DOCSLIB.ORG

Receiver Bias Estimation and Comparison URSI General Assembly and Scientific Symposium (2017) with Ground-Based Observations C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Receiver Bias Estimation and Comparison URSI General Assembly and Scientific Symposium (2017) with Ground-Based Observations C PUBLICATIONS Radio Science RESEARCH ARTICLE Enhanced Polar Outflow Probe Ionospheric Radio 10.1002/2017RS006453 Occultation Measurements at High Latitudes: Special Section: Receiver Bias Estimation and Comparison URSI General Assembly and Scientific Symposium (2017) With Ground-Based Observations C. Watson1,2 , R. B. Langley3 , D. R. Themens4 , A. W. Yau2 , A. D. Howarth2 , Key Points: and P. T. Jayachandran4 • GAP-O provides high-resolution radio occultation and topside TEC 1COSMIC Program Office, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA, 2Department of Physics and measurements of the ionosphere, 3 primarily at northern high latitudes Astronomy, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Department of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering, • GAP-O receiver bias estimates are in University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada, 4Physics Department, University of New Brunswick, the range of -40 to -28 TECU, with a Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada long-term decrease in bias magnitude and day-to-day variability • F region ionospheric density profiles Abstract This paper presents validation of ionospheric Global Positioning System (GPS) radio occultation retrieved from inversion of occultation fi TEC correlate well with ISR and measurements of the GPS Attitude, Positioning, and Pro ling Experiment occultation receiver (GAP-O). GAP is ionosonde measurements one of eight instruments comprising the Enhanced Polar Outflow Probe (e-POP) instrument suite on board the Cascade Smallsat and Ionospheric Polar Explorer (CASSIOPE) satellite. One of the main error sources for certain GAP-O data products is the receiver differential code bias (rDCB). A minimization of standard Correspondence to: deviations (MSD) technique has shown the most promise for rDCB estimation, with estimates ranging À C. Watson, primarily from À40 to À28 total electron content units (TECU = 1016 el m 2; 21.6 to 15.1 ns), including a [email protected] long-term decrease in rDCB magnitude and variability over the first 3 years of instrument operation. In application of the MSD method, the sensitivity of bias estimates to ionospheric shell height are as large as Citation: 4.5 TECU per 100 km. MSD calculations also agree well with the “assumption of zero topside TEC” method for Watson, C., Langley, R. B., Themens, D. R., rDCB estimate at satellite apogee. Bias-corrected topside TEC of GAP-O was validated by statistical Yau, A. W., Howarth, A. D., & Jayachandran, P. T. (2018). Enhanced comparison with topside TEC obtained from ground-based GPS TEC and ionosonde measurements. Although Polar Outflow Probe ionospheric radio GAP-O and ground-based topside TEC had similar variability, GAP-O consistently underestimated the occultation measurements at high ground-derived topside TEC by up to 7 TECU. Ionospheric electron density profiles obtained from Abel latitudes: Receiver bias estimation and comparison with ground-based inversion of GAP-O occultation TEC showed good agreement with F region densities of ground-based observations. Radio Science, 53, incoherent scatter radar measurements. Comparison of GAP-O and ionosonde measurements revealed 166–182. https://doi.org/10.1002/ correlation coefficients of 0.78 and 0.79, for peak F region density and altitude, respectively. 2017RS006453 Received 7 SEP 2017 1. Introduction Accepted 5 JAN 2018 Accepted article online 8 JAN 2018 The GPS Attitude, Position, and Profiling (GAP) instrument (Kim & Langley, 2010) is one of the eight instru- Published online 6 FEB 2018 ments comprising the Enhanced Polar Outflow Probe (e-POP) instrument payload on board the Cascade Smallsat and Ionospheric Polar Explorer (CASSIOPE) satellite launched on 29 September 2013. e-POP was designed to study solar wind-magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling processes and ionospheric dynamics in the polar regions (Yau & James, 2015). CASSIOPE was launched into an elliptical low Earth orbit (LEO) with an initial perigee of 325 km, initial apogee of 1,490 km, inclination of 81°, and orbital period of ~100 min. Orbit perigee and apogee have decreased to ~322 km and ~1,319 km, respectively, as of April 2017. The high-inclination, elliptical orbit of CASSIOPE, combined with the high-data-rate (20–100 Hz) GAP occultation (GAP-O) receiver, provides