and the actual or expected end-of-mission dates, in tables and figures. As requested, we did not list other types of NASA missions in biology and life sciences, manufacturing sciences, and communication technology. During this period, NASA has or plans to support 84 scientific missions in these four disciplines: Table! 1: Summary of NASA’s Scientific A Ml88iC>nr, 1980-2000 Active Planned January April 1989 - 1980 - March 1989 December 2000 Total Planetary and Lunar 5 7 12 Earth Sciences 3 27 30 /I Space Physics 6 20 26 Astrophysics 2 14 16 Totals 16 68 84 ‘Missions include NASAjoint ventures with other countries, as well as NASAscientific instruments flown on foreign spacecraft.
    [Show full text]