Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “LAUNCH DATE”

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.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2015

NIR Color vs Launch Date: A 20-Year Analysis of Space Weathering Effects on the Boeing 376 Spacecraft

The Boeing HS‐376 spin stabilized spacecraft was a popular design that was launched continuously into geosynchronous orbit starting in 1980 with the last launch occurring in 2002. Over 50 of the HS‐376 buses were produced to fulfill a variety of different communication missions for countries all over the world. The design of the bus is easily approximated as a telescoping cylinder that is covered with solar cells and an Earth facing antenna that is despun at the top of the cylinder. The similarity in design and the number of spacecraft launched over a long period of time make the HS‐376 a prime target for studying the effects of solar weathering on solar panels as a function of time. A selection of primarily non‐operational HS‐376 spacecraft launched over a 20 year time period were observed using the United Kingdom Infrared Telescope on Mauna Kea and multi‐band near‐infrared photometry produced. Each spacecraft was observed for an entire night cycling through ZYJHK filters and time‐varying colors produced to compare near‐infrared color as a function of launch date. The resulting analysis shown here may help in the future to set launch date constraints on the parent object of unidentified debris objects or other unknown spacecraft.

Frith, James↗
NASA NTRS2017

Sensitivity of the Asteroid Redirect Robotic Mission (ARRM) to Launch Date and Asteroid Stay Time

National Aeronautics and Space Administrations (NASAs) proposed Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) is being designed to robotically capture and then redirect an asteroidal boulder into a stable orbit in the vicinity of the moon, where astronauts would be able to visit and study it. The current reference trajectory for the robotic portion, ARRM, assumes a launch on a Delta-IV H in the end of the calendar year 2021, with a return for astronaut operations in cislunar space in 2026. The current baseline design allocates 245 days of stay time at the asteroid for operations and boulder collection. This paper outlines analysis completed by the ARRM mission design team to understand the sensitivity of the reference trajectory to launch date and asteroid stay time.

asteroid↗
NASA NTRS2017

Sensitivity of the Asteroid Redirect Robotic Mission (ARRM) to Launch Date and Asteroid Stay Time

National Aeronautics and Space Administrations (NASAs) proposed Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) is being designed to robotically capture and then redirect an asteroidal boulder mass into a stable orbit in the vicinity of the moon, where astronauts would be able to visit and study it. The current reference trajectory for the robotic portion, ARRM, assumes a launch on a Delta IV H in the end of the calendar year 2021, with a return for astronaut operations in cislunar space in 2026. The current baseline design allocates 245 days of stay time at the asteroid for operations and boulder collection. This paper outlines analysis completed by the ARRM mission design team to understand the sensitivity of the reference trajectory to launch date and asteroid stay time.

trajectory analysis↗
NASA NTRS1996

Trajectory Optimization of an Interstellar Mission Using Solar Electric Propulsion

This paper presents several mission designs for heliospheric boundary exploration using spacecraft with low-thrust ion engines as the primary mode of propulsion The mission design goal is to transfer a 200-kg spacecraft to the heliospheric boundary in minimum time. The mission design is a combined trajectory and propulsion system optimization problem. Trajectory design variables include launch date, launch energy, burn and coast arc switch times, thrust steering direction, and planetary flyby conditions. Propulsion system design parameters include input power and specific impulse. Both SEP and NEP spacecraft arc considered and a wide range of launch vehicle options are investigated. Numerical results are presented and comparisons with the all chemical heliospheric missions from Ref 9 are made.

Kluever, Craig A.↗
NASA NTRS2005

Environmental Conditions for Space Flight Hardware: A Survey

Interest in generalization of the physical environment experienced by NASA hardware from the natural Earth environment (on the launch pad), man-made environment on Earth (storage acceptance an d qualification testing), the launch environment, and the space environment, is ed to find commonality among our hardware in an effort to reduce cost and complexity. NASA is entering a period of increase in its number of planetary missions and it is important to understand how our qualification requirements will evolve with and track these new environments. Environmental conditions are described for NASA projects in several ways for the different periods of the mission life cycle. At the beginning, the mission manager defines survivability requirements based on the mission length, orbit, launch date, launch vehicle, and other factors . such as the use of reactor engines. Margins are then applied to these values (temperature extremes, vibration extremes, radiation tolerances, etc,) and a new set of conditions is generalized for design requirements. Mission assurance documents will then assign an additional margin for reliability, and a third set of values is provided for during testing. A fourth set of environmental condition values may evolve intermittently from heritage hardware that has been tested to a level beyond the actual mission requirement. These various sets of environment figures can make it quite confusing and difficult to capture common hardware environmental requirements. Environmental requirement information can be found in a wide variety of places. The most obvious is with the individual projects. We can easily get answers to questions about temperature extremes being used and radiation tolerance goals, but it is more difficult to map the answers to the process that created these requirements: for design, for qualification, and for actual environment with no margin applied. Not everyone assigned to a NASA project may have that kind of insight, as many have only the environmental requirement numbers needed to do their jobs but do not necessarily have a programmatic-level understanding of how all of the environmental requirements fit together.

