Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Trajectory Correction Maneuver”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

191 records · Page 11
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1997

Dynamic Forms: Application to Aircraft Guidance - Part 2

The paper describes a method for guiding a dynamic system through a given set of points. The paradigm is a fully automatic aircraft subject to air traffic control (ATC). The ATC provides a sequence of waypoints through which the aircraft trajectory must pass. The waypoints typically specify time, position, and velocity. The guidance problem is to synthesize a system state trajectory that satisfies both the ATC and aircraft constraints. Complications arise because the controlled process is multidimensional, multiaxis, nonlinear, highly coupled, and the state space is not flat. In addition, there is a multitude of operating modes, which may number in the hundreds. Each such mode defines a distinct state space model of the process by specifying the state space coordinatization, the partition of the controls into active controls and configuration controls, and the output map. Furthermore, mode transitions are required to be smooth. The proposed guidance algorithm is based on the inversion of the pure feedback approximation, followed by correction for the effects of zero dynamics. The paper describes the structure and major modules of the algorithm, and the performance is illustrated by several example aircraft maneuvers.

Meyer, George↗
NASA NTRS1996

Guidance of Nonlinear Systems

The paper describes a method for guiding a dynamic system through a given set of points. The paradigm is a fully automatic aircraft subject to air traffic control (ATC). The ATC provides a sequence of way points through which the aircraft trajectory must pass. The way points typically specify time, position, and velocity. The guidance problem is to synthesize a system state trajectory which satisfies both the ATC and aircraft constraints. Complications arise because the controlled process is multi-dimensional, multi-axis, nonlinear, highly coupled, and the state space is not flat. In addition, there is a multitude of possible operating modes, which may number in the hundreds. Each such mode defines a distinct state space model of the process by specifying the state space coordination, the partition of the controls into active controls and configuration controls, and the output map. Furthermore, mode transitions must be smooth. The guidance algorithm is based on the inversion of the pure feedback approximations, which is followed by iterative corrections for the effects of zero dynamics. The paper describes the structure and modules of the algorithm, and the performance is illustrated by several example aircraft maneuvers.

Meyer, George↗
NASA NTRS1997

Guidance of Nonlinear Systems

The paper describes a method for guiding a dynamic system through a given set of points. The paradigm is a fully automatic aircraft subject to air traffic control (ATC). The ATC provides a sequence of way points through which the aircraft trajectory must pass. The way points typically specify time, position, and velocity. The guidance problem is to synthesize a system state trajectory which satisfies both the ATC and aircraft constraints. Complications arise because the controlled process is multi-dimensional, multi-axis, nonlinear, highly coupled, and the state space is not flat. In addition, there is a multitude of possible operating modes, which may number in the hundreds. Each such mode defines a distinct state space model of the process by specifying the state space coordinatization, the partition of the controls into active controls and configuration controls, and the output map. Furthermore, mode transitions must be smooth. The guidance algorithm is based on the inversion of the pure feedback approximations, which is followed by iterative corrections for the effects of zero dynamics. The paper describes the structure and modules of the algorithm, and the performance is illustrated by several example aircraft maneuvers.

Meyer, George↗
NASA NTRS2002

The MAP Propulsion Subsystem

This paper describes the requirements, design, integration, test, performance, and lessons learned of NASA's Microwave Anisotropy Probe (MAP) propulsion subsystem. MAP was launched on a Delta-II launch vehicle from NASA's Kennedy Space Center on June 30, 2001. Due to instrument thermal stability requirements, the Earth-Sun L2 Lagrange point was selected for the mission orbit. The L2 trajectory incorporated phasing loops and a lunar gravity assist. The propulsion subsystem's requirements are to manage momentum, perform maneuvers during the phasing loops to set up the lunar swingby, and perform stationkeeping at L2 for 2 years. MAP's propulsion subsystem uses 8 thrusters which are located and oriented to provide attitude control and momentum management about all axes, and delta-V in any direction without exposing the instrument to the sun. The propellant tank holds 72 kg of hydrazine, which is expelled by unregulated blowdown pressurization. Thermal management is complex because no heater cycling is allowed at L2. Several technical challenges presented themselves during I and T, such as in-situ weld repairs and in-situ bending of thruster tubes to accommodate late changes in the observatory CG. On-orbit performance has been nominal, and all phasing loop, mid-course correction, and stationkeeping maneuvers have been successfully performed to date.

