DOCSLIB.ORG

Hazards Volume IU: Risk Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

PB93199040 Hazard Analysis of Com,mercial Sp,ace Transportation V,olume I: Operations Volume II: Hazards Volume IU: Risk Analysis Prepared for: Office of Commercial Space Transportation Prepared by: Transportation Systems Center Cambridge, MA 02142 May 1988 Cover illustration: Near Earth Satellite Population of July 1,1987 Compliments of Teledyne Brown Engineering REPRODUCED BY, NJlI u.s. Department of Commerce National Technical Information Service Springfield, Virginia 22161 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VOLUME I: SPACE TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS 1. THE CONTEXT FOR A HAZARD ANALYSIS OF COMMERCIAL SPACE ACTIVITIES 11 POLICY AND MARKET CONTEXT 1-1 1.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE OPERATIONS 1-2 1 3 PU RPOSE AND SCOPE OF REPORT: HAZARD ANALYSIS OR RISK ASSESSMENT , 1-3 1.4 APPROACH TO HAZARD ANALYSIS FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE OPERATIONS 1-4 15 OVERVIEW OF THE REPORT ORGANIZATION 1-6 2. RANGE OPERATiONS, CONTROLS AND SAFETY 2 1 RANGE CHARACTERISTICS FOR SAFE OPERATION " ... ... .. .. ... .. ... .. 2-1 2.1.1 US Government Launch Sites ' " 2-1 2.1.2 Ground Operations and Safety 2-2 21.3 Range Safety Control System 2-3 22 LAUNCH PLANNING 2-6 221 Mission Planning 2-7 2.2.2 Standard Procedures to Prepare for a Launch 2-9 3. EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHKlE (ELV) CHARACTERISTICS 31 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS 3-1 32 LAUNCH VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY 3-4 3_2.1 Propulsion Systems 3-5 3.2.2 Support Systems and Tanks 3-9 3T3Guloa-n-ceSystems 3-10 3.2.4 UpperStages 3-10 33 REPRESENTATIVE ELV's 3-11 33.1 Titan. ......... .... .... .. .... ................. .... 3-11 33.2 Delta. ...... ....... ................................. ...... 3-11 3.3.3 Atlas/Centaur '... ...... ..... ..... .. ' .. ,. 3-12 3.3.4 Scout 3-12 3.35 VehietesUnderDeve!opment 3-12 3.4 ELV LAUNCH EXPERIENCE 3-19 III 4. LAUNCH AND ORBITAL OPERATIONS 4 1 PHASES OF LAUNCH THROUGH ORBITAL OPERATION ... 4-1 41.1 Launch Phase . 4-1 412 Orbital Insertion and Orbital Operations 4-3 4.1 3 Orbital Decay and Re-entry .. 4-3 42 BASIC ORBITAL CHARACTERISTICS 4-5 VOLUME II: SPACE TRANSPORTATION HAZARDS 5. PRE-LAUNCH AND LAUNCH HAZARDS 5 1 INTRODUCTION ,. 5-1 51 1 Background and Objectives . 5-1 512 Major Information Resources on Rocket Propellant Hazards .... 5-2 52 EXPLOSION HAZARDS 5-3 521 Blast Waves 5-5 5.2.2 TNT Equivalency Analysis . 5-7 52.3 DamageCriteria................................................ 5-12 52.4 Variation of Explosion Hazards with Time from Liftoff 5-12 53 DEBRIS HAZARDS . 5-20 54 FIRE HAZARDS . 5-23 541 Fireballs . 5-24 542 Pool Fires 5-24 5.4.3 Vapor Cloud Fires . 5-26 55 TOXIC VAPOR CLOUDS 5-26 5.5.1 Atmospheric Dispersion 5-27 5.5.2 Rocket Exhaust Products 5-28 55.3 Releases During Accident Conditions . 5-2-9 56 OFF-RANGE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH ELV OPERATIONS 5-32 57 PERSPECTIVES ON THE MAGNITUDE OF THE HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH ELV PROPELLANTS ..................... 