DOCSLIB.ORG

Part L Ranger VIII and IX Mission Description and Performance

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Technical Report No. 32-800 Ranger VIII and IX Part L Mission Description and Performance H. M. Schurmeier Ranger Project Manager JET PROPULSION LABORATORY CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY \ PASADENA, CALIFORNIA January 31, 1966 Copyright© 1966 Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Prepared Under Contract No. NAS 7-100 National Aeronautics & Space Administration JPL TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 32-800 CONTENTS I, Introduction ................ 1 A. Ranger VIII Mission Summary ............ 1 B. Ranger IX Mission Summary ...... " ...... 1 C. Project Background ='_."_=. ......:_";-7_ . ...... 1 D. Project Description ............. 2 II. Pre-launch and Launch Operations ......... 4 A. Spacecraft Assembly and System Tests ......... 4 B. AFETR Pre-launch Operations .......... 5 C. Range Flight Support .............. 6 III. Launch-Vehicle System ............. 9 A. Atlas Booster .......... - . ..... 9 B. Agena Stage ............. 9 IV. Spacecraft System ............... 12 A. Radio Subsystem ............... 12 B. Command Subsystem ........... 15 C. Data Encoder ............. 17 D. Ground Telemetry Equipment .......... 20 E. Central Computer and Sequencer ......... 21 F. Attitude-Control Subsystem ............. 23 G. Power Subsystem ............... 45 H. Spacecraft Structure ............. 47 I. Temperature-Control Subsystem ......... 49 J. Miscellaneous Timing and Arming Functions ...... 53 K. Pyrotechnics Subsystem ............. 54 L. Midcourse Propulsion Subsystem ...... 55 M. Television Subsystem .............. 56 V. Deep Space Network System ....... 70 A. Deep Space Instrumentation Facility ......... 70 B. Space Flight Operations Facility ........ 76 C. Ground Communications Subsystem ......... 77 VI. Space Flight Operations System .......... 79 A. Spacecraft Data Analysis Team ........... 79 B. Flight Path Analysis and Command Group. .... 79 C. Space Science Analysis and Command Croup ..... 79 VII. Flight Path ................. 80 A. Ranger VIII ............... 80 B. Ranger IX ................ 83 !I! JPL TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 32-800 CONTENTS (Cont'd) VIII. Space Science Analysis ............. 91 A, Target Selection and Terminal Maneuver ....... 91 B. Camera Performance .............. 92 C. Preliminary Photometric Results ........... 92 ] Appendix A. Spacecraft Flight Events .......... 97 z Appendix B. Spacecraft Configuration and Interfaces ..... 103 Bibliography ................. 111 TABLES 1. Ranger VIII and IX spacecraft testing and operations ...... 4 2. AFETR tracking coverage ............ 7 3. Ranger VIII command history ...... ]6 4. Ranger IX command history ............. 17 5. Ranger VIII calculated gas consumption ......... 6. Ranger IX calculated gas consumption .......... 45 7. Ranger VIII and IX representative power parameters ...... 48 8. Ranger VIII and IX flight-temperature summary ........ 51 9. Ranger IX Earth-shadow temperatures ......... 52 10. Ranger VIII and IX pyrotechnics and associated events ...... 55 11. Summary of camera characteristics ........... 60 12. Nominal TV communications parameters .......... 13. Current drains for various modes ......... 61 14. Prime commands for TV operation ....... 62 15. DSIF L-band master equipment list ........... 72 16. Ranger VIII, variance between ground-received signal level and predictions ............... 74 17. Station calibration figures ......... 75 18. Ranger VIII pre- and post-midcourse orbits ......... 85 19. Ranger IX pre- and post-midcourse orbits ......... 90 IV JPL TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 32-800 FIGURES 1. Ranger system elements ............. 3 2. Downrange tracking and telemetry coverage ...... ? 3. Ranger VIII and IX AFETR telemetry coverage ....... 8 4. Atlas launch vehicle ............... 10 5. Ageno injection vehicle ............. 11 6. Ranger Block III spacecraft subsystems .......... 12 7. L-band radio subsystem .............. 13 8. Ranger VIII radio subsystem failure ....... 14 9. Ranger command subsystem ............. 15 10. Data encoder ................ 18 11. Attltude-control elements ............. 23 12. Coordinate-axis system ............ 23 13. Single-axis control networks, gyro control and derived-rate systems 24 14. Ranger VIII Sun acquisition, yaw axis ........ 25 15. Ranger VIII Sun acquisition, pitch axis ..... 26 16. Ranger VIII Sun reacqulsition, pitch axis ...... 27 17. Ranger VIII roll scale factor 28 18. Ranger VIII Earth acquisition, roll axis ......... - 29 19. Ranger VIII Earth reacquisitlon, roll axis 30 20. Ranger VIII Sun-sensor light intensity ..... 32 21. Ranger VIII limit-cycle operation, post-midcaurse cruise ..... 33 22. Ranger VIII pitch torque ......... 35 23. Ranger VIII limit-cycle operation, terminal sequence 24. Ranger IX Sun acquisition, pitch axis ........... 