THE MAGAZINE OF THE AMERICAN ASTRONAUTICAL SOCIETY · 2011. 8. 13. · 2 SPACE TIMES • May/June...

SPACE TIMES • May/June 2008 1

THE MAGAZINE OF THE AMERICANASTRONAUTICAL SOCIETY

ISSUE 3 VOLUME 47

MAY / JUNE 2008

2 SPACE TIMES • May/June 2008

T H E M A G A Z I N E O F T H E A M E R I C A N A S T R O N A U T I C A L S O C I E T Y

MAY / JUNE 2008

ISSUE 3–VOLUME 47

AAS OFFICERSPRESIDENT

Frank A. Slazer, SBD ConsultingEXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT

Lyn D. Wigbels, RWI International Consulting ServicesVICE PRESIDENT–TECHNICAL

Srinivas R. Vadali, Texas A&M UniversityVICE PRESIDENT–PROGRAMS

Mary L. Snitch, Lockheed MartinVICE PRESIDENT–PUBLICATIONS

David B. Spencer, Penn State UniversityVICE PRESIDENT–MEMBERSHIP

J. Walter Faulconer, Applied Physics LaboratoryVICE PRESIDENT–EDUCATION

Kirk W. Kittell, SAICVICE PRESIDENT–FINANCE

Carol S. Lane, Ball AerospaceVICE PRESIDENT–INTERNATIONAL

Clayton Mowry, Arianespace, Inc.VICE PRESIDENT–PUBLIC POLICY

William B. Adkins, Adkins Strategies, LLCVICE PRESIDENT–STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONSAND OUTREACH

Mary Lynne Dittmar, Dittmar AssociatesLEGAL COUNSEL

Franceska O. Schroeder, Fish & Richardson P.C.EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

James R. Kirkpatrick, AAS

AAS BOARD OF DIRECTORSTERM EXPIRES 2008Peter M. Bainum, Howard UniversityDavid A. Cicci, Auburn UniversityLynn F.H. ClineNancy S.A. Colleton, Institute for Global

Environmental StrategiesMark K. Craig, SAICRoger D. Launius, Smithsonian InstitutionJonathan T. Malay, Lockheed MartinKathy J. Nado, L-3 CommunicationsRichard M. Obermann, House Committee on Science

& TechnologyTERM EXPIRES 2009Marc S. AllenSteven Brody, International Space UniversityAshok R. Deshmukh, Technica, Inc.Graham Gibbs, Canadian Space AgencySteven D. Harrison, BAE SystemsSue E. Hegg, The Boeing CompanyArthur F. ObenschainIan Pryke, CAPR, George Mason UniversityRonald J. Proulx, Charles Stark Draper LaboratoryTrevor C. Sorensen, University of HawaiiTERM EXPIRES 2010Linda Billings, SETI InstituteRonald J. Birk, Northrop GrummanRebecca L. Griffin, Griffin AerospaceHal E. Hagemeier, National Security Space OfficeDennis Lowrey, General DynamicsMolly Kenna Macauley, Resources for the FutureErin Neal, ATKLesa B. RoeRosanna Sattler, Posternak Blankstein & Lund LLPRobert H. Schingler, Jr.Woodrow Whitlow, Jr.

SPACE TIMES EDITORIAL STAFFEDITOR, Jeffrey P. Elbel

PHOTO & GRAPHICS EDITOR, Dustin DoudPRODUCTION MANAGER, Diane L. Thompson

BUSINESS MANAGER, James R. Kirkpatrick

SPACE TIMES is published bimonthly by the AmericanAstronautical Society, a professional non-profit society. SPACETIMES is free to members of the AAS. Individual subscriptionsmay be ordered from the AAS Business Office. © Copyright 2008by the American Astronautical Society, Inc. Printed in the UnitedStates of America. ISSN 1933-2793.

PERIODICALSSPACE TIMES, magazine of the AAS, bimonthly, volume 47,2008—$80 domestic, $95 foreignThe Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, quarterly, volume 56,2008—$170 domestic, $190 foreignTo order these publications, contact the AAS Business Office.

REPRINTSReprints are available for all articles in SPACE TIMES and all pa-pers published in The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences.

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE 3

FEATURESRecycling and Environmentally Friendly Living onthe International Space Station 4The International Space Station has been continuously occupiedby humans for over seven years. Living on the space stationmirrors efforts at sustainable living on Earth.by Ron Ticker

Multiple-Spacecraft Missions in NASA’s Heliophysics Division 9Lessons learned from three recent multiple-spacecraft missionsare relevant both to future space science mission concepts andbasic systems engineering practices.by Mary Chiu, Dan Ossing, and Margaret Simon

AAS NEWSNews for AAS Members 15

CALL FOR SPACE PROFESSIONALSSpace Odyssey Institute 16Barcelona, Spain

AAS CORPORATE MEMBER PROFILEInternational Space University 17

CALL FOR PAPERS19th AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics Meeting 18Hilton Savannah Desoto, Savannah, Georgia

UPCOMING EVENTS 21

NOTES ON NEW BOOKSTitan Unveiled: Saturn’s Mysterious Moon Explored 22Reviewed by Mark Williamson

How Apollo Flew to the Moon andExploring the Moon - the Apollo Expeditions 23Reviewed by James M. Busby

FRONT: A view from the surface of Mars as seen by the Surface Stereo Imager aboard thePhoenix Mars Lander. The Phoenix landed on Mars on May 25, 2008, and will study the historyof water and habitability potential in the Martian arctic’s ice-rich soil. (Source: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona/Texas A&M)BACK: Mars’ larger moon, Phobos, as seen by the High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment(HiRISE) camera on NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. The largest crater in the lowerright, Stickney Crater, is 5.6 miles across. (Source: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona)

6352 Rolling Mill Place, Suite 102Springfield, VA 22152-2354 USATel: 703-866-0020 Fax: [email protected] www.astronautical.org

ON THE COVER


PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

AAS – Advancing All Space

Frank A. [email protected]

The Need for Continuity in ExplorationAs anyone who has ever reflected on some of our nations’ great achievements, such as the interstate highway system, the defeat of the Soviet

bloc without a nuclear conflagration and yes, the landing on the Moon within a decade of the announcement of the goal, what America canaccomplish when it sets a course and perseveres is truly remarkable. Given what we know about politics, what is all the more amazing is that allof these efforts required dedication to a project beyond the relatively short lifespan of the Presidential Administrations that started them, sometimesover many Administrations and multiple changes in the political party in office.

American society will soon face a similar challenge. The Vision for Space Exploration, developed after the Columbia tragedy brought us toreexamine why we send humans into space, and announced as a national objective by a President who is now one of the least popular in UShistory, will soon be in the hands of a new Administration (whether Republican or Democrat) and a Congress which will almost certainly befirmly controlled by the party that was in opposition to the President (although not to space exploration) when the exploration vision was firstannounced. Already, a number of credible space stakeholders are calling for significant changes to the current exploration program, thoseopposed to human exploration as too costly or dangerous and the program’s technical progress is being assailed - sometimes by those withquestionable technical bona fides who gain disproportionate attention through the blogosphere.

In a democracy, a new election brings new leadership that naturally seeks to improve upon its predecessors and put its own imprint on thefederal government’s activities. It is only to be expected that some changes will be made to the current NASA program and that some revisions,improvements, or just new priorities will be made, no matter how well executed the current NASA plan may be. One such example happenedduring President Clinton’s first term when the ISS program was redesigned to include Russia as a major contributor. The wisdom and success ofthis approach has been amply demonstrated as Soyuz and Progress have been an invaluable part of the ISS infrastructure. Yet while the programwas revised in major ways and some design changes were involved, the ISS objectives and the commitments to the international partners werelargely maintained and the technical elements were largely unchanged.

