SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “launch window”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 73 records · Page 4

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2008

Lunar Ascent and Rendezvous Trajectory Design

The Lunar Lander Ascent Module (LLAM) will leave the lunar surface and actively rendezvous in lunar orbit with the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV). For initial LLAM vehicle sizing efforts, a nominal trajectory, along with required delta-V and a few key sensitivities, is very useful. A nominal lunar ascent and rendezvous trajectory is shown, along with rationale and discussion of the trajectory shaping. Also included are ascent delta-V sensitivities to changes in target orbit and design thrust-to-weight of the vehicle. A sample launch window for a particular launch site has been completed and is included. The launch window shows that budgeting enough delta-V for two missed launch opportunities may be reasonable. A comparison between yaw steering and on-orbit plane change maneuvers is included. The comparison shows that for large plane changes, which are potentially necessary for an anytime return from mid-latitude locations, an on-orbit maneuver is much more efficient than ascent yaw steering. For a planned return, small amounts of yaw steering may be necessary during ascent and must be accounted for in the ascent delta-V budget. The delta-V cost of ascent yaw steering is shown, along with sensitivity to launch site latitude. Some discussion of off-nominal scenarios is also included. In particular, in the case of a failed Powered Descent Initiation burn, the requirements for subsequent rendezvous with the Orion vehicle are outlined.

Sostaric, Ronald R.↗

NASA NTRS1996

Experience Gained From Launch and Early Orbit Support of the Rossi X-Ray Timing Explorer (RXTE)

this paper reports the results to date of early mission support provided by the personnel of the Goddard Space Flight Center Flight Dynamics Division (FDD) for the Rossi X-Ray Timing Explorer (RXTE) spacecraft. For this mission, the FDD supports onboard attitude determination and ephemeris propagation by supplying ground-based orbit and attitude solutions and calibration results. The first phase of that support was to provide launch window analyses. As the launch window was determined, acquisition attitudes were calculated and calibration slews were planned. postlaunch, these slews provided the basis for ground determined calibration. Ground determined calibration results are used to improve the accuracy of onboard solutions. The FDD is applying new calibration tools designed to facilitate use of the simultaneous, high-accuracy star observations from the two RXTE star trackers for ground attitude determination and calibration. An evaluation of the performance of these tools is presented. The FDD provides updates to the onboard star catalog based on preflight analysis and analysis of flight data. The in-flight results of the mission support in each area are summarized and compared with pre-mission expectations.

Fink, D. R.↗

NASA NTRS2001

STS-102 Countdown Status

George Diller, NASA Public Affairs, introduces Jeff Spaulding, NASA Test Director, Glenn Chin, Leonardo Payload Manager, and Ed Priselac, Shuttle Weather Officer, in this STS-102 prelaunch press conference. Mr. Spaulding gives an overview of the status of the Discovery Orbiter, including the prelaunch procedures (payload inspection and closure, avionics check, and the loading of the onboard cyrogenic tanks), the countdown and built in time holds, launch window, Discovery launch, and the landing. Mr. Chin discusses the payload status, including specifications on the Multi-Purpose Logistics Module, and the hardware contamination inspection. Mr. Priselac describes the weather forecast for the upcoming launch. The men then answer questions from the press.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2007

Mission Design for the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) will be the first mission under NASA's Vision for Space Exploration. LRO will fly in a low 50 km mean altitude lunar polar orbit. LRO will utilize a direct minimum energy lunar transfer and have a launch window of three days every two weeks. The launch window is defined by lunar orbit beta angle at times of extreme lighting conditions. This paper will define the LRO launch window and the science and engineering constraints that drive it. After lunar orbit insertion, LRO will be placed into a commissioning orbit for up to 60 days. This commissioning orbit will be a low altitude quasi-frozen orbit that minimizes stationkeeping costs during commissioning phase. LRO will use a repeating stationkeeping cycle with a pair of maneuvers every lunar sidereal period. The stationkeeping algorithm will bound LRO altitude, maintain ground station contact during maneuvers, and equally distribute periselene between northern and southern hemispheres. Orbit determination for LRO will be at the 50 m level with updated lunar gravity models. This paper will address the quasi-frozen orbit design, stationkeeping algorithms and low lunar orbit determination.

