DOCSLIB.ORG

25 Years of Small Satellites

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
25 Years of Small Satellites SSC11-III-1 25 Years of Small Satellites Siegfried W. Janson The Aerospace Corporation Mail Stop M2/241, P.O. Box 92957, Los Angeles, CA 90009-2957; 310.379.7060 [email protected] ABSTRACT Twenty-five years ago in 1986, 25 microsatellites were launched into orbit; 24 were military communications satellites lofted by the former Soviet Union as part of a communications constellation. No active nanosatellites or picosatellites were launched that year. Last year (2010), 4 microsatellites, 15 nanosatellites, and 3 picosatellites were launched. Small spacecraft have gotten smaller, and they are being used for more than just communications. Advances in micro/nanoelectronics, microelectromechanical systems, solar cell technologies, global positioning systems, and the Internet have allowed small groups of individuals to design, build, and fly ever-smaller satellites with ever-increasing capabilities. In parallel, small satellite containment and deployment systems like the P-POD for CubeSats have been developed to minimize potential negative impacts on the host launch vehicle and primary payload, thus increasing the number of available launch opportunities. This work discusses small satellite launch trends, technology trends, satellite trends, and small satellite missions. 1.0 SMALL SATELLITES 25 YEARS AGO (1986) between 1970 and 1993. About 30 operational Like most years, 1986 had its ups and downs. Major satellites, at any given time, gave fairly complete Earth coverage using randomly distributed satellites within space-related events included Voyager 2 making its individual orbital planes. The Strela-1M satellites were first encounter with Uranus, the painful loss of seven preceded by Strela-1 experimental microsatellites astronauts onboard the U.S. Space Shuttle Challenger, launched during 1964 and 1965, and later replaced by Halley’s comet reaching perihelion, and the former Soviet Union launching the Mir space station. For heavier, non-microsatellite class, Strela-2M and Strela- small satellite enthusiasts, 1986 saw the launch of 25 3M communications satellites. microsatellites (10 to 100-kg mass), no nanosatellites (1 The remaining microsatellite launched in 1986 was the to 10-kg mass), and no picosatellites (0.1 to 1-kg mass). 50-kg mass Fuji-Oscar 12 amateur radio satellite. It More importantly, these terms didn’t even exist; 200-kg was the 12th Orbiting Satellite Carrying Amateur Radio and lighter spacecraft were called small satellites or (Oscar) and was put into a 1497 x 1479-km, 50o lightsats. inclination orbit by a Japanese H-1 launch vehicle.2 It operated over three years and stopped due to premature Twenty four of the 25 microsatellites launched in 1986 were 61-kg mass Strela-1M spacecraft built and flown battery failure. by the former Soviet Union. Strela (Russian for 2.0 HISTORICAL TRENDS ―arrow‖) spacecraft were designed to provide medium- range, record-and-forward communications using low Figure 1 shows yearly launch rates for microsatellites, Earth orbit (LEO).1 Starting in 1970, operational nanosatellites, and picosatellites from 1955 through Strela-1M spacecraft were launched on Kosmos-3M 2010. The upper chart shows microsatellite launches boosters, eight at a time, into ~1500-km altitude orbits and is color-coded to indicate Strela-1 and -1M launch at 74o inclination about twice a year. They had an rates separately from other microsatellites. This chart expected operational lifetime of about two years (GEO shows an initial growth spurt lasting about 10 years, communications satellites now have 7-to-15 year followed by a ~10-year decline in non-Strela expected lifetimes) and had to be replaced on that same microsatellite launches. A marked dearth of non-Strela time scale; 360 Strela-1M spacecraft were launched microsatellites occurs from roughly 1977 through 1987; the ―Small Satellite Doldrums.‖ Janson 1 25th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites Figure 1. Launch History of Microsatellites, Nanosatellites, and Picosatellites. Janson 2 25th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites The middle chart in Figure 1 shows yearly launch rates sophisticated satellites to promote space science and for nanosatellites. This chart excludes about 600 Romb engineering in education. These box-shaped spacecraft subsatellites that were deployed by the former Soviet used several different microprocessors to perform Union, and later Russia, between 1976 and 1995 from command and control, digital communications, power Taifun-2 and Taifun-3 spacecraft.3 Cosmos 965, for system control, etc. The term ―microsatellite‖ seemed example, was a Taifun-2 satellite with a total mass of appropriate for these microelectronics-enabled small 550-kg that deployed 25 Romb radar calibration spacecraft, and CSER at the University of Surrey can be subsatellites. Although specific data on the deployed credited with creating the terms ―microsatellite‖ and Romb subsatellites are hard to obtain, they were most ―nanosatellite‖ in 1990.5 likely nanosatellites based on the initial Taifun-2 spacecraft mass and number of Romb spacecraft 2.1 Small Satellites Return: 1987 to 1999 