Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “navigation orbit determination tracking data”

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.

152 records · Page 9

Information content of interferometric delay-rate measurements for planetary orbiter navigation

Spacecraft such as Magellan and Mars Observer will use earth-based interferometric delay-rate tracking to meet their navigation requirements. Examples of methods used to implement these measurements are Differenced One-Way Doppler, delta-Differenced One-Way Doppler, and Two-Way Minus Three-Way Doppler. These measurements have a greater capability to observe certain orbital elements than that possessed by two-way Doppler, which has been the sole data type used in all U.S. planetary orbiter missions to date. In this paper, an approximate analytic model is developed for delay-rate measurements, as a function of classical orbital elements. The resulting expressions are used to show how the information content of these data types varies with orbit size, shape, and orientation. Comparison is made with the information content of Doppler data, using orbital element sets derived from the Magellan and Mars Observer missions. Results indicate that navigation accuracy improvements obtained by augmenting Doppler data with delay-rate measurements are greatest for spacecraft in low-altitude circular orbits; but decrease steadily for orbits of progressively greater size and eccentricity. The differences in Doppler-only and Doppler plus delay-rate orbit determination accuracies were also found to be highly dependent on Doppler measurement accuracy.

Thurman, Sam W.↗

Precise tracking of the Magellan and Pioneer Venusorbiters by same-beam interferometry. Part 1: Dataaccuracy analysis

Simultaneous tracking of two spacecraft in orbit about a distant planet by two widely separated Earth-based radio antennas provides more-accurate positioning information than can be obtained by tracking each spacecraft separately. A demonstration of this tracking technique, referred to as same-beam interferometry (SBI), is currently being done using the Magellan and Pioneer 12 orbiters at Venus. Signals from both spacecraft fall within the same beamwidth of the Deep Space Station antennas. The plane-of-sky position difference between spacecraft is precisely determined by doubly differenced phase measurements. This radio metric measurement naturally complements line-of-sight Doppler. Data was first collected from Magellan and Pioneer 12 on August 11-12, 1990, shortly after Magellan was inserted into Venus orbit. Data were subsequently acquired in February and April 1991, providing a total of 34 hours of same-beam radio metric observables. Same-beam radio metric residuals have been analyzed and compared with model measurement error predictions. The predicted error is dominated by solar plasma fluctuations. The rms of the residuals is less than predicted by about 25 percent for 5-min averages. The shape of the spectrum computed from residuals is consistent with that derived from a model of solar plasma fluctuations. This data type can greatly aid navigation of a second spacecraft when the first is well-known in its orbit.

Border, J. S.↗

Evolution of the Lunar Network

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is planning to upgrade its network Infrastructure to support missions for the 21st century. The first step is to increase the data rate provided to science missions to at least the 100 megabits per second (Mbps) range. This is under way, using Ka-band 26 Gigahertz (GHz), erecting an 18-meter antenna for the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), and the planned upgrade of the Deep Space Network (DSN) 34-meter network to support the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). The next step is the support of manned missions to the Moon and beyond. Establishing an outpost with several activities such as rovers, colonization, and observatories, is better achieved by using a network configuration rather than the current method of point-to-point communication. Another challenge associated with the Moon is communication coverage with the Earth. The Moon's South Pole, targeted for human habitat and exploration, is obscured from Earth view for half of the 28-day lunar cycle and requires the use of lunar relay satellites to provide coverage when there is no direct view of the Earth. The future NASA and Constellation network architecture is described in the Space Communications Architecture Working Group (SCAWG) Report. The Space Communications and Navigation (SCAN) Constellation Integration Project (SCIP) is responsible for coordinating Constellation requirements and has assigned the responsibility for implementing these requirements to the existing NASA communication providers: DSN, Space Network (SN), Ground Network (GN) and the NASA Integrated Services Network (NISN). The SCAWG Report provides a future architecture but does not provide implementation details. The architecture calls for a Netcentric system, using hundreds of 12-meter antennas, a ground antenna array, and a relay network around the Moon. The report did not use cost as a variable in determining the feasibility of this approach. As part of the SCIP Mission Concept Review and the second iteration of the Lunar Architecture Team (LAT), the focus is on cost, as well as communication coverage using operational scenarios. This approach maximizes use of existing assets and adds capability in small increments. This paper addresses architecture decisions such as the Radio Frequency (RF) signal and network (Netcentric) decisions that need to be made and the difficulty of implementing them into the existing Space Network and DSN. It discusses the evolution of the lunar system and describes its components: Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS), Earth-based ground stations, Lunar Relay, and surface systems.

