Crosslink
Summer 2001 Vol. 2 No. 2
6 A Perfect Start to the
Operation
Steven R. Strom was recently
hired as the corporate
archivist for Aerospace. He
has a background in both
archive sciences and historical
editing and publishing. Strom
holds an M.A. in American
history from Boston College.
Prior to coming to Aerospace,
he headed the Architectural
Archive at the Houston
Metropolitan Research Center
in Houston, Texas. Strom grew
up in a neighborhood adjacent
to the Johnson Space Center
in Clear Lake City, Texas, and
has had a lifelong interest in
space history (steven.r.strom
@aero.org).
6 14
Contents
Departments
2 Headlines
4 Profile
President and CEO
William F. Ballhaus Jr.
49 Bookmarks
52 Two Space Experiments
Cover: Karl Jacobs
14 Building Space Instruments
Lynn M. Friesen, Director, Space
Instrumentation Department, leads the
development of scientific instruments and
data-processing efforts associated with
ground, airborne, and space-based research
programs. She received the Aerospace
President’s Award in 1989, along with John
Hackwell, for the development of a novel
imaging restoration algorithm. She holds a
B.S. in information and computer science
from the University of California, Irvine, and
has been with Aerospace since 1971
(lynn.m.friesen@aero.org). Dan J. Mabry,
Associate Director, Space Instrumentation
Department, has been developing flight
hardware and embedded software since
1988. He holds an M.S. in electrical
engineering from the University of Southern
California and a B.S. in computer science
from the University of California at Los
Angeles. Mabry has been with Aerospace
since 1981 (dan.mabry@aero.org).
22 30
30
TSX-5: Another Step Forward
Michael L. La Grassa, Senior Project
Engineer, Space Test and Experimentation
Directorate, leads system engineering efforts
in support of satellite acquisition and
integration for Space Test Program missions.
He worked closely with the contractor and
the Air Force Program Office in resolving
technical issues on the TSX-5 program. He
holds an M.S. in electrical engineering from
California State University, Fullerton, and has
been with Aerospace since 1986 (michael.l.
lagrassa@aero.org). James R. Farmin,
Project Engineer, is a member of the Mission
Design and Operations team within the
Space Test and Experimentation Directorate.
He has worked on Space Test Program
missions in various capacities for eight years.
He holds a B.S. in physics from the
University of Idaho and is currently working
on a Ph.D. at the University of New Mexico.
He has been with Aerospace since 1999
(james.farmin@kirtland.af.mil).
 From the Editor

22 Michael R. Hilton

Delta Star
Frederick Simmons has supported
BMDO in a number of its programs since
its inception (as SDIO) in 1983, primarily
dealing with target and background
phenomenology. He joined Aerospace in
1971 to work in the Defense Support
Program and several DARPA research
studies. He holds a Ph.D. in aerospace
science from the University of Michigan
(frederick.s. simmons@aero.org). Peter
Bythrow (inset) is Chief Scientist, Central
Measurements and Signatures
Intelligence Office of the Defense
Intelligence Agency. In his previous
position at Johns Hopkins University
Applied Physics Laboratory, he was
coinvestigator for a number of space
experiments and developed sensor
technologies for space surveillance and
missile detection. He holds a Ph.D. in
space physics from the University of
Texas, Dallas (dibytpf@dia.ic.gov).
38
T
he important role of
space experiments
in the advancement
of aerospace science
and technology is the theme of
this Crosslink. The term “space
experiments” encompasses
both flight experiments and
experimental flights. The first
typically generate remote-sensing data—about the space envi-
ronment, about spacecraft materials, about Earth and its atmo-
sphere. The second demonstrate new spacecraft or payload
technologies, increasing our confidence and understanding of
new systems while identifying areas needing further develop-
ment. Lessons learned from space experiments help The Aero-
space Corporation provide sound advice to the government for
space-system acquisition.
Space experiments are inherently risky, and reducing that
risk requires careful engineering and systems integration. Ex-
perts in diverse specialties must be consulted throughout the
development stage to ensure that no details are overlooked. The
importance of mission preparation—in particular, preflight
qualification and testing—cannot be overstated; once launched,
a space vehicle becomes extremely difficult to repair.
The articles in this issue look at some of the specialized dis-
ciplines required for the successful launch and operation of
space-science missions. The “ultimate space experiment”—
John Glenn’s historic orbital flight in the Atlas-launched Mer-
cury “Friendship 7” spacecraft—occurred forty years ago, in
the same year The Aerospace Corporation was formed.
Fittingly, the lead article chronicles the central role of Aero-
space in the success of that flight. Crosslink also introduces a
new department—Profile. The first features the corporation’s
new president and CEO, William F. Ballhaus Jr.

38 Protecting Space Systems from Lightning

Left to right: Alexander F. Rivera, Director, Electrical and Electronic Systems Department, has
20 years of experience studying electromagnetic effects on electronics. Recently, he did an
extensive study on the risk posed by lightning to satellites in processing facilities. He holds an
M.S. in electrical engineering from the University of California at Los Angeles and has been with
Aerospace since 1991 (alexander.f.rivera@aero.org). Harry C. Koons, Distinguished Scientist,
Space Sciences Department, is an expert on spacecraft surface and internal charging and
triboelectric charging of launch vehicles. A member of the joint U.S. Air Force/NASA Lightning
Advisory Panel, he has conducted experiments on electrostatic discharges on spacecraft
caused by the space environment. He holds a Ph.D. in geology and geophysics from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and has been with Aerospace since 1968 (hkoons@
aero.org). Richard L. Walterscheid, Space Sciences Department, leads research in upper-
atmosphere dynamics, air-glow phenomenology, and toxic transport and diffusion. He received
the Aerospace President’s Award in 1986 for work in the variability and structure of atmospheric
phenomena affecting space systems. He holds a Ph.D. in atmospheric science from the
University of California at Los Angeles, served as a weather officer in the Air Force, and has
been with Aerospace since 1979 with concurrent positions in the UCLA department of
Atmospheric Sciences (richard.walterscheid@aero.org). Richard Briët, Electrical and Electronic
Systems Department, leads research on the design of lightning propagation and protection
systems for ground installations. Former manager of the Survivability and Vulnerability Section,
he has published numerous articles on lightning and related subjects and made many
presentations at conferences in the United States and Europe. Briët holds a Ph.D. in physics
from the University of Utah and has been with Aerospace since 1985 (richard.briet@aero.org).
 Headlines For more news about Aerospace, visit www.aero.org/news/
Assessing Solar Cells
S T
pacecraft designers will soon have a
new tool to help in the selection and
qualification of solar cells. The Ad-
vanced Solar-Cell On-orbit Test (ASCOT)
has generated five years’ worth of data con-
cerning the radiation degradation of solar
cells in space. Aerospace was closely in-
volved in the experiment design and test-
article selection and analyzed the data.
Boeing Space Systems
ASCOT contains a variety of advanced
gallium-arsenide solar cells as well as stan-
dard silicon cells and thin-film flexible so-
lar cells. The goal, said Dean Marvin of the
Space Technology Directorate, is to assess
how each withstands extended exposure to
space radiation. Because of its particular
elliptical orbit, ASCOT accumulates radia-
tion dose much more rapidly than a satel-
lite in a typical low Earth orbit. In fact,
ASCOT’s silicon reference cells have ac-
cumulated the equivalent radiation expo-
sure of 2000 years in a 450-nautical-mile
polar orbit and 600 years in geosynchro-
nous orbit.
Long-term radiation tests such as AS-
COT hold great scientific and engineering
value, Marvin said, providing data that
cannot be obtained through accelerated
studies on the ground. For example, solar
cells are typically qualified for space by
studying the effect of protons and electrons
at a few selected energies, but in actuality,
the space environment presents a continu-
ous spectrum of energies. Furthermore,
ground tests typically assume that the ef-
fects of all particles in the spectrum are ad-
ditive—an assumption that may not be ac-
curate in all cases. Finally, the ground tests
expose the cells to many years’ equivalent
radiation in just a few hours—a procedure
that can obscure annealing effects and in-
troduce high-dose-rate artifacts. ASCOT,
on the other hand, provides reliable long-
term on-orbit data that can be used to vali-
date the ground-based testing procedures.
2 • Crosslink Summer 2001
Successful Launch of NRO Satellite
he National Reconnais-
sance Office (NRO)
successfully launched
its GeoLITE satellite from a
Delta II rocket on May 18,
2001, from Cape Canaveral.
This was the first time an
NRO satellite was launched
on a Delta II. Aerospace pro-
vided critical support through-
out the launch campaign,
from source selection to
early-orbit operations.
The GeoLITE program
broke from traditional NRO
practices, said Tom Darone of
the Advanced Technology
NRO
Group, moving instead to-
ward a more streamlined acquisition of the
spacecraft and a more commercial procure-
ment of the launch vehicle. The satellite
was designed and built in less than four
years at a cost of $130 million.
The new approach initially limited Aero-
space’s involvement to the satellite itself,
but late in the program, Aerospace was
asked to certify the Delta II launch vehicle
as well. In doing so, engineers grew con-
cerned about the stability of the rocket’s
Beaming Power to Satellites
B
atteries add mass, cost, and uncer-
tainty to satellite missions—but
such concerns may soon be a thing
of the past. A recent study by Aerospace in-
dicates that lasers can be used to beam
power from an orbiting space structure to a
constellation of satellites. What’s more,
preliminary results show that with the ex-
pected advancements in optical technolo-
gies, total system cost can be lower than
that of traditional power systems.
third-stage engine because it
was unclear how GeoLITE’s
2000 pounds of propellant
would affect the spinning
stack. Aerospace performed
independent analyses of the
third-stage control and the
fluid dynamics of the propel-
lant tank; these analyses were
key to the Air Force’s deci-
sion to fly.
The actual launch was de-
layed one day to replace four
of eight flex hoses in the first-
stage rocket engine. These
hoses became suspect when
routine factory testing yielded
leaks in two similar hoses.
Aerospace worked to understand the fac-
tory failure, verify that the replacement
hoses were flightworthy, and exonerate the
hoses that weren’t replaced.
GeoLITE will perform a dual mission:
For the first 15 months of its nine-year mis-
sion life, it will test an advanced laser com-
munications system. Afterward, it will pro-
vide operational support data to the
military using a conventional ultrahigh-
frequency transmitter.
The concept builds upon the Air Force
Research Laboratory’s PowerSail, a large
free-flying thin-film solar array. By adding
solid-state lasers, thermal controllers, and
optical telescopes to this platform, Aero-
space researchers were able to create a
satellite—the PowerSat—with optical
power-beaming capability. Several architec-
tures are being investigated to determine the
cost and performance advantages of each.
One model found that just two Power-
Sats could provide a full-time energy sup-
ply to a constellation of 12 low-Earth-orbit
satellites. In this configuration, each mis-
sion satellite keeps its existing solar array,
but loses its battery and most of its power-
management system. This arrangement
substantially reduces the mass, volume,
and cost of each satellite. Moreover, the
power available to the mission satellites
can be varied in real time, enabling better
power optimization based on the require-
ments of the constellation payloads.
 Researchers Track Mir’s Reentry
fter 15 years in orbit, the Mir space
A laboratory took a fiery plunge to-
ward Earth, and Aerospace was on
hand to examine the event. The Center for
Orbital and Reentry Debris Studies
(CORDS), under the direction of William
Ailor, has been gathering data to character-
ize how Mir broke up and what parts sur-
vived reentry.
Mir disappeared into the South Pacific,
so the prospects for examining debris are
naturally limited. But Ailor’s team has
gathered useful details from a wide variety
of sources—including tracking data, video
clips, eyewitness reports, and radar mea-
surements. Using this information, the re-
searchers have been reconstructing Mir’s
final descent. NASA has contracted Aero-
space to perform this analysis.
The information should hold immediate
benefits for designers and operators of
space systems, who need to understand
Controlling Jitters in Space
T
he first active scientific ex-
periment arrived onboard the
International Space Station—
thanks, in part, to The Aerospace
Corporation. The Middeck Active
Control Experiment II (MACE-II)
was launched aboard the space shut-
tle on September 8, 2000, and deliv-
ered to the Space Station for opera-
tion by the Increment One crew in
early 2001. Aerospace provided support in
the integration, planning, and flight prepa-
ration of the experiment.
Developed by the Air Force Research
Laboratory and the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, MACE-II is an on-orbit
demonstration of advanced control tech-
nologies for suppressing unwanted vibra-
tion in space vessels. The goal, said David
DeAtkine of Aerospace’s Houston office,
is to create “smart” structures that can
maintain attitude despite unexpected vibra-
tion, impacts, and mechanism failures.
MACE-II is a 1.5-meter-long device that
floats free in a pressurized compartment.
The unit has gimbals at each end and reac-
tion wheels in the middle. One gimbal cre-
ates vibrations, which are detected and
counteracted through complex computer
what will happen to a satellite or space ve-
hicle when it reaches the end of its mis-
sion life. Knowledge of how complex
structures disintegrate during reentry can
CNN
also help designers optimize satellite con-
figuration. “If you have critical compo-
nents, and you really want to make sure
they get cooked on the way down,” said
Ailor, “you can put them in places where
you know they’ll disintegrate. Similarly,
if there are things you want protected, you
can keep them on the interior, keep heat-
ing to them low.”
Ailor further noted that satellite opera-
tors are increasingly being asked—though
not yet required—to examine reentry risk.
In fact, Aerospace has been working with
NASA to develop thresholds and guide-
lines for satellite deorbiting. “Basically, if
your footprint on the ground is bigger
than eight square meters, you’ll need to
exercise a controlled deorbit,” Ailor said.
A Space-Based Laser Integrated Flight
algorithms, keeping the other end steady.
Most important, these algorithms can mod-
ify themselves or “adapt” when they sense
changes in the characteristics of the sys-
tem—without human intervention. As a re-
sult, the technique should allow future
spacecraft to continue performing their
missions even as their subsystems degrade
and fail, effectively extending mission life.
MACE-II is a reflight of MACE-I,
which flew on the space shuttle in 1995.
The current device, DeAtkine said, is much
more sophisticated, employing smarter al-
gorithms that can account for more types
of failure modes and disturbances. The ex-
periment has been operated successfully by
the Increment One and Increment Two
crews and has been generating useful data,
which are being examined.
CORDS also helped NASA in recon-
structing the demise of the Compton
Gamma Ray Observatory, which was suc-
cessfully brought down in June 2000 (see
Crosslink, Winter 2000/2001). Of course,
that observatory weighed only 17 tons,
whereas Mir—the “granddaddy of them
all,” as Ailor puts it—weighed about 140
tons. Moreover, the observatory left orbit
in a very precise manner, coming down
“right on the money,” said Ailor. Mir, in
contrast, fell slightly ahead of its mark, pri-
marily because Russian controllers were
very conservative in their calculations.
Aerospace provided technical support
for the reentry. Wayne Hallman is leading
the Mir trajectory reconstruction effort.
Space-Based Laser
erospace personnel supporting the
Experiment (IFX) were called
upon to provide more than technical assis-
tance last year. When a commercial laser
vendor unexpectedly withdrew, the Air
Force found itself without a laser for its
Beam-Control Risk-Reduction Test Bed, a
platform for identifying and reducing over-
all risk in the IFX program. With no viable
alternative, the Air Force asked Aerospace
to supply a replacement laser. Within five
months, Aerospace built and delivered a
low-power tunable solid-state laser that met
or exceeded all mission requirements, sav-
ing the program at least $500,000.
The 2-watt infrared laser source gener-
ates a tunable 3-micron emission by optical
parametric oscillation. Keith Zondervan,
who heads the Space Based Laser Direc-
torate, said the laser will be used for evalu-
ating wave-front error and jitter-control
concepts. The test laser will model the be-
havior of a larger, more expensive laser,
which will eventually be used in space to
destroy a thrusting ballistic missile (in
2013, assuming adequate funding). Using
the substitute laser, the IFX team will seek
to identify problems and unknowns before
building the final test version.
Crosslink Summer 2001 • 3

