DOCSLIB.ORG

Geosynchronous Orbit Determination Using Space Surveillance Network Observations and Improved Radiative Force Modeling

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Geosynchronous Orbit Determination Using Space Surveillance Network Observations and Improved Radiative Force Modeling Geosynchronous Orbit Determination Using Space Surveillance Network Observations and Improved Radiative Force Modeling by Richard Harry Lyon B.S., Astronautical Engineering United States Air Force Academy, 2002 SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS AT THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY JUNE 2004 0 2004 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. All rights reserved. Signature of Author: Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics May 14, 2004 Certified by: Dr. Pa1 J. Cefola Technical Staff, the MIT Lincoln Laboratory Lecturer, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics Thesis Supervisor Accepted by: Edward M. Greitzer H.N. Slater Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics MASSACHUSETTS INS E OF TECHNOLOGY Chair, Committee on Graduate Students JUL 0 1 2004 AERO LBRARIES [This page intentionally left blank.] 2 Geosynchronous Orbit Determination Using Space Surveillance Network Observations and Improved Radiative Force Modeling by Richard Harry Lyon Submitted to the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics on May 14, 2004 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Aeronautics and Astronautics ABSTRACT Correct modeling of the space environment, including radiative forces, is an important aspect of space situational awareness for geostationary (GEO) spacecraft. Solar radiation pressure has traditionally been modeled using a rotationally-invariant sphere with uniform optical properties. This study is intended to improve orbit determination accuracy for 3-axis stabilized GEO spacecraft via an improved radiative force model. The macro-model approach, developed earlier at NASA GSFC for the Tracking and Data Relay Satellites (TDRSS), models the spacecraft area and reflectivity properties using an assembly of flat plates to represent the spacecraft components. This 'box-wing' approach has been adapted for the UNIX version of the Goddard Trajectory Determination System (GTDS) at the MIT/Lincoln Laboratory. This thesis presents background and mathematical development of the macro-model approach. This thesis also describes software development and testing, including incorporation of a one-panel spacecraft model along with the full macro-model. A model for Earth albedo and Earth infrared radiation and related software development is also described. Additionally, this thesis gives details about the TDRSS macro-model, and explains the development of a macro- model for the NASA Geosynchronous Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES) I-M spacecraft. Results of simulated data testing using the improved radiative force models are presented. The real data testing detailed in this thesis is an investigation into improving GEO orbit determination using the new force models along with observation data from the Space Surveillance Network (SSN). For the TDRSS spacecraft, HANDS optical observations are used in conjunction with the SSN data. NOAA ranging observations are included in some of the tests for the GOES-10 spacecraft. The space- based visible (SBV) observation model has also been incorporated into GTDS, and SBV observations are included in the orbit determination testing. The tests combine the various types of observation data, and implement various observations corrections and biases. The results of this thesis give a better understanding of the process of determining precise orbits for GEO spacecraft with the box-wing model and SSN observations. Thesis Supervisor: Dr. Paul J. Cefola Title: Technical Staff, the MIT Lincoln Laboratory Lecturer, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics 3 DISCLAIMERS The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. This work was sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under Air Force Contract F19628-00-C-0002. "Opinions, interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author and are not necessarily endorsed by the United States Government." This material is based upon work supported under a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship. "Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation." 4 Acknowledgements I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people who have helped me over the past two years and made this thesis possible. First, I would like to thank my thesis advisor, Dr. Paul Cefola, for his guidance and support over the past two years. It has been an honor to work with such a distinguished professional who has contributed so much to the field. You have taught me a lot, not only about astrodynamics; but also about management, leadership, and life. Second, I would like to thank Mr. Zach Folcik of MIT/Lincoln Laboratory for all of his hard work on this orbit determination study, and for teaching me to use UNIX, FORTRAN, and GTDS. Thank you for your constant help and work toward getting real data results and understanding the process for doing precision GEO orbit determination with GTDS. At MIT/Lincoln Laboratory, I would also like to acknowledge my other coworkers, especially Eric Phelps, Bob Flanagan, Rick Abbot, Lori Thornton, Carl Toews, Denis Durand, Anthea Coster, and Susan Shulman, for their expertise and help on this project; Armand Lagasse, Jim Apicella, and Sherry Robarge for computer support; Bonnie Tuohy, Lisa Lombardo, Karen