SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “orbit maintenance”
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.
How to Maneuver Around in Eccentricity Vector Space
The GRAIL mission to the Moon will be the first time that two separate robotic orbiters will be placed into formation in orbit around a body other than Earth. The need to design an efficient series of maneuvers to shape the orbits and phasing of the two orbiters after arrival presents a significant challenge to mission designers. This paper presents a simple geometric method for relating in-plane impulsive maneuvers to changes in the eccentricity vector, which determines the shape and orientation of an orbit in the orbit plane. Examples then show how such maneuvers can accommodate desired changes to other orbital elements such as period, incination, and longitude of the ascending node.
Spacecraft Software Maintenance: An Effective Approach to Reducing Costs and Increasing Science Return
Flight software is a mission critical element of spacecraft functionality and performance. When ground operations personnel interface to a spacecraft, they are typically dealing almost entirely with the capabilities of onboard software. This software, even more than critical ground/flight communications systems, is expected to perform perfectly during all phases of spacecraft life. Due to the fact that it can be reprogrammed on-orbit to accommodate degradations or failures in flight hardware, new insights into spacecraft characteristics, new control options which permit enhanced science options, etc., the on- orbit flight software maintenance team is usually significantly responsible for the long term success of a science mission. Failure of flight software to perform as needed can result in very expensive operations work-around costs and lost science opportunities. There are three basic approaches to maintaining spacecraft software--namely using the original developers, using the mission operations personnel, or assembling a center of excellence for multi-spacecraft software maintenance. Not planning properly for flight software maintenance can lead to unnecessarily high on-orbit costs and/or unacceptably long delays, or errors, in patch installations. A common approach for flight software maintenance is to access the original development staff. The argument for utilizing the development staff is that the people who developed the software will be the best people to modify the software on-orbit. However, it can quickly becomes a challenge to obtain the services of these key people. They may no longer be available to the organization. They may have a more urgent job to perform, quite likely on another project under different project management. If they havn't worked on the software for a long time, they may need precious time for refamiliarization to the software, testbeds and tools. Further, a lack of insight into issues related to flight software in its on-orbit environment, may find the developer unprepared for the challenges. The second approach is to train a member of the flight operations team to maintain the spacecraft software. This can prove to be a costly and inflexible solution. The person assigned to this duty may not have enough work to do during a problem free period and may have too much to do when a problem arises. If the person is a talented software engineer, he/she may not enjoy the limited software opportunities available in this position; and may eventually leave for newer technology computer science opportunities. Training replacement flight software personnel can be a difficult and lengthy process. The third approach is to assemble a center of excellence for on-orbit spacecraft software maintenance. Personnel in this specialty center can be managed to support flight software of multiple missions at once. The variety of challenges among a set of on-orbit missions, can result in a dedicated, talented staff which is fully trained and available to support each mission's needs. Such staff are not software developers but are rather spacecraft software systems engineers. The cost to any one mission is extremely low because the software staff works and charges, minimally on missions with no current operations issues; and their professional insight into on-orbit software troubleshooting and maintenance methods ensures low risk, effective and minimal-cost solutions to on-orbit issues.
Workshop in the sky
An evaluation of the historical experience of Apollo, Skylab, and the Space Shuttle shows it to be both feasible and prudent to furnish a minimal capability for Space Station maintenance. The ability to perform orbital replacement unit-related maintenance, as well as opportune in-orbit repair, is believed to be essential for crew and Station survival, mission effectiveness, and maximum productivity. Attention is given to problems associated with mechanical repair, welding, and composite bonding, as well as to recommended tools and procedures.
Morl configuration, maintenance, and installation concepts.
Manned Orbital Research Laboratory /MORL/ CONFIGURATION, design, installation and maintenance
Space tools and support equipment - Current technology and future requirements.
