DOCSLIB.ORG

Concept Exploration of an Australian Indigenous Space Launch Capability

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Concept Exploration of an Australian Indigenous Space Launch Capability Air Force Institute of Technology AFIT Scholar Theses and Dissertations Student Graduate Works 3-2001 Concept Exploration of an Australian Indigenous Space Launch Capability Anthony J. Rogers Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.afit.edu/etd Part of the Systems Engineering and Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Commons Recommended Citation Rogers, Anthony J., "Concept Exploration of an Australian Indigenous Space Launch Capability" (2001). Theses and Dissertations. 4683. https://scholar.afit.edu/etd/4683 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]. CONCEPT EXPLORATION OF AN AUSTRALIAN INDIGENOUS SPACE LAUNCH CAPABILITY THESIS Anthony J Rogers Flight Lieutenant, Royal Australian Air Force AFIT/GSO/ENY/01M-05 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR UNIVERSITY AIR FORCE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED 20010523 021 The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Royal Australian Air Force, United States Air Force, Department of Defence, the Australian Government or the U.S. Government. AFIT/GSO/ENY/01M-05 CONCEPT EXPLORATION OF AN AUSTRALIAN INDIGENOUS SPACE LAUNCH CAPABILITY THESIS Presented to the Faculty Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics Engineering Graduate School of Engineering and Management Air Force Institute of Technology Air University Air Education and Training Command In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Space Operations Anthony J Rogers Flight Lieutenant, Royal Australian Air Force March 2001 APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED AFIT/GSO/ENY/OlM-05 CONCEPT EXPLORATION OF AN AUSTRALIAN INDIGENOUS SPACE LAUNCH CAPABILITY Anthony J Rogers Flight Lieutenant, Royal Australian Air Force Approved: .C/lAriA h ^A^AuiAM. r n<\ re A ~LO0 / Steven G. Tragesser:sser (Chairman(Chairman) Date Ernest P. Smith (Member) Date f)jj£ fi)/ Curtis Speriny (Member) Date Acknowledgements A thesis of this nature requires the support of numerous people and is a culmination of many hours of discussions and debate. Specifically, I'd like to thank my advisor and mentor, Dr. Steven Tragesser, and committee members, Lt Col Price Smith and Dr Curtis Spenny, for their insightful guidance, wisdom, and feedback. Last, but certainly not the least, I'd like to thank my wife for being there and sharing the American experience with me. I could not have completed this work without you. Tony Rogers Table of Contents Page Acknowledgements i List of Figures iv List of Tables vi List of Acronyms vii Abstract ix CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1-1 1.1 Purpose of Thesis 1-2 1.2 History of Australia's Involvement in Space 1-2 1.2.1 The Australian Government's Space Launch history 1-3 1.2.2 International Ventures Within Australia 1-4 1.2.3 Satellite and Exploration Tracking Support 1-5 1.2.4 Australian Government Space Agencies 1-8 CHAPTER 2 Methodology 2-1 2.1 The Systems Approach 2-1 2.1.1 Concept Exploration 2-2 2.2 System Definition 2-4 2.2.1 Mission Statement 2-4 2.2.2 Objectives 2-4 2.2.3 Benefits 2-5 2.3 The Model 2-8 2.3.1 Benefit Function 2-8 2.3.2 Independent Variables 2-10 2.3.3 Model Relationships 2-14 2.3.4 Simulation 2-44 11 Page CHAPTER 3 Results 3-1 3.1 Introduction 3-1 3.2 Launch Site Selection 3-1 3.3 Brute Force Approach 3-5 3.4 Non-Linear Programming 3-13 3.5 Analysis and Interpretation 3-16 CHAPTER 4 Conclusions and Recommendation 4-1 4.1 Conclusion 4-1 4.2 Thesis Recommendations 4-2 4.3 Further work 4-3 Appendix A: Space Launch Vehicle Mass Characteristics A-l Appendix B: Satellite Inclinations, Eccentricities, and Apogee Velocities B-l Appendix C: Brute Force FORTRAN Program C-l Appendix D: Non-Linear Optimiser