Fraser, Nancy Meehan, Kathy Fellows, and Nancy Alusow for administrative and travel support; and the Lincoln management, including Peter Blankenship, Greg Berthiaume, Sid Sridharan, Mark Czerwinski, and Forrest Hunsberger, for their support. I would also like to thank several people from the Draper Laboratory for their help on this project: Ron Proulx for providing the DSST Standalone and his astrodynamics expertise, Rick Metzinger for his help with reflectivity coefficients, and Dave Carter for his advice on document editors. I would also like to thank Luke Sauter for his friendship over the years and throughout our many classes and workouts together. I also want to thank Ed Miller and Sandy Ashton at NOAA for their support of this project and for coordinating GOES observation data and testing, Ed Harvie and the GOES Flight Ops team for providing the GOES solar torque model, and Mike Wong of Space Systems/Loral for providing data to construct the GOES macro-model. I would like to thank the people from NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, especially Scott Luthcke and Dave Rowlands, for their work on the TDRSS macro-model and for making the GEODYN source code available to this study. Thanks also to Mahima Kaushik and Ann Nicholson at Al Solutions, and Holly Offerman at Swales Aerospace for providing TDRS maneuver information and element sets to this study. I would like to gratefully acknowledge Dr. Chris Sabol of AFRL/AMOS for providing his HANDS observation data and his expertise in orbit determination and GTDS to this study. 5 I would like to thank Dr. Ken Chan at the Aerospace Corporation for providing his excellent work on solar radiation pressure and for discussing the project with me. I would like to thank Dr. T.S. Kelso at Analytical Graphics, Inc., for his help in providing SATCAT analysis. I would also like to acknowledge the many astrodynamics professionals that I have met at the AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist and Spaceflight Mechanics Conferences, including Dave Vallado, Sal Alfano, Tom Eller, John Draim, Kim Luu, and Jim Wright, for sharing their expertise and experiences with me. I would like to acknowledge my professors at MIT, especially Dr. Battin for his excellent courses in astrodynamics and Dr. Vander Velde for his courses in controls; Dr. Martinez- Sanchez, for being my academic advisor; and Marie Stuppard, for administrative support in the Aero/Astro department. I would like to thank Lt Lynch, my program manager at AFIT, for her support and for arranging TDYs. I would also like to thank the cadre at AFROTC Det 365, especially TSgt Meno for his help with Personnel issues and Col Rojko for his support in securing my PRK waiver and ENJJPT slot. I would like to thank the National Science Foundation for their support through the Graduate Research Fellowship Program. I would like to thank the MIT/Lincoln Laboratory for their support through the Military Officer Research Assistant Program. I would like to thank my family for all they have done for me, including my new family, for making me feel so welcome. I would especially like to thank my wife for always being there with support and love throughout our first year of marriage, and let Baby X know that we can't wait for their arrival. Most importantly, I would like to thank God for the many blessings in my life. 6 Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction...................................................................... 23 1.1 Radiative Force M odeling ................................................................. 27 1.2 Orbit Determination Using Space Surveillance Network Observations 32 1.2.1 U.S. Space Surveillance Network (SSN) Overview ....................... 32 1.2.2 MIT/Lincoln Laboratory's GEA CRDA......................................... 34 1.2.3 AFRL/AMOS High Accuracy Network Determination System ........ 37 1.2.4 Russian Space Surveillance Center (SSC)......................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NTI Day 9 Astronomy Michael Feeback Go To: Teachastronomy
    NTI Day 9 Astronomy Michael Feeback Go to: teachastronomy.com textbook (chapter layout) Chapter 3 The Copernican Revolution Orbits Read the article and answer the following questions. Orbits You can use Newton's laws to calculate the speed that an object must reach to go into a circular orbit around a planet. The answer depends only on the mass of the planet and the distance from the planet to the desired orbit. The more massive the planet, the faster the speed. The higher above the surface, the lower the speed. For Earth, at a height just above the atmosphere, the answer is 7.8 kilometers per second, or 17,500 mph, which is why it takes a big rocket to launch a satellite! This speed is the minimum needed to keep an object in space near Earth, and is called the circular velocity. An object with a lower velocity will fall back to the surface under Earth's gravity. The same idea applies to any object in orbit around a larger object. The circular velocity of the Moon around the Earth is 1 kilometer per second. The Earth orbits the Sun at an average circular velocity of 30 kilometers per second (the Earth's orbit is an ellipse, not a circle, but it's close enough to circular that this is a good approximation). At further distances from the Sun, planets have lower orbital velocities. Pluto only has an average circular velocity of about 5 kilometers per second. To launch a satellite, all you have to do is raise it above the Earth's atmosphere with a rocket and then accelerate it until it reaches a speed of 7.8 kilometers per second.
