DOCSLIB.ORG

Debris Creation in Geostationary Transfer Orbits: a Review of Launch Practices 2004-2012

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Debris Creation in Geostationary Transfer Orbits: a Review of Launch Practices 2004-2012 65th International Astronautical Congress, Toronto, Canada. Copyright ©2014 by Scott Fisher. Published by the IAF, with permission and released to the IAF to publish in all forms IAC-14-A6.4.7 DEBRIS CREATION IN GEOSTATIONARY TRANSFER ORBITS: A REVIEW OF LAUNCH PRACTICES 2004-2012 Scott Fisher Space Generation Advisory Council (SGAC)*, United Kingdom, [email protected] Emmanuelle David German Aerospace Center (DLR), Germany, [email protected] * This research was completed whilst the author was under the employ of the DLR. Objects left in Geostationary Transfer Orbit (GTO) pose a threat to operational satellites in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO). In addition to regularly crossing both of these belts at high relative velocities, objects in these orbits are often large in size and mass (i.e. upper stages, fuel tanks and payload adaptors). Each successful satellite launch to GEO can generate 1-4 large pieces of debris (dependent upon the launch vehicle), a significant portion of which is left in transfer orbits that do not decay. This paper analyses the past practices of all launch vehicles that placed satellites in GEO from 2004- 2012. The orbits of the 294 pieces of debris that were identified are discussed further in depth with reference to their threat to the Low and Geostationary Earth Orbits and the likelihood of their decay in 25 years as per international guidelines. Results are grouped for each of the 17 distinct launch vehicles used, and rankings of launch vehicles with regards to the amount of mission related debris are developed. Furthermore, the physical mechanisms with regards to orbital decay are investigated in order to ascertain the impact of various orbital parameters on re-entry time. The European Space Agency’s (ESA) Debris Risk Assessment and Mitigation Analysis (DRAMA) tool specifically is used to conduct Monte-Carlo analyses on nominal upper stages in GTO. I. INTRODUCTION The following sections of this paper will analyse From 2004-2012, 210 launch vehicles operated by the mitigation measures of launch vehicle upper five independent nations and two international stages from 2004-2012. Furthermore, the physical organisations placed satellites in Geostationary Earth mechanisms with regards to orbital decay will be Orbit (GEO; altitude 35,786km). In almost all cases, investigated to determine the impact of various orbital each successful launch left one or more pieces of parameters on the rate of orbital decay. debris (e.g. upper stages, payload carriers or auxiliary The survey of GTO launches extends on work fuel tanks) in highly elliptical Geostationary Transfer previously conducted by Johnson [2] where a similar Orbits (GTO). GTOs typically have perigees in Low analysis was conducted from 2000-2003. Earth Orbit (altitude < 2000km) and apogees near- Data for this study has been obtained from Space GEO. Inclinations for GTO vary depending upon Track (https://www.space-track.org), and orbit launch site, and can be as high as 52°. Debris in GTO propagation and re-entry calculations utilise the is particularly concerning for operational satellites as European Space Agency’s (ESA) Debris Risk it frequently crosses both GEO and the crowded LEO. Assessment and Mitigation Analysis (DRAMA) tool. The Inter-Agency Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) has defined two “protected regions with regard to the generation of space debris” [1]: Region A, a “spherical region that extends up from Earth to an altitude of 2000km” (i.e. LEO) and Region B, a segment of a spherical shell near GEO (shown in Figure 1) [1]. The IADC Guidelines strongly recommend disposing objects that pass through these protected regions at mission end-of-life, either by placing them in ‘parking orbits’ (IADC Measure 5.3.1) or by placing them in orbits that will decay with the debris re-entering within 25 years (IADC Measure 5.3.2). Fig. 1: IADC Protection Zones [1] IAC-14-A6.4.7 Page 1 of 10 65th International Astronautical Congress, Toronto, Canada. Copyright ©2014 by Scott Fisher. Published by the IAF, with permission and released to the IAF to publish in all forms II. BACKGROUND II.I.II J2 