37 25. Ranger IX Sun reacquisition, pitch axis ..... 38 26. Ranger IX Sun acquisition, yaw axis . ....... 39 27. Ranger IX Earth acquisition, roll axis. ......... 40 28. Ranger IX Earth reacquisition, roll axis ....... 41 29. Ranger IX roll position prior to mldcourse maneuver ..... 4] 3_0. Ranger IX Earth-sensor light intensity ......... 42 31. Ranger I X llmit-cycle operation prior to terminal sequence .... 43 32. Ranger IX pitch torque ....... 44 V JPL TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 32-800 FIGURES (Cont'd) 33. Power subsystem ............... 46 34. Ranger VIII system power parameters ......... 46 35. Ranger IX system power parameters .......... 47 36. Pyrotechnics subsystem .......... 54 37. Propulsion subsystem ............. 55 38. Ranger IX midcourse fuel-tank pressure during motor firing . 56 39. Ranger IX midcourse nitrogen-tank pressure during motor firing 56 40. TV subsystem configuration .......... 57 41. TV subsystem elements ............ 58 42. Camera fields of view (nominal) ............ 59 43. Ranger VIII TV subsystem flight temperatures ........ 65 44. Ranger VIII heat-sink temperatures during terminal phase .... 66 45, Ranger VIII expended and budgeted battery capacity 66 46. Ranger IX TV subsystem flight temperatures ...... 67 47. Ranger IX expended and budgeted battery capacity ...... 69 48. Ranger IX transmitter heat-sink temperatures during terminal phase 69 49. Goldstone Echo station ............ 71 50. Ranger IX video displayed in real time in SFOF ....... 77 51. DSN ground communications ........... 78 52. Ranger VIII trajectory Earth track .......... 81 53. Ranger VIII midcourse-maneuver and site-selection factors 82 54. Ranger VIII pre-midcourse and actual lunar encounters 84 55. Ranger IX trajectory Earth track ............ 86 56. Ranger IX mldcourse-maneuver and site-selection factors .... 87 57. Ranger IX pre-midcourse and actual lunar encounters 89 58. Ranger IX terminal-maneuver approach geometry ...... 90 59. Ranger IX A- and B-camera coverage, last 20 frames ...... 93 60. Ranger VIII A-camera predicted vs observed brightness values . 94 61. Ranger VIII A-camera transfer characteristic ...... 94 62. Alphonsus area used for brightness comparison, B-, P:_-,and P_-cameras .............. 95 63. Ranger IX B-, Pj-, and P_-camera transfer characteristics ..... 96 VI JPL TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 32-800 FIGURES (Cont'd) B-1. Coordinate-axis system ............. ]03 B-2. Spacecraft configuration a. Top view ................. 104 b. Pitch axis .................. 105 c. Yaw axis .................. 106 d. Bottom view .............. 107 B-3. Spacecraft bus interior and spaceframe section ....... 108 B-4. Electronics assembly locations ............ 109 B-5. Spacecraft block diagram .............. 110 VIi JPL TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 32-800, ABSTRACT The Ranger VIII and IX missions successfully concluded the Ranger unmanned lunar-investigation project. The Block III Ranger space- craft, launched by the Atlas/Agena vehicle and tracked by the Deep Space Network, contained a six-camera television package and had the objective of obtaining high-resolution photographs of the lunar surface prior to impact. Ranger VIII, launched February 17, 1965, returned 7137 pictures before its impact in southwestern blare Tranquillitatis on February 20. Ranger IX was launched on March 21, 1965, and impacted ill the crater Alphonsus on March 24. A successful terminal maneuver performed on Banger IX brought the resolution of the final pictures to 0.4 m; a total of 5814 pictures was obtained from this mission. A brief loss of telemetry during Ranger VIII's midcourse maneuver, apparently caused by a conducting particle forming a temporary short circuit in the spacecraft radio, was the only significant anomaly observed ill the two flights. The initial accuracy of the Ranger IX launch made it possible to defer the mid- course maneuver 22 hr; the actual impact was within 5 km of the selected aiming point. VIII JPL TECHNICAL REPORTNO. 32-800 h INTRODUCTION The Ranger VIII and IX missions were the last two channels continuously to lunar impact. In all, 7187 pic- flights of Ranger Block III and of the Ranger series. They tures were received and recorded. At 09:57:88, the space- were conducted February 17-20 and March 21-24, 1965, craft impacted the Moon at selenographic 2.7°N latitt, de respectively. Each spacecraft was launched from Complex and 24.8°E longitude. 12 at the Air Force Eastern Test Range (AFETR), Cape Kennedy, Florida, and boosted to injection by the Atlas/ Agena launch vehicle. The AFETR downrange tracking B. Ranger IX Mission Summary and telemetry stations and other facilities supported the Ranger IX liftoff occurred at 21:87:02.456 GMT, March early portions of the flights. Space-flight operations were 21, 1965,
Recommended publications
  • Jjmonl 1603.Pmd