Beckman, Mark↗

NASA NTRS1973

Preliminary flight trajectories for the Apollo Soyuz test project

Preliminary data are documented for a typical launch window opening, a typical in-plane case, and a typical launch window closing trajectory, not necessarily in the same daily launch window, for the Apollo Soyuz test project mission. The Soyuz will be launched first and the Apollo will be launched on the first opportunity, 7 hours 21 minutes later. If the Apollo is unable to be launched on the first opportunity, four additional opportunities are available at 30 hours 56 minutes, 54 hours 31 minutes, 78 hours 05 minutes, and 101 hours 40 minutes. If the Apollo cannot be launched in this time frame, no further attempt will be made to launch and rendezvous with the first Soyuz. Soyuz will then be deorbited; however, a second Soyuz was made available for the same purposes.

Brooks, J. D.↗

NASA NTRS1990

Ulysses mission design after Challenger

The delay of the Ulysses launch from May 1986 to October 1990, because of the Challenger disaster, has altered both the constraints under which the mission must be designed and the timing of several mission critical events. Safety and launch reliability concerns from the Shuttle have increased the effective launch window to durations greater than one hour. Fortuitously high declinations of the launch asymptote (DLA), of the order of the launch site latitude, ameliorate the impact of the new constraints on the launch window. Target overlays in the first hour of the launch window provide higher departure energies that improve mission performance and avoid a science schedule conflict at second opposition near the time of closest Jupiter approach. The mission design starts with the maximum earth departure energy that the upper stage can deliver within the launch constraints. The Jupiter arrival asymptotes are chosen from the optimal point of mission performance in the mission space defined in the Jupiter B-plane by contours mapped by the science and spacecraft constraints. More than half the orbital energy of the earth-to-Jupiter transfer orbit is lost in the Jupiter flyby, and the Jupiter gravitational assist rotates the orbit plane out of the ecliptic to an inclination of about 80 degrees.

Luthey, Joe L.↗

NASA NTRS1962

Empire. a study of early manned interplanetary missions final report, may 26 - nov. 25, 1962

This report summarizes the investigations and results of the EMPIRE Study Program undertaken by Aeronutronic Division of Ford Motor Company for the Future Projects Office, Marshall Space Flight Center, under Contract NAS8-5025. The dual planet flyby missions of the Crocco and Symmetric trajectory classes are discussed. The Crocco mission with an August 1971 launch window requires an interplanetary injection velocity increment of i0.i km/sec, has a return velocity of 13.5 km/sec, and takes approximately 400 days. The Symmetric mission with a July 1970 launch window has an injection velocity increment of 5.3 km/sec, a return velocity of 15.8 km/sec, and takes approximately 630 days. Additional results of the trajectory studies and abort trajectories are reported. The guidance and navigation subsystem, midcourse corrections, and planetary approach corrections are discussed. A detailed analysis of the reentry phase of EMPIRE includes consideration of an Apollo-type, a Drag Brake, and a lifting-type reentry vehicle to return the six-man crew at mission completion or in an aborted condition. The High L/D reentry vehicle is used in the missions considered. The various technological areas required for design criteria are developed and several spacecraft designs are considered. The all chemical propulsion Crocco system is discarded due to weight, complexity, and cost. The nuclear injected Crocco is treated in a similar manner. The lower energy injection for the Symmetric Mission leads to the feasibility of a nuclear injected vehicle with an Earth orbit weight of about 180,000 kilograms (400,000 pounds) before interplanetary transit. In addition, two chemical symmetric vehicles are treated. Conservative radiation exposures are derived, for the 630 day mission, of less than 200 REM and a polyethelene radiation shelter is designed. Scientific aspects of the missions are discussed. Mission Success Probabilities are presented for the various missions considered and for Saturn C-5, Nova, and Super-Nova Earth launch vehicles in light of possible development. The need for acceleration of nuclear rocket engine developments and auxiliary power developments is indicated. Definition of a larger nuclear engine of the order of 200,000 pounds thrust and about 800 seconds burning time or 50,000 pound thrust and 3600 seconds burning time is indicated for the Symmetric Mission in 1970 (energy requirements are higher in 1972 and for later launch due to the less favorable position of Mars)_ Immediate development of this advanced nuclear propulsion capability is recommended. A Development Plan and Funding Schedule is given for the 1970 launch window pinpointing the critical development areas and indicating a total program cost of $12.6 billion independent of other programmed R&D costs. In conclusion, technological feasibility for an early manned dual planet Mars-Venus flyby is believed to be demonstrated in this study. Several areas of accelerated development and experimental confirmation of theory are pinpointed. The necessary funding and development of Nova or orbital operations capability with Saturn C-5's is required. The 1970 launch window appears to offer the least expensive Symmetric Mission for several years into the 1980's.

