Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “SATELLITE 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.

At least 325 records · Page 18
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1961

Point Return from a Lunar Mission for a Vehicle that Maneuvers Within the Earth's Atmosphere

An investigation has been made of point return of a vehicle with a lift-to-drag ratio of 1/2, returning from a lunar mission. It was found that the available longitudinal and lateral range allowed considerable tolerances in entry conditions for a point return. Longitudinal range capability for a vehicle that was allowed to skip to an altitude not exceeding 400 miles was about 3-1/2 times greater than the range capability of a vehicle that was restricted to remain in the atmosphere after entry. Longitudinal range is very sensitive to changes in both velocity and flight-path angle at the bottom of the first pull-out and at exit. An investigation showed that after a skip a vehicle could be placed in a circular orbit for a relatively modest weight penalty. A skip maneuver was found to have no effect on lateral range when the roll was initiated at a velocity near satellite speed after the vehicle had re-entered the atmosphere. However, when the roll was initiated at the earliest possible time along the undershoot boundary, lateral range was increased by a factor of about 2-1/2. The tolerable errors in time of arrival and in inclination of the orbital plane at point of entry were greater for the skip trajectory than for the no-skip trajectory.

Sommer, Simon C.↗
NASA NTRS1987

Predicting Spacecraft Trajectories

Calculations include drag, nonsphericity, and other perturbations. Artificial Satellite Analysis Program (ASAP) is general orbit-prediction program that incorporates sufficient orbit-modeling accuracy for mission design, maneuver analysis, and mission planning. Suitable for studying planetary orbit missions with spacecraft trajectories of exploratory (mapping) nature. Sample data included for study of drift cycle of geosynchronous station, strategy for mapping Venus by radar, frozen orbit about Mars, and repeat-ground-trace orbit. ASAP written in FORTRAN 77.

Kwok, J.↗
NASA NTRS1990

Assessment of the A&R Technology associated with the use of supervised autonomy for on-orbit satellite servicing

The Satellite Servicer Flight Demonstration Program is NASA's first definitive attempt at addressing the problems associated with the supervised autonomous servicing of satellites in orbit. NASA has completed a study of its on-orbit requirements for the next decade. Utilizing the results of this study, the necessary key servicing functions, which require on-orbit demonstration before a program would commit to servicing capability, were determined. These capabilities are: (1) autonomous rendezvous and docking; (2) supervised autonomous orbital replacement unit exchange; and (3) supervised autonomous fluid transfer. A satellite servicer system plan to conduct a series of on-orbit flight demonstrations of these capabilities utilizing the Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle, elements of the Flight Telerobotic Servicer and other applicable hardware has been developed. This paper surveys the A&R technologies that must be matured from the laboratory to flight status prior to conducting these on-orbit flight demonstrations.

Levin, George M.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Mission Architecture for the Green Propulsion Dual Mode Mission

Current spacecraft propulsion technologies are broadly divided into chemical and electric propulsion modes, each of which has unique advantages. It is common for both systems to have a place in interplanetary spacecraft, but the size, weight, and power required to carry two separate propulsion systems is extremely limiting for small spacecraft such as CubeSats. The upcoming NASA STMD-funded Green Propulsion Dual Mode (GPDM) mission will demonstrate on-orbit a novel dual-mode propulsion system known as the GPDM Propulsion System that uses the AF-M315E/ASCENT green monopropellant to feed both a chemical 100 mN monopropellant thruster and four electrospray thrusters. GPDM will fly a 6U CubeSat in low Earth orbit and perform orbit-raising and lowering maneuvers to characterize the performance of this dual-mode propulsion technology, enabling a new generation of future interplanetary small satellite explorers. The Georgia Institute of Technology Space Systems Design Laboratory (SSDL) is conducting the design, assembly, integration, testing, and mission operations of the GPDM host spacecraft, as well as the integration of the GPDM Propulsion System payload, designed by NASA’s Marshall Spaceflight Center (MSFC). The NASA Marshall Space Flight Center is overseeing the overall GPDM project as well as specific technology development activities of the GPDM Propulsion System, while electrospray thrusters are supplied by the MIT Space Propulsion Lab, with additional components supplied by MMA Design, Blue Canyon Technologies, Quasonix, Xiphos, and Rubicon Space Systems. The GPDM spacecraft will carry the GPDM Propulsion System into orbit and use a high-power S-band radio to enable real-time operations in low Earth orbit (LEO) via the NASA Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS). The mission is working towards a tentative launch readiness date of August 2025, in support of launch and operations commencing in January 2026. This paper describes GPDM’s overall mission concept of operations, spacecraft overview, and subsystem breakdown.