Routine - NCONF D-l Appendix E: Optimisation FORTRAN Program E-l Bibliography BIB-.l 111 List of Figures Page Figure 1-1 WRESAT-1 1-3 Figure 1-2 ELDO Launch Range as Woomera 1-5 Figure 1-3 Canberra Deep Space Communications Complex, Tidbinbilla 1-8 Figure 1 -4 Artist Rendition of FedSat-1 1-10 Figure 2-1 Concept Exploration Flow Diagram 2-3 Figure 2-2 Correlation Between the Benefit Function and IVs 2-11 Figure 2-3 Elevated Technology Base Direct and Indirect Correlation to the Independent Variables 2-15 Figure 2-4 Space Launch Program Model 2-16 Figure 2-5 Political Advantage as a function of Launch System Velocity 2-18 Figure 2-6 Velocity due to the Rotation of the Earth as a Function of Latitude 2-20 Figure 2-7 Inclination Range Available from Woomera SA 2-21 Figure 2-8 Satellite Inclination Histogram 2-21 Figure 2-9 Political Advantage as a Function of Payload Mass 2-23 Figure 2-10 Political Advantage as a Function of Percent Reusable 2-24 Figure 2-11 Political Advantage as a Function of Number of Launches per Year 2-25 Figure 2-12 Number of Launches per Year as a Function of the Percent Reusability of the System 2-26 Figure 2-13 Technology Base Level as a Function of ISP 2-29 Figure2-14 Technology Base Level as a Function of Mass Fraction 2-30 Figure2-15 Technology Base Level as a Function of Payload Mass Fraction 2-31 Figure2-16 Technology Base Level as a Function of Number of Launches per Year 2-32 Figure 2-17 Security as a Function of AV and Payload Mass Capability 2-33 Figure 2-18 Cost per kg as a Function of Launch Vehicle Total Mass 2-36 Figure 2-19 Launch Site Establishment Costs as a Function of % Site Infrastructure Already in Place 2-37 Figure 2-20 Maintenance Costs as a Function of Launch System Percentage Reusability 2-39 Figure 2-21 R&D Costs as a Function of Launch System Reusability 2-40 IV Page Figure 2-22 R&D Costs as a Function of the Launch Vehicle's Mass Fraction 2-41 Figure 2-23 R&D Costs as a Function of Launch Vehicle ISp 2-42 Figure 2-24 R&D Costs as a Function of the Payload Mass Fraction 2-43 Figure 3-1 Launch Site Locations Within Continental Australia 3-4 Figure 3-2 Location of Christmas Island 3-4 Figure 3-3 Examples of Convex and Concave Pareto Fronts 3-18 Figure 3-4 Benefit Function Pareto Diagram 3-20 V List of Tables Page Table 2-1 Program Benefits Weighting Ratios 2-9 Table 2-2 Vehicle Design Independent Variable Ranges 2-13 Table 2-3 Political Advantage Weighting Ratios 2-17 Table 2-4 Elevated Technology Base Weighting Ratios 2-28 Table 2-5 Representative Propulsion Technologies 2-28 Table 3-1 Launch Site Location Data Set 3-3 Table 3-2 Brute Force Grid Space Breakdown 3-6 Table 3-3 Results of Space Launch Program Model (Baseline Results) 3-6 Table 3-4 Solid Propulsion Alternative Solution 3-9 Table 3-5 Zero Percent Reusable Alternative Solution 3-10 Table 3-6 Solid Propulsion, Zero Percent Reusable Alternative Solution 3-12 Table 3-7 Comparison Between Brute Force Baseline and Non-Linear Optimisation Results 3-15 Table 3-8 Summary of the Model's Results 3-17 Table 3-9 Space Program Expenditure by Country 3-21 VI List of Acronyms $$ Overall Program Dollars %I Percentage Indigenous %R Percentage Reusable ACT Australian Capital Territory ASC Australian Space Council ASO Australian Space Office AUSD Australian Dollars CE Concept Exploration COSSA CSERO Office of Space Science and Applications CRCSS Cooperative Research Centre for Satellite Systems CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Dur Program Duration ELDO European Launcher Development Organisation ETB Elevated Technology Base ESA European Space Agency FedSat-1 Federation Satellite 1 IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers GTO Geo Transfer Orbit IC Initial Condition ISP Specific Impulse IV Independent Variable Lat Latitude LEO Low Earth Orbit Vll Long Longitude MF Mass Fraction NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NSP National