For the sake of our future progress as a spacefaring society, I urge space stakeholders to seek to restrain the impulse to radically revise theexecution of NASA’s Constellation program or risk killing it and further delaying human exploration and exploitation of the solar system.Squabbling over whether the Moon or Mars should be our first target misses thepoint especially since so much work needs to be done just to create a newcapability to put Americans into space and enable the retirement of the SpaceShuttle while supporting the International Space Station. This retirement willfree up the resources within NASA’s budget to enable the Constellation programto proceed. Other changes may also be needed.

While I recognize there are legitimate complaints that insufficient resourcesare being devoted to important areas such as climate change research, ISSutilization, space science, and indeed, the Constellation Program itself, the realityis that the Democratic-controlled Congress has been trying to increase NASA’sbudget beyond what the Bush Administration has been willing to accept. Afterthe election, the new leadership of the Administration and Congress can alwaysenact increases in NASA’s funding. These could go a long way to meet thedesires for additional resources in non-exploration related areas while keepingthe Constellation program, broadly defined, on track.

Centuries from now, when tourists visit Tranquility Base on the surface ofthe Moon, they may wonder what role Richard Nixon played in the Apolloprogram to deserve having his name on the plaque proclaiming “We came inPeace for all Mankind.” Nixon had been in office just seven months and hisbiggest role may have been to NOT to try to upend a program making progresstowards a difficult goal first articulated by a political rival who had defeatedhim. Perhaps, in fact, that is reason enough.

Editor’s Note: AAS welcomes different opinions and encourages members who wish to use SPACE TIMES as a means to facilitate a livelyand informed debate. Although not all submissions can be published, our objective is to encourage enlightened discourse in order to trulyAdvance All Space.


The International Space Station is aself-contained remote habitat relyingextensively on renewable and reusablesources for vehicle and human sustenanceand operations. Research and technologiesfor environmentally friendly living on thespace station are applicable to longduration, more distant space explorationprojects. They’re also relevant to green andsustainable living here on Earth.

The International Space Station hasbeen continuously human occupied for overseven years. Astronauts remain on thestation for up to six months. The relativeisolation is broken by occasional SpaceShuttle station assembly visits. Roboticsupply ships stop by every three or fourmonths bringing needed goods andmaterial to support station operations andcrew well-being. Other than theseinstances, space station systems and crewmust function with whatever limitedresources are available on orbit. For themost part, the International Space Stationwas designed as a self-contained humanlife sustaining ecosystem – a biodome.Vehicle systems maximize reuse, recyclingand renewable sources for air, water,power, and maneuvering.

Like the Earth itself, the InternationalSpace Station has its air and waterreclamation loops. The main facets arewater reclamation and processing, oxygengeneration, carbon dioxide removal, andwater and atmosphere quality monitoring.Current systems recover about 44 % of thetotal space station water needs which isused for oxygen generation, food

rehydration, and hygiene water. Crewmember activities like perspiration andrespiration create moisture in the cabin air.Through control of atmospherictemperature, heat exchangers in both theRussian and US space station segmentscondense the humidity and transfer thecondensate for storage and processing.Water is also reclaimed from the drying oftowels and clothing over the heat

exchangers. Reclaimed water is currentlyprocessed into potable water by a Russianmultistage filtration catalytic purificationsystem. The U.S. Water Recovery System,slated for shuttle launch later this year, willcapture and process urine and other wastewater products. A portion of the recoveredwater is used as “technical” water tosupport various space station systems.Some water is lost and not recoverable.This portion must be replaced by waterproduced by space shuttle fuel cells duringits visits or carried to the space station onrobotic supply spacecraft.

Water is used to generate oxygenthrough electrolysis. The Russian Elektronsystem is currently the primary means forproducing oxygen onboard the spacestation. The US Oxygen GenerationSystem, part of the integrated RegenerativeEnvironmental Control and Life SupportSystems (ECLSS) system was activatedJuly 13, 2007 for check out and to gainexperience with several of the technologiesemployed. In both the US and Russiansystems, the electrolysis bi-producthydrogen is vented overboard.

The other part of the RegenerativeECLSS system, the US Water RecoverySystem (WRS) is scheduled for launch tothe space station this fall. WRS reprocessescondensate, urine, and wastewater intopotable and technical water by distillationand chemical treatments. When WRS andthe US Oxygen generation system (OGS)become fully operational, 78% of thestation’s air and water reclamation loopwill be closed.

Expedition Seven Commander YuriMalenkenko performs routinemaintenance on the Condensate WaterProcessor in the International SpaceStation Service Module. (Source: NASA)

Recycling and Environmentally Friendly Livingon the International Space Stationby Ron Ticker


The US Oxygen Generation System on board the International Space Station.(Source: NASA)

The International Space Station Regenerative EnvironmentalControl and Life Support System. (Source: NASA)

Carbon Dioxide is removed from theatmosphere by either the Russian Vozdukor US Carbon Dioxide Removal System(CDRA). CDRA is a four-bed molecularsieve using zeolite for CO2 adsorption. Thewaste carbon dioxide is vented harmlesslyoverboard to space.

Nitrogen is added to the space stationatmosphere to more closely resemble theEarth environment and to reduce fire risks.The Nitrogen is transported to space by theshuttle or other supply vehicles.

A Sabatier reactor system, a privatelyfunded development by HamiltonSundstrand of Winsdsor Locks, CT wouldfurther close these reclamation loops. TheSabatier carbon dioxide reduction process,named for its discoverer French Nobellaureate chemist Paul Sabatier (1854-1914), produces water and methane fromcarbon dioxide and hydrogen. The Sabatierreactor would be located in the OGS rackand obtain CO2 directly from CDRA andH2 from the OGS. Water produced wouldbe combined with recovered water for

processing and alleviate the need for waterto be provided by external sources such asthe shuttle or robotic supply vehicles. Withthe incorporation of a Sabatier reactor, thespace station’s environmental control andlife support reclamation system would beabout 85% closed. The waste methanewould be vented to space; however, manyhave postulated that the methane could berecovered for use as rocket fuel, possiblyfor a future lunar or Martian ascent vehicle.

The station’s air and potable water areroutinely monitored to ensure crew healthand safety. The Major ConstituentAnalyzer, a mass spectrometer,continuously samples the air from multiplelocations within the US portion of the spacestation and determines the relativeproportions of oxygen, nitrogen, carbondioxide, water vapor, methane andhydrogen. The Trace Contaminant ControlSubassembly (TCCS) removes over 200


The International Space Station Solar Arrays track the sun in two axes. (Source: NASA)

atmospheric chemical compoundsgenerated by equipment off-gassing andhuman functions to ensure these pollutantsremain within safe levels. TCCS uses anactivated charcoal adsorption filter bed forhigh molecular weight constituents and ahigh temperature catalytic oxidizer forconverting low weight hydrocarbons. Asecond adsorption filter of lithiumhydroxide is used to remove any bi-products of the catalytic oxidation.

Potable water purity is monitored byconductivity sensors in the WRS and bythe Total Organic Carbon Analyzer. This

device measures the amount of organic andinorganic carbon as well as pH andconductivity in station water samples.Sample test kits are also used for assessingmicrobial contaminants in the air, waterand on station surfaces. Similar air andwater quality checks are performed in theRussian segment.

The International Space Station requiresa great deal of power to operate its systems,such as ECLSS, Command and DataHandling, Communications, lighting andcrew health, exercise and recreation, andto support a wide range of research

experiments. Currently, three-fourths of itsgiant solar arrays are operating on orbit.When complete, the arrays will cover anarea of 2,192 m2 providing approximately708,000 kW-hours of electrical power peryear for space station systems and research,enough power to supply the electrical needsof about fifty Houston area homes.