Space tools and supporting equipment developed for past and current missions are summarized, along with projected tool and powered maneuvering aid requirements for future earth orbital missions. These tools, designed for functions such as general maintenance, replacement and repair, are reviewed and classified according to their intended application. A synopsis of the Skylab on-orbit maintenance requirements is presented, and the tools necessary for accomplishing the maintenance functions are listed. The proposed missions for future Earth Orbital Systems are summarized, and the potential functions (e.g., Remove/Replace, Cargo Transfer, etc.) are outlined. The current tool and support technology status is compared with future requirements for crew equipment to determine if these future requirements can be adequately satisfied. Of particular interest is a discussion of the augmentation of the astronaut with teleoperators (remote manipulator systems).
Mission design for SEASAT-A, an oceanographic satellite
SEASAT-A is a NASA earth satellite for measuring global ocean dynamics from space. Launch is planned for May 1978. The instruments on the spacecraft will provide data on wave height and direction, surface wind speed and direction, ice fields, ocean surface topography and weather. This paper is concerned with the mission design for SEASAT-A. A primary topic here is the selection of the orbit which best satisfies the measurement objectives of the various instruments. The maintenance of this orbit under drag and other perturbations is discussed. The design of the mission profile is outlined. Finally precision orbit determination for SEASAT-A is discussed since it is required to maximize ocean topography accuracy.
Orbit analysis for Seasat-A
Seasat-A is a NASA earth satellite for measuring global ocean dynamics from space. The instruments on the spacecraft will provide data on wave height and direction, surface wind speed and direction, ice fields, ocean surface topography and atmospheric water content. This paper is concerned with the orbit analysis for Seasat-A. The first topic is the selection of the orbit which best satisfies the measurement objectives of the various instruments. The maintenance of this orbit under drag and other perturbations is also discussed. The second topic is precision orbit determination analysis which is required to achieve ocean topography objectives of the mission.
Space Station based operations and maintenance support to spacecraft, platforms, and orbit transfer vehicle (OTV)
The orbital servicing concepts developed for several existing and planned spacecraft are reviewed to illustrate the evolution and capabilities of Shuttle-based support services, and the potential range of future services are categorized by several criteria including transportation systems requirements, supporting facilities and equipment options, and servicing locations. Implications of Space Station-basing the services are described, along with possible implementing systems. In particular, the technique of 'formation flying' by means of which spacecraft may be physically isolated from each other while maintaining reasonable propellant requirements for maneuvers between them is explored by representative examples. OTV mission support is described as an evolutionary augmentation of the basic Space Station services.
Space Station crew workload - Station operations and customer accommodations
The features of the Space Station which permit crew members to utilize work time for payload operations are discussed. The user orientation, modular design, nonstressful flight regime, in space construction, on board control, automation and robotics, and maintenance and servicing of the Space Station are examined. The proposed crew size, skills, and functions as station operator and mission specialists are described. Mission objectives and crew functions, which include performing material processing, life science and astronomy experiments, satellite and payload equipment servicing, systems monitoring and control, maintenance and repair, Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle and Mobile Remote Manipulator System operations, on board planning, housekeeping, and health maintenance and recreation, are studied.
Technology advancements for servicing of future spacecraft systems
Problems associated with the in-orbit repair and maintenance of spacecraft systems are examined with reference to experience gained from three servicing missions: in-orbit capture, repair, and reflight of the Solar Maximum Mission satellite, capture and return to earth of the Palapa and Westar communications satellites, and in-orbit repair of Syncom 3. It is then shown how the lessons learned from the three servicing missions are applied to current and future servicing activities. In particular, planned servicing missions for the Hubble Space Telescope, tools and servicing facilities development, and the development of the Explorer Platform are discussed.