Space Program PA Political Advancement PMF Payload Mass Fraction R&D Research and Development Sec Security TM Launch Vehicle Total Mass UK United Kingdom US United States USA United States of America USD United States Dollars WRESAT Weapons Research Establishment Satellite Vlll Abstract Currently there are only nine countries with a space launch capability, relatively few considering the importance and prestige of such an ability. Although Australia has played an important role in the development and exploration of space from the beginning, it has failed to capitalise the potential benefits of having its space program. This thesis endeavours to explore the possibility of establishing an Australian indigenous space launch capability through developing and examining an Australian space launch program model. The model is based around launch site location, vehicle design, program duration, and the percentage Australian indigenous input into the space launch program. This model was optimised in an effort to maximise the benefits of such a capability, namely political prestige, security and in-country technological base, while minimising the program's overall cost. Through this concept exploration, sound judgements can be made on whether or not to proceed to the next systems engineering step - Preliminary system design. IX CONCEPT EXPLORATION OF AN AUSTRALIAN INDIGENOUS SPACE LAUNCH CAPABILITY CHAPTER 1 Introduction Australia has played an important role in the development and exploration of space right from the earliest days of the space race.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Multi-Instrument Space-Borne Observations and Validation of the Physical Model of the Lithosphere-Atmosphere-Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Coupling
    Multi-instrument space-borne observations and validation of the physical model of the Lithosphere-Atmosphere-Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Coupling Abstract We propose an investigation of the near-Earth space plasma dynamics and electromagnetic environment by multiparameter analysis from variety of space-based missions and creation of physical model of the coupling between lithosphere, atmosphere, ionosphere and magnetosphere which are linked by the chain of processes initiated by atmospheric boundary layer modification by air pollution (dust aerosols, nuclear disaster) and modification of boundary layer by major natural disasters: earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes/typhoons and volcanoes. Our intention is to find from experimental data and their detailed analysis the key processes in atmosphere, which modify the Earth plasma environment system under various geophysical conditions including natural and anthropogenic disasters. As input for analysis and modeling we will use the data products about atmosphere, ionosphere and magnetosphere from different satellites, including NASA EOS (TERRA, AQUA), NOAA/POES, and ESA/ EUMETSAT (METEOSAT, ENVISAT, SWARM), DEMETER/CNES, FORMOSAT-3/COSMIC, as well as ground observations of GPS/TEC, ground electromagnetic (EM) fields meteorological monitoring data, geochemistry, etc. Statistical studies that use these data sets individually have already proven the complex nature of the interconnection between lithosphere and atmosphere events and earth space environment through the Global Electric Circuit. Just recently the members of this team came independently to same conclusion that many processes in atmosphere of different origin create the similar variations in the space plasma environment what implies the existence of common physical mechanism of their generation. One of the main drivers for such coupling is the change of the boundary layer conductivity through the air pollution, Ion Induced Nucleation triggered by natural and anthropogenic radioactivity, and mesoscale atmospheric systems such as tropical hurricanes/typhoons.