The station’s electrical power system isdesigned so that the solar arrays track thesun in two axes. Solar Alpha Rotary Joints(SARJ), one located on the port truss andone on the starboard truss, rotate the solararrays 360º to account for changes in the


Control Moment Gyroscopes on Z1 Truss being prepared for launch. (Source: NASA)

solar angle throughout the station’s orbit.A Beta Gimbal Assembly, attached to eachof the eight Solar Array Wings, rotate thewings 360º to rectify seasonal variationsin sun angle. Together, they maximize thesolar energy collection capability of thearrays. Electrical power is stored in forty-eight Nickel-Hydrogen batteries for useduring the nighttime passes which occurfor about thirty minutes out of each ninetyminute orbit or about sixteen times eachEarth day.

Electrical power management is also animportant consideration on the spacestation. During periods of temporarilydegraded power generation or increasedpower requirements, ISS systems aredesigned to gracefully shed power loads,either automatically or through manualintervention. Power distribution is dividedinto eight channels, each providing powerto a specific set of equipment. In case offailure, the electrical system can bereconfigured through a series of switchesto provide power to whichever string ofequipment is needed.

Although the Russian segment canapply thrusters to control the stationsorientation (called attitude, whether thestation is traveling forward or backwards,tilted up or down, or rotated straight orperpendicular to its direction of motion) asit orbits the Earth, the primary means forattitude control is to store and reusemomentum. Momentum storage saves fuelwhile providing accurate and stablecontrol. Four control motion gyroscopesare mounted on the Z1 truss above Node 1Unity near the station’s center axis. Eachcontrol motion gyroscope has a 220 poundsteel wheel which spins at 6600 revolutionsper minute storing a large amount ofangular momentum. Gimbals, commandedby the station’s computers, change the spinaxis of the gyroscopes to any angle desiredimparting a torque to change the station’sorientation. This is very similar to the wellknown demonstration of a person sitting

on a chair capable of turning, holding aspinning bicycle wheel. As the personchanges the angle of the bicycle wheel, thechair begins to rotate.

When complete in 2010, theInternational Space Station will encompass

a pressurized volume of about 32,300 cu.ft., larger than a five bedroom house. Aswith most homes, storage space is at apremium so the control and removal of foodwaste and trash is a significant concern.About four tons of supplies are needed to


Ron Ticker is the Space Station Managerfor Development at the NationalAeronautics and Space AdministrationHeadquarters in Washington, DC.

U.S. Regenerative Environmental Control amd Life Support System (ECLSS) loops. (Source: NASA)

support a three person crew for six months.To date, space station crews haveconsumed over 49,000 pounds of food.Generally, food and other supplies aretransported to the space station about threeor four times per year onboard roboticcargo vessels such as the Russian Progressand Europe’s new Automated TransferVehicle (ATV). Packing material isminimized by using soft goods such astowels and clothing.

Electronic media is used, as much aspossible, to limit the amount of wastepaper. The empty Progress or AutomatedTransfer Vehicle is used as a wastecontainer for food scraps, used storagecontainers and other trash. Prior to thearrival of the next supply craft, the oldsupply spacecraft is undocked from thespace station and allowed to reenter. Theused Progress or ATV burns up in the

atmosphere incinerating the trash alongwith the vehicle. About 10,000 pounds ofstation refuse consisting primarily of foodwaste, used clothing and towels, spentbatteries, filters, lights and brokenequipment is incinerated in this way eachyear.

Life on the International Space Stationprovides a vision of future sustainableliving homes and workplaces on Earth. Thecost and logistical difficulty of reliance onsupplies from Earth and the need for a safeand comfortable living environment onorbit make recycling and reuse essentialto station’s long term operations. As peopleand nations on Earth struggle to addressclimate change, the space station isprogressing toward closed loop climatecontrol and regeneration. As communitiesare making headway on materialreclamation and environmentally friendly

refuse disposal, the space station has ofnecessity maximized its material reuse andenvironmentally safe refuse incineration.As building and cars are now implementinggreen construction and design concepts, thespace station has already demonstratedgreen designs and operations for air, water,power and maneuvering. As humansventure beyond the station’s altitude toexplore other worlds, environmentallyfriendly systems and operations pioneeredon the space station will help maintain thehuman habitat on both the distant worldand home planet.


Multiple-Spacecraft Missions in NASA’sHeliophysics Divisionby Mary Chiu, Dan Ossing, and Margaret Simon

ST5 spacecraft being fitted with a thermalblanket (Source: NASA)

Lessons learned from three recentmultiple-spacecraft missions are relevantboth to future space science missionconcepts and basic systems engineeringpractices.

Missions consisting of multiplespacecraft play an important role in theNASA Heliophysics Division’s goal ofscientific study and exploration of the Sun-Earth connection. The science lends itselfto this approach, since multiple spacecraftprovide simultaneous multi-pointmeasurements over areas that cannot bemade with a single spacecraft. Over aneleven month period from March 2006 toFebruary 2007, the NASA HeliophysicsDivision launched three multiple-spacecraft missions: ST5 (SpaceTechnology 5), THEMIS (Timed Historyof Events and Macroscale Interactionsduring Substorms), and STEREO (SolarTErrestrial RElations Observatory).

NASA also has three more multiple-spacecraft missions - RBSP (RadiationBelt Storm Probes), MMS(Magnetospheric Multiscale), and SolarSentinels - in various stages ofdevelopment for launch in the future. Withthis recent experience gained in multiplespacecraft development, the HeliophysicsDivision commissioned a study to captureand document the lessons learnedconcerning development, launch, andoperations of multiple spacecraft by thesepast three missions. These lessons arerelevant not only to future missions in thescientific community, but also withinindustrial scale of production concerns andbasic systems engineering practices.

A Lessons Learned Conference formultiple-spacecraft missions was held atthe JHU/APL on November 6, 2007.There were over 100 participants,representing the past and future multiple-spacecraft missions within theHeliophysics Division. The conferenceincluded presentations on ST5, THEMIS,and STEREO, and an interactivediscussion session between theconference participants and the studyleads.

The goals of ST5, THEMIS, andSTEREO were diverse, but each missionneeded multi-point measurements to meettheir science goals. The manner in whichthese missions were conceptualized,designed, developed, and implementedregarding their multiple spacecraftaspects (relative to single spacecraftmissions) was studied in order todetermine considerations that might assistfuture multiple-spacecraft missions. Thisstudy focused on aspects unique to and/or amplified by multiple spacecraftsystems. Nonetheless, the studyrecognized that each mission is unique.Mission design and approaches aredetermined by a multitude of factors thatmay not be applicable to other missions.

SPACE TECHNOLOGY 5 (ST5)ST5 was part of NASA’s New

Millennium Program (NMP). NMP’sprimary goal is to accelerate theincorporation of advanced technologiesinto future NASA science missions. TheSpace Technology 5 (ST5) mission wasintended to reduce the weight, size, and

cost of space missions while increasing theirtechnical capabilities and concepts. Themission was developed, managed, andoperated by the NASA Goddard SpaceFlight Center (GSFC) in Greenbelt, MD.Launched on March 22, 2006, ST5’smission life was 3 months, anddecommissioning was completed in July2006.

The three spacecraft in the ST5constellation were identical. The minimumconstellation requirement was twooperational spacecraft. The ST5 spacecraftwere very small, with a mass of 25 kg eachand a size of ~50 cm in diameter ´ 48 cmhigh. The power generated from the triplejunction solar cell arrays was 25 W. Theconstellation in low Earth orbit observed a“string of pearls” formation, with thespacecraft, spin stabilized, within 50-250km of each other. The orbit parameters were105.6 degrees inclination, ~300 km perigee,~4500 km apogee, with a 136-minute


Artist’s concept of the ST5 spacecraft(Source: NASA)

THEMIS launch configuration (Source: NASA)

period. The three spacecraft were releasedindividually from the Pegasus launchvehicle via a custom “frisbee-style”dispenser that also powered eachspacecraft on at release. This dispenserwas part of the overall mission effort.

