AVD Group5 FinalReport

Gravity Tractoring Maneuver for Asteroid
Deflection
Aerospace Vehicle Design
by
Group 5
Angshuman Bharadwaj (SC14B003)
Kundan Parashar (SC14B027)
Piyush Kumar (SC14B039)
Prudhvi Sai (SC14B042)
Vishwendra Pratap Singh (SC14B58)
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SPACE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
October 2017
Declaration
This is to declare that this report has been written by us. No part of the report is plagiarized
from other sources. All information included from other sources have been duly acknowl-
edged. We are aware that if any part of the report is found to be plagiarized, we shall take
full responsibility for it.
Place: IIST, Thiruvanathapuram

AVD Group 5
August 2017
Acknowledgements
We sincerely thank Dr. R.V. Ramanan and Dr. Arvind Vaidyanthan for their sincere help in
answering all our questions with regard to the project. We would like to thank our classmates
for being patient listeners and helping us when things were not clear.
Abstract
This report deals with preliminary design of a mission for asteroid deflection using gravity
tractor method. The spacecraft was divided into its various sub-systems and each was studied
by one of us. The sizing of major components, estimation of mass and power budgets, etc.
was performed for each of the sub-systems. The mission is planned to take place in 2019.
The mission duration is around 800 days. The asteroid chosen for the maneuver is 99942
Apophis which is a NEO (Near Earth Object) of the Aten class. The initial spacecraft mass
to achieve the objective of the mission was found to be 5 tonnes. Sufficient margins have
been built into mission critical components.
Table of contents
List of tables xiii
List of figures xv
1 Objectives 1
1.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3 Methods of deflecting asteroids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3.1 Nuclear Explosive device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3.2 Kinetic impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3.3 Ion beam shepherding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3.4 Focused solar energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3.5 Conventional rocket engine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3.6 Asteroid Laser Ablation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3.7 Gravity Tractoring maneuver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.4 Selection of asteroid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.5 Asteroid characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2 Estimation of asteroid deflection 7

2.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.1 Gravity Tractor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 Estimation of asteroid deflection required in 2036 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3 Estimation of asteroid deflection in 2029 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3 Trajectory planning 15
3.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2 Trajectory design using Hohmann transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2.1 Hohmann transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2.2 Launch window . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
x Table of contents
3.3 Exact trajectory design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3.4 Orbit raising maneuvers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.5 ∆v budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4 Propulsion system design 23

4.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.2 System type selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.2.1 Reaching asteroid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.2.2 Gravity Tractoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5 OBC design 31
5.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.2 Functions of OBC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.3 Components of OBC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.4 Specifications of selected on-board computer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6 Attitude Determination and Control Subsystem (ADCS) 35

6.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
6.2 Disturbance Torques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
6.3 Attitude Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
6.3.1 Thruster used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
6.4 Attitude Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.4.1 Star Tracker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6.4.2 Sun Sensor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
6.4.3 Inertial Measurement Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
7 Structures Subsystem 43
7.1 Propellant Tank Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
7.2 Spacecraft Primary Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
7.2.1 Load Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
7.3 Skin Stringer Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
7.3.1 Natural Frequency Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
7.4 CAD Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
8 Thermal Control Subsystem 55
9 Thermal Control Subsystem 57

9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Table of contents xi
9.2 Design Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

9.3 Dissipative Internal Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
9.4 Identifying the Thermal Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
9.5 Heat Balance - Radiator Sizing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
9.6 Active Control - Heat Pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
9.7 Insulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
10 Power Systems 65
10.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
10.2 Eclipse Duration Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
10.3 Solar array Sizing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
10.4 Battery Sizing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
11 Communication Systems 69
11.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
11.2 Downlink communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
11.3 Uplink communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
References 73
Appendix A Appendix 1 75
List of tables
1.1 Table showing important orbital parameter of Apophis 99942.(NASA (2017)) 4

1.2 Table showing important physical parameters of Apophis 99942 . . . . . . 5
2.1 Table showing design requirements of the mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.1 Table showing variation of required ∆v with date of launch . . . . . . . . . 19

3.2 Table showing parameters of the designed orbit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.3 Table showing orbit raising maneuvers required to get into transfer orbit . . 20
3.4 Table showing ∆v budget for the spacecraft (Brown (2002)) . . . . . . . . . 21
4.1 Table showing some important propellant characteristics . . . . . . . . . . 24

4.2 Engine specifications of Marquardt R-40a (Marquardt (2015)) . . . . . . . 25
4.3 Propellant budget estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.4 Comparison between Hall effect thruster and Ion thruster . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.5 Characteristics of the ion engine (NSTAR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.1 Specifications of R-1E Bi propellant Rocket Engine[5] . . . . . . . . . . . 37

6.2 Specifcations of Jena Optronik ASTRO APS Star Tracker(APS (2017)) . . 39
6.3 Specifcations of NSS Digital sun sensor(NSS (2017)) . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
6.4 Specifcations of Northrop Grumman LN - 200S IMU(Grumman (2017)) . . 41
7.1 Aluminum alloy Al-7075 Mechanical Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

7.2 Titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V Mechanical Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
7.3 Inertial Loads during Launch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
7.4 Fundamental Frequencies for spacecraft design (Wertz and Larson (1999)) . 52
9.1 Operational Temperature Limits of the Spacecraft Components . . . . . . . 58

9.2 Maximum dissipated power by the components inside the spacecraft . . . . 59
9.3 Heat Fluxes for the different cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
9.4 Radiator Configuration for the Spacecraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
List of figures
1.1 Figure showing placement of spacecraft for gravity tractor maneuver . . . . 5
2.1 Towing geometry of a gravitational tractor (Lu (2005)) . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.2 ∆v imparted to the asteroid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3 Thrust required to balance gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4 Plot showing variation of required mass of spacecraft with respect to lead time. 9
2.5 Figure showing close approach of the asteroid in 2029 . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1 Hohmann Transfer T2 from periapsis of earth to apoapsis of asteroid. . . . 16

3.2 Contour plot showing the probable launch windows. (Red dot shows the
minimum velocity ∆v) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.3 Figure showing the designed trajectory for transfer from earth to the asteroid.
(Blue - Earth, Red - Apophis, Black - Transfer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.4 Plot showing finite burn losses as a function of single burn ∆v and the thrust
to weight ratio. (Brown (2002)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.1 Figure showing ion engine NSTAR selected to power the spacecraft for the
gravity tractor maneuver. (NASA (2009)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.1 OBC 750 Flight computer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.1 Jena Optronik ASTRO APS Star Tracker (APS (2017)) . . . . . . . . . . . 38

6.2 NSS Digital sun sensor (NSS (2017)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
6.3 Northrop Grumman LN - 200S IMU (Grumman (2017)) . . . . . . . . . . 40
7.1 Monocoque outer shell of spacecraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

7.2 Force and boundary condition for static analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
7.3 Monocoque structure FEM Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
7.4 Buckled monocoque structure at load multiplier 0.032 . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
7.5 Skin Stringer structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
xvi List of figures
7.6 Coefficient of Axial Compressive Buckling for Long Curved Plates (Wertz
and Larson (1999)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
7.7 Skin Stringer Structure FEM Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
7.8 Spacecraft is idealized as Lateral and Axial beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
9.1 Basic Design Philosophy for TCS of 3 axis stabilised spacecrafts Gilmor
(2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
9.2 Tycho Solid State Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
9.3 Schematic Diagram of a heat pipe Gilmor (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
10.1 Eclipse Duration Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
11.1 Radio Frequencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

11.2 Antenna Types of Satellite Systems (Wertz and Larson (1999)) . . . . . . . 71
Chapter 1
Objectives
1.1 Overview
In this chapter we will explain the objectives of this project and the motivation behind it.
Following are the objectives of this module;
• Explain the objective of the project
• Comparison between different methods for achieving the objective
• Asteroid selection
• Characteristics of selected asteroid
1.2 Objective
This project deals with deflection of an asteroid which has been determined to impact earth in
the near future (10-20 years). Since medium to large asteroids (>200m) can cause substantial
damage, it is imperative that space agencies be prepared to deal with such eventualities.
Hence it is important to design safeguards and develop plans of action which can be quickly
implemented in the future when such situations arise.
1.3 Methods of deflecting asteroids

We will consider some scientifically feasible methods of deflecting asteroid.
2 Objectives
1.3.1 Nuclear Explosive device

In this method we use a nuclear weapon (fission or fusion) and explode it above or on the
surface of the asteroid. The blast wave will impart ∆v to the asteroid radially opposite to the
location of blast wave. For medium sized asteroids this should be sufficient to deflect the
asteroid from a collision course given a sufficiently long lead-off time. For loose weakly held
agglomerations (’rubber piles’) it should lead to a large mass reduction. This allows us to
deflect even larger asteroids.
The technological capabilities, at the moment, are insufficient to carry a nuclear explo-
sive device in a sufficiently small time frame to the asteroid.
1.3.2 Kinetic impact

This method uses a kinetic impactor like deep space missions to deflect the asteroid. For this
method to work the weight has to be massive enough and accelerated sufficiently to achieve
the required ∆v. A NASA analysis (Group (2007)) states that this method has is sufficiently
mature to use for low mass asteroids. ESA is planning two space missions (AIDA, Don
Quijote) to test this concept.
The principle disadvantage of this method lies in the fact that the it does not scale very
well to be used for larger asteroids.
1.3.3 Ion beam shepherding

This method relies on ion beams focused on the surface of the asteroid to slowly deflect the
asteroid over time. This is just a variation of gravity tractoring maneuver.
1.3.4 Focused solar energy

This method relies upon development of space stations near the asteroid with giant reflectors
that can concentrate the sunlight onto the surface of the asteroid and slowly nudge it out of
its expected orbit.
Although this method is powerful and technologically feasible, the costs involved are proba-
bly too high for applicability. This will require multiple launches to place the configuration
in the orbit of the asteroid.
1.3 Methods of deflecting asteroids 3
1.3.5 Conventional rocket engine
We land a rocket engine on the asteroid and impart ∆v by firing the rocket in the opposite
direction. The advantage of this method is that it is technologically feasible and can achieve
much higher rate of orbit change than is possible by contactless methods such as ion beam,
solar energy or gravity tractoring.
The requirement that the engine land on the asteroid means that it rapidly rotating asteroids
or those with a loose surface cannot be deflected. Since it is typically very hard to find out
the surface characteristics of the asteroid, this method has limited applicability.
1.3.6 Asteroid Laser Ablation
This method relies on laser ablation of the surface which vaporizes the surface of asteroid
and produces a reaction as those gases escape. Over a sufficiently long period of time this
can produce enough deflection to nudge the asteroid out of collision course.
The principle disadvantage of this method is its technological complexity. A high pow-
ered laser will require a lot of power before appreciable deflection can be obtained.
1.3.7 Gravity Tractoring maneuver
Gravity tractoring involves deflecting the asteroid with the help of a heavy spacecraft using
the force of gravity alone. This method has the advantage that it is not affected by physical
properties of the asteroid. Therefore given a sufficiently large lead-off time any asteroid can
be deflected off its path by using this method. This method has the advantage that as the mass
of asteroid increases, so does the force. Hence for medium sized asteroid with a sufficient
lead-off time this method holds promise.(Park (1993))
The principle limitation of this method lies in the fact that force is limited by the gravi-
tational force that the two bodies experience. Hence if sufficient warning time is not available
this method cannot be used. Even otherwise, as we will see later, the masses required for
reasonably sized asteroids can be quite large.
We selected gravity tractoring maneuver for our project because it is technically feasible
at present besides other considerations.
4 Objectives
1.4 Selection of asteroid