Gal-Edd, Jonathan↗

Mars Planetary Network for Human Exploration Era – Potential Challenges and Solutions

During 2016-2017, a study was conducted under the sponsorship of the NASA’s Space Communications and Navigation (SCaN) Program to investigate the deep space communications capacity taking into account the needs of all the present and envisioned future missions toward 2030s. It was soon recognized that planning for human exploration to Mars would impose certain unprecedent challenges, both fiscal and technical, to the current space communications paradigm. Targeting the assumed missions concepts, i.e., Crewed Mission to Phobos (CMTP) and Mars Short Stay Mission (MSSM), a Mars Planetary Network for the human exploration era has been formulated. The activity modeling and network traffic simulation/modeling we performed gave some insight into the technical challenges in space communications for the envisioned human Mars exploration era. Chief among the potential challenges are: (1) the high demand on the deep space network (DSN) assets for achieving the high-rate links, both return and forward, from Mars farthest/farther distance (up to 2.67 AU); (2) the need for resilient, persistent communication coverage for crewed vehicles, on surface and in orbits; (3) the significant period of outage for the Mars-Earth link due to superior solar conjunction; (4) the need for on-demand, simultaneous access to the proximity link by multiple vehicles and astronauts in the exploration zone; (5) the capability of determining precise, real-time, positions of surface vehicles and astronauts by the deep space habitat and/or other tele-operations entities. Solution space to each of the above challenges has been explored and analyzed in the context of the individual problem domain and, more importantly, in conjunction with that for the other challenges. This has led to an end-to-end definition of a Mars Planetary Network that would feature: (1) the fusion of deep space Ka-band and optical communications for achieving Mars-Earth high-rate links taking advantage of the optical/RF hybrid 8m/34m antennas in DSN; (2) the integrated application of the Multiple Spacecraft Per Antenna (MSPA) technique, for return link data acquisition, and the Multiple Uplink Per Antenna (MUPA) technique, for forward link data trasnmission, to reduce the number of 34m beam-wave guide (BWG) antennas needed for the era; (3) the integration of three, arrayed, 34m beam-wave guide (BWG) antennas, to provide a high G/T aperture, with the MSPA/MUPA techniques, and a dual “trunk link”approach to cut down the needed G/T -- hence, reducing the number of 34m antennas, relative to that in the single trunk approach by 50%; (4) the deployment of two areostationary/areosynchronous Mars relay orbiters; one of them could also function as (or be served by) a notional Deep Space Habitat (DSH); (5) the opportunistic deployment of a science orbiter in a Pioneer-6 type orbit, equidistant Mars/Earth, that could also serve as an intermediary relay during the Mars superior solar conjunction perod; (6) the existence of the multi-function Mars proximity link that provides the demand-assigned, multiple access (DAMA) capability; and (7) the provision of tracking observables, by leveraging on the planned Mars orbiting and surface infrastructure, to enable the in-situ navigation for surface and orbiting vehicles. This paper provides the description of the proposed Mars Planetary Network in the human exploration era, the trade-off analysis for the various alternative architectures, and the optimal solutions to the key challenges in defining this end-to-end network.