5-35 6. ORBITAL COLLISION HAZARDS 6.1 ORBITING SPACE OBJECTS . 6-1 6.2 SPACE LAW AND SPACE DEBRIS ISSUES . .... 6-6 6.21 The Regulatory Framework for Orbit Allocation and Space Debris 6-6 IV 6.2.2 Orbital Debris Issues 6-8 63 ORIGIN OF OR81T1NG DEBRIS 6-9 6-3.1 Hypervelocity Collisions _. _ _ '. 6-9 63.2 Explosions and Spacecraft Breakups _ 6-9 6.3.3 Orbiting Nuclear Payloads ., _ _. 6-13 6.4 ASSESSMENT OF COLLISION HAZARDS IN ORBIT . 6-13 6.4.1 Collision Hazard in LEO . 6-13 6.4.2 Collision Probabilities in LEO 6-15 6.4.3 Collision Hazard in Geosynchronous Orbit (GEO) 6-17 6.4.4 Gravitational Drift Forces in GEO __ '. .. 6-22 6.45 Collision Encounters in Geosynchronous Orbits 6-24 7. RE-ENTRY HAZARDS 7.1 DEFINITION AND NATURE OF RE-ENTRY """"""""'" _ 7-1 7.2 ORBITAL DECAY 7-2 7.3 RE-ENTRY SURVIVABILITY _ 7-7 7.4 RE-ENTRY IMPAaPREDICTION _ '" _ 7-9 75 IMPACT DISPERSIONS _ 7-11 76 RE-ENTRY HAZARD ANALYSIS 7-11 VOLUME Ill: SPACE TRANSPORTATION RISK ANALYSIS 8. RiSK ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 8 1 WHAT IS RISK ANALYSIS? ,. _. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8-1 8.2 RISK PERCEPTION AND RISK ACCEPTABILITY 8-2 83 EXPEaED RISK VALUES AND RISK PROFILES 8-5 8.4 IDENTIFICATION OF HAZARDS, PROBABILITY ESTIMATION AND CONSEQUENCE MODELING _ -............................ _. _. __ ' _ .8-.10 85 UNCERTAINTIESANDRELlABILlTY _ __ 8-11 86 RELIABILITY VERSUS SAFETY __ '" 8-13 87 RISKASSESSMENTMETHODS ._ 8-14 9. APPLICATiONS OF RISK ANALYSIS TO SPACE LAUNCH OPERATiONS 91 LAU NCH RISK ANALYSIS OBJ ECTIVES __ .. __ _. __ . .. 9-1 9.1.1 System Failure Modes and Probabilities , _.. _.' _., _.. .. 9-5 9 1.2 Impact Probabilities .. _. _ __ . .. _____.. _.. 9-6 v 9.1.3 Debris Lethality . 9-7 914 The Meaning of Casualty Expectation 9-7 91 5 Population/Structures Data 9-8 916 Launch and Mission Planning 9-9 92 LAUNCH RISK ANALYSIS TOOLS 9-9 921 Pre-launch Safety Requirements 9-9 92.2 Risk Models and Safety Criteria Used at National Ranges 9-11 10. A GENERIC RISK ASSESSMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE LAUNCH SCENARIOS 10 1 INTRODUCTION . .. 10-1 102 RISKS DURING DIFFERENT PHASES OF A TYPICAL MISSION 10-1 1021 Pre-launch Hazards 10-1 1022 Launch Hazards 10-2 1023 Pre-orbital Hazards . 10-10 103 LAU NCH SITE RISK CONSTRAINTS . 10-13 lOA VARIATION OF RISK DUE TO MISSION PROFILE, LAUNCH VEHICLE, AND PAYLOAD 10-15 104.1 Relative Risks of Missions 10-15 104.2 Hazardous Characteristics ofTypical ELV's . 10-15 lOA.21 Titan . 10-16 10.422 Atlas/Centaur . 10-17 1042.3 Delta . 10-20 10A.3 Payload Contributions to Launch and Mission Risk 10-21 105 BENEFITS OF RANGE SAFETY CONTROL 10-22 1051 Range Safety Control System Reliability . 10-22 105.2 Loss and Casualty Potential When Range Safety Controls Are Not Used . 10-22 1053 Comparison of Risk Acceptability.............. 10-24 APPENDIXA. GLOSSARY AND DEfiNITION OF TERMS APPENDIX B. FUEL PROPERTIES AND CHARACTERISTICS VI TABLES 1-1. PHASES OF COMMERCIAL LAU NCH OPERATIONS 1-6 3-1. CHARACTERISTICS OF US EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES _. _ _ . 