Modeling and Optimizing Space Networks for Improved Communication Capacity

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Modeling and Optimizing Space Networks for Improved Communication Capacity Modeling and Optimizing Space Networks for Improved Communication Capacity by Sara C. Spangelo A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Aerospace Engineering) in the University of Michigan 2013 Doctoral Committee: Assistant Professor James W. Cutler, Chair Associate Professor Ella M. Atkins Professor Dennis S. Bernstein Associate Professor Amy E. M. Cohn ©Sara C. Spangelo 2013 My family and friends. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Dedication ....................................... ii List of Figures ..................................... iv List of Tables ...................................... v List of Appendices ................................... vi List of Abbreviations ................................. vii Abstract ......................................... viii Chapter 1 Introduction ..................................... 1 1.1 Emerging Trends in Satellite Communication...............2 1.1.1 Small Satellites: Trends and Challenges..............3 1.1.2 Federated Ground Station Networks................4 1.1.3 Protocol Modernization......................6 1.1.4 Model-Based Systems Engineering................6 1.1.5 Summary of Emerging Trends...................8 1.2 Literature Review and Areas for Extension.................8 1.2.1 Space Communication Modeling and Simulation.........8 1.2.2 Spacecraft Modeling and Simulation................ 10 1.2.3 Scheduling............................. 12 1.2.4 Frameworks and Architectures for Space Operations....... 19 1.3 Thesis Contributions............................ 23 1.4 Intellectual Innovations........................... 25 1.4.1 Spacecraft Modeling Framework as Optimization Formulation.. 25 1.4.2 Coupling Operational Planning with Design............ 27 1.5 Thesis Outline................................ 28 2 Model and Simulation Framework and Applications .............. 29 2.1 Operational Modeling Framework..................... 29 2.1.1 Model Elements.......................... 30 2.1.2 Framework Formulation...................... 30 2.1.3 Block Diagram Representation.................. 32 2.2 Framework Application to Communication-Focused Model........ 33 iii 2.2.1 Definitions............................. 33 2.2.2 Ground Station Network Model.................. 36 2.2.3 Communication-Focused Spacecraft Model............ 41 2.3 Data Sets and Simulator........................... 47 2.3.1 Satellite and Ground Station Data................. 47 2.3.2 Simulator Description....................... 51 2.4 Application of Model and Simulator.................... 52 2.5 Summary.................................. 53 3 Constraint-Based Capacity Assessment ...................... 58 3.1 Network Constraints............................ 59 3.1.1 Orbit and Ground Station Coverage................ 59 3.1.2 Availability of Download Time.................. 63 3.2 Energy Constraints............................. 77 3.3 Comparison to Download Requirements.................. 78 3.4 Summary.................................. 81 4 Deterministic Optimization: Formulation and Results .............. 84 4.1 Problem Description and System Dynamics................ 85 4.1.1 Energy Dynamics.......................... 87 4.1.2 Data Dynamics........................... 88 4.1.3 System Optimization........................ 88 4.2 Problem Formulation............................ 89 4.2.1 Notation.............................. 89 4.2.2 Under-Constrained Formulation (UCF).............. 91 4.3 A Special Case: Linear Dynamics..................... 92 4.3.1 Real-World Computational Experiments.............. 94 4.3.2 General Case Computational Experiments............. 98 4.3.3 Non-Integral Solutions Resulting in Branching.......... 102 4.4 Applications to Non-Linear Dynamics................... 107 4.4.1 Algorithm for Solving Non-Linear SMSPs ............. 110 4.4.2 Special Case: Piece-wise Linear Dynamics............ 111 4.5 Summary.................................. 119 5 Deterministic Optimization: Extensions and Applications ............ 121 5.1 Generalized Under-Constrained Formulation (GUCF)........... 122 5.1.1 Notation.............................. 122 5.1.2 Formulation............................. 124 5.2 Single Operational Satellite Problem (SOSP)................ 126 5.2.1 Problem Description........................ 126 5.2.2 Problem Formulation........................ 127 5.3 Diverse LEO CubeSat Missions Application................ 128 5.3.1 Optimal Results for Realistic CubeSat Missions.......... 130 5.3.2 Sensitivity to Deterministic Problem Parameters......... 