The asteroid 99942 Apophis was selected for deflection because of the following reasons;
• It is a medium sized asteroid (diameter 320m) which will pass very close to earth in
2029 an 2036.
• The asteroid is of the Aten class (a < 1AU) of NEOs (Near Earth Objects) and the
maximum distance from the sun is 1.1 AU, hence ∆v requirements to reach the asteroid
are not stringent. This is also important from a power production point of view.
• The asteroid has generated a lot of interest from researchers in the asteroid deflection
field, hence important parameters are known.
Table 1.1 Table showing important orbital parameter of Apophis 99942.(NASA (2017))
Parameter Value
a 137.4 ∗ 106 km
e 0.191
t 323.596 days
i 3.33o
Ω 204.4o
Angle of periapsis 126.4o
Besides the following assumptions about the asteroid have been made;
• The asteroid impacts earth during its pass in 2036 while the important characteristics
of the 2029 pass remain the same.
This assumption is important because it produces major savings in deflection time and
masses required. This is a suitable assumption as most asteroids are deflected into the
path of other bodies by close encounters with other planets. Here it is important to note
that before the encounter it may not always be possible to access the asteroid before its
encounter with the perturbing body. Eg. Jupiter is a major source of asteroids to earth
though most of them are probably not easily accessible before their encounter with
Jupiter.
• The asteroid is roughly spherical (deviations < 25m (radius=160m), Unknown as of

2017).
1.5 Asteroid characteristics 5
Fig. 1.1 Figure showing placement of spacecraft for gravity tractor maneuver
1.5 Asteroid characteristics

The asteroid orbital parameters are given in Table 1.1.
The physical parameters of asteroid are given in Table 1.2.
Table 1.2 Table showing important physical parameters of Apophis 99942
Mass 6.1*1010 kg
Radius 320m
Rotation period 30.4 hours
Albedo 0.23
Surface Temperature 270K
Chapter 2
Estimation of asteroid deflection
2.1 Overview
This chapter deals with the calculation of ∆v required to achieve a deflection of the asteroid
99942 Apophis in 2036. The steps involved in the same are;
• Gravity tractoring calculations without nonlinear earth deflection effects
• Estimate deflection of asteroid required in 2036
• Estimate the deflection required in 2029
• Estimate the maneuver time and mass required for getting the deflection
2.1.1 Gravity Tractor

The spacecraft simply hover above the surface of the asteroid. The spacecraft tows it without
physical attachment by using gravity as a towline. The thrusters must be canted outboard to
keep them from blasting the surface (which would reduce the net towing force and stir up
unwanted dust and ions).
A spacecraft needs only to keep its position in the direction of towing while the target
asteroid rotates beneath it. The engines must be actively throttled to control the vertical
position as the equilibrium hover point is unstable.
The thrust required to balance the gravitational attraction is given by
GMm
T cos[sin−1 (r/d) + φ ] = (2.1)
d2
8 Estimation of asteroid deflection
Fig. 2.1 Towing geometry of a gravitational tractor (Lu (2005))
The velocity change imparted to the asteroid per second of hovering (∆v) is given by
Gm
∆v = (2.2)
d2
The mean change in velocity required to deflect an asteroid from an Earth impact trajectory
is about 3.5E-2/t m/s, where t is the lead time in years[3].
Graphs have been plotted for lead time varying from one month to twenty years vs mass of
space craft required, delV imparted to the asteroid and Thrust required to balance gravity
with plume half angle 20deg.
"V imparted to asteroid (in m/s)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20
Leadtime (in years)
Fig. 2.2 ∆v imparted to the asteroid

2.1 Overview 9
2000
Thrust Required (in N)

1500
1000
500
0
0 5 10 15 20
Leadtime (in years)
Fig. 2.3 Thrust required to balance gravity
#10 6
16
Mass of Spacecraft (in kg)
14
12
10
0
0 5 10 15 20
Leadtime (in years)
Fig. 2.4 Plot showing variation of required mass of spacecraft with respect to lead time.
From the graphs a 64-tonne gravitational tractor hovering for one year can deflect our
asteroid given a lead time of roughly 20 years.
Deflecting a larger asteroid would require a heavier spacecraft, more time spent hover-
ing, or more lead time. However, in the special case in which an asteroid has a close
Earth approach, followed by a later return and impact, the change in velocity needed to pre-
vent the impact can be many orders of magnitude smaller if applied before the close approach.
The asteroid 99942 Apophis will swing by the Earth at a distance of about 30,000 km
in 2029, has a small probability of returning to strike the Earth in 2035 or 2036.If it is indeed
on a return impact trajectory, a deflection of only about 10E-6 m/s a few years before the
close approach in 2029 would prevent a later impact (Lu (2005)).
2.2 Estimation of asteroid deflection required in 2036
The relative velocity between the asteroid and the earth can be assumed as 10 km/s.
From the vis-viva equation setting v∞ we get,
a = −3986km
From the equation,

a(1 − e2 )
r= (2.3)
1 + ecos(ν)
we can solve for e by setting r=6378 km and ν = 0. We get,
e = 1.9136
From this we estimate ν∞ using,

1
e=− (2.4)
cos(ν∞ )
Solving we get ,
ν∞ = 121.5o
Also we know that,

β = 180 − ν∞ (2.5)
2.3 Estimation of asteroid deflection in 2029 11
Therefore the asymptotic angle β is,
β = 58.4948
Further for the hyperbola,

xde f = csinβ (2.6)
where xde f is the deflection,

c = −a + rmin
rmin = 6378km, hence

xde f = 8716.9km
Therefore the asteroid has to be deflected by maximum 8716.9 km in 2036 to ensure it does
not impact earth.
Factoring in uncertainties of position and following incorporation of sufficient safety factors
we propose to deflect the asteroid by 15000 km.
2.3 Estimation of asteroid deflection in 2029
Fig. 2.5 Figure showing close approach of the asteroid in 2029
Let at the closest approach of the asteroid, the angular velocity be ω.

Doing a force balance,
GM
2
= ω 2r (2.7)
r
where, M is the mass of earth and r is the distance of closest approach. A dr change in radius
upon simplification gives, r
3dr

GM dθ
3
1− = (2.8)
r 2r dt
The relative velocity between the asteroid and the earth on April 13, 2029 is vrel =
11.36km/s. Also the distance of closest approach is known to be 31200 km.
Using vrel we can find out the semi-major axis for the hyperbolic trajectory as,
a∞ = −3143.84km (2.9)
Using the equation for closest approach and setting ν as 0 we get eccentricity e as,
e = 10.9268 (2.10)
For a hyperbolic orbit using equation 2.2 we get,
ν∞ = 95.25o (2.11)
Total deflection of the asteroid is,

δ = 10.5018o (2.12)
The time required for the asteroid to cross the sphere of influence of earth is,
t = 45834.97s (2.13)
The delay that the asteroid should experience to deflect it sufficiently from its initial orbit is
given by,
15000km
∆t = = 535.714s (2.14)
28km/s
From equation 2 first assuming no deflection i.e. dr=0 and then assuming deflection and
dividing the two cases, we get,
3dr ∆t0
(1 − )= (2.15)
2r ∆t1
where ∆t0 is time required to cross the sphere of influence without any deflection, whereas
∆t1 is the time required with deflection.
∆t1 is given by,
∆t1 = 45834.97 + 535.714 = 46370.684s (2.16)
2.3 Estimation of asteroid deflection in 2029 13
Putting in equation 2.10, and solving we get,
dr
= 7.79 ∗ 10−3 (2.17)
r
Therefore we get,
dr = 46.75km (2.18)
As can clearly be seen this method has produced massive savings as far as deflections are
concerned. We have managed to produce a deflection of 15000 km from the initial orbit by
simply deflecting the asteroid by 46.75 km before its interaction with earth in 2029.
To find the ∆v required for this deflection.
We know that,
2π
t = √ a1.5 (2.19)
µ
Differentiating both sides,
3πa0.5 da
dt = √ (2.20)
µ
According to the vis-viva equation,
v2 µ µ
= − (2.21)
2 r a
Differentiating this equation we get,
µ
vdv = da (2.22)
2a2
Solving the above equations for 99942 Apophis,
dv = 6.735 ∗ 10−5 m/s (2.23)
Knowing the mass of asteroid we can find the ∆v that will be imparted to the spacecraft.
Assuming the nominal mass of the spacecraft is 500 kg (very conservative estimate) in the
orbit of asteroid, the ∆v is,
∆vspacecra f t = ∆vast. ∗ mspace. /mast (2.24)

Table 2.1 Table showing design requirements of the mission
Mass of spacecraft at asteroid 1000 kg

Time required (min) 400.0125 days
∆vspacecra f t 3635 m/s
Solving we get,
∆vspacecra f t = 3635m/s (2.25)
Assuming the spacecraft is placed at a distance of 185m, the thrust required (mass=1000
kg) given by.
GMm
F= 2 (2.26)
r
where, M is the mass of the asteroid and r is the distance between the asteroid and the
spacecraft.
The thrust is thus found to be (for m=1000 kg, r=185 m),
T = 0.052596N (2.27)
The acceleration experienced by the asteroid due to the towing of the spacecraft is given by,
a = T /M = 1.9487 ∗ 10−12 m/s2 (2.28)
The nominal time required for the maneuver is thus,
∆vspacecra f t
= 34561116s = 400.0125days (2.29)
a
Therefore we intend to design a spacecraft with the specifications given in the table 2.1.
Chapter 3
Trajectory planning
3.1 Overview
This chapter deals with designing of the trajectory that will enable us to reach the asteroid.
Following are the contents of this chapter;
• Designing a trajectory using Hohmann transfer approximations.
• Designing a refined trajectory using Lambert conic approach.
• ∆v budget
• Orbit raising maneuvers
3.2 Trajectory design using Hohmann transfer

The launch vehicle was assumed to be GSLV Mk-III for the mission. This launch vehicle has
a payload capacity of around 8 tonnes to LEO (600 km circular). Preliminary calculations
suggest a total mass of spacecraft to be around 5 tonnes. The orbit in which it is to be placed
is inclined at 16.2o from the equator.
For a weight of 6 tonnes (spacecraft and peripherals) it has been determined that the GSLV
Mk-III can give an extra ∆v of 0.514 km/s. This has already been factored in the calculations.
Trajectory Design includes estimation of velocity impulse required to place the spacecraft
from Earth parking orbit to Asteroid’s orbit at a distance twice the diameter of Asteroid.
16 Trajectory planning
3.2.1 Hohmann transfer
Assuming Orbit of Aphosis and Earth around Sun are coplanar and coaxial. A simple
Hohmann transfer gives an estimate of velocity impulse required. Hohmann transfer is from
Earth Parking Orbit to Asteroid.The code for the same is attached in the appendix.
vtot = 4.6989km/s.
ttrans f er = 16757936.68s = 193.957days
Fig. 3.1 Hohmann Transfer T2 from periapsis of earth to apoapsis of asteroid.
For the other case,

vtot = 3.4272km/s
ttrans f er = 13057255.58s = 151.152days
We observe that the Hohmann Transfer from Apoapsis of earth to periapsis of asteroid is less
compared to other. Hence T2 is the optimum in terms of both minimum velocity impulse and
transfer time.
3.3 Exact trajectory design 17
3.2.2 Launch window