    [Show full text]
  • Jjmonl 1712.Pmd
    alactic Observer John J. McCarthy Observatory G Volume 10, No. 12 December 2017 Holiday Theme Park See page 19 for more information The John J. McCarthy Observatory Galactic Observer New Milford High School Editorial Committee 388 Danbury Road Managing Editor New Milford, CT 06776 Bill Cloutier Phone/Voice: (860) 210-4117 Production & Design Phone/Fax: (860) 354-1595 www.mccarthyobservatory.org Allan Ostergren Website Development JJMO Staff Marc Polansky Technical Support It is through their efforts that the McCarthy Observatory Bob Lambert has established itself as a significant educational and recreational resource within the western Connecticut Dr. Parker Moreland community. Steve Barone Jim Johnstone Colin Campbell Carly KleinStern Dennis Cartolano Bob Lambert Route Mike Chiarella Roger Moore Jeff Chodak Parker Moreland, PhD Bill Cloutier Allan Ostergren Doug Delisle Marc Polansky Cecilia Detrich Joe Privitera Dirk Feather Monty Robson Randy Fender Don Ross Louise Gagnon Gene Schilling John Gebauer Katie Shusdock Elaine Green Paul Woodell Tina Hartzell Amy Ziffer In This Issue "OUT THE WINDOW ON YOUR LEFT"............................... 3 REFERENCES ON DISTANCES ................................................ 18 SINUS IRIDUM ................................................................ 4 INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION/IRIDIUM SATELLITES ............. 18 EXTRAGALACTIC COSMIC RAYS ........................................ 5 SOLAR ACTIVITY ............................................................... 18 EQUATORIAL ICE ON MARS? ...........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Space in Central and Eastern Europe
    EU 4+ SPACE IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR THE EUROPEAN SPACE ENDEAVOUR Report 5, September 2007 Charlotte Mathieu, ESPI European Space Policy Institute Report 5, September 2007 1 Short Title: ESPI Report 5, September 2007 Editor, Publisher: ESPI European Space Policy Institute A-1030 Vienna, Schwarzenbergplatz 6 Austria http://www.espi.or.at Tel.: +43 1 718 11 18 - 0 Fax - 99 Copyright: ESPI, September 2007 This report was funded, in part, through a contract with the EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY (ESA). Rights reserved - No part of this report may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or for any purpose without permission from ESPI. Citations and extracts to be published by other means are subject to mentioning “source: ESPI Report 5, September 2007. All rights reserved” and sample transmission to ESPI before publishing. Price: 11,00 EUR Printed by ESA/ESTEC Compilation, Layout and Design: M. A. Jakob/ESPI and Panthera.cc Report 5, September 2007 2 EU 4+ Executive Summary ....................................................................................... 5 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………7 Part I - The New EU Member States Introduction................................................................................................... 9 1. What is really at stake for Europe? ....................................................... 10 1.1. The European space community could benefit from a further cooperation with the ECS ................................................................. 10 1.2. However, their economic weight remains small in the European landscape and they still suffer from organisatorial and funding issues .... 11 1.2.1. Economic weight of the ECS in Europe ........................................... 11 1.2.2. Reality of their impact on competition ............................................ 11 1.2.3. Foreign policy issues ................................................................... 12 1.2.4. Internal challenges ..................................................................... 12 1.3.