131 5.4 Interplanetary Mission Application..................... 138 iv 5.4.1 Mission Description and Proposed Communication Architectures 138 5.4.2 Mission Assessment........................ 142 5.4.3 Optimization Results........................ 145 5.5 Summary.................................. 150 6 Sensitivity to Stochasticity in Download Efficiency ................ 155 6.1 Scheduling and Collecting Download Efficiency Data........... 157 6.2 Modeling Download Efficiency Data.................... 160 6.3 Summary and Future Directions...................... 165 7 Conclusions and Future Work ........................... 167 7.1 Conclusions................................. 167 7.2 Future Work................................. 169 7.2.1 Verification and Validation (V&V)................. 169 7.2.2 Operational Planning for Complex Spacecraft........... 170 7.2.3 Applications to Multi-Satellite Missions.............. 171 7.2.4 Stochasticity in Operational Scheduling Problem......... 172 7.2.5 Coupled Vehicle and Operations Optimization.......... 173 7.2.6 Applications to Interplanetary Missions.............. 173 7.2.7 Summary.............................. 175 Appendices ....................................... 176 Bibliography ...................................... 184 v LIST OF FIGURES 1.1 Small satellite launch trends demonstrating a growing number of launched and projected missions................................3 2.1 A generic representation of the subsystem function Zs;j = gs;j(Ys;j; U; Ps;j; t) for s = 1 and j = 1; 2; 3. All values are time dependent............. 32 2.2 Elements and dynamics of the system model represented with a conventional feedback control loop diagram. The non-italicized labels are the conventional elements of a control feedback loop. The italicized labels are the elements of the modeling framework............................. 34 2.3 Schematic with increasingly higher fidelity ground station models within smaller ellipses, where the ellipse area represents network capacity. Note this diagram is not to scale.................................... 41 2.4 Global locations and projected visibility cones of stations in N2 and N3 as- suming a satellite altitude of 500 km and an elevation mask of 0◦........ 50 2.5 Time histories of on-board stored energy and total data downloaded for an in- stance of the RAX-2 mission with psol = 5:5 W and maximum eclipse duration of 35 % of orbit.................................. 54 2.6 Time histories of on-board stored energy and total data downloaded for an instance of the RAX-2 mission with psol = 3 W and zero eclipse duration (all 97 minutes of orbital period are in sunlight)................... 55 2.7 Data downloaded for variable solar power collection values (psol) for an in- stance of the RAX-2 mission. Results are compared when there is maximum eclipse, with an eclipse fraction of 0.35 (34 minutes of a 97 minute orbital period), and zero eclipse (always in sunlight). Note data is not plotted for infeasible mission scenarios........................... 56 3.1 Percentage of satellite passes which have ground station coverage for different space node inclinations and ground node latitudes with a ground node mini- mum communication elevation of 0◦....................... 61 3.2 Percentage of satellite passes which have ground station coverage for different space node inclinations and ground node latitudes with a ground node mini- mum communication elevation of 10◦....................... 62 3.3 Earth coverage of latitude ranges for different numbers of ground stations (Ngs) and satellite inclinations assuming a circular orbit at an altitude of 500 km. See Figure 2.4 for the locations and footprints of the stations........ 64 vi 3.4 Average daily access time as a function of satellite inclination and ground station latitude for 650 km altitude circular orbits using SGP4 propagation method in STK................................... 66 3.5 Communication capacity as a function of diverse orbital properties and a range of ground network sizes for a one year simulation................ 67 3.6 CubeSat survey of existing ground stations [1].................. 69 3.7 Effects of variation in AFSCN ground station latitudes from Table 3.2 on net- work capacity for the AeroCube 3 satellite with 99◦ inclination and 715 km altitude orbit.................................... 70 3.8 2009 Minotaur-1 launched CubeSat group relative to Ann Arbor ground sta- tion (42:27◦N; 83:76◦W ) following epoch, the time the satellite emerges from the launch vehicle................................. 72 3.9 Total network capacity for 2009 Minotaur-1 launched CubeSat group relative to entire AFSCN with 15 antennas........................ 74 3.10 Effects of growing family of satellites on network utilization for a fixed ground station network. The CubeSats are launched into 400 to 800 km random orbits, and access time is computed relative to the 15 ground station antennas in the AFSCN. Excess access time is the time where