3-2 3-1. CHARACTERISTICS OF US EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES (CONT) _.. _.. _.. _. 3-3 3-2 US ELV's EVOLVING LIFT CAPABILITY . __ . _. __ .... _.. _. _. __ . _.. _ __ .. _. __ . _... _. 3-4 3-3. SPECI FIC IMPU LSE OF SOLID PROPELLANT COMBINATIONS _ _ __ . _. _. .. 3-6 3-4 SPECIFIC IMPULSE OF LIQUID PROPELLANT COMBINATIONS _.. _ _.. _.. _. .. 3-7 3-5. ELV LAUNCH RELIABILITY _. _.. " __ . _ _ _.. _'" .. _.. _ 3-21 4-1 MISSION VELOCITY REqUiREMENTS .... _. _.. .... __ . ... _......... 4-11 4-2. COMPARISON OF RELATIVE ACCELERATION (IN G's) FOR AN EARTH SATELLITE AT 200 NM ALTITU DE .... _.. _. _... __ . __ . _. _.. _.... __ ...... _.. _.... __ . __ . .. ... 4-14 5-1. ESTIMATED SHUTILE MAXIMUM CREDIBLE EXPLOSIVES EQUIVALENCES . _. _.. _ _.. 5-9 5-2 LIQUID PROPELLANT HIGH EXPLOSIVE (TNT) EQUIVALENT YIELDS . __ .. _. _. _ 5-10 5-3. ESTIMATED UPPER BOUNDS ON TNT-EQUIVALENT WEIGHTS OF ELV PROPELLANTS 5-11 5-4. CONDITIONS OF FAILURE OF PEAK OVERPRESSURE-SENSITIVE ELEMENTS . _.. _. .. 5-13 5-5. AIR-BLAST CRITERIA FOR PERSONNEL STANDING IN THE OPEN _..... _. _...... " .. ' 5-14 5-6 MINIMUM CRITICAL RADIANT EXPOSURES NECESSARY TO IGNITE OR DAMAGE VARIOUS TARGETS .. ,. _.... _.... __ ... __ . __ . _., . __ . _. _. _. _. _.. _. __ ... __ . __ . _. _. _.... 5-25 5-7. EXPOSU RE CRITERIA FOR SOME COMBUSTION PRODUCTS AND PROPELLANTS .. _. .. 5-30 5-8. ADVERSE OFF-RANGE ACCIDENT IMPACTS FOR VARIOUS PHASES OF SPACE LAUNCH OPERATIONS . _.. _... _.. _. _.. _. __ . _. __ . _.. __ ... __ ... _. __ . __ . __ .. _.. 5-33 5-9. SELECTED PROPERTIES AFFECTING THE HAZARDOUS BEHAVIORS OF LIQUID PROPELLANTS AND CHEMICALS .. ,. __ __ . _ __ . _ _ _. _.. _ 5-36 5-10. COMPARISON OF CHEMICAL ENERGY CONTENTS OF SPACE VEHICLES AND OTHER INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS . __ . __ _. __ . _.. _.. _. _ _.. .. _.. _ _ 5-37 5-11. EXAMPLE OF MAJOR ACCIDENTAL EXPLOSIONS OF FUELS AND CHEMICALS AND THEIR TNT EQU IVALENT WEIGHTS (ESTIMATED FROM ACTUAL DAMAGES) _. __ . _.. __ . _. __ . ___ 5-39 5-12. HISTORY OF LARGE SRM EXPLOSIONS AND THEIR TNT EQU IVALENT WEIGHTS __ . __ ., 5-40 6-1. FRAGMENTS GENERATED IN HYPERVELOCITY COLLISIONS _ .. _.. _. _ _. 6-9 6-2. YEARLY LEO LAUNCH ACTIVITY __ . _.. __ . _.. _ _ _.. __ . _.. __ , 6-15 6-3. COLLISION TIMES FOR A SHUTILE ORBITER WITH LEO DEBRIS .. __ . __ .... _., 6-17 VII 6-4 TIME BETWEEN ON ORBIT COLLISIONS VERSUS LEO ALTITUDE 6-17 6-5 GEO LAUNCH ACTIVITY ........... 6-19 7-1 RE-ENTRIES OF SPACE NUCLEAR POWER SUPPLIES ............. .. 7-16 8-1 INDIVIDUAL RISK OF ACUTE FATALITY BY VARIOUS CAUSES . 8-4 8-2 ANNUAL RISK OF DEATH FROM SELECTED COMMON ACTIVITIES . 8-4 8-3. GENERAL FORM OF OUTPUT FROM THE ANALYTIC PHASE OF RISK ANALYSIS . 8-8 8-4. NUMBER OF TESTS THAT MUST BE PERFORMED WITHOUT A FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SPECIFIC MINIMUM RELIABILITY AT ANY CONFIDENCE LEVEL . 8-12 8-5 RELIABILITY USED AS PERFORMANCE PREDICTOR FOR A HYPOTHETICAL LAUNCH VEHICLE . 8-14 8-6. COMPONENT FAILURE RATES . 8-15 8-7. HUMAN FAILURE RATES . 8-15 8-8. STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF SELECTED RISK QUANTIFICATION TECHNIQUES .. 8-16 8-9 MALFUNCTIONS AND FAILURES .
Recommended publications
  • Vulcan Centaur