Plante, Jeannette↗
NASA NTRS1990

Attitude-dependent launch window analysis for the Hubble Space Telescope Mission

Launch window analysis for Space Shuttle missions determines the launch times which will ensure that all payload and Shuttle requirements for the mission are met. Attitude and pointing analysis determines Shuttle Orbiter attitudes that meet various communication, viewing, and thermal requirements for the Orbiter and its payloads. Historically, launch window analysis and attitude and pointing analysis for Shuttle missions have been done separately, without directly influencing each other. However, methods have been developed to consider simultaneously dependencies between launch window and attitude and pointing requirements if they arise. These methods were developed from the launch window analysis for STS-31, the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) deployment mission. To release the HST, the Orbiter attitude had to remain inertially fixed while pointing the HST at the Sun. The Orbiter release attitude and the HST release time were determined from the position of the Sun and varied with launch time and launch date. The launch window analysis for STS-31 centered on how to determine the range of launch times for a given launch date that would allow the Shuttle to release the HST and simultaneously satisfy communication, attitude, and lighting requirements for the deployment operations. Discussed here are how the HST deployment requirements determined the launch window and how the Orbiter release attitude affected the launch window.

Lenio, James A.↗
NASA NTRS1975

The 1975 report on active and planned spacecraft and experiments

Information is presented on current and planned spacecraft activity for various disciplines: astronomy, earth sciences, meteorology, planetary sciences, aeronomy, solar physics, and life sciences. For active orbiting spacecraft, the epoch date, orbit type, orbit period, apoasis, periapsis, and inclination are given along with the spacecraft weight, launch date, launch site, launch vehicle, and sponsoring agency. For each planned orbiting spacecraft, the orbit parameters, planned launch date, launch site, launch vehicle, spacecraft weight, and sponsoring agency are given.

Horowitz, R.↗
NASA NTRS1975

Supplement to the December 1974 Space Investigation Documentation System (SIDS) report

A listing and brief description of spacecraft and experiments designed to update the December 1974 Space Investigations Documentation System (SIDS) report to March 31, 1975 was presented. The information is given in two sections. In the first, spacecraft and experiment descriptions are sorted by spacecraft common name. Within each spacecraft lising, experiments are sorted by the principal investigator's or team leader's last name. Each spacecraft entry heading contains the spacecraft common name, alternate names, NSSDC ID code, last reported state of the spacecraft, actual or planned launch date, weight, launch site and vehicle, sponsor, orbit parameters, personnel. Each experiment entry heading contains the experiment name, NSSDC ID code, last reported status, the Office of Space Science (OSS) division, the relevant SIDS disciplines, personnel. In the second, all spacecraft and experiment names described in the previous section and in the December 1974 report are sorted out.

Source record↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Aerocapture Solutions for Uranus Flagship-class Orbiter and Probe

Recent planetary mission assessments, such as the 2022 Planetary Science Decadal Survey released by the National Academies of Science, have focused on the need for a flagship-class mission to the Ice Giant planets, particularly Uranus. The Uranus Orbit and Probe mission proposal was used by the National Academies of Science as the baseline while making its recommendation as the top flagship-class mission for NASA in the 2020-2030\'s. This mission which was based on a launch date of 2031 or 2032, used a fully-propulsive orbit insertion maneuver at Uranus (requiring 60-70% of total mass for propellant), and reached the planet after 13 years of interplanetary cruise before the 2049 equinox, a goal of the science community. A pre-2033 launch date is required to conduct a necessary Jupiter fly-by as the giant planet will be not be in the proper alignment for a later launch date. However, as the budget constraints of the NASA budget have pushed back the start date of a Uranus mission, a launch date of a flagship mission before 2033 seems unreasonable. Aerocapture, an orbit insertion maneuver that uses the atmosphere to decelerate, can reduce the propellant load needed for a captured orbit. Additionally, the aerocapture maneuver can decelerate safely while approaching the planet at higher arrival velocities, thus allowing a mission to use a highly energetic trajectory and reduce the cruise time by several years. An aerocapture-enabled solution has launch opportunities in the mid 2030's, including as late as 2038 to reach Uranus by 2049. This paper will discuss the feasibility of an aerocapture option for a Flagship-class mission to Uranus.

