Why are we doing this again?

1. 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 Why are we doing this again? Enginering 176 #5

2. 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/Declination, Geoid, Periapsis / Apoapsis, Julian v. Gregorian Sidereal day & Geosynch Hyperbolic Asymptote r b v rp a Orbiting down memory lane... Enginering 176 #5

3. A large number of small monthly payouts ------ But first, a word from our sponsor: $$$ …adds up to a lot of negative equity ------ …and even more with foregone interest included ------ Enginering 176 #5

4. Attitude Determine & Control Propulsion / ∆V GroundStation Thermal / Structure Deployables Comms Launch Info Processing Orbit Mass $ Power ∆V Link Bits Design Roadmap You Are Here Define Mission Concept Solutions & Tradeoffs Requirements ConceptualDesign Analysis Top Level Design PartsSpecs Suppliers / Budgets MaterialsFab Iterate Subsystems Final Performance Specs & Cost Detailed Design Enginering 176 #5

5. Requirements Doc Mission Requirements System Definition Begin Tech Requirements Launch Strategy Primary LV and cost The last mile problem 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) • Thinking • What can you build? • What can you test? Enginering 176 #5

6. Enginering 176 #5

7. (Some) STP-Sat Requirements 2.0System Definition 2.1 Mission Description 2.2 Interface Design 2.2.1SV-LV Interface 2.2.2SC-Experiments Interface 2.2.3Satellite Operations Center (SOC) Interface 3.0Requirements 3.1 Performance and Mission Requirements 3.2 Design and Construction 3.2.1Structure and Mechanisms 3.2.2Mass Properties 3.2.3Reliability 3.2.4Environmental Conditions 3.2.4.1 Design Load Factors 3.2.4.2 SV Frequency Requirements 3.2.5Electromagnetic Compatibility 3.2.6Contamination Control 3.2.7Telemetry, Tracking, and Commanding (TT&C) 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 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 Enginering 176 #5

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 Enginering 176 #5

9. ∆V = gIspln(R) ∆V = ∑i {Vi∆mpi/(M(p))} => V∫{dm/M} (from M=Moto M=Mbo) = 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) Enginering 176 #5

10. 3000 ∆ V m e 2000 t e r s p e 1000 r s e c 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Propellant mass (kg) ∆V = gIspln(R): Staring at logarithmic reality ∆V Performance Samples: dry mass 50 kg Isp 300 seconds Isp 60 seconds Staging is an answer... Enginering 176 #5

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% Enginering 176 #5

12. Enginering 176 #5

13. Costs of Orbital Insertion • Naïve Observations: • Bigger rockets are cheaper, regardless of who builds them • ‘50s technology Scout costs @ 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. Enginering 176 #5

14. Launch Costs vs. Mission Costs • 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 • 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 Enginering 176 #5

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 Enginering 176 #5

16. 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 New Options to Orbit Enginering 176 #5

17. 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) 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 Space Transportation’s Future(15 year outlook) Hint: Nobody lives at the north pole, and launches won’t cost $10/kg • Low cost components ≠low cost rockets:hardware vs. reliability $ Enginering 176 #5

18. TM TM The Next Generation of Microspace Small Payload ORbit Transfer Enginering 176 #5 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 Enginering 176 #5

20. Launch into GTO 1 1 Perigee lowering burn 2 2 Aerobraking drag near perigee 3 3 Apogee reduction with each pass 4 4 Perigee raising burn 5 5 Final circular orbit 6 6 SPORT GTO to LEO Transfer SPORT™ Microsatellite Enginering 176 #5

21. 1 2 3 4 5 6 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 Enginering 176 #5

22. SPORT Releases Microsatellite Dispose SPORT™ Release Microsatellite in Custom Orbit Enginering 176 #5

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. Enginering 176 #5

24. L 4 L L 2 1 L 5 SPORT ™ performs a variety of orbit transfer maneuvers Molniya to SSO LEO to MEO GTO to LEO GTO To GEO Sun Centered Enginering 176 #5

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 Enginering 176 #5

26. 3 1 4 2 1 Launch into SSO 2 Perigee burn 3 Apogee burn 4 Final circular orbit 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 Enginering 176 #5

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. Enginering 176 #5

28. L 4 L L 2 1 L 5 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 Enginering 176 #5

29. SPORT Systems Microsatellite Payload Payload Interface Ring • Bitsy kernel • Developed for NASA and USAF • Includes core satellite capabilities • Communications • C&DH • Power regulation • G&C • 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 Enginering 176 #5