DOCSLIB.ORG

Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle (OMV) Missions Applications and Systems Requirements

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle (OMV) Missions Applications and Systems Requirements The Space Congress® Proceedings 1984 (21st) New Opportunities In Space Apr 1st, 8:00 AM Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle (OMV) Missions Applications and Systems Requirements William G. Huber Manager, OMV Task Team, Marshall Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration David C. Cramblit Deputy Manager, OMV Task Team, Marshall Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings Scholarly Commons Citation Huber, William G. and Cramblit, David C., "Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle (OMV) Missions Applications and Systems Requirements" (1984). The Space Congress® Proceedings. 6. https://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings/proceedings-1984-21st/session-7/6 This Event is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Space Congress® Proceedings by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ORBITAL MANEUVERING VEHICLE (OMV) MISSIONS APPLICATIONS AND SYSTEMS REQUIREMENTS William G. Huber David C. Cramblit Manager, OMV Task Team Deputy Manager, OMV Task Team Marshall Space Flight Center Marshall Space Flight Center National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Aeronautics and Space Administration ABSTRACT the OMV system should be operationally demon­ strated prior to SS Initial Operational Capa­ The routine delivery of large payloads to low bility (IOC). In the aggregate of its future earth orbit has become a reality with the uses, the OMV will more than offset its initial Space Transportation System (STS). However, development costs. This paper summarizes the once earth orbit has been achieved, orbit mission needs for the OMV program, and the transfer operations represent an inefficient characteristics of a typical/representative use of the Space Shuttle. The Orbital Maneu­ design (Figure 1) suited to meeting these needs. vering Vehicle (OMV) will add a new and needed dimension to STS capabilities. Utilized in a reusable manner, the OMV is needed to deliver QMV MISSION NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES and retrieve satellites to and from orbital altitudes or inclinations beyond the practical As a remotely piloted vehicle, its maneuvering limits of the Space Shuttle and to support controlled by man with hand-controllers from a basic Space Station activities. The initial ground control station, the OMV extends the OMV must also be designed to permit the addi­ reach of both the STS and the envelope of man's tion of future mission kits to support the involvement. It will eventually provide a wide servicing, module changeout, or refueling of range of new and unique mission capabilities as satellites in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and Geo­ summarized in Figure 2. The upper portion of stationary Earth Orbit (GEO), and the retrie­ this figure addresses mission capabilities that val and deorbit of space debris. This paper an initial or early OMV will provide; more addresses the mission needs along with the advanced missions involving SS support and resulting performance implications, design satellite servicing will be accommodated by requirements and operational capabilities modularly augmenting the basic OMV with mission imposed on the OMV planned for use in the "kits" as needed to support these more demand­ late 1980's. ing classes of missions. Early OMV uses will emphasize the delivery of payloads to orbital locations beyond the effective range of the INTRODUCTION STS. With its TV cameras and a flood-light system, the OMV will be able to view the The OMV, operating as a remotely controlled delivered satellite and verify all sensors/ free-flying reusable space tug at distances appendages are deployed correctly and are func­ out to 1500 nautical miles away from the tioning before the OMV returns back to the Orbiter, provides a substantial augmentation Orbiter for pickup and reuse. Should the to the range of delivery, retrieval, and delivered satellite malfunction, the OMV can reboost satellite services provided by the be remotely controlled to re-rendezvous and Space Transportation System (STS). Once dock with the satellite for contingency retrie­ developed, the OMV will offer a wide range val and return to the Orbiter/ground for of both basic and growth capabilities which repairing. The OMV will also be used for can be adopted for use by future spacecraft planned retrievals of spacecraft after they developers with resultant cost savings to the have completed their useful mission life or for individual projects. It