The ST5 mission successfullydemonstrated several technologies. Themission demonstrated that a micro-satellitedesign could support scientific instrumentsby providing a highly stable platform(there was no measurable nutation orconing) that was magnetically clean, had0.1 degree pointing knowledge, and hadposition knowledge of less than 1 km. TheST5 spacecraft payload included onescientific instrument: a research-gradeflux-gate magnetometer. ST5 alsodemonstrated that ground systemsarchitectures could be developed to enableconstellation missions using groundsystem automation with minimal staffingand to enable formation flying in pre-determined configurations.

ST5’s micro-sats flew within themagnetosphere that surrounds our planetlike a shield. While testing its “small size”concept and multiple technologies, ST5mapped the intensity and direction of themagnetic fields within the innermagnetosphere closest to Earth. Collecteddata has been returned to scientists on theground for analysis.

THEMISLaunched on February 17, 2007,

THEMIS is a two-year mission consistingof five identical probes that will study theviolent colorful eruptions of auroras.THEMIS was selected on March 20, 2003,to proceed as the fifth MIDEX (Mid-SizeExplorer) mission in NASA’s Explorerprogram. The THEMIS mission wasmanaged by the NASA GSFC. Thespacecraft buses were built by SWALES(now known as ATK). The University ofCalifornia Berkeley Space SciencesLaboratory managed the instrumentdevelopment, integration, and operation ofthe THEMIS mission. THEMIS’ primarygoal is to understand the physicalinstability (trigger mechanism) formagnetospheric substorms.

There are five spacecraft in theTHEMIS constellation, four of which wererequired for minimum science. TheTHEMIS spacecraft were launched onFebruary 17, 2007 from the KennedySpace Center in Florida, on a Delta II 7925launch vehicle. The five spacecraft weremounted on a custom-designed, “wedding-cake”-shaped dispenser. Significantscientific was returned before the

spacecraft were even placed in their finalscience orbits.

All five spacecraft were identical, witha dry mass of 77 kg. The spacecraft arespin stabilized, but carry propellant fororbit and attitude adjustments. Theinstruments included three-axis electricfield and three-axis magnetic fieldinstrumentation, three-dimensional (3-D)ion and electron particle detectors, and aninstrument data processing unit. There wereeight deployed booms for the instruments.

The five spacecraft were maneuveredinto their final orbits during October-November 2007. Each spacecraft wasplaced in a different elliptical, polar orbitso that every four days they will line up inthe magnetotail. Each spacecraft measuresparticles and fields at the same time so thatscientists can analyze the data to discoverthe time history of these events and theresulting substorm that occurs.

THEMIS is an Explorer Class missionto resolve one of the oldest mysteries inspace physics, namely to determine whatphysical process in near-Earth spaceinitiates the violent eruptions of the aurorathat occur during substorms in the Earth’smagnetosphere.


An understanding and predictive spaceweather capability for magnetosphericsubstorms will help characterize theenvironment in which spacecraft andastronauts operate and ensure their safety.Substorms accompany the most intensespace storms – those that disruptcommunications, cause power linetransmission failures, and produce the mostpenetrating radiation. THEMIS is midwaythrough its mission to gain insight into themost severe space storms.

STEREOSTEREO is part of NASA’s Solar

Terrestrial Probes (STP) program withinthe Heliophysics Division. The STEREOmission was conceived in the early/mid-1990s, and NASA officially selectedSTEREO as a mission in November 1999.Following a number of delays, theSTEREO spacecraft were launched onOctober 25, 2006. Since then, they havebeen successfully operating and producing3-D images of the Sun.

The primary mission goal for STEREOis to provide a new perspective on solareruptions and their consequences for Earthby imaging coronal mass ejections (CMEs)and background events from two spacecraftsimultaneously. One spacecraft leads Earthin its orbit and one lags behind, each carriesthe same cluster of instruments and driftsaway from the Earth at 22 degrees per year.

In coordination with ground observations,the trajectory of Earth-bound CMEs canbe tracked in three dimensions.

The STEREO mission consists of twolarge, observatory class, three-axisstabilized spacecraft that are functionallyidentical. The physical differences arerelatively minor and driven by instrument,launch, and orbital requirements. The twospacecraft were launched from theKennedy Space Center in Florida in astacked configuration within a Delta II7925L 10-foot fairing.

After launch, the two spacecraftseparated autonomously, and detumbledinto a power-positive three-axis stablizedSun pointing attitude. The spacecraft havea dry mass of 560 kg for the Aheadspacecraft and 595 kg for the Behindspacecraft. The mass differences are theresult of the different structuralrequirements for the two spacecraft basedupon their position in the launchconfiguration stack. The size of eachspacecraft was 1.2 m wide by 2 m long by1.5 m high. The power generationcapability is 509 W. There are fourinstrument suites on each spacecraft: animaging suite, two particle sensor suites,and an electric field sensor. Theinstruments themselves were identical onthe two spacecraft, but the location of onepair of instruments was “flipped” to collectrequired science data.

STEREO’s Mission design is creative:The orbits are deep space heliocentric withone spacecraft “leading” Earth and onespacecraft “lagging” the Earth. Theseorbits precess each year, resulting inincreasing separation between the twospacecraft over time; their relativeseparation is 44 degrees per year. Thescheduled mission lifetime is two years,with a possible one-year extension for dataanalysis.

To achieve the heliocentric orbitrequirements for science with one launchvehicle, phasing orbits for both spacecraftwere employed around the Earth. Theseorbits required periodic delta-V maneuversto target multiple lunar swingbys to placeeach observatory in its required scienceorbit.

The diversity of these missions and theirscience objectives is clear, though somepractices for multiple-spacecraft missionswere quite common among them. Manyothers depended on mission-specificaspects, and at that point the approachesand practices diverged.

There appeared to be five key attributesthat resulted in differences in approachbetween the missions, which aresummarized below.

Lessons Learned about MultipleSpacecraft

Many lessons learned about multiplespacecraft are applicable to systemsengineering and the production ofspacecraft in general. While some findingsmay seem obvious or even common sense,the potential program resources savingscan be significant if implemented withforesight and careful consideration.

One major finding on lessons learnedfor multiple-spacecraft missions will benoted up front. While in hindsight thisfinding may seem obvious, having itconfirmed by all three past missions issatisfying.Finding: Multiple-spacecraft missionsresult in more thoroughly tested

THEMIS orbit plans (Source: NASA)


spacecraft at launch than singlespacecraft missions.

All past mission teams reported a higherlevel of characterization and knowledge oftheir spacecraft at launch compared to theirexperience with single spacecraft missions.Assuming identical or nearly identicaldesign, multiple spacecraft platforms allowa more thorough check-out andcharacterization of the system design atspacecraft level than is possible in singlespacecraft missions. This scenario canoccur at component or subsystem level inredundant single spacecraft, but formultiple spacecraft it is extended to theentire system at spacecraft level. Thisredundancy provides a significantadvantage in risk reduction and appears tobe inherent in the multiple spacecraftscenario.

Other findings and excerpts from theLessons Learned report are summarizedbelow.

Table: Differences in approach between the three missions (Source: NASA)

Commonality in Design betweenSpacecraft

All past missions incorporatedcommonality between spacecraft in theconcept and design stage to the extentpractical.Finding: There were significantadvantages to commonality among all theprevious multiple-spacecraft missions.Commonality was a design goal fromconcept and was adhered to duringdevelopment to the maximum extentpossible.