    Jjmonl 1603.Pmd

    alactic Observer GJohn J. McCarthy Observatory Volume 9, No. 3 March 2016 GRAIL - On the Trail of the Moon's Missing Mass GRAIL (Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory) was a NASA scientific mission in 2011/12 to map the surface of the moon and collect data on gravitational anomalies. The image here is an artist's impres- sion of the twin satellites (Ebb and Flow) orbiting in tandem above a gravitational image of the moon. See inside, page 4 for information on gravitational anomalies (mascons) or visit http://solarsystem. nasa.gov/grail. The John J. McCarthy Observatory Galactic Observer New Milford High School Editorial Committee 388 Danbury Road Managing Editor New Milford, CT 06776 Bill Cloutier Phone/Voice: (860) 210-4117 Production & Design Phone/Fax: (860) 354-1595 www.mccarthyobservatory.org Allan Ostergren Website Development JJMO Staff Marc Polansky It is through their efforts that the McCarthy Observatory Technical Support has established itself as a significant educational and Bob Lambert recreational resource within the western Connecticut Dr. Parker Moreland community. Steve Barone Jim Johnstone Colin Campbell Carly KleinStern Dennis Cartolano Bob Lambert Mike Chiarella Roger Moore Route Jeff Chodak Parker Moreland, PhD Bill Cloutier Allan Ostergren Cecilia Dietrich Marc Polansky Dirk Feather Joe Privitera Randy Fender Monty Robson Randy Finden Don Ross John Gebauer Gene Schilling Elaine Green Katie Shusdock Tina Hartzell Paul Woodell Tom Heydenburg Amy Ziffer In This Issue "OUT THE WINDOW ON YOUR LEFT" ............................... 4 SUNRISE AND SUNSET ...................................................... 13 MARE HUMBOLDTIANIUM AND THE NORTHEAST LIMB ......... 5 JUPITER AND ITS MOONS ................................................. 13 ONE YEAR IN SPACE ....................................................... 6 TRANSIT OF JUPITER'S RED SPOT ....................................
  • Lunar Orbiter Ii