will also be usable periodic servicing/updates. The OMV will also as a propulsion module to augment the per­ provide an efficient means for reboosting large formance of planned and future high energy observatory-class payloads (which have no upper stages for delivery of payloads to propulsion of their own) back to their desired altitudes up to and beyond geosynchronous higher operational orbits after their orbits orbit (GEO). As an essential support ele­ have decayed. Operating with both primary and ment of the future Space Station (SS) program, vernier (RCS) thrusters, the OMV can be 7-10 utilized as a free-flying sub-satellite, trans­ subsequent reuse on another Shuttle flight. ferring attached science payloads or sensors to Operating out of Shuttle, in "Orbit-Stored" large separation distances from the Orbiter, mode, the OMV is left on-orbit for extended followed by later return to the Orbiter for periods of storage between missions or for the retrieval. The duration of such missions conduct of more missions until its fuel supply may vary from days to weeks to months; with is depleted. It will be retrieved by a later extended orbital operational times provided Shuttle flight for return to ground or may be by an OMV power augmentation kit. In summary, refueled and serviced out of the Orbiter to the initial OMV will be required to: extend its orbital stay time/utility. Operating in a "Space Station-Based" mode, the OMV, once - Deliver satellite payloads to orbital delivered to orbit by the Shuttle, will fly to altitudes or inclinations beyond the prac­ the SS and remain based there. From the SS tical limit of the existing Space Shuttle. location, the OMV will support logistics/payload exchange missions between the SS and STS, and - Retrieve satellite payloads from payload services support missions between SS orbital altitudes or inclinations beyond and associated free-flying satellites or the practical limit of the existing Space unmanned space platforms. The early OMV will Shuttle. be ground-based, but must be readily capable of evolving to the other basing modes as future - Reboost satellites to original opera­ missions needs and economic considerations tional orbital altitudes or higher. dictate. These basing modes will be thoroughly examined during the conduct of OMV Phase B - Accommodate mission sharing by pro­ definition studies in CY 1984 and 1985. viding a means to deliver multiple payloads to different orbital altitudes and inclina­ Figure 5 addresses the generic class of OMV tions. missions associated with support to large observatories. In this particular mission, the - Safely deorbit satellites which have OMV has acquired the target from an initial completed their useful life. 10-15 nautical mile separation distance, and then maneuvered to within a safe proximity - Be readily adaptable to the support stand-off distance using a combination of main of basic Space Station activities by trans­ propulsion and primary RCS thruster burns. The ferring and maneuvering of modules and OMV retractable docking probe is then actuated logistic equipment. to its extended position and terminal maneuvers performed using a secondary non-contaminating, The basic vehicle will be configured in a way cold gas RCS system. This phase of the mission that will readily permit the modular add-on is directly controlled by an OMV operator from of future mission kits or new hardware fea­ a ground station, utilizing sensory aids tures essential to supporting potential (radar/optical) and TV data transmitted by the future mission needs, such as: associated on-board OMV subsystems. The dock­ ing concept involves the use of a payload- - The servicing, module changeout, or mounted fixture and a compatible OMV docking refueling of satellites and platforms operat­ end effector. Several docking configurations ing in LEO, GEO, or in formation with a and mechanisms are currently being evaluated Space Station. as part of MSFC's supporting development pro­ gram. After rendezvous and docking with the - The retrieval deorbit of space debris large observatory at its pickup altitude which could represent an orbital hazard to (typically 250-275 nautical miles), the OMV will future space missions. return the observatory to the Orbiter (160 nautical mile altitude) for servicing. Follow­ In the Space Station era, as shown in Figure ing servicing of the observatory in the Shuttle 3, it is anticipated that OMV missions will cargo bay, the OMV will then re-deploy it back be conducted in two major ways: many will con­ to a desired operational altitude which may tinue to be "based" out of the Orbiter for range anywhere from 320-400 nautical miles. support to the SS or for spacecraft missions After the observatory is safely