DOCSLIB.ORG

Human Lunar Exploration Architectures

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Human Lunar Exploration Architectures National Aeronautics and Space Administration Human Lunar Exploration Architectures John Connolly NASA – JSC October, 2012 WELCOME ROCKET SCIENTISTS! 2 The Rocket Equation – It’s Not Just a Good Idea, It’s the LAW 3 How You Get There/What You Do There Human Lunar Exploration is a function of two primary variables: • The transportation architecture (“How You Get There”) and • The Surface Mission Architecture (“What You Do There”) These two variables are utterly interrelated, but are often decided without regard to the other Further, “What you do there” is often a function of what you can get there! 4 How You Get There: Current Lunar Transportation Options Lunar Transportation can be further defined by a series of architectural choices: • Launch vehicle capability – Space Launch System (Block 1, 1A, II) – Falcon (9, 9 Heavy, X) – Delta IV (Medium, Medium+, Heavy) – International Launch Vehicles (HIIA, Ariane V, Proton, Long March) • Staging locations – None (direct) – Low Earth orbit (LEO, includes ISS) – High Earth Orbit (HEO) – Libration Points (L1, L2) – High Lunar Orbit (HLO) Lunar Sortie DRM – Low lunar orbit (LLO) MOON Descent by Lander Ascent by Lander ΔV =2.180 km/s ΔV = 1.968 km/s 7 d at Moon Disposal CPS 1 Disposal Orbit TBD Orbit TBD CPS 2 Orbital Maint. by Lander De-Orbit by Lander ΔV = 0.053 km/s ΔV =0.023 km/s Ascent Stage 100 km Low Lunar Orbit LOI by CPS 1 LOI by CPS 2 Plane Change ΔV =0.952 km/s Dock All Elements Dock All Elements ΔV =0.952 km/s Contingency by MPCV (crew transfer) (crew transfer) ΔV =0.129 km/s Orbital Maint. by MPCV TEI burn by MPCV ΔV = 0.003 km/s per day ΔV = 1.256 km/s 5 d Transit RPOD by MPCV 5 d Transit ΔV = 0.032 km/s TLI by CPS 1 TLI by CPS 2 4 d Transit ΔV =3.276 km/s ΔV = 3.276 km/s LEO 407 km x 407 km Circ burn by CPS 1 Circ burn by CPS 2 TCM burns by MPCV ΔV = 0.204 km/s ΔV = 0.204 km/s ΔV = 0.011 km/s MPCV with Crew Lunar Lander MPCV SM Block 1 CPS 1 Block 1 CPS 2 EDL • Lunar Surface Notes: • Mission Duration – up to 7 days • spacecraft icons are not to scale • ΔV’s include 5% FPR SLS SLS • Block 1 CPSs (no LBO) • RCS burns not displayed in • Lunar Lander requires Low Boil-off chart • Not all discrete burns displayed EARTH 15 Pre-Decisional: For NASA Internal Use 15 Only 5 Current Launch Vehicle Options 6 Earth-Moon Delta-V/ToF Network With LGA V Long ToF Each staging location offers Earth return Δ Vs ~3430 m/s ToF ~8 days assume aerocapture different benefits to V Short ToF used for insertion into ~3950 m/s V ToF ~4 days LEO or return to Long ToF orbital and surface ~3970 m/s V Earth Return Earth’s surface ToF ~4 days ~350 m/s ToF ~8 days missions V Short ToF ~4500 m/s ToF ~2 days V Earth Return ~1310 m/s V ~650 m/s ToF ~4 days ToF ~3 days V Long ToF ~640 m/s V ToF ~3 days Long ToF Lunar ~3770 m/s V Short ToF ~750 m/s Deep Space ToF ~ 4 days Surface V ~2530 m/s V ~10,000 ~10,000 m/sV V ToF ~2 day Escape V Short ToF ~1870 m/s ToF ~3 days ~4410 m/s LEO ToF ~2 days E-M L1 LLO E-M L2 V ~710 m/s V Earth Return V ~770 m/s Long ToF ~2520 m/s Earth ToF ~4 days ToF ~3 days V ~140 m/s ToF ~14 days LTO Lunar Transfer Orbit LLO Low Lunar Orbit Staging location will affect : E-M L1 Earth-Moon Libration Point L1 E-M L2 Earth-Moon Libration Point L2 • Flight time to/from the surface LEO Low Earth Orbit • Surface access • Mass that can be landed • “Split” of maneuvers among propulsive stages7 “What You Do There” – Lunar Surface Mission Options • Like transportation, the lunar surface mission is further defined by a series of mission content and operational choices • The combination of these choices will determine the overall scope of the mission Increasing complexity, mass, # of elements, return Sortie Campaign of missions (e.g., Apollo) (e.g.,Global Exploration Roadmap) 8 Lunar Surface Mission Variables Increasing complexity, mass, # of elements, return Sortie Campaign Science Content Sortie geology Multidisciplinary science Surface Area Explored Local (EVA walking distance) 1000’s of km Landing site diversity/access Polar/equitorial Global access Surface Mission Duration Lunar daytime Multiple months EVA hours 2 crew