A New CEO for a New Era
by Donna J. Born
T
he Aerospace Corporation last year celebrated 40 years of
successful contributions to the national space effort and
aerospace technology. Guiding the company into its next 40
years will be William F. Ballhaus Jr., the corporation’s new
president and CEO. Ballhaus comes to Aerospace particularly suited
to lead this corporation as it meets the challenges of national security
space in the new millennium. He brings insight gained from extensive
research and management experience in government and industry.
Experience, Ballhaus believes, is his greatest asset: “Experience
develops intuition and prepares leaders for the most important thing
they do—make decisions and make them correctly and quickly.” He
has published numerous influential articles on computational aerody-
namics and related technology, served as director of NASA’s Ames
Research Center, and oversaw the engineering and technology func-
tions of the aerospace defense contractor Lockheed Martin. His many
awards for research and management testify to the quality and im-
portance of his work.
The new CEO assumes leadership of the organization at a time
when the government is proposing major changes in the structure and
administration of the nation’s space and defense programs. The new
direction will have a direct impact on Aerospace, whose primary cus-
tomers are the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center, Air
Force Space Command, and the National Reconnaissance Office
(NRO). The proposed changes will create a more integrated national
security space infrastructure that aligns the Air Force and NRO pro-
grams for best use of resources and clearer lines of authority and ac-
countability.
The challenge to Aerospace, according to Ballhaus, will be deter-
mining how the company can best serve the needs of these cus-
tomers. “Aerospace will play a major role supporting national secu-
rity space. We have very experienced people in key positions who
really understand national security space and the capabilities that
support it,” Ballhaus said. “Our job is to provide sound technical ad-
vice in systems development and acquisition support, launch certifi-
cation, system-of-systems engineering, process implementation, and
4 • Crosslink Summer 2001
Profile Aerospace President and
CEO William F. Ballhaus Jr.
technology application. And I think we do all that very well. We con-
tinually need to improve our tools to enhance the value we bring to
our customers.”
Technology investment is one way the corporation provides better
tools and better processes for helping customers, Ballhaus said. Some
portions of technology investment go to research and development,
which he considers to be very important. Ballhaus believes that suc-
cessful researchers know what to work on to make the greatest con-
tribution; they see a market. “Our market is the NRO, Air Force, and
other defense customers. What do they need? What’s missing? How
can the technology enhance their ability to perform their mission?”
The corporation’s value to its customers depends profoundly on
the quality of the workforce, Ballhaus said: “The key ingredient of a
successful company is its people.” He came to Aerospace in part be-
cause of the high quality of its technical staff. Attracting talented peo-
ple, however, is another challenge for the company because today’s
graduates have many competing career opportunities. “Talented peo-
ple are attracted to our industry by the excitement of our mission, the
opportunity to work on very exciting programs. Aerospace is a
tremendous place to work.”
He holds high standards of excellence for the workforce, prompted
by the company’s commitment to bringing value to customers by
“solving their seemingly unsolvable problems.” People should be
technically competent and focused on customer needs and mission
success. They should have integrity (“do the right thing when no one
will know if you didn’t do it”), high ethical standards, and courage of
their convictions. They must be accountable.
Although as president and CEO of Aerospace, Ballhaus is now
most interested in setting the direction for the corporation to best
serve its customers, he clearly found great satisfaction from his early
research and continues to take pleasure in sharing it with others. He
once tried to explain to a curious passenger sitting beside him on an
airplane a sketch he was drawing of a pattern on the wing formed by
the sun shining through shock waves as the plane moved at transonic
speed and the airflow over the wing reached supersonic speed. After
receiving his Ph.D. in engineering in 1971 from the University of
California, Berkeley, Ballhaus spent the first eight years of his career
as a research scientist in computational aerodynamics with the U.S.
Army Air Mobility Research and Development Laboratory and Ames
Research Center at Moffett Field, California.
Ballhaus explained that the transonic speed regime is important
because it is where aircraft generally optimize cruise and maneuver
performance. However, to achieve the performance potential requires
proper aerodynamic shaping of the aircraft configuration. The ability
to effectively analyze transonic flows about wings of a given shape
had been intractable because the governing partial differential equa-
tions were nonlinear, even in their simple approximate forms. A ma-
jor breakthrough was the invention, by Ballhaus and his colleagues at
Ames, of finite-difference methodology that solved these complex
fluid flow equations on digital computers. Designers then could ana-
lyze the flow about a wing design and optimize its performance prior
to wind tunnel or flight tests.
Ballhaus wrote computer codes for designing wings of aircraft
based on finite-difference mathematics technology that he developed.
The codes provide information such as shock formations and other
flow characteristics and phenomena that determine aerodynamic per-
formance. “Basically with finite-difference methods, we divided the
whole flow field surrounding the wing into small cells, literally mil-
lions, and wrote equations for each cell that expressed conservation
of mass, momentum, and energy in the cell. We then used relaxation
techniques to solve the resulting large number of algebraic (matrix)
equations to determine the flow field variables, for example, velocity,
pressure, etc. Relaxation is a technique used to solve large matrix
equations by starting with an initial guess of the solution and contin-
uously refining it until an acceptable level of accuracy is achieved.”
The codes that Ballhaus wrote were applied, for example, to the
HiMAT (an experimental, uninhabited aircraft specifically designed
for flight tests of high-maneuverability test concepts) to improve ma-
neuverability while meeting requirements for cruise performance and
supersonic acceleration capability. The HiMAT and an interview with
Ballhaus are on display at the National Air and Space Museum in
Washington, D.C. Later use of the codes in aircraft design, including
the Sabreliner Mark 5, the Lear Allegro, and the B-2 stealth bomber,
established Ballhaus’s reputation in applied computational fluid dy-
namics (CFD). He became chief of the applied computational aero-
dynamics branch at Ames in 1979. A year later, he became director of
astronautics.
Ballhaus by that time had become interested in “solving more
complete configurations, like a full aircraft shape instead of just a
wing, and how you would improve the physical simulation to include
viscosity, turbulent flows, and separation.” When he became Ames di-
rector in 1984, he focused his efforts on setting a direction for Ames
to achieve those and other research objectives, putting teams in place,
providing facilities, and keeping the funding coming in—Ames saw
rapid increases in its budget during the late 1980s. From February
1988 through March 1989, Ballhaus was
acting associate administrator for aeronau-
tics and space technology at NASA head-
quarters in Washington, D.C. In this posi-
tion, he directed NASA’s aeronautics and
space technology programs as well as the
Ames, Langley, and Lewis research centers.
In 1988 and 1989, he also served as presi-
dent of the American Institute of Aeronau-
tics and Astronautics and was elected to the
National Academy of Engineering in 1988
for his research in CFD.
His work in CFD and his contributions to
Ames earned him a place among the first in-
ductees to the Ames Hall of Fame, created in
1999 to recognize those who had made out-
standing contributions to science, technology,
and the Ames Center. The Hall of Fame cita-
tion recognized Ballhaus as one of the “lead-
ing lights” in early phases of the development
of CFD, “one of Ames’ most valuable contri-
butions to aeronautical research.” It recog-
nized him for his effort to establish the Ames
Numerical Aerodynamic Simulator facility (NAS), which used the first
Cray 2 supercomputers to model the complex flow fields about sophis-
ticated aircraft. The CFD techniques developed by research scientists
using NAS are used by designers throughout the world.
Ballhaus left Ames in 1989 to begin his career in the private sector
with Martin Marietta Astronautics Group in Denver, where he served
as vice president of research and development and later vice president
and director of the Titan IV Centaur program. He rose over the next
several years to higher-level positions in management and adminis-
tration, including president of Civil Space and Communications from
1990 to 1993 and president of Aero and Naval Systems from 1993 to
1994. In 1995 he became Science and Engineering vice president at
corporate headquarters of what had now become Lockheed Martin
Corporation. He served as an officer of that corporation until he joined
Aerospace in September 2000.
The defense industry consolidated in the 1990s as a result of a sub-
stantial decline in Department of Defense procurement budgets. Ball-
haus was involved in due diligence and transition activities associated
with the Martin Marietta acquisition of General Electric Aerospace,
the Lockheed–Martin Marietta merger, Lockheed Martin’s acquisi-
tion of Loral’s defense electronics and information businesses, and
Lockheed Martin’s attempted acquisition of Northrop Grumman.
At Lockheed Martin corporate headquarters, Ballhaus emphasized
engineering process improvement. During that period, Lockheed
Martin business units substantially advanced the maturity of their soft-
ware and systems engineering processes. He also focused on enhanc-
ing technology synergy across Lockheed Martin’s many business
units. From 1998 to 1999, following a series of launch vehicle fail-
ures, Ballhaus helped organize and served on Lockheed Martin’s In-
dependent Assessment Team on Mission Success. He also was the
Lockheed Martin representative to the government’s Launch Broad
Area Review. During these reviews, he had the opportunity to help de-
termine the factors contributing to lapses in mission success and to
recommend corrective action.
Working in the private sector taught Ballhaus to respect the dictates
of the marketplace and the mandate to increase shareholder value. At
Aerospace, he equates increasing shareholder value with “delivering
maximum value to our customers at mini-
mum appropriate cost.” A key part of that
value is the unique broad perspective Aero-
space brings to its customers, he said:
“We’re the repository for lessons learned in
the space business and we understand all of
the systems that make up the national secu-
rity space infrastructure.”
Ballhaus’s standards for himself as leader
of the corporation are uncompromising. He
regularly asks himself how he can add the
most value every single day. He would like
to be thought of as an ethical person with in-
tegrity, one who is reliable (“will get things
done when I say I will”), has high standards
of excellence, and treats all people with re-
spect. “Managers should remove obstacles
to achievement,” he said, “and create oppor-
tunities for others.”
When former Aerospace president and
CEO E. C. Aldridge Jr. announced Ball-
haus’s appointment in July 2000 as president
of the corporation, he named Ballhaus’s ex-
perience and his “integrity, expertise, and vision” as attributes that
would serve him well in carrying the corporation “proudly into the fu-
ture.” Ballhaus is optimistic about Aerospace’s future, seeing great
opportunities for the company as a result of the potential increases in
national space activities; the implementation of the recommendations
of the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space
Management and Organization, chaired by Donald Rumsfeld, the re-
cently appointed Secretary of Defense; and the increasing numbers of
civil space customers. Mission success and space stewardship, said
Ballhaus, are the two goals that will guide the company’s path as it
embarks on the next 40 years as a “trusted agent” of the federal gov-
ernment, serving the nation’s needs for national security space.
Crosslink Summer 2001 • 5
 A Perfect
Start to the
Operation
A 1961 launch of the Mercury-Redstone
rocket. The Army’s Redstone, essentially
an improved version of the V-2 rocket,
was used in the first two Mercury subor-
bital flights of Alan Shepard and Gus
Grissom. The Mercury-Atlas, a modified
Atlas D rocket, had greater thrust power
than the Redstone and was used for the
orbital Mercury flights. Shown in the
upper right of the facing page is the
launch of Mercury-Atlas 6, carrying John
Glenn into orbit February 20, 1962.

6 • Crosslink Summer 2001

The Aerospace Corporation
and Project Mercury

Photo courtesy of NASA

Steven R. Strom

This year marks the 40th anniversary of America’s first spaceflight with an onboard human pilot.
The occasion provides an opportunity to reflect on the significant role played by The Aerospace
Corporation in this monumental early effort in the history of astronautics.
uring the early years of space

D exploration, America’s progress

in the space race with the Soviet
Union coincided with the form-
ative years of The Aerospace Corporation,
which began operations in June 1960. As
one of its first assignments from the U.S.
Air Force, the newly formed corporation
assumed responsibility for overseeing sys-
tems engineering of the Atlas launch vehi-
cle of Project Mercury. The National Aero-
nautics and Space Administration (NASA)
had initiated Project Mercury in 1958 to in-
vestigate the ability of humans to function
in space by placing an astronaut in orbit
around Earth and safely retrieving both pi-
lot and spacecraft.
Aerospace also developed the Mercury
Pilot Safety Program to increase the relia-
bility of the Atlas and to provide additional
safety features for the Mercury astronauts.
These pivotal contributions, together with
the efforts of the Air Force, NASA, and
other Mercury team members, would lead
to a 100-percent success rate for Project Julian Hartt (left) and Ivan Getting, the first president of The Aerospace Corporation, in-
Mercury’s manned flights by the program’s spect a model of the Mercury-Atlas launch vehicle. In 1961, the year this photograph was
taken, Hartt wrote The Mighty Thor: Missile in Readiness.
conclusion in 1963.
The contributions of Aerospace to Proj- letter of March 20, 1962, to Ivan Getting, Origins of Project Mercury
ect Mercury—the refinement of the Atlas the first president of Aerospace: Americans after World War II commonly
missile, which had experienced earlier fail- “We wish to extend congratulations to perceived the Soviet Union to be a techno-
ures, and the success of the Pilot Safety you and to all the people of your organiza- logically backward nation incapable of ma-
Program—played a major role in the even- tion for their contribution to this project. jor scientific advances. The Soviet Union
tual success of America’s earliest attempts The Aerospace Corporation, as a member thus stunned Americans with the launch of
at space travel. Robert Gilruth, the first di- of the Mercury team, should take pride in the Sputnik I satellite October 4, 1957, and
rector of NASA’s Manned Spacecraft Cen- this event; their part in this undertaking further rocked them just one month later
ter, acknowledged this important role in a was highly significant.” with the launch of Sputnik II carrying a

Crosslink Summer 2001 • 7

 dog into orbit. The flight of Laika, whose President Dwight D. Eisenhower endorsed at the time to boost space capsules into
spacecraft was dubbed “Muttnik” by jour- in July 1955. A month later, the Soviets an- near-Earth orbit, the ICBM was requisite
nalists, alerted members of the emerging nounced their own intention to launch a for orbital crewed spaceflight. The Soviets
American space community that the Sovi- satellite during IGY. Most Western ob- made the first successful launch of an
ets were most likely planning to launch a servers paid little attention to the Soviet an- ICBM in the summer of 1957. A modified
human into space. The successful flights nouncement, shrugging it off as a propa- form of this missile, the R-7, carried early
also raised the ominous possibility that the ganda ploy. Soviet satellites into orbit. By September
Soviets might soon acquire the ability to
launch a nuclear strike against the United
States from their orbiting satellites.
America had been pursuing its own re-
search into rocket science during this time
and exploring the possibility of human
spaceflight. The interest of many American
scientists and engineers in rocketry rapidly
accelerated after the end of World War II.
Wernher von Braun, leader of the German
V-2 program, and his scientists had surren-
dered to the United States and been
brought to this country. Relocated to the
White Sands, New Mexico, area, they con-
tinued their research into ballistic missiles
and space launch vehicle development, us-
ing captured V-2 rockets. America had also
been conducting supersonic manned test
flights to break the sound barrier, achiev-
ing that goal the first time with Capt.
Charles “Chuck” Yeager’s successful flight
in October 1947.
Aerospace engineers discuss the Atlas launch vehicle in 1961. In the center are Ben
As early as 1952, America began plan- Hohmann and Ernst Letsch.
ning its involvement in the International
Geophysical Year (IGY, July 1957–Decem- Ongoing efforts in both the United 1959, the United States had its own ICBM
ber 1958), the celebrated global program of States and the Soviet Union throughout in operation, the Atlas missile, which
coordinated observations of various geo- this period focused on developing an inter- would become the launch vehicle for the
physical phenomena. As part of its partici- continental ballistic missile (ICBM) to ex- orbital Mercury flights.
pation, the United States would launch tend the delivery range of their nuclear ar- With these space-related developments
small satellites during IGY, a proposal senals. The only missile powerful enough and the Cold War rivalry between the

America’s
Wernher von Braun and other German scientists, United States begins  Mark Wade (astronautix.com) Explorer I
including Ben Hohmann, brought to United States program to develop Sputnik I orbits
an ICBM Earth
Capt. Charles “Chuck” Yeager USSR conducts the
NASA

NASA

breaks sound barrier first successful test

of an ICBM, the
R-7 missile
USAF

NASA

45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57

1946–1951, 66 V-2 rockets were President Eisenhower IGY begins;