deployed. The Romb subsatellites are not included in ―The Small Satellite Doldrums‖ ended in 1987. Fig. 1 because of uncertainty in their mass, the high Interestingly, two new, pivotal, small satellite average launch rate of these spacecraft (about 32 a year conferences were held that year. The first one was over 19 years of launches) that totally eclipsed other sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and nanosatellite launch rates, and their lack of traditional Astronautics (AIAA) and the Defense Advanced spacecraft subsystems like power conditioning, Research Agency (DARPA). This Meeting on communications, etc. Lightweight Satellite Systems occurred August 4-6 at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California The bottom chart in Figure 1 shows yearly launch rates 6 (USA). DARPA was investing in small satellites for picosatellites. At the start of 2000, only 10 called LIGHTSATS, plus associated launchers and picosatellites had been launched, and 7 of these were ground-based equipment, with a proposed 5-year, passive, inert satellites for measurement of atmospheric billion-dollar effort starting in 1987.7 This first density or radar calibration. These passive LIGHTSAT meeting had 47 presentations by military, picosatellites were launched in 1971, 1994, and 1995. civil (e.g., NASA), and commercial, experts. No active picosatellites were launched from 1965 Universities were associated with only 3 presentations. through 1999; over three decades of non-activity. DARPA continued with its LIGHTSAT program and A large number of small satellites were launched launched two 66-kg mass Multiple Access throughout the 1960’s to obtain space environment Communications satellites (MACSATs) in 1990, and data, flight test various technologies, and provide seven 22-kg mass ―MICROSATS‖ in 1991.8,9 The operational communications. Satellites grew heavier MICROSATS had microprocessor-controlled digital over time as satellite expectation levels, and launch communications payloads. In addition, The U.S. Navy vehicle payload capacity to low Earth orbit, increased. launched the 68-kg mass Small Experimental Microsatellites, nanosatellites, and picosatellites were Communications Satellite (SECS) in April of 1990, and essentially replaced by heaver, much more capable, the U.S. Air Force launched the 95-kg Radar spacecraft over time. This trend resulted in the ―Small Calibration (RADCAL) microsatellite in June, 1993. Satellite Doldrums.‖ Technology and economics U.S. military microsatellites were returning to ultimately reversed that trend starting in 1987. operational use. It is interesting that the ―Small Satellite Doldrums‖ did The second small satellite conference in 1987 had not seem to impact experimental and educational somewhat larger academic participation. The first spacecraft launched by the Radio Amateur Satellite annual USU Conference on Small Satellites was held Corporation (AMSAT). AMSAT members did not 24 years ago on October 7-9, in Logan, Utah. want, or could not afford, communications capabilities Technical papers were presented by experts from provided by large satellites. They made do with small AMSAT, NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center, the U.S. satellites typically in the microsatellite mass range. By Army, the Swedish Space Corporation, Globesat, The 1978, AMSAT had launched 7 educational and amateur Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, radio satellites (OSCAR 1 to OSCAR 7) with masses Boeing, Hercules Aerospace Company, Weber State ranging from 4.5 to 29-kg.4 By 1987, they launched 5 College, Morton Thiokol, L’Garde, The University of more satellites with masses ranging from 50 to 91-kg. Surrey, Intraspace Corporation, Ball Aerospace, the Two of these spacecraft, OSCAR-9 (also called UoSAT University of Colorado, the Naval Postgraduate School, 1) and OSCAR-11 (also known as UoSAT 2), were Utah State University, the U.S. Air Force, Expanding built by the Centre for Satellite Engineering Research Horizons Safety Consulting Services, and NASA-Ames (CSER) at the University of Surrey, in the U.K. They 10 Research Center. AMSAT provided several papers, were part of a program to develop low-cost Janson 3 25th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites and would continue to play an important role in small 2.2 Small and Smaller: 2000 to 2010 satellite development. On January 27, 2000, an Orbital Sciences Minotaur rocket put JAWSAT into
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Survey and Assessment of the Capabilities of Cubesats for Earth Observation