F. P. Dixon↗

NASA NTRS1999

NASA Lewis Launch Collision Probability Model Developed and Analyzed

There are nearly 10,000 tracked objects orbiting the earth. These objects encompass manned objects, active and decommissioned satellites, spent rocket bodies, and debris. They range from a few centimeters across to the size of the MIR space station. Anytime a new satellite is launched, the launch vehicle with its payload attached passes through an area of space in which these objects orbit. Although the population density of these objects is low, there always is a small but finite probability of collision between the launch vehicle and one or more of these space objects. Even though the probability of collision is very low, for some payloads even this small risk is unacceptable. To mitigate the small risk of collision associated with launching at an arbitrary time within the daily launch window, NASA performs a prelaunch mission assurance Collision Avoidance Analysis (or COLA). For the COLA of the Cassini spacecraft, the NASA Lewis Research Center conducted an in-house development and analysis of a model for launch collision probability. The model allows a minimum clearance criteria to be used with the COLA analysis to ensure an acceptably low probability of collision. If, for any given liftoff time, the nominal launch vehicle trajectory would pass a space object with less than the minimum required clearance, launch would not be attempted at that time. The model assumes that the nominal positions of the orbiting objects and of the launch vehicle can be predicted as a function of time, and therefore, that any tracked object that comes within close proximity of the launch vehicle can be identified. For any such pair, these nominal positions can be used to calculate a nominal miss distance. The actual miss distances may differ substantially from the nominal miss distance, due, in part, to the statistical uncertainty of the knowledge of the objects positions. The model further assumes that these position uncertainties can be described with position covariance matrices. With these, and some additional simplifying assumptions, a closed-form solution for the probability of collision is obtained. This solution provides clear insights into how each of the independent parameters affects the probability of collision. It shows that for a given maximum probability of collision and prior knowledge of the objects position uncertainties and sizes, only knowledge of the nominal closest approach distance is required to make the launch/no launch decision. The model was completed and used for the mission assurance COLA analysis for the Cassini spacecraft, which was launched on a Titan IV/Centaur rocket on October 15, 1997. Although the model was specifically developed for the Cassini mission, it is clearly applicable for other launches as well. The effect of COLA closures on the launch window is shown. The bar represents the entire 140-min launch window on October 15, 1997; the blackened areas represent the loss of launch opportunities due to the potential for a collision with an orbiting object.

Bollenbacher, Gary↗

NASA NTRS2018

Generating Exploration Mission-3 Trajectories to a 9:2 NRHO using Machine Learning

The purpose of this thesis is to design a machine learning algorithm platform that provides expanded knowledge of mission availability through a launch season by improving trajectory resolution and introducing launch mission forecasting. The specific scenario addressed in this paper is one in which data is provided for four deterministic translational maneuvers through a mission to a Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit (NRHO) with a 9:2 synodic frequency. Current launch availability knowledge under NASA's Orion Orbit Performance Team is established by altering optimization variables associated to given reference launch epochs. This current method can bean abstract task and relies on an orbit analyst to structure a mission based on an established mission design methodology associated to the performance of Orion and NASA's Space Launch System. Introducing a machine learning algorithm trained to construct mission scenarios within the feasible range of known trajectories reduces the required interaction of the orbit analyst by removing the needed step of optimizing the orbit to fit an expected translational response required of the spacecraft. In this study, k-Nearest Neighbor and Bayesian Linear Regression successfully predicted classical orbital elements for the launch windows observed. However both algorithms had limitations due to their approaches to model fitting. Training machine learning algorithms off of classical orbital elements introduced a repetitive approach to reconstructing mission segments for different arrival opportunities through the launch window and can prove to be a viable method of launch window scan generation for future missions.