All past programs experiencedsignificant benefits from commonality and

incorporated it into their designs from theearliest stages. ST5 and THEMISspacecraft were identical, and theSTEREO spacecraft were functionally thesame and instrumented identically. ForSTEREO, the science requirementsprecluded the two spacecraft from beingidentical physically, but the physicaldifferences were relatively minor. Eachmission traded some optimization insubsystems (for example, power andpropulsion) in favor of commonality. Buteach of these trades needs to be evaluatedin the context of each mission and itsoverall requirements. For STEREO, themechanical design to address the structuraldifferences required for the launchconditions was optimized rather than madecommon. This allowed more mass for othersystems, while only slightly increasingmechanical costs.Finding: If feasible, identical spacecraftallow consideration of a spare spacecraft

in the mission plan, which providessignificant flexibility in risk strategiesthroughout development and operation.

For ST5 and THEMIS, the identicalspacecraft allowed a spare spacecraft tobe included in the overall mission. Forthese two missions, the feasibility of thiswas made possible by the small size andmass, and the relatively low cost of theindividual spacecraft. These are allconsiderations within the mission conceptstage. For both missions, the number ofspacecraft was determined by the science(THEMIS) or the technology (ST5) goalsplus one spare. By having a spare

spacecraft, both missions had significantlymore risk reduction options during thecourse of their development and review toaddress potential areas of concern. This,in turn, allowed more options to balancecost and technical approach duringdevelopment.

Design for “Production”Finding: Analyzing the design from theconcept stage for ease of manufacture andcommonality within each spacecraftresulted in significant savings forsubsequent builds for ST5.

ST5 was a pathfinder for largeconstellations of spacecraft and, as aconsequence, spent considerable effort toengineer the spacecraft architecture forease of manufacture and assembly. Theengineers decided on a more integrateddesign with a card cage structure to reducethe amount of “hands-on” fabrication suchas harnessing. They analyzed items such

as solar panels to increase the use of asingle design within each spacecraft to theextent possible, even if it sometimesresulted in “over-design.” This increasedthe effort for the non-recurring engineering,but for ST5 it was very effective inreducing the cost of multiple builds. TheST5 team reported that the prototypespacecraft cost 84% of the budget, withthe remaining two spacecraft constitutingthe remainder.

Design for OperationsFinding: The mission concept ofoperations has a greater influence on the


STEREO mission profile (Source: NASA)

design of the spacecraft hardware,software, and data stuctures as thenumber of spacecraft increases.

While not part of the past missionswithin this study, the GLOBALSAT andIRIDIUM systems were investigated fortheir lessons learned in multiple-spacecraftmissions. These missions differed from theHeliophysics Division missions in manyways, but there may be some aspects thatmight be considered for future missions.The number of satellites (each mission ofthese had over 50 satellites) was a keyfactor that drove many areas of the groundsystem design. Throughout the designphase, engineers were told to think of eachoperational task as being done n satellite

times. In some cases, the operationalrequirements were flowed down to theflight software and data structures. Forexample, the spacecraft housekeeping datarate was reduced to 1 kbps to ease thevolume of data for downlink, trending, andarchiving. Also, a re-programmable systemof buffers to record and downlink criticalhousekeeping data at the start of each passalong with a corresponding ground tool toinstantaneously display the plots of the datawas implemented to easily monitor thehealth of the satellite.

Heritage UseFinding: The use of heritage instrumentand spacecraft components significantly

decreases the risk factors for multiple-spacecraft missions.

STEREO and THEMIS both reportedthat the use of “heritage” componentscontributed significantly to theaccomplishment of the overall missionwithin the allocated resources. (Note thatheritage considerations were not part ofthe ST5 mission, since its primary goalwas to serve as a technologydemonstration.) Reducing the amount ofdevelopment required is a commonstrategy to decrease risk on any sciencemission. For a multiple spacecraft mission,this consideration is even more important.The heritage aspect applies not only to theinstrumentation but also to the spacecraft


This study was performed by the JohnsHopkins University Applied PhysicsLaboratory under a NASA contract. Thestudy leads were Mary Chiu and DanOssing. Margaret Simon prepared thearticle for publication. The presentationsgiven at the Lessons LearnedConference, as well as the study finalreport, are available on the website:http://multiscstudy.jhuapl.edu/.

components. In both STEREO andTHEMIS, it was reported that theinstruments that had the least heritage hadthe most problems in meeting schedule.

Advanced PlanningFormer president Dwight D.

Eisenhower once said, “Plans are nothing;planning is everything,” and indeed, formultiple-spacecraft missions to maintainschedule within given resources, this wasvery apparent. Planning for singlespacecraft missions at more detailed levelstypically takes place in stages and invarious lead times to the particular activitybeing considered. For multiple spacecraft,past mission teams reported that therewould have been considerable advantagesto performing some of the detailed planningfar earlier than typical. Potential problemsin logistics, scheduling, or staffing couldbe exposed by early planning. Many of theareas discussed in this section areinterrelated.

Mass and Power TrackingFinding: Mass and power reserves mustbe treated similarly to single spacecraftstrategies, multiplied by the number ofspacecraft in the constellation.

The reserve strategies for mass andpower budgets need to recognize the factthat there is a multiplicative factor involvedfor multiple spacecraft. If one componentincreases by x in mass or power, theincrease is actually n times x, with theaddition of n times the reserve factor(which depends on the maturity of thedesign and the stage of development withinthe mission). This aspect of multiple-spacecraft missions is closely tied with theadvantages of using heritage components.Finding: The launch configuration hasramifications throughout the rest of themission design and implementation, andshould be decided early in the mission.

The decision to use a dispenser or astacked configuration each had its own setof ramifications. The design of a dispenser

is a significant effort but allows thespacecraft to be identical in handlingfixtures and allows mechanicalenvironmental testing of the individualspacecraft to be performed independently.This was not the case for the stackedconfiguration for STEREO.

RF CommunicationsFinding: Larger constellations ofspacecraft simplify communications byusing a single frequency forcommunications. For two-spacecraftconstellations, the use of two frequenciesallows simultaneous communications butsignificantly increases the complexity ofthe ground system and operations andslightly reduces commonality.

Both ST-5 and THEMIS used the sameRF communication frequencies for eachspacecraft, relying on the spacecraft IDfor unique identification. This provided agreatly simplified mission operations(MOPs), concept of operations(CONOPs), and ground systemarchitecture. The resulting systemresembled a single spacecraft mission,yielding cost savings for the mission. TheMOPs CONOPs is simplified by havingno requirements for simultaneous passes.It also benefits RF subsystem developmentand I&T by requiring only one frequencyauthorization, one set of test procedures,and simplified RF GSE. STEREO usedseparate frequencies for each spacecraftdriven by requirements for simultaneousuplinks and downlinks. This approachsignificantly increases the complexity ofthe ground system while slightly reducingcommonality.

FabricationFinding: Fabrication requiring humanhands should be done by the “samehands” for all spacecraft to the extentpossible.

All spacecraft require a great deal ofindividual (versus automated) fabricationeffort. Each past mission reported having

the best performance when a specific“hands-on” fabrication was performed bythe same person(s). This does have animpact on personnel resources andscheduling, but all reported that theconsistency in fabrication was an overridingbenefit.

Future Applications to Both andScience and Industry

As a risk reduction measure, clusters ofmultiple satellites decrease the risk ofmission failure if a single system orinstrument fails. Additionally, the ability tomonitor and perform multiplemeasurements within the magnetosphereprovides a better understanding of changesoccurring in this harsh environment.Characterizing the space environment itselfis important, since future micro-sat ornanosat missions, with tens to hundreds ofvehicles, must be capable of responding tochanges in the charged particles andmagnetic fields that sweep over them everyfew seconds to few minutes.

Mission results from these researchefforts will aid in planning in future micro-sat or nanosat missions. Future plansinclude a “constellation” of hundreds ofnanosats to explore the transport of theSun’s plasma and the processes that convertenergy occurring within the “tail” of Earth’smagnetosphere. Such exploration mayenable scientists to construct a reliablemethod of predicting magnetosphericmeteorology, or “space weather.”