Davis, Gary T.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

James Webb Space Telescope Navigation Optimization Challenges

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is a NASA flagship mission launched on December 25, 2021. The early orbit phase was highlighted by three midcourse correction burns that were performed to maneuver the vehicle into a libration orbit at the second Sun-Earth-Moon (SEM) libration point (L2). During the coast to L2, the vehicle’s primary observatory and sunshield were deployed. Once the tennis-court-sized sunshield was unfurled and tensioned into place, the large area exposed to solar radiation pressure (SRP) dictated that the SRP force model would need to account for the vehicle’s geometry, reflective properties, and orientation relative to the Sun. Following the insertion of JWST into its L2 libration orbit on January 24, 2022, the commissioning phase for the vehicle’s observatory commenced along with the first cycle of routine station-keeping maneuvers. The NASA Goddard Space Flight Center’s Flight Dynamics Facility (FDF) provides navigation services for the JWST mission. The FDF serves as the prime or backup navigation operations center for more than 30 active missions spanning a wide array of flight regimes performing orbit determination, maneuver planning, trajectory optimization, and tracking data evaluation. Definitive orbit determination for JWST is performed by the FDF using an Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) to estimate the vehicle’s trajectory and reflective properties using Deep Space Network (DSN) TRK-2-34 tracking data and spacecraft attitude telemetry. For the purposes of orbit prediction and station-keeping maneuver targeting, the sensitivity of the SRP force to the vehicle’s orientation requires that predictive attitude information must be incorporated to generate accurate orbit predictions and maneuver plans. Predictive attitude plans are provided to the FDF by the JWST Spacecraft Operations Center (SOC). Short-term (28 day) orbit predictions are propagated using a Short Range Attitude Plan (SRAP) to model the vehicle’s future attitude states for up to a week. SRAP attitude data is highly reliable, as it reflects finalized planned attitude states that the vehicle will be commanded to attain during the ensuing week. A Long Range Attitude Plan (LRAP) can be implemented to model predicted attitude states beyond one week, but these predictions are tentative and subject to revision due to changes in science operations plans. Instead, a conservative approach of applying a Sun-Pointing Neutral (SPN) attitude configuration is utilized for long-term (2 year) orbit predictions where reliable planned attitude data is not available. SPN attitude mode aligns the net SRP force along the JWST-to-Sun vector where it becomes independent of the vehicle’s angle of rotation about this vector, defined as the Sun yaw. Given the dynamic instability of the libration orbit, station-keeping thrust must be applied in either the sunward or anti-sunward direction to balance the resulting orbit. The attitude constraints of the vehicle also impose limits on the available pointing directions for station-keeping thrusters. The thrusters cannot be aligned with the optimal pointing direction for sunward maneuvers, rendering sunward maneuvers to be significantly less fuel efficient than anti-sunward maneuvers. Consequently, station-keeping maneuvers must be targeted to balance the orbit while ensuring that the next maneuver will also be performed in the anti-sunward direction to optimize propellant usage. When targeting a station-keeping maneuver, the attitude and SRP modeling configuration which is applied to the predicted post-maneuver trajectory will dictate the direction of the subsequent station-keeping maneuver, assuming nominal propulsion system performance. If the predicted post-maneuver attitude states result in an SRP model which under-predicts the cumulative SRP impact on the post-maneuver orbit, a targeted anti-sunward maneuver will be larger than necessary and the next maneuver will need to be executed sunward in order to compensate. In contrast, an anti-sunward maneuver which is targeted using an SRP model which over-predicts the cumulative SRP impact will achieve station-keeping while ensuring that the next maneuver will likewise be performed anti-sunward. For this reason, station-keeping maneuvers are targeted while applying the SPN attitude mode, as this mode entails the largest possible SRP area cross-section and therefore a larger modeled cumulative SRP impact. This paper documents the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center’s FDF support for JWST on-orbit operations and the analysis projects undertaken utilizing the experiences and data accumulated throughout the first full year of routine science operations. The results of these analysis efforts have been used to implement improvements to orbit prediction accuracy and maneuver efficiency which have the potential to prolong the lifespan of JWST to continue to conduct ground-breaking infrared astronomy for decades to come.