Half Time period of Asteroid Apophis is given by,
3
π.a 2
T=√ (3.1)
µS
T = 13976426s = 161.764days
Transfer time of T2 orbit = 151.152 days. If the position of asteroid 151 days prior to launch,
then launch window can be estimated. The true anamoly of of the asteroid is calculated by
Newton Raphson method.
∆t = 161.764 − 151.152 = 10.612days = 919170.42s
η = 2.24E − 7
M = η∆t = 0.20660926
e = 0.19108
M = E − (e ∗ sin(E))
Upon solving this equation by newton raphson method we get,
E = 0.2548rad
ν = 17.6676deg
The code for the same is attached in the appendix. Therefore when the angle between the
earth and asteroid with respect to sun falls near ν = 17.6676 we can launch the space craft.
3.3 Exact trajectory design

The following limitations preclude exact implementation of the Hohmann transfer approach.
• The orbit of the asteroid intersects with the earth orbit. Hence the designed trajectory
is not necessarily ideal.
• The orbits of the asteroid and earth are not coplanar resulting in an under-estimation of
the amount of ∆v to be imparted to the spacecraft.
• The long synodic period between the orbits of the asteroid and the earth, approximately
7 years, means that the launch windows for Hohmann transfer may not always be
available.
To overcome the above mentioned limitations a more exact and general approach using the
Lambert conic approach was devised. The code for the same is attached in the appendix.
Following are the steps involved in the the implementation of the algorithm.
• Choose a window for arrival time and departure time.
• Discretize the domain . For the program the departure time window is discretized in
300 slices whereas the arrival time is discretized in 500 slices.
• For each combination of departure and arrival time apply the Lambert conic approach
to estimate the ∆v required for the transfer.
• Make the pork-chop plots for the values found and estimate the launch windows from
these plots.
Fig. 3.2 Contour plot showing the probable launch windows. (Red dot shows the minimum
velocity ∆v)
3.4 Orbit raising maneuvers 19
Figure 3.2 shows the variation of ∆v required for the different combinations of date of
departure (from earth) and date of arrival (at asteroid). As can clearly be seen, the minima
lies in the band inside the 5 km/s contour. This minima is observed to be 4.305 km/s. The
minima is found to be quite insensitive to slight variations in departure date. From the Table
3.1 we can see that a variation of 3 days either side increases the ∆v by only 6 m/s. Hence
this launch window is preferred
Table 3.1 Table showing variation of required ∆v with date of launch
Launch date ∆v (km/s)

April 30 2019 4.305
April 27 2019 4.311
May 1 2019 4.307
May 3 2019 4.311
Table 3.2 gives the parameters of the designed orbit.
Table 3.2 Table showing parameters of the designed orbit
Date of departure April 30 2019

Date of arrival June 6 2020
∆vearth 3.563 km/s
∆vasteroid 0.742 km/s
Transfer orbit inclination (ICRF frame) 16.2o
Transfer orbit (a, Semi-major axis) 1.05 AU
Transfer orbit eccentricity 0.025
3.4 Orbit raising maneuvers

To reduce the finite burn losses multiple orbit raising maneuvers were performed before
inter-planetary injection.
As can be seen from figure (3.4), the penalty due to excessively large ∆v′ s can be huge.
Hence for a thrust to weight ratio of 0.1 (our initial T/W ratio), the ∆v transfer should not
exceed 1200m/s. To achieve this objective we will use 6 orbit raising maneuvers. The ∆v
transferred during any single burn is thus low.
Although the last ∆v is high (1612.3 m/s), due to a reduction in the mass of the spacecraft,
the T/W ratio would have risen to about 0.2. This would limit the ∆v losses due to finite burn
Fig. 3.3 Figure showing the designed trajectory for transfer from earth to the asteroid. (Blue -
Earth, Red - Apophis, Black - Transfer)
Fig. 3.4 Plot showing finite burn losses as a function of single burn ∆v and the thrust to
weight ratio. (Brown (2002))
Table 3.3 Table showing orbit raising maneuvers required to get into transfer orbit
Perigee (km) Burn duration (s) ∆v (m/s) v p (m/s) a (semi-major axis,km)

600 387.59 326.2 8310 8820
600 387.59 365.4 8645 10088.9
600 387.59 413.7 9028 12174.7
600 387.59 477.2 9476 16302.5
600 387.59 564.6 10010 28380.8
600 786.22 1612.3 11572 -10268
3.5 ∆v budget 21
to less than 50m/s.
Since the departure date is April 30, 2019 from earth, in order to perform the orbit raising
maneuvers, the spacecraft will have to be launched early. This can be estimated from the fact
that at least 6 orbits would be required before we can inject the spacecraft in the interplanetary
orbit.
tmin = 97164.53s
In reality though it is difficult to perform burns in consecutive orbits so a period longer than
a month would be required to perform the orbit raising maneuvers.
3.5 ∆v budget
For the ∆v budget estimates, standard values from other spacecrafts have been used for
estimating orbit maintenance, trajectory correction maneuvers and safety margin.
Table 3.4 Table showing ∆v budget for the spacecraft (Brown (2002))
Requirement ∆v (km/s)
Orbit raising and departure 3.563
Arrival velocity impulse 0.742
Trajectory correction maneuver 0.05
Finite burn losses 0.15
ADCS 0.05
Orbit Maintenance 0.05
Total 4.555
Safety margin 0.2
Total (inc. safety margin) 4.755
Chapter 4
Propulsion system design
4.1 Overview
This sub-system deals with the propulsion requirements of the spacecraft. The velocity
requirements for the different phases of the flight has already been developed. To achieve
these targets, this system has to be properly designed. Following are the objectives of this
module.
• System type selection to achieve the mission objectives.
• Propellant selection.
• Estimation of propellant masses required.
• Thruster selection for types of engines.
• Dry mass, power required estimation for the system.
• Estimation of piping, combustion chamber and special requirements for the propulsion
system
4.2 System type selection

To satisfy the requirements of the mission, the mission has been divided into two parts;
1. Part 1 - Transfer of the spacecraft to the asteroid.
2. Part 2 - Gravity tractoring.

Table 4.1 gives the essential points of comparison between the different type of propellant
systems.
24 Propulsion system design
Table 4.1 Table showing some important propellant characteristics
Type of propellant Thrust Range (N) Isp (s) Specific power consumption (W/N)
Chemical 10-10000 250-450 10−3
Electric (Hall Effect) −2
10 − 2 ∼2000 ∼18000
Electric (Ion engine) 10−4 − 10−1 ∼3000 ∼27000
4.2.1 Reaching asteroid

The objective here is to reach the asteroid as quickly as possible. Since the ∆v requirement
for the spacecraft is known to be 4.3 km/s, a chemical propulsion system with a high thrust
was selected for this stage. Following are the advantages of the system;
• A high specific thrust means that the time required for imparting the requisite ∆v and
hence reaching the asteroid is small. Since the warning period of such an encounter is
likely to be small, it is imperative that we perform the maneuver as quickly as possible.
• Simplicity and ready availability of components at all times.
• Low power requirement for the propulsion system.
Liquid propellants were chosen because stop-start capability was required for the engine
since multiple burns have to be made. These propellants are standard for interplanetary
missions and satellites. Next we will see the selection of propellant.
Selection of propellant
After selection of the system type the next step is selection of propellant for the system.
The bi-propellant N2 O4 /MMH has been selected for the same. The mixture ratio for this
propellant is 1.65. The advantages of this system are;
• Stable space storable fuels. Easy to store (no special requirements)
• Have reasonably high Isp (300-320s)
• Hypergolic mixture, hence no igniter is required.
• Dense fuel, hence the volume occupied is small which reduces the overall structural
mass.
Once the fuel has been selected next we go for the selection of the engine;
4.2 System type selection 25
Table 4.2 Engine specifications of Marquardt R-40a (Marquardt (2015))
Height / Chamber
Status Thrust (N) Unfuelled mass (kg) Isp (s)
Diameter (m) pressure (MPa)
In production
3870 10 kg 316 1.04 / 0.52 1.05
(Flight qualified)
Engine selection
The engine selected for the spacecraft is Marquardt R-40a. The characteristics of the engine
are given in Table 4.2. The advantage of this engine is its high thrust which is important
because the time scale available is likely to be small for any such a mission.
Propellant mass estimation
In trajectory planning, the ∆v estimation has been done for reaching the asteroid. This figure
was found to be approximately 4.555 km/s. A ∆v margin is required for the spacecraft. This
margin has been set as 150 m/s. Hence the ∆vtot is 4.705 km/s. Assuming an initial mass of
5000 kg for the spacecraft.
M f = Min ∗ e−∆vtot /Isp g (4.1)
Calculating we get,
M f = 1094.67kg (4.2)
The propellant mass can be found out by,
M prop = Mi − M f (4.3)
Therefore,
M prop = 3905kg
Due to additional factors such as trapped propellant and outages, the requirement of propellant
increases. This is reflected in the propellant budget estimates. From the optimum mixture
ratio (MR), the masses of oxidizer and fuel have been calculated. Some reserve fuel is
also required to compensate for unforeseen circumstances. According to Brown (2002), the
propellant budget can be described according to Table 4.3.
Additional requirements
The power required estimate for such engines are very low. As already noted, the power to
thrust ratio is of the order of 10−3 (Brown (2002)) which is quite low. Hence for our system,
Table 4.3 Propellant budget estimates
Propellant Use Fuel (kg) Oxidizer (kg) Total (kg)

Usable propellant 1473.5 2341.4 3905.1
Trapped propellant (3%) 44.2 72.9 117.1
Outage (1%) 14.7 24.3 39
Loading error (0.5%) 7.4 12.1 19.5
Loaded propellant 1539.8 2450.7 4085.3
Volume of propellant (m3 ) 1.726 1.715
in the absence of turbopumps, the power required can be estimated as 20W .
The two tanks containing MMH and N2 O4 have to be pressured to 1.05MPa. This is
achieved via a pressurant tank that stores helium at about 20MPa and a pressure regulator
(coupled with a burst disc and relief valve) which regulates the helium flow and ensures
1.05MPa feed pressure to the propellant tanks. Burst discs are used to isolate propellants from
the engine and high pressure gases from the propellants until the system is ready for operation.
To estimate the volume and masses of the tanks, we note that the volume of fuel and oxi-
dizer is 1.7m3 . To keep a margin of safety we will use tanks of 2m3 for both fuel and oxidizer.
To estimate the mass of helium required for the two tanks, we use the ideal gas equation;
P = ρRT (4.4)
Solving for the given case with V=4m3 , P=1.05 MPa a safety margin of 25%, we get,
MHe = 12.25kg
From the equation to estimate the mass of propellant tanks, we get the mass of main propellant
tanks as (safety margin 25%),
Mtank, f uel = 20.53kg, Mtank,oxidizer = 20.53kg
The mass of helium tank (safety margin 25%) can be estimated as (chapter 7),
Mtank,He = 10.38kg
4.2.2 Gravity Tractoring