deployed and going to orbital locations not involved with operational, the OMV will then return to the or compatible with the SS orbit. Other OMV Orbiter. uses, dedicated to operational support of the SS, will be station-based, where the OMV is To meet projected mission needs, the OMV must serviced, maintained, and controlled from an be capable of effective operations in a number OMV support facility at the SS. The complete of operating modes, as summarized in Figure 6. range of OMV basing concepts is shown in Except for control of the terminal rendezvous Figure 4. Operating out of the Shuttle, in a and docking operations (piloted mode, ground "Ground-Based" mode, the OMV is delivered to based) the OMV will be capable of automatic orbit, performs its mission, returns to the operations under programmed control of an on­ same Orbiter for retrieval, and is returned board computer.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Preface Patrick Besha, Editor Alexander Macdonald, Editor in The
    EARLY DRAFT - NASAWATCH.COM/SPACEREF.COM Preface Patrick Besha, Editor Alexander MacDonald, Editor In the next decade, NASA will seek to expand humanity’s presence in space beyond the International Space Station in low-Earth orbit to a new habitation platform orbiting the moon. By the late 2020’s, astronauts will live and work far deeper in space than ever before. The push to cis-lunar orbit is part of a stepping-stone approach to extend our reach to Mars and beyond. This decision to explore ever farther destinations is a familiar pattern in the history of American space exploration. Another major pattern with historical precedent is the transition from public sector exploration to private sector commercialization. After the government has developed and demonstrated a capability in space, whether it be space-based communications or remote sensing, the private sector has realized its market potential. As new companies establish a presence, the government withdraws from the market. In 2015, we are once again at a critical stage in the development of space. The most successful long-term human habitation in space, orbiting the Earth continuously since 1998, is the International Space Station. Currently at the apex of its capabilities and the pinnacle of state-of-the-art space systems, it was developed through the investments and labors of over a dozen nations and is regularly re-supplied by cargo delivery services. Its occupants include six astronauts and numerous other organisms from Earth’s ecosystems from bacteria to plants to rats. Research is conducted on the spacecraft from hundreds of organizations worldwide ranging from academic institutions to large industrial companies and from high-tech start-ups to high-school science classes.
    [Show full text]
  • Preparation of Papers for AIAA Technical Conferences
    DUKSUP: A Computer Program for High Thrust Launch Vehicle Trajectory Design & Optimization Spurlock, O.F.I and Williams, C. H.II NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH, 44135 From the late 1960’s through 1997, the leadership of NASA’s Intermediate and Large class unmanned expendable launch vehicle projects resided at the NASA Lewis (now Glenn) Research Center (LeRC). One of LeRC’s primary responsibilities --- trajectory design and performance analysis --- was accomplished by an internally-developed analytic three dimensional computer program called DUKSUP. Because of its Calculus of Variations-based optimization routine, this code was generally more capable of finding optimal solutions than its contemporaries. A derivation of optimal control using the Calculus of Variations is summarized including transversality, intermediate, and final conditions. The two point boundary value problem is explained. A brief summary of the code’s operation is provided, including iteration via the Newton-Raphson scheme and integration of variational and motion equations via a 4th order Runge-Kutta scheme. Main subroutines are discussed. The history of the LeRC trajectory design efforts in the early 1960’s is explained within the context of supporting the Centaur upper stage program. How the code was constructed based on the operation of the Atlas/Centaur launch vehicle, the limits of the computers of that era, the limits of the computer programming languages, and the missions it supported are discussed. The vehicles DUKSUP supported (Atlas/Centaur, Titan/Centaur, and Shuttle/Centaur) are briefly described. The types of missions, including Earth orbital and interplanetary, are described. The roles of flight constraints and their impact on launch operations are detailed (such as jettisoning hardware on heating, Range Safety, ground station tracking, and elliptical parking orbits).