Flight Dynamics↗
NASA NTRS2016

A Numerical Approach to Estimate the Ballistic Coefficient of Space Debris from TLE Orbital Data

Low Earth Orbit (LEO) is full of space debris, which consist of spent rocket stages, old satellites and fragments from explosions and collisions. As of 2009, more than 21,000 orbital debris larger than 10 cm are known to exist], and while it is hard to track anything smaller than that, the estimated population of particles between 1 and 10 cm in diameter is approximately 500,000, whereas small as 1 cm exceeds 100 million. These objects orbit Earth with huge kinetic energies speeds usually exceed 7 kms. The shape of their orbit varies from almost circular to highly elliptical and covers all LEO, a region in space between 160 and 2,000 km above sea level. Unfortunately, LEO is also the place where most of our active satellites are situated, as well as, International Space Station (ISS) and Hubble Space Telescope, whose orbits are around 400 and 550 km above sea level, respectively.This poses a real threat as debris can collide with satellites and deal substantial damage or even destroy them.Collisions between two or more debris create clouds of smaller debris, which are harder to track and increase overall object density and collision probability. At some point, the debris density couldthen reach a critical value, which would start a chain reaction and the number of space debris would grow exponentially. This phenomenon was first described by Kessler in 1978 and he concluded that it would lead to creation of debris belt, which would vastly complicate satellite operations in LEO. The debris density is already relatively high, as seen from several necessary debris avoidance maneuvers done by Shuttle, before it was discontinued, and ISS. But not all satellites have a propulsion system to avoid collision, hence different methods need to be applied. One of the proposed collision avoidance concepts is called LightForce and it suggests using photon pressure to induce small orbital corrections to deflect debris from colliding. This method is very efficient as seen from theoretical simulations, even few continuous mode 10 kW ground-based lasers, focused by 1.5 m telescopes with adaptive optics, were enough to prevent significant amount of the debris collisions. Simulations were done by propagating all space objects in LEO by 1 year into the future and checking whether the probability of collision was high. For those space objects different ground-based lasers were used to divert them, afterwards collision probabilities were reevaluated. However, the actual accuracy of the LightForce software, which has been developed at NASA AmesResearch Center, depends on the veracity of the input parameters, one of which is the objects ballistic coefficient. It is a measure of bodys ability to overcome air resistance, which has a significant impact on the debris in LEO, and thus it is responsible for the shape of the trajectory of the debris. Having the exact values of the ballistic coefficient would make significantly better collision predictions, unfortunately, we do not know what are the values for most of the objects.In this research, we were working with part of LightForce code, which estimates the ballistic coefficient from ephemerides. Previously used method gave highly inaccurate values, when compared to known objects, and it needed to be changed. The goal of this work was to try out a different method of estimating the ballistic coefficient and to check whether or not it gives noticeable improvements.