The ∆v required for gravity tractoring has been estimated as 5090 m/s. But as already men-
tioned the ∆v required depends upon the distance and hence the angle at which the thrusters
have to be fired.
As is clear from the above discussion, with a conventional propellant system it is not possible
to achieve the mission objectives. Also considering the low amounts of thrust required, it is
possible to use a non-conventional engine.
For the given mission objectives, it makes most sense to use electric propulsion. The
characteristics of such propellant systems is given in table 4.1. Also we know that the thrust
required from the two engines is 0.07438N to perform the maneuver.
Electric propulsion systems make the most sense as far as this maneuver is concerned.
The two principle type of electric propulsion that can be used for the mission is shown in
Table 4.4.
Table 4.4 Comparison between Hall effect thruster and Ion thruster
Hall Effect thruster Ion thruster

(PPS-1350) NSTAR
Isp (s) 2000 3250
Mass of engine (kg) 5.3 22.75
Propellant type Xenon Xenon
Power required (kW) 1.53 2.32
Xe supply pressure 2,5-2.8 8.5-9
Mass of fuel (kg) 228.7 147.6
These considerations lead us to select an ion engine for the maneuver. The advantages
are;
• A very high Isp which means that the propellant requirements are reasonable.
• Since a very low constant thrust is required to perform the maneuver, such engines are
particularly attractive.
• The mass constraints are not very strict and hence, the extra solar cell panels and
engine mass can be absorbed.
• Since the orbit of Apophis does not stray farther than 1.1 AU from the sun, the power
requirements are not prohibitive as far as the high specific power consumption are
concerned.
Fig. 4.1 Figure showing ion engine NSTAR selected to power the spacecraft for the gravity
tractor maneuver. (NASA (2009))
Selection of propellant
Ion engine generally use Xe gas as propellant although researchers have used Cs gas to get
even higher Isp although the technology is not as mature as far as commercial implementation
is concerned.
Engine Selection
Considering the thrust required and other parameters the ion engine chosen for the mission
is NSTAR (NASA Solar Technology Application readiness)(NASA (2009)). This engine
has been used on multiple missions (Deep Space 1, Dawn) and the thrust availability is
appropriate for the mission (90 mN).
Table 4.5 Characteristics of the ion engine (NSTAR)
Mass of engine (kg) Thrust (mN) Voltage (V) Max power (kW) Total Impulse (Ns)
22.75 30-92 1300 2.3 ∼6*106
Propellant mass estimate
From the rocket equation, the mass of the Xe propellant required (total ∆v = 5090m/s) is,
MXe,req = 147.6kg
The total propellant mass including reserve propellant is,
MXe,tot = 175kg
Additional requirements
The Xe propellant required by the engine is a gas that has to be stored at a pressure of 8.8MPa.
A pressure vessel is required to store the propellant. The mass of the pressure vessel can be
estimated from the equation 4.3. This is found to be,
MXe,tank = 41.06kg
Chapter 5
OBC design
5.1 Overview
In this chapter the role and choice of the on board computer will be discussed. The objectives
of this module are;
• Functions of On-board Computer systems
• Components of On-board Computer systems
• Selection of system for spacecraft
5.2 Functions of OBC

Some of the important functions of OBC’s are;
• DC/DC Power conversion and regulation
• Ground Telecommand Decoding
• Packet Telemetry Formatting
• On Board time management
• Autonomous Reconfiguration
• Local Mass Memory function
• Housekeeping telemetry
• Interfacing with other Avionics subsystems

32 OBC design
5.3 Components of OBC

The major components of the OBC canbe divided into two parts;
• Hardware components
• Software components
Hardware components
The important hardware components of OBC are;
• Microcontroller
• Memory storage device
• System clock
• I/O modules
• Telecommand, telemetry module
• Backplane to connect different modules
Each of the above modules (except backplane) is duplicated to provide single failure tolerance.
Software components
The important software components of OBC’s are;
• Drivers for interacting with other sub-systems
• Health monitoring routines
• Boot-up loader
5.4 Specifications of selected on-board computer

Surrey satellite technology’s OBC 750 (Ecoruspace (2017)) flight computer was selected for
the spacecraft. Figure 5.1 shows the layout of board. The important specifications of the
OBC are;
• PowerPC 750FL processor

5.4 Specifications of selected on-board computer 33
Fig. 5.1 OBC 750 Flight computer
• 256 MiB EDAC protected SDRAM
• 2MiB non-volatile MRAM
• Operating system - RTMS
• Mass = 1.5kg
• Power = 10W
• Operating temperature - -20o - 50o

Chapter 6
Attitude Determination and Control

Subsystem (ADCS)
6.1 Overview
Attitude Determination and Control Subsystem (ADCS) is required for the following reason
• It Stabilizes the vehicle
• It Orients vehicle in desired directions
• Senses the orientation of the vehicle relative to reference (e.g. inertial) points
Attitude analysis can be divided into attitude determination and attitude control. Attitude of
space craft is the orientation of a defined spacecraft body coordinate system with respect to a
defined external frame. Determining this orientation is Attitude Determination and Attitude
control is maintenance of a desired, specified attitude within a given tolerance.
6.2 Disturbance Torques

Assessment of expected disturbance torques is an essential part of rigorous spacecraft attitude
control design. Typical Disturbances inculde
• Gravity Gradient
• Aerodynamic Drag
• Magnetic Torques
36 Attitude Determination and Control Subsystem (ADCS)
• Solar Radiation
• Mass Expulsion : Torques induced by leaks or jettisoned objects.
• Internal Torque : On-board Equipment. No net effect, but internal momentum exchange
affects attitude
6.3 Attitude Control

The purpose of attitude control is to maintain the spacecraft at a desired orientation. Since
the mission objective requires the spacecraft to maintain a given orientation throughout its
lifetime, the satellite is going to be three axis stabilized. Three axis stabilization is a method
of spacecraft attitude control in which the spacecraft is held fixed in the desired orientation
without any rotation. This can be done using Reaction Wheels and Thrusters.
Any design consisting of reaction wheels will have to also design the mechanism of mo-
mentum dumping. Reaction wheels have a maximum speed at which they may rotate - if
a reaction wheel is found to be rotating at its saturation speed, its momentum has to be
dumped without significantly altering the plant’s attitude. This is usually achieved through
magnetotorquers and/or momentum wheels.
Thus Reaction wheels provide a much steadier spacecraft from which to make observa-
tions, but they add mass to the spacecraft, they have a limited mechanical lifetime, and they
require frequent momentum desaturation maneuvers. One should also consider that such
devices have big power consumptions and masses.
6.3.1 Thruster used
Mass of the spacecraft

M = 5000kg
Dimensions of the spacecraft,
L ∗ B ∗ H = 3.5mX2mX2m
6.4 Attitude Determination 37
Table 6.1 Specifications of R-1E Bi propellant Rocket Engine[5]
Power 36 W
Specific Impulse 280 s
System Mass 2 kg
Height 0.332 m
Diameter 0.1524 m
Nominal Thrust: 110 N
Mass Moment of inertia
(a2 + b2 )
I=M = 6770.833kg − m2
12
Let us assume that spacecraft rotates by 90o in 10 sec and thruster are on for 5 sec to do this.
Then angular accleration can be calculated as
α = 0..031416rad/s2
Torque balance gives,

F ∗l = I ∗α
I ∗α
⇒F = = 60.7748N.
l
The attitude control in the planned satellite will be carried out using six 100-N N2O4/MMH
thrusters.
6.4 Attitude Determination

Determining the orientation of spacecraft is done by sensors such as Sun Sensor, Star sensor,
Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU), Magnetometer, Earth sensor.
Sun sensors are simple, reliable, low cost, not always visible. Star sensors are Heavy,
complex, expensive, most accurate. IMU are Rate only, good short term reference, can be
heavy, power, cost, Typically frequently updated with external measurement (Star Trackers,
Sun sensors) via a Kalman Filter.
Magnetometers are economical, orbit dependent, low altitude only, low accuracy. Earth
sensor are orbit dependent, usually requires scan, relatively expensive. The last two types
can be used when the spacecraft is near to earth. But our spacecraft spends most of the time
in deep space we prefer using the first three sensors.
For attitude determination, the data from the following sensors will be taken and processed
• Star tracker
• Sun Sensor
• Inertial Measurement Unit
6.4.1 Star Tracker

A star tracker is an optical device that measures the positions of stars using photocells or a
camera. In order to do determine the orientation of spacecraft with respect to stars, the star
tracker must obtain an image of the stars, measure their apparent position in the reference
frame of the spacecraft, and identify the stars so their position can be compared with their
known absolute position from a star catalog.
The Jena Optronik ASTRO APS sensor suited the requirements of the spacecraft. ASTRO
APS has been designed with compact dimensions, low mass, and low power consumption.
Fig. 6.1 Jena Optronik ASTRO APS Star Tracker (APS (2017))
Table 6.2 Specifcations of Jena Optronik ASTRO APS Star Tracker(APS (2017))
Dimensions 154 X 154 X 237 mm

Mass 2 kg
Field of View 20 degrees
Operational Range 30C to 70C
Bias Error <5 arcsec
Power Consumption 23W
6.4.2 Sun Sensor

Sun sensors have been widely used in space for solar energy collection and for attitude
determination. Because of their ruggedness and simplicity, they have functioned accurately
and reliably.
The sun sensor is operated based on the entry of light into a thin slit on top of a rectangular
chamber whose bottom part is lined with a group of light-sensitive cells. The chamber casts
an image of a thin line on the chamber bottom. The cells at the bottom measure the distance
of the image from a centerline and determine the refraction angle by using the chamber height.
The cells are operated based on the photoelectric effect. They convert the incoming photons
into electrons and hence voltages which are in turn converted into a digital signal. When two
sensors are placed perpendicular to each other, the direction of the sun with reference to the
sensor axes can be calculated.
The sun sensor that satisfes the requirements of reliability and accuracy in attitude de-
termination for the mission is the New Space System (NSS) Digital Sun sensor. The features
of this sensor are Accurate Determination of sun angle, Low power, Small size and low mass,
Wide field of view.
Table 6.3 Specifcations of NSS Digital sun sensor(NSS (2017))
Dimensions 34 mm X 21 mm X 32 mm
Mass 35 g
Field of View 140 deg
Operational Range -25C to 50C
Accuracy ± 0.1 deg
Power Consumption 0.13W
Sampling rate 50 Hz
Fig. 6.2 NSS Digital sun sensor (NSS (2017))
6.4.3 Inertial Measurement Unit

The IMU is a single unit in the electronics module which collects angular velocity and linear
acceleration data which is sent to the main processor. The IMU housing actually contains two
separate sensors. The first sensor is the accelerometer triad. It generates three analog signals
describing the accelerations along each of its axes produced by, and acting on the vehicle.
The second sensor is the angular rate sensor triad. It also outputs three analog signals. These
signals describe the vehicle angular rate about each of the sensor axes.
The IMU chosen for the mission is the Northrop Grumman LN - 200S sensor. The features
of this include Earth and heliocentric orbits, Missions lasting up to six years. The LN-200S
has the lowest gyro and accelerometer white noise.
Fig. 6.3 Northrop Grumman LN - 200S IMU (Grumman (2017))