minimum EVA Full crew maximize EVA hours Amount of self reliance None Autonomy + full ISRU SKG’s addressed Few Most Human Research addressed Few Most Technology infusion TRL now Maximize new technology Contribution to Mars preparation Minimal Fully Mars focused International participation None Fully integrated Commercial participation None Fully integrated 9 Lunar Surface Mission Study History • 1985 Lunar Bases book (Mendell) • 1988 Eagle Engineering LBSS Study • 1989 90-day study – 4 options Option 1 – Mini-habitat elements with Crew Lander (LAT-1) Option 2 – Mini-habitat elements with Crew/Cargo Lander • 1990 LMEPO Architectures Option 3 – Single Delivery, Monolithic Habitat – 4 options Option 4 – Mobile Lander Habitat System Option 5 – Early Delivery of Pressurized Rover • 1991 Synthesis Group Option 6 – Nuclear Surface Fission Power • 1992 First Lunar Outpost • 1993 LUNOX • 1999 Decadal Planning Team (DPT) • 2001 NEXT • 2003 Space Architect Studies • 2004 Concept Exploration and Refinement (CE&R) Studies • 2004 LaRC/JSC Transportation Studies • 2005 ESAS • 2006 LAT 1 • 2007 LAT2 • 2008 Cx/LSS Surface Architecture Reference (SARD) • 200x LSS Scenarios • CxAT-Lunar • 2010 GPOD • 2011 HAT 10 LUNAR SURFACE- SORTIE 11 Lunar Sortie DRM MOON Descent by Lander Ascent by Lander ΔV =2.180 km/s ΔV = 1.968 km/s 7 d at Moon Disposal CPS 1 Disposal Orbit TBD Orbit TBD CPS 2 Orbital Maint. by Lander De-Orbit by Lander ΔV = 0.053 km/s ΔV =0.023 km/s Ascent Stage 100 km Low Lunar Orbit LOI by CPS 1 LOI by CPS 2 Plane Change ΔV =0.952 km/s Dock All Elements Dock All Elements ΔV =0.952 km/s Contingency by MPCV (crew transfer) (crew transfer) ΔV =0.129 km/s Orbital Maint. by MPCV TEI burn by MPCV ΔV = 0.003 km/s per day ΔV = 1.256 km/s 5 d Transit RPOD by MPCV 5 d Transit ΔV = 0.032 km/s TLI by CPS 1 TLI by CPS 2 4 d Transit ΔV =3.276 km/s ΔV = 3.276 km/s LEO 407 km x 407 km Circ burn by CPS 1 Circ burn by CPS 2 TCM burns by MPCV ΔV = 0.204 km/s ΔV = 0.204 km/s ΔV = 0.011 km/s MPCV with Crew Lunar Lander MPCV SM Block 1 CPS 1 Block 1 CPS 2 EDL • Lunar Surface Notes: • Mission Duration – up to 7 days • spacecraft icons are not to scale • ΔV’s include 5% FPR SLS SLS • Block 1 CPSs (no LBO) • RCS burns not displayed in chart • Lunar Lander requires Low Boil-off • Not all discrete burns displayed EARTH 12 Pre-Decisional: For NASA Internal Use 12 Only Tsiolkovsky Sortie Overview (Helper, Shearer, Spudis, Bleacher, 2006) • Landing site near the central peak of Tsiolkovsky Crater • 4 Crew performs EVA each landed day (28 EVA days total) • Crew lives out of lander’s hab module • 2 unpressurized rovers • Geology emphasis – sampling of 4 different geological units within roving distance of landing site Feldspathic crater floor Mafic crater floor • 1 long EVA of ~32 km round-trip (EVA “6/7”) • All other EVAs < 20 km round trip • LRV traverse geological sampling – Stop every kilometer and sample regolith Landing Site – Selected rake samples • Ground penetrating radar Mare basalt floor “Troctolitic” central peak – Map subsurface structure and determine mare thickness Anorthositic central peak • Deploy network of instrument station sites – Geophones – Seismic sources – Surface magnetometers 13 Tsiolkovsky Sortie Overview “Street View” Chart Mission Sequence Crew Transfer, Plane Change Contingency by MPCV Dock All Elements Undocking ΔV =0.129 km/s (crew transfer) Descent by Lander ΔV =2.074 km/s Lunar Orbit Lunar 1 3 5 Discard 8 Ascent Stage Crew Departs 2 6&7 4 Ascent by Lander ΔV =1.974 km/s Lunar Surface Lunar Day 1 – Landing & 19 k m Day 2 – 14.5 km Day 3 – 18 km EVA Day 4 – 17 km EVA Day 5 - 18 km EVA Day 6 – 32 km EVA Day 7 – 21 km EVA EVA EVA Mission Site: Tsiolkovsky Mission Summary Mission Elements Crater • Four crew spend one week • 2x Rechargeable 5 exploring the Tsiolkovsky Crater unpressurized rovers 4 in daily EVAs. • Geological Sampling tools 6&7 • Geology focus with significant • Ground penetrating radar sample return • Network of instrument station 21 • Unpressurized rovers, maximum sites S 8 32 km traverse • Geophones 1 • Ground penetrating radar to map • Seismic sources subsurface structure and • Surface 2 3 determine mare thickness magnetometers 129 E • Geologic instrument deployment 14 Tsiolkovsky