unique radio occultation (RO) and topside observations of the high-latitude iono- sphere, including the characteristics of small-scale plasma irregularities in the polar and auroral regions (Shume et al., 2015). Satellite and receiver hardware differential code biases (DCBs) are one of the main error sources in the retrie- val of absolute total electron content (TEC) from GPS observables (Hâkansson et al., 2017). There are well- established methods for DCB determination using ground-based receiver networks and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s (JPL) Global Ionospheric Map (GIM) (Komjathy et al., 2005) that, for LEO purposes, provide reli- able GPS satellite DCB (sDCB) estimates. These techniques are unsuitable for LEO receiver DCB (receiver dif- ©2018. American Geophysical Union. ferential code bias, rDCB) determination due to the fast-moving satellite that samples multiple ionospheric All Rights Reserved. regions in a short time period; the high multipath LEO environment, which renders assumptions based on WATSON ET AL. 166 Radio Science 10.1002/2017RS006453 a low-multipath environment invalid; and their reliance on cross correlation of multiple receiver measure- ments of the same ionospheric region, which is not available to a single LEO receiver. Techniques for estimat- ing rDCBs at LEO require a more “self-reliant” approach and one that accounts for highly variable global ionospheric conditions not fully captured in models such as GIM and the International Reference Ionosphere (IRI). The “least squares (LSQ)” and “zero-TEC” methods have been applied in rDCB estimation for LEO missions such as FORMOSAT-3/COSMIC, CHAMP, and GRACE (Stephens et al., 2011; Zhong, Jiuhou, & Xinan, 2016). For one month (October 2010) of FORMOSAT-3/COSMIC observations, Stephens et al. (2011) found that the zero-TEC method produced rDCB estimates of 18 to 21 total electron content units À (TECU = 1016 el m 2), 11 to 13 TECU, and 29 to 32 TECU for COSMIC 1, 4, and 6 satellites, respectively. They estimated that the uncertainty of daily rDCB values was 2.9 TECU (1.6 ns), primarily due to multipath and phase-leveling errors. Zhong, Jiuhou, and Xinan (2016) used zero-TEC and LSQ methods to estimate receiver biases of À25 to À14 TECU for CHAMP, À59 to À49 TECU for GRACE, À43 to À38 TECU for TerraSAR-X, À8 to 10 TECU for SAC-C, 11 to 16 TECU for MetOp-A, and À5 to 3 TECU for Jason 1. The large range of bias values for each mission is mostly due to long-term trends. For the LSQ method, the authors pro- vided daily average root-mean-square errors of 0.08 to 0.87 TECU but did not provide uncertainty estimates for either technique. Estimation of the GAP-O receiver bias presents a unique challenge due to the highly elliptical CASSIOPE orbit and intermittent availability of GAP-O measurements (typically 0.5–3 h per day). The objective of this paper is to provide a reliable estimate of GAP-O receiver bias and to assess the accuracy and reliability of GAP-O topside TEC and RO density profile data products. Daily estimates of GAP-O receiver bias from “minimization of standard deviations” and zero-TEC methods are presented. GAP-O topside TEC measurements were compared with topside TEC calculated from ground-based ionosonde and GPS TEC measurements. GAP-O electron density profiles derived from inversion of RO TEC were compared with inco- herent scatter radar (ISR) measurements at midlatitudes and auroral latitudes. In addition, high-latitude GAP- O peak F region density (NmF2) and height (hmF2) parameters were compared with ground-based ionosonde and digisonde measurements. Shume et al. (2017) compared low-latitude to midlatitude GAP-O electron density profiles with electron densities of FORMOSAT-3/COSMIC, ground ionosondes, and the International Reference Ionosphere (IRI). 2. GAP-O Measurements GAP consists of five NovAtel OEM4-G2L dual-frequency GPS receivers for tracking GPS broadcasts at L1 (1,575.42 MHz) and L2 (1,227.60 MHz) frequencies. The single GAP-O receiver is fed by an antiram facing modified NovAtel GPS-702 pinwheel antenna, while the remaining four receivers are fed by zenith-facing patch antennas and make up the GAP components used for navigation and attitude determination (GAP- A). GAP-O records L1 and L2 pseudorange and carrier phase observables at a rate of 20 Hz, 50 Hz, or 100 Hz, depending on the specific experiments and science operations scheduled, as well as the available telemetry bandwidth. GAP RINEX files are currently available at http://epop-data.phys.ucalgary.ca. Code- and phase-derived slant TEC (referred to as TEC in this paper) were computed from the relative delays of received pseudorange and carrier phase