Collisions↗
NASA NTRS2011

Long Term Missions at the Sun-Earth Libration Point L1: ACE, SOHO, and WIND

Three heliophysics missions -- the Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE), Solar Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO), and the Global Geoscience WIND -- have been orbiting the Sun-Earth interior libration point L1 continuously since 1997, 1996, and 2004, respectively. ACE and WIND (both NASA missions) and SOHO (an ESA-NASA joint mission) are all operated from the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). While ACE and SOHO have been dedicated libration point orbiters since their launches, WIND has had also a remarkable 10-year career flying a deep-space, multiple lunar-flyby trajectory prior to 2004. That era featured 36 targeted lunar flybys with excursions to both L1 and L2 before its final insertion in L1 orbit. A figure depicts the orbits of the three spacecraft, showing projections of the orbits onto the orthographic planes of a solar rotating ecliptic frame of reference. The SOHO orbit is a quasi-periodic halo orbit, where the frequencies of the in-plane and out-of-plane motions are practically equal. Such an orbit is seen to repeat itself with a period of approximately 178 days. For ACE and WIND, the frequencies of the in-plane and out-of-plane motions are unequal, giving rise to the characteristic Lissajous motion. ACE's orbit is of moderately small amplitude, whereas WIND's orbit is a large-amplitude Lissajous of dimensions close to those of the SOHO halo orbit. As motion about the collinear points is inherently unstable, stationkeeping maneuvers are necessary to prevent orbital decay and eventual escape from the L1 region. Though the three spacecraft are dissimilar (SOHO is a 3-axis stabilized Sun pointer, WIND is a spin-stabilized ecliptic pole pointer, and ACE is also spin-stabilized with its spin axis maintained between 4 and 20 degrees of the Sun), the stationkeeping technique for the three is fundamentally the same. The technique consists of correcting the energy of the orbit via a delta-V directed parallel or anti-parallel to the Spacecraft-to-Sun line. SOHO achieves this using thrusters oriented in line with the solar direction. WIND achieves the delta-V via pulsing radial thrusters when aligned with the Sun. ACE uses axial thrusters to apply delta-V with a component that is 94% or more aligned with the ACE-Sun line. Sunward thrust adds energy to the orbit preventing decay back toward Earth. Thrust directed anti-Sunward takes energy out of the L1 orbit, thereby preventing escape from the Earth-Moon system into independent heliocentric orbit. Libration point orbit stationkeeping delta-V costs grow exponentially with time elapsed from the last maneuver performed. The doubling time constant is approximately 16 days. For the sake of fuel conservation, and for limiting the absolute magnitude of propulsion performance errors, stationkeeping maneuvers should be performed before the delta-V grows too large; for our purposes 'too large' is considered to be greater than 0.5 m/sec. In practice, the typical interval between burns for this trio is about three months, and the typical delta-V is much smaller than 0.5 m/sec. Typical annual stationkeeping costs have been around 1.0 m/sec for ACE and WIND, and much less than that for SOHO. All three spacecraft have ample fuel remaining; barring contingencies all three could, in principle, be maintained at L1 for decades to come. This paper will review the L1 orbits and the mission history of ACE, WIND, and SOHO, and describe the stationkeeping techniques and orbit maneuver experience. The Lissajous phase control that was practiced for ACE during the period from 1999 to 2001 will also be briefly discussed. The final section will consider the future of these ongoing missions.

Roberts, Craig E.↗
NASA NTRS2008

SPICE Module for the Satellite Orbit Analysis Program (SOAP)

A SPICE module for the Satellite Orbit Analysis Program (SOAP) precisely represents complex motion and maneuvers in an interactive, 3D animated environment with support for user-defined quantitative outputs. (SPICE stands for Spacecraft, Planet, Instrument, Camera-matrix, and Events). This module enables the SOAP software to exploit NASA mission ephemeris represented in the JPL Ancillary Information Facility (NAIF) SPICE formats. Ephemeris types supported include position, velocity, and orientation for spacecraft and planetary bodies including the Sun, planets, natural satellites, comets, and asteroids. Entire missions can now be imported into SOAP for 3D visualization, playback, and analysis. The SOAP analysis and display features can now leverage detailed mission files to offer the analyst both a numerically correct and aesthetically pleasing combination of results that can be varied to study many hypothetical scenarios. The software provides a modeling and simulation environment that can encompass a broad variety of problems using orbital prediction. For example, ground coverage analysis, communications analysis, power and thermal analysis, and 3D visualization that provide the user with insight into complex geometric relations are included. The SOAP SPICE module allows distributed science and engineering teams to share common mission models of known pedigree, which greatly reduces duplication of effort and the potential for error. The use of the software spans all phases of the space system lifecycle, from the study of future concepts to operations and anomaly analysis. It allows SOAP software to correctly position and orient all of the principal bodies of the Solar System within a single simulation session along with multiple spacecraft trajectories and the orientation of mission payloads. In addition to the 3D visualization, the user can define numeric variables and x-y plots to quantitatively assess metrics of interest.