Guzman, Esteban↗

NASA NTRS1972

Analysis of the Radio Astronomy Explorer lunar orbit mission.

The second Radio Astronomy Explorer spacecraft (RAE-B) is planned to be inserted into lunar orbit in 1973. The transfer trajectory design, lunar orbit selection and launch opportunities are developed in relation to the spacecraft mass properties, propulsion capability and the scientific, environmental and engineering constraints. Alternative midcourse guidance and lunar orbit trim strategies are analyzed and compared. A means of achieving a launch window without varying launch azimuth and park orbit coast time is described. The resulting mission design is characterized by near-minimum energy lunar transfer trajectories and low eccentricity, retrograde critical inclination lunar orbits. Acceptable launch periods are shown to exist for six consecutive months and for two to four consecutive days per month.

Groves, R. T.↗

NASA NTRS1991

Autonomous rendezvous targeting techniques for national launch system application

The rendezvous targeting techniques that can be utilized to achieve autonomous guidance for delivering a cargo to Space Station Freedom (SSF) using the National Launch System's (NLS) Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLLV) and the on-orbit Cargo Transfer Vehicle (CTV) are described. This capability is made possible by advancements in autonomous navigation (Global Positioning System - GPS) on-board the CTV and SSF as well as the new generation flight computers. How the HLLV launch window can be decoupled from the CTV phasing window is described. The performance trades that have to be made to determine the length of the launch window and the phasing window between the CTV and SSF are identified and recommendations made that affect mission timelines.

Lomas, James J.↗

NASA NTRS2012

A Geometric Analysis to Protect Manned Assets from Newly Launched Objects - COLA Gap Analysis

A safety risk was identified for the International Space Station (ISS) by The Aerospace Corporation following the launch of GPS IIR-20 (March 24, 2009), when the spent upper stage of the launch vehicle unexpectedly crossed inside the ISS notification box shortly after launch. This event highlighted a 56-hour vulnerability period following the end of the launch Collision Avoidance (COLA) process where the ISS would be unable to react to a conjunction with a newly launched object. Current launch COLA processes screen each launched object across the launch window to determine if an object's nominal trajectory is predicted to pass within 200 km of the ISS (or any other manned/mannable object), resulting in a launch time closure. These launch COLA screens are performed from launch through separation plus I 00 minutes. Once the objects are in orbit, they are cataloged and evaluated as part of routine on-orbit conjunction assessment processes. However, as the GPS IIR-20 scenario illustrated, there is a vulnerability period in the time line between the end of launch COLA coverage and the beginning of standard on-orbit COLA assessment activities. The gap between existing launch and on-orbit COLA processes is driven by the time it takes to track and catalog a launched object, identify a conjunction, and plan and execute a collision avoidance maneuver. For the ISS, the total time required to accomplish an of these steps is 56 hours. To protect human lives, NASA/JSC has requested that an US launches take additional steps to protect the ISS during this "COLA gap" period. The uncertainty in the state of a spent upper stage can be quite large after all bums are complete and all remaining propellants are expelled to safe the stage. Simply extending the launch COLA process an additional 56 hours is not a viable option as the 3-sigma position uncertainty will far exceed the 200 km miss-distance criterion. Additionally, performing a probability of collision (Pc) analysis over this period is also not practical due to the limiting effects of these large orbit state uncertainties. An estimated upper bound for Pc for a typical spent upper stage if nominally aligned for a direct broadside collision with the ISS is only on the order of 10-6. For a smaller manned object such as a Soyuz capsule, the risk level decreases to an order of 10'8 . In comparison, the Air Force Range policy (AFI 91-217) for launch COLAs would only eliminate launch opportunities when conjunctions with objects exceed a Pc of 10'5 This paper demonstrates a conservative geometry-based methodology that may be used to determine if launch opportunities pose a threat to the ISS during the COLA gap period. The NASA Launch Services Program at Kennedy Space Center has developed this COLA gap analysis method and employed it fQr three NASA missions to identify potential ISS conjunctions and corresponding launch window closures during the 56-hour at-risk period. In the analysis, for each launch opportunity, the nominal trajectory of the spent upper stage and the orbit state of the ISS are propagated over the 56 hour period. Each time the upper stage crosses the orbit plane of the ISS, the relative radial and argument of latitude separations are calculated. A window cutout is identified if these separation differences fall within a mission-specific violation box, which is determined from the evaluation of a Monte Carlo dispersions analysis that quantifies the potential variation in the upper stage radial and argument of latitude differences. This paper details the results of these analyses and their impacts to each mission.