    Lunar Orbiter Ii

    NASA CONTRACTOR NASA CR-883 REPORT LUNAR ORBITER II Photographic Mission Summary Prepared by THE BOEING COMPANY Seattle, Wash. for Langley Research Center NATIONAl AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION • WASHINGTON, D. C. • OCTOBER 1967 THE CRATER COPERNICUS - Photo taken by NASA-Boeing Lunar Orbiter II, November 23, 1966,00:05:42 GMT, from a distance of 150 miles. NASA CR-883 LUNAR ORBITER II Photographic Mission Summary Distribution of this report is provided in the interest of information exchange. Responsibility for the contents resides in the author or organization that prepared it. Issued by Originator as Document No. D2-100752-1 Prepared under Contract No. NAS 1-3800 by THE BOEING COMPANY Seattle, Wash. for Langley Research Center NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION For sole by the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information Springfield, Virginia 22151 - CFSTI price $3.00 CONTENTS Page No. 1.0 LUNAR ORBITER II MISSION SUMMARY 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION 4 1.1.1 Program Description 4 1.1.2 Program Management 5 1.1.3 Program Objectives 6 1.1.3.1 Mission II Objectives 6 1.1.4 Mission Design 8 1.1.5 Flight Vehicle Description 12 1.2 LAUNCH PREPARATION AND OPERATIONS 19 1.2.1 Launch Vehicle Preparation 19 1.2.2 Spacecraft Preparation 21 1.2.3 Launch Countdown 21 1.2.4 Launch Phase 22 1.2.4.1 Flight Vehicle Performance 22 1.2.5 Data Acquisition 24 1.3 MISSION OPERATIONS 29 1.3.1 Mission Profile 29 1.3.2 Spacecraft Performance 31 1.3.2.1 Photo Subsystem Performance 32 1.3.2.2 Power Subsystem Performance 34 1.3.2.3 Communications
  • Photographs Written Historical and Descriptive

    Photographs Written Historical and Descriptive

    CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE STATION, MISSILE ASSEMBLY HAER FL-8-B BUILDING AE HAER FL-8-B (John F. Kennedy Space Center, Hanger AE) Cape Canaveral Brevard County Florida PHOTOGRAPHS WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior 100 Alabama St. NW Atlanta, GA 30303 HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE STATION, MISSILE ASSEMBLY BUILDING AE (Hangar AE) HAER NO. FL-8-B Location: Hangar Road, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), Industrial Area, Brevard County, Florida. USGS Cape Canaveral, Florida, Quadrangle. Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinates: E 540610 N 3151547, Zone 17, NAD 1983. Date of Construction: 1959 Present Owner: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Present Use: Home to NASA’s Launch Services Program (LSP) and the Launch Vehicle Data Center (LVDC). The LVDC allows engineers to monitor telemetry data during unmanned rocket launches. Significance: Missile Assembly Building AE, commonly called Hangar AE, is nationally significant as the telemetry station for NASA KSC’s unmanned Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV) program. Since 1961, the building has been the principal facility for monitoring telemetry communications data during ELV launches and until 1995 it processed scientifically significant ELV satellite payloads. Still in operation, Hangar AE is essential to the continuing mission and success of NASA’s unmanned rocket launch program at KSC. It is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion A in the area of Space Exploration as Kennedy Space Center’s (KSC) original Mission Control Center for its program of unmanned launch missions and under Criterion C as a contributing resource in the CCAFS Industrial Area Historic District.
  • Apollo Over the Moon: a View from Orbit (Nasa Sp-362)

    Apollo Over the Moon: a View from Orbit (Nasa Sp-362)

    chl APOLLO OVER THE MOON: A VIEW FROM ORBIT (NASA SP-362) Chapter 1 - Introduction Harold Masursky, Farouk El-Baz, Frederick J. Doyle, and Leon J. Kosofsky [For a high resolution picture- click here] Objectives [1] Photography of the lunar surface was considered an important goal of the Apollo program by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The important objectives of Apollo photography were (1) to gather data pertaining to the topography and specific landmarks along the approach paths to the early Apollo landing sites; (2) to obtain high-resolution photographs of the landing sites and surrounding areas to plan lunar surface exploration, and to provide a basis for extrapolating the concentrated observations at the landing sites to nearby areas; and (3) to obtain photographs suitable for regional studies of the lunar geologic environment and the processes that act upon it. Through study of the photographs and all other arrays of information gathered by the Apollo and earlier lunar programs, we may develop an understanding of the evolution of the lunar crust. In this introductory chapter we describe how the Apollo photographic systems were selected and used; how the photographic mission plans were formulated and conducted; how part of the great mass of data is being analyzed and published; and, finally, we describe some of the scientific results. Historically most lunar atlases have used photointerpretive techniques to discuss the possible origins of the Moon's crust and its surface features. The ideas presented in this volume also rely on photointerpretation. However, many ideas are substantiated or expanded by information obtained from the huge arrays of supporting data gathered by Earth-based and orbital sensors, from experiments deployed on the lunar surface, and from studies made of the returned samples.
  • NASA and Planetary Exploration