signals. The algorithm of Blewitt (1990) was applied for cycle slip detection and correction, which uses wide-lane and ionospheric linear combinations. The phase-leveling algorithm of Stephens et al. (2011) was used to compute the relative (biased) carrier phase TEC. This algo- rithm was designed for LEO and applies a leveling function that is weighted based on the noise and multi- path effects present in the pseudorange measurements. Under the premise that the multipath distributes the measured differential pseudorage around the ionospheric delay, the weighting function for each TEC arc is defined as the normal distribution of the differential (L1-L2) pseudorange multipath. For calculating the leveling constant in the phase-leveling algorithm, this weighting function essentially assigns less influ- ence to pseudorange observations that contain multipath further from the mean of the multipath distribu- tion. Monthly pseudorange (P1-C1) and daily interfrequency (P1-P2) GPS satellite DCBs (e.g., Sanz et al., 2017) were obtained from the Center for Orbit Determination in Europe (CODE) database of the University of Bern (ftp://ftp.unibe.ch/aiub/CODE/).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Spacecraft System Failures and Anomalies Attributed to the Natural Space Environment
    NASA Reference Publication 1390 - j Spacecraft System Failures and Anomalies Attributed to the Natural Space Environment K.L. Bedingfield, R.D. Leach, and M.B. Alexander, Editor August 1996 NASA Reference Publication 1390 Spacecraft System Failures and Anomalies Attributed to the Natural Space Environment K.L. Bedingfield Universities Space Research Association • Huntsville, Alabama R.D. Leach Computer Sciences Corporation • Huntsville, Alabama M.B. Alexander, Editor Marshall Space Flight Center • MSFC, Alabama National Aeronautics and Space Administration Marshall Space Flight Center ° MSFC, Alabama 35812 August 1996 PREFACE The effects of the natural space environment on spacecraft design, development, and operation are the topic of a series of NASA Reference Publications currently being developed by the Electromagnetics and Aerospace Environments Branch, Systems Analysis and Integration Laboratory, Marshall Space Flight Center. This primer provides an overview of seven major areas of the natural space environment including brief definitions, related programmatic issues, and effects on various spacecraft subsystems. The primary focus is to present more than 100 case histories of spacecraft failures and anomalies documented from 1974 through 1994 attributed to the natural space environment. A better understanding of the natural space environment and its effects will enable spacecraft designers and managers to more effectively minimize program risks and costs, optimize design quality, and achieve mission objectives. .o° 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS
    [Show full text]
  • Commercial Orbital Transportation Services
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Commercial Orbital Transportation Services A New Era in Spaceflight NASA/SP-2014-617 Commercial Orbital Transportation Services A New Era in Spaceflight On the cover: Background photo: The terminator—the line separating the sunlit side of Earth from the side in darkness—marks the changeover between day and night on the ground. By establishing government-industry partnerships, the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program marked a change from the traditional way NASA had worked. Inset photos, right: The COTS program supported two U.S. companies in their efforts to design and build transportation systems to carry cargo to low-Earth orbit. (Top photo—Credit: SpaceX) SpaceX launched its Falcon 9 rocket on May 22, 2012, from Cape Canaveral, Florida. (Second photo) Three days later, the company successfully completed the mission that sent its Dragon spacecraft to the Station. (Third photo—Credit: NASA/Bill Ingalls) Orbital Sciences Corp. sent its Antares rocket on its test flight on April 21, 2013, from a new launchpad on Virginia’s eastern shore. Later that year, the second Antares lifted off with Orbital’s cargo capsule, (Fourth photo) the Cygnus, that berthed with the ISS on September 29, 2013. Both companies successfully proved the capability to deliver cargo to the International Space Station by U.S. commercial companies and began a new era of spaceflight. ISS photo, center left: Benefiting from the success of the partnerships is the International Space Station, pictured as seen by the last Space Shuttle crew that visited the orbiting laboratory (July 19, 2011). More photos of the ISS are featured on the first pages of each chapter.