Effect As mentioned in Section I, debris in GTO is a The Earth is not a perfect sphere (it is closer to an cause for concern as it crosses both the congested oblate ellipsoid), and hence it generates a non- LEO and GEO orbits. In addition, the orbits of uniform gravitational field. The gravitational pull of objects in GTO are difficult to propagate and predict the Earth on the object is hence not directly towards due to intricacies in their orbital perturbations. This the centre of the Earth, but is offset slightly towards section will provide background information on both the equator. Any orbiting object is pulled orbital perturbations and allowable debris mitigation preferentially towards the equator, creating a torque orbits for objects in GTO. on the orbit. This torque does not affect inclination, and instead causes gyroscopic precession of both the II. I Orbital Perturbations in GTO RAAN and the AoP. Objects in GTO are very susceptible to perturbations that change their orbital parameters. II.I.III Third Body Effects This can lead to interesting and counter-intuitive Gravitational perturbations due to the Sun and the effects. The primary perturbations arise from Moon directly affect the RAAN, Argument of atmospheric drag, the oblateness of the Earth (i.e. the Perigee, inclination and eccentricity of an orbit. They ‘J2 effect’) and third body effects. do not however affect the semi-major axis [3]. The A brief outline of the effects of these orbital Sun and the Moon apply an external torque to the parameters is presented here. For additional details orbits and cause the angular momentum vector to please refer to [3], [4] and [5]. rotate. The effect on RAAN and argument of perigee is small compared to the J2 effect. II.I.I Atmospheric Drag For objects in GTO, the effect of third body forces The density of the Earth’s atmosphere decreases on eccentricity is important as a small change in exponentially with increasing altitude. It hence has eccentricity can result in a large change in perigee. the largest impact at low altitudes, i.e. near perigee. The effect of the sun is much larger than the effect of Atmospheric drag works to decrease the object’s the moon [4]. orbital velocity at perigee, which results in a lower Depending on the relative position of the sun, the apogee during subsequent orbits. It has negligible eccentricity of the orbit will either increase or effect on the Argument of Perigee (AoP), Right decrease. As the semi-major axis is unaffected by Angle of Ascending Node (RAAN) and inclination of third body effects, an increase in eccentricity will lead an orbit, instead steadily decreasing the semi-major to a decrease in perigee. This is illustrated in Figure 2. axis and eccentricity. The magnitude of drag is difficult to predict in II.I.IV Sun Synchronous Resonance advance as the atmospheric density is highly For certain combinations of semi-major axis, dependent upon solar activity. There are a variety of eccentricity and inclination, the J2 effect can result in methods used in its estimation, as further outlined in a solar angle (itself dependent upon the RAAN and [6]. AoP; shown in Figure 2) remaining approximately constant over an extended period of time. Third body effects can then result in significant increases or decreases in the orbit’s eccentricity, and therefore its perigee, over time. This effect can be exploited to Fig. 2: Dependence of perigee increase/decrease on Fig 3: Example of sun-synchronous resonance [4] location of the Sun [3] IAC-14-A6.4.7 Page 2 of 10 65th International Astronautical Congress, Toronto, Canada. Copyright ©2014 by Scott Fisher. Published by the IAF, with permission and released to the IAF to publish in all forms Stages left Other mission-related GTO Perigee GTO Apogee Number of Launch System in GTO per debris left in GTO per Range (km) Range (km) launches launch launch Ariane 5 1 0-1 222-658 33,476-38,467 43 Atlas 2AS 1 0 207-236 35,262-35,534 2 Atlas 3Aa 1 0 191 35,080 1 Atlas V 1 0 110-6,231 34,644-85,173 6 Long March 3A 1 0 134-405 35,794-42,062 8 Long March 3B 1 0 156-197 30,472-49,260 4 Long March 3B/E 1 0 105-268 14,886-49,902 11 Long March 3C 1 0 161-295 34,272-42,402 9 Delta 4M+(4,2) 1 0 6,595-6,604 35,127-35,173 3 GSLV 1 0 172-192 31,659-35,486 2 H-IIA 1 0 180-263 34,048-34,899 4 Proton-K/DM 0-1 0-2 240-361 35,699-36,180 9 Proton-M/Briz-M 0-1 1 310-14,676 12,092-42,470 54 PSLV-XLa 1 0 282 21,342 1 Soyuz-FG Fregata 1 0 311 66,081 1 Zenit-3Fa, b 0 0 N/A N/A 1 Zenit-3SLc 1 0 132-11,250 35,710-39,378 26 TOTAL 185 Table 1:2004-2012 launch systems examined aOnly one mission was flown during 2004-2012 bUpper stage was left in GEO; specific GTO unknown cIncludes both Zenit-3SL and Zenit-3SLB expedite re-entry of debris in GTO. Conversely, if it GEO will ensure that the debris does not occurs unexpectedly (e.g. due to changing solar enter either protected orbits. Specifically: conditions over several years), it can result in a much a.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Astrodynamics