    Acta Astronautica 74 (2012) 50–68 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Acta Astronautica journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/actaastro Review A survey and assessment of the capabilities of Cubesats for Earth observation Daniel Selva a,n, David Krejci b a Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA b Vienna University of Technology, Vienna 1040, Austria article info abstract Article history: In less than a decade, Cubesats have evolved from purely educational tools to a standard Received 2 December 2011 platform for technology demonstration and scientific instrumentation. The use of COTS Accepted 9 December 2011 (Commercial-Off-The-Shelf) components and the ongoing miniaturization of several technologies have already led to scattered instances of missions with promising Keywords: scientific value. Furthermore, advantages in terms of development cost and develop- Cubesats ment time with respect to larger satellites, as well as the possibility of launching several Earth observation satellites dozens of Cubesats with a single rocket launch, have brought forth the potential for University satellites radically new mission architectures consisting of very large constellations or clusters of Systems engineering Cubesats. These architectures promise to combine the temporal resolution of GEO Remote sensing missions with the spatial resolution of LEO missions, thus breaking a traditional trade- Nanosatellites Picosatellites off in Earth observation mission design. This paper assesses the current capabilities of Cubesats with respect to potential employment in Earth observation missions. A thorough review of Cubesat bus technology capabilities is performed, identifying potential limitations and their implications on 17 different Earth observation payload technologies. These results are matched to an exhaustive review of scientific require- ments in the field of Earth observation, assessing the possibilities of Cubesats to cope with the requirements set for each one of 21 measurement categories.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Nano/Microsatellite Market Forecast, 9Th Edition
    2019 NANO/MICROSATELLITE MARKET FORECAST, 9TH EDITION Copyright 2018, SpaceWorks Enterprises, Inc. (SEI) APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. SPACEWORKS ENTERPRISES, INC., COPYRIGHT 2018. 1 Since 2008, SpaceWorks has actively monitored companies and economic activity across both the satellite and launch sectors 0 - 50 kg 50 - 250kg 250 - 1000kg 1000 - 2000kg 2000kg+ Custom market assessments are available for all mass classes NANO/MICROSATELLITE DEFINITION Picosatellite Nanosatellite Microsatellite Small/Medium Satellite (0.1 – 0.99 kg) (1 – 10 kg) (10 – 100 kg) (100 – 1000 kg) 0 kg 1 kg 10 kg 100 kg 1000 kg This report bounds the upper range of interest in microsatellites at 50 kg given the relatively large amount of satellite development activity in the 1 – 50 kg range FORECASTING METHODOLOGY SpaceWorks’ proprietary Launch Demand Database (LDDB) Downstream serves as the data source for all satellite market Demand assessments ▪ Planned The LDDB is a catalogue of over 10,000+ historical and Constellations future satellites containing both public and non-public (LDDB) satellite programs Launch Supply SpaceWorks newly updated Probabilistic Forecast Model (PFM) is used to generate future market potential SpaceWorks PFM Model ▪ The PFM considers down-stream demand, announced/planed satellite constellations, and supply-side dynamics, among other relevant factors Expert Analysis The team of expert industry analysts at SpaceWorks SpaceWorks further interprets and refines the PFM results to create Forecast accurate market forecasts Methodology at a Glance 2018 SpaceWorks forecasted 2018 nano/microsatellite launches with unprecedented accuracy – actual satellites launched amounted to just 5% below our analysts’ predictions. In line with SpaceWorks’ expectations, the industry corrected after a record launch year in 2017, sending 20% less nano/microsatellites to orbit than in 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Trade Studies Towards an Australian Indigenous Space Launch System
    TRADE STUDIES TOWARDS AN AUSTRALIAN INDIGENOUS SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM A thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Engineering by Gordon P. Briggs B.Sc. (Hons), M.Sc. (Astron) School of Engineering and Information Technology, University College, University of New South Wales, Australian Defence Force Academy January 2010 Abstract During the project Apollo moon landings of the mid 1970s the United States of America was the pre-eminent space faring nation followed closely by only the USSR. Since that time many other nations have realised the potential of spaceflight not only for immediate financial gain in areas such as communications and earth observation but also in the strategic areas of scientific discovery, industrial development and national prestige. Australia on the other hand has resolutely refused to participate by instituting its own space program. Successive Australian governments have preferred to obtain any required space hardware or services by purchasing off-the-shelf from foreign suppliers. This policy or attitude is a matter of frustration to those sections of the Australian technical community who believe that the nation should be participating in space technology. In particular the provision of an indigenous launch vehicle that would guarantee the nation independent access to the space frontier. It would therefore appear that any launch vehicle development in Australia will be left to non- government organisations to at least define the requirements for such a vehicle and to initiate development of long-lead items for such a project. It is therefore the aim of this thesis to attempt to define some of the requirements for a nascent Australian indigenous launch vehicle system.