Table 6.4 Specifcations of Northrop Grumman LN - 200S IMU(Grumman (2017))
Diameter 8.89 cm
Height 8.51 cm
Mass 748 g
Max. Dynamic Range 1000 deg/s
Operational Range -54C to 71C
Bias 1 deg/hr
Power Consumption 12W
Bandwidth 200Hz @ 400 Hzdata rate
Chapter 7
Structures Subsystem
7.1 Propellant Tank Design
Propellant tanks store fuel and oxidizer to be burnt in engine. The design of tank is based on
thin walled pressure vessel theory. The Propellant tanks are spherical Circumferential stress
in a thin walled pressure vessel (σc )
Pr
σc = (7.1)
2t
where, P = Pressure, r = Radius and t = Thickness of the vessel.
Radius of the vessel is calculated from volume of propellant and pressurized gas to be filled
in the vessel. Volume and radius are related as
4
V = πr3
3
Thickness and weight of the tanks can be computed by rearranging eq(7.1).
Pr(1 + MS)
t= (7.2)
2σy
where P = MEOP×1.25, MEOP is Maximum Expected Operating Pressure

σy = Yield Strength of material, MS = Margin of Safety (taken 0.1)
Mass of the tank is computed by calculating volume of material used (Vm ) and density of
material.
4 4
Vm = π(r + t)3 − πr3 (7.3)
3 3
M = ρVm (7.4)
44 Structures Subsystem
where ρ is density of material used. Two materials which are generally used in space
applications are taken into consideration, an Aluminum alloy Al-7075 and a a Titanium alloy
Ti-6Al-4V and. Properties of both materials are mentioned in tables below.
Table 7.1 Aluminum alloy Al-7075 Mechanical Properties
Yield Strength Ultimate Strength

Density Young’s Modulus Poisson’s Ratio
(Tensile) (Tensile)
2810 Kg/m3 71 GPa 448 MPa 524 MPa 0.33
Table 7.2 Titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V Mechanical Properties
Yield Strength Ultimate Strength

Density Young’s Modulus Poisson’s Ratio
(Tensile) (Tensile)
4429 Kg/m3 104 GPa 880 MPa 900 MPa 0.31
From equations (7.2), (7.3) and (7.4), it can be established that mass of the tank is directly
proportional to the ratio of density and tensile yield strength of material.
ρ
M ∝
σy
For Al-7075, this ratio is higher than that of Ti-6Al-4V. So Titanium alloy is better material
as tank mass will be lower, same is used in calculation for weight.
7.2 Spacecraft Primary Structure

Primary structure of spacecraft mainly tolerates all the inertial loads hence stresses developed
during launch. It houses payloads and key components such as propellant tanks, gas bottles,
OBC, batteries, inertial sensors, payload etc. Constraint on maximum dimensions comes
from launch vehicle as spacecraft must fit into payload fairing.
Two type of designs were considered:
• Monocoque
• Skin-Stringer
7.2 Spacecraft Primary Structure 45
7.2.1 Load Calculation
Mass of spacecraft = 5072 kg
Table 7.3 Inertial Loads during Launch
Weight Distance
Type of Load Load Factor Limit Load
(N) (m)
Axial 49736 - 5 248680 N
Lateral 49736 - 2 99472 N
Bending Moment 49736 1.75 2 174076 Nm
Equivalent axial load Peq
2M
Peq = Paxial + = 596832N
R
Ultimate Load Pu
Pu = Peq × 1.25 = 746040N
During the launch, spacecraft experiences several times the weight of itself due to accelera-
tion or inertial loads. The maximum axial load factor for the spacecraft is 5 i.e. maximum
acceleration is 5g. The loads are already mentioned in Table (7.3).
Monocoque Structure:
A 2 × 2 × 3.5m, 3mm thick cuboid monocoque shell is shown in Fig.7.1. Material is Al-7075.
Weight of this structure is,
2 × 4 × 3.5 × 0.003 × 2810 = 236kg

3.5 m
2m 2m
Fig. 7.1 Monocoque outer shell of spacecraft
Rigidity against compressive loads: The monocoque structure is first analyzed for axial
forces by FEM package. 248680 N force is applied at upper face of the structure and bottom
was given fixed support condition.(refer Fig.7.2)
Fig. 7.2 Force and boundary condition for static analysis
Fig.7.3a shows the deformation due to the inertial loads in the structure. Maximum
deformation is 0.51 mm.
Fig.7.3b shows equivalent (Von Mises) stress in the structure developed due to the inertial
loads. Maximum stress is 23.5 MPa which is way less than the yield strength of aluminum
alloy Al-7075 (448MPa).
It can be concluded that this primary structure is able to tolerate stress during the launch.
One thing to be noticed is that the structure carries inertial load of whole spacecraft.
7.2 Spacecraft Primary Structure 47
(a) Total Deformation in m when when loads are(b) Equivalent (Von Mises) stress (in Pa) when
applied structure is loaded
Fig. 7.3 Monocoque structure FEM Analysis
Stability of structure: An important criteria for selection of any structure is stability.

An issue with long thin shell structure is buckling under the compressive loads during the
launch. For this monocoque design eigenvalue buckling shows that the structure buckles
at loads much lower than axial load applied. Figure 7.4 shows the buckled structure, load
multiplier is 0.032 for mode 1 i.e. it buckles at load 0.032 times applied load. For structure
to be stable, load multipliers must be greater than 1.
Fig. 7.4 Buckled monocoque structure at load multiplier 0.032

7.3 Skin Stringer Structure

Skin stringer designs have solid beams attached with shell to increase stiffness of structure to
avoid buckling of structure. One important information which about structure design in this
project is that, minimization of structural weight is not done.
Gravity tractor maneuver is the reason behind it as asteroid is deflected by gravitational

attraction between spacecraft and asteroid, so, structural mass reaching at destination should
be kept in accordance with trajectory design as time required for gravity tractor maneuver,
which is a critical mission requirement, increase if mass decreases.
A new cylindrical structure is proposed and designed by keeping the weight close to the
previous one, but at the same time it must be rigid and stable. Material is again Al-7075. A
computer model of proposed structure is shown in Fig. 7.5.
Fig. 7.5 Skin Stringer structure
Design: During the process of design, it was observed that thin structures rigid to axial
loads but instability due to less stiffness leads to failure, so the design started with ensuring a
stable structure and outcome will be checked for rigidity and strength to tolerate axial loads,
also natural frequencies will be checked. Some parameters were assumed and are listed below.
• Radius of cylinder = 1m
• Length = 3.5m
7.3 Skin Stringer Structure 49
• Number of stringers = 4 (equally spaced)
Buckling of curved panels: Critical buckling stress (σcr ) and thickness (t) are related as:
2
kπ 2 E t
σcr = 2
(7.5)
12(1 − ν ) b
√
Where k = buckling coefficient, ν = 0.33 (Poisson’s ratio), r = 1m, b = 2 = 1.4142 (spacing
between stringers). The buckling load, Pcr = σcr × area is compared with actual ultimate
load by defining Margin of Safety(MS),
Pcr
MS = −1 (7.6)
Pu
Since, Pcr = σcr × area = σcr × 2πrt, so MS becomes
σcr 2πrt
MS = −1 (7.7)
Pu
Also, for stability

MS > 0 (7.8)
thickness (t) value should be such that equation (7.8) is satisfied. Coefficient of buckling also
depends on t and selected from Fig.7.8
Fig. 7.6 Coefficient of Axial Compressive Buckling for Long Curved Plates (Wertz and
Larson (1999))
For t = 2.75mm and selecting worst value of k = 200.
σcr = 49.56 × 106 Pa
Pcrit = 856340N
856340N
MS = − 1 = 0.148
746040N
4 cylindrical stringers were attached with skin and area of each stringer is 16cm2 .
Figure 7.7 shows FEM analysis results of the structure when axial compressive load of
248680 N is applied on one face, other end was fixed. FEM analysis shows that maximum
total deformation is 0.568 mm and maximum equivalent stress developed is 12.93 MPa which
is lower than yield stress.
(b) Equivalent (Von Mises) stress in Pa when struc-

(a) Total deformation (in m) when loads are applied
ture is loaded
Fig. 7.7 Skin Stringer Structure FEM Analysis
Linear buckling analysis of skin stringer structure gives load multiplier value 3.8933
which is greater than one, so the structure is stable to 3.8933 × 248680N = 968185N load,
i.e. Pcr is 968185 N which is higher than theoretical prediction of 856340 N.
Weight of skin stringer structure = 2810(2πrt + 4 × Astringer )3.5 = 233kg
7.3.1 Natural Frequency Analysis

Natural frequency analysis are done to ensure the natural frequency of the spacecraft is
not matching or close to the launch vehicle. The resonance between launch vehicle and
7.3 Skin Stringer Structure 51
spacecraft may lead to failure of structure.

In this theoretical estimation of natural frequency, the spacecraft is assumed as an axial and
lateral cantilever beam having uniform mass distribution.
m m
Uniform
(a) Lateral Beam (b) Axial Beam
Fig. 7.8 Spacecraft is idealized as Lateral and Axial beam
Lateral and axial natural frequency of these beams respectively are

q
flateral = 0.560 mL EI
3 (7.9)
q
faxial = 0.250 AE mL (7.10)
where E = Young’s modulus, I = Area moment of inertia of beam’s cross section, m = Mass
of beam, A = Cross sectional area of beam.
Axial natural frequency
A = 2πrt + 4 × Astringer = 0.017278 + 6.4 × 10−3 m2 = 0.023678m2
m = 5072kg
faxial = 76.9Hz (7.11)
for lateral natural frequency,
I = Iskin + Istringer
Iskin = πr3t = π13 0.00275 = 8.64 × 10−3 m4
Istringer = ΣAstringer d 2 = 0 + 0 + 2 × 1.6 × 10−3 × 12 m4
I = 0.01184m4
flateral = 34.8Hz (7.12)
Axial and lateral natural frequencies are higher than the available frequency data of launch
vehicles tabulated in Table 7.4. So, spacecraft would not resonate with launch vehicle during
launch.
Table 7.4 Fundamental Frequencies for spacecraft design (Wertz and Larson (1999))
Launch Fundamental Frequency (Hz)

System Axial Lateral
Atlas II, IIA, IIAS 15 10
31 (Dual payloads)
Ariane 4 10
18 (Single Payloads)
Delta 6925/7925 35 15
Long March 2E 26 10
Pegasus, XL 18 18
Proton 30 15
Space Shuttle 13 13
Titan II 24 10
In conclusion, skin stringer structure fits all the mission and structural requirements and
same is selected as primary structure of spacecraft.
7.4 CAD Model 53
7.4 CAD Model
Ion Engines
Thrusters
Helium Tank
Xenon Tank
N2O4 Tank Solar Array
High Gain Antenna
Primary Structure
Thrusters MMH Tank
Main Engine
Chapter 8
Thermal Control Subsystem
8.1 Introduction
The purpose of the thermal-control system is to maintain all of a spacecraft’s components
within the allowable temperature limits for all the operating modes of the vehicle, in all of the
thermal environments it may be exposed to. This is important for the spacecraft components
to operate appropriately and allow the completion of the mission in a reliable way.
The temperature of the spacecraft components must not fall below a cold temperature
and must not rise above a hot temperature. Often two kinds of limits are specified - 1) oper-
ational temperature limits, within which the spacecraft components must remain for proper
operation and 2) survival temperature limits, going beyond which might result in permanent
damage to the components. Table 9.1 lists out the operational temperature requirements for
the components in the current spacecraft configuration. It is seen that the battery has the most
stringent temperature requirements and the TCS must maintain the temperature limits in that
range. In this preliminary analysis, attempt has been made to maintain the temperature of
the complete spacecraft within that range so as to obtain a safe upper limit for all the design
parameters.
The thermal control system is also important to keep temperature gradients at check.
Large temperature gradients may deform the structure or any other component temporarily
or even permanently. For this reason, it is important to spread out heat from concentrated
sources throughout a wide region.
In general, two kinds of thermal control system (TCS) are defined -