    Politecnico di Torino SEEDS SpacE Exploration and Development Systems Astrodynamics II Edition 2006 - 07 - Ver. 2.0.1 Author: Guido Colasurdo Dipartimento di Energetica Teacher: Giulio Avanzini Dipartimento di Ingegneria Aeronautica e Spaziale e-mail: [email protected] Contents 1 Two–Body Orbital Mechanics 1 1.1 BirthofAstrodynamics: Kepler’sLaws. ......... 1 1.2 Newton’sLawsofMotion ............................ ... 2 1.3 Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation . ......... 3 1.4 The n–BodyProblem ................................. 4 1.5 Equation of Motion in the Two-Body Problem . ....... 5 1.6 PotentialEnergy ................................. ... 6 1.7 ConstantsoftheMotion . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... 7 1.8 TrajectoryEquation .............................. .... 8 1.9 ConicSections ................................... 8 1.10 Relating Energy and Semi-major Axis . ........ 9 2 Two-Dimensional Analysis of Motion 11 2.1 ReferenceFrames................................. 11 2.2 Velocity and acceleration components . ......... 12 2.3 First-Order Scalar Equations of Motion . ......... 12 2.4 PerifocalReferenceFrame . ...... 13 2.5 FlightPathAngle ................................. 14 2.6 EllipticalOrbits................................ ..... 15 2.6.1 Geometry of an Elliptical Orbit . ..... 15 2.6.2 Period of an Elliptical Orbit . ..... 16 2.7 Time–of–Flight on the Elliptical Orbit . .......... 16 2.8 Extensiontohyperbolaandparabola. ........ 18 2.9 Circular and Escape Velocity, Hyperbolic Excess Speed . .............. 18 2.10 CosmicVelocities
    [Show full text]
  • To All the Craft We've Known Before
    400,000 Visitors to Mars…and Counting Liftoff! A Fly’s-Eye View “Spacers”Are Doing it for Themselves September/October/November 2003 $4.95 to all the craft we’ve known before... 23rd International Space Development Conference ISDC 2004 “Settling the Space Frontier” Presented by the National Space Society May 27-31, 2004 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Location: Clarion Meridian Hotel & Convention Center 737 S. Meridian, Oklahoma City, OK 73108 (405) 942-8511 Room rate: $65 + tax, 1-4 people Planned Programming Tracks Include: Spaceport Issues Symposium • Space Education Symposium • “Space 101” Advanced Propulsion & Technology • Space Health & Biology • Commercial Space/Financing Space Space & National Defense • Frontier America & the Space Frontier • Solar System Resources Space Advocacy & Chapter Projects • Space Law and Policy Planned Tours include: Cosmosphere Space Museum, Hutchinson, KS (all day Thursday, May 27), with Max Ary Oklahoma Spaceport, courtesy of Oklahoma Space Industry Development Authority Oklahoma City National Memorial (Murrah Building bombing memorial) Omniplex Museum Complex (includes planetarium, space & science museums) Look for updates on line at www.nss.org or www.nsschapters.org starting in the fall of 2003. detach here ISDC 2004 Advance Registration Form Return this form with your payment to: National Space Society-ISDC 2004, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. S.E., Suite 201, Washington DC 20003 Adults: #______ x $______.___ Seniors/Students: #______ x $______.___ Voluntary contribution to help fund 2004 awards $______.___ Adult rates (one banquet included): $90 by 12/31/03; $125 by 5/1/04; $150 at the door. Seniors(65+)/Students (one banquet included): $80 by 12/31/03; $100 by 5/1/04; $125 at the door.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelsat, Ltd. (Exact Name of Registrant As Specified in Charter)