Recommended publications
  • Orbital Lifetime Predictions
    Orbital LIFETIME PREDICTIONS An ASSESSMENT OF model-based BALLISTIC COEFfiCIENT ESTIMATIONS AND ADJUSTMENT FOR TEMPORAL DRAG co- EFfiCIENT VARIATIONS M.R. HaneVEER MSc Thesis Aerospace Engineering Orbital lifetime predictions An assessment of model-based ballistic coecient estimations and adjustment for temporal drag coecient variations by M.R. Haneveer to obtain the degree of Master of Science at the Delft University of Technology, to be defended publicly on Thursday June 1, 2017 at 14:00 PM. Student number: 4077334 Project duration: September 1, 2016 – June 1, 2017 Thesis committee: Dr. ir. E. N. Doornbos, TU Delft, supervisor Dr. ir. E. J. O. Schrama, TU Delft ir. K. J. Cowan MBA TU Delft An electronic version of this thesis is available at http://repository.tudelft.nl/. Summary Objects in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) experience low levels of drag due to the interaction with the outer layers of Earth’s atmosphere. The atmospheric drag reduces the velocity of the object, resulting in a gradual decrease in altitude. With each decayed kilometer the object enters denser portions of the atmosphere accelerating the orbit decay until eventually the object cannot sustain a stable orbit anymore and either crashes onto Earth’s surface or burns up in its atmosphere. The capability of predicting the time an object stays in orbit, whether that object is space junk or a satellite, allows for an estimate of its orbital lifetime - an estimate satellite op- erators work with to schedule science missions and commercial services, as well as use to prove compliance with international agreements stating no passively controlled object is to orbit in LEO longer than 25 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Space) Barriers for 50 Years: the Past, Present, and Future of the Dod Space Test Program
    SSC17-X-02 Breaking (Space) Barriers for 50 Years: The Past, Present, and Future of the DoD Space Test Program Barbara Manganis Braun, Sam Myers Sims, James McLeroy The Aerospace Corporation 2155 Louisiana Blvd NE, Suite 5000, Albuquerque, NM 87110-5425; 505-846-8413 [email protected] Colonel Ben Brining USAF SMC/ADS 3548 Aberdeen Ave SE, Kirtland AFB NM 87117-5776; 505-846-8812 [email protected] ABSTRACT 2017 marks the 50th anniversary of the Department of Defense Space Test Program’s (STP) first launch. STP’s predecessor, the Space Experiments Support Program (SESP), launched its first mission in June of 1967; it used a Thor Burner II to launch an Army and a Navy satellite carrying geodesy and aurora experiments. The SESP was renamed to the Space Test Program in July 1971, and has flown over 568 experiments on over 251 missions to date. Today the STP is managed under the Air Force’s Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) Advanced Systems and Development Directorate (SMC/AD), and continues to provide access to space for DoD-sponsored research and development missions. It relies heavily on small satellites, small launch vehicles, and innovative approaches to space access to perform its mission. INTRODUCTION Today STP continues to provide access to space for DoD-sponsored research and development missions, Since space first became a viable theater of operations relying heavily on small satellites, small launch for the Department of Defense (DoD), space technologies have developed at a rapid rate. Yet while vehicles, and innovative approaches to space access.
    [Show full text]
  • FASTSAT a Mini-Satellite Mission…..A Way Ahead”
    Proposed Abstract: Under the combined Category and Title: “FASTSAT a Mini-Satellite Mission…..A Way Ahead” Authors: Mark E. Boudreaux, Joseph Casas, Timothy A. Smith The Fast Affordable Science and Technology Spacecraft (FASTSAT) is a mini-satellite weighing less than 150 kg. FASTSAT was developed as government-industry collaborative research and development flight project targeting rapid access to space to provide an alternative, low cost platform for a variety of scientific, research, and technology payloads. The initial spacecraft was designed to carry six instruments and launch as a secondary “rideshare” payload. This design approach greatly reduced overall mission costs while maximizing the on-board payload accommodations. FASTSAT was designed from the ground up to meet a challenging short schedule using modular components with a flexible, configurable layout to enable a broad range of payloads at a lower cost and shorter timeline than scaling down a more complex spacecraft. The integrated spacecraft along with its payloads were readied for launch 15 months from authority to proceed. As an ESPA-class spacecraft, FASTSAT is compatible with many different launch vehicles, including Minotaur I, Minotaur IV, Delta IV, Atlas V, Pegasus, Falcon 1/1e, and Falcon 9. These vehicles offer an array of options for launch sites and provide for a variety of rideshare possibilities. FASTSAT a Mini Satellite Mission …..A Way Ahead 15th Annual Space & Missile Defense Conference Session Track 1.2 : Operations for Small, Tactical Satellites Mark Boudreaux/NASA