    [Show full text]
  • Artificial Intelligence for Small Satellites Mission Autonomy.Pdf
    POLITECNICO DI TORINO Repository ISTITUZIONALE Artificial Intelligence for Small Satellites Mission Autonomy Original Artificial Intelligence for Small Satellites Mission Autonomy / Feruglio, Lorenzo. - (2017 Dec 11). Availability: This version is available at: 11583/2694565 since: 2017-12-12T12:02:11Z Publisher: Politecnico di Torino Published DOI:10.6092/polito/porto/2694565 Terms of use: Altro tipo di accesso This article is made available under terms and conditions as specified in the corresponding bibliographic description in the repository Publisher copyright (Article begins on next page) 11 October 2021 Doctoral Dissertation Doctoral Program in Aerospace Engineering (29 th Cycle) Artificial Intelligence for Small Satellites Mission Autonomy By Lorenzo Feruglio ****** Supervisor: Prof. S. Corpino Doctoral Examination Committee: Prof. Franco Bernelli Zazzera, Referee, Politecnico di Milano Prof. Michèle Roberta Jans Lavagna, Referee, Politecnico di Milano Prof. Giancarmine Fasano, Referee, Università di Napoli Federico II Prof. Paolo Maggiore, Referee, Politecnico di Torino Prof. Nicole Viola, Referee, Politecnico di Torino Politecnico di Torino 2017 Declaration I hereby declare that, the contents and organization of this dissertation constitute my own original work and does not compromise in any way the rights of third parties, including those relating to the security of personal data. Lorenzo Feruglio 2017 * This dissertation is presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in the Graduate School of Politecnico di Torino (ScuDo). A mia mamma, mio papà, mio fratello. Grazie per esserci sempre stati, per essere stati delle guide incredibili. Grazie Acknowledgment I would like to acknowledge and thank a great number of people: not everyone can be included here, but I’m sure the people I would like to thank already know I’m grateful to them.
    [Show full text]
  • Cubesat Mission: from Design to Operation
    applied sciences Article CubeSat Mission: From Design to Operation Cristóbal Nieto-Peroy 1 and M. Reza Emami 1,2,* 1 Onboard Space Systems Group, Department of Computer Science, Electrical and Space Engineering, Luleå University of Technology, Space Campus, 981 92 Kiruna, Sweden 2 Aerospace Mechatronics Group, University of Toronto Institute for Aerospace Studies, Toronto, ON M3H 5T6, Canada * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-416-946-3357 Received: 30 June 2019; Accepted: 29 July 2019; Published: 1 August 2019 Featured Application: Design, fabrication, testing, launch and operation of a particular CubeSat are detailed, as a reference for prospective developers of CubeSat missions. Abstract: The current success rate of CubeSat missions, particularly for first-time developers, may discourage non-profit organizations to start new projects. CubeSat development teams may not be able to dedicate the resources that are necessary to maintain Quality Assurance as it is performed for the reliable conventional satellite projects. This paper discusses the structured life-cycle of a CubeSat project, using as a reference the authors’ recent experience of developing and operating a 2U CubeSat, called qbee50-LTU-OC, as part of the QB50 mission. This paper also provides a critique of some of the current poor practices and methodologies while carrying out CubeSat projects. Keywords: CubeSat; miniaturized satellite; nanosatellite; small satellite development 1. Introduction There have been nearly 1000 CubeSats launched to the orbit since the inception of the concept in 2000 [1]. An up-to-date statistics of CubeSat missions can be found in Reference [2]. A summary of CubeSat missions up to 2016 can also be found in Reference [3].