    [Show full text]
  • 555/Of 474- 70
    555/of 474- 70/ A PERSPECTIVE ON THE USE OF STORABLE PROPELLANTS FOR FUTURE SPACE VEHICLE PROPULSION William C. Boyd and Warren L. Brasher NASA, Johnson Space Center 0 O"0 Houston, Texas 0 ABSTRACT Propulsion system configurations for future NASA and DOD space initiatives are driven by the continually emerging new mission requirements. These initiatives cover an extremely wide range of mission scenarios, from unmanned planetary pro- grams, to manned lunar and planetary programs, to Earth-oriented ('Mission to Planet Earth) programs, and they are in addition to existing and future require- ments for near-Eirth missions such as to geosynchronous earth orbit (GEO). Increasing space transportation costs, and anticipated high costs associated with space-basing of future vehicles, necessitate consideration of cost-effective and easily maintainable configurations which maximize the use of ex-Isting technologies and assets, and use budgetary resources effectively. System design considerations associated with the use of storable propellants to fill these needs are presented. Comparisons in areas such as ccrrplexity, performance, flexibility, maintainabili- ty, and technology status are made for earth and space storable propellants, cluding nitrogen tetroxide/monomethylhydrazine and LOX/monomethylhydrazine. INTRODUCTION As the nation approaches the next century, some very harsh realities mist be faced, and some equally important decisions will be made. The economic and progranrnatic realities of space flight, and of space vehicle development and oper- ation, have been forced home. We have learned that space systems are expensive and conplex, require a long time to develop, and are allowed very little margin for error. In spite of these realities, however, we know that doing business in space in the future is going to require significant advances in orbital capability over what is currently available.
    [Show full text]
  • COMMERCIALIZING the TRANSFER ORBIT STAGE Michael W. Miller
    COMMERCIALIZING THE TRANSFER ORBIT STAGE Michael W. Miller Orbital Sciences Corporation Vienna, Virginia 22 180 ABSTRACT Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC), a technically-based management, marketing, and financial corporation, was formed in 1982 to provide economical space transportation hardware and services to commercial and government users. As its first project, OSC is developing a new medium-capacity upper stage for use on NASA’s Space Shuttle, called the TOS. Before the TOS project successfully entered the development stage, many obstacles for a new company operat- ing in the established space industry had to be overcome. This paper describes key milestones necessary to establish this new commercial space endeavor. Historical milestones began with the selection of the project concept and synthesis of the company. This was followed by venture capital support which led to early discussions with NASA and the selection of a major aerospace company as prime contractor. A landmark agree- ment with NASA sanctioned the commercial TOS concept and provided the critical support necessary to raise the next round of venture capital. Future challenges including project management and customer commitments are also discussed. BACKGROUND Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC), a technically-based management, marketing, and financial corporation, was formed in 1982 to provide economical space transportation hardware and services to commercial and government users. As its first project, OSC is developing a new medium-capacity upper stage-for use on NASA’s Space Shuttle,called the Transfer Orbit Stage (TOS). The TOS project represents an evolutionary milestone in the nation’s attempts to com- mercialize space. Responding to the Reagan administration’s mandate and to Congressional guidelines, NASA is encouraging private-sector initiatives in space activities.
    [Show full text]
  • INTEGRATED SPACE PLAN (Preliminary)
    CRITICAL PATH AMERICAN SPACE SHUTTLE PROGRAM INTEGRATED SPACE PLAN Space Transportation (NSTS) Systems Division FIRST INTERNATIONAL RMS GENERATION EXPENDABLE LAUNCH (INTERNATIONAL) OF VEHICLE FLEET (Preliminary) IUS UNITED STATES LAUNCH VEHICLE CAPABILITES REUSABLE SPACECRAFT PRIVATE LAUNCH VERSION 1.1 FEBRUARY, 1989 VEHICLE # TO LEO # TO GEO GEO-CIRCULAR FIRST FLIGHT VEHICLES ALS 200,000 1998 * THE AMERICAN SPACE SHUTTLE (ELV’S) EMU SHUTTLE C 150,000 20,000 (CENTAUR) 1994 1983 PRODUCED BY RONALD M. JONES D/385-210 SPACE 55,000 5,500 (IUS) 1981 1983 * CHALLENGER OV-099 SHUTTLE 6,500 (TOS) * COLUMBIA OV-102 ABOUT THIS DIAGRAM: TITAN 4 40,000 12,500 10,000 (CENTAUR) 1989 OV-103 * DISCOVERY GOVERNMENT - The Rockwell Integrated Space Plan (ISP) is a very long range systematic perspective of America’s and the TITAN 3 33,000 8,600 4,200 (IUS) 1965 MMU * ATLANTIS OV-104 COMMERCIAL SATELLITE Western World’s space program. Its 100-plus-year vision was created from the integration of numerous NASA ATLAS 2 14,400 5,200 2,500 1991 EARTH-TO-ORBIT * TBD OV-105 DEPLOYMENT long-range studies including the project Pathfinder case studies, recommendations from the National ATLAS 1 12,300 1959 AND IN-SPACE Commission on Space’s report to the President, the Ride report to the NASA Administrator, and the new DELTA 2 11,100 3,190 1,350 (PAM-D) 1988 SATELLITE RETRIEVAL * THE SOVIET SPACE SHUTTLE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS National Space Policy Directive. Special initiatives such as the four Pathfinder scenarios or those described in DELTA 7,800 1960 AND SERVICING * BURAN the Ride Report (i.e., Mission To Planet Earth, Exploration of the Solar System, Outpost on the Moon, and TITAN 2 5,500 1965 DEFENSE SATELLITES Humans to Mars) are integral parts of the ISP.