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Date of report (Date of earliest event reported): August 12, 2009 Intelsat, Ltd. (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter) Bermuda 000-50262 98-0346003 (State or Other Jurisdiction (Commission File Number) (IRS Employer of Incorporation) Identification Number) Wellesley House North, 2nd Floor, 90 Pitts Bay Road, Pembroke, Bermuda HM 08 (Address of Principal Executive Offices) (Zip Code) (441) 294-1650 Registrant’s telephone number, including area code n/a (Former Address, If Changed Since Last Report) Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions (see General Instruction A.2. below): ☐ Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) ☐ Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) ☐ Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) ☐ Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) Item 2.02 Results of Operations and Financial Condition On August 12, 2009, Intelsat, Ltd. issued a press release entitled “Intelsat Reports Second Quarter 2009 Results.” A copy of such press release is furnished as an exhibit to this Current Report on Form 8-K. Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits (d) Exhibits 99.1 Press Release dated August 12, 2009 entitled “Intelsat Reports Second Quarter 2009 Results” -2- SIGNATURE Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.
    [Show full text]
  • OUFTI-1 Environmental Impact Assessment
    Date: 11/02/2016 Issue: 1 Rev: 1 Page: 1 of 11 OUFTI-1 Environmental Impact Assessment Reference 3_OUF_ENV_IMPACT_1.0 Issue/Rev Issue 1 Rev 0 Date 11/02/2016 Distribution OUFTI-1 team OUFTI-1 Environmental Impact Assessment Date: 11/02/2016 Issue: 1 Rev: 1 Page: 2 of 11 AUTHORS Name Email Telephone X. Werner [email protected] +32 4 366 37 38 S. De Dijcker [email protected] +32 4 366 37 38 RECORD OF REVISIONS Iss/Rev Date Author Section/page Change description 1/0 11/02/2016 X.Werner, All Initial issue S. De Dijcker Copyright University of Liège [2016]. OUFTI-1 Environmental Impact Assessment Date: 11/02/2016 Issue: 1 Rev: 1 Page: 3 of 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Authors ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Record of revisions ..................................................................................................................... 2 1. Activities and Objectives ................................................................................................... 4 1.1. Project description ....................................................................................................... 4 1.2. Soyuz launch vehicle ................................................................................................... 5 1.3. Arianespace ................................................................................................................. 7 1.4. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Space Launch System (Sls) Motors
    Propulsion Products Catalog SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM (SLS) MOTORS For NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS), Northrop Grumman manufactures the five-segment SLS heavy- lift boosters, the booster separation motors (BSM), and the Launch Abort System’s (LAS) launch abort motor and attitude control motor. The SLS five-segment booster is the largest solid rocket motor ever built for flight. The SLS booster shares some design heritage with flight-proven four-segment space shuttle reusable solid rocket motors (RSRM), but generates 20 percent greater average thrust and 24 percent greater total impulse. While space shuttle RSRM production has ended, sustained booster production for SLS helps provide cost savings and access to reliable material sources. Designed to push the spent RSRMs safely away from the space shuttle, Northrop Grumman BSMs were rigorously qualified for human space flight and successfully used on the last fifteen space shuttle missions. These same motors are a critical part of NASA’s SLS. Four BSMs are installed in the forward frustum of each five-segment booster and four are installed in the aft skirt, for a total of 16 BSMs per launch. The launch abort motor is an integral part of NASA’s LAS. The LAS is designed to safely pull the Orion crew module away from the SLS launch vehicle in the event of an emergency on the launch pad or during ascent. Northrop Grumman is on contract to Lockheed Martin to build the abort motor and attitude control motor—Lockheed is the prime contractor for building the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle designed for use on NASA’s SLS.