    [Show full text]
  • Up, Up, and Away by James J
    www.astrosociety.org/uitc No. 34 - Spring 1996 © 1996, Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 390 Ashton Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94112. Up, Up, and Away by James J. Secosky, Bloomfield Central School and George Musser, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Want to take a tour of space? Then just flip around the channels on cable TV. Weather Channel forecasts, CNN newscasts, ESPN sportscasts: They all depend on satellites in Earth orbit. Or call your friends on Mauritius, Madagascar, or Maui: A satellite will relay your voice. Worried about the ozone hole over Antarctica or mass graves in Bosnia? Orbital outposts are keeping watch. The challenge these days is finding something that doesn't involve satellites in one way or other. And satellites are just one perk of the Space Age. Farther afield, robotic space probes have examined all the planets except Pluto, leading to a revolution in the Earth sciences -- from studies of plate tectonics to models of global warming -- now that scientists can compare our world to its planetary siblings. Over 300 people from 26 countries have gone into space, including the 24 astronauts who went on or near the Moon. Who knows how many will go in the next hundred years? In short, space travel has become a part of our lives. But what goes on behind the scenes? It turns out that satellites and spaceships depend on some of the most basic concepts of physics. So space travel isn't just fun to think about; it is a firm grounding in many of the principles that govern our world and our universe.
    [Show full text]
  • Multisatellite Determination of the Relativistic Electron Phase Space Density at Geosynchronous Orbit: Methodology and Results During Geomagnetically Quiet Times Y
    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 110, A10210, doi:10.1029/2004JA010895, 2005 Multisatellite determination of the relativistic electron phase space density at geosynchronous orbit: Methodology and results during geomagnetically quiet times Y. Chen, R. H. W. Friedel, and G. D. Reeves Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA T. G. Onsager NOAA, Boulder, Colorado, USA M. F. Thomsen Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA Received 10 November 2004; revised 20 May 2005; accepted 8 July 2005; published 20 October 2005. [1] We develop and test a methodology to determine the relativistic electron phase space density distribution in the vicinity of geostationary orbit by making use of the pitch-angle resolved energetic electron data from three Los Alamos National Laboratory geosynchronous Synchronous Orbit Particle Analyzer instruments and magnetic field measurements from two GOES satellites. Owing to the Earth’s dipole tilt and drift shell splitting for different pitch angles, each satellite samples a different range of Roederer L* throughout its orbit. We use existing empirical magnetic field models and the measured pitch-angle resolved electron spectra to determine the phase space density as a function of the three adiabatic invariants at each spacecraft. Comparing all satellite measurements provides a determination of the global phase space density gradient over the range L* 6–7. We investigate the sensitivity of this method to the choice of the magnetic field model and the fidelity of the instrument intercalibration in order to both understand and mitigate possible error sources. Results for magnetically quiet periods show that the radial slopes of the density distribution at low energy are positive, while at high energy the slopes are negative, which confirms the results from some earlier studies of this type.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Space Elevator Technology
    Analysis of Space Elevator Technology SPRING 2014, ASEN 5053 FINAL PROJECT TYSON SPARKS Contents Figures .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Tables ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Analysis of Space Elevator Technology ........................................................................................................................ 2 Nomenclature ................................................................................................................................................................ 2 I. Introduction and Theory ....................................................................................................................................... 2 A. Modern Elevator Concept ................................................................................................................................. 2 B. Climber Concept ............................................................................................................................................... 3 C. Base Station Concept ........................................................................................................................................ 4 D. Space Elevator Astrodynamics ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Gateway Globe Lesson Plan: Understanding Orbits