News for AAS Members

AAS NEWS

Call for 2008 Fellows NominationsCandidates must be a current member of AAS with significant scientific, engineering, academic, and/or managementcontributions to astronautics and space. In addition, contributions to AAS are considered. Selection procedures,nomination cover sheet, and a complete list of Fellows elected since 1954 can be viewed on the websiteat www.astronautical.org. Nominations can be submitted by any AAS member, and must be received by the AASOffice by June 16, with supporting letters due by July 16. The Fellows Committee will review all submissions, andtheir recommended candidates will be sent to officers, directors, and active Fellows for vote.

Call for 2008 Award NominationsEach year AAS presents awards to recognize the excellence and professional service of our own membership andmembers of the space community. You are invited and strongly encouraged to nominate worthwhile candidates forthese awards. Award descriptions, previous recipients, and nomination procedures can be viewed on the website atwww.astronautical.org. Nominations will be accepted by the AAS Office through July 16, at which time the AwardsCommittee will review all submissions and forward names of recommended candidates to the officers and directorsfor vote. Recipients (and newly elected Fellows) will be invited to accept their award at the AAS National Conferenceand Annual Meeting at the Pasadena Hilton in November.

AAS National Conference – “Space Science and Exploration in the Next Decade”Mark your calendars for the AAS National Conference in Pasadena, Nov 17-19, 2008. We’ll be looking ahead to thenext decade with the type of world class program our Society is known for. We will feature speakers you will wantto hear and topics you will need to know more about, so plan to join the community of space professionals at thePasadena Hilton in November, and the complete program will be posted soon on the AAS web site.

Forging the Future of Space Science – The Next 50 YearsThe final event in this Space Studies Board series will be a free day long colloquium on June 26, 2008 at TheNational Academy of Sciences Auditorium, 2101 Constitution Avenue NW, in Washington, DC, from 8:30-5:30.Although there is no charge to attend, registration is recommended. A free lunch will be provided in the Great Hall.Check www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb for more information.

“The Great Planet Debate” for Scientists and EducatorsThis unique Scientific Conference and Educator Workshop will be held August 14-16, 2008 at the Johns HopkinsUniversity/Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland. Check www.gpd.jhuapl.edu for registration and details.


The International Space University (ISU) will hold its senior-level program, the Space Odyssey Institute (SOI), from 6-17 July2008, in Barcelona, Spain.

Participation in the Institute will offer space professionals the opportunity to network with their peers from diverse backgroundsand nations around the globe, during a program that explores the long-term vision for space development and exploration. As theyare exposed to emerging opportunities in this field, SOI participants will discover the broad range of ideas and views on currenttopics, and obstacles in search of solutions, that are a part of the rapidly changing aerospace landscape.

The twelve day short course is designed to meet the needs of experienced professionals from mid-level to senior leadershippositions in the international aerospace community. The multidisciplinary course is balanced between classroom lectures, insightfulworkshops and pertinent professional visits.

The 2008 SOI offering builds upon the highly successful inaugural offering by ISU in 2007 at Beihang University in Beijing,China. That initial experience last year hosted twelve space professionals from five countries. These dozen managers and executivescame from government, traditional aerospace industry, and the “new space” entrepreneurial sector. With backgrounds in law,engineering, management, and science, these people come together to exchange ideas, learn from each other, and explore the diverseapproaches being applied to common problems. At the same time, they recaptured that “class bonding” that comes from sharing alearning experience in a unique setting, away from the “day-to-day” work environment.

To help focus the experience, each ISU SOI session is designed to result in a vision paper relating to an important policy issue inaerospace. This paper explores emerging aerospace trends and issues, and identifies opportunities and obstacles for synergy acrossthe space community. The theme for the vision paper for SOI 2008 is “Niche Opportunities in Space Exploration.”

The Space Odyssey Institute is based on the premise that leadership requires constant renewal and life-long learning. It alsorecognizes that the burdens of increased responsibility as one’s career matures often work to isolate leaders. The Space OdysseyInstitute was designed by ISU to allow participants to experience with their peers from around the world, an “oasis” in the form ofa collaborative, non-judgmental environment. Professional renewal and senior-level networking are accommodated while increasingthe understanding of important new trends that connect diverse segments of the rapidly expanding global space sector.

Today, ISU counts more than 2500 alumni from 96 different countries. Approximately 85% of its graduates are actively engagedin the space sector in increasingly responsible positions around the globe. All of its graduate-level and professional developmentprograms, including the Masters degree, the nine week Space Studies Program (SSP), as well as the SOI, are built around ISU’sfoundational methodology of the “Three I’s” – international, interdisciplinary, and intercultural. This emphasis ensures that participantscome away from their ISU experience with new skills, enhanced capacity for innovation, and renewed energy that comes from freshinsight and “out-of-the-box” thinking.

To apply for SOI 2008, or for more information about ISU and its programs, please visit: www.isunet.edu.

The International Space UniversitySpace Odyssey Institute“Niche Opportunities in Space Exploration”Barcelona, SpainJuly 6-17, 2008

Call for Space Professionals

CALL FOR SPACE PROFESSIONALS


CORPORATE MEMBER PROFILE

The International Space University (ISU) helps to develop the future leaders of the world space community by providinginterdisciplinary educational programs to students and space professionals in an international, intercultural environment. The ISUexperience gives students a substantive intercultural knowledge and skill set for working with people throughout the world, and hascreated an extensive international network that is proving to be increasingly important in implementing international space ventures.Since its creation in 1987, ISU has graduated just over 2500 students from 96 countries.

ISU conducts 3 major academic programs. A two-month Space Studies Program (SSP) travels to a new location around the worldeach year. It will take place in Barcelona, Spain in the summer of 2008. A typical summer session class may involve about 30different nationalities and is supported by some 80 lecturers, many of whom are senior managers in space agencies and spaceindustry. Two 12-month Masters degree programs, the M.Sc. in Space Studies (MSS) and the M.Sc. in Space Management (MSM),are based at the ISU central campus in Strasbourg, France. Each includes a twelve-week internship at space-related companies,agencies, and non-profit organizations throughout the globe. Around 50 to 60 students are selected each year, typically representing25 to 30 countries.

ISU also offers a two week “version” of the SSP, called the Space Odyssey Institute, at the site of each year’s SSP, tailored to theneeds of senior space professionals and executives. The intensive one week Executive Space Course is ideal for individuals at anycareer level who wish to “get up to speed” and/or broaden their interdisciplinary knowledge about all things “space.” ISU offersother short programs, seminars and workshops, either of general interest or tailored to a customer’s specific needs. Additionally, ISUhosts an Annual International Symposium that encourages wide-ranging discussion of topical space issues within an interdisciplinaryand international forum at our Strasbourg campus.

The International Space University and the “Three I” Concept:International - Interdisciplinary - Intercultural

Corporate Member Profile

CALL FOR PAPERS ABSTRACT DEADLINE: October 6, 2008

Call for PapersThe 19th AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics MeetingHilton Savannah DesotoSavannah, Georgia

ABSTRACT DEADLINE: October 6, 2008

The 19th Space Flight Mechanics Meeting will be held February 8–12, 2009 at the Hilton Savannah Desoto in Savannah, Georgia.The conference is organized by the American Astronautical Society (AAS) Space Flight Mechanics Committee and co-sponsored bythe American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Astrodynamics Technical Committee. Papers are solicited on topicsrelated to space flight mechanics and astrodynamics, including, but not limited to:• asteroid and non-Earth orbiting missions;• atmospheric re-entry guidance and control;• attitude dynamics, determination and control;• attitude-sensor and payload-sensor calibration;• dynamical systems theory applied to space flight problems;• dynamics and control of large space structures and tethers;• earth orbital and planetary mission studies;• flight dynamics operations and spacecraft autonomy;• history of the US space program;• orbit determination and space-surveillance tracking;• orbital debris and space environment;• orbital dynamics, perturbations, and stability;• rendezvous, relative motion, proximity missions, and formation flying;• reusable launch vehicle design, dynamics, guidance, and control;• satellite constellations;• spacecraft guidance, navigation and control (GNC); and• trajectory / mission / maneuver design and optimization.Papers will be accepted based on the quality of an extended abstract (see below), the originality of the work and ideas, and theanticipated interest in the proposed subject. Papers that contain experimental results or current data, or report on ongoing missions,are especially encouraged.Final manuscripts are required before the conference. The working language for the conference is English.