Coggi, John↗
NASA NTRS2011

Multi-Maneuver Clohessy-Wiltshire Targeting

Orbital rendezvous involves execution of a sequence of maneuvers by a chaser vehicle to bring the chaser to a desired state relative to a target vehicle while meeting intermediate and final relative constraints. Intermediate and final relative constraints are necessary to meet a multitude of requirements such as to control approach direction, ensure relative position is adequate for operation of space-to-space communication systems and relative sensors, provide fail-safe trajectory features, and provide contingency hold points. The effect of maneuvers on constraints is often coupled, so the maneuvers must be solved for as a set. For example, maneuvers that affect orbital energy change both the chaser's height and downrange position relative to the target vehicle. Rendezvous designers use experience and rules-of-thumb to design a sequence of maneuvers and constraints. A non-iterative method is presented for targeting a rendezvous scenario that includes a sequence of maneuvers and relative constraints. This method is referred to as Multi-Maneuver Clohessy-Wiltshire Targeting (MM_CW_TGT). When a single maneuver is targeted to a single relative position, the classic CW targeting solution is obtained. The MM_CW_TGT method involves manipulation of the CW state transition matrix to form a linear system. As a starting point for forming the algorithm, the effects of a series of impulsive maneuvers on the state are derived. Simple and moderately complex examples are used to demonstrate the pattern of the resulting linear system. The general form of the pattern results in an algorithm for formation of the linear system. The resulting linear system relates the effect of maneuver components and initial conditions on relative constraints specified by the rendezvous designer. Solution of the linear system includes the straight-forward inverse of a square matrix. Inversion of the square matrix is assured if the designer poses a controllable scenario - a scenario where the the constraints can be met by the sequence of maneuvers. Matrices in the linear system are dependent on selection of maneuvers and constraints by the designer, but the matrices are independent of the chaser's initial conditions. For scenarios where the sequence of maneuvers and constraints are fixed, the linear system can be formed and the square matrix inverted prior to real-time operations. Example solutions are presented for several rendezvous scenarios to illustrate the utility of the method. The MM_CW_TGT method has been used during the preliminary design of rendezvous scenarios and is expected to be useful for iterative methods in the generation of an initial guess and corrections.

Dannemiller, David P.↗
NASA NTRS2010

A General Closed-Form Solution for the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) Antenna Pointing System

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration s (NASA) Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) launched on June 18, 2009 from the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station aboard an Atlas V launch vehicle into a direct insertion trajectory to the Moon LRO, designed, built, and operated by the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD, is gathering crucial data on the lunar environment that will help astronauts prepare for long-duration lunar expeditions. During the mission s nominal life of one year its six instruments and one technology demonstrator will find safe landing site, locate potential resources, characterize the radiation environment and test new technology. To date, LRO has been operating well within the bounds of its requirements and has been collecting excellent science data images taken from the LRO Camera Narrow Angle Camera (LROC NAC) of the Apollo landing sites have appeared on cable news networks. A significant amount of information on LRO s science instruments is provided at the LRO mission webpage. LRO s Attitude Control System (ACS), in addition to controlling the orientation of the spacecraft is also responsible for pointing the High Gain Antenna (HGA). A dual-axis (or double-gimbaled) antenna, deployed on a meter-long boom, is required to point at a selected Earth ground station. Due to signal loss over the distance from the Moon to Earth, pointing precision for the antenna system is very tight. Since the HGA has to be deployed in spaceflight, its exact geometry relative to the spacecraft body is uncertain. In addition, thermal distortions and mechanical errors/tolerances must be characterized and removed to realize the greatest gain from the antenna system. These reasons necessitate the need for an in-flight calibration. Once in orbit around the moon, a series of attitude maneuvers was conducted to provide data needed to determine optimal parameters to load onboard, which would account for the environmental and mechanical errors at any antenna orientation. The nominal geometry for the HGA involves an outer gimbal axis that is exactly perpendicular to the inner gimbal axis, and a target direction that is exactly perpendicular to the outer gimbal axis. For this nominal geometry, closed-form solutions of the desired gimbal angles are simple to get for a desired target direction specified in the spacecraft body fame. If the gimbal axes and the antenna boresight are slightly misaligned, the nominal closed-form solution is not sufficiently accurate for computing the gimbal angles needed to point at a target. In this situation, either a general closed-form solution has to be developed for a mechanism with general geometries, or a correction scheme has to be applied to the nominal closed-form solutions. The latter has been adopted for Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) as can be seen in Reference 1, and the former has been used for LRO. The advantage of the general closed-form solution is the use of a small number of parameters for the correction of nominal solutions, especially in the regions near singularities. Singularities here refer to cases when the nominal closed-form solutions have two or more solutions. Algorithm complexity, however, is the disadvantage of the general closed-form solution.