    [Show full text]
  • Spacecraft Chemical Propulsion Systems at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center: Heritage and Capabilities
    Spacecraft Chemical Propulsion Systems at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center: Heritage and Capabilities Patrick S. McRight*, Jeffrey A. Sheehyt, and John A. Blevins' NASA George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL 35812 NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) is well known €or its contributions to large ascent propulsion systems such as the Saturn V and the Space Shuttle. This paper highlights a lesser known but equally rich side of MSFC - its heritage in spacecraft chemical propulsion systems and its current capabilities for in-space propulsion system development and chemical propulsion research. The historical narrative describes the efforts associated with developing upper-stage main propulsion systems such as the Saturn S-IVB as well as orbital maneuvering and reaction control systems such as the S-IVB auxiliary propulsion system, the Skylab thruster attitude control system, and many more recent activities such as Chandra, the Demonstration of Automated Rendezvous Technology, X-37, the X-38 de-orbit propulsion system, the Interim Control Module, the US Propulsion Module, and several technology development activities. Also discussed are MSFC chemical propulsion research capabilities, along with near- and long-term technology challenges to which MSFC research and system development competencies are relevant. I. Introduction N the days following the launch of Sputnik I on 4 October 1957, the American public eagerly awaited the Isuccessful launch of an American rocket. Weeks later. on 6 December 1957, the US Navy Vanguard rocket exploded on its launch pad at Cape Canaveral. Attention shifted toward the United States backup rocket program, based on the Army Jupiter-C rocket developed by the Army Ballistic Missile Agency (ABMA) at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama under the direction of Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • SPACE TRANSPORTATION Contents
    Chapter 5 SPACE TRANSPORTATION Contents Page Introduction. ..............103 The Space Transportation Industry . ................103 The providers of Space Transportation Services . .. ...103 Buyers of Space Transportation Services . ................122 Competition in Space Transportation . ......125 Development of Competition . ............125 Assessment of Demand . .................126 Nature of Competition . .. ...128 Effects of Competition . .. ....134 Cooperation in Space Transportation . ..............137 Current Policies. ........................138 Future Policy Options.. .. ....140 List of Tables Table No. Page 5-1. Ariane Flights . ..........115 5-2. Transportation Costs to Geosynchronous Orbit . ......................132 5-3. NASA vs. Arianespace Financing . ..............133 5-4. Companies That Contribute to Manufacturing Japanese Launch Vehicles ..139 List of Figures Figure No. Page 5-1. U.S. Launch vehicles . ..............104 5-2.The Hermes Spaceplane . ..................116 5-3. Foreign National Comparative Launch Vehicle Development. ..........118 5-4. Projection of Future Space Shuttle Demand Rockwell International. ...127 5-5. Outside Users Payload Model Battelle’s Columbus Laboratories . .......,128 5-6. Low Model Market Share by Launch Vehicle . ...............129 5-7. High Model Market Share by Launch Vehicle . .......................130 5-8. Arianespace Financing . ..133 5-9. Rockwell International Estimates That the Shuttle is Most Economical Over ELVs at High-Volume Operations. ............................135
    [Show full text]
  • General Disclaimer One Or More of the Following Statements May Affect This Document
    General Disclaimer One or more of the Following Statements may affect this Document This document has been reproduced from the best copy furnished by the organizational source. It is being released in the interest of making available as much information as possible. This document may contain data, which exceeds the sheet parameters. It was furnished in this condition by the organizational source and is the best copy available. This document may contain tone-on-tone or color graphs, charts and/or pictures, which have been reproduced in black and white. This document is paginated as submitted by the original source. Portions of this document are not fully legible due to the historical nature of some of the