    Gateway Globe Lesson Plan: Understanding Orbits Location of Gateway Globe Gateway to Space Overview of Gateway Globe The Gateway Globe is a 36-inch wide spherical projection system which shows two different movies on it. One movie shows examples of parabolic flight paths of future space planes, and one shows examples of existing satellite orbits around the Earth. This lesson will allow students to learn how to describe the different kinds of satellite orbits. Lesson Background Information This lesson plan/unit could be used independently or to prepare for (or to extend the learning after) a visit to Spaceport America. It can be used by teachers or parents wishing to make the Spaceport visit a richer learning experience (for everyone!). An object that orbits the Earth is essentially falling around the Earth, but because of its horizontal velocity it never hits the ground. To understand this concept, you have to first understand a few of the basic laws of physics. You can do some simple experiments outdoors with your students that will help them grasp these basics. For both experiments, you will need two identical baseballs. Ask two students to throw the baseballs (forward) into the air while your other students watch. Then ask your class what they notice about the path of the balls. (The paths are curved.) This is because the force of the throw is causing the balls to go forward, but the force of gravity is also pulling the balls “down” toward the center of the Earth. This makes the paths curved. The faster they throw the ball, the farther it seems to go.
    [Show full text]
  • Geosynchronous Satellite GF-4 Observations of Chlorophyll-A Distribution Details in the Bohai Sea, China
    sensors Article Geosynchronous Satellite GF-4 Observations of Chlorophyll-a Distribution Details in the Bohai Sea, China Lina Cai 1, Juan Bu 1, Danling Tang 2,*, Minrui Zhou 1, Ru Yao 1 and Shuyi Huang 1 1 Marine Science and Technology College, Zhejiang Ocean University, Zhoushan 316004, China; [email protected] (L.C.); [email protected] (J.B.); [email protected] (M.Z.); [email protected] (R.Y.); [email protected] (S.H.) 2 Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory Guangdong Key Laboratory of Ocean Remote Sensing (LORS), South China Sea Institute of Oceanology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou 510301, China * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 5 August 2020; Accepted: 21 September 2020; Published: 24 September 2020 Abstract: We analyzed the distribution of chlorophyll-a (Chla) in the Bohai Sea area based on data from the geosynchronous orbit optical satellite Gaofen-4 (GF-4), which was launched in 2015, carrying a panchromatic multispectral sensor (PMS). This is the first time the geosynchronous orbit optical satellite GF-4 remote-sensing data has been used in China to detect the Chla change details in the Bohai Sea. A new GF-4 retrieved model was established based on the relationship between in situ Chla value and the reflectance combination of 2 and 4 bands, with the R2 of 0.9685 and the total average relative error of 37.42%. Twenty PMS images obtained from 2017 to 2019 were applied to analyze Chla in Bohai sea. The results show that: (1) the new built Chla inversion model PMS-1 for the GF-4 PMS sensor can extract Chla distribution details in the Bohai Sea well.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenges for a South Texas Spaceport
    Space Traffic Management Conference 2014 Roadmap to the Stars Nov 5th, 2:00 PM Challenges For A South Texas Spaceport Edward Ellegood Florida SpacerePort, [email protected] Wayne Eleazer Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.erau.edu/stm Ellegood, Edward and Eleazer, Wayne, "Challenges For A South Texas Spaceport" (2014). Space Traffic Management Conference. 17. https://commons.erau.edu/stm/2014/wednesday/17 This Event is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Space Traffic Management Conference by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Safety Challenges for a South Texas Spaceport By Wayne Eleazer and Edward Ellegood, ERAU Space Traffic Management Conference, November 2014 Introduction On September 22, 2014, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) broke ground on a new spaceport facility at Boca Chica, a remote beach located east of Brownsville, Texas, less than three miles north of the U.S./Mexico border. The groundbreaking followed the successful completion of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation (FAA-AST), and the commitment of millions of dollars in financial assistance from Texas state and local governments. In addition to purely environmental/ecological impacts, the EIS focused on some other public safety risks, all of which were found to be acceptable with mitigating actions proposed by SpaceX. The EIS was an important step toward gaining community and state/local government support for the Boca Chica spaceport. The successful EIS triggered pledges of about $30 million in financial incentives that SpaceX plans to leverage to develop and operate the spaceport, a project expected to cost in excess of $100 million over several years.