Soumyo Dutta↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Aerocapture Solutions for Uranus Flagship-class Orbiter and Probe

Recent planetary mission assessments, such as the 2022 Planetary Science Decadal Survey released by the National Academies of Science, have focused on the need for a flagship-class mission to the Ice Giant planets, particularly Uranus. The Uranus Orbit and Probe mission proposal was used by the National Academies of Science as the baseline while making its recommendation as the top flagship-class mission for NASA in the 2020-2030\'s. This mission which was based on a launch date of 2031 or 2032, used a fully-propulsive orbit insertion maneuver at Uranus (requiring 60-70% of total mass for propellant), and reached the planet after 13 years of interplanetary cruise before the 2049 equinox, a goal of the science community. A pre-2033 launch date is required to conduct a necessary Jupiter fly-by as the giant planet will be not be in the proper alignment for a later launch date. However, as the budget constraints of the NASA budget have pushed back the start date of a Uranus mission, a launch date of a flagship mission before 2033 seems unreasonable. Aerocapture, an orbit insertion maneuver that uses the atmosphere to decelerate, can reduce the propellant load needed for a captured orbit. Additionally, the aerocapture maneuver can decelerate safely while approaching the planet at higher arrival velocities, thus allowing a mission to use a highly energetic trajectory and reduce the cruise time by several years. An aerocapture-enabled solution has launch opportunities in the mid 2030's, including as late as 2038 to reach Uranus by 2049. This paper will discuss the feasibility of an aerocapture option for a Flagship-class mission to Uranus.

Soumyo Dutta↗
NASA NTRS1985

X-ray satellite

The projected launch date has been delayed approx. 7 weeks from the planned launch date. The Engineering Model (EM) of the automatic measurement and control system (AMCS) is in the critical phase. The contract change no. 1 to the main contract has been signed. A new version of the welding seam location specifications for the wide field camera (WFC) was proposed by the WFC Consortium. The payload integration plan (PIP) has been signed. Production of the EM/QM prototype and ground station equipment has proceeded according to plan with the exception of some delays. Production of the EM equipment has begun. Preparations for the qualification tests of the EM/QM equipment and the integration of EM equipment has begun. The cause of the delay in the launch date include the combined effects of the postponement of the target date for the EM equipment, along with the fact that only a structural model is available.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2017

Gravity-Assist Trajectories to the Ice Giants: An Automated Method to Catalog Mass-or Time-Optimal Solutions

This work presents an automated method of calculating mass (or time) optimal gravity-assist trajectories without a priori knowledge of the flyby-body combination. Since gravity assists are particularly crucial for reaching the outer Solar System, we use the Ice Giants, Uranus and Neptune, as example destinations for this work. Catalogs are also provided that list the most attractive trajectories found over launch dates ranging from 2024 to 2038. The tool developed to implement this method, called the Python EMTG Automated Trade Study Application (PEATSA), iteratively runs the Evolutionary Mission Trajectory Generator (EMTG), a NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in-house trajectory optimization tool. EMTG finds gravity-assist trajectories with impulsive maneuvers using a multiple-shooting structure along with stochastic methods (such as monotonic basin hopping) and may be run with or without an initial guess provided. PEATSA runs instances of EMTG in parallel over a grid of launch dates. After each set of runs completes, the best results within a neighborhood of launch dates are used to seed all other cases in that neighborhood---allowing the solutions across the range of launch dates to improve over each iteration. The results here are compared against trajectories found using a grid-search technique, and PEATSA is found to outperform the grid-search results for most launch years considered.