    [Show full text]
  • Prototype Design and Mission Analysis for a Small Satellite Exploiting Environmental Disturbances for Attitude Stabilization
    Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis and Dissertation Collection 2016-03 Prototype design and mission analysis for a small satellite exploiting environmental disturbances for attitude stabilization Polat, Halis C. Monterey, California: Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/48578 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA THESIS PROTOTYPE DESIGN AND MISSION ANALYSIS FOR A SMALL SATELLITE EXPLOITING ENVIRONMENTAL DISTURBANCES FOR ATTITUDE STABILIZATION by Halis C. Polat March 2016 Thesis Advisor: Marcello Romano Co-Advisor: Stephen Tackett Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704–0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington, DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED (Leave blank) March 2016 Master’s thesis 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS PROTOTYPE DESIGN AND MISSION ANALYSIS FOR A SMALL SATELLITE EXPLOITING ENVIRONMENTAL DISTURBANCES FOR ATTITUDE STABILIZATION 6. AUTHOR(S) Halis C. Polat 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING Naval Postgraduate School ORGANIZATION REPORT Monterey, CA 93943-5000 NUMBER 9.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Review Guide Front Back
    2021 IEEE Aerospace Conference AIAA - Technical Cosponsor March 6-13, 2021 Paper Review Guide 29th Annual Paper Review (Online) Oct. 1- Oct. 30, 2020 aeroconf.org 2021 IEEE Aerospace Conference Paper Review 2 2021 IEEE Aerospace Conference Paper Review 3 2021 IEEE Aerospace Conference Paper Review 4 All papers in this document are available for Online Review Track 2: Space Missions, Systems and Architectures; Peter Kahn; Steven Arnold Session 2.01 Deep Space, Earth and Discovery Missions; James Graf and Nick Chrissotimos 2.0101 Lucy Mission Ground System: Ground Readiness Testing during a Keri Siegel (General Dynamics C4S) Pandemic 2.0102 Redundancy in the Science Implementation of NASA’s Lucy Catherine Olkin (Southwest Research Mission to the Trojan Asteroids Institute) 2.0103 NASA's Lucy Mission to the Trojan Asteroids Harold Levison (Southwest Research Institute) 2.0105 Pointing Error Budget Development and Methodology on the Ashley Madni (Jet Propulsion Psyche Project Laboratory) 2.0106 NASA’s Lucy Mission: Encounter Simulations Julien Salmon (Southwest Research Institute) 2.0109 The Tandem Reconection and Cusp Electrodynamics Craig Kletzing (University of Iowa) Reconnaissance Satellites Mission 2.0116 Interstellar Mapping and Acceleration Probe (IMAP) Mission Douglas Eng (Johns Hopkins University Overview Applied Physics Laborator) 2.0119 IXPE Mission System and Development Status William Deininger (Ball Aerospace) Session 2.02 Future Space and Earth Science Missions; Patricia Beauchamp and Arthur Chmielewski 2.0201 NASA's Surface
    [Show full text]
  • Small Satellite Conference 2015
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Small Satellite Conference 2015 NASA Town Hall Meeting Hosted by the Small Spacecraft Technology Program August 10th, 2015 NASA Town Hall Meeting • Introduction Andrew Petro, Program Executive, STMD • Small Spacecraft Technology – Andres Martinez, Program Manager – Smallsat Technology Partnerships - Selections for 2015 – Pathfinder RFI and Tipping Point NRA – Upcoming Demonstration Missions – State of the Art Report - Update • SMD/STMD Joint Study – Charles D. Norton, JPL • CubeQuest Challenge – Eric Eberly, Deputy Program Manager, Centennial Challenges • Cubesat Launch Initiative – Garret Skrobot, Mission Manager • Flight Opportunities – Ron Young, Flight Opportunities Program Manager • Small Class Launch Site – Jerad Merbitz, Operations Manager • Q&A, Feedback and Dialog Smallsat Technology Partnerships 2015 Selections