    [Show full text]
  • UNA Planetarium Newsletter Vol. 4. No. 2
    UNA Planetarium Image of the Month Newsletter Vol. 4. No. 2 Feb, 2012 I was asked by a student recently why NASA was being closed down. This came as a bit of a surprise but it is somewhat understandable. The retirement of the space shuttle fleet last year was the end of an era. The shuttle serviced the United States’ space program for more than twenty years and with no launcher yet ready to replace the shuttles it might appear as if NASA is done. This is in part due to poor long-term planning on the part of NASA. However, contrary to what This image was obtained by the Cassini spacecraft in orbit around Saturn. It shows some people think, the manned the small moon Dione with the limb of the planet in the background. Dione is spaceflight program at NASA is alive and about 1123km across and the spacecraft was about 57000km from the moon well. In fact NASA is currently taking when the image was taken. Dione, like many of Saturn’s moons is probably mainly applications for the next astronaut corps ice. The shadows of Saturn’s rings appear on the planet as the stripping you see to and will send spacefarers to the the left of Dione. The Image courtesy NASA. International Space Station to conduct research in orbit. They will ride on Russian rockets, but they will be American astronauts. The confusion over the fate of NASA also Astro Quote: “Across the exposes the fact that many of the Calendar for Feb/Mar 2012 important missions and projects NASA is sea of space, the stars involved in do not have the high public are other suns.” Feb 14 Planetarium Public Night profile 0f the Space Shuttles.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolving Launch Vehicle Market Supply and the Effect on Future NASA Missions
    Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint Annual International Conference and Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com The Evolving Launch Vehicle Market Supply and the Effect on Future NASA Missions Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint International Conference & Workshop June 12-15, New Orleans, LA Bob Bitten, Debra Emmons, Claude Freaner 1 Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint Annual International Conference and Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com Abstract • The upcoming retirement of the Delta II family of launch vehicles leaves a performance gap between small expendable launch vehicles, such as the Pegasus and Taurus, and large vehicles, such as the Delta IV and Atlas V families • This performance gap may lead to a variety of progressions including – large satellites that utilize the full capability of the larger launch vehicles, – medium size satellites that would require dual manifesting on the larger vehicles or – smaller satellites missions that would require a large number of smaller launch vehicles • This paper offers some comparative costs of co-manifesting single- instrument missions on a Delta IV/Atlas V, versus placing several instruments on a larger bus and using a Delta IV/Atlas V, as well as considering smaller, single instrument missions launched on a Minotaur or Taurus • This paper presents the results of a parametric study investigating the cost- effectiveness of different alternatives and their effect on future NASA missions that fall into the Small Explorer (SMEX), Medium Explorer (MIDEX), Earth System Science Pathfinder (ESSP), Discovery,
    [Show full text]
  • P6.31 Long-Term Total Solar Irradiance (Tsi) Variability Trends: 1984-2004
    P6.31 LONG-TERM TOTAL SOLAR IRRADIANCE (TSI) VARIABILITY TRENDS: 1984-2004 Robert Benjamin Lee III∗ NASA Langley Research Center, Atmospheric Sciences, Hampton, Virginia Robert S. Wilson and Susan Thomas Science Application International Corporation (SAIC), Hampton, Virginia ABSTRACT additional long-term TSI variability component, 0.05 %, with a period longer than a decade. The incoming total solar irradiance (TSI), Analyses of the ERBS/ERBE data set do not typically referred to as the “solar constant,” is support the Wilson and Mordvinor analyses being studied to identify long-term TSI changes, approach because it used the Nimbus-7 data which may trigger global climate changes. The set which exhibited a significant ACR response TSI is normalized to the mean earth-sun shift of 0.7 Wm-2 (Lee et al,, 1995; Chapman et distance. Studies of spacecraft TSI data sets al., 1996). confirmed the existence of 0.1 %, long-term TSI variability component with a period of 10 years. In our current paper, analyses of the 1984- The component varied directly with solar 2004, ERBS/ERBE measurements, along with magnetic activity associated with recent 10-year the other spacecraft measurements, are sunspot cycles. The 0.1 % TSI variability presented as well as the shortcoming of the component is clearly present in the spacecraft ACRIM study. Long-term, incoming total solar data sets from the 1984-2004, Earth Radiation irradiance (TSI) measurement trends were Budget Experiment (ERBE) active cavity validated using proxy TSI values, derived from radiometer (ACR) solar monitor; 1978-1993, indices of solar magnetic activity. Typically, Nimbus-7 HF; 1980-1989, Solar Maximum three overlapping spacecraft data sets were Mission [SMM] ACRIM; 1991-2004, Upper used to validate long-term TSI variability trends.