    [Show full text]
  • Highlights in Space 2010
    International Astronautical Federation Committee on Space Research International Institute of Space Law 94 bis, Avenue de Suffren c/o CNES 94 bis, Avenue de Suffren UNITED NATIONS 75015 Paris, France 2 place Maurice Quentin 75015 Paris, France Tel: +33 1 45 67 42 60 Fax: +33 1 42 73 21 20 Tel. + 33 1 44 76 75 10 E-mail: : [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Fax. + 33 1 44 76 74 37 URL: www.iislweb.com OFFICE FOR OUTER SPACE AFFAIRS URL: www.iafastro.com E-mail: [email protected] URL : http://cosparhq.cnes.fr Highlights in Space 2010 Prepared in cooperation with the International Astronautical Federation, the Committee on Space Research and the International Institute of Space Law The United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs is responsible for promoting international cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space and assisting developing countries in using space science and technology. United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs P. O. Box 500, 1400 Vienna, Austria Tel: (+43-1) 26060-4950 Fax: (+43-1) 26060-5830 E-mail: [email protected] URL: www.unoosa.org United Nations publication Printed in Austria USD 15 Sales No. E.11.I.3 ISBN 978-92-1-101236-1 ST/SPACE/57 *1180239* V.11-80239—January 2011—775 UNITED NATIONS OFFICE FOR OUTER SPACE AFFAIRS UNITED NATIONS OFFICE AT VIENNA Highlights in Space 2010 Prepared in cooperation with the International Astronautical Federation, the Committee on Space Research and the International Institute of Space Law Progress in space science, technology and applications, international cooperation and space law UNITED NATIONS New York, 2011 UniTEd NationS PUblication Sales no.
    [Show full text]
  • Cubesat-Based Science Missions for Geospace and Atmospheric Research
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (NSF) CUBESAT-BASED SCIENCE MISSIONS FOR GEOSPACE AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH annual report October 2013 www.nasa.gov www.nsf.gov LETTERS OF SUPPORT 3 CONTACTS 5 NSF PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 6 GSFC WFF OBJECTIVES 8 2013 AND PRIOR PROJECTS 11 Radio Aurora Explorer (RAX) 12 Project Description 12 Scientific Accomplishments 14 Technology 14 Education 14 Publications 15 Contents Colorado Student Space Weather Experiment (CSSWE) 17 Project Description 17 Scientific Accomplishments 17 Technology 18 Education 18 Publications 19 Data Archive 19 Dynamic Ionosphere CubeSat Experiment (DICE) 20 Project Description 20 Scientific Accomplishments 20 Technology 21 Education 22 Publications 23 Data Archive 24 Firefly and FireStation 26 Project Description 26 Scientific Accomplishments 26 Technology 27 Education 28 Student Profiles 30 Publications 31 Cubesat for Ions, Neutrals, Electrons and MAgnetic fields (CINEMA) 32 Project Description 32 Scientific Accomplishments 32 Technology 33 Education 33 Focused Investigations of Relativistic Electron Burst, Intensity, Range, and Dynamics (FIREBIRD) 34 Project Description 34 Scientific Accomplishments 34 Education 34 2014 PROJECTS 35 Oxygen Photometry of the Atmospheric Limb (OPAL) 36 Project Description 36 Planned Scientific Accomplishments 36 Planned Technology 36 Planned Education 37 (NSF) CUBESAT-BASED SCIENCE MISSIONS FOR GEOSPACE AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH [ 1 QB50/QBUS 38 Project Description 38 Planned Scientific Accomplishments 38 Planned
    [Show full text]
  • Astronautilus-18.Pdf