Multimission advanced configuration
The proposed multimission configuration reduces the number of reflectors present on the spacecraft and their related supporting structure (masts, booms) and at the same time divides the feed system from the reflector system for possible maintenance and/or payload substitution. This implies: An antenna system that is split into two parts: (1) the reflector with the platform (2) the feed subsystem with the payload. Reuse of the same reflector at different frequencies (to achieve this, the reflector system will use additional components, i.e., frequency sensitive subreflectors (FSS)). In case of in-orbit refurbishment or maintenance, the reflector system may remain in orbit with the platform. The presence of the FSS allows separation of the focal position sufficiently for the multiple-contoured beam applications required by future missions. There are two of these reflectors (one for TX function, one for RV deployed) on the east and west sides of the spacecraft, and the solar panels are on the north and south sides. The payloads are aligned along the yaw axis. Apart from the size, this configuration looks like a conventional spacecraft.
Lower payload costs through refurbishment and module replacement.
Payload benefits to be derived from refurbishment can be related to individual spacecraft programs directly and for planning purposes to the entire shuttle mission model. In the case of the large space telescope program, cost savings obtained through the use of the shuttle for maintenance operations have been estimated to be in the range from 30 to 40%. This saving is realized over an operational lifetime of 15 years by reducing, through refurbishment on orbit, the number of flight units along with 'optimized' reliability goals commensurate with periodic maintenance revisits at one-year intervals. Shuttle-era payload implications are discussed together with a pressurized on-orbit maintenance configuration, an earth observation satellite, and some typical teleoperator-serviced spacecraft.
Long duration space missions through use of in- flight maintenance.
Apollo Applications Program objectives, discussing revisitation and reuse of hardware left in orbit, in-flight maintenance for long duration space missions, etc
Orbital servicing of space platforms
NASA-MSFC is planning systems for the orbital servicing and maintenance of large geosynchronous platforms. The goal is to devise methods to maintain, update, and/or replace the basic spacecraft housekeeping equipment as well as the onboard mission equipment. The planning has passed through the feasibility demonstration level. A hard engineering test unit of such an on-orbit servicing system, complete with control system, is being tested and evaluated by MSFC.
Practical Applications of Cables and Ropes in the ISS Countermeasures System
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) uses exercise countermeasures on the International Space Station (ISS) to maintain crew health and combat the negative effects of long-duration spaceflight on the human body. Most ISS exercise countermeasures system (CMS) equipment rely heavily on the use of textile and wire ropes to transmit resistive loads and provide stability in a microgravity environment. For a variety of reasons, including challenges in simulating microgravity environments for testing and limits on time available for life cycle testing, the textiles and wire ropes have contributed significantly to on-orbit planned and unplanned maintenance time. As a result, continued ground testing and on-orbit experience since the first expedition on the ISS in 2000 provide valuable data and lessons learned in materials selection, applications, and design techniques to increase service life of these ropes. This paper will present a review of the development and failure history of textile and wire ropes for four exercise countermeasure systems-the Treadmill with Vibration Isolation and Stabilization (TVIS) System, Cycle Ergometer with Vibration Isolation and Stabilization (CEVIS) System, Interim Resistive Exercise Device (IRED), and the Advanced Resistive Exercise Device (ARED)-to identify lessons learned in order to improve future systems. These lessons learned, paired with thorough testing on the ground, offer a forward path towards reduced maintenance time and up-mass for future space missions.