    [Show full text]
  • ELV Launch History (1998-2011)
    NASA-LSP Managed ELV Launch History (1998-2011) ELV Performance Class 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 CHART LEGEND WIRE (PXL)HETE II (PHYB) Small Class (WR) 3/4/99 (Kw) 10/9/00 SWAS (PXL) HESSI (PXL) SORCE (PXL) DART (PXL) ST-5 (PXL) AIM (PXL) IBEX (PXL) Athena (AT) (WR) 12/5/98 KODIAK STAR (AT) (ER) 2/5/02 (ER) 1/25/03 (WR) 4/15/05 (WR) 3/22/06 (WR) 4/25/07(Kwaj) 10/19/08 Pegasus XL (PXL) TERRIERS/ (K) 9/29/01 MUBLCOM (PXL) *Glory(TXL)* Glory (T-XL) Pegasus Hybrid (PHYB) (WR) 5/17/99 (WR) 3/4/11 NOAA-N' (DII) Taurus (T) GALEX (PXL) (WR) 2/6/09 (ER) 4/28/03 DEEP SPACE-1/ IMAGE (DII)ODYSSEY (DII) Medium Class SEDSAT (DII) (WR) 3/25/00 (ER) 4/7/01 (ER) 10/24/98 MARS LANDER 1 SDO (AV) Delta II (DII) DEEP SPACE 2 (DII) SCISAT (PXL) (ER) 2/11/10 (ER) 1/3/99 AQUA (DII) (()WR) 8/12/03 * OCO (T) Delta II Heavy (DIIH) (WR) 5/4/02 (WR) 2/24/09 GPB (DII) THEMIS (DII) Delta III (DIII) (WR) 4/20/04 (ER) 2/17/07 EO1/SAC-C MAP (DII) STEREO (DII) GLAST (DIIH) MUNN (DII) (ER) 6/30/01 (ER) 10/25/06 (ER) 6/11/08 STARDUST (DII) (WR) 11/21/00 (ER) 2/7/99 Intermediate / Heavy Class CONTOUR (DII) ICESAT / DEEP KEPLER (DII) (ER) 7/3/02 CHIPSAT (DII) IMPACT (DII) (ER) 3/6/09 Atlas II (()IIA) (()WR) 1/12/03 (()ER) 1/12/05 MARS AURA (DII) PHOENIX (DII) ORBITER 1 (DII) (WR) 7/15/04 (ER) 8/4/07 Atlas II with Solids (IIAS) (ER) 12/11/98 LANDSAT-7 (DII) GENESIS (DII) PLUTO - NEW Atlas V (AV) (WR) 4/15/99 (ER) 8/8/01 HORIZON (AV-551) GOES-L (IIA) (ER) 1/19/06 OSTM (DII) Delta IV (DIV) (ER) 5/3/00 (WR) 6/20/08 TDRS-I (IIA) MER-A
    [Show full text]
  • EDITOR's in This Issue
    rvin bse g S O ys th t r e a m E THE EARTH OBSERVER May/June 2001 Vol. 13 No. 3 In this issue . EDITOR’S SCIENCE MEETINGS Joint Advanced Microwave Scanning Michael King Radiometer (AMSR) Science Team EOS Senior Project Scientist Meeting. 3 Clouds and The Earth’s Radiant Energy I’m pleased to announce that NASA’s Earth Science Enterprise is sponsoring System (CERES) Science Team Meeting a problem for the Odyssey of the Mind competitions during the 2001-2002 . 9 school year. It is a technical problem involving an original performance about environmental preservation. The competitions will involve about The ACRIMSAT/ACRIM3 Experiment — 450,000 students from kindergarten through college worldwide, and will Extending the Precision, Long-Term Total culminate in a World Finals next May in Boulder, CO where the “best of the Solar Irradiance Climate Database . .14 best” will compete for top awards in the international competitions. It is estimated that we reach 1.5 to 2 million students, parents, teachers/ SCIENCE ARTICLES administrators, coaches, etc. internationally through participation in this Summary of the International Workshop on LAI Product Validation. 18 program. An Introduction to the Federation of Earth The Odyssey of the Mind Program fosters creative thinking and problem- Science Information Partners . 19 solving skills among participating students from kindergarten through col- lege. Students solve problems in a variety of areas from building mechanical Tools and Systems for EOS Data . 23 devices such as spring-driven vehicles to giving their own interpretation of literary classics. Through solving problems, students learn lifelong skills Status and Plans for HDF-EOS, NASA’s such as working with others as a team, evaluating ideas, making decisions, Format for EOS Standard Products .