    NASA and Planetary Exploration

    **EU5 Chap 2(263-300) 2/20/03 1:16 PM Page 263 Chapter Two NASA and Planetary Exploration by Amy Paige Snyder Prelude to NASA’s Planetary Exploration Program Four and a half billion years ago, a rotating cloud of gaseous and dusty material on the fringes of the Milky Way galaxy flattened into a disk, forming a star from the inner- most matter. Collisions among dust particles orbiting the newly-formed star, which humans call the Sun, formed kilometer-sized bodies called planetesimals which in turn aggregated to form the present-day planets.1 On the third planet from the Sun, several billions of years of evolution gave rise to a species of living beings equipped with the intel- lectual capacity to speculate about the nature of the heavens above them. Long before the era of interplanetary travel using robotic spacecraft, Greeks observing the night skies with their eyes alone noticed that five objects above failed to move with the other pinpoints of light, and thus named them planets, for “wan- derers.”2 For the next six thousand years, humans living in regions of the Mediterranean and Europe strove to make sense of the physical characteristics of the enigmatic planets.3 Building on the work of the Babylonians, Chaldeans, and Hellenistic Greeks who had developed mathematical methods to predict planetary motion, Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria put forth a theory in the second century A.D. that the planets moved in small circles, or epicycles, around a larger circle centered on Earth.4 Only partially explaining the planets’ motions, this theory dominated until Nicolaus Copernicus of present-day Poland became dissatisfied with the inadequacies of epicycle theory in the mid-sixteenth century; a more logical explanation of the observed motions, he found, was to consider the Sun the pivot of planetary orbits.5 1.
  • Shoot the Moon – 1967

    Shoot the Moon – 1967

    Video Transcript for Archival Research Catalog (ARC) Identifier 45011 Assignment: Shoot the Moon – 1967 Narrator: The assignment was specific: get photographs of the surface of the Moon that are good enough to determine whether or not it’s safe for a man to land there. But appearances can be deceiving, just as deceiving as trying to get a good picture of, well, a candy apple. Doesn’t seem to be too much of a problem, just set it up, light it, and snap the picture. Easy, quick, simple. But it can be tough. To begin with, the apple is some distance away, so you can’t get to it to just set it up, light it, and so on. To make things even more difficult, it isn’t even holding still; it’s moving around in circles. Now timing is important. You have to take your picture when the apple is nearest to you so you get the most detail and when the light that’s available is at the best angle for the photo. And even that’s not all. You are moving too, in circles. You’re both turning and circling about the apple. Now, about that assignment. As the technology of man in space was developing, it became more and more apparent that our knowledge of the Moon’s surface as a possible landing site was not sufficient. To land man safely on the Moon and get him safely off again, we had to know whether we could set up a precise enough trajectory to reach the Moon.
  • Computing Depth Maps from Descent Images

    Computing Depth Maps from Descent Images

    Machine Vision and Applications (2005) Machine Vision and Digital Object Identifier (DOI) 10.1007/s00138-004-0160-7 Applications Computing depth maps from descent images Yalin Xiong1, Clark F. Olson2, Larry H. Matthies3 1 KLA-Tencor, 160 Rio Robles St., San Jose, CA 95134, USA 2 University of Washington, Computing and Software Systems, 18115 Campus Way NE, Box 358534, Bothell, WA 98011, USA 3 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, M/S 125-209, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA Received: 7 November 2002 / Accepted: 13 September 2004 Published online: 25 February 2005 – c Springer-Verlag 2005 Abstract. In the exploration of the planets of our solar sys- multiresolution terrain maps from a sequence of descent im- tem, images taken during a lander’s descent to the surface of ages. We use motion-estimation and structure-from-motion a planet provide a critical link between orbital images and techniques to recover depth maps from the images. A new surface images. The descent images not only allow us to lo- technique for computing depths is described that is based on cate the landing site in a global coordinate frame, but they correlating the images after performing anti-aliasing image also provide progressively higher-resolution maps for mission warpings that correspond to a set of virtual planar surfaces. planning. This paper addresses the generation of depth maps It is well known that, when the viewed terrain is a planar from the descent images. Our approach has two steps, motion surface, the motion-recovery problem is ill-posed, since trans- refinement and depth recovery.
  • The Blue Planet Report from Stellafane Perspective on Apollo How to Gain and Retain New Members

    The Blue Planet Report from Stellafane Perspective on Apollo How to Gain and Retain New Members