U.S. Nat’l Archives

tested at White Sands Proving endorses proposal to scientific

Grounds, New Mexico; the V-2 was launch satellite experiments
US Army White Sands

the precursor to the Redstone missile during IGY 1957–1958

NASA

Sputnik II launched with

dog Laika, first living
passenger to orbit Earth

8 • Crosslink Summer 2001

 United States and the Soviet
Union, the launch of the
Sputnik satellites became the
catalyst for the U.S. man-in-
space program. The United
States officially entered the
space race January 31, 1958,
with the launch of the Ex-
plorer I satellite. Planning for
what would become Project
Mercury began soon after.
Problems with the Atlas
In the early stages of Project
Mercury, oversight of sys-
tems engineering for the At-
las launch vehicle was as-
signed to Space Technology
Laboratories (STL). In 1960,
the Air Force transferred this
responsibility to Aerospace,
formally incorporated on
June 3 that year. Aerospace
was now responsible for en-
suring that the problem-
plagued Atlas rocket would
successfully carry a manned
capsule into orbit.
In his autobiography, All
in a Lifetime, Getting re- Astronaut John Glenn completes final preparations prior to the launch of Mercury-Atlas 6 on February 20,
called being reminded of this 1962. The logo for “Friendship 7,” the name Glenn gave his spacecraft, appears on the capsule.
awesome responsibility on
his first day at the new company before he When the bemused Getting asked why, corporation’s Project Mercury efforts. He
had “become acquainted with all the Hohmann replied, “You are responsible for was well qualified for the job. During
buttons on my desk.” Bernhard “Ben” launching into space the first American as- World War II, Hohmann had been a test pi-
Hohmann, head of STL’s Project Mercury tronaut, and you will need me.” lot for the experimental German Messer-
office, came into his office and said: “I Getting took his advice, and Hohmann schmitt Me163 rocket-propelled aircraft.
think you should hire me right away.” soon moved to Aerospace to direct the new He came to the United States after the war

Successful Trustees elect Alan Shepard suborbital

 Mark Wade (astronautix.com)

test of an Ivan Getting flight, first American in space

Atlas missile; first Aerospace
Air Force president John Glenn orbits Earth—his
NASA

declares Atlas three-orbit flight utilizes Pilot

Successful Safety Program developed by
operational The Aerospace
test of the Aerospace
Corporation
NASA

Mercury-
incorporated
Atlas 2

58 59 60 61 62 63

First attempted launch of Mercury-Atlas fails President Kennedy commits

U.S. Nat’l Archives

one minute after launch United States to an intensified

Russian Archives

space race, including a moon

Aerospace assigned responsibility for refinement landing before end of decade
of the Mercury-Atlas launch vehicle
Yuri Gagarin, Project Mercury is completed following the
Mercury-program engineers first person to successful conclusion of three
transfer to Aerospace from STL orbit Earth additional manned flights

Crosslink Summer 2001 • 9

and served as chief of the flight develop-
ment section at Wright Air Development
Center from 1947 to 1957.
Although the Atlas missile was still in its
infancy, NASA chose it as the launch vehi-
cle for Project Mercury because it had suf-
ficient thrust to boost the Mercury capsule
into orbit. The capsule had proved consid-
erably heavier than anticipated during its
early design phase. Army Redstone rock-
ets, eventually used with early suborbital
Mercury flights, were not powerful enough
for orbital launches. Ultimately, the Air
Force assigned fourteen Atlas D rockets to
the Mercury program.
Basic reliability of the Atlas at the time
of its selection was estimated to be in the
range of 75 percent. While this was ade-
quate from a weapons standpoint, it was
unacceptable for human flight. Joseph
Wambolt, today Principal Director of the
Aerospace Western Range Directorate,
came to Aerospace from Rocketdyne in
1960 as a systems engineer for rocket en-
gines. Wambolt recently recalled the chal-
lenge of making the Atlas reliable for
launching a man into space: “This was a
high-risk endeavor, and we were trying to
make a safe flight in a rocket that was
barely in development.” Gilruth, in a 1987
oral history interview conducted by the Na-
tional Air and Space Museum, described
the Atlas at that stage of development Members of the Project Mercury team at Cape Canaveral in 1962. From left: Walter C.
Williams and Ben Hohmann of Aerospace with astronauts John Glenn and Scott Carpenter.
bluntly as “a tough rocket to deal with.”
From the beginning, Atlas D was hur-
riedly pressed into service because many keep the core knowledge base of Project Division, believed that a program was
military leaders, politicians, and weapons Mercury intact. Aerospace now had to si- needed to ensure the pilot’s safety. He
experts believed a sizeable “missile gap” multaneously perfect the Mercury-Atlas ordered studies to determine requirements
existed between the United States and the rocket’s launch performance and make the for implementing the program, which he
Soviet Union. This belief generated a sense missile safe for human flight. said were necessary “to ensure that noth-
of urgency that prompted deployment of John Bazyk, currently of the Aerospace ing is left undone that could better the
the rocket before adequate testing. The At- Medium Launch Vehicles office, joined the chances of the booster safely placing the
las had experienced many problems in its company in 1961 as a member of the Mer- astronaut in orbit.”
early phases of development but was de- cury team. His first job was quality control, Hohmann, Letsch, and other members of
clared operational September 9, 1959. specifically to assist in upgrading the Atlas the original Mercury team began to formu-
Problems continued, however, even after to its highest level of reliability. Bazyk said late the Pilot Safety Program while still at
some successful tests. An Atlas rocket in its that ensuring reliability of the Atlas was the STL. Development of the program contin-
Mercury configuration (Mercury-Atlas 1) focus at that early stage of the program: ued at Aerospace when it assumed responsi-
experienced a disastrous failure on the “Mercury came in at a time when the Atlas bility for Project Mercury systems engi-
launchpad on July 29, 1960. rocket was experiencing difficulties mak- neering. Over the next three years,
One month later on August 22, 1960, ing a good launch performance. In the first Aerospace worked with the Air Force Space
Aerospace became a formal participant in couple of years, we were just trying to Systems Division, NASA, and various con-
Project Mercury. During the following make the Atlas work.” tractors to continually refine the program.
month most of the principal STL engineers Pilot Safety Program Because NASA was striving for a relia-
associated with that company’s Project Greater reliability for the Mercury-Atlas bility rate of 99 percent for the Atlas, ex-
Mercury office, including Ernst Letsch, went hand in hand with the Pilot Safety treme accuracy was critical to the pro-
one of Hohmann’s chief associates, came Program. At the very beginning of the Mer- gram’s success. Plans to televise each
to Aerospace. The transfer of key person- cury effort, Maj. Gen. O. J. Ritland, com- American manned mission worldwide
nel with their invaluable expertise helped mander of the Air Force’s Ballistic Missiles added to the pressures of preparations for

10 • Crosslink Summer 2001

flight readiness. Although a televised
launch would present a stark contrast to the
secrecy surrounding Soviet launches, it al-
lowed no room for engineering mistakes.
Given the severe time constraints of Proj-
ect Mercury, Aerospace could not make ma-
jor changes to the rocket’s basic design, yet
modifications would be required to ensure
reliability and pilot safety. To satisfy these
requirements, two programs were devised
for the Pilot Safety Program.
Ben Hohmann (left), Ernst Letsch, and John Glenn following the Mercury-Atlas 7 review
board meeting on May 23, 1962.
The first program, to ensure basic
booster reliability, included a quality assur-
ance program and a factory rollout inspec-
tion. Quality assurance involved detailed
checking and analysis of every principal
rocket component prior to each launch.
Inspection would guarantee that every
Mercury-Atlas booster was fully functional
and as close to flight configuration as pos-
sible before delivery to the Air Force.
The second program was intended to
provide for the safety of the Mercury pilot.
Reliability augmentation sought to reduce
the gap between the existing reliability of
the Atlas booster and the desired pilot
safety level of 99.9 percent. The Flight
Safety Review determined flight readiness
of the Atlas booster prior to each launch.
Because the Atlas engine contained ap-
proximately 100 critical components, engi-
neers faced an enormous quality-control
task. Reliability augmentation concen-
trated on two areas: an effort to educate
contractor personnel about the importance
of company contributions to the overall
Mercury project and a critical parts-
selection program to ensure rejection of
components with substandard performance
levels or faulty inspection records.
Educational efforts included on-site vis-
its by astronauts to meet with workers at
component manufacturers. These meetings
put a face on the Mercury pilots, so that
workers would realize that parts they
manufactured might have life-or-death
consequences for the persons who would
ride the Atlas’s 1.632 meganewtons of
thrust. Astronauts explained to workers
how specific components were integrated
into the launch vehicle and stressed that
their lives depended on the best efforts of
every Mercury team member.
The program mandated strict standards
for manufacturing and worker perfor-
mance, and Hohmann insisted on the most
stringent levels of quality control. Wambolt
remembers that “with the Pilot Safety Pro-
gram, we were creating a pedigree for
every component.”
To provide an additional safety measure
for the astronauts, engineers developed an
abort sensing and implementation system
(ASIS) designed to automatically detect a
booster malfunction and eject the capsule
from the Atlas by means of an escape
tower. “Our goal was to put together a pro-
gram that would protect the astronauts in
the event of a flight failure,” Wambolt said.
“When you start thinking about trying to
reach a reliability potential of close to 100
percent, there has to be some way to pro-
tect the pilot by means of ejection.”
A variety of manual abort capabilities
supplemented the automatic malfunction
detection system. Although ASIS was
tested on several Atlas flights, it was never
needed during a Mercury manned mission.
Flight Safety Review before each mis-
sion determined flight readiness of the
booster, providing the basis for a decision
about whether the Atlas was ready for
launch. Procedures were similar to Air
Force practices for conducting safety in-
spections of experimental aircraft. They in-
cluded careful review of technical readi-
ness, the status of the interface between the
spacecraft and booster, and the weather
forecast for the launch day.
Technical flight readiness was deter-
mined by the Status Review Team, which
relayed its “go” or “no-go” recommenda-
tion to the Flight Safety Review Board.
The review board then accepted or rejected
the recommendation and passed along its
decision to the senior representative from
NASA. The Flight Safety Review became
a critical and integral part of each mission.
Atlas Tests
Aerospace continued to refine the Pilot
Safety Program through 1960 and 1961,
not in a theoretical, isolated environment,
but within real day-to-day operations of
Project Mercury. Ongoing Mercury-Atlas
test flights were scheduled up to the first
orbital mission. The launch of the
Mercury-Atlas 1 on July 29, 1960, failed
one minute after blastoff. Investigation of
the failure delayed the next launch for
seven months.
That next launch—the successful flight
of Mercury-Atlas 2 on February 21,
1961—was the first Atlas test that included
Aerospace engineering contributions. Ela-
tion over the successful test proved short-
lived, however, when two months later, the
flight of Mercury-Atlas 3 was terminated
40 seconds after liftoff. Investigation re-
vealed a problem with electrical compo-
nents in the Atlas autopilot. Mercury-Atlas
4, which flew on September 13, 1961, suc-
cessfully performed all operations. This
was the first time a Mercury spacecraft or-
bited Earth, returned, and was recovered.
Mercury-Atlas 5, the last test completed
before an astronaut flew, was launched No-
vember 29, 1961. In this significant test,
the capsule carried a chimpanzee named
Enos. Two of the three planned orbits were
Crosslink Summer 2001 • 11

Photo courtesy of NASA
Mercury astronauts John Glenn, Gus Grissom, and Alan Shepard appear before the back-
drop of a Mercury-Redstone rocket in this public-relations photograph.
completed, and Enos was retrieved in good
condition. Both the Atlas rocket and the
spacecraft used for Enos’s flight contained
refinements and modifications that were re-
quired before the flight of Mercury-Atlas 6
could occur. This was to be the first human
orbital mission, piloted by astronaut John
H. Glenn Jr.
John Glenn’s Flight
In the months before America’s first
planned orbital flight, the U.S.-Soviet
space race intensified. The Soviet Union
achieved a major technology and propa-
ganda victory April 12, 1961, by launching
cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin, the first human in
space, into a single orbit around Earth. In
the United States, public pressure to launch
an American intensified. Only three weeks
after Gagarin’s flight on May 5, 1961, as-
tronaut Alan Shepard became the first
American in space, with a successful sub-
orbital flight. Gilruth recalled that Shep-
ard’s flight “was a very big thing for Amer-
ica, because people had thought we were
dead and out.”
On May 25, President John F. Kennedy,
sensing the public’s elation over Shepard’s
accomplishment, formally committed the
United States to sending a man to the moon
and back before the end of the decade. At
that point, the United States had seen
barely 15 minutes of flying time in space.
12 • Crosslink Summer 2001
Shepard’s flight was followed on July 21
by a second suborbital mission, that of Vir-
gil “Gus” Grissom. Aerospace did not di-
rectly participate in these flights, which
employed modified Army Redstone rock-
ets as their launch vehicles, but the two
successful flights paved the way for
Glenn’s pathbreaking mission. They helped
NASA improve its procedures for the reen-
try and recovery of the Mercury capsule.
Americans were enthralled by the two
suborbital missions and now waited anx-
iously for the nation’s first manned orbital
flight. After 11 delays caused by booster
problems and bad weather, Mercury-Atlas
6 finally lifted into orbit. On the morning
of February 20, 1962, John Glenn’s space-
craft, which he named “Friendship 7,” was
launched from Cape Canaveral, Florida
(Kennedy Space Center).
With the rest of the nation, Aerospace
engineers, torn between exhilaration and
apprehension, watched Glenn’s launch.
Getting’s sober assessment described the
enormous responsibility they felt: “To
launch him safely fell on the shoulders of
the AF-Aerospace-associate contractor
team.” About five minutes after launch, the
Atlas rocket injected the Mercury capsule
into orbit. “No message was more eagerly
awaited than ‘Orbit has been established,’”
Getting wrote.
Glenn successfully completed his three-
orbit mission after reaching an apogee of
some 261 kilometers and attaining an or-
bital velocity of approximately 7.8 kilome-
ters per second. The most serious problem
encountered was the detection, by an engi-
neer at Mercury Control Center, of signals
indicating that the capsule’s heat shield was
loose. The signals caused some anxious
moments for Glenn and the Mercury opera-
tions team. The retropackage, which nor-
mally would have been expended, was re-
tained during reentry in an attempt to hold
the heat shield in place. The sensor signal
ultimately proved false, and the heat shield
remained securely in place.
Friendship 7 splashed down safely about
1300 kilometers southeast of Cape Canav-
eral, in the British West Indies, near Grand
Turk Island of the Turks and Caicos island
group, after a total flight time of 4 hours, 55
minutes, and 23 seconds. NASA reported:
“All mission objectives for this flight were
accomplished. The astronaut’s perfor-
mance during all phases of the mission was
excellent, and no deleterious effects of
weightlessness were noted. [The flight of
Friendship 7] established the practical
value of manned flight in near-Earth orbit.”
Summary
Glenn’s flight earned him a permanent
place in history as a genuine American
hero, a status reinforced when he flew in
space for a second time in 1998 as a crew
member on the space shuttle. His three-
orbit flight set the United States on track in
the space race and helped restore the na-
tion’s confidence in American engineering
and technology. When the Mercury mis-
sions were completed, NASA’s Mercury
Project Summary noted the magnitude of
the successes:
“The United States’ first manned space
flight project was successfully accom-
plished in a 42⁄3 year period of dynamic ac-
tivity which saw more than 2,000,000 peo-
ple from many government agencies and
much of the aerospace industry combine
their skills, initiative, and experience into a
national effort. These manned flights were
accomplished with complete pilot safety
and without change to the basic Mercury
concepts.”
Beyond the immediate accomplishment
of Glenn’s mission, Aerospace laid the
groundwork for a stable, solid program
that would help ensure success for the next
series of crewed spaceflights. The success
of the Pilot Safety Program, which was
originated at STL, was proved by the later
flights of Mercury astronauts Scott Car-
penter, Wally Schirra, and Gordon Cooper.
The Air Force asked Aerospace to continue
the program during Project Gemini, the se-
ries of missions with two crew members
that began in 1965.
Hohmann’s insistence on meticulous at-
tention to each detail associated with the
launch vehicle ensured an outstanding suc-
cess rate for the Atlas-launched Mercury
flights. By program completion in June
1963, six consecutive successful Mercury-
Atlas launches had taken place. “The AF-
Aerospace-associate contractor team had pi-
oneered in the U.S. manned space launch
effort and the record was perfect,” Getting
wrote. “Each Mercury astronaut had been
safely launched into the proper orbit.”
From a systems engineering perspective,
Aerospace made a number of significant
accomplishments. It established highly re-
fined hardware acceptance procedures; in-
stituted the goal of delivering flight-ready
launch vehicles to the Air Force; developed As Project Mercury came to its conclusion, many members of the Aerospace Mercury-
a closed-loop, time-oriented failure analy- Atlas team were retained to work on the next series of manned space flights, Project
Gemini. The new team included Mercury veterans (from left to right) Joe Wambolt, Nathan
sis process; conducted design reviews; and Silk, Ben Hohmann, and James W. McCurry. In this photo, circa 1963, they are posed be-
monitored flights of the Mercury-Atlas fore models of the Gemini-Titan and Mercury-Atlas rockets.
rockets. Aerospace provided technical di-
rection for major Atlas modifications, in- must look upon it as but the initial step to- J. M. Grimwood, Project Mercury: A Chronol-
cluding implementation of ASIS and re- ward broader objectives of exploring ogy (Government Printing Office, Washington,
space. We, at NASA, are looking forward D.C., 1963).
view of the design of the rocket’s
electronics system. to continued good relations with The B. A. Hohmann, “Pilot Safety Program for Atlas
Aerospace contributions to Project Mer- Aerospace Corporation as we pursue to- Space Booster of Project Mercury” (The Aero-
gether the difficult tasks that lie ahead.” space Corporation, El Segundo, CA, 1963).
cury were widely recognized. Gen. Ritland
wrote to Getting, expressing his gratitude Acknowledgment B. A. Hohmann and Joseph F. Wambolt, “Test
and praise: “Please accept my warmest Special thanks to Joseph Wambolt for his Design and Procedures” (The Aerospace Cor-
poration, El Segundo, CA, 1966).
congratulations and thanks for your vital assistance with the research for this article.
contributions to the Mercury program, and Not only did he clarify some of the major “Mercury 7 Archives,” Kennedy Space Center,
extend my heartfelt appreciation to each threads of The Aerospace Corporation’s in- http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/history/mercury/mer-
cury.html (July 1, 2001).
member of your organization.” Two weeks volvement with Project Mercury, he also
after Glenn’s flight, NASA Administrator provided original documents and photo- National Aeronautics and Space Administra-
James E. Webb commended Aerospace: graphs about the early days of the U.S. tion, Manned Spacecraft Center, Results of the
First United States Manned Orbital Space
“The performance of the Atlas launch vehi- space program. Several photographs in this
Flight, February 20, 1962 (Government Print-
cle gave a perfect start to the operation and article are from his personal collection.
ing Office, Washington, D.C., 1962).
reflects the thorough and tireless work of Further Reading National Aeronautics and Space Administra-
your group.” The Aerospace Corporation Archives, Ivan tion, Manned Spacecraft Center, Mercury Proj-
Key Mercury participants understood Alexander Getting Papers, Collection AC-036. ect Summary, Including Results of the Fourth
that Aerospace expertise would be needed R. E. Bilstein, Orders of Magnitude: A History Manned Orbital Flight, May 15 and 16, 1963
in the upcoming Gemini missions. In a of the NACA and NASA, 1915–1990 (Govern- (Government Printing Office, Washington,
note to Getting acknowledging Aero- ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1989). D.C., 1963).
space’s contributions to Mercury, Gilruth “Dr. Robert Gilruth Oral History Interview”; L. S. Swenson Jr., J. M. Grimwood, and C. C.
alluded to what would indeed become March 2, 1987; Tape 1, Side 2; National Air and Alexander, This New Ocean: A History of Proj-
many years of collaboration between Aero- Space Museum. ect Mercury (Government Printing Office,
space and NASA in the great endeavor of “Encyclopedia Astronautica,” http://astronau- Washington, D.C., 1966).
space exploration: tix.com (July 1, 2001). W. von Braun and F. I. Ordway III, History of
“The hard work in Mercury that led to I. Getting, All in a Lifetime: Science in the De- Rocketry and Space Travel (Thomas Y. Crow-
the flight of John Glenn stands as a signifi- fense of Democracy (Vantage Press, New York, ell, New York, 1969).
cant technical achievement. However, we 1989).