    [Show full text]
  • Satellite Trends
    Satellite trends Technical and business technology and regulatory challenges Attila MATAS [email protected] WRC-15 GFT Decision Seamless satellite based ADS-B – GFT - world wide coverage 2 © ITU WRC-15 – UAS Decision Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) – Use of FSS bands for control and non- payload communications (CNPC) of UAS in non-segregated airspaces LOS Out-LOS 3 Non-GSO satellites Advantages – Less booster power required – Less delay in transmission path – Suitability for providing service at higher latitude – Lower cost per satellite to build and launch satellites Disadvantages – Satellite system and ground segment are expensive – Less expected life of satellites due to ionizing radiation effects, requires frequent replacement – Requirements for deorbiting Non-GSO satellite projects Nowadays – Space science missions, navigation (GPS, Galileo, Glonass, Compas) and mobile-satellite systems (Iridium, Globalstar) – First non-GSO broadband from O3B Satellite technology – Era of microsats, nanosats – Mass production brings down the cost – Technological advancements • Satellites terminals are smaller and cheaper • Ka-band applications • New technologies – optical links, electronic propulsion How it is non-GSO different? 1990s 2016 Cost per kg to LEO >10 000 [1 600] – 4 000 (USD) (Dnepr-1) (FH projected) Teledesic OneWeb Cost per sat. (USD) 20mil/35mil [0.5mil] Project cost (USD) 9bn 1.5-2bn How is the satellite communication different? Investments More IT/TECH - companies ready to invest (Google, Facebook) Launch Costs Launch costs are down, new entrants in the market SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, Orbital ATK etc Market Internet is very different There are millions without access Big Data requires more users to mine data Mobile is the next market to win New applications – ADS-B, UAS, IoT, ESiM Competition More players Support from satellite operators High Throughput Satellite (HTS) Improved capacity, higher throughput rates, lower space segment cost per MB through frequency reuse and multiple spot beams 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Launchers Between Commerce and Geopolitics
    The European Launchers between Commerce and Geopolitics Report 56 March 2016 Marco Aliberti Matteo Tugnoli Short title: ESPI Report 56 ISSN: 2218-0931 (print), 2076-6688 (online) Published in March 2016 Editor and publisher: European Space Policy Institute, ESPI Schwarzenbergplatz 6 • 1030 Vienna • Austria http://www.espi.or.at Tel. +43 1 7181118-0; Fax -99 Rights reserved – No part of this report may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or for any purpose with- out permission from ESPI. Citations and extracts to be published by other means are subject to mentioning “Source: ESPI Report 56; March 2016. All rights reserved” and sample transmission to ESPI before publishing. ESPI is not responsible for any losses, injury or damage caused to any person or property (including under contract, by negligence, product liability or otherwise) whether they may be direct or indirect, special, inciden- tal or consequential, resulting from the information contained in this publication. Design: Panthera.cc ESPI Report 56 2 March 2016 The European Launchers between Commerce and Geopolitics Table of Contents Executive Summary 5 1. Introduction 10 1.1 Access to Space at the Nexus of Commerce and Geopolitics 10 1.2 Objectives of the Report 12 1.3 Methodology and Structure 12 2. Access to Space in Europe 14 2.1 European Launchers: from Political Autonomy to Market Dominance 14 2.1.1 The Quest for European Independent Access to Space 14 2.1.3 European Launchers: the Current Family 16 2.1.3 The Working System: Launcher Strategy, Development and Exploitation 19 2.2 Preparing for the Future: the 2014 ESA Ministerial Council 22 2.2.1 The Path to the Ministerial 22 2.2.2 A Look at Europe’s Future Launchers and Infrastructure 26 2.2.3 A Revolution in Governance 30 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Development of Magnetometer-Based Orbit And