Green Propulsion Dual Mode↗
NASA NTRS2016

Trajectory Design Enhancements to Mitigate Risk for the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS)

The Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) will employ a highly eccentric Earth orbit, in 2:1 lunar resonance, which will be reached with a lunar flyby preceded by 3.5 phasing loops. The TESS mission has limited propellant and several constraints on the science orbit and on the phasing loops. Based on analysis and simulation, we have designed the phasing loops to reduce delta-V (DV) and to mitigate risk due to maneuver execution errors. We have automated the trajectory design process and use distributed processing to generate and optimal nominal trajectories; to check constraint satisfaction; and finally to model the effects of maneuver errors to identify trajectories that best meet the mission requirements.

satellite↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Conjunction Assessment and Deconfliction Paradigm for Co-Located Satellite Constellations With on-Spacecraft “Autonomous” Flight Dynamics Control

Satellite constellations that employ on-spacecraft flight dynamics and conjunction assessment (CA) approaches face particular challenges. First, they must arrange to obtain and upload to the constellation satellite close approach information, such as Conjunction Data Messages, so that their on-board systems will have the data they need to make informed CA decisions. Second, given current latencies in obtaining CA screening information, such systems often cannot obtain dedicated screenings of their proposed maneuvers before they are executed. Third, they usually cannot engage in real time with owner/operators (O/Os) with whom they may come into conjunction, relying instead on pre-arranged courses of action that may or may not fit a given situation well. Despite these difficulties, it is nonetheless possible, as operators such as SpaceX have demonstrated, to operate safely using on-board CA calculations, in the presence of a largely collaborative operating environment. The situation breaks down, however, when two constellations that operate with such a paradigm are placed in the same orbital region and will experience conjunctions with each other. Each may have a vague idea of where the other’s satellites are, or perhaps even a somewhat precise idea if they exchange O/O ephemerides, but neither will know the other’s more immediate maneuver intentions, especially for situations in which they are in a high-risk conjunction with each other and a mitigation maneuver is required. As there is no formalized way for these automated systems to ascertain each other’s intentions for this type of conjunction, it is quite possible that each spacecraft may choose a maneuver that results in the two objects’ colliding. An opportunity to develop a solution to this problem was presented by the NASA “Starling” project, a small experimental constellation developed to demonstrate autonomous satellite control and constellation reconfiguration and for which a launch was obtained that, serendipitously, will place this constellation close to the SpaceX Starlink constellation. Because the NASA constellation is experimental, an extended mission part of the mission has been negotiated to implement and test mechanisms for resolving the problem of co-located constellations with on-board flight dynamics control. For the last eighteen months, a consortium among NASA Ames (the Starling satellite providers), NASA CARA (the Agency organization responsible for conjunction assessment), Space X, and the Department of Commerce (in observer status) has met regularly to assemble a concept of operations for a robust solution to this problem and has developed a prototype ground node that will serve as a needed CA screening and information dispensary. The approach and methods, as well as the active employment of the developed ground node, will be tested both in simulation before actual use and then in actual spacecraft operations, which are anticipated to begin in January 2024. This paper will describe the co-located autonomously-controlled constellation problem and the developed solution in detail, outlining what ground node (i.e., government) infrastructure and features are required, what particular capabilities are needed by the constellations themselves in order to make use of this deconfliction paradigm, and the migration path forward to allow such a capability set to be incorporated by the Department of Commerce’s space traffic coordination system.