SPECIAL SESSIONSProposals are being accepted for suitable special sessions, including panel discussions, invited sessions, workshops, mini-symposia,and technology demonstrations. A proposal for a topical panel discussion should include the session title, a brief description of thediscussion topic(s), and a list of the speakers and their qualifications. For an invited session, workshop, mini-symposium, ordemonstration, a proposal should include the session title, a brief description, and a list of proposed activities and invited speakersand paper titles. Prospective session organizers should submit their proposals to the Technical Chairs.

BREAKWELL STUDENT TRAVEL AWARDThe AAS Space Flight Mechanics Technical Committee announces the John V. Breakwell Student Travel Award. This award providestravel expenses for up to three (3) U.S. and Canadian students presenting papers at this conference. Students wishing to apply for thisaward are strongly advised to submit their completed paper by the abstract submittal deadline. The maximum coverage per studentis limited to $1000. Details and applications may be obtained via http://www.space-flight.org.


CALL FOR PAPERS

INFORMATION FOR AUTHORSThe official conference website is located at http://www.space-flight.org/AAS_meetings/2009_winter/2009%20winter.html, whichis accessible from the AAS website at http://www.space-flight.org. Conference information, rules and regulations are maintainedand updated via the web; authors should refer to the official website for the most current information.The abstract submission deadline is October 6, 2008. Please be aware that this date has been set at the latest possible date for theconvenience of contributors and that there are no plans to defer this deadline due to the constraints of the conference planningschedule. Should the number of submissions exceed the limited number of presentation slots, preference will be given to the earliestsubmissions. Notification of acceptance will be sent via email by November 17, 2008.To submit an abstract, use the web-based submission system accessible from the official conference website. By submitting anabstract, the author affirms that the paper’s majority content has not been previously presented or published elsewhere. Detailedauthor instructions will be sent by email after the abstract has been submitted. As part of the online submission process, authors areexpected to provide:1. A paper title, as well as the name, affiliation, postal address, telephone number, and email address of the corresponding author.2. A two page extended abstract of at least 500 words, in the Portable Document File (PDF) format. The extended abstract shouldprovide a clear and concise statement of the problem to be addressed, an explanation of its significance, the proposed method ofsolution, the results expected or obtained, and supporting tables and figures as appropriate. A list of pertinent references should beincluded.3. A condensed abstract (100 words maximum) to be included in the printed conference program. The condensed abstract is to beentered into the text box provided on the web page, and must avoid the use of special symbols or characters, such as Greek letters.Technology Transfer Warning – Technology transfer guidelines substantially extend the time required to review abstracts andpapers by private enterprises and government agencies. These reviews can require four months or more. To preclude late submissionsand paper withdrawals, it is the responsibility of the author(s) to determine the extent of necessary approvals prior to submitting anabstract.Visas – Applications for visas to enter the Unites States can take more than six months in some cases. Be sure to apply for a visa wellin advance of the conference.No Paper / No Podium and No Podium / No Publication Policy – Completed manuscripts are to be electronically uploaded to theweb site prior to the conference in PDF format, be no more than twenty pages in length, and conform to the AAS paper format. If thecompleted manuscript is not contributed on time, then it will not be presented at the conference and will not appear in the conferenceproceedings. Any paper which is not presented for any reason will be considered to be withdrawn and will not appear in the conferenceproceedings. Prior to presentation, the presenting author will provide the session chair with a short biographical sketch and, ifrequested, a paper copy of the manuscript and presentation.Questions concerning the submission of papers should be addressed to the technical chairs:

AAS Technical Chair AIAA Technical ChairDr. Alan M. Segerman Dr. Peter C. LaiAT&T Government Solutions, Inc. Aerospace CorporationNaval Research Laboratory Mail Stop: M4-895Code 8233, 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW 2350 E. El Segundo BoulevardWashington, DC 20375-5355 El Segundo, CA 90245-4691Tel: 202-767-3819 Fax: 202-404-7785 Tel: [email protected] [email protected]

All other question should be directed to the General Chairs:

AAS General Chair AIAA General ChairDr. Matthew P. Wilkins Dr. Mark E. PittelkauSchafer Corporation Aerospace Control SystemsAFRL/DESM Engineering and Research, LLC550 Lipoa Parkway 35215 Greyfriar DriveKihei, HI 96753 Round Hill, VA 20141-2395Tel: 808-891-7747 Fax: 808-874-1603 Tel: 540-751-1110 Fax: [email protected] [email protected]



AAS CORPORATE MEMBERS

Welcome New Corporate Members

The Aerospace CorporationAir Force Institute of Technologya.i. solutions, inc.Analytical Graphics, Inc.Applied Defense Solutions, Inc.Applied Physics Laboratory / JHUArianespaceAuburn UniversityBall Aerospace & Technologies Corp.The Boeing CompanyBraxton Technologies, Inc.Carnegie Institution of WashingtonComputer Sciences CorporationEdge Space Systems, Inc.Embry-Riddle Aeronautical UniversityGeneral Dynamics AISGeorge Mason University, CAPRHoneywell Technology Solutions, Inc.International Space UniversityJacobs Technology, Inc.Jet Propulsion Laboratory

KinetX, Inc.Lockheed Martin CorporationLunar Transportation Systems, Inc.N. Hahn & Co., Inc.NoblisNorthrop Grumman Space TechnologyOrbital Sciences CorporationThe Pennsylvania State UniversityRaytheonSAICThe Tauri GroupTechnica, Inc.Texas A&M UniversityUnited Launch AllianceUnivelt, Inc.Universal Space NetworkUniversity of FloridaUtah State University / Space Dynamics LaboratoryVirginia TechWomen in AerospaceWyle Laboratories


UPCOMING EVENTS

AAS Events ScheduleJune 13-15, 2008*Student CanSat CompetitionAmarillo, TexasFor information: www.cansatcompetition.com

June 29-July 1, 2008*F. Landis Markley Astronautics SymposiumThe Hyatt Regency Chesapeake BayCambridge, MarylandFor information: [email protected]

August 18-21, 2008*AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist ConferenceHilton Hawaiian VillageHonolulu, HawaiiFor information: www.aiaa.org

*AAS Cosponsored Meetings

Membership TypeMember .............................. $85Affiliate ........................... $85Senior Member ............ $100Retired ............................. $35Teacher (K-12) .............. $35Student (full-time) ....... $35

___________________________________________________________________________________Mr./Ms./Dr. Last Name First Name

___________________________________________________________________________________Title Company

___________________________________________________________________________________Address

___________________________________________________________________________________City State Zip Code

___________________________________________________________________________________Phone E-mail

Membership Application703-866-0020

www.astronautical.org

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Payment Method❒ Check Enclosed❒ Credit Card

❒ Visa ❒ Amex ❒ MasterCard________________________________________Credit Card Number

________________________________________Expiration Date

________________________________________Signature

Mail to: AAS6352 Rolling Mill PlaceSuite 102Springfield, VA 22152-2354

Fax to: 703-866-3526

November 17-19, 2008AAS National Conference and 55th Annual MeetingPasadena HiltonPasadena, CaliforniaFor information: www.astronautical.org

January 31-February 4, 2009AAS Guidance and Control ConferenceBeaver Run Resort and Conference CenterBreckenridge, ColoradoAbstract Deadline: September 15, 2008For information:www.aas-rocky-mountain-section.org

February 8-12, 2009*19th AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics MeetingHilton Savannah DesotoSavannah, GeorgiaAbstract Deadline: October 6, 2008For information: www.space-flight.org

Membership Benefits Include: Subscriptions to the quarterly TheJournal of the Astronautical Sciences and the bi-monthly SPACETIMES magazine, as well as reduced rates at all AAS conferences.Visit the AAS website for additional information about benefits.