    Published by the Astronomical League Vol. 71, No. 4 September 2019 THE BLUE PLANET REPORT FROM STELLAFANE 7.20.69 5 PERSPECTIVE ON APOLLO YEARS APOLLO 11 HOW TO GAIN AND RETAIN NEW MEMBERS What’s Your Pleasure? From Famous Observatories to Solar Eclipse Take Your Pick From These Tours Travel Down Under to visit top Australian Observatories observatories, including Siding October 1–9, 2019 Spring and “The Dish” at Parkes. Go wine-tasting, hike in nature reserves, and explore eclectic Syd- ney and Australia’s capital, Can- berra. Plus: Stargaze under south- ern skies. Options to Great Barrier Reef and Uluru or Ayers Rock. skyandtelescope.com/australia2019 Uluru & Sydney Opera House: Tourism Australia; observatory: Winton Gibson Astronomy Across Italy May 3–11, 2020 As you travel in comfort from Rome to Florence, Pisa, and Padua, visit the Vatican Observatory, the Galileo Museum, Arcetri Observatory, and more. Enjoy fine food, hotels, and other classic Italian treats. Extensions in Rome and Venice available. skyandtelescope.com/italy2020 S&T’s 2020 solar eclipse cruise offers 2 2020 Eclipse Cruise: Chile, Argentina, minutes, 7 seconds of totality off the and Antarctica coast of Argentina and much more: Nov. 27–Dec. 19, 2020 Chilean fjords and glaciers, the legendary Drake Passage, and four days amid Antarctica’s waters and icebergs. skyandtelescope.com/chile2020 Patagonian Total Solar Eclipse December 9–18, 2020 Come along with Sky & Telescope to view this celestial spectacle in the lakes region of southern Argentina. Experience breathtaking vistas of the lush landscape by day — and the southern sky’s incompa- rable stars by night.
  • Preparation of Papers for AIAA Journals

    Preparation of Papers for AIAA Journals

    Mega-Drivers to Inform NASA Space Technology Strategic Planning Melanie L. Grande,1 Matthew J. Carrier,1 William M. Cirillo,2 Kevin D. Earle,2 Christopher A. Jones,2 Emily L. Judd,1 Jordan J. Klovstad,2 Andrew C. Owens,1 David M. Reeves,2 and Matthew A. Stafford3 NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, 23681, USA The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) has been developing a new Strategic Framework to guide investment prioritization and communication of STMD strategic goals to stakeholders. STMD’s analysis of global trends identified four overarching drivers which are anticipated to shape the needs of civilian space research for years to come. These Mega-Drivers form the foundation of the Strategic Framework. The Increasing Access Mega-Driver reflects the increase in the availability of launch options, more capable propulsion systems, access to planetary surfaces, and the introduction of new platforms to enable exploration, science, and commercial activities. Accelerating Pace of Discovery reflects the exploration of more remote and challenging destinations, drives increased demand for improved abilities to communicate and process large datasets. The Democratization of Space reflects the broadening participation in the space industry, from governments to private investors to citizens. Growing Utilization of Space reflects space market diversification and growth. This paper will further describe the observable trends that inform each of these Mega Drivers, as well as the interrelationships
  • The Moon As a Laboratory for Biological Contamination Research

    The Moon As a Laboratory for Biological Contamination Research

    The Moon As a Laboratory for Biological Contamina8on Research Jason P. Dworkin1, Daniel P. Glavin1, Mark Lupisella1, David R. Williams1, Gerhard Kminek2, and John D. Rummel3 1NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA 2European Space AgenCy, Noordwijk, The Netherlands 3SETI InsQtute, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA Introduction Catalog of Lunar Artifacts Some Apollo Sites Spacecraft Landing Type Landing Date Latitude, Longitude Ref. The Moon provides a high fidelity test-bed to prepare for the Luna 2 Impact 14 September 1959 29.1 N, 0 E a Ranger 4 Impact 26 April 1962 15.5 S, 130.7 W b The microbial analysis of exploration of Mars, Europa, Enceladus, etc. Ranger 6 Impact 2 February 1964 9.39 N, 21.48 E c the Surveyor 3 camera Ranger 7 Impact 31 July 1964 10.63 S, 20.68 W c returned by Apollo 12 is Much of our knowledge of planetary protection and contamination Ranger 8 Impact 20 February 1965 2.64 N, 24.79 E c flawed. We can do better. Ranger 9 Impact 24 March 1965 12.83 S, 2.39 W c science are based on models, brief and small experiments, or Luna 5 Impact 12 May 1965 31 S, 8 W b measurements in low Earth orbit. Luna 7 Impact 7 October 1965 9 N, 49 W b Luna 8 Impact 6 December 1965 9.1 N, 63.3 W b Experiments on the Moon could be piggybacked on human Luna 9 Soft Landing 3 February 1966 7.13 N, 64.37 W b Surveyor 1 Soft Landing 2 June 1966 2.47 S, 43.34 W c exploration or use the debris from past missions to test and Luna 10 Impact Unknown (1966) Unknown d expand our current understanding to reduce the cost and/or risk Luna 11 Impact Unknown (1966) Unknown d Surveyor 2 Impact 23 September 1966 5.5 N, 12.0 W b of future missions to restricted destinations in the solar system.
  • Locations of Anthropogenic Sites on the Moon R