    Vulcan Centaur

    VULCAN CENTAUR The Vulcan Centaur rocket design leverages the flight-proven success of the Delta IV and Atlas V launch vehicles while introducing new technologies and innovative features to ensure a reliable and aordable space launch service. Vulcan Centaur will service a diverse range of markets including 225 ft commercial, civil, science, cargo and national security space customers. 1 The spacecraft is encapsulated in a 5.4-m- (17.7-ft-) diameter payload fairing (PLF), a sandwich composite structure made with a vented aluminum-honeycomb core and graphite-epoxy face sheets. The bisector (two-piece shell) PLF encapsulates the spacecraft. The payload attach fitting (PAF) is a similar sandwich composite structure creating the mating interface from spacecraft to second stage. The PLF separates using a debris-free horizontal and vertical separation system with 2 200 ft spring packs and frangible joint assembly. The payload fairing is available in the 15.5-m (51-ft) standard and 21.3-m (70-ft) 1 long configurations. The Centaur upper stage is 5.4 m (17.7 ft) in diameter and 3 11.7 m (38.5 ft) long with a 120,000-lb propellant capacity. Its propellant tanks are constructed of pressure-stabilized, corrosion-resistant stainless steel. Centaur is a liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen-fueled vehicle, with two RL10C 4 engines. The Vulcan Centaur Heavy vehicle, flies the upgraded 2 Centaur using RL10CX engines with nozzle extensions. The 5 175 ft cryogenic tanks are insulated with spray-on foam insulation (SOFI) to manage boil o of cryogens during flight. An aft equipment shelf provides the structural mountings for vehicle electronics.
  • Satcom for Net-Centric Warfare November/December 2010 Milsatmagazine

    Satcom for Net-Centric Warfare November/December 2010 Milsatmagazine

    SatCom For Net-Centric Warfare November/December 2010 MilsatMagazine Ka-band Mounted Battle Command On-The-Move Photo courtesy of EM Solutions milsatmagazine pAYLOAD — nov/dec 2010 CHRONICLES intel The Orbiting Vehicles Series: OV2 + Onwards Satellites + Remotely Piloted Aircraft by Jos Heyman ......................................26 Colonel Keith W. Balts, USAF .................04 Iran: Space Launch Capabilities Tiffany Chow ........................................50 COMMAND CENTER Securing Tactical Mobile Networks Martin Roesch .......................................63 James Ramsey, President MTN Government Services MilsatMagazine Editors .........................38 focus The Antenna Challenge William Hafner & James Montgomery .....18 Enhanced Situational Awareness Rick Lober ............................................34 Enhancing Mobility Through COTM Karl Fuchs ............................................45 The Importance Of Compression Sandy Johnson ......................................58 Mission Critical Audio Conferencing Sudhir Gupta ........................................68 2 MILSATMAGAZINE — SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2010 Satellites + Remotely Piloted Aircraft Colonel Keith W. Balts, USAF .................04 Iran: Space Launch Capabilities Tiffany Chow ........................................50 intel Satellites + Remotely Piloted Aircraft author: Colonel Keith W. Balts, U.S.A.F. Vice-commander, 30th space wing, vandenberg afb Advances in technology allow modern in person and on the battlefield, the forces to fight battles at extreme
  • Rocket Nozzles: 75 Years of Research and Development