Cheung, Kar-Ming↗

Lunar Scout Two spacecraft gravity experiment

Measurement of the gravity field of the Moon has a high science priority because of its implications for the internal structure and thermal history of the Moon, and it has a high priority for future exploration activities because of the influence of lunar gravity on spacecraft navigation and orbit maintenance. The current state of knowledge in the lunar gravity field (and the uncertainty in the knowledge) is based primarily on data accumulated from the Lunar Orbiter and Apollo programs. Data are sparse and emphasize the equatorial band (+/- 30 deg) on the near side of the Moon. There are no tracking data on the far side and only the Lunar Orbiter 5 provides a small amount of high inclination data. A host of gravity models developed from different combinations of tracking data have large discrepancies in their predictions of spacecraft motion and orbit lifetimes. There are also large disagreements in the Mercator projections of the gravity acceleration from each model, especially on the far side, where the contours tend to have no obvious relationship with the local topography. The science and engineering requirements for global gravity field mapping will be satisfied with continuous radio metric tracking of Lunar Scout 1 in a low polar orbit using the Deep Space Network and Lunar Scout 2 in a high elliptical orbit. The gravity field of the Moon will be mapped during the Scout Program using a two spacecraft concept. In the two spacecraft concept, one spacecraft is placed in a high altitude eccentric orbit while the second spacecraft is in a low altitude polar orbit. The gravity experiment requires a radio frequency that will permit two-way Doppler tracking between the spacecraft and the Deep Space Network (DSN). Both spacecraft carry NASA standard transponder systems for data transmission to Earth as well as for tracking and orbit determination. Data sufficient to produce a gravity field map could be acquired within one month with this system.

Cheng, Andrew F.↗

CubeX: A Compact X-Ray Telescope Enables Both X-Ray Fluorescence Imaging Spectroscopy and Pulsar Timing Based Navigation

This paper describes the benefits of a miniaturized X-ray telescope payload in the context of a lunar mission. The first part describes the payload in detail, the second part summarizes a small satellite mission concept that utilizes its compact form factor and performance. The CubeX instrument can be used for both X-ray fluorescence (XRF) imaging spectroscopy and X-ray pulsar timing based navigation (XNAV). Using our recent technological advances in X-ray optics and sensors, CubeX combines high angular resolution (<1 arcminutes) Miniature Wolter-I X-ray optics (MiXO) with a common focal plane consisting of high spectral resolution (<150 eV at 1 keV) CMOS X-ray sensors and a high timing resolution (< 1 usec) SDD X-ray sensor. This novel combination of the instruments enables both XRF measurements and XNAV operations without moving parts. The high angular resolution of the MiXO opens a wide range of orbital configurations for observation. Given that performance, the instrument has unprecedented small volume (~1×1×6U), mass (<6 kg), and power (<9W) requirements and opens a wide range of applications for a variety of targets and missions including NEOs and Martian moons. In this paper we illustrate one potential application for a lunar mission concept: The elemental composition of the Moon holds keys to understanding the origin and evolution of both the Moon and the Earth. X-ray fluorescence (XRF), induced either by solar X-ray flux or energetic ions, carries decisive signatures of surface elemental composition. X-ray observations, therefore, give a unique, powerful diagnostic tool for remotely determining elemental abundances including major rock forming elements such as Mg, Al, Na, Si, Fe, and Ca. Through high-resolution XRF imaging spectroscopy, CubeX searches for small patches of elusive lower crust and mantle material excavated within and around impact craters. CubeX identifies regional compositional variations and allows straightforward comparison of elemental distributions with the surface topography from LRO and the gravity data from GRAIL. The elemental compositions of the lower crust and the mantle are sensitive to the conditions of the giant impact which led to the Moon's formation and the subsequent lunar magma ocean (LMO), and thus they are key missing pieces in understanding the formation and early evolution of the Moon. In between XRF observations, CubeX also leverages the technology of high resolution X-ray imaging and time series measurements to conduct XNAV operations and evaluate their performance. Deep space navigation is a critical issue for small planetary missions. XNAV can enable low-cost autonomous deep-space navigation, and has the potential to greatly assist, or even outperform, NASA's Deep Space Network (DSN) or ESA's European Space Tracking (ESTRACK). CubeX is designed to perform sequential observations of 3-4 millisecond pulsars (MSPs) to solve the spacecraft trajectory for absolute navigation, and explore the remote sensing capability of XNAV. In the presented mission concept, the Moon's relative proximity enables a straightforward evaluation of the XNAV performance through DSN.