Conjunction Assessment↗
NASA NTRS1997

AIAA Survivability Technical Committee Draft

A relatively new area of interest in aerospace systems survivability is the growing threat of spacecraft penetration by orbital debris. Orbital debris, or "space junk", is composed of the man-made remnants of non-functioning spacecraft still orbiting the Earth. NASA estimates that there are currently over 100,000 orbital debris particles 1 centimeter in diameter or larger that cannot be tracked by existing radar, with the population growing at approximately 4% per year in low earth orbits. With an average velocity of over 8.7 km/sec, these projectiles can penetrate and disable many vulnerable spacecraft systems. Since the likelihood of spacecraft penetration increases with spacecraft surface area, large spacecraft (such as the International Space Station) and communication satellite fleets (such as Iridium) have begun to adopt survivability enhancement strategies similar to those employed by combat aircraft. Collision avoidance maneuvers are commonly practiced by the Space Shuttle and are planned by the International Space Station to decrease their susceptibility to impact by trackable orbital debris; likewise, improved shielding, internal equipment placement, and improved crew operations following penetration can reduce the vulnerability of spacecraft to loss following orbital debris impact. Computer simulations such as the Manned Spacecraft and Crew Survivability (MSCSurv) program at the NASA-Marshall Space Flight Center have recently been developed to quantify and reduce the likelihood of crew or spacecraft loss following orbital debris penetration. The AIAA Survivability Technical Committee is working to enable the transfer of military-developed survivability technologies to help the aerospace industry cope with this growing threat.

Shipman, Jim↗
NASA NTRS2011

A New Look at the GEO and Near-GEO Regimes: Operations, Disposals, and Debris

Since 1963 more than 900 spacecraft and more than 200 launch vehicle upper stages have been inserted into the vicinity of the geosynchronous regime. Equally important, more than 300 spacecraft have been maneuvered into disposal orbits at mission termination to alleviate unnecessary congestion in the finite GEO region. However, the number of GEO satellites continues to grow, and evidence exists of a substantial small debris population. In addition, the operational modes of an increasing number of GEO spacecraft differ from those of their predecessors of several decades ago, including more frequent utilization of inclined and eccentric geosynchronous orbits. Consequently, the nature of the GEO regime and its immediate surroundings is evolving from well-known classical characteristics. This paper takes a fresh look at the GEO satellite population and the near- and far-term environmental implications of the region, including the effects of national and international debris mitigation measures.

Johnson, Nicholas↗
NASA NTRS2014

Lunar Flashlight: Mapping Lunar Surface Volatiles Using a Cubesat

Water ice and other volatiles may be located in the Moon's polar regions, with sufficient quantities for in situ extraction and utilization by future human and robotic missions. Evidence from orbiting spacecraft and the LCROSS impactor suggests the presence of surface and/or nearsurface volatiles, including water ice. These deposits are of interest to human exploration to understand their potential for use by astronauts. Understanding the composition, quantity, distribution, and form of water/H species and other volatiles associated with lunar cold traps is identified as a NASA Strategic Knowledge Gap (SKG) for Human Exploration. These polar volatile deposits could also reveal important information about the delivery of water to the Earth- Moon system, so are of scientific interest. The scientific exploration of the lunar polar regions was one of the key recommendations of the Planetary Science Decadal Survey. In order to address NASA's SKGs, the Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) program selected three lowcost 6-U CubeSat missions for launch as secondary payloads on the first test flight (EM1) of the Space Launch System (SLS) scheduled for 2017. The Lunar Flashlight mission was selected as one of these missions, specifically to address the SKG associated with lunar volatiles. Development of the Lunar Flashlight CubeSat concept leverages JPL's Interplanetary Nano- Spacecraft Pathfinder In Relevant Environment (INSPIRE) mission, MSFC's intimate knowledge of the Space Launch System and EM-1 mission, small business development of solar sail and electric propulsion hardware, and JPL experience with specialized miniature sensors. The goal of Lunar Flashlight is to determine the presence or absence of exposed water ice and its physical state, and map its concentration at the kilometer scale within the permanently shadowed regions of the lunar south pole. After being ejected in cislunar space by SLS, Lunar Flashlight deploys its solar panels and solar sail and maneuvers into a low-energy transfer to lunar orbit. The solar sail and attitude control system work to bring the satellite into an elliptical polar orbit spiraling down to a perilune of 30-10 km above the south pole for data collection. Lunar Flashlight uses its solar sail to shine reflected sunlight into permanently shadowed regions, measuring surface albedo with a four-filter point spectrometer at 1.1, 1.5 1.9, and 2.0 microns. Water ice will be distinguished from dry regolith from these measurements in two ways: 1) spatial variations in absolute reflectance (water ice is much brighter in the continuum channels), and 2) reflectance ratios between absorption and continuum channels. Derived reflectance and reflectance ratios will be mapped onto the lunar surface in order to distinguish the composition of the PSRs from that of the sunlit terrain. Lunar Flashlight enables a low-cost path to in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) by identifying operationally useful deposits (if there are any), which is a game-changing capability for expanded human exploration.