    Kosmos to dla nas najbardziej zaawansowana nauka, która często redefiniuje poglądy filozofów, najbardziej zaawansowana technika, która stała się częścią nasze- go życia codziennego i czyni je lepszym, najbardziej Dwumiesięcznik popularnonaukowy poświęcony tematyce wizjonerski biznes, który każdego roku przynosi setki astronautycznej. ISSN 1733-3350. Nr 18 (1/2012). miliardów dolarów zysku, największe wyzwanie ludz- Redaktor naczelny: dr Andrzej Kotarba kości, która by przetrwać, musi nauczyć się żyć po- Zastępca redaktora: Waldemar Zwierzchlejski Korekta: Renata Nowak-Kotarba za Ziemią. Misją magazynu AstroNautilus jest re- lacjonowanie osiągnięć współczesnego świata w każdej Kontakt: [email protected] z tych dziedzin, przy jednoczesnym budzeniu astronau- Zachęcamy do współpracy i nadsyłania tekstów, zastrze- tycznych pasji wśród pokoleń, które jutro za stan tego gając sobie prawo do skracania i redagowania nadesłanych świata będą odpowiadać. materiałów. Przedruk materiałów tylko za zgodą Redakcji. Spis treści PW-Sat: Made in Poland! ▸ 2 Polska ma długie tradycje badań kosmicznych – polskie instrumenty w ramach najbardziej prestiżowych misji badają otoczenie Ziemi i odległych planet. Ale nigdy dotąd nie trafił na orbitę satelita w całości zbudowany w polskich labo- ratoriach. Może się nim stać PW-Sat, stworzony przez studentów Politechniki Warszawskiej. Choć przedsięwzięcie ma głównie wymiar dydaktyczny, realizuje również ciekawy eksperyment: przyspieszoną deorbitację. CubeSat, czyli mały może więcej ▸ 15 Objętość decymetra sześciennego oraz masa nie większa niż jeden kilogram. Ta- kie ograniczenia konstrukcyjne narzuca satelitom standard CubeSat. Oryginalnie opracowany z myślą o misjach studenckich (bazuje na nim polski PW-Sat), Cu- beSat zyskuje coraz większe rzesze zwolenników w sektorze komercyjnym, woj- skowym i naukowym. Sprawdźmy, czym są i co potrafią satelity niewiele większe od kostki Rubika.
    [Show full text]
  • STS-S26 Stage Set
    SatCom For Net-Centric Warfare September/October 2010 MilsatMagazine STS-S26 stage set Military satellites Kodiak Island Launch Complex, photo courtesy of Alaska Aerospace Corp. PAYLOAD command center intel Colonel Carol P. Welsch, Commander Video Intelligence ..................................................26 Space Development Group, Kirtland AFB by MilsatMagazine Editors ...............................04 Zombiesats & On-Orbit Servicing by Brian Weeden .............................................38 Karl Fuchs, Vice President of Engineering HI-CAP Satellites iDirect Government Technologies by Bruce Rowe ................................................62 by MilsatMagazine Editors ...............................32 The Orbiting Vehicle Series (OV1) by Jos Heyman ................................................82 Brig. General Robert T. Osterhaler, U.S.A.F. (Ret.) CEO, SES WORLD SKIES, U.S. Government Solutions by MilsatMagazine Editors ...............................76 India’s Missile Defense/Anti-Satellite NEXUS by Victoria Samson ..........................................82 focus Warfighter-On-The-Move by Bhumika Baksir ...........................................22 MILSATCOM For The Next Decade by Chris Hazel .................................................54 The First Line Of Defense by Angie Champsaur .......................................70 MILSATCOM In Harsh Conditions.........................89 2 MILSATMAGAZINE — SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2010 Video Intelligence ..................................................26 Zombiesats & On-Orbit
    [Show full text]
  • ASTRODYNAMICS 2011 Edited by Hanspeter Schaub Brian C
    ASTRODYNAMICS 2011 Edited by Hanspeter Schaub Brian C. Gunter Ryan P. Russell William Todd Cerven Volume 142 ADVANCES IN THE ASTRONAUTICAL SCIENCES ASTRODYNAMICS 2011 2 AAS PRESIDENT Frank A. Slazer Northrop Grumman VICE PRESIDENT - PUBLICATIONS Dr. David B. Spencer Pennsylvania State University EDITORS Dr. Hanspeter Schaub University of Colorado Dr. Brian C. Gunter Delft University of Technology Dr. Ryan P. Russell Georgia Institute of Technology Dr. William Todd Cerven The Aerospace Corporation SERIES EDITOR Robert H. Jacobs Univelt, Incorporated Front Cover Photos: Top photo: Cassini looking back at an eclipsed Saturn, Astronomy picture of the day 2006 October 16, credit CICLOPS, JPL, ESA, NASA; Bottom left photo: Shuttle shadow in the sunset (in honor of the end of the Shuttle Era), Astronomy picture of the day 2010 February 16, credit: Expedition 22 Crew, NASA; Bottom right photo: Comet Hartley 2 Flyby, Astronomy picture of the day 2010 November 5, Credit: NASA, JPL-Caltech, UMD, EPOXI Mission. 3 ASTRODYNAMICS 2011 Volume 142 ADVANCES IN THE ASTRONAUTICAL SCIENCES Edited by Hanspeter Schaub Brian C. Gunter Ryan P. Russell William Todd Cerven Proceedings of the AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference held July 31 – August 4 2011, Girdwood, Alaska, U.S.A. Published for the American Astronautical Society by Univelt, Incorporated, P.O. Box 28130, San Diego, California 92198 Web Site: http://www.univelt.com 4 Copyright 2012 by AMERICAN ASTRONAUTICAL SOCIETY AAS Publications Office P.O. Box 28130 San Diego, California 92198 Affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science Member of the International Astronautical Federation First Printing 2012 Library of Congress Card No.