Crosslink Summer 2001 • 13

 Building Space Instruments
in the Space Science Applications Laboratory
Lynn M. Friesen and Dan J. Mabry

When commercial alternatives can’t be found,

Aerospace steps in to manufacture hardware and
instrumentation for specific research missions.
This important engineering capability has helped
keep Aerospace at the forefront of space science
while enhancing overall support to a wide range of
customers.

T
he environments of near-Earth
space and the upper atmosphere
pose unique challenges for the
design and deployment of satel-
lite systems. Of particular concern is the
radiation that can disrupt critical electronic
systems and affect mechanical compo-
nents. Highly energetic cosmic rays, for
example, can penetrate spacecraft and in-
terfere with or damage electronic switches
and memory devices. Large electrostatic
potentials can build up on the surface of the
spacecraft and suddenly discharge, damag-
ing or destroying sensitive electronic in-
struments.
Understanding such phenomena is im-
portant for the design and operation of
space systems; however, in most cases, the
instruments needed to study these effects
are either unavailable or incapable of
achieving the highly specific measure-
ments desired—and with limited commer-
cial potential for such instruments, private
corporations have little or no incentive to
develop them. As a consequence, The
Aerospace Corporation’s Space Science that have been deployed on the ground, on
Applications Laboratory has developed the mobile and aerial platforms, and at astro-
capability to design, develop, and manu- nomical observatories. These instruments—
facture such instruments. This in-house usually one-of-a-kind devices—have ob-
end-to-end capability has helped keep served phenomena as varied as galactic
Aerospace at the forefront of space re- cosmic rays, the Leonid meteor showers,
search while ensuring the success of nu- atmospheric gravity waves, and rocket ex-
merous space missions. haust plumes. The mix of scientific and en-
In fact, during the last 40 years, the lab- gineering disciplines in the Space Science
oratory has built more than 250 scientific Applications Laboratory provides the staff,
instruments that have flown on satellites experience, and resources necessary to
and sounding rockets and countless others develop and realize complex instruments,

14 • Crosslink Summer 2001

all under one roof. A typical instrument
comprises up to a dozen subsystems, re-
quiring the laboratory’s combined exper-
tise in detector systems, low-noise analog
electronics, command and control elec-
tronics, data-processing electronics, em-
bedded software, input/output electronics,
power systems, mechanical assembly, and
harnesses and cables. The design and test
phases of a project can range from a few
months to a few years, with 18–24 months
typical for programs involving complex
hardware. Today, ten space-flight instru-
ments built by the laboratory are returning
data from orbit to support studies of Earth’s
magnetosphere and the effects of space ra-
diation on satellites. Two more instruments
await launch, and several others are under
development. This article will first exam-
ine some specific sensing technologies,
then describe the laboratory’s involvement
in a few recent science missions.
Monitoring the
Space Environment
Aerospace has developed particular exper-
tise in constructing environmental moni-
tors for the in situ measurement of space
radiation and electrostatic buildup on satel-
lites. Electrostatic discharge is the most
common cause of anomalies on satellites,
and single-event effects are second.
Single-event effects are caused by the
interaction of incoming ions with space-
system electronics. By creating ionization
in a sensitive electronic component, for ex-
ample, an incident ion can change the state
of a stored bit of information in memory, or
cause a switch in a logic junction that can
propagate throughout a system. Single-
event effects can range in severity from mi-
nor upsets to system failure.
Electrostatic charges can build up on the
dielectric surfaces of spacecraft in some re-
gions of near-Earth space—notably, at geo-
synchronous orbit during magnetic storms.
If the charge buildup reaches a critical
point, a discharge can occur, triggering volt-
age surges that can cause anomalies and
failure of the spacecraft’s electronic circuits.
Radiation Dosimetry
To measure total dose radiation, Aerospace
created a versatile dosimeter that uses a
silicon-detector-based sensor under a
hemispherical aluminum shield. The basic
concept is simple: The amount of radiation
that reaches the sensor is equal to the
amount of radiation that would reach com-
ponents within the vehicle under the same
amount of shielding. A thick hemispheri-
cal shield gives the radiation dose deep
within the craft, while a thin shield gives
dosage nearer to the satellite surface. Typi-
cally, the dosimeter will employ several
detector-shield combinations to represent
various locations inside the satellite.
Although the concept is simple, the ap-
plication is complicated. These dosimeters
are never identical from one application to
the next, but must be tailored to the me-
chanical and electrical interfaces of each
host satellite. In addition, shield thickness
Crosslink Summer 2001 • 15
To measure the total dose radiation impinging on a satellite, Aero-
space created a versatile dosimeter using a silicon-detector-based
sensor that sits beneath a hemispherical aluminum shield. The
dosimeter packaging can be changed to address the mechanical
and electronic interfaces of the host spacecraft. Data from dosime-
ters have direct applications for the past, present, and future of
spacecraft design and operations: the information is used for re-
solving anomalies, for creating models of the space environment,
and for developing test requirements for new systems. Shown are
two dosimeters built for government and commercial customers.

must be relevant for a particular orbit and
satellite application. Most important, each
dosimeter—which includes electronic cir-
cuits—must be designed to survive the
very radiation it monitors. Three such
dosimeters are currently returning data
from orbit, and two others are scheduled
for delivery in 2002 and 2003.
Surface-Charge Analysis
To provide a complete picture of the in situ
spacecraft environment, Aerospace also
developed a surface-charge monitor with
greater resolution and sensitivity than pre-
a field of view of about 10 by 360 degrees,
though this can be controlled over a range
of about 60 degrees through electrostatic
steering. The surface-charge monitor uses
three programmable high-voltage supplies
to steer the field of view and to control the
stepping system that controls the energy-
level selection.
A prototype was flown on the NASA
Geodesic sounding rocket in 2000, and an
10
(kilo-electron-volts)
improved version is under development.
The new model employs high-reliability
electronic components instead of the com-
mercial components used in the sounding-
rocket version; it will also incorporate a
fast and efficient high-voltage supply, cur-
rently being designed by Aerospace, in-
stead of commercial high-voltage supplies.
Although commercial power supplies are
readily available and adequate for use in

vious scientific instruments. The develop-

Electron energy

ment effort was made possible in part

through support from the National Aero-
nautics and Space Administration (NASA). 1
The sensor monitors the ambient plasma
around a satellite. Evidence of charging (or
lack of charging) is manifested in the ion
0.1
and electron spectra constructed from the
sensor data. The analyzer functions when 0.1
high voltage is applied to an inner hemi-
(kilo-electron-volts)
Proton energy

spherical plate. If positive voltage is ap-

plied, the analyzer will allow electrons to
1
pass through to the detector; if negative
voltage is applied, it will pass positive ions. Satellite charged
The magnitude of the voltage determines to 3000 volts
the energy pass-band for the charged parti- 10
cles. Energy spectra are constructed by
stepping the voltage through a broad range 02:20 02:40 03:00 03:20
of steps in a short time. Angular informa- Universal time
tion is derived through position-sensitive 21175 17730 13840 9500
detection using an array of microchannel Altitude (kilometers)
plate detectors. Intrinsically, the sensor has Energy spectra from a surface-charge monitor showing a satellite surface-charging event.

16 • Crosslink Summer 2001

 Ground Electrostatic
deflectors
+HV

–HV Energy analyzer:

–HV
Outer hemisphere
Inner hemisphere
Ground
Ion
trajectory

Detector
Aerospace developed an improved surface-charge monitor, which measures the ambient
plasma. The analyzer functions when high voltage (+HV or −HV) is applied to an inner hemi-
spherical plate. If positive voltage is applied, the analyzer will allow electrons to pass through
to the detector; if negative voltage is applied, it will pass positive ions. The magnitude of the
voltage determines the energy pass-band for the charged particles. Energy spectra are con-
structed by rapidly stepping the voltage through a broad range of steps. Angular information
is derived through position-sensitive detection by using an array of microchannel plate de-
tectors, shown conceptually as the detector ring.

the rocket instrument, they do not meet the Ionospheric Effects

performance or reliability requirements of
the space sensor. The Aerospace 0–4000-
volt supply will have a 1-millisecond step
rate and a settling time of 10 microsec-
onds; the general-purpose supply can be
used in the surface-charging monitor or
other sensors that require high perfor-
mance and reliability.
Data from these dosimeters and surface-
charge monitors provide invaluable infor-
mation to builders and operators of satel-
lites. Dosimetry and charging data are
regularly used, for example, during analy-
sis of onboard anomalies to determine
whether a particular fault could have been
caused by the environment. These mea-
surements also help scientists monitor
changes in the energetic particle environ-
ment across space and time; such informa-
tion is useful in anticipating possible space
weather trends and alerting satellite opera-
tors to conditions that enhance the likeli-
hood of disruptive events. Dosimetry data
can also help satellite designers determine,
for example, how much shielding a com-
puter processor should have and where it
should be mounted to minimize the risk of
radiation upset. Also, if an enclosure can
be made thinner without endangering the
packaged electronics, overall satellite mass
(and subsequent launch costs) can be re-
duced. Data from these sensors are also
useful in developing test requirements for
new systems.
Closer to Earth, the ionosphere also pre-
sents specific difficulties for satellite
designers, and Aerospace is actively study-
ing the ways that atmospheric and iono-
spheric phenomena affect space systems.
By understanding the underlying physical
processes that affect remote-sensing sys-
tems, researchers hope to develop better
methods for mitigating performance-
degrading effects. One recent innovation
uses a technique based on the occultation
of GPS (Global Positioning System) satel-
lites. Occultation refers to the disappear-
ance of one object when another of larger
apparent size passes in front of it. The tech-
nology will be tested in the Ionospheric
Occultation Experiment (IOX), built by
Aerospace and scheduled for launch in Au-
gust 2001 as part of the Air Force Space
Test Program’s P97-1 PicoSat mission.
IOX will test techniques for mitigating
the impact of horizontal gradients in the
electron densities on retrieval accuracy.
More specifically, IOX will exploit small
differences in the propagation through the The Space Test Program’s PicoSat houses
ionosphere of two GPS signals to derive the Ionospheric Occultation Experiment
distribution of electron densities along the (IOX), which uses occultation of GPS satel-
line of sight. To make the IOX instrument, lites to study the ways in which ionospheric
Aerospace designed a microcontroller phenomena affect space systems.
board and a spacecraft-interface board and used by GPS to select satellites. Normally,
integrated these with a commercial dual- GPS chooses satellites that are in view,
frequency GPS receiver. The microcon- whereas IOX uses setting satellites, allow-
troller, with its associated hardware and ing researchers to look through the atmo-
software, overrides the normal algorithms sphere to determine timing differences