Hametz, Mark E.↗

NASA NTRS1992

Transfer trajectory design for the SOHO libration-point mission

It is shown that transfer trajectories to the halo orbit exist throughout the year, with a one week closure of the launch window each month because of unfavorable lunar perturbations that cannot be corrected in the case of transfer trajectory insertion errors. The launch window for transfers to large-amplitude Lissajous orbits is virtually the same as that for transfers to the baseline halo orbit. Details of these trajectories are described and questions about groundstation coverage are discussed.

Dunham, D. W.↗

NASA NTRS1993

Practical aspects of transfer from GTO to lunar orbit

This paper is a presentation of some practical aspects of orbital transfer from Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (GTO) to close, near-circular orbits of the Moon. The intent is to identify the important parameters affecting the problem and to bound (approximately) the range of required delta V for a spacecraft that has been placed in GTO. The basic geometric relationships are described and the dynamics are simulated by use of the Zero-Sphere-of Influence Patched Conic method. It is found that the inclination of the transfer orbit to the Earth-Moon plane is relatively unimportant while the position of the line of apsides with respect to the Moon's orbit is the main geometric parameter of interest. It is shown that this parameter can be controlled by selecting the time of day for launch and that two launch windows of approximately 45 minutes duration are available each day of the year if use is made of the recommended phasing orbit transfer. The phasing orbit transfer not only provides twice-daily launch windows, but also provides a mechanism for efficacious correction of GTO injection errors. Delta V penalties for out-of-plane transfer and for late launch are evaluated and the method is recommended for use as an affordable means of achieving lunar orbit.

Uphoff, Chauncey↗

NASA NTRS2019

Streamlining Pre-Launch Support for Missions with Highly Variable Trajectories

As the Goddard Space Flight Center's (GSFC) Flight Dynamics Facility (FDF) continues to ensure mission success in support of Human Space Flight (HSF) and Launch Vehicle (LV) missions, it continues to improve on different areas of mission support. The FDF processes numerous different types of trajectory profiles, and, for each trajectory, the FDF provides multiple acquisition data vectors to the Space Network (SN) White Sands Complex (WSC) for further processing and uplinking to the SN's Tracking and Data Relay Satellites (TDRSs), tracking the vehicle and maintaining communications throughout required support. Some trajectories target a specific orbit plane through Right Ascension of the Ascending Node (RAAN), or yaw, steering, which can yield to high variability across the launch window. Because of this, there can be a large number of trajectory profiles to process and generate acquisition data for that ensure TDRS is accurately pointing to the launch vehicle. Processing many trajectory profiles by FDF and WSC increases the complexity and level of effort associated with support. FDF employs a legacy boundary on the range difference between trajectories, which determines the number of discrete trajectory cases required to maintain communication with TDRS over the full launch window. An analysis was performed to determine a new boundary, taking into consideration current support requirements. The results show the boundary can be expanded beyond the currently employed legacy value without an impact on communication. In doing so, the number of trajectory profiles processed can be reduced, reducing the complexity and level of effort required, with no impact to mission safety.

Flight Operations↗

NASA NTRS1975

International Ultraviolet Explorer (IUE) satellite mission analysis

The results are presented of the mission analysis performed by Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) in support of the International Ultraviolet Explorer (IUE) satellite. The launch window is open for three separate periods (for a total time of 7 months) during the year extending from July 20, 1977, to July 20, 1978. The synchronous orbit shadow constraint limits the launch window to approximately 88 minutes per day. Apogee boost motor fuel was computed to be 455 pounds (206 kilograms) and on-station weight was 931 pounds (422 kilograms). The target orbit is elliptical synchronous, with eccentricity 0.272 and 24 hour period.