    [Show full text]
  • Budget of the United States Government
    FISCAL YEAR 2002 BUDGET BUDGET OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT THE BUDGET DOCUMENTS Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2002 A Citizen's Guide to the Federal Budget, Budget of the contains the Budget Message of the President and information on United States Government, Fiscal Year 2002 provides general the President's 2002 proposals by budget function. information about the budget and the budget process. Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Govern- Budget System and Concepts, Fiscal Year 2002 contains an ment, Fiscal Year 2002 contains analyses that are designed to high- explanation of the system and concepts used to formulate the Presi- light specified subject areas or provide other significant presentations dent's budget proposals. of budget data that place the budget in perspective. The Analytical Perspectives volume includes economic and account- Budget Information for States, Fiscal Year 2002 is an Office ing analyses; information on Federal receipts and collections; analyses of Management and Budget (OMB) publication that provides proposed of Federal spending; detailed information on Federal borrowing and State-by-State obligations for the major Federal formula grant pro- debt; the Budget Enforcement Act preview report; current services grams to State and local governments. The allocations are based estimates; and other technical presentations. It also includes informa- on the proposals in the President's budget. The report is released tion on the budget system and concepts and a listing of the Federal after the budget. programs by agency and account. Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government, AUTOMATED SOURCES OF BUDGET INFORMATION Fiscal Year 2002 provides data on budget receipts, outlays, sur- pluses or deficits, Federal debt, and Federal employment over an The information contained in these documents is available in extended time period, generally from 1940 or earlier to 2006.
    [Show full text]
  • Amsat-Sm Info 99/3
    Medlemstidning för AMSAT-SM Nummer 3 September 1999 TRX4 packettransciever för vår senaste satellit UoSAT-12 (Sidan 10) Innehåll Sid 3 SM7ANL Silent Key Sid 4 Nya listan från AMSAT-UK Sid 8 QSO via Oscar 10 Sid 9 Testbeställning från AMSAT-UK Sid 10 Experiment med 38k4 Sid 11 70 cm-bandet hotat Sid 12 Frekvensanvändning 70 cm 70cm-antenn för AO-27 Sid 13 Rapport från 14:e kollokvium (Sidan18) Sid 14 Phase 3-D status Sid 15 Satellitstatus Sid 16 En DX-sommar med Oscar 10 Sid 18 Notiser Sid 20 Från söndagsnätet Sid 22 Solförmörkelsen Sid 23 PSK 31 Sid 24 Sun Clock Sid 25 Vad krävs för att köra P3D Del 2/2 AMSAT-SM Styrelsen: Suppleant Ingemar Myhrberg - SM0AIG Århusvägen 98, 164 45 Kista Ordförande Tel/fax: 08-751 48 50 Olle Enstam - SM0DY E-post: [email protected] Idunavägen 36, 181 61 Lidingö Tel/Fax: 08-766 51 27 Suppleant E-post: [email protected] Sven Grahn Rättviksvägen 44, 192 71 Sollentuna Sekreterare/INFO-nätet HF Tel: 08- 754 19 04 Fax: 08-626 70 44 Henry Bervenmark - SM5BVF E-post: [email protected] Vallmovägen 10, 176 74 Järfälla Tel/fax: 08-583 555 80 E-post: [email protected] Funktionärer: Kassör INFO/Hemsidan Kim Pettersson - SM1TDX Lars Thunberg - SM0TGU Signalgatan 26B, 621 47 Visby Svarvargatan 20 2tr , 112 49 Stockholm Tel: 0498-21 37 52 Tel: 08-654 28 21 E-post: [email protected] E-post: [email protected] Teknisk sekreterare ELMER Bruce Lockhart - SM0TER, Göran Gerkman - SM5UFB Rymdgatan 56, 195 58 Märsta V:a Esplanaden 17, 591 60 Motala Tel/fax: 08-591 116 12 Tel: 0141-575 04 E-post: [email protected] E-post: [email protected] QTC-redaktör Tryckning INFO Anders Svensson - SM0DZL Leif Möller - SM0PUY Blåbärsvägen 9, 761 63 Norrtälje Ekebyvägen 18, 186 34 Vallentuna Tel: 0176-198 62 Tel: 08-511 802 01 E-post: [email protected] E-post: [email protected] Adress INFO-kanaler Medlemskontakt AMSAT-SM Info-nätet HF: Allmänna frågor om föreningen c/o Lars Thunberg Söndagar kl.