    DEVELOPMENT OF MAGNETOMETER-BASED ORBIT AND ATTITUDE DETERMINATION FOR NANOSATELLITES THOMAS WRIGHT A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE GRADUATE PROGRAM IN EARTH AND SPACE SCIENCE YORK UNIVERSITY, TORONTO, ONTARIO AUGUST, 2014 © THOMAS WRIGHT, 2014 Abstract Attitude and orbit determination are critical parts of nanosatellite mission operations. The ability to perform attitude and orbit determination autonomously could lead to a wider array of mission possibilities for nanosatellites. This research examines the feasibility of using low-cost magnetometer measurements as a method of autonomous, simultaneous orbit and attitude determination for the novel application of redundancy on nanosatellites. Individual Extended Kalman Filters (EKFs) are developed for both attitude determination and orbit determination. Simulations are run to compare the developed systems with previous work on attitude and orbit determination. The EKFs are combined to provide both attitude and orbit determination simultaneously. Simulations are run and show that this approach for autonomous attitude and orbit determination on nanosatellites provides 8.5 and 12.5 km of attitude and orbit knowledge, respectively. The results of the simulations are then validated using Hardware-In-The-Loop (HITL) testing. Additionally, a Helmholtz cage is evaluated for future use in the HITL test setup. ii Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge my supervisors Professor Sunil Bisnath and Professor Regina Lee for their guidance and support. I will carry the skills they helped me to develop through the rest of my career. I would also like to thank the grad students in both the GNSS and YuSEND Labs for their assistance and encouragement throughout my studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Operational Aspects of Orbit Determination with GPS for Small Satellites with SAR Payloads Sergio De Florio, Tino Zehetbauer, Dr
    Deutsches Zentrum Microwave and Radar Institute für Luft und Raumfahrt e.V. Department Reconnaissance and Security Operational Aspects of Orbit Determination with GPS for Small Satellites with SAR Payloads Sergio De Florio, Tino Zehetbauer, Dr. Thomas Neff Phone: +498153282357, [email protected] Abstract Requirements Scientific small satellite missions for remote sensing with Synthetic Taylor expansion of the phase Φ of the radar signal as a Aperture Radar (SAR) payloads or high accuracy optical sensors, pose very function of time varying position, velocity and acceleration: strict requirements on the accuracy of the reconstructed satellite positions, velocities and accelerations. Today usual GPS receivers can fulfill the 4π 233 Φ==++++()t Rtap ()()01kk apttaptt ()(-) 02030 ()(-) k aptt ()(-) k ο () t accuracy requirements of this missions in most cases, but for low-cost- λ missions the decision for a appropriate satellite hardware has to take into Typical requirements, for 0.5 to 1.0 m image resolution, on account not only the reachable quality of data but also the costs. An spacecraft position vector x: analysis is carried out in order to assess which on board and ground equipment, which type of GPS data and processing methods are most −−242 appropriate to minimize mission costs and full satisfying mission payload x≤≤⋅≤⋅ 15 mmsms x 1.5 10 / x 6.0 10 / (3σ ) requirements focusing the attention on a SAR payload. These are requirements on the measurements, not on the real motion of the satellite Required Hardware Typical Position
    [Show full text]
  • Mir Principal Expedition 19 Commander Anatoly Solovyev Many International Elements
    Mir Mission Chronicle November 1994—August 1996 Mir Principal Expedition 19 Commander Anatoly Solovyev many international elements. The first Mir Flight Engineer Nikolai Budarin crew launched on a Space Shuttle Orbiter, Crew code name: Rodnik Solovyev and Budarin began their work in Launched in Atlantis (STS-71) June 27, 1995 conjunction with a visiting U.S. crew and Landed in Soyuz-TM 21, September 11, 1995 departing Mir 18 international crew. Two of 75 days in space their EVAs involved deployment and retrieval of international experiments. And they ended Highlights: The only complete Mir mission their stay by welcoming an incoming interna- of 1995 with an all-Russian crew, Mir 19 had tional crew. Mir 19 crew officially take charge. Solovyev and Budarin officially assumed their duties aboard Mir on June 29. The Mir 18 crew moved their quarters to Atlantis for the duration of the STS-71 mission. Once there, they would continue their investigations of the biomedical effects of long-term space habitation.77,78 June 29 - July 4, 1995 Triple cooperation. On June 30, the ten members of the Mir 18, Mir 19, and STS-71 crews assembled in the Spacelab on Atlantis for a ceremony during which they exchanged gifts and joined two halves of a pewter medallion engraved with likenesses of K2 their docked spacecraft. The crews began transferring fresh A supplies and equipment from Atlantis to Mir. They also moved T Kr Mir K TM L medical samples, equipment, and hardware from Mir to Atlantis Sp for return to Earth. New equipment included tools for an EVA to be performed by the cosmonauts to free the jammed Spektr solar array.