COMMUNICATIONS High Data Rate Ka-Band Software Defined Radio for Small Satellites University Of Vermont, Burlington & Worcester Polytechnic Institute PI: Tian Xia NASA Collaborator: Wai Fong, GSFC Miniaturized Phonon Trap Timing Units for Cubesats University Of Michigan, Ann Arbor PI: Mina RaiesZadeh NASA Collaborator: Serhat Altunc, GSFC Integrated Solar Panel and Antenna Array for Cubesats Utah State University PI: Reyhan Baktur NASA Collaborator: Serhat Altunc, GSFC SIMPLE, LOW-COST DEORBIT Solid-State Inflation Balloon Active Deorbiter University of Arkansas, Fayetteville PI: Po-Hao NASA Collaborator: Elwood Agasid, ARC Smallsat Technology Partnerships 2015 Selections
    [Show full text]
  • Financial Operational Losses in Space Launch
    UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE FINANCIAL OPERATIONAL LOSSES IN SPACE LAUNCH A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY By TOM ROBERT BOONE, IV Norman, Oklahoma 2017 FINANCIAL OPERATIONAL LOSSES IN SPACE LAUNCH A DISSERTATION APPROVED FOR THE SCHOOL OF AEROSPACE AND MECHANICAL ENGINEERING BY Dr. David Miller, Chair Dr. Alfred Striz Dr. Peter Attar Dr. Zahed Siddique Dr. Mukremin Kilic c Copyright by TOM ROBERT BOONE, IV 2017 All rights reserved. \For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?" Luke 14:28, KJV Contents 1 Introduction1 1.1 Overview of Operational Losses...................2 1.2 Structure of Dissertation.......................4 2 Literature Review9 3 Payload Trends 17 4 Launch Vehicle Trends 28 5 Capability of Launch Vehicles 40 6 Wastage of Launch Vehicle Capacity 49 7 Optimal Usage of Launch Vehicles 59 8 Optimal Arrangement of Payloads 75 9 Risk of Multiple Payload Launches 95 10 Conclusions 101 10.1 Review of Dissertation........................ 101 10.2 Future Work.............................. 106 Bibliography 108 A Payload Database 114 B Launch Vehicle Database 157 iv List of Figures 3.1 Payloads By Orbit, 2000-2013.................... 20 3.2 Payload Mass By Orbit, 2000-2013................. 21 3.3 Number of Payloads of Mass, 2000-2013.............. 21 3.4 Total Mass of Payloads in kg by Individual Mass, 2000-2013... 22 3.5 Number of LEO Payloads of Mass, 2000-2013........... 22 3.6 Number of GEO Payloads of Mass, 2000-2013..........
    [Show full text]
  • Phonesat 1.0 & Phonesat 2.0Beta
    PhoneSat 1.0 & PhoneSat 2.0Beta A240-0803-XS001 Orbital Debris Assessment Report (ODAR) Rev F PhoneSat 1.0 and PhoneSat 2.0Beta Formal Orbital Debris Assessment Report (ODAR) This report is presented as compliance with NASA-STD-8719.14, APPENDIX A. Report Version: 2.3, 07/16/2012 Document Data is Not Restricted. This document contains no proprietary, ITAR, or export controlled information. DAS Software Version Used In Analysis: v2.0.1 Once this document has been printed it will be considered an uncontrolled document. Page 1 of 35 PhoneSat 1.0 & PhoneSat 2.0Beta A240-0803-XS001 Orbital Debris Assessment Report (ODAR) Rev F VERSION APPROVAL and/or FINAL APPROVAL*: Bruce Yost Program Manager NASA Ames Research Center __________________________________ Richard Morrison Safety and Mission Assurance Office NASA Ames Research Center __________________________________ Michel Liu Chief of Safety and Mission Assurance NASA Ames Research Center __________________________________ PREPARED BY: Kenny Boronowsky NASA Ames Research Center Jasper Wolfe NASA Ames Research Center FINAL APPROVAL*: Frank Groen Safety and Mission Assurance Office NASA Headquarters __________________________________ Terrence Wilcutt Chief of Safety and Mission Assurance NASA Headquarters __________________________________ Once this document has been printed it will be considered an uncontrolled document. Page 2 of 35 PhoneSat 1.0 & PhoneSat 2.0Beta A240-0803-XS001 Orbital Debris Assessment Report (ODAR) Rev F *Approval signatures indicate acceptance of the ODAR-defined risk.