NOTES ON NEW BOOKS

Let’s face it: Nobody alive today islikely to see Titan, Saturn’s largest moon,from an orbiting spacecraft, let alone fromthe surface. The only way we can get anidea of what Titan is like is by sendingevermore complex automated probes there,and by reading books such as this one.Written by a Johns Hopkins Universityplanetary scientist who is well placed toprovide an insider’s view, alongside ascience writer of long-standing, TitanUnveiled promises “the first authoritativepresentation [of the Cassini-Huygensmission] to the general science-readingpublic.”

The real key to exploring Titan was theHuygens lander, supplied by the EuropeanSpace Agency, and it was this spacecraftwhich completed in January 2005 the first-ever atmospheric entry and landing on amoon of one of the outer planets. In orderto make the book more accessible to thegeneral reader, the authors have divided thetext between regular narrative and sectionsheaded “Ralph’s Log,” which include first-person anecdotes of the mission. Since thefirst author was directly involved withHuygens and with the radar instrument onthe Cassini mothership, the book givesprominence to results from theseinstruments. Since that covers both thesurface and the atmosphere, this is nodisadvantage.

In fact, the personal touch helps toconvey the reality of working in the

Titan Unveiled: Saturn’s Mysterious MoonExploredReviewed by Mark Williamson

Titan Unveiled: Saturn’s Mysterious MoonExplored by Ralph Lorenz and JacquelineMitton, Princeton University Press, 243pages, 2008, $29.95 (hardback), ISBN:978-0-691-12587-9

Mark Williamson is an independentspace technology consultant and author.

planetary science field, where teamworkand international cooperation are moreimportant than egos and national pride.That is not to say that egos and nationalismare absent in planetary science, but thatthey simple have to take their place.

For example, “Ralph” describes his“fifteen minutes of fame” (which he admitswas actually only about 45 seconds),explaining what the probe’s penetrometerdid – basically it measured Titan’s surfaceproperties by recording the probe’s impact.Then it dawned on him, he writes, that“eleven years after I spent three yearsspecifying, designing, and building it, abillion miles from Earth and 180 degreesbelow zero, the thing had actually workedfor the one-twentieth of a second it wassupposed to!” Welcome to the world ofspacecraft engineering!

The account also highlights the realitiesof business travel, so often seen asglamorous by those who never do it.Lorenz describes a long day – “and aSaturday at that” – which starts at 4:35AMin Tucson and sees him flying to Californiafor a meeting, returning home “close to

midnight after my five-hundred milecommute.” Elsewhere he describes aconference in Italy and the typicaldelegates’ rush to grab the seats by the wallso that laptops can be plugged in “for thelong day ahead.”

Beyond the pseudo-blogs, the bookincludes some background science on Titanand why it is of such interest; anengineering overview of the Cassini-Huygens mission; and of course the initialscientific results. The chapter titles say itall: The Lure of Titan; Waiting for Cassini;Cassini Arrives; Cassini’s First Taste ofTitan; Landing on Titan; The Mission GoesOn; and Where We Are And Where WeAre Going. The book is illustrated withblack-and-white photos throughout, butbecause of the poor quality paper used forthe book, they are not especially wellreproduced. There is also an example ofsevere image distortion (on page 69),which implies a failure of proof-reading.However, an eight-page colour insert is anice addition (even if it does repeat severalof the monochrome images).

On balance, while expert readers in thescience and engineering community willfind much of interest here, it is the book’sless technical target audience that willbenefit the most. Apart from unveiling themysteries of an alien world, it opens awindow on the mostly hidden world of theplanetary scientist, which is equallyfascinating.


NOTES ON NEW BOOKS

Why should Space Times offersimultaneous reviews of books aboutthe Apollo program (bothcoincidentally running 400 pages andwritten by authors named David)? Notonly should the readers of Space Timesdeserve the most for your readingpleasure, but a lot of you are alsopreparing the next generation of spacevehicles. Orion and Altair are plannedto get us back to the Moon. You needthe best books, so that lessons learnedthrough fire and space will not berepeated.

These two Davids have impressiveresumes. They have uncovered awealth of knowledge regarding theearly days of manned spaceexploration. Harland has addressed“How NASA Learned to Fly inSpace,” “The story of Space StationMir,” etc. Woods has developed “TheApollo Flight Journals” and otherNASA history on-line.

These writers know Apollo betterthan some of the Astronauts of that era.As the memories of firsthand observersand participants begin to fade, it is

How Apollo Flew to the Moon by W.David Woods, Springer-Praxis Books,400 pages, January 2008, $29.95,ISBN-10: 0387716750

How Apollo Flew to the Moon andExploring the Moon - the Apollo ExpeditionsReviewed by James M. Busby

Dr. Jim Busby is no rocket scientist, buthe played a Grumman engineer onHBO’s “From the Earth to the Moon”and was their technical advisor. He iscurrently advising the ExecutiveDirector for Exhibits at ColumbiaSpace Center, which will be opening inDowney, California late this year.

important that their lessons not beforgotten. The new edition of Exploring theMoon - the Apollo Expeditions is morethan a rehash of its predecessor. Its highresolution photography brings a surfacethat few have seen before into crystalclarity. Harland describes what the Apollomoonwalkers saw and the dilemmas theyfaced walking on a hostile world. He tellswhat lessons the samples returned to Earthhave taught us and why we need to go back.

While Harland focuses on what twelvemen saw and accomplished on the Moon,Woods describes each phase of an ApolloMission in intimate detail, from thestacking of the booster until the crews aresafely aboard the aircraft carrier. Woods’focus ranges from the “desired orientationof the spacecraft platform,” or REFMMAT,to age-old questions about eating andcleanliness 240,000 miles away fromEarth. The book is certainly technical, butonly to the point of understanding whatoccurred during these endeavors forty yearsago, and how it was accomplished.Ultimately, it is an easy read.

Both books are wonderful additions toyour collection, but they are like apples and

oranges. Exploring presents photographyand science, while How Apollo Flewcovers nuts and bolts. The only problemwith both is that they would have benefittedby emphasizing color photography. Thougheach has a color section, you’ll want tosee more. The lack of color in Exploringthe Moon is particularly noticeable.

As an armchair historian, I have alwayswondered about the intricacies on Apollo.Woods’ book really satisfied my curiosityabout systems and people.

Depending on what hat you wear onOrion, science or systems, you will wantone of these books. If you are an Apollofan, both are must-haves.

Exploring the Moon - the ApolloExpeditions, by David Harland,second edition, Springer-Praxis Books,400 pages, January 2008, $39.95,ISBN-10: 0387746382


6352 Rolling Mill PlaceSuite 102Springfield, VA 22152-2354

Address Service Requested

Non Profit Org.U.S. Postage

PAIDPermit #565

Springfield, VA

THE MAGAZINE OF THE AMERICAN ASTRONAUTICAL SOCIETY · 2011. 8. 13. · 2 SPACE TIMES • May/June...

Documents

Transcript of THE MAGAZINE OF THE AMERICAN ASTRONAUTICAL SOCIETY · 2011. 8. 13. · 2 SPACE TIMES • May/June...