Sortie Overview Destination Elements Element SAIF ID Mass (t) FSE (t) • Unpressurized rovers (2) Unpressurized Rovers (2) 400.00 Ground Penetrating Radar (2) 40.00 Instrument Stations (4): • Ground penetrating radar Geophones 44.80 Seismic sources incl. above – Map subsurface structure and Surface magnetometers 34.40 determine mare thickness Geologic Sampling Tools: 5.90 Core drills (2) 33.80 Sample rakes (2) 3.00 • Instrument stations Bulk sample tools (4) 16.80 Sample bags 8.00 – Geophones Cameras (4) 25.00 Sample Return Container (6) 24.00 – Seismic sources Total 635.70 Capability 500.00 – Surface magnetometers Difference -135.70 • Geological sampling tools – Core drills – Sample rakes – Bulk sample tool – Sample bags – Cameras Ground Instrument Geologic penetrating stations Sampling radar Tools 15 GER-DERIVED LUNAR DESTINATION DRM 16 GER-Derived Lunar Destination DRM This lunar destination DRM is derived from the GER Lunar mission: • Multiple (5) extended stay (up to 28 day) missions, beginning with robotic precursors and initial cargo landers • Lunar surface emphasis is to test the capabilities and learn self-sufficiency in preparation for human Mars missions • 4 crew • Polar site • Small
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]
  • Bolden Testimony
    HOLD FOR RELEASE UNTIL PRESENTED BY WITNESS November 17, 2011 Statement of The Honorable Charles F. Bolden, Jr. Administrator National Aeronautics and Space Administration before the Subcommittee on Science and Space Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation U. S. Senate Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the outlook for NASA’s human space flight program. This has been a remarkable year, as we have completed assembling and outfitting of the U.S. On-orbit Segment (USOS) of the International Space Station (ISS), allowing us to focus on full utilization of the Station’s research capabilities; taken key steps in moving forward into the future of exploration beyond Low-Earth Orbit (LEO); celebrated the 50 th anniversary of human spaceflight; and witnessed the successful conclusion of the historic Space Shuttle Program. We are also pleased with the progress our industry partners have made in developing an American capability to transport cargo and eventually astronauts to the ISS, and end the outsourcing of this work to foreign governments. More importantly, this will add a critical level of redundancy for transporting cargo and crew to the ISS. A robust transportation architecture is important to ensuring full utilization of this amazing research facility. Enabling commercial crew and cargo transportation systems in LEO allows NASA to focus on developing its own systems for sending astronauts on missions of exploration beyond LEO. This split between commercial and Government systems allows for a cost effective approach to promote a broad base for human exploration by the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Flight Opportunities and Small Spacecraft Technology Program Updates NAC Technology, Innovation and Engineering Committee Meeting | March 19, 2020
    Flight Opportunities and Small Spacecraft Technology Program Updates NAC Technology, Innovation and Engineering Committee Meeting | March 19, 2020 Christopher Baker NASA Space Technology Mission Directorate Flight Opportunities and Small Spacecraft Technology Program Executive National Aeronautics and Space Administration 1 CHANGING THE PACE OF SPACE Through Small Spacecraft Technology and Flight Opportunities, Space Tech is pursuing the rapid identification, development, and testing of capabilities that exploit agile spacecraft platforms and responsive launch capabilities to increase the pace of space exploration, discovery, and the expansion of space commerce. National Aeronautics and Space Administration 2 THROUGH SUBORBITAL FLIGHT The Flight Opportunities program facilitates rapid demonstration of promising technologies for space exploration, discovery, and the expansion of space commerce through suborbital testing with industry flight providers LEARN MORE: WWW.NASA.GOV/TECHNOLOGY Photo Credit: Blue Origin National Aeronautics and Space Administration 3 FLIGHT OPPORTUNITIES BY THE NUMBERS Between 2011 and today… In 2019 alone… Supported 