The NASA Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) Mission: Objectives, Approach, and Status
The Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) is a NASA Earth System Science Pathfinder (ESSP) mission that is currently under development at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). OCO will make global, space-based measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) with the precision, resolution, and coverage needed to characterize regional-scale sources and sinks of this important greenhouse gas. The observatory consists of a dedicated spacecraft bus that carries a single instrument. The bus employs single-string version of Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC) LEOStar-2 architecture. This 3-axis stabilized bus includes a propulsion system for orbit insertion and maintenance, provides power, points the instrument, receives and processes commands from the ground, and records, stores, and downlinks science and engineering data. The OCO instrument incorporates 3 oboresighted, high resolution grating spectrometers that will make coincident measurements of reflected sunlight in near-infrared CO2 and molecular oxygen (O2) bands. The instrument was designed and manufactured by Hamilton Sundstrand (Pomona, CA), and then integrated, flight qualified, and calibrated by JPL. It is scheduled for delivery to OSC (Dulles, VA) for integration with the spacecraft bus in the spring of 2008. OCO will be launched from the Vandenberg Air Force Base on a dedicated OSC Taurus XL launch vehicle in December 2008. It will fly in formation with the Earth Observing System Afternoon Constellation, a group of satellites that files in a 98.8 minute, 705 km altitude, sun-synchronous orbit. This orbit provides coverage of the sunlit hemisphere with a 16-day ground track repeat cycle. OCO will fly approx.4 minutes ahead of the EOS Aqua platform, with an ascending nodal crossing time of approx.1:26 PM. The OCO science data will be transmitted to the NASA Ground Network Stations in Alaska and Virginia, and then transferred to the OCO Ground Data System at JPL. There, the CO2 and O2 spectra will be analyzed by the OCO Science Team to provide spatially resolved estimates of the column-averaged CO2 dry air mole fraction, XCO2. These measurements are expected to improve our understanding of the nature and processes that regulate atmospheric CO2 enabling more reliable forecasts of CO2 buildup and its impact on climate change.
Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) Thruster Control Mode Design and Flight Experience
National Aeronautics and Space Administration s (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) in Greenbelt, MD, designed, built, tested, and launched the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station on June 18, 2009. The LRO spacecraft is the first operational spacecraft designed to support NASA s return to the Moon, as part of the Vision for Space Exploration. LRO was launched aboard an Atlas V 401 launch vehicle into a direct insertion trajectory to the Moon. Twenty-four hours after separation the propulsion system was used to perform a mid-course correction maneuver. Four days after the mid-course correction a series of propulsion maneuvers were executed to insert LRO into its commissioning orbit. The commission period lasted eighty days and this followed by a second set of thruster maneuvers that inserted LRO into its mission orbit. To date, the spacecraft has been gathering invaluable data in support of human s future return to the moon. The LRO Attitude Control Systems (ACS) contains two thruster based control modes: Delta-H and Delta-V. The design of the two controllers are similar in that they are both used for 3-axis control of the spacecraft with the Delta-H controller used for momentum management and the Delta-V controller used for orbit adjust and maintenance maneuvers. In addition to the nominal purpose of the thruster modes, the Delta-H controller also has the added capability of performing a large angle slew maneuver. A suite of ACS components are used by the thruster based control modes, for both initialization and control. For initialization purposes, a star tracker or the Kalman Filter solution is used for providing attitude knowledge and upon entrance into the thruster based control modes attitude knowledge is provided via rate propagation using a inertial reference unit (IRU). Rate information for the controller is also supplied by the IRU. Three-axis control of the spacecraft in the thruster modes is provided by eight 5-lbf class attitude control thrusters configured in two sets of four thrusters for redundancy purposes. Four additional 20-lbf class thrusters configured in two sets of two thrusters are used for Lunar Orbit Insertion maneuvers. The propulsion system is one the few systems on-board the LRO spacecraft that has built in redundancy. The Delta-H controller consists of a Proportional-Derivative (PD) controller with a structural filter on the thrusters and a Proportional controller on the reaction wheels. The PD control that employs the thrusters is used for attitude and rate control. The Proportional controller on the reaction wheels is used for commanding the wheels to a new momentum state. The ground commands used for the Delta-H controller are the system momentum vector, reaction wheel momentum, maximum expected command time, and which set of attitude control thrusters to use. The ability to command both the system momentum vector and reaction wheel momentum in the Delta-H controller provides both a capability and an additional source of operator error. Large angle slews via the Delta-H controller is achievable via this commands because these commands are used for the exit mode criteria. Setting these commands to non-consistent values prevents the mode from exiting nominally.