Hughes, Kyle M.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Gravity-Assist Trajectories to the Ice Giants: An Automated Method to Catalog Mass- Or Time-Optimal Solutions

This work presents an automated method of calculating mass (or time) optimal gravity-assist trajectories without a priori knowledge of the flyby-body combination. Since gravity assists are particularly crucial for reaching the outer Solar System, we use the Ice Giants, Uranus and Neptune, as example destinations for this work. Catalogs are also provided that list the most attractive trajectories found over launch dates ranging from 2024 to 2038. The tool developed to implement this method, called the Python EMTG Automated Trade Study Application (PEATSA), iteratively runs the Evolutionary Mission Trajectory Generator (EMTG), a NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in-house trajectory optimization tool. EMTG finds gravity-assist trajectories with impulsive maneuvers using a multiple-shooting structure along with stochastic methods (such as monotonic basin hopping) and may be run with or without an initial guess provided. PEATSA runs instances of EMTG in parallel over a grid of launch dates. After each set of runs completes, the best results within a neighborhood of launch dates are used to seed all other cases in that neighborhood-allowing the solutions across the range of launch dates to improve over each iteration. The results here are compared against trajectories found using a grid-search technique, and PEATSA is found to outperform the grid-search results for most launch years considered.

Hughes, Kyle M.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Sensitivity of Optimal Midcourse Correction Scheduling for Robust Cislunar Trajectory Design

A new approach to optimal trajectory design is the determination of optimal trajectories that are robust to initial trajectory dispersions, navigation errors, maneuver execution errors, and environment modeling errors. This paper investigates the sensitivity of cislunar robust optimal trajectory design to launch date, duration of navigation measurement passes, and navigation measurement frequency. For a given cislunar trajectory from translunar injection (TLI) to lunar orbit insertion (LOI), the optimal locations of midcourse corrections, also known as trajectory correction maneuvers (TCM) are determined by minimizing the final 3-σ ∆v subject to a final 3-σ position dispersion constraint for a given launch date, specified measurement pass duration prior to each maneuver, and measurement frequency. Optical navigation (OpNav) is assumed, and OpNav field-of-view (FOV) and lighting constraints are employed. These constraints turn out to be important elements of the problem. The sensitivity of the optimal TCM locations are then investigated by varying the launch date, duration of OpNav measurement passes, and the OpNav measurement frequency, and then re-optimizing the locations of the TCMs. Given the problem parameters provided herein, results show that while the optimal TCM locations with respect to TLI vary greatly from one launch date to another, their locations with respect to LOI are nearly invariant over a 2-month launch window. Results also show that in all cases the optimal location of the last TCM is found to be at the point where the OpNav lunar FOV constraint is first violated. For all other TCMs, OpNav measurement pass duration and measurement frequency can have a moderate to large affect on the optimal TCM locations.

Linear Covariance Analysis↗
NASA NTRS2006

STS-1: Columbia Briefings

A video presentation on an update of the STS-1 Columbia Shuttle is shown. Hugh Harris is the moderator. He introduces Don Phillips, Chief STS Test OPS, who presents the status of the vehicle. Terry William, Chief of Mechanical Systems, discusses the debonding of the panels. A question and answer period from the news media is shown. The various topics of discussion from the news media include: 1) Repair of thermal tiles; 2) Launch dates; and 3) Landing and launch sites and 4) Low pressure/high pressure tanking tests. An audio presentation is given of questions from NASA Marshall Space Flight Center and NASA Washington. On March 12, 1981, another STS-1 Columbia update is shown. Bob Schick, Shuttle Test Director, and Bob Sieck, Flight Project Engineer answers questions about the actual repair time of the panels and a very detailed description of the three areas of debonding is presented. A brief launch date statement from Dr. Allen Lovelace, Acting NASA Administrator is given and John Lardley, Shuttle Associate Director, discusses the flight readiness review.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1971

Navigation analysis for Viking 1979, option B

A parametric study performed for 48 trans-Mars reference missions in support of the Viking program is reported. The launch dates cover several months in the year 1979, and each launch date has multiple arrival dates in 1980. A plot of launch versus arrival dates with case numbers designated for reference purposes is included. The analysis consists of the computation of statistical covariance matrices based on certain assumptions about the ground-based tracking systems. The error model statistics are listed in tables. Tracking systems were assumed at three sites: Goldstone, California; Canberra, Australia; and Madrid, Spain. The tracking data consisted of range and Doppler measurements taken during the tracking intervals starting at E-30(d) and ending at E-10(d) for the control data and ending at E-18(h) for the knowledge data. The control and knowledge covariance matrices were delivered to the Planetary Mission Analysis Branch for inputs into a delta V dispersion analysis.

Mitchell, P. H.↗