Cohen, B. A.↗
NASA NTRS2015

Lunar Flashlight

The Lunar Flashlight is a Jet Propulsion Laboratory project, with NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) serving as the principal investigator and providing the solar sail propulsion system. The goal of Lunar Flashlight is to determine the presence and abundance of exposed lunar water ice within permanently shadowed regions (PSRs) at the lunar south pole, and to map its concentration at the 1-2 kilometer scale to support future exploration and use. After being ejected in cis-lunar space by the launch vehicle, Lunar Flashlight deploys solar panels and an 85-square-meter solar sail and maneuvers into a low-energy transfer to lunar orbit. The solar sail and attitude control system work to bring the satellite into an elliptical polar orbit, spiraling down over a period of 18 months to a perilune of 30-10 kilometers above the south pole for data collection. Lunar Flashlight uses its solar sail to shine reflected sunlight onto the lunar surface, measuring surface reflectance with a four-filter point spectrometer. The spectrometer measures water ice absorption features (1.5, 1.95 microns) and the continuum between them (1.1, 1.9 microns). The ratios of water ice bands to the continuum will provide a measure of the abundance of surface frost and its variability across PSRs. Water ice abundance will be correlated with other data from previous missions, such as the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite, to provide future human and robotic explorers with a map of potential resources. The mission is enabled by the use of an 85-square-meter solar sail being developed by MSFC.

Baker, John↗
NASA NTRS2003

Navigation Guidelines for Orbital Formation Flying Missions

Some simple guidelines based on the accuracy in determining a satellite formation's semi-major axis differences are useful in making preliminary assessments of the navigation accuracy needed to support such missions. These guidelines are valid for any elliptical orbit, regardless of eccentricity. Although maneuvers required for formation establishment, reconfiguration, and station-keeping require accurate prediction of the state estimate to the maneuver time, and hence are directly affected by errors in all the orbital elements, experience has shown that determination of orbit plane orientation and orbit shape to acceptable levels is less challenging than the determination of orbital period or semi-major axis. Furthermore, any differences among the member's semi-major axis are undesirable for a satellite formation, since it will lead to differential along-track drift due to period differences. Since inevitable navigation errors prevent these differences from ever being zero, one may use the guidelines this paper presents to determine how much drift will result from a given relative navigation accuracy, or vice versa. Since the guidelines do not account for non-two-body perturbations, they may be viewed as useful preliminary design tools, rather than as the basis for mission navigation requirements, which should be based on detailed analysis of the mission configuration, including all relevant sources of uncertainty.

Carpenter, J. Russell↗
NASA NTRS2003

Navigation Accuracy Guidelines for Orbital Formation Flying Missions

Some simple guidelines based on the accuracy in determining a satellite formation's semi-major axis differences are useful in making preliminary assessments of the navigation accuracy needed to support such missions. These guidelines are valid for any elliptical orbit, regardless of eccentricity. Although maneuvers required for formation establishment, reconfiguration, and station-keeping require accurate prediction of the state estimate to the maneuver we, and hence are directly affected by errors in all the orbital elements, experience has shown that determination of orbit plane orientation and orbit shape to acceptable levels is less challenging than the determination of orbital period or semi-major axis. Furthermore, any differences among the member s semi-major axes are undesirable for a satellite formation, since it will lead to differential along-track drift due to period differences. Since inevitable navigation errors prevent these differences from ever being zero, one may use the guidelines this paper presents to determine how much drift will result from a given relative navigation accuracy, or conversely what navigation accuracy is required to limit drift to a given rate. Since the guidelines do not account for non-two-body perturbations, they may be viewed as useful preliminary design tools, rather than as the basis for mission navigation requirements, which should be based on detailed analysis of the mission configuration, including all relevant sources of uncertainty.