x-ray spectroscopy↗

Science Benefits of Onboard Spacecraft Navigation

Primitive bodies (asteroids and comets), which have remained relatively unaltered since their formation, are important targets for scientific missions that seek to understand the evolution of the solar system. Often the first step is to fly by these bodies with robotic spacecraft. The key to maximizing data returns from these flybys is to determine the spacecraft trajectory relative to the target body-in short, navigate the spacecraft- with sufficient accuracy so that the target is guaranteed to be in the instruments' field of view. The most powerful navigation data in these scenarios are images taken by the spacecraft of the target against a known star field (onboard astrometry). Traditionally, the relative trajectory of the spacecraft must be estimated hours to days in advance using images collected by the spacecraft. This is because of (1)!the long round-trip light times between the spacecraft and the Earth and (2)!the time needed to downlink and process navigation data on the ground, make decisions based on the result, and build and uplink instrument pointing sequences from the results. The light time and processing time compromise navigation accuracy considerably, because there is not enough time to use more accurate data collected closer to the target-such data are more accurate because the angular capability of the onboard astrometry is essentially constant as the distance to the target decreases, resulting in better "plane-of- sky" knowledge of the target. Excellent examples of these timing limitations are high-speed comet encounters. Comets are difficult to observe up close; their orbits often limit scientists to brief, rapid flybys, and their coma further restricts viewers from seeing the nucleus in any detail, unless they can view the nucleus at close range. Comet nuclei details are typically discernable for much shorter durations than the roundtrip light time to Earth, so robotic spacecraft must be able to perform onboard navigation. This onboard navigation can be accomplished through a self- contained system that by eliminating light time restrictions dramatically improves the relative trajectory knowledge and control and subsequently increases the amount of quality data collected. Flybys are one-time events, so the system's underlying algorithms and software must be extremely robust. The autonomous software must also be able to cope with the unknown size, shape, and orientation of the previously unseen comet nucleus. Furthermore, algorithms must be reliable in the presence of imperfections and/or damage to onboard cameras accrued after many years of deep-space operations. The AutoNav operational flight software packages, developed by scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) under contract with NASA, meet all these requirements. They have been directly responsible for the successful encounters on all of NASA's close-up comet-imaging missions (see Figure !1). AutoNav is the only system to date that has autonomously tracked comet nuclei during encounters and performed autonomous interplanetary navigation. AutoNav has enabled five cometary flyby missions (Table!1) residing on four NASA spacecraft provided by three different spacecraft builders. Using this software, missions were able to process a combined total of nearly 1000 images previously unseen by humans. By eliminating the need to navigate spacecraft from Earth, the accuracy gained by AutoNav during flybys compared to ground-based navigation is about 1!order of magnitude in targeting and 2!orders of magnitude in time of flight. These benefits ensure that pointing errors do not compromise data gathered during flybys. In addition, these benefits can be applied to flybys of other solar system objects, flybys at much slower relative velocities, mosaic imaging campaigns, and other proximity activities (e.g., orbiting, hovering, and descent/ascent).