56 Thermal Control Subsystem
Component Operational Temperature Limits (◦C)

Battery -5 to 25
Star sensor -30 to 70
IMU -54 to 71
PCDU -20 to 50
Transponder -20 to 50
OBC -20 to 50
Solar Panel -160 to 110
N2 O4 /MMH -20 to 50
Table 8.1 Operational Temperature Limits of the Spacecraft Components
1. Passive Thermal Control - this involves the use of special materials, thermal coatings
or surface finishes and insulation blankets to control temperature within the system.
2. Active Thermal Control - this involves the use of thermo-electric heaters or coolers to
have a greater control over the thermal mangement within the spacecraft.
Active Thermal Control is generally more expensive and involves the use of heavy and
power consuming components. As such, it is often preferred to use passive thermal control
elements. However, to take care of uncertainties in the space environments, most often one
invariably needs to make use of active thermal control elements to a certain degree. The
current design of the spacecraft makes use of only passive elements for thermal control,
while suggesting the use of active thermal control elements for uncertainties.
8.2 Design Philosophy
Figure 9.1 shows the basic design philosophy for the TCS of a 3 axis stabilised spacecraft.
The spacecraft is basically completely wrapped with multi-layer insulation blankets (MLI)
with cutouts for radiators. The MLI blankets have very low emissivity as well as very low ab-
sorptivity and keep the spacecraft components insulated from the outside environment almost
completely. All the generated waste heat and the absorbed waste heat is concentrated at the ra-
diator panels by different means and from there, the excess heat is radiated out in to the space.
8.3 Dissipative Internal Components 57
Fig. 8.1 Basic Design Philosophy for TCS of 3 axis stabilised spacecrafts Gilmor (2002)
8.3 Dissipative Internal Components
In line with the design philosophy, we first identify the major heat dissipative components
within the spacecraft. This helps us in creating a thermally appropriate configuration of the
spacecraft components as well as in radiator design. Table 9.2 lists out the major elements
inside the spacecraft that add to the generated waste heat.
Component Maximum Dissipated Power (W)

Attitude Control 108
Battery 272
OBC 15
Sum 394
Table 8.2 Maximum dissipated power by the components inside the spacecraft
Here, it has been assumed that the solar panel array and the communications antennas
are thermally insulated perfectly from the interior components. They will be considered
separately.
8.4 Identifying the Thermal Environment
The main purpose of the TCS is to maintain the temperature of all the components within the
temperature limits. Hence, at a preliminary design stage, it is enough to identify the potential
thermal extremum positions of the spacecraft and do a thermal analysis at those points.
Few potential locations identified are -
• Possible maxima when the spacecraft is at a distance of approx. 0.7 AU during the
gravity tractor maneuver
• Possible minima when the spacecraft is a distance of approx. 1.09 AU during the
gravity tractor maneuver
• Possible minima when the spacecraft is in the solar eclipse region of the largest Earth
Parking orbit
• Possible maxima when the spacecraft is in the smallest earth parking orbit (altitude
approx. 600 km) and directly facing sunlight and planetary radiation
Based on heat flux calculations (table 9.3), the maxima temperature location was found to
be the first case, when the spacecraft is closest to the sun at around 0.7 AU during the gravity
tractor maneuver. The minima temperature location was identified to be the third case, when
the spacecraft is shrouded in the solar eclipse and is in the farthest Earth parking Orbit.
Case Heat Flux

1: At 0.7 AU 650 W/m2
2: At 1.09 AU 460 W/m2
3: During Solar Eclipse 435 W/m2
4: Smallest Earth Parking Orbit 540 W/m2
Table 8.3 Heat Fluxes for the different cases
8.5 Heat Balance - Radiator Sizing 59
8.5 Heat Balance - Radiator Sizing
A quasi-steady thermal analysis is conducted at each of the extrema locations of the orbit to
determine the estimates for the preliminary design of the Thermal Control Subsystem. Since,
in real mission, there won’t be enough time to attain steady state temperature values, the
parameters obtained in this analysis are a conservative upper bound. Real temperatures will
safely stay shy of the upper limits found in this analysis.
The basic equation for the analysis is obtained from an energy balance at the spacecraft
surfaces -
Qin = Qout
Qexternal + Qinternal = Qradiator + QMLI
Ignoring the heat losses from the MLI blankets, we get the equation
q planet Fplanet A + qasteroid Fasteroid A + qsolar Fsolar A + Qinternal = εσ A(T 4 − T s4 ) (8.1)
Here, q planet is the heat flux from the planet including both albedo and IR radiation,
qasteroid is the heat flux from the asteroid including both the albedo and the IR radiation,
qsolar is the heat flux of the solar radiation, Qinternal is the dissipated heat of the spacecraft
internal components, T is the temperature of the radiators and Ts is the free space temperature,
taken as 4K. Fplanet , Fasteroid and Fsolar are the view factors of the spacecraft with respect to
the planet, asteroid and sun. Reasonable approximations have been taken for the view factors
to find the upper limit of heat flux.Wertz and Larson (1999)
Assuming a radiator temperature of 20 degree Celsius, a coating of 8-mil Quartz mirror

for Radiator surface, we obtain the following configuration, as shown in table 9.4 -
For the heater, three Tycho Solid State Controllers of 100 W each can be used.
Apart from this, the rest of the surfaces of the spacecraft will have a 15 layer MLI blanket.
Coating Material 8-mil Quartz Mirror

α (BOL) 0.05
α (EOL) 0.08
ε 0.80
Raditor Area 2.9 m2
Minimum Temperature in cold case -16◦C
Heater Power Required 220 W
Table 8.4 Radiator Configuration for the Spacecraft
Fig. 8.2 Tycho Solid State Controller
Characteristics Value
Package Hermetically sealed can, 16.5 x 21.6 x 24.1 mm
Control power (heater) 0 to 100 W, higher power available
Quiescent power (standby) 30 mW
Input power 28 Vdc nominal, 15 Vdc to 45 Vdc range
Efficiency 98% minimum
Set-point accuracy .25°C, closer tolerances available
Weight Less than 30 g
Loop gain Provisions for external adjustment of control loop gain
Compensation Provisions for addition of loop compensation
MTBF 4.7 million hours minimum @ 25◦ C controller ambient
Module ambient (heat-sink temp) -55 to +75°C
8.6 Active Control - Heat Pipe 61
8.6 Active Control - Heat Pipe

For active control of temperature against uncertainities in the environment, a low cost and
efficient solution is to use heat pipes with two phase flow. A network of heat pipes can be
designed based on the internal configuration.
Fig. 8.3 Schematic Diagram of a heat pipe Gilmor (2002)
8.7 Insulation
Multi-layer insulation blanket or single layer radiation blankets are used for insulation com-
pletely covering the spacecraft surfaces except for the radiator cutouts and panels. They
prevent excessive heat loss as well as excessive heating from environmental fluxes, rocket
plumes etc. They are composed of multiple layers of low-emittance films. They are typically
an assembly of thin layers of embossed Mylar sheets, each with vacuum deposited aluminum
finish on one side. Both conduction and radiation are minimized.
Typically a blanket of these specifications is used. Gilmor (2002).
No. of layers 10
ε 0.1
α 0.1
Chapter 9
Power Systems
9.1 Overview
The power systems are used to generate power for the functioning of various systems on-
board. Solar arrays have been used to generate the required power which goes up to a max of
4000 watts near the asteroid.
There are two instances when the solar arrays will not be illuminated y the sun. They
are during eclipse and it is assumed that the spacecraft’s orientation will be changed for
communication and solar panels will not be facing the sun completely. For these instances
battery has to provide the power required for the subsystems.
The Battery will not be used for ion thruster propulsion and thermal subsystems. So the
battery has to generate a maximum of up-to 700 watts.
9.2 Eclipse Duration Calculation

By similarity of Triangles, the value of x for the sun-earth system comes out to be 1.378*109̂
Km. The satellite when in nearest earth parking orbit is at a height of 8104 km. Using
similarity of triangles again the cone diameter when at an altitude of 8104 km is found to be
12755.9 km.
D
T= (9.1)
V
where, T is time of eclipse, D is diameter of cone at EPO and V is velocity of satellite at that
position.
It is calculated to be 1795.595 s.
64 Power Systems
Fig. 9.1 Eclipse Duration Calculation
In further earth parking orbits the time of eclipse will be lower than this.
9.3 Solar array Sizing
The size of solar array is calculated for a power requirement of 4000 Watts. Gallium Arsenide
solar cells are chosen as they provide better efficiency and it does not degrade at a very fast
rate. Also extensive data is available for these. The Beginning of Life efficiency for GaAs
cells is taken to be 25 %.
The solar illumination intensity ’P’ on planar solar panels is 1367 W/m2̂. For GaAs cells
the inherent degragdation ’I’ is 0.77 and cosine loss is for an angle of 23.5 degrees in worst
case scenario. The beginning of life power output is P*0.25*I*cosθ which is calculated to
be 241.32 W/m2̂.
The end of life power output depends on the performance degradation and the time of
use. Performance degradation for GaAs cells is 2.65% per year and the life time of satellite
is around 2 years. So the end of life power output of the solar cells is 227.61 W/m2̂.
Preq
S= (9.2)
Po
where, S is solar array area, Preq is required power and Po is output power.
It is calculated to be 17.5 m2̂. Mass of the solar cell array is around 160 Kg.
9.4 Battery Sizing 65
9.4 Battery Sizing

NiH2 batteries are used in order to store energy for usage during eclipse period and while
communication. The energy required from battery during communication will be less than
that required during eclipse duration. Depth of Discharge of NiH2 battery is assumed to be
50%. The load on battery is 700W. The transmission efficiency is 0.9.
L∗t
C= (9.3)
DOD ∗ T E
where C is Battery Capacity, L is load on Battery, t is time of eclipse, DOD is depth of
discharge and TE is transmission efficiency.
It is calculated to be 775.86 W-hr. NiH2 batteries have a specific energy density of 75
W-hr/kg. With usage of one battery the battery weight is calculated to be 10.34 Kg.
Chapter 10
Communication Systems
10.1 Overview
Communication system consists of a network of satellites and ground stations interconnected
by communication links. Communication channels to be considered here are ground-station-
to-satellite uplinks and satellite-to-ground-station downlinks.
Frequencies have to be allotted for down-link and up-link communications. The frequency
ranges in each band is allocated by the international telecommunication network. Generally
the up-link communication happens at a higher frequency.
For the mission downlink is performed in Ku band in 10.7 to 12.5 GHz. The uplink is
performed in Ku band in 13.75-14.5 GHz.
10.2 Downlink communication