195 successful fights Supported 15 successful fights Enabled 676 tests of payloads Enabled 47 tests of payloads 254 technologies in the portfolio 86 technologies in the portfolio 13 active commercial providers 9 active commercial providers National Aeronautics and Space Administration Numbers current as of March 1, 2020 4 TECHNOLOGY TESTED IN SUBORBITAL Lunar Payloads ISS SPACE IS GOING TO EARTH ORBIT, THE MOON, MARS, AND BEYOND Mars 2020 Commercial Critical Space Lunar Payload Exploration Services Solutions National Aeronautics and Space Administration 5 SUBORBITAL INFUSION HIGHLIGHT Commercial Lunar Payload Services Four companies selected as Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CPLS) providers leveraged Flight Opportunities-supported suborbital flights to test technologies that are incorporated into their landers and/or are testing lunar landing technologies under Flight Opportunities for others.
    [Show full text]
  • Electric Propulsion System Scaling for Asteroid Capture-And-Return Missions
    Electric propulsion system scaling for asteroid capture-and-return missions Justin M. Little⇤ and Edgar Y. Choueiri† Electric Propulsion and Plasma Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 08544 The requirements for an electric propulsion system needed to maximize the return mass of asteroid capture-and-return (ACR) missions are investigated in detail. An analytical model is presented for the mission time and mass balance of an ACR mission based on the propellant requirements of each mission phase. Edelbaum’s approximation is used for the Earth-escape phase. The asteroid rendezvous and return phases of the mission are modeled as a low-thrust optimal control problem with a lunar assist. The numerical solution to this problem is used to derive scaling laws for the propellant requirements based on the maneuver time, asteroid orbit, and propulsion system parameters. Constraining the rendezvous and return phases by the synodic period of the target asteroid, a semi- empirical equation is obtained for the optimum specific impulse and power supply. It was found analytically that the optimum power supply is one such that the mass of the propulsion system and power supply are approximately equal to the total mass of propellant used during the entire mission. Finally, it is shown that ACR missions, in general, are optimized using propulsion systems capable of processing 100 kW – 1 MW of power with specific impulses in the range 5,000 – 10,000 s, and have the potential to return asteroids on the order of 103 104 tons. − Nomenclature
    [Show full text]
  • Project Selene: AIAA Lunar Base Camp
    Project Selene: AIAA Lunar Base Camp AIAA Space Mission System 2019-2020 Virginia Tech Aerospace Engineering Faculty Advisor : Dr. Kevin Shinpaugh Team Members : Olivia Arthur, Bobby Aselford, Michel Becker, Patrick Crandall, Heidi Engebreth, Maedini Jayaprakash, Logan Lark, Nico Ortiz, Matthew Pieczynski, Brendan Ventura Member AIAA Number Member AIAA Number And Signature And Signature Faculty Advisor 25807 Dr. Kevin Shinpaugh Brendan Ventura 1109196 Matthew Pieczynski 936900 Team Lead/Operations Logan Lark 902106 Heidi Engebreth 1109232 Structures & Environment Patrick Crandall 1109193 Olivia Arthur 999589 Power & Thermal Maedini Jayaprakash 1085663 Robert Aselford 1109195 CCDH/Operations Michel Becker 1109194 Nico Ortiz 1109533 Attitude, Trajectory, Orbits and Launch Vehicles Contents 1 Symbols and Acronyms 8 2 Executive Summary 9 3 Preface and Introduction 13 3.1 Project Management . 13 3.2 Problem Definition . 14 3.2.1 Background and Motivation . 14 3.2.2 RFP and Description . 14 3.2.3 Project Scope . 15 3.2.4 Disciplines . 15 3.2.5 Societal Sectors . 15 3.2.6 Assumptions . 16 3.2.7 Relevant Capital and Resources . 16 4 Value System Design 17 4.1 Introduction . 17 4.2 Analytical Hierarchical Process . 17 4.2.1 Longevity . 18 4.2.2 Expandability . 19 4.2.3 Scientific Return . 19 4.2.4 Risk . 20 4.2.5 Cost . 21 5 Initial Concept of Operations 21 5.1 Orbital Analysis . 22 5.2 Launch Vehicles . 22 6 Habitat Location 25 6.1 Introduction . 25 6.2 Region Selection . 25 6.3 Locations of Interest . 26 6.4 Eliminated Locations . 26 6.5 Remaining Locations . 27 6.6 Chosen Location .