    Locations of Anthropogenic Sites on the Moon R

    Locations of Anthropogenic Sites on the Moon R. V. Wagner1, M. S. Robinson1, E. J. Speyerer1, and J. B. Plescia2 1Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera, School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-3603; [email protected] 2The Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, MD 20723 Abstract #2259 Introduction Methods and Accuracy Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC) Narrow Angle Camera To get the location of each object, we recorded its line and sample in (NAC) images, with resolutions from 0.25-1.5 m/pixel, allow the each image it appears in, and then used USGS ISIS routines to extract identifcation of historical and present-day landers and spacecraft impact latitude and longitude for each point. The true position is calculated to be sites. Repeat observations, along with recent improvements to the the average of the positions from individual images, excluding any extreme spacecraft position model [1] and the camera pointing model [2], allow the outliers. This process used Spacecraft Position Kernels improved by LOLA precise determination of coordinates for those sites. Accurate knowledge of cross-over analysis and the GRAIL gravity model, with an uncertainty of the coordinates of spacecraft and spacecraft impact craters is critical for ±10 meters [1], and a temperature-corrected camera pointing model [2]. placing scientifc and engineering observations into their proper geologic At sites with a retrorefector in the same image as other objects (Apollo and geophysical context as well as completing the historic record of past 11, 14, and 15; Luna 17), we can improve the accuracy signifcantly. Since trips to the Moon.
  • NASA's Recommendations to Space-Faring Entities: How To

    NASA's Recommendations to Space-Faring Entities: How To

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA’s Recommendations to Space-Faring Entities: How to Protect and Preserve the Historic and Scientific Value of U.S. Government Lunar Artifacts Release: July 20, 2011 1 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Revision and History Page Status Revision No. Description Release Date Release Baseline Initial Release 07/20/2011 Update Rev A Updated with imagery from Apollo 10/28/2011 missions 12, 14-17. Added Appendix D: Available Photo Documentation of Apollo Hardware 2 National Aeronautics and Space Administration HUMAN EXPLORATION & OPERATIONS MISSION DIRECTORATE STRATEGIC ANALYSIS AND INTEGRATION DIVISION NASA HEADQUARTERS NASA’S RECOMMENDATIONS TO SPACE-FARING ENTITIES: HOW TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE HISTORIC AND SCIENTIFIC VALUE OF U.S. GOVERNMENT ARTIFACTS THIS DOCUMENT, DATED JULY 20, 2011, CONTAINS THE NASA RECOMMENDATIONS AND ASSOCIATED RATIONALE FOR SPACECRAFT PLANNING TO VISIT U.S. HERITAGE LUNAR SITES. ORGANIZATIONS WITH COMMENTS, QUESTIONS OR SUGGESTIONS CONCERNING THIS DOCUMENT SHOULD CONTACT NASA’S HUMAN EXPLORATION & OPERATIONS DIRECTORATE, STRATEGIC ANALYSIS & INTEGRATION DIVISION, NASA HEADQUARTERS, 202.358.1570. 3 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Table of Contents REVISION AND HISTORY PAGE 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 SECTION A1 – PREFACE, AUTHORITY, AND DEFINITIONS 5 PREFACE 5 DEFINITIONS 7 A1-1 DISTURBANCE 7 A1-2 APPROACH PATH 7 A1-3 DESCENT/LANDING (D/L) BOUNDARY 7 A1-4 ARTIFACT BOUNDARY (AB) 8 A1-5 VISITING VEHICLE SURFACE MOBILITY BOUNDARY (VVSMB) 8 A1-6 OVERFLIGHT