    [Show full text]
  • Launch Vehicle Classification for Decision-Making of Small
    Trans. Japan Soc. Aero. Space Sci. Vol. 64, No. 4, pp. 234–241, 2021 DOI: 10.2322/tjsass.64.234 Launch Vehicle Classification for Decision-Making of Small Satellite Launch Options* Mengying ZHANG,1) Qin XU,2)† and Qingbin ZHANG1) 1)College of Aerospace Science and Engineering, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha, Hunan 410073, China 2)Center for Assessment and Demonstration Research, Academy of Military Science, Beijing 100091, China In recent years, there has been a steady increase in the small satellite launch market. With the rapid development of novel launchers, for small satellite owners and operators, how to effectively and efficiently choose appropriate launch ve- hicles has become a major concern. Based on updated launch records, a reliable launch data source for multi-attribute eval- uation and reclassification is established. Using a statistical classification process, active launch vehicles are classified into five representative-in-class launchers on the basis of their capabilities and performance. Unlike the previous categorisation based on payload ability, this method captures launch cost, technology maturity, reliability and availability of each cat- egory within the current launch vehicles in service. Moreover, representatives are selected as the baseline types for the high-level planning and designing of complex small satellite launch missions. The analysis indicates that this study pro- vides a valid statistical classification and selection strategy of representative-in-class launch vehicles to support decision- making for rapid assessment on a large number of small satellite launch missions. Key Words: Small Satellite, Launcher Selection, Reliability, Launch Cost 1. Introduction 350 Small satellites (<=1000kg) 300 The past decade has witnessed a boom in the small satellite Large satellites (>1000kg) market.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia Missile Chronology
    Russia Missile Chronology 2007-2000 NPO MASHINOSTROYENIYA | KBM | MAKEYEV DESIGN BUREAU | MITT | ZLATOUST MACHINE-BUILDING PLANT KHRUNICHEV | STRELA PRODUCTION ASSOCIATION | AAK PROGRESS | DMZ | NOVATOR | TsSKB-PROGRESS MKB RADUGA | ENERGOMASH | ISAYEV KB KHIMMASH | PLESETSK TEST SITE | SVOBODNYY COSMODROME 1999-1996 KRASNOYARSK MACHINE-BUILDING PLANT | MAKEYEV DESIGN BUREAU | MITT | AAK PROGRESS NOVATOR | SVOBODNYY COSMODROME Last update: March 2009 This annotated chronology is based on the data sources that follow each entry. Public sources often provide conflicting information on classified military programs. In some cases we are unable to resolve these discrepancies, in others we have deliberately refrained from doing so to highlight the potential influence of false or misleading information as it appeared over time. In many cases, we are unable to independently verify claims. Hence in reviewing this chronology, readers should take into account the credibility of the sources employed here. Inclusion in this chronology does not necessarily indicate that a particular development is of direct or indirect proliferation significance. Some entries provide international or domestic context for technological development and national policymaking. Moreover, some entries may refer to developments with positive consequences for nonproliferation 2007-2000: NPO MASHINOSTROYENIYA 28 August 2007 NPO MASHINOSTROYENIYA TO FORM CORPORATION NPO Mashinostroyeniya is set to form a vertically-integrated corporation, combining producers and designers of various supply and support elements. The new holding will absorb OAO Strela Production Association (PO Strela), OAO Permsky Zavod Mashinostroitel, OAO NPO Elektromekhaniki, OAO NII Elektromekhaniki, OAO Avangard, OAO Uralskiy NII Kompositsionnykh Materialov, and OAO Kontsern Granit-Elektron. While these entities have acted in coordination for some time, formation of the new corporation has yet to be finalized.
    [Show full text]