material. However, it is the best reproduction available from the original submission. Produced by the NASA Center for Aerospace Information (CASI) f , 0 44)Y^ R'I (NA$A --C 4 -1737 65) EXCESS SCIENCE N84-;18882 IiCLU4i'lUlitlT,Ut CAPABILITIES ANC EXCESS PE1t2uL4ANCE CAPABIL,1TIES ASSLSSMEN1 FOR MARS UL0jC16iiLE AND (L ,I.PIA`1'ULW Y ORBIT L;11: U1XC-Ld 3 .,X'r.jNI)Jll STUDY F ival Hoport (ACA Government; GJ/1l 17782 Excess Science Accommodation Capabilities and Excess Performance Capabilities Assessment for Mars Geoscience and Climatology Orbiter Extended Study - Final Report Prepared for Jet Propulsion Laboratory m California Institute of Technology Sponsored by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under Contract NAS7-918 'r, s 4 Prepared by RCA Government Systemb Division Astro•Electronics Princeton, New Jersey Authors K. Clark, A. Placco, ^^ 3,{ P. Kaskiewicz, and ti ` K. Lebsock 1 k4Sgs„1P^i^ Q Contract No.
    [Show full text]
  • International Cooperation and Competition in Civilian Space Activities
    International Cooperation and Competition in Civilian Space Activities June 1985 NTIS order #PB87-136842 Recommended Citation: International Cooperation and Competition in Civilian Space Activities (Washington, DC: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-ISC-239, July 1985). Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 84-601087 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 Foreword The nature of global space activities has changed radically over the last decade. No longer are the United States and the Soviet Union the only countries capable of placing satellites into Earth orbit or sending interplanetary probes into deep space. Europe and Japan now have substantial space programs and have developed commercially competitive space systems. Several newly industrialized countries are well along in building their own space programs. In addition, the U.S. private sector has recently expanded its interest and investment in space technology. As this report makes clear, these changes have strong policy implications for the U.S. Government space program and for the U.S. private sector. This report presents the major findings of an assessment requested by the House Committee on Science and Technology and the Joint Economic Committee, on inter- national cooperation and competition in civilian space activities. The United States still enjoys a strong competitive position in most space technologies and in space science. There continues to be broad support for a long-term public commitment to civilian space activities. But precisely because of our achievements—and those of other space-far- ing nations—the number of opportunities (and associated costs) that lie before us re- quire a thoughtful articulation of space goals and objectives.
    [Show full text]
  • Classification of Geosynchrono
    ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Limited Distribution ! esoc European Space Operations Centre Robert-Bosch-Strasse 5 D-64293 Darmstadt Germany T +49 (0)6151 900 F +31 (0)6151 90495 www.esa.int TECHNICAL NOTE Classification of Geosynchronous objects. Prepared by ESA Space Debris Office Reference GEN-DB-LOG-00270-OPS-SD Issue/Revision 21.0 Date of Issue 19 July 2019 Status Issued ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Limited Distribution ! Page 2/234 Classification of Geosynchronous objects. Issue Date 19 July 2019 Ref GEN-DB-LOG-00270-OPS-SD ESA UNCLASSIFIED - Limited Distribution ! Abstract This is a status report on (near) geosynchronous objects as of 1 January 2019. Based on orbital data in ESA’s DISCOS database and on orbital data provided by KIAM the situation near the geostationary ring is analysed. From 1578 objects for which orbital data are available (of which 14 are outdated, i.e. the last available state dates back to 180 or more days before the reference date), 529 are actively controlled, 831 are drifting above, below or through GEO, 195 are in a libration orbit and 21 are in a highly inclined orbit. For 2 object the status could not be determined. Furthermore, there are 60 uncontrolled objects without orbital data (of which 55 have not been catalogued). Thus the total number of known objects in the geostationary region is 1638. Finally, there are 130 rocket bodies crossing GEO. If you detect any error or if you have any comment or question please contact: Stijn Lemmens European Space Agency European Space Operations Center Space Debris Office (OPS-GR) Robert-Bosch-Str.