    [Show full text]
  • ISSC2019-Booklet-FIN
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration 2019 Conference Program 20–21 June Small satellite developments in: Science Goals and Instrumentation Interplanetary Missions, Systems, and Architectures Challenges of Small Satellites for Interplanetary Applications Proposed Spacecraft Subsystems and Technologies Management, Systems Engineering, Policy and Cost Hosted by: California Polytechnic State University (CalPoly) San Luis Obispo, CA April 29-30, 2019 www.intersmallsatconference.org © 2012-19 Interplanetary Small Satellite Conference. All rights reserved. Monday, April 29, 2019 Time Event 8:00-9:00 Registration & Breakfast 9:00-10:00 Keynote Speaker: Christopher E. Baker, NASA Headquarters 10:00-10:15 Coffee Break 10:15-11:30 Session A: EM-1 Missions Session chairs: A. Babuscia and M. Saing A.1 Update for the Lunar Ice Cube Mission (P. Clark) A.2 BioSentinel – Spacecraft and BioSensor Flight Unit Devel- opment (R. Hanel) A.3 Lunar Flashlight Mission Update (A. Marinan) A.4 Near Earth Asteroid Scout Mission Update (A. Marinan) A.5 The Lunar Polar Hydrogen Mapper Mission: Low-Altitude Planetary Neutron Spectroscopy (C. Hardgrove) 11:30-12:00 Session A Q&A Panel 12:00-13:00 Lunch 13:00-14:15 Session B: Autonomy and Tethers Concepts Session chairs: A. Marinan and Cassandra Kraver B.1 Autonomous Small Robot Swarms for Mars Mining Base Construction and Operation (J. Thangavelautham) B.2 Inflatable CubeSat-Sized Mars Sailplane for Science Re- connaissance (A. Chandra) B.3 Towards End to End Automated Design of Spacecraft Swarms for Small-Body Reconnaissance (R. Teja Nallapu) B.4 Automated Design and Control of Robot Swarms for Ex- ploration of Extreme Environments on the Moon and Mars (H.
    [Show full text]
  • Lunar ISRU 2019: Developing a New Space Economy Through Lunar Resources and Their Utilization
    Program Lunar ISRU 2019: Developing a New Space Economy Through Lunar Resources and Their Utilization July 15–17, 2019 • Columbia, Maryland Institutional Support Lunar and Planetary Institute Universities Space Research Association NASA Lunar Exploration Analysis Group Co-Conveners Stephen Mackwell American Institute of Physics Clive Neal University of Notre Dame Christopher Pestak Universities Space Research Association Science Organizing Committee Angel Abbud-Madrid Colorado School of Mines Dale Boucher Deltion Innovations Ltd., Canada Ben Bussey NASA Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate Leslie Gertsch Missouri University of Science and Technology John Gruener NASA Johnson Space Center Samuel Lawrence, LEAG Chair NASA Johnson Space Center Alex McDonald NASA Office of the Administrator Gerald Sanders NASA Johnson Space Center Nantel Suzuki NASA Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate Lunar and Planetary Institute 3600 Bay Area Boulevard Houston TX 77058-1113 Abstracts for this meeting are available via the meeting website at www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lunarisru2019/ Abstracts can be cited as Author A. B. and Author C. D. (2019) Title of abstract. In Lunar ISRU 2019: Developing a New Space Economy Through Lunar Resources and Their Utilization, Abstract #XXXX. LPI Contribution No. 2152, Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston. Guide to Sessions Lunar ISRU 2019: Developing a New Space Economy Through Lunar Resources and Their Utilization July 15–17, 2019 Columbia, Maryland Monday, July 15, 2019 8:30 a.m. USRA Conference Center Introduction and Updates 1:15 p.m. USRA Conference Center Marketing of Resources 5:00 p.m. USRA Education Gallery Poster Session: Characterization 5:00 p.m. USRA Education Gallery Poster Session: Identification of Resources 5:00 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • General Analysis of Cube Satellite Technology: an Overview
    International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887) Volume 178 – No. 21, June 2019 General Analysis of Cube Satellite Technology: An Overview Ritwik Sinha Ananya Verma Sachin Choudhary Department of E.C.E. Department of E.N. Department of E.C.E. Ajay Kumar Garg Engineering Ajay Kumar Garg Engineering Ajay Kumar Garg Engineering College (Affiliated to AKTU U.P., College (Affiliated to AKTU U.P., College (Affiliated to AKTU U.P., Lucknow) Lucknow) Lucknow) Ghaziabad, 201009, India Ghaziabad, 201009, India Ghaziabad, 201009, India ABSTRACT 2. DESIGN CubeSat technology has become a tool to encourage 2.1 An Overview engineering collaboration, to train students providing them It takes about years to prepare a standard spacecraft but with a platform for real-world space exploration. This CubeSats being relatively inexpensive, small