Carpenter, J. Russell↗
NASA NTRS2004

Navigation Accuracy Guidelines for Orbital Formation Flying

Some simple guidelines based on the accuracy in determining a satellite formation s semi-major axis differences are useful in making preliminary assessments of the navigation accuracy needed to support such missions. These guidelines are valid for any elliptical orbit, regardless of eccentricity. Although maneuvers required for formation establishment, reconfiguration, and station-keeping require accurate prediction of the state estimate to the maneuver time, and hence are directly affected by errors in all the orbital elements, experience has shown that determination of orbit plane orientation and orbit shape to acceptable levels is less challenging than the determination of orbital period or semi-major axis. Furthermore, any differences among the member s semi-major axes are undesirable for a satellite formation, since it will lead to differential along-track drift due to period differences. Since inevitable navigation errors prevent these differences from ever being zero, one may use the guidelines this paper presents to determine how much drift will result from a given relative navigation accuracy, or conversely what navigation accuracy is required to limit drift to a given rate. Since the guidelines do not account for non-two-body perturbations, they may be viewed as useful preliminary design tools, rather than as the basis for mission navigation requirements, which should be based on detailed analysis of the mission configuration, including all relevant sources of uncertainty.

Carpenter, J. Russell↗
NASA NTRS1973

Satellite orbit determination

A historic account of the activities of the Satellite OD Group during the MM'71 mission is given along with an assessment of the accuracy of the determined orbit of the Mariner 9 spacecraft. Preflight study results are reviewed, and the major error sources described. Tracking and data fitting strategy actually used in the real time operations is itemized, and Deep Space Network data available for orbit fitting during the mission and the auxiliary information used by the navigation team are described. A detailed orbit fitting history of the first four revolutions of the satellite orbit of Mariner 9 is presented, with emphasis on the convergence problems and the delivered solution for the first orbit trim maneuver. Also included are a solution accuracy summary, the history of the spacecraft orbit osculating elements, the results of verifying the radio solutions with TV imaging data, and a summary of the normal points generated for the relativity experiment.

Jordan, J. F.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Cassini Orbit Determination Performance during Saturn Satellite Tour: August 2005 - January 2006

During the period spanning the second Enceladus flyby in July 2005 through the eleventh Titan encounter in January 2006, the Cassini spacecraft was successfully navigated through eight close-targeted satellite encounters. Three of these encounters included the 500 km flybys of the icy satellites Hyperion, Dione and Rhea and five targeted flybys of Saturn's largest moon, Titan. This paper will show how our refinements to Saturn's satellite ephemerides have improved orbit determination predictions. These refinements include the mass estimates of Saturn and its satellites by better than 0.5%. Also, it will be shown how this better orbit determination performance has helped to eliminate several statistical maneuvers that were scheduled to clean-up orbit determination and/or maneuver-execution errors.

Rhea↗
NASA NTRS2022

Orbital Debris Quarterly News, March 2022

Inside - ORDEM 3.2Release - DAS 3.2 Release - International Space Station Maneuvers Twice to Avoid Fragmentation Debris - Two Minor Breakup Events in Fourth Quarter of 2021 - Conference and Workshop Reports8UpcomingMeetings - Space Missions and Satellite Box Score

Heather Cowardin↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Decision Aid for Conjunction Risk Mitigation by Differential Drag