    [Show full text]
  • 555/Of Provided474- by NASA Technical Reports Server 70
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19900009157 2020-03-20T00:02:33+00:00Z View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE 555/of provided474- by NASA Technical Reports Server 70/ A PERSPECTIVE ON THE USE OF STORABLE PROPELLANTS FOR FUTURE SPACE VEHICLE PROPULSION William C. Boyd and Warren L. Brasher NASA, Johnson Space Center 0 O"0 Houston, Texas 0 ABSTRACT Propulsion system configurations for future NASA and DOD space initiatives are driven by the continually emerging new mission requirements. These initiatives cover an extremely wide range of mission scenarios, from unmanned planetary pro- grams, to manned lunar and planetary programs, to Earth-oriented ('Mission to Planet Earth) programs, and they are in addition to existing and future require- ments for near-Eirth missions such as to geosynchronous earth orbit (GEO). Increasing space transportation costs, and anticipated high costs associated with space-basing of future vehicles, necessitate consideration of cost-effective and easily maintainable configurations which maximize the use of ex-Isting technologies and assets, and use budgetary resources effectively. System design considerations associated with the use of storable propellants to fill these needs are presented. Comparisons in areas such as ccrrplexity, performance, flexibility, maintainabili- ty, and technology status are made for earth and space storable propellants, cluding nitrogen tetroxide/monomethylhydrazine and LOX/monomethylhydrazine. INTRODUCTION As the nation approaches the next century, some very harsh realities mist be faced, and some equally important decisions will be made. The economic and progranrnatic realities of space flight, and of space vehicle development and oper- ation, have been forced home.
    [Show full text]
  • Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-77300-3
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-77300-3 — The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Space Fernand Verger , Isabelle Sourbès-Verger , Raymond Ghirardi , With contributions by Xavier Pasco , Foreword by John M. Logsdon , Translated by Stephen Lyle , Paul Reilly Index More Information Index Bold face entries refer to figures and figure Advanced Land Imager (ALI) 169, 232, 237 Agila 54, 297, 315 captions. resolution 274 chronology 291 Advanced Land Observation Satellite (ALOS) 163, position 291 169, 270 spectral bands 289 A sensors 232, 237, 270, 274 AGN AAD VSAR 237, 274 see active galactic nucleus see Acquisition, Archiving and Distribution Advanced Land Remote Sensing System (ALRSS) agriculture 241 AATSR 252 Airborne Laser (ABL) 356, 358 see Advanced Along Track Scanning Advanced Landsat 252 air braking 174, 204 Radiometer Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer Air Density Explorer (ADE) 170 ABL (AMSR) 174, 262 Air Launch Aerospace Corporation 111, 126, 128 see Airborne Laser Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU) 174 AIRS ABM METOP 243 see Atmospheric Infrared Sounder see antiballistic missile systems Advanced Orion 54 Akebono 175, 176, 177, 178, 178 ABM Treaty (1972) 355 Advanced Satellite for Cosmology and Akjuit Aerospace Company 104, 110 accidents in space 48–49, 195, 362–363 Astrophysics (ASCA) 186 Alaska Aerospace Development Corp. 134 ACE Advanced Satellite Launch Vehicle (ASLV) 156, Alcantara space base 104, 108, 110, 157 see Advanced Composition Explorer 157 Alcatel Space 94, 294, 305, 308 see Atmospheric Chemistry Explorer payload
    [Show full text]