    [Show full text]
  • Geosynchronous Patrol Orbit for Space Situational Awareness
    Geosynchronous patrol orbit for space situational awareness Blair Thompson, Thomas Kelecy, Thomas Kubancik Applied Defense Solutions Tim Flora, Michael Chylla, Debra Rose Sierra Nevada Corporation ABSTRACT Applying eccentricity to a geosynchronous orbit produces both longitudinal and radial motion when viewed in Earth-fixed coordinates. An interesting family of orbits emerges, useful for “neighborhood patrol” space situational awareness and other missions. The basic result is a periodic (daily), quasi- elliptical, closed path around a fixed region of the geosynchronous (geo) orbit belt, keeping a sensor spacecraft in relatively close vicinity to designated geo objects. The motion is similar, in some regards, to the relative motion that may be encountered during spacecraft proximity operations, but on a much larger scale. The patrol orbit does not occupy a fixed slot in the geo belt, and the east-west motion can be combined with north-south motion caused by orbital inclination, leading to even greater versatility. Some practical uses of the geo patrol orbit include space surveillance (including catalog maintenance), and general space situational awareness. The patrol orbit offers improved, diverse observation geom- etry for angles-only sensors, resulting in faster, more accurate orbit determination compared to simple inclined geo orbits. In this paper, we analyze the requirements for putting a spacecraft in a patrol orbit, the unique station keeping requirements to compensate for perturbations, repositioning the patrol orbit to a different location along the geo belt, maneuvering into, around, and out of the volume for proximity operations with objects within the volume, and safe end-of-life disposal requirements. 1. INTRODUCTION The traditional geosynchronous (“geosynch” or “geo”) orbit is designed to keep a spacecraft in a nearly fixed position (longitude, latitude, and altitude) with respect to the rotating Earth.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulating the Void: In-Orbit Collisions and Space Debris
    REGULATING THE VOID: IN-ORBIT COLLISIONS AND SPACE DEBRIS Timothy G. Nelson* Space flight has been a reality for barely fifty years, and yet there have already been several notable incidents involving de-or- biting spacecraft. In 1978, the Soviet satellite Kosmos 954 crashed in northern Canada, scattering nuclear material across parts of the Arctic and requiring an extensive cleanup operation.1 In 1979, the U.S. space station Skylab satellite landed in rural Western Aus- tralia, without causing significant damage.2 Many collisions occur within space itself. A recent example was the January 2009 collision, in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) above Siberia, of the “defunct” Russian satellite Kosmos 2251 with Irid- ium 33, a privately-owned U.S. satellite.3 The crash occurred at a relative velocity of 10 km/second, destroyed both satellites, and re- portedly created a very large field of new debris.4 As discussed be- low, there remains significant scope for debate over who if, anyone, is liable for in-orbit collisions from “space debris.” * B.A. L.L.B. (UNSW 1990), B.C.L. (Oxon. 1997). Mr. Nelson is a Partner in the International Litigation and Arbitration practice group of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and are not those of his firm or the firm's clients. This paper reflects comments delivered at the ABILA/ASIL International Law Weekend on October 27, 2012. The author thanks his fellow panelists Henry Hertzfeld and Amber Charlesworth for their comments and insights during that session. 1 See Alexander F.