    [Show full text]
  • Paper Session IA-Shuttle-C Heavy-Lift Vehicle of the 90'S
    The Space Congress® Proceedings 1989 (26th) Space - The New Generation Apr 25th, 2:00 PM Paper Session I-A - Shuttle-C Heavy-Lift Vehicle of the 90's Robert G. Eudy Manager, Shuttle-C Task Team, Marshall Space Flight Center Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings Scholarly Commons Citation Eudy, Robert G., "Paper Session I-A - Shuttle-C Heavy-Lift Vehicle of the 90's" (1989). The Space Congress® Proceedings. 5. https://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings/proceedings-1989-26th/april-25-1989/5 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]. SHUTTLE-C HEAVY-LIFT VEHICLE OF THE 90 ' S Mr. Robert G. Eudy, Manager Shuttle-C Task Team Marshall Space Flight Center ABSTRACT United States current and planned space activities identify the need for increased payload capacity and unmanned flight to complement the existing Shuttle. To meet this challenge the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is defining an unmanned cargo version of the Shuttle that can give the nation early heavy-lift capability. Called Shuttle-C, this unmanned vehicle is a natural, low-cost evolution of the current Space Shuttle that can be flying 100,000 to 170,000 pound payloads by late 1994. At the core of Shuttle-C design philosophy is the principle of evolvement from the United State's Space Transportation System.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Design for Demise Analysis for Launch Vehicles
    A first design for demise analysis for launch vehicles Henrik Simon, Stijn Lemmens Space debris: Inactive, manmade objects in space Source: ESA Overview Introduction Fundamentals Modelling approach Results and discussion Summary and outlook What is the motivation and task? INTRODUCTION Motivation . Mitigation: Prevention of creation and limitation of long-term presence . Guidelines: LEO removal within 25 years . LEO removal within 25 years after mission end . Casualty risk limit for re-entry: 1 in 10,000 Rising altitude Decay & re-entry above 2000 km Source: NASA Source: NASA Solution: Design for demise Source: ESA Scope of the thesis . Typical design of upper stages . General Risk assessment . Design for demise solutions to reduce the risk ? ? ? Risk A Risk B Risk C Source: CNES How do we assess the risk and simulate the re-entry? FUNDAMENTALS Fundamentals: Ground risk assessment Ah = + 2 Ai � ℎ = =1 � Source: NASA Source: NASA 3.5 m 5.0 m 2 2 ≈ ≈ Fundamentals: Re-entry simulation tools SCARAB: Spacecraft-oriented approach . CAD-like modelling . 6 DoF flight dynamics . Break-up / fragmentation computed How does a rocket upper stage look like? MODELLING Modelling approach . Research on typical design: . Elongated . Platform . Solid Rocket Motor . Lack of information: . Create common intersection . Deliberately stay top-level and only compare effects Modelling approach Modelling approach 12 Length [m] 9 7 5 3 2 150 300 500 700 800 1500 2200 Mass [kg] How much is the risk and how can we reduce it? SIMULATIONS Example of SCARAB re-entry simulation 6x Casualty risk of all reference cases Typical survivors Smaller Smaller fragments fragments Pressure tanks Pressure tanks Main tank Engine Main structure + tanks Design for Demise .