Crosslink Summer 2001 • 17

 between simultaneously transmitted sig-
nals. Aerospace is currently evaluating
GPS receivers for a second instrument, the
C/NOFS Occultation Receiver for Iono-
spheric Sensing and Specification, to sup-
port the Air Force Research Laboratory’s
Communication/Navigation Outage Fore-
casting Satellite. C/NOFS will attempt to
predict equatorial ionospheric scintillation,
which can affect the performance of satel-
lite communications, GPS navigation sys-
tems, and space-based radar.
NASA Satellite Missions
Aerospace’s ability to support Air Force
and National Reconnaissance Office (NRO)
space missions is greatly enhanced by in-
IOX uses a space-based dual-frequency GPS receiver to measure ionospheric properties. volvement in the space science community
To make the IOX instrument, Aerospace designed a spacecraft-interface board and a mi-
crocontroller board and integrated these with the commercial GPS receiver. The microcon- at large—a presence maintained by active
troller overrides the normal GPS algorithms, allowing IOX to select setting satellites rather participation as hardware developers in
than satellites that are in view. NASA missions. In fact, since 1965 (be-
ginning with ATS-1), Aerospace has con-
structed instruments for 15 NASA satellite
programs, 15 sounding rockets, and two
shuttle missions. Through participation in
these NASA programs, scientists at the
laboratory have gained a broader under-
standing of the space environment and
have subsequently applied this knowledge
in direct support of Air Force and NRO
projects. Some of the more recent missions
include SAMPEX, Polar, and TWINS.
SAMPEX
The first of the NASA Small Explorer
satellites, SAMPEX was launched in 1992
on a Scout rocket from Vandenberg Air
Force Base. SAMPEX houses a set of four
high-resolution, high-sensitivity particle de-
tectors used to conduct studies of solar,
anomalous, galactic, and magnetospheric
energetic particles. Aerospace designed
and built the data-processing unit that sup-
ported the four sensors and also developed
the ground support equipment, which was
used throughout the design and testing of
the data-processing unit and the testing of
the instrument suite.
Housed in an assembly about the size of
a shoebox, the data-processing unit is nei-
ther small nor especially fast; nonetheless,
it is still performing its job today. Based on
1980s technology, the design employs the
space-rated 80C85 microprocessor, a com-
The Communications/Navigation Outage Forecasting System (C/NOFS), developed by the ponent used by laboratory engineers in ear-
Air Force Research Laboratory, is designed to monitor and forecast global ionospheric lier missions. It was also the laboratory’s
scintillation in real time. Scintillation, which is caused by naturally occurring ionospheric ir- first flight instrument to make use of field-
regularities, causes the signal-to-noise ratio of satellite communications to fluctuate. programmable gate-array technology,
C/NOFS will alert users to impending satellite communication outages, GPS navigation which has since become the standard. The
degradations, and space-based radar tracking errors caused by equatorial ionospheric
scintillation. The C/NOFS Occultation Receiver for Ionospheric Sensing and Specification, data-processing unit controls the opera-
designed by Aerospace, relies on GPS satellites much as the IOX instrument does. tions of the instrument suite, provides the

18 • Crosslink Summer 2001

command and telemetry interfaces to the
spacecraft, and supplies low-voltage power
to the sensors. Incorporating all the inter-
faces into a single unit helped simplify the
satellite design by allowing the spacecraft
to communicate with just one sensor-data
processor instead of four.
The data-processing unit was designed
with five interfaces—one for the spacecraft,
and one for each of the four sensors. Sep-
arate interfaces were necessary because the
sensors were modeled after units that had
proven themselves in other applications.
Rather than redesign the sensor interfaces,
engineers decided to make the data-
processing unit compatible with the exist-
ing interfaces. Aerospace participated in the
sensor calibration and supported the launch
and on-orbit activation of the instruments.
Another interesting feature of the data-
processing unit is the flight code, which
employs a dynamic technique to allocate
bandwidth to the four sensors according to
need. Each instrument is assigned an allo-
cation of telemetry for a 90-minute orbit.
At the end of an orbit, the program deter-
mines which instrument did not use its
quota and then reallocates a portion of the
unused bandwidth to a sensor that ex-
ceeded its quota for the orbit. This dynamic
reallocation allows sensors that are most
sensitive to changes in the magnetosphere
to record more data while maintaining a
minimum allocation for sensors less sensi-
tive to the event. Designed for a three-year
nominal mission, SAMPEX is in its ninth
year and is still returning data.
Polar
Aerospace also had a large engineering
role on the NASA Polar mission, launched
in 1996 as part of the International Solar
Terrestrial Physics program, which seeks
to study Earth’s magnetosphere from mul-
tiple satellites. More than a dozen Aero-
space engineers and scientists took part,
designing and building complete instru-
ments or major subsystems for three of the
13 scientific experiments onboard.
One of the innovative mechanical de-
signs devised by the laboratory was a type
of multiple-pinhole camera used by the Po-
lar Ionospheric X-ray Imaging Experiment
(PIXIE). The camera features two moveable
aperture plates, each of which allows any of
four collections of pinholes to open. This
freedom enables the instrument to make op-
timal use of the detector area regardless of
spacecraft altitude. The plates also permit
spatial resolution to be traded against count-
ing rate when selecting pinhole size.
Another Polar instrument tested the util-
ity of applying compression schemes to
raw data in flight to produce coefficients
representative of the image data. Flight
software performed spherical and linear
fits to the sensor data onboard in addition
to the normal operations of command, con-
trol, and telemetry processing. Because the
data-processing unit used a slow 80C86
processor, coding the complex algorithms
without introducing delays in recording
new events presented a significant onboard
scheduling problem. Although the coeffi-
cients based on the real data have not
proved as useful as the raw data, the exer-
cise yielded useful insights into the design
of efficient flight software.
Also noteworthy, Polar’s imaging proton
sensor—designed and built at Aerospace
—became the first instrument to make
long-term high-altitude measurements of
energetic neutral atoms from Earth’s
radiation belt. Energetic neutral atoms—
currently a subject of intense scientific
inquiry—result from the exchange of
charges between cold geocoronal neutral
hydrogen and the local energetic ion popu-
lations. Unaffected by Earth’s magnetic
field, energetic neutrals travel in straight
lines from the point of charge exchange.

Aerospace had a large engineering role on the NASA Polar mis-
sion, launched in 1996 as part of the International Solar Terrestrial
Physics program. One project was the multiple-pinhole camera
(left) used by the Polar Ionospheric X-ray Imaging Experiment
(PIXIE). The electronic camera forms images of Earth’s aurora by
recording the X-rays generated when energetic electrons strike the
upper atmosphere. By imaging these X-rays and measuring their
energies, PIXIE determines the fluxes and characteristic energies
of the parent electrons. This information will give insights into the
high-altitude processes that cause Earth’s aurora as well as the
complex interactions between Earth’s upper atmosphere, iono-
sphere, radiation belts, and magnetosphere. Aerospace also
designed and built Polar’s imaging proton sensor (right)—the first
to make long-term high-altitude measurements of energetic neutral
atoms from Earth’s radiation belt. Although the instrument was de-
signed to measure radiation-belt protons, it was also sensitive out-
side the radiation belts to energetic neutral atoms, and routinely
observed these particles.

Crosslink Summer 2001 • 19

 Lyman-Alpha
detectors

Electronics
box

Energetic
neutral atom
sensor heads

Actuator
Actuator bracket

Aerospace is part of a collaborative effort to create TWINS (the Two Wide-angle Imaging The sensor control board for the TWINS in-
Neutral-atom Spectrometers). TWINS uses a pair of instruments mounted on rotating plat- strument controls the rotation platform,
forms on two widely spaced high-altitude, high-inclination spacecraft to record energetic power supplies, and housekeeping moni-
neutral atoms over a broad energy range. The stereoscopic technique permits 3-D visuali- tors. The actual board is 4 × 5 inches and
zation and resolution of large-scale structures and dynamics within the magnetosphere. has tens of thousands of interconnects.

Remote detection of these particles pro-
vides important information on the global
distribution and properties of both the geo-
corona and the magnetospheric ion popula-
tion. Although the imaging proton sensor
was primarily designed to measure
radiation-belt protons, it routinely observes
energetic neutral atoms outside the sensor
background caused by the radiation belts.
The instrument allows scientists to gener-
ate images of the energetic neutral atom
emission regions and to track the waxing
and waning of the ion fluxes in the radia-
tion belts. In particular, the technology
helps visualize how ion fluxes are injected
into the radiation belts by large storms.
Such observations give scientists a global
view of the changing ion populations that
cannot be obtained by in situ point mea-
surements.
TWINS
The newest in the family of instruments de-
veloped to study magnetospheric effects on
space weather is the Two Wide-angle
Imaging Neutral-Atom Spectrometers
(TWINS), currently scheduled for delivery
in April 2002. One of the first instruments
funded by NASA for a “mission of oppor-
tunity,” TWINS is actually a pair of identi-
cal instruments that will be launched on
two orbiting spacecraft to provide the first
stereoscopic image of Earth’s magneto-
sphere. TWINS is a typical collaborative
NASA project. Participants include mem-
bers from the Southwest Research Insti-
tute, Los Alamos National Laboratory, the
University of Southern California, West
Virginia University, Aerophysics Labora-
tory, and the University of Bonn, as well as
The Aerospace Corporation.
One of the primary engineering chal-
lenges for the Aerospace contingent is to
ensure that the TWINS sensors will not in-
terfere with other sensors onboard the space
vehicles. For example, because TWINS im-
aging is accomplished by scanning the in-
strument 180 degrees on a rotating actuator,
the jitter induced by the rotation required
careful study to mitigate unnecessary or un-
acceptable disturbances. In this case, the
analysis was complex, and required assis-
tance from structural-dynamics and control-
analysis experts. The availability of the col-
lective resources of Aerospace to address
issues ranging from thermal design to con-
tamination effects to control systems is a
rare advantage for engineers in designing
these complex systems.
Conclusion
These projects, though diverse, are typical
of the laboratory’s hardware development
process, which applies to space-based, air-
borne, and ground-based systems alike.
The unique instruments developed at Aero-
space serve specific scientific missions, en-
abling researchers to perform studies that
might not be possible otherwise, given the
absence of commercial alternatives. The
challenge is in designing systems that are
reliable and affordable. Science instru-
ments are not market-driven, high-profit
items, and their development budgets
cannot be burdened by expensive leading-
edge technology.
The hardware development program con-
tributes significantly to the overall mission
of Aerospace, providing direct and indirect
benefits for clients—particularly the Air
Force and NRO. Data obtained through
Aerospace instruments help designers cre-
ate more robust, efficient, and inexpensive
space systems. Such information also
serves to facilitate anomaly resolution, im-
prove space models, and enhance testing
protocols. Moreover, the ability to develop
mission-specific instruments in house helps
to reduce development time and overall
mission cost.
Whether for prototype instrument or
evolved sensor, the capacity to design and
build custom hardware is an important ca-
pability that helps keep Aerospace at the
forefront of the space-science field.

20 • Crosslink Summer 2001

 From Idea to Instrument
Design
Engineers work with a science team to convert scientific objectives
into system requirements. Using computer-aided design tools,
electrical engineers design the sensors and electronic subsystems
that will constitute the finished instruments. Mechanical engineers
design the mechanical components and packaging necessary to
incorporate subsystems into a unit-level assembly. Meanwhile,
research associates convert schematic designs to a physical
printed circuit board (PCB) layout using PCB-design software.
Left to right: Albert Lin, Mazaher Sivjee, Sean Nguyen.

PCB Assembly
The assembly of PCBs is performed by technicians such as
Ted Nguyen, shown here, who have been trained at the
NASA school at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. All assembly
operations are performed manually, including installation of
through-hole and surface-mount components, harness
fabrication, and connector installation. Quality assurance
inspections at this stage help to ensure that construction will
meet program requirements.

Mechanical Assembly
Electronic subassemblies and sensors are incorporated into a
mechanical assembly. Eric Abendroth is shown here with a
NASA sounding rocket assembly. Internal box-level harnesses
have already been completed by electronics technicians. At
this stage, final harnesses are added prior to system testing.

System Testing
Functional testing at the subassembly and unit level will verify that the
design meets performance requirements. Prototype and engineering
models are often developed for space flight assemblies to validate a design
before committing expensive flight-rated components. After the subsystems
are integrated into a unit, calibrations are completed to characterize sensor
performance, and embedded software is tested using sample data sets
that envelop or bound the actual measurements expected. Here Yaniv
Dotan tests the TWINS engineering model low-voltage power system.

Qualification Testing
The last step prior to instrument delivery is qualification testing. Shown
here Brad Johnson loads a data-processing unit and imaging proton
sensor assembly in a thermal vacuum chamber. For a space flight
sensor, qualification testing always includes sine and random vibration
tests to verify that the instrument design will survive the launch.
Thermal cycle and thermal vacuum tests are completed, and in some
cases acoustic and pyro-shock tests may also be performed. Engineers
may also conduct electromagnetic compatibility testing and magnetic
cleanliness surveys as required by the parent spacecraft mission.

Crosslink Summer 2001 • 21

 Delta
The Mir space station in its con-
figuration during 1989, the time
of the Delta Star experiments.
The lower module is the 20-ton
core housing the crew’s quar-

Courtesy of Mir Corporation

ters, life-support systems, power

S tar
supply, and scientific research
facilities. The 11-ton Kvant mod-
ule, designed for astrophysical
research and biotechnology ex-
periments, is the upper module.

Frederick Simmons
and Peter Bythrow an SDIO Space Experiment

T
he Delta 183 program was proposed in 1988 by the
Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO), origi-
nally as a joint effort between the United States and the
Soviet Union involving the Russian Mir space station.
When the Soviets decided not to participate, SDIO proceeded uni-
laterally to conduct the mission without direct involvement of Mir.
The primary motivation for the experi- mutual benefit of the two nations. The So-
ment was to engage the U.S.S.R. in joint ac- viet Union and the United States had al-
tivities to allay their concerns about the ready cooperated in a joint space operation
threat posed by the SDIO missile-defense in the 1970s, culminating in the hookup of
activities being pursued at the time. A sec- a Soyuz and Apollo spacecraft in July
ondary objective was to demonstrate that 1975. The onboard greetings of the two
space experiments could be conceived and crews and some of their activities were tel-
executed rapidly and cost-effectively. In- evised to viewers on Earth. At the time of
deed, from its conception to launch, the President Reagan’s offer, relations between
Delta 183 program cost approximately $200 the United States and the Soviet Union
million and took just 14 months, three spent were somewhat strained, and the Soviets
waiting for access to the launch facility. declined.
With the withdrawal of the Soviets, an The Delta 183 program in 1989 was to
alternative set of experiments was selected. be another collaborative effort between the
Those space experiments were remarkably U.S.S.R. and the United States, this time
successful. Notable accomplishments of space experiments involving Mir. Specifi-
the program included several “firsts”: for cally, an unmanned spacecraft would be
example, the first closed-loop tracking of a deployed and maneuvered into the vicinity
of Mir. An American astronaut and a So-
U.S. Air Force

foreign launch vehicle from a platform in

Launch of the Delta 183 from Cape
Canaveral March 24, 1989.
SDIO
space and the first observations from space
of booster rocket contrails viewed in nega-
tive contrast against a warmer Earth below.
The most significant accomplishment,
however, was the collection of multispec-
tral data from observations of launches of
U.S. and Soviet space launch vehicles.
The Delta 183 Program
When President Ronald Reagan introduced
viet cosmonaut aboard Mir would engage
in extravehicular experiments using Na-
tional Aeronautics and Space Administra-
tion (NASA) space-maneuvering back-
packs to inspect the spacecraft, examine
material samples, and perform other tasks.
Unfortunately, before negotiations were
completed, a premature report of the dis-
cussions appeared in The Washington Post,

Delta Star with solar arrays in their stowed
configuration, installed in the Delta launch
vehicle.
the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) in
1983, he offered the Soviet Union the op-
portunity to participate in the development
of a ballistic missile defense system for the
and the Soviet Union withdrew.
Proceeding without Soviet participation,
SDIO planned the reconfigured program.
Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics

Crosslink Summer 2001 • 23

 Laboratory (APL) assembled the sensors,
Solar Equipment and designed and operated the ground sta-
arrays section tion. The Aerospace Corporation played a
key role in planning several of the exper-
Fairing iments and analyzing the resultant data.
Delta Star
Guidance The program’s name, Delta 183, was de-
section rived from the designation of the launch
vehicle; the spacecraft itself was called
Sensor Delta Star. It consisted of two sections: the
section McDonnell Douglas orbital operations
control assembly mated to the sensor mod-
Propulsion ule. The instruments were boresighted
section together parallel to the axis of the module;
Second pointing was provided by the spacecraft’s
stage attitude-control system. The sensor en-
Second-stage semble included
miniskirt and • an infrared imager, operating much like
support truss
Interstage a video camera in any of three spectral
bands in the short- to mid-wave region
• a long-wave infrared imager adapted
from the guidance and control section
Castor IV First
thrust of a Maverick missile
stage
augmentation • an ensemble of three imagers and four
solids
photometers, which produced imagery
and intensity data in several visible and
ultraviolet bands
Main • an ultraviolet-intensified CCD (charge-
engine
coupled device) video camera
• a laser detection and ranging device
Delta Star was launched on March 24,
1989, into a circular orbit of 48-degree in-
clination and about 360-kilometer altitude. Launch of a Vostok, the human-flight qual-
Configuration of the Delta 183 spacecraft This orbit provided for a repeating ground ified workhorse of the Russian stable of
and payload. trace every five revolutions to pass near space launch vehicles.