    Rocket Nozzles: 75 Years of Research and Development

    Sådhanå Ó (2021) 46:76 Indian Academy of Sciences https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-021-01584-6Sadhana(0123456789().,-volV)FT3](0123456789().,-volV) Rocket nozzles: 75 years of research and development SHIVANG KHARE1 and UJJWAL K SAHA2,* 1 Department of Energy and Process Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491 Trondheim, Norway 2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati 781039, India e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] MS received 28 August 2020; revised 20 December 2020; accepted 28 January 2021 Abstract. The nozzle forms a large segment of the rocket engine structure, and as a whole, the performance of a rocket largely depends upon its aerodynamic design. The principal parameters in this context are the shape of the nozzle contour and the nozzle area expansion ratio. A careful shaping of the nozzle contour can lead to a high gain in its performance. As a consequence of intensive research, the design and the shape of rocket nozzles have undergone a series of development over the last several decades. The notable among them are conical, bell, plug, expansion-deflection and dual bell nozzles, besides the recently developed multi nozzle grid. However, to the best of authors’ knowledge, no article has reviewed the entire group of nozzles in a systematic and comprehensive manner. This paper aims to review and bring all such development in one single frame. The article mainly focuses on the aerodynamic aspects of all the rocket nozzles developed till date and summarizes the major findings covering their design, development, utilization, benefits and limitations.
  • ATLAS II | At-Large Summit London 2014

    ATLAS II | At-Large Summit London 2014

    EN AL-ATLAS-02-DCL-01-01-EN ORIGINAL: English DATE: 26 June 2014 STATUS: Final The 2nd At-Large Summit (ATLAS II) FINAL DECLARATION Introductory Text By the Staff of ICANN Representatives of approximately one hundred and fifty (150) At-Large Structures (“ALSes”) from five Regional At-Large Organizations (“RALOs”) representing ICANN's global At-Large Community met at the 2nd At-Large Summit (ATLAS II) as part of the 50th ICANN meeting in London, United Kingdom between 21-26 June 2014. Amongst the various activities of the Summit were five Thematic Groups on issues of concern to the At-Large Community. The subjects for the Thematic Groups were selected by the representatives of ALSes. Each Summit participant was allocated to the Thematic Group according to his/her preference. The five Thematic Groups were: Thematic Group 1 (TG1): Future of Multi-Stakeholder Models Thematic Group 2 (TG2): The Globalization of ICANN Thematic Group 3 (TG3): Global Internet: The User Perspective Thematic Group 4 (TG4): ICANN Transparency and Accountability Thematic Group 5 (TG5): At-Large Community Engagement in ICANN All Thematic Groups commenced their work on Saturday 21 June 2014, the opening day of the Summit, and then each met in four individual breakout sessions during the Summit to finalize their statements. The text that follows, including the appendix which is an integral part of the Final Declaration, was endorsed by approximately 150 ALSes on the morning of Thursday, 26 June 2014 and then endorsed by the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) by acclamation on the same day. The Final Declaration is to be presented to the Board of ICANN at its public session in London, United Kingdom on Thursday, 26 June 2014.
  • Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts: Vehicles, Technologies and Spaceports

    Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts: Vehicles, Technologies and Spaceports

    Commercial Space Transportation 2006 Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts: Vehicles, Technologies and Spaceports January 2006 HQ003606.INDD 2006 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts About FAA/AST About the Office of Commercial Space Transportation The Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation (FAA/AST) licenses and regulates U.S. commercial space launch and reentry activity, as well as the operation of non-federal launch and reentry sites, as authorized by Executive Order 12465 and Title 49 United States Code, Subtitle IX, Chapter 701 (formerly the Commercial Space Launch Act). FAA/AST’s mission is to ensure public health and safety and the safety of property while protecting the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States during commercial launch and reentry operations. In addition, FAA/AST is directed to encour- age, facilitate, and promote commercial space launches and reentries. Additional information concerning commercial space transportation can be found on FAA/AST’s web site at http://ast.faa.gov. Federal Aviation Administration Office of Commercial Space Transportation i About FAA/AST 2006 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts NOTICE Use of trade names or names of manufacturers in this document does not constitute an official endorsement of such products or manufacturers, either expressed or implied, by the Federal Aviation Administration. ii Federal Aviation Administration Office of Commercial Space Transportation 2006 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts Contents Table of Contents Introduction . .1 Significant 2005 Events . .4 Space Competitions . .6 Expendable Launch Vehicles . .9 Current Expendable Launch Vehicle Systems . .9 Atlas 5 - Lockheed Martin Corporation .
  • L AUNCH SYSTEMS Databk7 Collected.Book Page 18 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM Databk7 Collected.Book Page 19 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM

    L AUNCH SYSTEMS Databk7 Collected.Book Page 18 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM Databk7 Collected.Book Page 19 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM

    databk7_collected.book Page 17 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM CHAPTER TWO L AUNCH SYSTEMS databk7_collected.book Page 18 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM databk7_collected.book Page 19 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM CHAPTER TWO L AUNCH SYSTEMS Introduction Launch systems provide access to space, necessary for the majority of NASA’s activities. During the decade from 1989–1998, NASA used two types of launch systems, one consisting of several families of expendable launch vehicles (ELV) and the second consisting of the world’s only partially reusable launch system—the Space Shuttle. A significant challenge NASA faced during the decade was the development of technologies needed to design and implement a new reusable launch system that would prove less expensive than the Shuttle. Although some attempts seemed promising, none succeeded. This chapter addresses most subjects relating to access to space and space transportation. It discusses and describes ELVs, the Space Shuttle in its launch vehicle function, and NASA’s attempts to develop new launch systems. Tables relating to each launch vehicle’s characteristics are included. The other functions of the Space Shuttle—as a scientific laboratory, staging area for repair missions, and a prime element of the Space Station program—are discussed in the next chapter, Human Spaceflight. This chapter also provides a brief review of launch systems in the past decade, an overview of policy relating to launch systems, a summary of the management of NASA’s launch systems programs, and tables of funding data. The Last Decade Reviewed (1979–1988) From 1979 through 1988, NASA used families of ELVs that had seen service during the previous decade.
  • Positioning: Drift Orbit and Station Acquisition

    Positioning: Drift Orbit and Station Acquisition

    Orbits Supplement GEOSTATIONARY ORBIT PERTURBATIONS INFLUENCE OF ASPHERICITY OF THE EARTH: The gravitational potential of the Earth is no longer µ/r, but varies with longitude. A tangential acceleration is created, depending on the longitudinal location of the satellite, with four points of stable equilibrium: two stable equilibrium points (L 75° E, 105° W) two unstable equilibrium points ( 15° W, 162° E) This tangential acceleration causes a drift of the satellite longitude. Longitudinal drift d'/dt in terms of the longitude about a point of stable equilibrium expresses as: (d/dt)2 - k cos 2 = constant Orbits Supplement GEO PERTURBATIONS (CONT'D) INFLUENCE OF EARTH ASPHERICITY VARIATION IN THE LONGITUDINAL ACCELERATION OF A GEOSTATIONARY SATELLITE: Orbits Supplement GEO PERTURBATIONS (CONT'D) INFLUENCE OF SUN & MOON ATTRACTION Gravitational attraction by the sun and moon causes the satellite orbital inclination to change with time. The evolution of the inclination vector is mainly a combination of variations: period 13.66 days with 0.0035° amplitude period 182.65 days with 0.023° amplitude long term drift The long term drift is given by: -4 dix/dt = H = (-3.6 sin M) 10 ° /day -4 diy/dt = K = (23.4 +.2.7 cos M) 10 °/day where M is the moon ascending node longitude: M = 12.111 -0.052954 T (T: days from 1/1/1950) 2 2 2 2 cos d = H / (H + K ); i/t = (H + K ) Depending on time within the 18 year period of M d varies from 81.1° to 98.9° i/t varies from 0.75°/year to 0.95°/year Orbits Supplement GEO PERTURBATIONS (CONT'D) INFLUENCE OF SUN RADIATION PRESSURE Due to sun radiation pressure, eccentricity arises: EFFECT OF NON-ZERO ECCENTRICITY L = difference between longitude of geostationary satellite and geosynchronous satellite (24 hour period orbit with e0) With non-zero eccentricity the satellite track undergoes a periodic motion about the subsatellite point at perigee.
  • Quest: the History of Spaceflight Quarterly