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond the Paths of Heaven the Emergence of Space Power Thought
    Beyond the Paths of Heaven The Emergence of Space Power Thought A Comprehensive Anthology of Space-Related Master’s Research Produced by the School of Advanced Airpower Studies Edited by Bruce M. DeBlois, Colonel, USAF Professor of Air and Space Technology Air University Press Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama September 1999 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Beyond the paths of heaven : the emergence of space power thought : a comprehensive anthology of space-related master’s research / edited by Bruce M. DeBlois. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Astronautics, Military. 2. Astronautics, Military—United States. 3. Space Warfare. 4. Air University (U.S.). Air Command and Staff College. School of Advanced Airpower Studies- -Dissertations. I. Deblois, Bruce M., 1957- UG1520.B48 1999 99-35729 358’ .8—dc21 CIP ISBN 1-58566-067-1 Disclaimer Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Air University, the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any other US government agency. Cleared for public release: distribution unlimited. ii Contents Chapter Page DISCLAIMER . ii OVERVIEW . ix PART I Space Organization, Doctrine, and Architecture 1 An Aerospace Strategy for an Aerospace Nation . 3 Stephen E. Wright 2 After the Gulf War: Balancing Space Power’s Development . 63 Frank Gallegos 3 Blueprints for the Future: Comparing National Security Space Architectures . 103 Christian C. Daehnick PART II Sanctuary/Survivability Perspectives 4 Safe Heavens: Military Strategy and Space Sanctuary . 185 David W. Ziegler PART III Space Control Perspectives 5 Counterspace Operations for Information Dominance .
    [Show full text]
  • Enabling Interstellar Probe
    This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit: http://www.elsevier.com/copyright Author's personal copy Acta Astronautica 68 (2011) 790–801 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Acta Astronautica journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/actaastro Enabling interstellar probe Ralph L. McNutt Jr.a,n, Robert F. Wimmer-Schweingruber b,1, the International Interstellar Probe Team a The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, 11100 Johns Hopkins Road, M/S MP3-E128, Laurel, MD 20723, USA b Institut fuer Experimentelle und Angewandte Physik, University of Kiel, Leibnizstrasse 11, D-24118 Kiel, Germany article info abstract Article history: The scientific community has advocated a scientific probe to the interstellar medium for Received 15 February 2010 over 30 years. While the Voyager spacecraft have passed through the termination shock Received in revised form of the solar wind, they have limited lifetimes as their radioisotope power supplies 16 June 2010 decay. It remains unclear whether they can reach the heliopause, the boundary between Accepted 2 July 2010 shocked solar wind and interstellar plasmas, and, in any case, they will not reach the Available online 17 August 2010 undisturbed interstellar medium.
    [Show full text]
  • SPACE NEWS Previous Page | Contents | Zoom in | Zoom out | Front Cover | Search Issue | Next Page BEF Mags INTERNATIONAL
    Contents | Zoom in | Zoom out For navigation instructions please click here Search Issue | Next Page SPACEAPRIL 19, 2010 NEWSAN IMAGINOVA CORP. NEWSPAPER INTERNATIONAL www.spacenews.com VOLUME 21 ISSUE 16 $4.95 ($7.50 Non-U.S.) PROFILE/22> GARY President’s Revised NASA Plan PAYTON Makes Room for Reworked Orion DEPUTY UNDERSECRETARY FOR SPACE PROGRAMS U.S. AIR FORCE AMY KLAMPER, COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. .S. President Barack Obama’s revised space plan keeps Lockheed Martin working on a Ulifeboat version of a NASA crew capsule pre- INSIDE THIS ISSUE viously slated for cancellation, potentially positioning the craft to fly astronauts to the interna- tional space station and possibly beyond Earth orbit SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS on technology demonstration jaunts the president envisions happening in the early 2020s. Firms Complain about Intelsat Practices Between pledging to choose a heavy-lift rocket Four companies that purchase satellite capacity from Intelsat are accusing the large fleet design by 2015 and directing NASA and Denver- operator of anti-competitive practices. See story, page 5 based Lockheed Martin Space Systems to produce a stripped-down version of the Orion crew capsule that would launch unmanned to the space station by Report Spotlights Closed Markets around 2013 to carry astronauts home in an emer- The office of the U.S. Trade Representative has singled out China, India and Mexico for not meet- gency, the White House hopes to address some of the ing commitments to open their domestic satellite services markets. See story, page 13 chief complaints about the plan it unveiled in Feb- ruary to abandon Orion along with the rest of NASA’s Moon-bound Constellation program.
    [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]