    [Show full text]
  • AFSPC-CO TERMINOLOGY Revised: 12 Jan 2019
    AFSPC-CO TERMINOLOGY Revised: 12 Jan 2019 Term Description AEHF Advanced Extremely High Frequency AFB / AFS Air Force Base / Air Force Station AOC Air Operations Center AOI Area of Interest The point in the orbit of a heavenly body, specifically the moon, or of a man-made satellite Apogee at which it is farthest from the earth. Even CAP rockets experience apogee. Either of two points in an eccentric orbit, one (higher apsis) farthest from the center of Apsis attraction, the other (lower apsis) nearest to the center of attraction Argument of Perigee the angle in a satellites' orbit plane that is measured from the Ascending Node to the (ω) perigee along the satellite direction of travel CGO Company Grade Officer CLV Calculated Load Value, Crew Launch Vehicle COP Common Operating Picture DCO Defensive Cyber Operations DHS Department of Homeland Security DoD Department of Defense DOP Dilution of Precision Defense Satellite Communications Systems - wideband communications spacecraft for DSCS the USAF DSP Defense Satellite Program or Defense Support Program - "Eyes in the Sky" EHF Extremely High Frequency (30-300 GHz; 1mm-1cm) ELF Extremely Low Frequency (3-30 Hz; 100,000km-10,000km) EMS Electromagnetic Spectrum Equitorial Plane the plane passing through the equator EWR Early Warning Radar and Electromagnetic Wave Resistivity GBR Ground-Based Radar and Global Broadband Roaming GBS Global Broadcast Service GEO Geosynchronous Earth Orbit or Geostationary Orbit ( ~22,300 miles above Earth) GEODSS Ground-Based Electro-Optical Deep Space Surveillance
    [Show full text]
  • Aas 11-509 Artemis Lunar Orbit Insertion and Science Orbit Design Through 2013
    AAS 11-509 ARTEMIS LUNAR ORBIT INSERTION AND SCIENCE ORBIT DESIGN THROUGH 2013 Stephen B. Broschart,∗ Theodore H. Sweetser,y Vassilis Angelopoulos,z David C. Folta,x and Mark A. Woodard{ As of late-July 2011, the ARTEMIS mission is transferring two spacecraft from Lissajous orbits around Earth-Moon Lagrange Point #1 into highly-eccentric lunar science orbits. This paper presents the trajectory design for the transfer from Lissajous orbit to lunar orbit in- sertion, the period reduction maneuvers, and the science orbits through 2013. The design accommodates large perturbations from Earth’s gravity and restrictive spacecraft capabili- ties to enable opportunities for a range of heliophysics and planetary science measurements. The process used to design the highly-eccentric ARTEMIS science orbits is outlined. The approach may inform the design of future eccentric orbiter missions at planetary moons. INTRODUCTION The Acceleration, Reconnection, Turbulence and Electrodynamics of the Moons Interaction with the Sun (ARTEMIS) mission is currently operating two spacecraft in lunar orbit under funding from the Heliophysics and Planetary Science Divisions with NASA’s Science Missions Directorate. ARTEMIS is an extension to the successful Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS) mission [1] that has relocated two of the THEMIS spacecraft from Earth orbit to the Moon [2, 3, 4]. ARTEMIS plans to conduct a variety of scientific studies at the Moon using the on-board particle and fields instrument package [5, 6]. The final portion of the ARTEMIS transfers involves moving the two ARTEMIS spacecraft, known as P1 and P2, from Lissajous orbits around the Earth-Moon Lagrange Point #1 (EML1) to long-lived, eccentric lunar science orbits with periods of roughly 28 hr.
