Why are we doing this again

1
Why are we doing this again?

• 1 - Introduction
• 2 - Propulsion ?V
• 3 - Attitude Control instruments
• 4 - Orbits Orbit Determination
• 5 - Launch Vehicles
• Cost scale observations
• Piggyback vs. dedicated
• Mission 3xLaunch
• The end is near?
• AeroAstro SPORT

• 6 - Power Mechanisms
• 7 - Radio Comms
• 8 - Thermal / Mechanical Design. FEA
• 9 - Reliability
• 10 - Digital Software
• 11 - Project Management Cost / Schedule
• 12 - Getting Designs Done
• 13 - Design Presentations

2
Orbiting down memory lane...

• Kepler Conics (Mostly Elipses)
• Period, Velocity, Radius, Escape
• Orbit descriptions (6)ephemerides
• Orbit transfers Hohmann
• Gravity assist M motion Matters
• Harmonic, frozen, synchonous orbits
• Oblates, Prolates, J-2 and sun synch
• Lagrange Points (stable un)
• GPS 4 equations, 4 unknowns
• Speaking of Oribits
• Nutation Precession Nodes Line of nodes
  Semi-major axis, The Paramter, P, Right
  Ascension, Argument of Perigee, True Anomaly,
  Vernal Equinox, Inclination, Azimuth/Elevation/Dec
  lination, Geoid, Periapsis / Apoapsis, Julian v.
  Gregorian
• Sidereal day Geosynch

3
But first, a word from our sponsor

• A large number of small monthly payouts ------

adds up to a lot of negative equity ------
and even more with foregone interest included
------
4
Design Roadmap
You Are Here
Define Mission
Concept
Solutions Tradeoffs
ConceptualDesign
Requirements
Analysis
Top Level Design
PartsSpecs
Suppliers / Budgets
MaterialsFab
Iterate Subsystems
Final Performance Specs Cost
Detailed Design
5
For next time

• Reading
• Requirements Doc Sample
• Power
• SMAD 11.4
• TLOM 14
• Mechanisms
• SMAD 11.6 (11.6.8 too)
• TLOM ?
• Fill in re ACS TLOM
• Chapt. 6 (magnets)
• Chapt. 11 (ACS)

• Requirements Doc
• Mission Requirements
• System Definition
• Begin Tech Requirements
• Launch Strategy
• Primary LV and cost
• The last mile problem

• Thinking
• What can you build?
• What can you test?

6
(No Transcript)
7
2.0 System Definition 2.1 Mission
Description 2.2 Interface Design 2.2.1 SV-LV
Interface 2.2.2 SC-Experiments
Interface 2.2.3 Satellite Operations Center
(SOC) Interface 3.0 Requirements 3.1
Performance and Mission Requirements 3.2
Design and Construction 3.2.1 Structure and
Mechanisms 3.2.2 Mass Properties 3.2.3 Relia
bility 3.2.4 Environmental Conditions 3.2.4
.1 Design Load Factors 3.2.4.2 SV Frequency
Requirements 3.2.5 Electromagnetic
Compatibility 3.2.6 Contamination
Control 3.2.7 Telemetry, Tracking, and
Commanding (TTC) Subsystem 3.2.7.1
Frequency Allocation 3.2.7.2
Commanding 3.2.7.3 Tracking and
Ephemeris 3.2.7.4 Telemetry 3.2.7.5
Contact Availability 3.2.7.6 Link Margin and
Data Quality 3.2.7.7 Encryption
(Some) STP-Sat Requirements
Requirements Sys Definition go together
NB this is an excerpt of the TOC - the entire
doc is (or will be) on the class FTP site
Highly structured outline form is clearest and
industry standard
8
Launch Vehicles

• Review Propulsion and ?V requirement
• Performance and staging
• Practical Considerations
• Cost scale observations
• Piggyback vs. dedicated
• Mission 3xLaunch
• The end is near?
• AeroAstro SPORT

9
?V gIspln(R)
?V ?i Vi?mpi/(M(p)) V?dm/M (from MMo to
MMbo) Vln(M/Mo) gIsp ln(mo/mo-mp)
gIspln(mo/mbo) gIspln(R) Where gIsp includes
pressure effects R is the mass ratio
mass(start)/ mass(burnout)
10
?V gIspln(R) Staring at logarithmic reality
?V Performance Samples dry mass 50 kg
Isp 300 seconds
Isp 60 seconds
Staging is an answer...
11
Single vs. Two Stage
TwoSTO S-1 ?V(s)5000m/s (2 stages, equal
?V) S-2 mass 505 kg S-2 structure 150 kg S-2
PMF 20
Assumptions R M(i)/M(f) 10 ?V
required 10 km/s Payload 100 kg  Payload
10 Mf
TwoSTO S-2 ?V(s)5000m/s S-1 mass 2595 kg
S-1 structure 770 kg S-2 PayMF 20
SSTO 100 kg payload ?V gIspln(R) Isp 420
(H2 / O2) Launch mass 12,500 kg Structure 1000
kg R 12.5 Stage payload Mass Fraction 0.8
TwoSTO ? ?V 10000m/s Total Mass 3100 kg
Total PayMF 3.2
12
(No Transcript)
13
Costs of Orbital Insertion

• Naïve Observations
• Bigger rockets are cheaper, regardless of who
  builds them
• 50s technology Scout costs _at_ same as 90s
  technology Pegasus
• Bringing things back from orbit and/or crewed
  vehicles cost more
• Marginal cost to fly a 10 kg payload is 50k.