and weighing provides advancements in the aerospace industry as well. just a few kilograms can be made ready to launch in a matter These satellites are made for a rather specific purpose than a of months. Standard CubeSats are made to provide 1 litre of conventional heavyweight satellite thereby reducing the cost. useful volume (10x10x10 cm), weighing no more than This paper discusses Cube Satellites, their design, salient 1.33Kg. The smallest size at CubeSat standard is 1U while features along with different applications and advancements The Aerospace Corporation has launched two 0.5U CubeSat. made in the field of CubeSat technology thus providing an The certain common variation includes 3U,6U,12U. It overview of a general analysis of CubeSat technology. supports Moore's Law of advancements in electronics, Keywords growing more powerful and sophisticated, lighter, and energy Cube Satellite Technology, Space System efficient.
    [Show full text]
  • TDRS Project Launches 2Nd Satellite in Less Than 1 Year When NASA Missions Talk, There Is a TDRS Space- the Data to the Designated Spacecraft
    2014 Spring Issue / A Flight Projects Directorate Publication TDRS Project Launches 2nd Satellite in Less than 1 Year When NASA missions talk, there is a TDRS space- the data to the designated spacecraft. craft close by, ready to listen. TDRS-L, the second Return data from the spacecraft is relayed through a child in the third generation of TDRS spacecraft, TDRS to a ground station, which in turn sends the launched at 9:33 p.m. EST on Thursday, January 23, data to a location designated by the spacecraft 2014 from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in owner or customer. As a spacecraft moves in orbit Florida. Now safely in orbit, TDRS-L joins its around the Earth, its communication signal moves sibling, TDRS-K, to replenish spacecraft already from one TDRS to another. flying in the TDRS constellation. TDRS spacecraft are the “go to” assets at the core of NASA’s Space (TDRS continued on page 6) Network. MAVEN Launch is Picture-Perfect The NASA Space Network operates by sending data from a ground station to a TDRS, which then relays An Atlas V 401 rocket carrying the Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution (MAVEN) space- Inside This Issue craft roared off Launch Complex 41 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station on November 18, 2013, Page at 1:28 p.m. EST. This event was a significant TDRS Project Launches 2nd Satellite 1 moment for many who had been working on the mission over the past decade. The launch occurred MAVEN Launch is Picture-Perfect 1 on the first opportunity of the tight planetary launch Message from the Director Of 2 period.
    [Show full text]
  • Architecting Space Communication Networks Marc Sanchez
    Architecting Space Communication Networks by Marc Sanchez Net Submitted to the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Aeronautics and Astronautics at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY June 2014 c Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2014. All rights reserved. Author.............................................................. Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics May 22, 2014 Certified by. Prof. Edward F. Crawley Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics and Engineering Systems Thesis Supervisor Accepted by . Prof. Paulo C. Lozano Associate Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics Chair, Graduate Program Committee 2 Architecting Space Communication Networks by Marc Sanchez Net Submitted to the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics on May 22, 2014, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Aeronautics and Astronautics Abstract Reliable communication and navigation services are critical to robotic and human space missions. NASA currently provides them through three independent and un- coordinated network that consist of both Earth-based and space-based assets, all managed under the Space Navigation and Communication Program. Nevertheless, the ever increasing mission requirements and funding limitations motivates the need of revising the current network architectures in order to identify areas of potential performance and cost efficiency improvements. The main objective of this thesis is to present a tool that helps decision-makers during the process of architecting a space communication network by (1) systemat- ically enumerating and exploring the space of alternative network architectures, (2) identifying those with better performance and lower cost, and (3) providing trace- ability between the outputs of the tool and the architecting decisions.
    [Show full text]