    Quest: the History of Spaceflight Quarterly

    Celebrating the Silver Anniversary of Quest: The History of Spaceflight Quarterly 1992 - 2017 www.spacehistory101.com Celebrating the Silver Anniversary of Quest: The History of Spaceflight Quarterly Since 1992, 4XHVW7KH+LVWRU\RI6SDFHIOLJKW has collected, documented, and captured the history of the space. An award-winning publication that is the oldest peer reviewed journal dedicated exclusively to this topic, 4XHVW fills a vital need²ZKLFKLVZK\VRPDQ\ SHRSOHKDYHYROXQWHHUHGRYHUWKH\HDUV Astronaut Michael Collins once described Quest, its amazing how you are able to provide such detailed content while making it very readable. Written by professional historians, enthusiasts, stu- dents, and people who’ve worked in the field 4XHVW features the people, programs, politics that made the journey into space possible²human spaceflight, robotic exploration, military programs, international activities, and commercial ventures. What follows is a history of 4XHVW, written by the editors and publishers who over the past 25 years have worked with professional historians, enthusiasts, students, and people who worked in the field to capture a wealth of stories and information related to human spaceflight, robotic exploration, military programs, international activities, and commercial ventures. Glen Swanson Founder, Editor, Volume 1-6 Stephen Johnson Editor, Volume 7-12 David Arnold Editor, Volume 13-22 Christopher Gainor Editor, Volume 23-25+ Scott Sacknoff Publisher, Volume 7-25 (c) 2019 The Space 3.0 Foundation The Silver Anniversary of Quest 1 www.spacehistory101.com F EATURE: THE S ILVER A NNIVERSARY OF Q UEST From Countdown to Liftoff —The History of Quest Part I—Beginnings through the University of North Dakota Acquisition 1988-1998 By Glen E.
  • Suborbital Platforms and Range Services (SPARS)

    Suborbital Platforms and Range Services (SPARS)

    Suborbital Capabilities for Science & Technology Small Missions Workshop @ Johns Hopkins University June 10, 2019 Mike Hitch, Giovanni Rosanova Goddard Space Introduction Flight Center AGENDAWASP OPIS ▪ Purpose ▪ History & Importance of Suborbital Carriers to Science ▪ Suborbital Platforms ▪ Sounding Rockets ▪ Balloons (brief) ▪ Aircraft ▪ SmallSats ▪ WFF Engineering ▪ Q & A P-3 Maintenance 12-Jun-19 Competition Sensitive – Do Not Distribute 2 Goddard Space Purpose of the Meeting Flight Center Define theWASP OPISutility of Suborbital Carriers & “Small” Missions ▪ Sounding rockets, balloons and aircraft (manned and unmanned) provide a unique capability to scientists and engineers to: ▪ Allow PIs to enhance and advance technology readiness levels of instruments and components for very low relative cost ▪ Provide PIs actual science flight opportunities as a “piggy-back” on a planned mission flight at low relative cost ▪ Increase experience for young and mid-career scientists and engineers by allowing them to get their “feet wet” on a suborbital mission prior to tackling the much larger and more complex orbital endeavors ▪ The Suborbital/Smallsat Platforms And Range Services (SPARS) Line Of Business (LOB) can facilitate prospective PIs with taking advantage of potential suborbital flight opportunities P-3 Maintenance 12-Jun-19 Competition Sensitive – Do Not Distribute 3 Goddard Space Value of Suborbital Research – What’s Different? Flight Center WASP OPIS Different Risk/Mission Assurance Strategy • Payloads are recovered and refurbished. • Re-flights are inexpensive (<$1M for a balloon or sounding rocket vs >$10M - 100M for a ELV) • Instrumentation can be simple and have a large science impact! • Frequent flight opportunities (e.g. “piggyback”) • Development of precursor instrument concepts and mature TRLs • While Suborbital missions fully comply with all Agency Safety policies, the program is designed to take Higher Programmatic Risk – Lower cost – Faster migration of new technology – Smaller more focused efforts, enable Tiger Team/incubator experiences.
  • Study of the Spin and Parity of the Higgs Boson in Diboson Decays