    [Show full text]
  • Two More Satellite Breakups Detected Joseph P. Loftus Retires from NASA
    A publication of The Orbital Debris Program Office NASA Johnson Space Center Houston, Texas 77058 July 2001 Volume 6, Issue 3. NEWS Two More Satellite Breakups Detected P. Anz-Meador events. Assessed cause of the Cosmos 1701 type orbit. This lessens the spatial density in The third fragmentation event of the year fragmentation was aerodynamic loading due to low Earth orbit because of the large eccentricity 2001 occurred on or about 29 April with the the low perigee of the vehicle, rather than the and low perigee of the vehicle’s orbit. fragmentation of the Russian Cosmos 1701 deliberate destruction of the vehicle by an on- The second breakup event of the quarter spacecraft. The NASA Johnson Space Center’s board explosive system. took place about 16 June and involved a Orbital Debris Program Office was notified by Cosmos 1701 was an Oko-class vehicle. Russian Proton K Block DM ullage motor, the US Space Command’s (USSPACECOM) These vehicles perform missile launch early International Designator 1991-025G, Satellite Space Defense Operations Center (SPADOC) warning duties in orbits very similar to the Number 21226. The SSN detected as many as of the assessed fragmentation on 1 May 2001. Russian Molniya communications payloads. 100 debris in orbits similar to that of the parent Ten (10) large debris were tracked by the The three-axis stabilized vehicle is cylindrical object, which was 300 km by 18,960 km with USSPACECOM Space Surveillance Network in shape with two solar array panels and an an inclination of 64.5 degrees. (SSN) as of that date; as of 30 May 2001, no erectable sun shade for the primary on-board This was the 24th event of this type debris objects had entered the Space Control sensor system.
    [Show full text]
  • Launch Activity and Orbital Debris Mitigation
    Second Quarter 2002 Quarterly Launch Report 1 Introduction The Second Quarter 2002 Quarterly Launch Report features launch results from the first quarter of 2002 (January-March 2002) and launch forecasts for the second quarter of 2002 (April-June 2002) and the third quarter of 2002 (July-September 2002). This report contains information on worldwide commercial, civil, and military orbital space launch events. Projected launches have been identified from open sources, including industry ref- erences, company manifests, periodicals, and government sources. Projected launches are subject to change. This report highlights commercial launch activities, classifying commercial launches as one or more of the following: • Internationally-competed launch events (i.e., launch opportunities considered available in principle to competitors in the international launch services market) • Any launches licensed by the Office of the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation of the Federal Aviation Administration under U.S. Code Title 49, Section 701, Subsection 9 (previously known as the Commercial Space Launch Act) Contents First Quarter 2002 Highlights . .2 Vehicle Use . .3 Total Launch Events by Country . .4 Commercial Launch Events by Country . .4 Commercial vs. Non-commercial Launch Events . .5 First Quarter 2002 Launch Successes vs. Failures . .5 Payload Use . .6 Payload Mass Class . .6 Commercial Launch Trends . .7 Quarterly Report Topic: Launch Activity and Orbital Debris Mitigation . .8 Appendix A: First Quarter 2002 Orbital Launch Events . .A-1 Appendix B: Second Quarter 2002 Projected Orbital Launch Events . .B-1 Appendix C: Third Quarter 2002 Projected Orbital Launch Events . .C-1 Cover: Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla., Feb. 21, 2002 - An Atlas 3B launch vehicle successfully delivers its EchoStar 7 payload into orbit for EchoStar Communications Corporation.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida Spaceport System Plan 2018
    Florida Spaceport System Plan 2018 Florida Spaceport System Plan 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD ....................................................................................................................................................................................................5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................................................................................7 1 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................................................................................11 1.1 Spaceport History .............................................................................................................................................................12 1.2 A Statewide Authority for the Nation’s First Spaceport System ................................................................................................................................................. 13 1.3 Emerging Space Transportation Trends Affecting the Statewide System and Spaceport Types ..14 1.4 Today’s Competition on a National and Worldwide Level ........................................................................................................................................................ 16 1.5 Competing States Spaceports and Spaceport Systems ................................................................................ 18 1.6 System Components ......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]