l10_emformflight

l10_emformflight - Electromagnetic Formation Flight NRO DII...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–7. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Space Systems Laboratory Lockheed Martin Corporation Advanced Technology Center Electromagnetic Formation Flight Electromagnetic Formation Flight NRO DII Final Review Friday, August 29, 2003 National Reconnaissance Office Headquarters Chantilly, VA
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
DII EMFF Final Review Aug. 29, 2003 Outline Outline Motivation Fundamental Principles – Governing Equations – Trajectory Mechanics – Stability and Control Mission Applicability – Sparse Arrays – Filled Apertures – Other Proximity Operations Mission Analyses – Sparse Arrays – Filled Apertures – Other Proximity Operations MIT EMFFORCE Testbed –D e s i g n –C a l i b r a t i o n –M o v i e Space Hardware Design Issues – Thermal Control – Power System Design – High B-Field Effects Conclusions
Background image of page 2
DII EMFF Final Review Aug. 29, 2003 Motivation Motivation Traditional propulsion uses propellant as a reaction mass Advantages – Ability to move center of mass of spacecraft (Momentum conserved when propellant is included) – Independent (and complete) control of each spacecraft Disadvantages – Propellant is a limited resource – Momentum conservation requires that the necessary propellant mass increase exponentially with the velocity increment ( V) – Propellant can be a contaminant to precision optics
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
DII EMFF Final Review Aug. 29, 2003 Question I: Question I: • Is there an alternative to using propellant? • Single spacecraft: – Yes, If an external field exists to conserve momentum – Otherwise, not that we know of… • Multiple spacecraft – Yes, again if an external field exists – OR, if each spacecraft produces a field that the others can react against – Problem : Momentum conservation prohibits control of the motion of the center of mass of the cluster, since only internal forces are present
Background image of page 4
DII EMFF Final Review Aug. 29, 2003 Question II: Question II: Are there missions where the absolute position of the center of mass of a cluster of spacecraft does not require control? Yes! In fact most of the ones we can think of… – Image construction • u-v filling does not depend on absolute position – Earth coverage • As with single spacecraft, Gravity moves the mass center of the cluster as a whole, except for perturbations… – Disturbance (perturbation) rejection • The effort to control perturbations affecting absolute cluster motion (such as J2) is much greater than that for relative motion • Only disturbances affecting the relative positions (such as differential J2) NEED controlling to keep a cluster together – Docking • Docking is clearly a relative position enabled maneuver
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
DII EMFF Final Review Aug. 29, 2003 Example: Image Construction Example: Image Construction Image quality is determined by the point spread function of aperture configuration () 2 1 1 ) ( 2 exp sin sin ) cos 1 ( , ψ + ψ λ π
Background image of page 6
Image of page 7
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 11/08/2011 for the course AERO 16.851 taught by Professor Ldavidmiller during the Fall '03 term at MIT.

Page1 / 92

l10_emformflight - Electromagnetic Formation Flight NRO DII...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 7. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online