    [Show full text]
  • Dynamical Analysis of Rendezvous and Docking with Very Large Space Infrastructures in Non-Keplerian Orbits
    DYNAMICAL ANALYSIS OF RENDEZVOUS AND DOCKING WITH VERY LARGE SPACE INFRASTRUCTURES IN NON-KEPLERIAN ORBITS Andrea Colagrossi ∗, Michele` Lavagna y, Simone Flavio Rafano Carna` z Politecnico di Milano Department of Aerospace Science and Technology Via La Masa 34 – 20156 Milan (MI) – Italy ABSTRACT the whole mission scenario is the so called Evolvable Deep Space Habitat: a modular space station in lunar vicinity. A space station in the vicinity of the Moon can be exploited At the current level of study, the optimum location for as a gateway for future human and robotic exploration of the space infrastructure of this kind has not yet been determined, Solar System. The natural location for a space system of this but a favorable solution can be about one of the Earth-Moon kind is about one of the Earth-Moon libration points. libration points, such as in a EML2 (Earth-Moon Lagrangian The study addresses the dynamics during rendezvous and Point no 2) Halo orbit. Moreover, the final configuration of docking operations with a very large space infrastructure in a the entire system is still to be defined, but it is already clear EML2 Halo orbit. The model takes into account the coupling that in order to assemble the structure several rendezvous and effects between the orbital and the attitude motion in a Circular docking activities will be carried out, many of which to be Restricted Three-Body Problem environment. The flexibility completely automated. of the system is included, and the interaction between the Unfortunately, the current knowledge about rendezvous in modes of the structure and those related with the orbital motion cis-lunar orbits is minimal and it is usually limited to point- is investigated.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is the Interplanetary Superhighway?
    What is the InterPlanetary Suppgyerhighway? Kathleen Howell Purdue University Lo and Ross Trajectory Key Space Technology Mission-Enabling Technology Not All Technology is hardware! The InterPlanetary Superhighway (IPS) • LELow Energy ObitfSOrbits for Space Mi Miissions • InterPlanetary Superhighway—“a vast network of winding tunnels in space” that connects the Sun , the planets, their moons, AND many other destinations • Systematic mapping properly known as InterPlanetary Transport Network Simó, Gómez, Masdemont / Lo, Howell, Barden / Howell, Folta / Lo, Ross / Koon, Lo, Marsden, Ross / Marchand, Howell, Lo / Scheeres, Villac/ ……. Originates with Poincaré (1892) Applications to wide range of fields Different View of Problems in N-Bodies • Much more than Kepler and Newton imagined • Computationally challenging Poincaré (1854-1912) “Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things” Jules Henri Poincaré NBP Play 3BP Wang 2BP New Era in Celestial Mechanics Pioneering Work: Numerical Exploration by Hand (Breakwell, Farquhar and Dunham) Current Libration Point Missions Goddard Space Flight Center • z WIND SOHO ACE MAPGENESIS NGST Courtesy of D. Folta, GSFC Multi-Body Problem Orbit propagated for 4 conic periods: • Change our perspective 4*19 days = 75.7 days Earth Earth Sun To Sun Inertial View RotatingRotating View View Inertial View (Ro ta tes w ith two b odi es) Aeronautics and Astronautics Multi-Body Problem • Change our perspective • Effects of added gravity fields Earth Earth TSTo Sun Rotating View Inertial View Equilibrium
    [Show full text]
  • Pointing Analysis and Design Drivers for Low Earth Orbit Satellite Quantum Key Distribution Jeremiah A
    Air Force Institute of Technology AFIT Scholar Theses and Dissertations Student Graduate Works 3-24-2016 Pointing Analysis and Design Drivers for Low Earth Orbit Satellite Quantum Key Distribution Jeremiah A. Specht Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.afit.edu/etd Part of the Information Security Commons, and the Space Vehicles Commons Recommended Citation Specht, Jeremiah A., "Pointing Analysis and Design Drivers for Low Earth Orbit Satellite Quantum Key Distribution" (2016). Theses and Dissertations. 451. https://scholar.afit.edu/etd/451 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Graduate Works at AFIT Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of AFIT Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. POINTING ANALYSIS AND DESIGN DRIVERS FOR LOW EARTH ORBIT SATELLITE QUANTUM KEY DISTRIBUTION THESIS Jeremiah A. Specht, 1st Lt, USAF AFIT-ENY-MS-16-M-241 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR UNIVERSITY AIR FORCE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED. The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States Government. This material is declared a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. AFIT-ENY-MS-16-M-241 POINTING ANALYSIS AND DESIGN DRIVERS FOR LOW EARTH ORBIT SATELLITE QUANTUM KEY DISTRIBUTION THESIS Presented to the Faculty Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics Graduate School of Engineering and Management Air Force Institute of Technology Air University Air Education and Training Command In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Space Systems Jeremiah A.