Breakaway thrusters Cape Canaveral, Florida, and other ground

Thrusters sites to facilitate the observations of “tar-
Translational thrusters (attitude-control system and axial) gets of opportunity” and other experi-
ments. The satellite was deactivated the
following December 27.
Sensor Equipment section The Experiments
section (avionics and gas Aerospace was responsible for planning
(7 panels) spheres [4])
several specific experiments, performing
most remote observations with the infrared
sensors, and analyzing the resultant data,
in particular those from the observations
of space launch vehicles as targets of op-
portunity. Several organizations carried
Solar arrays out other experiments, including one con-
cerned with space materials carried aboard
Guidance section the sensor module.
Multispectral Data of
Propulsion section Vehicle Launches
Forward bulkhead (workstation/samples, antenna, As one of the program’s more significant
status control panel, lights, corner cube) accomplishments, Delta Star observed the
launches of a Delta space vehicle out of
Design features of the Delta Star spacecraft. The sensors, housed in seven panels, were
boresighted together and pointed collectively by the attitude-control system. Cape Canaveral and four Mir resupply

24 • Crosslink Summer 2001

 90
60
Latitude (degrees)
30
0 ble imagers recorded those sunlit trails in
–30
–60
–90
–180 –150 –120 –90
Repeating orbit of Delta Star. The curved line represents the ground trace of every fifth orbit.
vehicles out of the Tyuratam cosmodrome
near the Aral Sea. Of themselves, sight-
ings of launches are hardly noteworthy;
the satellites of the Defense Support Pro-
gram have routinely reported such events
for more than 30 years. (See Crosslink,
Summer 2000.) The Delta Star observa-
tions, however, were unique in that the
sensors provided multispectral data, rang-
ing from the vacuum ultraviolet to the
long-wave infrared. Aerospace analyzed
the infrared data that were generated by
these experiments, which were prompted
by a need to evaluate the reliability of
False color display of a spatially resolved upper-stage plume observed in the ultraviolet
spectrum, one of the unique products of the program.
–60 –30 0 30 60 90 120 150
Longitude (degrees)
theoretical models for rocket exhaust
plumes emission.
The long-wave infrared sensor, a modi-
fied Maverick seeker, produced a signal
that, coupled to the Delta Star attitude con-
trol system, provided closed-loop tracking
of a launch vehicle, the first time this had
been done from a platform in space. In an-
other interesting event that occurred when
a cloud deck obscured the launch site, the
ignition was observed by the multiple scat-
tering of visible light through the clouds,
whereas the infrared sensors sighted the
vehicle only after cloud break.
Booster Contrails
The long-wave infrared imager observed
not only the intense plumes from the burn-
ing rockets, but also their contrails. In
those first such observations from space,
the imager recorded the contrails in nega-
tive contrast against a warmer Earth below.
On the other hand, the shortwave and visi-
positive contrast. Analysis of those persis-
tent trails was also done at Aerospace.
Clouds from
Vented Liquid Propellants
Aerospace planned and directed a series of
experiments involving the launches of
rockets out of the NASA Wallops Island fa-
cility in Virginia, precisely timed to the ar-
180 rival of the Delta Star satellite. The Black
Brant rockets carried payloads consisting
of canisters of liquid propellants, which
were released at high altitudes in the fields
of view of the sensors aboard Delta Star.
The objective was to observe the flash evap-
oration of the liquids in the near-vacuum
environment and to characterize the result-
ing expanding cloud of frozen particles
embedded in the more rapidly expanding
vapor, thus to assess the validity of an Aero-
space model describing those processes.
Such clouds, produced by the release of
liquid propellants into the upper atmo-
sphere, could interfere with the tracking of
vehicles by infrared sensors incorporated
into space-based defense systems. Four
such experiments were carried out. One
booster failed to fly a nominal trajectory,
Long-wave infrared observation of a Delta
launch from Cape Canaveral shortly after
the tracker broke lock. The bright plume is
seen at the lower right. The contrail of con-
densed water vapor and alumina particles
appears dark, as do the clouds, against the
warmer Earth below, which appears
brighter. In a visible-wavelength image, the
sunlit clouds would, of course, appear
brighter relative to Earth.
Crosslink Summer 2001 • 25
 Propellant
release

Delta Star

Argus

Black
Brant Wallops
Space
Flight Firepond
Center

Plan for the Delta Star observations of pro-

pellants vented into the upper atmosphere.
In addition, the releases were observed by
the two satellites in high orbits, by instru-
mented aircraft, and by an astronomical
observatory in Massachusetts.

Particle
cloud Vapor
cloud

Sunlight

Scattered
Fuel light
molecule

Other
Ambient O products

H2O* → H2O + hν

Model for a liquid propellant vented into the

upper atmosphere. The liquid undergoes a
Photo courtesy of NASA

flash evaporation and partial freezing. The

solid particles are embedded in a more
rapidly expanding cloud of the remaining
vapor, which interacts with atomic oxygen
to produce chemiluminescent emission.
The smaller particle cloud scatters sun-
Launch of a Black Brant from Wallops Island, Virginia, for a rendezvous with Delta Star. light, preferentially in the forward direction.

but three launches performed as planned,
and the clouds appeared on schedule in the
Delta Star fields of view. Unfortunately,
just prior to the sequence of the launches,
the Delta Star satellite was struck with the
flux from an extraordinarily intense solar
flare that ruined the sensitivity of the short-
wave infrared imager. Nevertheless, the
cloud was observed by the ultraviolet sen-
sors aboard Delta Star, by infrared sensors
aboard two widely separated satellites in
geosynchronous orbits, by the Lincoln
Laboratory Firepond telescope facility on
Millstone Hill in Westford, Massachusetts,
and by airborne sensors dispatched for that
purpose, in operations all coordinated by
Aerospace. Thus, a valuable collection of
data was obtained, despite the degradation

26 • Crosslink Summer 2001

of the infrared sensor aboard Delta Star. In
particular, the infrared spectra collected by
a spectrometer aboard the Air Force Re-
search Laboratory’s aircraft elucidated the
chemical reactions between the propellant
vapor and the upper atmosphere. The in-
frared intensities reported by the satellites
in high orbits provided the means for as-
sessing the scattering of sunlight by con-
densed particles in the cloud.
Resident Space Objects
The modeling of satellites and other ob-
jects deployed in space—resident space
objects (RSO)—in support of systems for
space-based space surveillance has been an
important area of research at Aerospace.
The Delta 183 program provided a good
opportunity to collect relevant data from a
space platform as opposed to the usual
studies conducted at ground observatories
such as AMOS, the Air Force Research
Laboratory atop Mt. Haleakala on Maui,
Hawaii. The data from Delta Star could
monitor RSOs at much closer range and
with more appropriate viewing aspects,
providing data directly relevant to the de-
velopment of a space-based space surveil-
lance system. Delta Star proved valuable
for analytical comparisons with a theoreti-
cal model developed at Aerospace.
Infrared Backgrounds
The character of the infrared backgrounds
against which targets must be observed in
Earth-viewing defense systems is another
subject of continuing interest (see Crosslink,
Winter 2000–2001). Delta Star collected
data in a spectral bandpass considered as a
candidate for a space-based surveillance
system, several years prior to a Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization (BMDO)
space experiment dedicated to that sole
purpose (MSTI-3). Aerospace analyzed a
number of scenes with various clouds, ter-
rain, and solar illumination to determine
statistical properties used in sensor design.
The Delta Star data analysis was especially
useful in developing the analytical tools
Aerospace later applied to the more com-
plete MSTI-3 data.
Background observations that proved
very useful in another way were those col-
lected in overpasses when the shortwave
infrared sensor stared at specific points on
the ground while the line of sight varied
from horizon to horizon. Those collections
were used to assess theoretical models for
the variation of the cloud-free line of sight
for various cloud patterns. Aerospace
analysis interpreted the signal variations in
Image of a ground-based laser recorded by the long-wave infrared sensor aboard Delta
Star. The grid denotes the pixels created by the scanning of the linear detector array; the
third dimension denotes intensities. Without atmospheric dispersion, only a few pixels near
the central peak would respond because of the blur of the sensor.
terms of the probabilities of cloud-free lines done differently. In particular, state-of-the-
of sight as a function of the incident angle art sensors specifically designed for their
for comparison with theoretical models. purposes and other better equipment (espe-
cially the onboard data recorder) would
Atmospheric Properties in
have made the program much more pro-
Dispersing Laser Light
ductive at only a moderate incremental cost
In an Aerospace experiment, Delta Star
in time and money. Nevertheless, the ex-
was illuminated by a laser beam directed
periments were singularly fruitful, espe-
by a telescope located at the U.S. Air Force
cially for providing unique multispectral
Malabar facility at Cape Canaveral. The
data on space launch vehicles viewed from
purpose of the experiment was to study the
space. The experiments also yielded valu-
value of ground-based lasers for absolute
able data about closed-loop tracking of
intensity calibrations of infrared sensors in
such launch vehicles, booster contrails,
orbit. (McDonnell Douglas conducted a
characteristics of frozen particles in a
similar experiment, the Laser Illumination
liquid-propellant-induced cloud, RSOs, in-
Detection System, to assess the vulnerabil-
frared backgrounds, and properties of the
ity of space-based optical systems to inter-
atmosphere in dispersing laser light.
ference from low-power ground-based
The United States and Russia have co-
lasers.) The Aerospace experiment in-
operated in a number of space ventures
volved the response of the long-wave in-
since the U.S.S.R. declined President Rea-
frared imager to illumination by a carbon-
gan’s offer of joint work on a ballistic mis-
dioxide laser during an overpass in which
sile defense in 1983. After the dissolution
the path from the ground to space varied by
of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, the
a large factor. This experiment yielded sig-
activities of the Mir space station assumed
nificant information on the properties of
a more international character. Specifically,
the atmosphere in dispersing laser light.
the United States assisted in the attachment
Conclusion
of additional modules to the 1989 configu-
The Delta 183 program was notably suc-
ration. In all, NASA made nine shuttle
cessful, especially considering the con-
straints in time and budget. Certainly, in flights to Mir, installing U.S. experiments
and transporting astronauts for extended
hindsight, some things might have been
Crosslink Summer 2001 • 27
 106

Specular, maximum Data from a resident space object

viewed by the Delta Star long-
105 wave infrared sensor as opposed
to the Aerospace model. The self-
emission depends on the size,
Specular, minimum configuration, and surface prop-
Intensity

erties of the space object as well

104
Emission, end as the viewing aspect. The self-
emission varies between the
side- and end-viewing aspects
Emission, side, maximum approximately with the sine of the
angle. Specular reflections of
103
sunlight vary mostly with the ori-
entation of the solar panels.
Emission, side, minimum

102
0 10 20 30 40
Time (seconds)

35102.3
Top of array
0.158 35092.1
35094.3
Release at 35085

Remote observations of one of

0.156 the propellant releases from a
Elevation (radians)

Solar scattering Solar scattering Black Brant rocket launched from

angle 161 deg angle 7 deg Wallops Island. The sensors were
located in geostationary orbits
above the Atlantic and Pacific
0.154 Oceans. The symbols denote the
35051.2 positions in satellite coordinates;
Burnout at 35035
35041.0 the numbers are the times in sec-
35033.9 35030.9 onds, Greenwich Mean Time.
35023.7 35020.7
0.152
Horizon

37980.0
Bottom of array 34969.9
0.150
2.210 2.230 4.030 4.050
Azimuth (radians)

1000

Vertical Power spectral densities are seen

to be directional, as might be ex-
100 Horizontal
Power spectral density

pected for a scene with a striated

cloud pattern. Power spectral
density is a statistical property
derived from analysis of the radi-
10 ance variations in the back-
ground. The wave number is re-
lated to the frequencies of the
fluctuations as the radiance struc-
1 ture is scanned in the two direc-
tions, arbitrarily designated hori-
zontal and vertical.

0.1
0.01 0.1 1 10
Wavenumber (kilometers–1)

28 • Crosslink Summer 2001

stays as “guest” residents. Mir reentered
Earth’s atmosphere March 23, 2001, more
than 10 years beyond its intended five-year
mission. The two countries continue to
work together on the International Space
Station. Another less publicized effort, the
Russian American Observation Satellites
(RAMOS) experiment, a program spon-
sored by BMDO, is currently in design
review.
Acknowledgments
The successes of Delta Star were made
possible by the dedicated efforts of many
individuals in a number of organizations.
SDIO planned and implemented Delta 183,
which was conceived and initiated by
SDIO director Lt. Gen. James Abrahamson
and managed by Col. Michael Rendine and
Michael Griffin. William Frederick chaired
the Delta Star Science Working Group,
which planned the experiments. Foremost
among the several contractors that con-
tributed to the program was McDonnell
Douglas, which designed and built the
Shortwave infrared image of a typical background scene viewed by Delta Star analyzed for
the statistical properties of the radiance patterns.
launch vehicle and spacecraft and managed
the flight operations. Peter Bythrow,
Robert Gold, and Thomas Coughlin of
APL coordinated the efforts of a number of
contractors to supply instrumentation; in-
tegrated the sensors in the spacecraft; con-
ducted experiments; and managed the
ground site at APL for the retrieval, pro-
cessing, and dissemination of the data from
all experiments.
Aerospace personnel played major roles
in planning several experiments and ana-
lyzing data. Frederick Simmons, a member
of the Delta Star Science Working Group,
guided Aerospace activities and oversaw
analyses of launch observations. Thomas
Hayhurst was instrumental in planning and
executing the fuel release experiments,
Richard Dickinson and David Glackin ana-
lyzed background collections, Bernard
Klem planned and analyzed the RSO ob-
servations, and Frank Vernon and Henry
Montes conducted the laser illumination
experiments.
Two video fields as recorded on
tape (one video frame = two fields).
Gain and bias adjusted for best
analog-to-digital conversion.
Left: Focal-plane fixed pattern.
Right: Interleaved video fields,
black and telemetry lines removed,
normalized to 100 IRE units. [A
video signal is described as 1 volt
peak to peak. In terms of IRE
(International Radio Engineers), a
video signal is 140 units.]
Shortwave infrared scene with
fixed pattern subtracted.
The
Johns Hopkins University
Applied Physics
Laboratory
Close collaboration between
Aerospace and APL contributed
considerably to the success of the
Delta 183 program. A more recent
and especially notable joint effort
was the successful Midcourse
Space Experiment, a major space
experiment conducted for BMDO.
APL was founded in 1942 as a
nonprofit research and development
division of Johns Hopkins University.
Located in Laurel, Maryland, midway
between Baltimore and Washington,
D.C., APL has a staff of 2300, of
which more than 69 percent are
engineers and scientists. It maintains
130 specialized research and test
facilities serving government and
business customers with annual
funding of approximately $480
million through more than 200
programs.
The core purpose of APL is to
enhance the security of the nation
through the application of science
and technology. Most programs have
been directly or indirectly associated
with military defense applications. In
recent years, the laboratory has
concentrated more heavily on space
science and technology. It also
participates in other areas of
scientific research—for example,
biomedicine—that are synergistic
with the mission of Johns Hopkins.
APL’s current work continues to
support its original mission as a
technical and scientific resource,
addressing complex problems of
national importance.
Crosslink Summer 2001 • 29
TSX-5: Another Step Forward
for Space-Based Research
Michael L. La Grassa and James R. Farmin

Following on the heels of the failed STEP-4 satellite launch, the

TSX-5 research satellite was successfully placed into orbit on
June 7, 2000. Aerospace provided timely contributions to the
overall mission success, including verification of solar-array de-
ployment, validation of critical components, mitigation of poten-
tial failure modes, thermal modeling, contamination analysis,
anomaly resolution, and more.