    Study of the Spin and Parity of the Higgs Boson in Diboson Decays

    EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH (CERN) Submitted to: EPJC CERN-PH-EP-2015-114 26th October 2015 Study of the spin and parity of the Higgs boson in diboson decays with the ATLAS detector The ATLAS Collaboration Abstract Studies of the spin, parity and tensor couplings of the Higgs boson in the H ZZ 4ℓ, → ∗ → H WW∗ eνµν and H γγ decay processes at the LHC are presented. The invest- → → →1 igations are based on 25 fb− of pp collision data collected by the ATLAS experiment at √s = 7 TeV and √s = 8 TeV. The Standard Model (SM) Higgs boson hypothesis, corres- ponding to the quantum numbers JP = 0+, is tested against several alternative spin scenarios, including non-SM spin-0 and spin-2 models with universal and non-universal couplings to fermions and vector bosons. All tested alternative models are excluded in favour of the SM Higgs boson hypothesis at more than 99.9% confidence level. Using the H ZZ 4ℓ and → ∗ → H WW∗ eνµν decays, the tensor structure of the interaction between the spin-0 boson and→ the SM→ vector bosons is also investigated. The observed distributions of variables sens- arXiv:1506.05669v2 [hep-ex] 23 Oct 2015 itive to the non-SM tensor couplings are compatible with the SM predictions and constraints on the non-SM couplings are derived. c 2015 CERN for the benefit of the ATLAS Collaboration. Reproduction of this article or parts of it is allowed as specified in the CC-BY-3.0 license. 1 Introduction The discovery of a Higgs boson by the ATLAS [1] and CMS [2] experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN marked the beginning of a new era of experimental studies of the properties of this new particle.
  • Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

    Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

    comparing futures for the sacramento–san joaquin delta jay lund | ellen hanak | william fleenor william bennett | richard howitt jeffrey mount | peter moyle 2008 Public Policy Institute of California Supported with funding from Stephen D. Bechtel Jr. and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation ISBN: 978-1-58213-130-6 Copyright © 2008 by Public Policy Institute of California All rights reserved San Francisco, CA Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source and the above copyright notice is included. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers, or Board of Directors of the Public Policy Institute of California. Summary “Once a landscape has been established, its origins are repressed from memory. It takes on the appearance of an ‘object’ which has been there, outside us, from the start.” Karatani Kojin (1993), Origins of Japanese Literature The Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta is the hub of California’s water supply system and the home of numerous native fish species, five of which already are listed as threatened or endangered. The recent rapid decline of populations of many of these fish species has been followed by court rulings restricting water exports from the Delta, focusing public and political attention on one of California’s most important and iconic water controversies.
  • Performance Modelling and Simulation of a 100 Km Hybrid Sounding Rocket

    Performance Modelling and Simulation of a 100 Km Hybrid Sounding Rocket

    PERFORMANCE MODELLING AND SIMULATION OF A 100 KM HYBRID SOUNDING ROCKET Fiona Kay Leverone Submitted in fulfilment of the academic requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering, College of Agriculture, Engineering and Science, University of KwaZulu-Natal Supervisor: Mr Michael Brooks Co-Supervisor: Mr Jean-François Pitot de la Beaujardiere Co-Supervisor: Prof Lance Roberts December 2013 2. DECLARATION 1 - PLAGIARISM I, Fiona Leverone, declare that 1. The research reported in this thesis, except where otherwise indicated, is my original research. 2. This thesis has not been submitted for any degree or examination at any other university. 3. This thesis does not contain other persons’ data, pictures, graphs or other information, unless specifically acknowledged as being sourced from other persons. 4. This thesis does not contain other persons’ writing, unless specifically acknowledged as being sourced from other researchers. Where other written sources have been quoted, then: a. Their words have been re-written but the general information attributed to them has been referenced b. Where their exact words have been used, then their writing has been placed inside quotation marks, and referenced. 5. This thesis does not contain text, graphics or tables copied and pasted from the Internet, unless specifically acknowledged, and the source being detailed in the thesis and in the References sections. Signed ________________________ Date ___________ Miss Fiona Leverone As the candidate’s supervisor I have approved this dissertation for submission. Signed ________________________ Date ___________ Mr. Michael Brooks As the candidates co-supervisor I have approved this dissertation for submission. Signed ________________________ Date ___________ Mr.