    [Show full text]
  • Cloud Download
    NASA Technical Memorandum 106110 Comparisons of Selected Laser Beam Power Missions to Conventionally Powered Missions John M. Bozek National Aeronautics and Space Administration Lewis Research Center Cleveland, Ohio and Steven R. Oleson, Geoffrey A. Landis, and Mark W. Stavnes Sverdrup Technology, Inc. Lewis Research Center Group Brook Park, Ohio Prepared for the First Annual Wireless Power Transmission Conference sponsored by the Center for Space Power, Texas A&M University San Antonio, Texas, February 23-25, 1993 NASA COMPARISONS OF SELECTED LASER BEAM POWER MISSIONS TO CONVENTIONALLY POWERED MISSIONS John M. Bozek National Aeronautics and Space Administration Lewis Research Center Cleveland, Ohio 44135 and Steven R. Oleson, Geoffrey A. Landis, and Mark W. Stavnes Sverdrup Technology, Inc. Lewis Research Center Group Brook Park, Ohio 44142 SUMMARY Earth-based laser sites beaming laser power to space assets have shown benefits over competing power system concepts for specific missions. Missions analyzed in this report that show benefits of laser beam power are low-Earth-orbit (LEO) to geosynchronous-Earth-orbit (GEO) transfer, LEO to low-lunar-orbit (LLO) cargo missions, and lunar-base power. Both laser- and solar-powered orbit transfer vehicles (OTV's) make a "tug" concept viable, which substantially reduces cumulative initial mass to LEO in comparison to chemical propulsion concepts. In addition, electric propulsion OTV's powered by a laser beam have shorter trip times to and from GEO than do competing OTV's powered solely by the Sun. A round-trip savings of 3 months was calculated for the use of a laser OTV tug instead of a solar OTV tug.
    [Show full text]
  • Mission Design for the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter
    AAS 07-057 Mission Design for the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Mark Beckman Goddard Space Flight Center, Code 595 29th ANNUAL AAS GUIDANCE AND CONTROL CONFERENCE February 4-8, 2006 Sponsored by Breckenridge, Colorado Rocky Mountain Section AAS Publications Office, P.O. Box 28130 - San Diego, California 92198 AAS-07-057 MISSION DESIGN FOR THE LUNAR RECONNAISSANCE ORBITER † Mark Beckman The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) will be the first mission under NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration. LRO will fly in a low 50 km mean altitude lunar polar orbit. LRO will utilize a direct minimum energy lunar transfer and have a launch window of three days every two weeks. The launch window is defined by lunar orbit beta angle at times of extreme lighting conditions. This paper will define the LRO launch window and the science and engineering constraints that drive it. After lunar orbit insertion, LRO will be placed into a commissioning orbit for up to 60 days. This commissioning orbit will be a low altitude quasi-frozen orbit that minimizes stationkeeping costs during commissioning phase. LRO will use a repeating stationkeeping cycle with a pair of maneuvers every lunar sidereal period. The stationkeeping algorithm will bound LRO altitude, maintain ground station contact during maneuvers, and equally distribute periselene between northern and southern hemispheres. Orbit determination for LRO will be at the 50 m level with updated lunar gravity models. This paper will address the quasi-frozen orbit design, stationkeeping algorithms and low lunar orbit determination. INTRODUCTION The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) is the first of the Lunar Precursor Robotic Program’s (LPRP) missions to the moon.
    [Show full text]