    [Show full text]
  • Aeronautics and Space Report of the President
    Aeronautics and Space Report of the President Fiscal Year 2009 Activities Aeronautics and Space Report of the President Fiscal Year 2009 Activities The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 directed the annual Aeronautics and Space Report to include a “comprehensive description of the programmed activities and the accomplishments of all agencies of the United States in the field of aeronautics and space activities during the preceding calendar year.” In recent years, the reports have been prepared on a fiscal-year basis, consistent with the budgetary period now used in programs of the Federal Government. This year’s report covers Aeronautics and SpaceAeronautics Report of the President activities that took place from October 1, 2008, through September 30, 2009. TABLE OF CONTENTS National Aeronautics and Space Administration . 1. Fiscal Year 2009 Activities Year Fiscal • Exploration Systems Mission Directorate 1 • Space Operations Mission Directorate 10 • Science Mission Directorate 18 • Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate 25 Department of Defense . 41 Federal Aviation Administration . 45 . Department of Commerce . 51. Department of the Interior . 81. Federal Communications Commission . 103 U.S. Department of Agriculture. 107 National Science Foundation . 115 . Department of State. 125 Department of Energy. 129 Smithsonian Institution . 137. Appendices . 149 . • A-1 U S Government Spacecraft Record 150 • A-2 World Record of Space Launches Successful in Attaining Earth Orbit or Beyond 151 • B Successful Launches to Orbit on U S Vehicles 152 • C Human Spaceflights 155 • D-1A Space Activities of the U S Government—Historical Table of Budget Authority in Millions of Real-Year Dollars 156 • D-1B Space Activities of the U S Government—Historical Table of Budget Authority in Millions of Inflation-Adjusted FY 09 Dollars 157 • D-2 Federal Space Activities Budget 158 • D-3 Federal Aeronautics Activities Budget 159 Acronyms .
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • October 2016 ASTRO-H Spacecraft Fragments Inside
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration OrbitalQuarterly Debris News Volume 20, Issue 4 October 2016 ASTRO-H Spacecraft Fragments Inside... During Payload Check-out Operations New SOZ Breakup in July 2016 2 The ASTRO-H/Hitomi/New X-Ray Telescope actual rotation of the spacecraft. The ACS assessed the BeiDou G2 Spacecraft (NeXT) high energy astrophysics observatory satellite spacecraft to be in a critical situation and attempted to Fragments in GEO Orbit 2 experienced an operationally-induced fragmentation use the RCS to enter a Safe-Hold mode. Unfortunately, event on 26 March 2016 at approximately 1:42 GMT. incorrect thruster control parameters led to the thrusters WorldView 2 Spacecraft The spacecraft (International Designator 2016-012A, increasing the angular acceleration of the spacecraft. As Fragments in July 2016 3 U.S. Strategic Command [USSTRATCOM] Space rotational speed exceeded design parameters, several Indian RISAT-1 Spacecraft Surveillance Network [SSN] catalog number 41337), major components separated from the spacecraft, Experiences Possible managed and operated by the Japan Aerospace leading to mission loss. JAXA post mortem analyses Fragmentation 4 Exploration Agency (JAXA) but including payloads from NASA/Goddard Space continued on page 2 Disposal of GOES-3 4 Flight Center, the Canadian UNCOPUOS Reaches Space Agency, and the European Consensus on First Set of Space Agency, had concluded Guidelines for Long-term its Phase 0 Critical Operations Sustainability of OSA 5 Phase and was approximately 60% complete in its Initial Changes to ODPO Website 6 Function Check Phase. The ISS Debris Avoidance Process 7 spacecraft had been on-orbit slightly over one month and CubeSat PMD by Drag was in a 31.0° inclination, 578 Enhancement 8 by 536 km orbit at the time of Abstracts 10 the event.
    [Show full text]