Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T16:33:58.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Orbital transfer vehicle (OTV) system sizing study for manned GEO satellite servicing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2016

B. Chudoba ,
G. Coleman ,
L. Gonzalez ,
E. Haney ,
A. Oza  and
V. Ricketts
B. Chudoba*
Affiliation:
AVD Laboratory, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, US
G. Coleman
Affiliation:
AVD Laboratory, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, US
L. Gonzalez
Affiliation:
AVD Laboratory, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, US
E. Haney
Affiliation:
AVD Laboratory, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, US
A. Oza
Affiliation:
AVD Laboratory, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, US
V. Ricketts
Affiliation:
AVD Laboratory, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, US
*
chudoba@uta.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In an effort to quantify the feasibility of candidate space architectures for astronauts servicing Geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO) satellites, a conceptual assessment of architecture-concept and operations-technology combinations has been performed. The focus has been the development of a system with the capability to transfer payload to and from geostationary orbit. Two primary concepts of operations have been selected: (a) Direct insertion/re-entry (Concept of Operations 1 – CONOP 1); (b) Launch to low-earth orbit at Kennedy Space Center inclination angle with an orbital transfer to/from geostationary orbit (Concept of Operations 2 – CONOP 2). The study concludes that a capsule and de-orbit propulsion module system sized for the geostationary satellite servicing mission is feasible for a direct insertion/re-entry concept of operation CONOP 1. Vehicles sized for CONOP 2 show overall total mass savings when utilising the aero-assisted orbital transfer vehicle de-orbit propulsion module options compared to the pure propulsive baseline cases. Overall, the consideration of technical, operational and cost factors determine if either the aero-assisted orbital transfer vehicle concepts or the re-usable/expendable ascent/de-orbit propulsion modules is the preferred option.

Keywords

System forecastingarchitecture planningmanned GEO servicingdesign synthesishypersonic flowsrocket enginesspace
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 120 , Issue 1226 , April 2016 , pp. 573 - 599
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Ambrose, R. Satellite servicing technology development NASA Office of Chief Technologist, 2011.Google Scholar
2. Kauderer, A. Space shuttle mission information, NASA Current Missions, Space Shuttle Missions, www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/index.html, 29 August 2011.Google Scholar
3. Moyer, D.S. and Mauzy, S.E. Manned Geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO) Servicing Study Final Report, NASA SP-2012-598, Summer 2011.Google Scholar
4. Dickman, G. Orbital Transfer Vehicle Concept Definition and Systems Analysis Study, 1986. Volume 1-A: Executive Summary Supplement, MCR-87-2601, Martin Marietta, NASA Contract NAS8-36108, April 1987.Google Scholar
5. Weber, G. Space Transfer Vehicle Concepts and Requirements Study – Volume 2, Book 1: STV Concept Definition and Evaluation Boeing Aerospace Company, NASA Contract NAS8-37855, April 1991.Google Scholar
6. Scott, C.D., Roberts, B.B. et al, Design Study of an Integrated Aerobraking Orbital Transfer Vehicle NASA TM-58264, March 1985.Google Scholar
7. Coleman, G. Aircraft conceptual design – an adaptable parametric sizing methodology, PhD Dissertation, Mechanical and Aerospace Department, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, US, May 2010.Google Scholar
8. Chudoba, B., Haney, E., Gonzalez, L., Omoragbon, A. and Oza, A. Strategic forecasting in uncertain environments: hypersonic cruise vehicle research & development case study, Aeronaut J, 2015, 119, (1211).Google Scholar
9. Chudoba, B., Coleman, G., Oza, A. and Gonzalez, L. Technology and operational sensitivity assessment for hypersonic endurance flight vehicles, Aeronaut J, March 2015, 119, (1213).Google Scholar
10. Isakowitz, S., Hopkins, J. and Hopkins, J. Jr. International Reference Guide to Space Launch Systems, 4th edn, September 2004, AIAA.Google Scholar
11. Cerro, J.A. (Ed), Chudoba, B., Coleman, G. (Contributors AVD Laboratory), et al, Crew transfer options for servicing of geostationary satellites, 71st Annual Conference of the Society of Allied Weight Engineers, Inc., Bad Goegging & Manching, Germany, 5–10 May, 2012.Google Scholar
12. Anon. NASA's Exploration Systems Architecture Study – Final Report NASA-TM-2005-214062, November 2005.Google Scholar
13. Heinemann, W. Design mass properties II - mass estimating and forecasting for aerospace vehicles based on historical data, NASA JSC, JSC-26098, November 1994.Google Scholar
14. Weber, G. Space Transfer Vehicle Concepts and Requirements Study. Volume 2, Book 2: System and Program Requirements, Martin Marietta Contract NAS8-37856, NASA-CR-184490, April 1991.Google Scholar
15. Dickman, G. Orbital Transfer Vehicle Concept Definition and Systems Analysis Study - Volume 2: OTV Concept Definition and Evaluation. Book 3: Subsystem Trade Studies, Boeing Aerospace Company, NASA Contract NAS8-36108, NASA-CR-183544, Rev. 1, July 1987.Google Scholar
16. Garcia, J., Brown, J., Kinney, D. et al, Co-optimization of mid lift to drag vehicle concepts for mars atmospheric entry, AIAA Paper 2010–5052, 10th AIAA/ASME Joint Thermophysics and Heat Transfer Conference, 2010.Google Scholar
17. Lafleur, J. and Cerimele, C. Angle of attack modulation for mars reentry, AIAA Paper 2009–5611, 2009 AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, Chicago, Illinois, US, 2009.Google Scholar