14
Launch Costs vs. Mission Costs

• Rationale
• Add features to achieve cost parity
• Add standards to achieve cost parity
• MIL-Spec parts, testing...
• Increased launch cost motivates
• Risk Avoidance
• MIL and S-Class Parts
• Redundancy
• More quality control
• Staff procedures
• Higher value missions
• Multiple payloads
• More capable spacecraft
• Pointing, power, data rate
• Parity between launch sponsor and spacecraft
  sponsor
• Ops cost Satellite Cost Launch Cost

• Numbers
• Satellite Cost Launch Cost
• Scout / Pegasus Payloads
• ALEXIS REX 24M
• HETE / SAC-B 25M
• Microsats 6M
• REX / TEX 6M
• Stacksat 6M
• 8 x Orbcomm 24M
• MSTI-2 14M
• Ariane ASAP class payloads
• Amsat Oscar 200k (typ.)
• Oscar 13 200k
• 4 x Microsats 200k
• Astrid (Kosmos) 1M
• Ariane / Long March Interstage
• Freja 4M

15
AMSATs piggybacked on Ariane
Oscar 13 (L) cantilevered by a marmon clamp to
the payload adapter ring and a UoSat (below)
being prepared for mounting on ASAP ring
16
New Options to Orbit

• Candidates
• Aircraft carry, balloon, tow
• SSTO autogyro, Shuttle-like, DC-X, Suborbital
• Sea Launch
• Cheap Russian rockets
• Reusable rockets
• Cheap US, Indian, Spanish, Brazilian, Chinese
  or Italian rockets

• Perspectives
• Jet Aircraft / Ford (Taurus) costs over last 40
  years
• Pegasus v. Scout
• AF EELV cost goals (marginal savings)
• Labor cost distortions
• Commercial Competition Ariane v. Long March v.
  Proton v. Delta

17
Space Transportations Future(15 year outlook)
Hint Nobody lives at the north pole, and
launches wont cost 10/kg

• Space Tourism, but suborbital (excepting special
  cases)
• More use availability of piggybacks and
  multiple payload launches
• upper stages replaced by on-board electric
  propulsion
• Wildcards siting and environmental issues

• Per kg cost may slowly decrease (5 or 10) -
  mainly due to competition from new entrants
• Reliability is key, not /kg
• Payload mass (for same performance) decreasing by
  10x per decade
• (though large payloads will not shrink)

• Low cost components ? low cost rocketshardware
  vs. reliability

18
TM
TM
The Next Generation of Microspace
Small Payload ORbit Transfer
AeroAstro Proprietary
19
What is SPORT?
Arianespace
TM

• Small Payload
• ORbit Transfer

Upper Stage Propulsion
Encounter \ SAIC
Ariane 5 Heavy Launcher
Microsatellite Going to GTO (No SPORT)
Microsatellite Going to Custom Orbit
SPORT
20
SPORT GTO to LEO Transfer
SPORT
Microsatellite
21
Aerobraking

• Highly efficient orbit transfer (over 2 km/s
  ?V)
• Rarified atmosphere altitude - minimal heating
• Large deployable increases profile area (? 50)
• 200 passes to lower apogee 35,000 km
• Nominal 30 day mission

1 Launch into GTO
2 Perigee lowering burn
3 Aerobraking drag near perigee
4 Apogee reduction with each pass
5 Perigee raising burn
6 Final circular orbit
22
SPORT Releases Microsatellite
Dispose SPORT
Release Microsatellite in Custom Orbit
23
Aerobraking Performance
Utilizing the aerobraking and propulsion features
of SPORT, a wide range of missions is possible.
Note Assumes total initial mass of 100 kg.
24
SPORT performs a variety of orbit transfer
maneuvers
Molniya to SSO
LEO to MEO
GTO to LEO
GTO To GEO
Sun Centered
25
Molniya to SSO Transfer

• Initial Orbit Molniya
• 510 km ? 40,000 km and 62.8 deg
• Launch on Molniya as Secondary
• Final Orbit
• 800 km Sun Synchronous
• SPORT Transfer
• 900 m/s ?V Apogee Burn
• 35.8 deg Inclination Change
• Lowers Perigee to 150 km
• Aerobraking
• Reduces Apogee to 800 km
• 180 m/s ?V Apogee Burn
• Raises Perigee to 800 km

Nominal Payload Capability Micro SPORT 20
kg Mini SPORT 60 kg
26
LEO to MEO Transfer

• Initial Orbit Polar LEO
• 800 km ? 800 km and 98.6 deg
• Final Orbit Polar MEO
• 1600 km ? 1600 km and 98.6 deg
• SPORT Transfer
• 190 m/s ?V Perigee Burn
• Raises Apogee to 1600 km
• 190 m/s ?V Apogee Burn
• Raises Perigee to 1600 km
• Note no aerobraking hardware required

Nominal Payload Capability Micro SPORT 50
kg Mini SPORT 150 kg
27
Direct Transfer Performance
Utilizing just the propulsion feature of SPORT, a
wide range of missions is still possible.
Note Assumes total initial mass of 100 kg and
aerobraking hardware removed.
28
High Energy Missions

• Initial Orbit GTO
• 620 km ? 35,883 km and 7.0 deg
• Launch on Ariane 5 in ASAP Slot
• Final Orbit Options
• Earth Escape
• Lagrange Point
• Lunar Transfer
• Asteroid Flyby
• SPORT Transfer
• ?V Burn at Perigee

Nominal Payload Capability Micro SPORT 20
kg Mini SPORT 60 kg
29
SPORT Systems
Microsatellite Payload
Payload Interface Ring

• Bitsy kernel
• Developed for NASA and USAF
• Includes core satellite capabilities
• Communications
• CDH
• Power regulation
• GC

• Propulsion System
• Modular per ?V required
• Simple spin stabilized design

• Batteries
• Variety of options based on flight proven
  technology

• Aerobrake
• Provided by proven supplier
• AeroAstro patent pending
• Modular per mission