Assuming 70% antenna efficiency and 19db and for a frequency of 12GHz the downlink
antenna size is calculated to be of 8.5cm diamater and 10.3cm length.
10.3 Uplink communication

For the frequency of 14GHz and 30 db gain the aperture of a parabolic reflector is calculated
to be 292cm2 .
68 Communication Systems
Fig. 10.1 Radio Frequencies

10.3 Uplink communication 69
Fig. 10.2 Antenna Types of Satellite Systems (Wertz and Larson (1999))
References
APS, A. (2017), ‘Data sheet jena optronik astro aps star tracker’.
Brown, C. (2002), Elements of Spacecraft Design, AIAA education series, American Institute
of Aeronautics & Astronautics.
Ecoruspace (2017), ‘Specifications of obc750’.
Gilmor, D. (2002), ‘Spacecraft thermal control handbook. vol. 1. fundamental technologies’.
Group, N. A. D. (2007), ‘Near-earth object survey and deflection analysis of alternatives

report to congress’.
Grumman, N. (2017), ‘Northrop grumman ln-200s imu data sheet’.
Lu, E.T. & Love, S. (2005), ‘Gravitational tractor for towing asteroids’, Nature, Voulme 438,
pp 177-178 .
Marquardt (2015), ‘Marquardt r-40a engine specifications’.
NASA (2009), ‘Nasa solar electric propulsion technology application readiness’.
NASA (2017), ‘Nasa small body database’.
NSS (2017), ‘Nss fine digital sun sensor data sheet’.
Park, S.Y & Ross, I. (1993), ‘Two-body optimization for deflecting earth-crossing asteroids’,
Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, Vol. 22, No.3, 1999, pp.415–420 .
Wertz, J. and Larson, W. (1999), Space Mission Analysis and Design, Space Technology
Library, Springer Netherlands.
Appendix A
Appendix 1
Code for Lambert conic approach
# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-

"""
Created on Sat Sep 30 13:53:44 2017
@author: KUNDAN
"""
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from mpl_toolkits.mplot3d import Axes3D
from astropy import units as u

from astropy.time import Time
from astropy.coordinates import solar_system_ephemeris
from poliastro.ephem import get_body_ephem
solar_system_ephemeris.set("jpl")
from poliastro.bodies import *

from poliastro.twobody import Orbit
from poliastro.plotting import OrbitPlotter, plot
from poliastro.neos import neows
74 Appendix 1
from poliastro import iod
from astropy.coordinates import (

ICRS, GCRS,
CartesianRepresentation, CartesianDifferential
)
from poliastro.frames import HeliocentricEclipticJ2000
EPOCH = Time("2017-09-01 12:05:50", scale="tdb")
##########################################################
def icrf_frame(florence):
florence_heclip = HeliocentricEclipticJ2000(
x=florence.r[0], y=florence.r[1], z=florence.r[2],
d_x=florence.v[0], d_y=florence.v[1], d_z=florence.v[2],
representation=CartesianRepresentation,
differential_cls=CartesianDifferential,
obstime=EPOCH)
florence_icrs_trans = florence_heclip.transform_to(ICRS)
florence_icrs_trans.representation = CartesianRepresentation
florence_icrs = Orbit.from_vectors(
Sun,
r=[florence_icrs_trans.x, florence_icrs_trans.y, florence_icrs_trans.z]
* u.km,
v=[florence_icrs_trans.v_x, florence_icrs_trans.v_y,
florence_icrs_trans.v_z] * (u.km / u.s),
epoch=florence.epoch)
return florence_icrs;
##########################################################
def apo_orb(times_vector,apophis_orbit):
ap_ep=apophis_orbit.epoch;
vel=np.zeros([len(times_vector),3]);rad=np.zeros(
[len(times_vector),3]);
for i in range(len(times_vector)):
75
y=(apophis_orbit.propagate(times_vector[i]-ap_ep));
y=icrf_frame(y);
vel[i,:]=y.state.v;
rad[i,:]=y.r;
return np.transpose(rad)*u.km,np.transpose(vel)*u.km/u.s;
##############################################################
#def rel_vel_apophis_ear(date,apophis_orbit):
# ap_ep=apophis_orbit.epoch;
# fin=apophis_orbit.propagate(date-ap_ep);
# rrearth,vvearth=get_body_ephem("earth",date);
# return fin.state.v,vvearth.to(u.km/u.s),fin.state.r,rrearth;
def go_to_apophis(date_launch,date_arrival,apophis_orbit,offset=0.):
# Initial data
N = 50;
tof = date_arrival-date_launch
# Calculate vector of times from launch and arrival

dt = (date_arrival - date_launch) / N
times_vector = date_launch + dt * np.arange(N + 1)
rr_earth, vv_earth = get_body_ephem("earth", times_vector)

rr_mars, vv_mars = apo_orb(times_vector,apophis_orbit);
# Compute the transfer orbit!

r0 = rr_earth[:, 0]
rf = rr_mars[:, -1]
(va, vb), = iod.lambert(Sun.k, r0, rf, tof)
ss0_trans = Orbit.from_vectors(Sun, r0, va, date_launch)

print(ss0_trans);
ssf_trans = Orbit.from_vectors(Sun, rf, vb, date_arrival)
76 Appendix 1
# Extract whole orbit of Earth, Apophis and transfer (for plotting)

rr_trans = np.zeros_like(rr_earth)
rr_trans[:, 0] = r0
for ii in range(1, len(times_vector)):
tof = (times_vector[ii] - times_vector[0]).to(u.day)
rr_trans[:, ii] = ss0_trans.propagate(tof).r
# Better compute backwards

date_final = date_arrival - 1 * u.year
dt2 = (date_final - date_launch) / N
times_rest_vector = date_launch + dt2 * np.arange(N + 1)

rr_earth_rest, _ = get_body_ephem("earth", times_rest_vector)
rr_mars_rest, _ = apo_orb(times_rest_vector,apophis_orbit);
# Plot figure
fig = plt.gcf()
ax = plt.gca()
ax.cla()
#################################################################
def plot_body(ax, r, color, size, border=False, **kwargs):
"""Plots body in axes object.
"""
return ax.plot(*r[:, None], marker='o', color=color, ms=size,
mew=int(border), **kwargs)
###############################################################
# I like color
color_earth0 = '#3d4cd5'
color_earthf = '#525fd5'
color_mars0 = '#ec3941'
color_marsf = '#ec1f28'
color_sun = '#ffcc00'
color_orbit = '#888888'
color_trans = '#444444'
77
ax.plot(*rr_earth.to(u.km).value, color=color_earth0)
ax.plot(*rr_mars.to(u.km).value, color=color_mars0)
ax.plot(*rr_trans.to(u.km).value, color=color_trans)
ax.plot(*rr_earth_rest.to(u.km).value, ls='--', color=color_orbit)
ax.plot(*rr_mars_rest.to(u.km).value, ls='--', color=color_orbit)
plot_body(ax, np.zeros(3), color_sun, 16)
plot_body(ax, r0.to(u.km).value, color_earth0, 8)

plot_body(ax, rr_earth[:, -1].to(u.km).value, color_earthf, 8)
plot_body(ax, rr_mars[:, 0].to(u.km).value, color_mars0, 8)

plot_body(ax, rf.to(u.km).value, color_marsf, 8)
# Add some text

#ax.text(-0.75e8, -3.5e8, -1.5e8, "MSL mission:\nfrom Earth to Mars",
size=20, ha='center', va='center', bbox={"pad": 30, "lw": 0, "fc":
"w"})
ax.text(r0[0].to(u.km).value * 1.4, r0[1].to(u.km).value * 0.4,
r0[2].to(u.km).value * 1.25,
f"Earth at launch\n({date_launch.datetime:%b %d})",
ha="left", va="bottom", backgroundcolor='#ffffff')
ax.text(rf[0].to(u.km).value * 0.7, rf[1].to(u.km).value * 1.1,
rf[2].to(u.km).value,
f"Apophis at arrival\n({date_arrival.datetime:%b %d})",
ha="left", va="top", backgroundcolor='#ffffff')
ax.text(-1.9e8, 8e7, 0, "Transfer\norbit", ha="right", va="center",
backgroundcolor='#ffffff')
# Tune axes
ax.set_xlim(-2e8, 2.1e8)
ax.set_ylim(-2e8, 2.1e8)
ax.set_zlim(-2e8, 2.1e8)
78 Appendix 1
ax.view_init(30, 260)
####################################################################
def neos(dep,arr_date,ast_orb,earth):
app_orb=ast_orb.propagate(arr_date-EPOCH);
tof=arr_date-dep;
(v0, v), = iod.lambert(Sun.k, earth.r, app_orb.r, tof)
ret=
(np.linalg.norm(earth.state.v-v0)+np.linalg.norm(app_orb.state.v-v))/86400;
# if ret<1.4006782:
# print(str(dep)+','+str(arr_date)+','+str(v0)+','+str(v));
return ret;
##################################################################
xl=200;yl=200;
dep_date=np.linspace(0,300,xl);
arr_date=np.linspace(0,450,yl);
dv_req=np.zeros([xl,yl]);
apophis_orbit = neows.orbit_from_name(
'apophis',api_key='vpYzryM71Oh0f5yjqepq8f1hQ4F46wLIg1BBtBgz');
apophis_orbit=icrf_frame(apophis_orbit);
ap_ep=apophis_orbit.epoch;
apophis_orbit = apophis_orbit.propagate(EPOCH-ap_ep);
arr=[];
dep=[];
for i in range(len(dep_date)):
dep.append(EPOCH+1*u.year+dep_date[i]*u.day);
earth_orbit = Orbit.from_body_ephem(Earth,dep[i]);
for j in range(len(arr_date)):
arr.append(EPOCH+2*u.year+arr_date[j]*u.day);
dv_req[i,j]=neos(dep[i],arr[j],apophis_orbit,earth_orbit);
X,Y=np.meshgrid(dep_date,arr_date);
cs=plt.contour(np.transpose(X),np.transpose(Y),dv_req,20)
plt.xticks(dep_date,dep,rotation=90);
79
plt.yticks(arr_date,arr);
plt.clabel(cs,fontsize=9,inline=1,colors='black')
#plt.show();
#########################################
fig = plt.figure(3,figsize=(5, 5))

ax = fig.add_subplot(111, projection='3d');
mi=np.argmin(dv_req);
aa=int(mi/xl);
bb=np.remainder(mi,xl);
go_to_apophis(dep[aa],arr[bb],apophis_orbit);
plt.show();
print(str(np.min(dv_req)))
Lamber conic solver using boundary value problem solution.
# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-