Autonomy↗

State-of-the-Art: Small Spacecraft Technology

When the first edition of NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology State-of-the-art report was published in 2013, 247 CubeSats and 105 other non-CubeSat small spacecraft under 50 kilograms (kg) had been launched worldwide, representing less than 2% of launched mass into orbit over multiple years. In 2013 alone, around 60% of the total spacecraft launched had a mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 83% were under 200 kg and 37% were nanosatellites (1). Of the total 1,849 spacecraft launched in 2021, 94% were small spacecraft with an overall mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 40% were under 200 kg, and 11% were nanosatellites (1). Since 2013, the fight heritage for small spacecraft has increased by over 30% and has become the primary source to space access for commercial, government, private, and academic institutions. The total number of spacecraft launched in the past 10 years is 5,681 and 45% of those had a mass. As with all previous editions of this report, the 2022 edition captures and distills a wealth of new information available on small spacecraft systems from NASA and other publicly available sources. This report is limited to publicly available information and cannot reflect major advances in development that are not publicly disclosed. We encourage any opportunity to publish mission outcomes and technology development milestones (e.g., via conference papers, press releases, company website) so they can be reflected in this report. Overall, this report is a survey of small spacecraft technologies sourced from open literature; it does not endeavor to be an original source, and only considers literature in the public domain to identify and classify devices. Commonly used sources for data include manufacturer datasheets, press releases, conference papers, journal papers, public filings with government agencies, news articles, presentations, the compendium of databases accessed via NASA’s Small Spacecraft Systems Virtual Institute (S3VI) Information Search, and engagement with companies. Data not appropriate for public dissemination, such as proprietary, export controlled, or otherwise restricted data, are not considered. As a result, this report includes many dedicated hours of desk research performed by subject matter experts reviewing resources noted above. Content in this 2022 edition is based on data available by October 2022. This report should not be considered as a comprehensive overview of all the technologies but a great reference for the current state-of-the-art SmallSat technologies. The organizational approach for each chapter is relatively consistent with previous editions and includes an introduction of the technology, current development status of the technology’s procurable systems, and summary tables of technologies surveyed. The content in each chapter is uniquely organized to present a mini-stand-alone report on spacecraft subsystems. As in previous years, chapters include information from previous editions but are updated with new and maturating technologies and reference missions. Tables in each section provide a convenient summary of the technologies discussed, with explanations and references in the body text. The authors have attempted to isolate trends in the small spacecraft industry to point out which technologies have been adopted after successful demonstration missions. Lastly, the authors tried to use the terms “SmallSat,” “microsatellite,” “nanosatellite,” and “CubeSat” in a consistent manner, even as these terms are often used interchangeably in the space industry. Every subsystem chapter contains updated information to reflect the growth in the small spacecraft market. Significant changes are included in several chapters. The “Complete Spacecraft Platforms” chapter now includes information on the two main market options, hosted payload services and dedicated buses. The “Power” chapter provides information on the development of solid-state batteries with significantly higher energy than the current state-of-theart lithium-ion batteries. A large effort was made to update the “Communications” chapter to appropriately capture the recent technology maturation of optical communications for SmallSats. The “Ground Data Systems and Mission Operations” chapter was updated to reflect the recent establishment of the Near Space Network and influx of SmallSat Optical Ground Stations. The “Guidance, Navigation and Control” chapter was updated to include Lidar sensor technology. The “Deorbit Systems” chapter includes a discussion of recently proposed changes by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to limit a spacecraft’s lifetime to no longer than 5 years after end-of-mission. The “Identification and Tracking” Chapter includes updated information on the progress of SmallSat tracking. Finally, this report now encompasses technology funded by NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology (SST) program’s SmallSat Technology Partnerships (STP) initiative which is described further in this Introduction. The reader can find the included SST technology in the “On the Horizon” section of the “Thermal Systems”, “Communications”, and “Guidance, Navigation, and Control” chapters. A central element of this report is to list state-of-the-art technologies by NASA standard Technology Readiness Level (TRL) as defined by the 2020 NASA Engineering Handbook, found in NASA NPR 7123.1C NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements. The authors have endeavored to independently verify the TRL value of each technology by reviewing and citing published test results or publicly available data to the best of their ability. Where test results and data disagree with vendors’ own advertised TRL, the authors have attempted to engage the vendors to discuss the discrepancy. Readers are strongly encouraged to follow the references cited in the literature describing the full performance range and capabilities of each technology. Readers of this report should reach out to individual companies to further clarify information. It is important to note that this report takes a broad system-level view. To attain a high TRL, the subsystem must be in a flight-ready configuration with all supporting infrastructure—such as mounting points, power conversion, and control algorithms—in an integrated unit. An accurate TRL assessment requires a high degree of technical knowledge on a subject device, and an in-depth understanding of the mission (including interfaces and environment) on which the device was flown. There is variability in TRL values depending on design factors for a specific technology. For example, differences in TRL assessment based on the operating environment may result from the thermal environment, mechanical loads, mission duration, or radiation exposure. If a technology has flown on a mission without success, or without providing valid confirmation to the operator, such claimed “flight heritage” was discounted. The authors believe TRLs are most accurately determined when assessed within the context of a program’s unique requirements. While the overall capability of small spacecraft has matured since the 2021 edition of this report, technologies are still being developed to make deep space SmallSat missions more routine and more cost effective. Future editions of this report may include content dedicated to the rapidly growing fields of assembly, integration, and testing services, and mission modeling and simulation–all of which are now extensively represented at small spacecraft conferences. Many of these subsystems and services are still in their infancy, but as they evolve and reliable conventions and standards emerge, the next iteration of this report may also evolve to include additional chapters.

Bruce Yost↗