T
he Tri-Service Experiment 5
(TSX-5) is the sixth in a series of
small-satellite missions for space
research and experiments com-
missioned by the U.S. Air Force Space and
Missile Systems Center as part of its Space
Test Program. The mission generated sig-
nificant interest for two important reasons.
First, the vehicle was based on the Space
Test Experiment Platform (STEP) space-
craft bus, whose final mission, STEP-4,
failed in October of 1997. Second, the satel- Research Vehicle-2), sponsored
lite was commissioned under acquisition by the Ballistic Missile Defense
reform—a streamlined cost-conscious pro- Organization, and CEASE (the
curement approach. Another failure would Compact Environmental Anom-
Orbital Sciences Corporation

deal a serious setback to this program. aly Sensor), sponsored by the

Therefore, to help maximize the probability Air Force Research Laboratory.
of a successful launch, the Air Force asked STRV-2 is a bundle of seven
The Aerospace Corporation to validate subexperiments, each with dis-
many of the components, materials, and de- tinct scientific objectives: The
sign concepts used for the space vehicle and first, LaserCom, attempted to
STRV-2, shown here during integration and testing,
its experiments. The investment clearly achieve high-data-rate laser
houses a suite of space experiments sponsored by the
paid off, and TSX-5 was successfully Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. Specific exper- communications between a
launched into orbit on June 7, 2000. iments include LaserCom, which unfortunately failed satellite and other platforms
to demonstrate the feasibility of laser-based communi- and establish the practicality of
Research Mission
cations in free space, and the Medium Waveband laser communications in free
TSX-5 hosts two Department of Defense Infrared imager, a new technology capable of identify-
(DOD) payloads—STRV-2 (the Space Test space (it has not achieved this
ing military aircraft flying beneath the satellite.

30 • Crosslink Summer 2001


goal because of hardware problems);
MWIR (the Medium-Waveband Infrared
imager) is designed to detect and classify
military aircraft flying beneath the satellite;
RadMon, a radiation monitor, is designed
to characterize the radiation environment
(part of the MWIR experiment); SAMMES
(the Space Active Modular Materials Ex-
periment System) is providing long-term
time-variant performance data on materials
exposed on the spacecraft shell while
quantifying the effects of contamination
deposition; ETB (the Electronics Test
Bed), which includes the meteoroid and
debris impact monitor and the meteoroid
impact sensor, was deployed to characterize
the space environment at altitudes relevant
to the proposed Brilliant Eyes surveillance
satellite; ACESS (the All-Composite Ex-
periment Spacecraft Structure) is an exper-
iment to assess the performance of com-
posite spacecraft relative to conventional
designs; VISS (the Vibration Isolation,
Suppression, and Steering system) is de-
signed to provide an ultraquiet environment
for sensitive optical sensors and transmit-
ters (including the MWIR experiment).
CEASE is a miniaturized suite of sen-
sors and particle detectors for monitoring
the environment surrounding a spacecraft.
The instrument is designed to give an indi-
cation of the probability and severity of
Orbital Sciences Corporation
faults caused by surface charging, deep di-
electric charging, single-event upsets, and
radiation-dose effects. TSX-5 marks the
first mission for CEASE and primarily
serves as a proof-of-concept flight.
Acquisition
TSX-5 was developed under acquisition re-
form with limited documentation and min-
imal contract oversight. The contract spec-
ified a firm fixed-price-plus-incentive fee
of $25 million for the spacecraft bus and
the commercial launch vehicle. Engineers
were therefore challenged to ensure that
the space-vehicle design, integration, and
testing would meet requirements and be
able to fulfill the mission objectives at a
Crosslink Summer 2001 • 31

Electrical integration of the STRV-2 experiment module and the TSX-5 spacecraft.
minimal cost. Aerospace played a crucial
role in bringing the system to fruition,
providing critical development and opera-
tional expertise. Total Aerospace involve-
ment, including program office and engi-
neering support, was approximately 12
staff-years.
One of the primary Aerospace tasks was
to ensure that recommendations from the
failure investigation of the earlier STEP-4
mission were implemented on TSX-5
wherever possible. STEP-4 was success-
fully placed into orbit, but the ground team
was unable to establish contact. The cause
of this malfunction is still a subject of
debate. Failed solar-array deployment,
failed space-vehicle initialization sequence,
vibration-induced failure of nonredundant
critical components—these are all possible
culprits. Because the space vehicle did not
respond to commands and no telemetry
was ever received, it’s impossible to know
for sure. The STEP Mission 4 Safety Inves-
tigation Board generated a list of recommen-
dations, most of which were implemented
on TSX-5 (even though much of the devel-
opment work had already been completed).
Solar Arrays
Aerospace began by examining the solar
arrays. TSX-5—like STEP-4—originally
had solar cells on only one side of the solar
panels (because only one side would face
the sun when fully deployed). This meant,
of course, that the solar arrays had to be
32 • Crosslink Summer 2001
Aerospace recommended that the two
wings be deployed in a staggered se-
quence, rather than simultaneously, with a
sufficient delay to allow each component
to reach stasis. The analysis further re-
vealed that the articulation joints would not
adequately secure the panels, which were
not deployed in a planar configuration.
Models showed that gaps between panels
could potentially exceed hinge length. Ulti-
mately, simply moving the joints closer to
the spacecraft solved the problem. Al-
though these issues were relatively easy to
resolve, they would not have been discov-
ered prior to launch if Aerospace had not
detected them using the DADS tool.
Primaries and Backups
Orbital Sciences Corporation
Aerospace also performed dynamic X-ray
inspection of critical components within
the power subsystem after one of these
components experienced a relay failure.
This technique uses real-time X-ray to gen-
erate an image of a part as it is rotated, al-
lowing the inspector to see, for example,
contaminant particles in a relay case that
deployed to get electrical power; if they could lodge between the contacts. This
failed to open properly—a possible failure testing is not routine and is usually done
mode with STEP-4—the space vehicle when a suspect set of parts is identified.
would have no electrical power other than Testing identified a suspect lot of relays.
what the batteries could supply. Aerospace Sixteen relays in the two mains power con-
therefore advised the TSX-5 design team trol boxes and four in the launch-vehicle
to include outward-facing solar cells on the interface unit were replaced because of
undeployed arrays. Thus, if the mechanism
did not deploy as planned, the space vehi-
cle could still generate at least a small
amount of power, allowing critical opera-
tions to proceed while efforts to deploy the
solar arrays could be performed.
While the additional solar cells would
prevent a dead-on-arrival space vehicle,
they would not save the mission if the ar-
rays never deployed. The TSX-5 team was
therefore understandably keen to test the
solar-array deployment sequence. Unfortu-
nately, the solar panels were connected by
a new type of hinge designed to function
only in the near-weightlessness of space.
That meant the arrays could not be reliably
tested in a laboratory on Earth because the
hinge could not support the weight of the
Orbital Sciences Corporation
panels. Aerospace devised a way to “test”
the hinge using DADS (Dynamic Analysis
and Design System), a computer simula-
tion tool for predicting the behavior of
complex mechanical systems.
The results indicated that overtravel in
the hinge could allow the two solar-array CEASE—shown here after integration with
wings to collide, potentially damaging the the TSX-5 spacecraft—will help satellite
operators plan for and react to adverse
delicate solar cells. In order to prevent this, weather conditions in space.
particles (weld splatter from a deficient
weld process) noted in some of the X-rays.
Redundancy in critical subsystems was
reviewed and implemented consistent with
a Class C (medium-risk) space vehicle.
Greater redundancy was built into the
CADACS processors (command and data-
handling/attitude determination and con-
trol) and communications processors as
well as the mains power control, the core
power control, and the batteries. Aerospace
further demonstrated the adequacy of a
marginal circuit design used for the backup
deployment device. Engineers were con- TSX-5 Space Vehicle
cerned that the circuit would not generate
Built and integrated by Orbital Sciences Corporation, TSX-5 is an $80 million (total
the desired output under all conceivable mission cost) research satellite containing two experiment suites, the Space Test
conditions; however, a SPICE analysis Research Vehicle-2 (STRV-2) and the Compact Environmental Anomaly Sensor
(Simulation Program with Integrated Cir- (CEASE). The external configuration has four main components: the spacecraft or
cuit Emphasis) and breadboard test con- core module, the separation system, the STRV-2 experiment module, and the
ducted by Aerospace revealed that the fixed-geometry solar arrays. The core module is a 12-sided structure measuring
circuit could be expected to perform as de- 0.95 meters point to point. Constructed entirely of aluminum, it has a honeycomb
signed, given the conditions it would face. core plate with sheet metal panels mounted to milled longerons. The STRV-2
payload, measuring 0.82 meters long, is mounted on top of the spacecraft. A
Thermal Modeling
0.97-meter-diameter Marman ring and V-band separation system transfers launch
Meanwhile, the Aerospace Heat Transfer loads between the space vehicle and launch vehicle and permits separation of the
Laboratory was developing thermal mod- space vehicle after insertion into orbit. Total mass of the in-flight space vehicle is
els for testing various spacecraft materials nominally 249.5 kilograms. TSX-5 has an electrical power subsystem, a command
and components. For example, Aerospace and data-handling subsystem, a communication subsystem, and an attitude
engineers measured the thermal conductiv- determination and control subsystem. Subsystem electronic components and the
ity across the hinges that connect the solar CEASE experiment are mounted internal to the spacecraft on the wake-oriented
arrays to the core plate. All avionics on core plate. Subsystems and payloads are designed for a six-month mission life
TSX-5—including batteries—are mounted with a one-year goal and reliability exceeding 90 percent. TSX-5 was launched on
on the core plate, so it was important to un- June 7, 2000, from Vandenberg Air Force Base on a Pegasus XL rocket into an
derstand the conduction coupling between orbit of 410 × 1740 kilometers with an inclination of 68 degrees.
the core plate and solar arrays. Another set
of experiments modeled the normal and
lateral conductivity through the 2.54-
centimeter-thick core-plate panel itself.
Aboard TSX-5, conduction through the
core plate is used for passive temperature
control of the boxes and avionics; there-
fore, knowledge of the core plate’s thermal
behavior was essential in determining the
effectiveness of this technique. Similarly,
Aerospace measured the normal thermal
conductivity through the 1-centimeter-
thick solar-array aluminum honeycomb
(sandwiched between the panel face
sheets) to ensure that thermal activity
would have no effect on the boxes and
components mounted on the core plate.
Temperature did, however, play a role in
Orbital Sciences Corporation

a problem affecting the DRAM (dynamic

random-access memory). The spacecraft
contractor had discovered that when the
satellite’s experiment interface processor
was powered off and on again, the software
was not starting from a known reset condi- Thermal vacuum testing revealed several potential problems with TSX-5—notably, anom-
tion because mass memory in the processor alies in the pyrotechnic fire circuit, noncommanded processor switchovers to the redundant
had somehow been “retained.” To find the sides, and an anomaly in the downlink filter caused by arc-over in the vacuum environment.

Crosslink Summer 2001 • 33

cause of the problem, Aerospace per-
formed a series of temperature tests on the
DRAM devices and did indeed confirm
that in the narrow range of 0–5 degrees
centigrade, memory would be retained,
possibly for several minutes. This con-
firmed the hypothesis and eliminated the
possibility of any other hidden failure
mode. Fortunately, a practical fix was easy:
if the processor needed a reboot while in
the critical temperature range, operators
were advised to wait long enough to allow
the memory to “dissipate.”
Environmental Testing
Aerospace engineers were also concerned
about the drop transient—the mechanical
stress experienced during the initial drop of
the Pegasus XL from the L1011 aircraft.
Orbital Sciences Corporation

Vibration-induced failure of critical com-

ponents might have been a factor in the
failure of STEP-4. Therefore, the environ-
mental test regimen began with a base
shake test, simulating the critical vibration
frequencies and duration of the drop.
Validation of the space vehicle contin-
ued with a 48-hour operational “day-in-
the-life” test conducted during the thermal
vacuum test—a step that was performed
less thoroughly for STEP-4. Thermal vac-
uum testing checks the integrated space ve-
hicle operations and, to a limited extent,
the experiment payloads, in a simulated
space environment. The initial test revealed
a number of problems that needed to be
resolved—most notably, anomalies in the
pyrotechnic fire circuit, noncommanded
processor switchovers to the redundant
sides, and an anomaly in the downlink fil-
ter caused by arc-over in the vacuum envi-
ronment. Once these deficiencies were cor-
rected, a second thermal vacuum test was
performed to validate the rework.
Consequently, the integrated TSX-5 was
subjected to two random-vibration tests.
The first was performed prior to the ther-
TSX-5 was launched into orbit from a Pegasus XL rocket. It is shown here after integration
with the launch vehicle. The folded solar array forms a six-sided shell around the satellite.
radio-frequency filter, which was not
vented, was high on the suspect list. Upon
examination, the filter showed evidence of
internal corona discharge—apparently trig-
gered when the transmitter was turned on
while the filter still held a partial pressure. A
new filter was procured, and two vent holes
were drilled into it. The contractor’s esti-
mate was roughly ten minutes to get past the
critical pressure for corona effects. Aero-
space performed calculations for the critical
pressure, based on the filter’s electrical and
CEASE Experiment
The Compact Environmental
Anomaly Sensor (CEASE) was built
and integrated under the direction of
the Air Force Research Laboratory.
Orbital Sciences Corporation
mechanical properties. Using a critical pres-
sure of about two torr, the estimated time to
vent was calculated to be approximately six
minutes, which would satisfy the on-orbit
requirements for when the downlink trans-
mitter would normally be turned on. Aero-
space also recommended a stand-alone test
of this filter configuration in a small thermal
vacuum chamber to verify its operation. The
venting time became a constraint for test
conduct during the second thermal vacuum
test, which was successful.

mal vacuum test at relatively low vibration CEASE is an autonomous,

levels. Aerospace successfully argued that lightweight, low-power instrument for
the second vibration test should be per- monitoring the environment around
formed at higher levels to validate the re- a spacecraft. The ultimate
work performed to correct the problems operational goal of CEASE is to
provide warnings when the
identified during the first thermal vacuum
environment is likely to cause surface charging, deep dielectric charging, single-
test. event upsets, or radiation-dose effects. The goal on TSX-5 is to demonstrate concept
The anomaly in the telemetry downlink feasibility. The instrument can also provide 72 hours’ worth of data on particle fluxes
system is typical of the problems that can incident on the space vehicle to help satellite operators analyze an anomaly after it
only be discovered through thorough ther- has occurred. CEASE’s output can be used to distinguish between natural effects
mal vacuum testing. While the chamber and those caused by other (possibly hostile) actions. Self-contained and
was being depressurized for the first test, autonomous, CEASE will be valuable as an early diagnostic tool and has been
the downlink telemetry dropped out for integrated on DSP-21 for a flight later this year.
several minutes, but then recovered. The