In the previous five years, the rate of conjunctions that the NASA Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis (CARA) team processed and analyzed has more than tripled. (NASA CARA, 2024) New missions in the early development phases are now required to plan for dealing with conjunctions under the present space environment, and also projecting forward into a future likely with even further increased utilization of the space environment. Some missions are investigating the possibility of using differential drag to remediate conjunctions without expending limited fuel or for missions without propulsive capabilities. The NASA CARA team studied the historical record of conjunctions to evaluate the circumstances under which differential drag may be successfully applied and have developed a series of tables to use as a decision aid for missions considering differential drag. Currently, if a CARA-protected mission with maneuvering capabilities is predicted to have a conjunction with probability of collision (Pc) greater than 7E-5 (the default value of the ‘yellow threshold’, which may have some other value agreed by CARA and the mission during the Orbital Collison Avoidance Planning (OCAP) process), CARA will use its Maneuver Trade Space (MTS) tool to evaluate and recommend options for the timing and magnitude of a risk mitigation maneuver (RMM), based on the mission’s capabilities. If the conjunction’s Pc is greater than 1E-4, the ‘red threshold’, then an RMM must be executed per NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 8079.1 (NASA, 2023), although missions may execute an RMM even if the Pc is lower. The magnitude of the maneuver is typically a few cm/s, and CARA estimates how many will be required for the mission’s nominal lifetime – typically a few per year – during the OCAP process, to inform the mission’s delta-V requirement. For traditional satellites, this is usually smaller than other requirements for orbit insertion, maintenance, and disposal, but for CubeSats or other small satellite missions, a propulsion system may not provide much more than a few cm/s of delta-V or may not fit at all within the available budget of money, time, size, weight, and/or power (SWaP). Conversely, CubeSats often have deployable solar panels, which offer the capacity to have much higher areas facing some directions than others. Such a mission can instead use ‘differential drag’ to remediate a conjunction -- in other words, change its drag area (usually increasing) to deviate from the predicted collision course. This is how Planet’s Dove spacecraft maintain their formations and remediate conjunction risks without having on-board propulsion (Foster, et al., 2017) (Griffith, et al., 2021). CARA has been developing improvements to MTS to support differential-drag for NASA's missions -- where it is effective. CARA records all conjunctions of their protected payloads, with historical records starting in 2005 (with significant conjunction events starting to occur on or after 2013). From this record, approximately 7,300 had a Pc greater than 1E-4 at 3 days prior to the time of closest approach, the time analyzed for differential drag efficacy. Of those, approximately 4,300 had fully-defined covariance matrices stored for both the primary and secondary objects; this set of conjunctions is the basis for the analysis of this work. CARA’s MTS tool was used to propagate the primary satellite forward from that decision point with varying degrees of increase to ballistic coefficient (BC). Because these conjunctions came from multiple missions, the nondimensional ‘delta-BC’ factor was used to quantify and normalize the increase in ballistic coefficient, defined as follows: Delta-BC = BC_new / BC_old - 1 Positive delta-BC factors represent an increase in drag compared to the nominal attitude, while negative delta-BC factors (to a minimum of -1) represent a decrease in drag. At the conclusion of the differential-drag ‘maneuver’, the Pc was recalculated to evaluate whether or not the conjunction was mitigated (Pc < 3E-6). These results were then binned and sorted along several axes, including altitude, amount of delta-BC, and (pre-maneuver) rate of energy dissipation (EDR), to identify underlying patterns. The altitude plot is shown in Figure 1. To validate this analysis, we consulted the record of a NASA mission which uses differential drag to maintain its orbit and remediate conjunction risk. CARA’s empirical record of the mission’s orbit history suggests it achieves a delta-BC of 2.2. Of the twenty-one RMM plans that were submitted by this mission, eighteen were matched with conjunctions in the historical record; of those, twelve were successfully remediated (final measured Pc < 3E-6), and six were not. This is consistent with the expected efficacy for missions orbiting at that altitude. We are presently simulating this mission’s RMMs with MTS; this work is ongoing, but so far, the MTS results are qualitatively in agreement with the empirical results -- correctly predicting that a maneuver would or would not remediate a conjunction, if not exactly matching the final post-remediation Pc value. We found that differential drag was most successful for satellites with perigees below 560 km, and which could adopt an average delta-BC of 2 or greater (that is, increasing their ballistic coefficient by a factor of 3). However, this is a difficult threshold for a mission to clear; very few spacecraft are capable of adopting a high-drag configuration for 72 hours continuously. Planet’s Dove spacecraft use differential drag to remediate conjunctions (Griffith, et al., 2021), and they have a maximum delta-BC factor of 9, but in practice (with mission and charging constraints) they achieve a time-averaged delta-BC that is closer to 2 (Foster, et al., 2017). A mission’s differential drag utility strongly depends on the operational constraints that has the capacity to limit the time-averaged delta-BC. A mission with a high maximum delta-BC of 5 or more can have an effective delta-BC of less than 1 due to operational constraints such as instrument and solar panel pointing, especially if this constraint results in holding an intermediate drag value for most of its orbit. CARA has developed tables that can be used as decision aids to advise missions-in-development about the best way to utilize their differential drag capabilities. For missions below 560 km with the operational flexibility to devote multiple days to holding a high-drag configuration (or a sufficiently high drag ratio to compensate for limitations on that time), they are -- more likely than not -- able to successfully remediate high-risk conjunctions. Conversely, missions that do not meet these exacting criteria -- most missions -- can instead be advised to use on-board propulsion systems to perform RMMs, or to turn their minimum-area face towards the approach vector, thereby reducing Pc at the moment of conjunction due to the decreased Hard-Body Radius (HBR), that is a strongly correlated variable in the Pc calculations. (NASA, 2023)