"""
Created on Tue Oct 10 12:07:47 2017
@author: CHANDAN
"""
import numpy as np
#program for solving Lambert problem using boundary value problem approach
Ms=1.9891*10**30;
G=6.611*10**-11;
mu=G*Ms;
#r1=np.array([6500,0,0]);
#r2=np.array([8000,1000,500]);
def velac(t,r,p):
# a=np.zeros([5000,2,3]);
# a[:,0,:]=r[:,1,:];
# a[:,1,:]=G*Ms/(np.linalg.norm(r[:,0,:]))**3*r[:,0,:];
# return a;
a=(np.multiply(r[0,:],r[0,:])+np.multiply(r[1,:],r[1,:])
80 Appendix 1
+np.multiply(r[2,:],r[2,:]))
b=np.power(a,3/2);
c=np.divide(r[0,:],b);
d=np.divide(r[1,:],b)
e=np.divide(r[2,:],b);
return np.stack((r[3,:],r[4,:],r[5,:],-mu*c,-mu*d,-mu*e),axis=0);
def bc(ya,yb,p):
a=ya[0:3]-p[0:3]
b=yb[0:3]-p[3:6]
return np.concatenate((a,b));
def lambert(r1,r2,t1,t2):
x = np.linspace(t1, t2, 100)
y_a = 100*np.ones([6,x.size])
y_a[0,:]=np.linspace(r1,r2,x.size)
p=np.concatenate((r1,r2));
from scipy.integrate import solve_bvp
res_a = solve_bvp(velac, bc, x, y_a,p,max_nodes=10000)
return res_a;
Matlab Code for finding E using Newton Raphson Method
clc
% True anamoly is the OUTPUT of this function.
% Mean anamoly(M),eccentricity(e) are the INPUTS of the function.
M=0.20660926*180/pi;
e=0.19108;
M=M*(pi/180);
E=M;
f=E-(e*sin(E))-M;
df= 1-(e*cos(E));
while (abs(f)>10^-13)
E= E - (f/df);
f=E-(e*sin(E))-M;
81
df= 1-(e*cos(E));
end
E=mod(E,2*pi)
nu= atan(sqrt((1+e)/(1-e))*tan(E/2.0))*2;
if nu<0
nu=nu+2*pi;
end
nu=nu*(180/pi)
Matlab Code for Hohmann transfer plots
% code for hohmann transfer plots

clc
x1=152.1;y1=0;
x2=-147.1;y2=0;
e=0.0167086;
rp=min(abs(x1),abs(x2))
a = 1/2*sqrt((x2-x1)^2+(y2-y1)^2);
e1=1-(rp/a);
b = a*sqrt(1-e^2);
t = linspace(0,2*pi);
X = a*cos(t);
Y = b*sin(t);
w = atan2(y2-y1,x2-x1);
x = (x1+x2)/2 + X*cos(w) - Y*sin(w);
y = (y1+y2)/2 + X*sin(w) + Y*cos(w);
plot(x,y,'b','DisplayName','Earth')
axis([-170 170 -170 170])
hold on
plot(0,0,'r*','DisplayName','Sun')
axis equal
x1=164.335;y1=0;
x2=-111.607;y2=0;
82 Appendix 1
e=0.19108;
a = 1/2*sqrt((x2-x1)^2+(y2-y1)^2);
b = a*sqrt(1-e^2);
t = linspace(0,2*pi);
X = a*cos(t);
Y = b*sin(t);
w = atan2(y2-y1,x2-x1);
x = (x1+x2)/2 + X*cos(w) - Y*sin(w);
y = (y1+y2)/2 + X*sin(w) + Y*cos(w);
plot(x,y,'r','DisplayName','Apophis')
axis equal
x1=164.335;y1=0;
x2=-147.1;y2=0;
a = 1/2*sqrt((x2-x1)^2+(y2-y1)^2);
rp=min(abs(x1),abs(x2))
e=1-(rp/a);
b = a*sqrt(1-e^2);
t = linspace(0,pi);
X = a*cos(t);
Y = b*sin(t);
w = atan2(y2-y1,x2-x1);
x = (x1+x2)/2 + X*cos(w) - Y*sin(w);
y = (y1+y2)/2 + X*sin(w) + Y*cos(w);
plot(x,y,'k','DisplayName','T1')
plot(-147.1,0,'c*','DisplayName','Start')
plot(164.335,0,'g*','DisplayName','end')
legend('show')
axis equal
Matlab Code for DeltaV calculation
% code for deltaV estimation using hohmann transfer

clc
% orbital parameters
83
a_A = 137.971e6;
a_E = 149.6e6;
rpi = 147.1e6;
rai = 152.1e6;
ai = (rpi+rai)/2;
rpf = 111.607e6;
raf = 164.335e6;
af = (rpf+raf)/2;
muS = 1.327e11;
muE = 398600;
muA = 4.0711888e-9; %in km/s^3
% transfer one from periapsis of earth to apoapsis of asteroid
disp('Transfer1 from periapsis of earth to apoapsis of asteroid')
aT1=(rpi+raf)/2;
vpi = sqrt(muS*((2/rpi)-(1/ai)));
vpT1=sqrt(muS*((2/rpi)-(1/aT1)));
rel_v1=abs(vpi-vpT1);
vaT1=sqrt(muS*((2/raf)-(1/aT1)));
vaf=sqrt(muS*((2/raf)-(1/af)));
rel_v2=abs(vaf-vaT1);
neta = sqrt(muS/(aT1^3));
T1 = pi/neta; % Transfertime in sec
T1days = T1 /(60*60*24);
% earth parking orbit parameters
rpepo=6378+600;
aepo=8104;
arel1=-muE/(rel_v1^2);
vprel1=sqrt(muE*((2/rpepo)-(1/arel1)));
vpepo=sqrt(muE*((2/rpepo)-(1/aepo)));
del_v1=abs(vpepo-vprel1);
% Spacecraft is transfered to 1.5*radius of Asteroid
rpapo=1.5*0.185;
aapo=1.5*0.185;
arel2=-muA/(rel_v2^2);
vprel2=sqrt(muA*((2/rpapo)-(1/arel2)));
vpapo=sqrt(muA*((2/rpapo)-(1/aepo)));
84 Appendix 1
del_v2=abs(vpapo-vprel2);
del_vT1 = del_v1+del_v2; %in km/s
disp('the total velocity impulse required =')
disp(del_vT1)
disp('Transfer Time')
disp(T1days);
% transfer one from apoapsis of earth to periapsis of asteroid

disp('Transfer2 from apopsis of earth to periapsis of asteroid')
aT2=(rai+rpf)/2;
vai = sqrt(muS*((2/rai)-(1/ai)));
vaT2=sqrt(muS*((2/rai)-(1/aT2)));
rel_v1=abs(vai-vaT2);
vpT2=sqrt(muS*((2/rpf)-(1/aT2)));
vpf=sqrt(muS*((2/rpf)-(1/af)));
rel_v2=abs(vpf-vpT2);
neta = sqrt(muS/(aT2^3));
T2 = pi/neta; % Transfertime in sec
T2days = T2 /(60*60*24);
% earth parking orbit parameters
rpepo=6378+600;
aepo=8104;
arel1=-muE/(rel_v1^2);
vprel1=sqrt(muE*((2/rpepo)-(1/arel1)));
vpepo=sqrt(muE*((2/rpepo)-(1/aepo)));
del_v1=abs(vpepo-vprel1);
% Spacecraft is transfered to 1.5*radius of Asteroid
rpapo=1.5*0.185;
aapo=1.5*0.185;
arel2=-muA/(rel_v2^2);
vprel2=sqrt(muA*((2/rpapo)-(1/arel2)));
vpapo=sqrt(muA*((2/rpapo)-(1/aepo)));
del_v2=abs(vpapo-vprel2);
del_vT2 = del_v1+del_v2; %in km/s
disp('the total velocity impulse required =')
disp(del_vT2)
85
disp('Transfer Time')
disp(T2days);
if del_vT1<del_vT2
disp('Transfer1 is optimum')
else
disp('Transfer2 is optimum')
end
Matlab Code for Gravity tractor calculations
d=277.5; % diameter of asteroid

G = 6.67408e-11;
M=6.1e10;
t=(1/12):(1/12):20; %lead time in years
delv = (3.5e-2)./t; % delv imparted to asteroid in m/s
%delv is imparted in the direction of vel vector of NEO
m = delv.*(d^2);
m=m./G ;% if s/c hovers for one sec
m1 = m./(365*86400); % if s/c hover for one year
m2 = m1./t; % if s/c hover for t years
plot(t,m1)
xlabel('leadtime in years')
ylabel('mass of s/c in kg')
figure
plot(t,delv);
ylabel('del_v imparted to asteroid in m/s')
c= G*M/(d^2);
c=c/cosd(61.81);
T1 = m1.*c; %Thrust required to balance gravity with plume half angle 20deg
T2 = m2.*c;
figure
plot(t,T1);
86 Appendix 1
ylabel('Thrust required in N')

AVD Group5 FinalReport

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

AVD Group5 FinalReport

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Gravity Tractoring Maneuver for Asteroid

Aerospace Vehicle Design

Angshuman Bharadwaj (SC14B003)

Kundan Parashar (SC14B027)

Piyush Kumar (SC14B039)

Prudhvi Sai (SC14B042)

Vishwendra Pratap Singh (SC14B58)

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SPACE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Place: IIST, Thiruvanathapuram

List of tables xiii

2 Estimation of asteroid deflection 7

3.3 Exact trajectory design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4 Propulsion system design 23

6 Attitude Determination and Control Subsystem (ADCS) 35

8 Thermal Control Subsystem 55

9 Thermal Control Subsystem 57

9.2 Design Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

1.1 Table showing important orbital parameter of Apophis 99942.(NASA (2017)) 4

2.1 Table showing design requirements of the mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3.1 Table showing variation of required ∆v with date of launch . . . . . . . . . 19

4.1 Table showing some important propellant characteristics . . . . . . . . . . 24

6.1 Specifications of R-1E Bi propellant Rocket Engine[5] . . . . . . . . . . . 37

7.1 Aluminum alloy Al-7075 Mechanical Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

9.1 Operational Temperature Limits of the Spacecraft Components . . . . . . . 58

1.1 Figure showing placement of spacecraft for gravity tractor maneuver . . . . 5

2.1 Towing geometry of a gravitational tractor (Lu (2005)) . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3.1 Hohmann Transfer T2 from periapsis of earth to apoapsis of asteroid. . . . 16

5.1 OBC 750 Flight computer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

6.1 Jena Optronik ASTRO APS Star Tracker (APS (2017)) . . . . . . . . . . . 38

7.1 Monocoque outer shell of spacecraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

10.1 Eclipse Duration Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

11.1 Radio Frequencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

• Explain the objective of the project

• Comparison between different methods for achieving the objective

• Characteristics of selected asteroid

1.3 Methods of deflecting asteroids

1.3.1 Nuclear Explosive device

1.3.2 Kinetic impact

1.3.3 Ion beam shepherding

1.3.4 Focused solar energy

1.3.5 Conventional rocket engine

1.3.6 Asteroid Laser Ablation

1.3.7 Gravity Tractoring maneuver

1.4 Selection of asteroid

• The asteroid is roughly spherical (deviations < 25m (radius=160m), Unknown as of

1.5 Asteroid characteristics

Table 1.2 Table showing important physical parameters of Apophis 99942

Estimation of asteroid deflection

• Gravity tractoring calculations without nonlinear earth deflection effects

• Estimate deflection of asteroid required in 2036

• Estimate the deflection required in 2029

2.1.1 Gravity Tractor

Fig. 2.1 Towing geometry of a gravitational tractor (Lu (2005))

Fig. 2.2 ∆v imparted to the asteroid

Thrust Required (in N)

Fig. 2.3 Thrust required to balance gravity

2.2 Estimation of asteroid deflection required in 2036

From the equation,

From this we estimate ν∞ using,

Also we know that,

Therefore the asymptotic angle β is,

Further for the hyperbola,

where xde f is the deflection,

rmin = 6378km, hence