Cook, R. A.↗

NASA NTRS2006

Space Flight 101

This viewgraph presentation reviews many aspects of spaceflight. There are many pictures of the International Space Station. Some of the topics covered in this review are: Have you ever wondered why we have launch windows? Or why the attitude of the Space Station changes? The half-day seminar answers some of the many questions about why and how we fly in space. Topics in the course were: What's so valuable about micro gravity? How do we get to micro G so close to a huge gravity well like the Earth? How come such a big rocket gets so little payload to space? Why do we have daily launch windows, and why are they so short? What's the beta angle, why does it change so strangely, and why do we care so much about it? Why do we have launch seasons for the Shuttle? Why can't we just launch any old day? Why do we see the station some days, not on others, and at different times and directions? Why do we keep changing the attitude of the Space Station? What are the certified attitudes of the station, and why did we pick these few? Why do we keep changing the altitude of the Space Station among these three? What's the difference between Power Balance, Energy Balance, and Depth-of-Discharge? Where does all the uncertainty come from in our orbit predictions for phasing, collisions, communications coverage, etc? Why do we usually reboost only on days that we do attitude changes? What's F(10.7), what does it do, why do we care, and why does it vary so much? Why do we care about orbital phasing of the ISS? Can't we just do phasing with the arriving vehicles? Why is the Space Station built the way it is? What's Sun Slicer? (or Night Glider, or Dual Angle, or (coming soon!) Mixmaster, or Outrigger, or...) What's a BGA, and what is BGA conditioning all about? What's a Control Moment Gyroscope, and what does it do? What's a desat? Why is it more trouble now than it used to be? How much orbital debris is there, and how dangerous is it? Why aren't we more worried about meteor storms? What is atomic Oxygen? Where does it come from, and why is it a nuisance? What's a gravity gradient attitude, and why don't we use it? How come we see things like phantom torques and phantom spikes and other things that Shuttles and stations and capsules have never seen? and How are all these topics affecting our assembly plans for this year and through the life of station?

Bacon, Jack↗

NASA NTRS2004

Libration Point Navigation Concepts Supporting Exploration Vision

Farquhar described several libration point navigation concepts that would appear to support NASA s current exploration vision. One concept is a Lunar Relay Satellite operating in the vicinity of Earth-Moon L2, providing Earth-to-lunar far-side and long- range surface-to-surface navigation and communications capability. Reference [ 1] lists several advantages of such a system in comparison to a lunar orbiting relay satellite constellation. Among these are one or two vs. many satellites for coverage, simplified acquisition and tracking due to very low relative motion, much longer contact times, and simpler antenna pointing. An obvious additional advantage of such a system is that uninterrupted links to Earth avoid performing critical maneuvers "in the blind." Another concept described is the use of Earth-Moon L1 for lunar orbit rendezvous, rather than low lunar orbit as was done for Apollo. This rendezvous technique would avoid large plane change and high fuel cost associated with high latitude landing sites and long stay times. Earth-Moon L1 also offers unconstrained launch windows from the lunar surface. Farquhar claims this technique requires only slightly higher fuel cost than low lunar orbit rendezvous for short-stay equatorial landings. Farquhar also describes an Interplanetary Transportation System that would use libration points as terminals for an interplanetary shuttle. This approach would offer increased operational flexibility in terms of launch windows, rendezvous, aborts, etc. in comparison to elliptical orbit transfers. More recently, other works including Folta[3] and Howell[4] have shown that patching together unstable trajectories departing Earth-Moon libration points with stable trajectories approaching planetary libration points may also offer lower overall fuel costs than elliptical orbit transfers. Another concept Farquhar described was a Deep Space Relay at Earth-Moon IA and/or L5 that would serve as a high data rate optical navigation and communications relay satellite. The advantages in comparison to a geosynchronous relay are minimal Earth occultation, distance from large noise sources on Earth, easier pointing due to smaller relative velocity, and a large baseline for interferometry if both L4 and L5 are used.

Carpenter, J. Russell↗