conjunction assessment↗
NASA NTRS2007

Automated Target Planning for FUSE Using the SOVA Algorithm

The SOVA algorithm was originally developed under the Resilient Systems and Operations Project of the Engineering for Complex Systems Program from NASA s Aerospace Technology Enterprise as a conceptual framework to support real-time autonomous system mission and contingency management. The algorithm and its software implementation were formulated for generic application to autonomous flight vehicle systems, and its efficacy was demonstrated by simulation within the problem domain of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle autonomous flight management. The approach itself is based upon the precept that autonomous decision making for a very complex system can be made tractable by distillation of the system state to a manageable set of strategic objectives (e.g. maintain power margin, maintain mission timeline, and et cetera), which if attended to, will result in a favorable outcome. From any given starting point, the attainability of the end-states resulting from a set of candidate decisions is assessed by propagating a system model forward in time while qualitatively mapping simulated states into margins on strategic objectives using fuzzy inference systems. The expected return value of each candidate decision is evaluated as the product of the assigned value of the end-state with the assessed attainability of the end-state. The candidate decision yielding the highest expected return value is selected for implementation; thus, the approach provides a software framework for intelligent autonomous risk management. The name adopted for the technique incorporates its essential elements: Strategic Objective Valuation and Attainability (SOVA). Maximum value of the approach is realized for systems where human intervention is unavailable in the timeframe within which critical control decisions must be made. The Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer (FUSE) satellite, launched in 1999, has been collecting science data for eight years.[1] At its beginning of life, FUSE had six gyros in two IRUs and four reaction wheels. Over time through various failures, the satellite has been left with one reaction wheel on the vehicle skew axis and two gyros. To remain operational, a control scheme has been implemented using the magnetic torque rods and the remaining momentum wheel.[2] As a consequence, there are attitude regions where there is insufficient torque authority to overcome environmental disturbances (e.g. gravity gradient torques). The situation is further complicated by the fact that these attitude regions shift inertially with time as the spacecraft moves through earth s magnetic field during the course of its orbit. Under these conditions, the burden of planning targets and target-to-target slew maneuvers has increased significantly since the beginning of the mission.[3] Individual targets must be selected so that the magnetic field remains roughly aligned with the skew wheel axis to provide enough control authority to the other two orthogonal axes. If the field moves too far away from the skew axis, the lack of control authority allows environmental torques to pull the satellite away from the target and can potentially cause it to tumble. Slew maneuver planning must factor the stability of targets at the beginning and end, and the torque authority at all points along the slew. Due to the time varying magnetic field geometry relative to any two inertial targets, small modifications in slew maneuver timing can make large differences in the achievability of a maneuver.

Heatwole, Scott↗