Shah, Neerav↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Strategy for Developing Technologies for Megawatt-class Nuclear Electric Propulsion Systems

In late fiscal year 2020, the Space Nuclear Propulsion (SNP) project began the process of formulating an investment strategy to support development of the technologies required for a high-power (megawatt-class) nuclear electric propulsion (NEP) system capable of performing human-scale missions. This activity was initiated concurrent with several high-level studies and assessments were either under way or had just concluded. Studies of human-scale Mars missions have been performed several times over the past two decades. One of the most recent studies examined opposition-class human Mars missions to occur in the late 2030s timeframe [1,2]. The mission architecture assumed a hybrid NEP/chem-propelled vehicle that used a high specific impulse (Isp) NEP-system and a liquid oxygen (LOx)-liquid methane high thrust chemical stage (two 110 kN (25 klbf) thrust, 365 s Isp engines) for maneuvers performed to enter and exit gravity wells. Trajectory analyses performed in this study showed that such a mission could be performed with 2-4 MWe directed into the electric propulsion system (operating for 20,000+ hours), with the large range representing different opposition-class Mars mission opportunities and permutations on the trajectory design, concept of operations, and technology choices. In 2020, the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) performed a study to evaluate the maturity of the different technologies required for nuclear propulsion systems [3]. The executive summary of this report provided the following top-level conclusions: • “The majority of critical technologies for… NEP/Chem… systems are relatively immature” • “TRLs [technology readiness levels] in the literature are often overestimated” • “The majority of critical technologies… for NEP/Chem… systems are at a relatively high level of advancement degree of difficulty (AD2 > 4) for maturation, requiring a dual development approach” • “The proper assessment of baseline TRL and AD2 values and the estimation of requirements and resources required for advancement have been consistent issues for NEP,” • “Non-advocate reviews should occur at the start of a technology program and at all key milestones.” In 2021, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) issued a separate report [4] identifying the “primary technical and programmatic challenges, merits, and risks for maturing space nuclear propulsion technologies of interest to a future human Mars exploration mission.” That work contained several important findings, including: • “Developing a MWe-class NEP system for the baseline mission would require increasing power by orders of magnitude relative to NEP system flight- or ground-based technology demonstrations completed to date.” • “Subscale in-space flight testing of NEP systems cannot address many of the risks and potential failure modes associated with the baseline mission NEP system. With sufficient M&S [modeling & simulation] and ground testing, including modular subsystem tests at full scale and power, flight qualification requirements can be met by the cargo missions that will precede the first crewed mission to Mars. Fully integrated ground testing may not be required.” • “As a result of low and intermittent investment over the past several decades, it is unclear if even an aggressive program would be able to develop an NEP system capable of executing the baseline mission in 2039.” These efforts motivated the SNP project to investigate the technologies available for a megawatt-class high power nuclear electric propulsion system. That system is illustrated schematically in Figure 1 and is comprised of five separate top-level critical technology elements (CTEs). 1. Nuclear Reactor – Thermal power source for the system, utilizing high-assay low enriched uranium (HALEU) as the nuclear fuel. Reactor radiation shielding is also included in this CTE. 2. Power Conversion – Operates as a thermodynamic cycle, accepting nuclear reactor thermal power as an input and converting it to mechanical power. 3. Power Management and Distribution (PMAD) – Accepts as an input mechanical power from the power conversion system, which is used to generate electrical power. The PMAD system also distributes the generated electrical power to all other parts of the spacecraft, including the high-power EP system. The PMAD system may also perform duties such as isolation, fault detection, and power transformation/rectification for different spacecraft systems, including the thrusters. 4. Electric Propulsion (EP) – Accepts as an input electrical power, which is used to accelerate a propellant to high speeds to produce thrust. This system includes the power processing unit (PPU), which converts the power it receives to the correct current and voltage required by the thrusters, and the propellant storage and feed systems, which contain and meter the flow of propellant to the thrusters. 5. Thermal Management (Radiators/Heat Rejection) – The cold side of the thermodynamic power conversion cycle, accepts thermal power from the power conversion system and radiatively rejects that heat to space. In this paper, we describe the SNP project formulation and investment strategy that aims to accomplish the research and development required to advance the technology readiness for each CTE. The strategy relies heavily upon experimental testing supported by modeling and simulation to yield realistic assessments of the technologies, which in turn will be used to inform future NEP system-level design decisions and any potential technology downselects.

Kurt A Polzin↗