    [Show full text]
  • <> CRONOLOGIA DE LOS SATÉLITES ARTIFICIALES DE LA
    1 SATELITES ARTIFICIALES. Capítulo 5º Subcap. 10 <> CRONOLOGIA DE LOS SATÉLITES ARTIFICIALES DE LA TIERRA. Esta es una relación cronológica de todos los lanzamientos de satélites artificiales de nuestro planeta, con independencia de su éxito o fracaso, tanto en el disparo como en órbita. Significa pues que muchos de ellos no han alcanzado el espacio y fueron destruidos. Se señala en primer lugar (a la izquierda) su nombre, seguido de la fecha del lanzamiento, el país al que pertenece el satélite (que puede ser otro distinto al que lo lanza) y el tipo de satélite; este último aspecto podría no corresponderse en exactitud dado que algunos son de finalidad múltiple. En los lanzamientos múltiples, cada satélite figura separado (salvo en los casos de fracaso, en que no llegan a separarse) pero naturalmente en la misma fecha y juntos. NO ESTÁN incluidos los llevados en vuelos tripulados, si bien se citan en el programa de satélites correspondiente y en el capítulo de “Cronología general de lanzamientos”. .SATÉLITE Fecha País Tipo SPUTNIK F1 15.05.1957 URSS Experimental o tecnológico SPUTNIK F2 21.08.1957 URSS Experimental o tecnológico SPUTNIK 01 04.10.1957 URSS Experimental o tecnológico SPUTNIK 02 03.11.1957 URSS Científico VANGUARD-1A 06.12.1957 USA Experimental o tecnológico EXPLORER 01 31.01.1958 USA Científico VANGUARD-1B 05.02.1958 USA Experimental o tecnológico EXPLORER 02 05.03.1958 USA Científico VANGUARD-1 17.03.1958 USA Experimental o tecnológico EXPLORER 03 26.03.1958 USA Científico SPUTNIK D1 27.04.1958 URSS Geodésico VANGUARD-2A
    [Show full text]
  • Future Ground Systems for Scientific Spacecraft
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Future ground systems for scientific spacecraft for Ground System Architectures Workshop (GSAW2003) Manhattan Beach, California March 4, 2003 Gen. Eugene Tattini Deputy Director, Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Agenda • Ground systems; current situation • JPL overview • Future vision National Aeronautics and Space Administration Solar system Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology distance scales • To reach Voyager 1 at 12.5 billion km, it would take: – Lewis & Clark: 3.8 million years – JPL Director’s 260Z: 14 thousand years – Chuck Yeager’s X-1: 1500 years – John Glenn in the ISS: 54 years • For Columbus to have reached Mars by today, he should have left Spain when it was populated by Neanderthals (60,000 years ago). • Alternatively, if Earth were the size of a golf ball (and humans were the size of large protein molecules), distances to other objects would be: – Sun: 1600 feet (and 16 feet in diameter) – Mars from Sun: 2600 feet – Jupiter: 1.6 miles – Neptune: 10 miles – Voyager 1: 26 miles National Aeronautics and Space Administration GroundGround SystemSystem Comparisons:Comparisons: Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Factors Affecting Complexity Some Factors Example Systems Affecting GS Commercial DOD NOAA NASA Earth NASA Deep Complexity Orbiters
    [Show full text]