34 • Crosslink Summer 2001


Systems Compatibility
On the command level, engineers from
Aerospace developed the test plan and doc-
umentation for both the factory compatibil-
ity and launch-base compatibility tests.
The factory compatibility test revealed that
the Satellite Operations Complex would
have difficulties processing experiment
data, primarily because the data protocol
was not fully compatible with the ground-
system network. The data protocol was
similar to that of a computer network that
assumes continuous messaging from one
node to another. Unfortunately, the ground-
system network and satellite control equip-
ment were not designed to accommodate
this easily. Aerospace developed several
options for resolving the problem and per-
formed statistical studies to evaluate the to-
tal bit-error rate for the potential solutions.
In the end, Aerospace suggested a mix of
ground software redesign and new opera-
tional procedures. Though not elegant, the
solution provided the required data quality
at minimal cost. The recommendation was
implemented, and to date, the system has
provided excellent data quality.
Other command functions received a
similarly rigorous treatment. For example,
the fire, separation, solar-array deploy-
ment, and initiation sequences were tested
live with the launch-vehicle interface at-
tached. Again, this arose from the recom-
mendations of the STEP Mission 4 Safety
Investigation Board. One possible explana-
tion for the failure of STEP-4 was that the
space vehicle did not obtain any signal in-
dicating that it was released from the
launch vehicle. In that case, initialization
never would have begun. For this reason,
the TSX-5 team tested this critical interface
and the space vehicle initialization process
many times.
STRV-2
In addition to validating the design and in-
tegration of the TSX-5 vehicle, Aerospace
also helped validate individual experi-
ments. For example, the medium-wave in-
frared imaging experiment, which was
sponsored in part by the United Kingdom
Ministry of Defense, needed to reach
perigee over the UK approximately 45
days after launch to achieve best results.
Aerospace engineers used RAAN (Right
Ascension of the Ascending Node) analy-
sis to establish the optimal launch window
for this component. This was used to set
the launch day and time.
One of the goals of the SAMMES exper-
iment is to assess contamination deposition
in space. Contamination is a critical enemy
of many experiments, especially optical
sensors. A contamination budget must be
established to ensure normal operation
amid known contaminants. Aerospace re-
searchers performed the contamination
budget analysis, developed the contamina-
tion monitoring software, and performed
the contamination monitoring for this proj-
ect. During thermal vacuum testing, where
outgassing does occur, contamination mon-
itoring is essential. Aerospace devised the
allowable criteria to be used during the
thermal vacuum testing and developed a
software program to record and analyze the
results. Fortunately, the testing indicated
MWIR
VISS electronics
VISS
SAMMES
ACESS
LaserCom
STRV-2 Experiment
The Space Test Research Vehicle-2
(STRV-2) is sponsored by the Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization and is
built and integrated by NASA’s Jet
Propulsion Laboratory. STRV-2 is a
single unit comprising seven
subexperiments: the LaserCom laser
communications system, MWIR (the
Medium-Wave Infrared imager),
RadMon (Radiation Monitor), VISS (the
Vibration Isolation, Suppression, and
Steering system), SAMMES (the Space
Active Modular Materials Experiment
System), ACESS (the All-Composite
Experiment Spacecraft Structure), and
ETB (the Electronics Test Bed).
Primary objectives include
demonstration of operation of optical
instruments on a low-cost, nonprecision
platform; demonstration of vibration
isolation and suppression; detection of
mobile targets from space; high-speed
transmission of data via laser
communication; collection of infrared
background data in selected wavelength
bands at low and high altitudes; and
performance evaluation of candidate
components and materials for space
applications.

that contamination didn’t exceed critical

levels and hence was not an issue.
CEASE
For the CEASE payload, Aerospace engi-
neers conducted the leakdown, or venting,
analysis to ensure that the electronics box
would properly vent atmospheric pressure
before being turned on in space. This would
eliminate the possibility of having a partial
pressure, which could lead to arc-over and
potential damage to the experiment.
Orbital Sciences Corporation

The CEASE interface control document

further stipulated that CEASE should be
built to withstand a depressurization rate of
one pound per square inch per second. Be-
cause this requirement was not met by the
original design, Aerospace was asked to
VISS (Vibration Isolation, Suppression, and Steering system) is a self-contained vibration-
control device for use with sensitive optical sensors and other detection devices. VISS determine whether the requirement could
achieves vibration isolation and suppression greater than 20 decibels, with plus or minus be waived. An analysis was performed to
0.3 degrees steering of the payload at a rate of 2 Hertz.

Crosslink Summer 2001 • 35

TSX-5 was placed into orbit from a
Pegasus launch vehicle, shown
here in a clean environment being
prepared for launch.
establish the pressure capability of the
CEASE unit and the expected gage pressure
it would experience during the carrier air-
craft ascent and subsequent launch via the
Pegasus booster. The analysis showed that
unit gage pressure was well below the pres-
sure capability of the CEASE flight box,
and Aerospace recommended that the pro-
gram office waive the requirement, elimi-
nating the need for a hardware redesign.
Against the Clock
Aerospace worked until liftoff to resolve
the anomalies that invariably occur before a
launch. When the space vehicle was at Van-
denberg Air Force Base undergoing final
testing for launch, an anomaly was detected
in the spacecraft clock: approximately four
to five times within a 24-hour period, the
clock slipped by 868 milliseconds. Aero-
space engineers feared that the clock was
degrading and could conceivably fail. The
space-vehicle contractor, in contrast, attrib-
uted the problem to noise in a clock-
compare circuit and recommended sending
the satellite into orbit “as is,” with a work-
around to compensate in flight. Quickly
working to ascertain the actual cause,
Aerospace generated fishbone diagrams,
36 • Crosslink Summer 2001
Orbital Sciences Corporation
evaluated noise characterizations on a card-
cage model of the clock-compare circuitry,
analyzed the timing circuit, reviewed the
component noise-susceptibility data, and
analyzed the archived test data. The re-
searchers concluded that noise at the trail-
ing edge of the timing pulse did indeed trig-
ger the anomaly. Moreover, a survey of the
archived data revealed that the problem had
occurred before during thermal vacuum
testing and was possibly linked to tempera-
ture. A timing-circuit review did not turn up
a plausible hardware degradation or failure
that would match the anomaly signature.
The final recommendation was to proceed
with the launch using the operational work-
around to correct the clock timing as
needed.
On-Orbit Operations
Aerospace’s involvement in the TSX-5
program did not end with the satellite
launch. On the contrary, Aerospace contin-
ues to support on-orbit operations and sys-
tem optimization.
For example, a number of electronic
boxes on the space vehicle have experi-
enced anomalous behavior. In particular, the
GPS (Global Positioning System) receiver
and the fiber-optic gyro seem prone to up-
sets in their operation. Analyses by Aero-
space and the CEASE research team have
shown that these upsets are strongly corre-
lated to inclement space weather such as
magnetic storms and other high-particle-
flux events. The GPS receiver is essentially
a commercial, off-the-shelf product, and
thus has no radiation hardening. The fiber-
optic gyro is the same as the one flown on
the National Aeronautics and Space Admin-
istration’s Deep Space 1—which also ex-
hibited a propensity for single-event upsets.
Such glitches cannot currently be prevented,
but Aerospace worked with the ground op-
erations and the spacecraft contractor team
to develop space-vehicle contingency plans
to minimize their operational impact.
Interestingly, these upset-inducing phe-
nomena are precisely what CEASE was
sent to investigate. Unfortunately, data
from CEASE is evaluated after the fact,
and as such could not be used to predict
conditions aboard TSX-5; however, the in-
formation has been enormously useful in
correlating certain space-vehicle anomalies
to high-particle-flux events, thereby pro-
viding plausible cause and effect.

Ephemeris
One of the responsibilities of the Satellite
Operations Complex is to provide several
days of predicted ephemeris to help re-
searchers plan their experiments. Unfortu-
nately, the research team found that the
Engineers prepare the TSX-5
satellite for launch.
Orbital Sciences Corporation
predictions were not as accurate as needed.
Aerospace performed extensive analyses of
the Satellite Operations Complex’s
ephemeris products and did comparisons
with products generated by Aerospace
tools. The ephemeris propagation improved
after Aerospace provided updated range
biases and suggestions for better estimat-
ing atmospheric drag. Still, this improve-
ment didn’t always provide the desired
precision. The problem was that the accu-
racy of the predictions depended on the
stability of the atmosphere during the fore-
cast period. For a quiet atmosphere, the
ephemeris predictions should be suffi-
ciently accurate, but during periods of
high atmospheric activity, the accuracy re-
quirement could be exceeded well within a
day. After more analysis, Aerospace deter-
mined that there were simply no tools that
could achieve the desired level of accu-
racy. As a result, engineers were forced to
change their operations concept to accom-
modate the achievable accuracy of the
ephemeris products.
Conclusion
Acquisition reform places a greater burden
on the insightful testing and validation of
any space mission. As STEP-4 clearly
showed, a failed mission is neither faster
nor cheaper—and certainly not better.
These checks cannot be omitted, but must
be performed more efficiently and with
greater confidence. To achieve these goals,
testing methodologies must often be as in-
novative as the technologies they seek to
prove. As for TSX-5, the experiments have
met their initial six-month mission require-
ments (with the exception of LaserCom,
which experienced hardware problems
from the outset), and the Air Force ap-
proved an additional six months of support
toward the one-year mission goal.

Space Test Program

In the mid 1960s, once investigations of the space
environment began to settle down, it became apparent that
space systems technologies needed to be developed at a
rapid rate. The Department of Defense (DOD) realized,
however, that systems needed to be thoroughly tested in
space before being developed and deployed. At that time, no
adequate organization or funding was available to provide
timely space flight for military research. So, in 1966, the DOD
Space Test Program (STP) was created by a memorandum
from the Director of Defense Research and Engineering. The
Air Force was made executive agent for the program. The goal
was to provide flight opportunities for all DOD research and
development activities in an economic and efficient manner.
Since its inception, STP has flown well over 400
experiments on more than 150 missions. For a payload to be
flown by STP, it must first be sponsored by a DOD
organization. Once DOD sponsorship is obtained, the flight
request advances through a series of review boards until it
reaches the DOD level. The DOD Space Experiments Review
Board makes the final selections and gives STP a prioritized list
of the payloads to fly. This process happens annually, and STP
flies as many payloads each year as funding and opportunity
allow.
STP missions have contributed to the advancement of space
technologies in many fields, including satellite design, operating
systems, and launch systems. Missions flown by STP were at
the forefront of navigation, surveillance, nuclear detection,
communication, weather observation, and ground radar
calibration. Other payloads flown by STP have collected data to
enhance scientific understanding of the space environment,
investigating phenomena such as radiation, composition, and
solar effects.
Looking toward the future, STP is currently launching
missions with experiments that deal with emerging technologies
such as microelectromechanical systems, superconductors,
power systems, navigation, composites, and communications.

Crosslink Summer 2001 • 37

 Lightning
Protecting Space Systems from

The Nature of Lightning

About 2000 thunderstorms occur worldwide at any time. Lightning—the visible
discharge of atmospheric electricity—strikes Earth 100 times per second, or more than
8 million times a day. The power in a strike can be immense: up to 10 trillion watts. An
average bolt carries 20,000 amperes of current, while the most powerful lightning bolts
carry more than 300,000 amperes.
Every year, lightning kills hundreds of people and damages or destroys billions of
dollars in property. Only 0.2 amperes, or 0.001 percent of the current in the average
bolt, is needed to stop a person’s heart. Besides direct hits, near misses also prove
dangerous. When lightning strikes the ground, the current fans out across the earth. A
portion of the current can travel through the body of a person standing nearby, resulting
in injury or, in 10 percent of the time, death.
Electronic devices react even more sensitively to lightning than humans, often
breaking at currents less than 0.001 amperes, or 0.000005 percent of the strength of
the average bolt. Electromagnetic fields emitted from a lightning bolt can damage
electronic devices more than a kilometer and a half away.
 Alexander F. Rivera

D
espite overcast skies and rain, countdown began as usual at Cape
Harry C. Koons
Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida on March 26, 1987. The Richard L. Walterscheid
Atlas-Centaur 67 rocket carrying a naval communication satellite Richard Briët
awaited launch. Some observers, concerned about the weather, questioned
the wisdom of moving forward, but others dismissed potential danger as
minimal. After smooth ignition, the rocket arced into the sky. Then, as it
passed through clouds, it triggered a lightning discharge.
Electric current flowed down the body of the rocket and its wiring, scram-
bling data in its guidance computer. Using erroneous data, the computer
commanded maximum tilt to the thrusters. This extreme steering action
destroyed the rocket.
The failure of the Atlas-Centaur 67 echoed produces an electric field with a strength that lightning is much more likely to be trig-
the difficulties plaguing the Apollo 12 exceeds the breakdown value for air, “natu- gered than natural. After launch, a rocket is
vehicle shortly after its launch in 1969. ral” lightning can take place. (The break- exposed to the threat of lightning triggered
Lightning had also struck that mission and down value is the field strength at which an by the presence of the launch vehicle itself
corrupted its guidance system. Fortunately, electrical discharge will occur.) Natural and its long, conducting plume, which to-
the astronauts took control and saved the lightning can propagate between charge gether can locally enhance the atmospheric
mission. Like Apollo 12, the Atlas-
Centaur 67 mission served as an expensive Anvil
lesson on the hazard lightning presents to 18.0 km
a space system.
Powerful enough to threaten everything
on Earth, lightning can cause severe dam-
age to space electronics. The Aerospace
Corporation conducts research to minimize 30° C
this danger. Advances at Aerospace in 20° C
8.0 km 10° C
measuring and predicting lightning and in-
corporating protection into space-system 0° C
5° C
designs have reduced the likelihood of
lightning damage to satellites and launch
vehicles and have improved the cost effi- 1.5 km
ciency of activities undertaken to mitigate
risk during storms. Cloud electrification occurs when vertical motions within a cloud separate positive and
Aerospace scientists serve on a Light- negative charges. When this separation produces an electric field in excess of the break-
ning Advisory Panel for the U.S. Air Force down value for air, lightning can occur. According to one theory, charge separation takes
place within a mixture of particles that includes graupel (soft hail or snow pellets), ice crys-
and the National Aeronautics and Space tals, and water drops. Cloud dynamics and microphysics usually limit the strongest charg-
Administration (NASA). This panel estab- ing to a region extending from the freezing altitude upward to the altitude where tempera-
lishes Lightning Launch Commit Crite- tures reach approximately −10 degrees Celsius.
ria—rules for making a launch decision
when atmospheric conditions or electric- centers within a cloud, from one cloud to an- electric field to its breakdown value. Trig-
field measurements indicate that haz- other, or from a cloud to the ground. gered lightning, resulting from conditions
ardous fields may be present along a Lightning can terminate on a conducting not necessarily conducive to natural light-
planned flight path. body in the electric field, or it can pass ning, is the greatest threat to vehicles and
Cloud Electrification: through such an object on its path to the payloads during ascent. Natural lightning
The Cause of Lightning ground, between clouds, or between charge is the greatest threat at the launch site.
Protecting a space system calls for an un- centers within a cloud. The object may The largest electric fields are found in
derstanding of what causes lightning. A simply be in the way of a natural lightning tall clouds where strong embedded up-
strike results from cloud electrification, stroke, or its presence may actually induce drafts sustain heavy rain and strong verti-
which occurs when vertical movements of the stroke. cal development. The most powerful of
air within a cloud separate positive and An induced stroke is called “triggered” these clouds are cumulonimbus clouds, the
negative charges. When charge separation lightning. For a vehicle struck after launch, only important clouds in natural lightning.

Crosslink Summer 2001 • 39

Simply put, lightning-producing cumu-
lonimbus clouds are thunderstorms, and
the greatest threat to vehicles from either
natural or triggered lightning is associated
with their strong electric fields.
Usually the lower part of a cumulonim-
bus cloud acquires a negative charge (al-
though there may be a pocket of positive
charge near the cloud base). The negative
charge aloft induces a positive charge in
the ground. The electric field from this
charge separation accelerates free electrons
until they can strip electrons from air mol-
ecules, a process known as ionization.
Charge Separation
By generating electric fields, charge
separation creates the appropriate
conditions for lightning. But what
produces charge separation?
Efficient charge separation depends
on strong updrafts, ice crystals, and
supercooled water (water that is liquid
at temperatures below its normal
freezing point). These requirements
make the electrification process
extremely complex and controversial.
One explanation of the process that
has gained observational and
theoretical support involves porous ice
structures called graupel, also known
as soft hail or snow pellets.
Strong updrafts carry a mixture of
supercooled cloud water drops and
aerosol particles upward until the air is
cold enough for the formation of ice
crystals seeded by the aerosol
particles. (“Aerosol” refers to either
solid or liquid particles suspended in
air. Dust, haze, and smoke are
examples of aerosol particles.)
Large ice crystals may fall rapidly,
attaining terminal speeds 20 meters
per second greater than the speeds of
nearby smaller particles. The crystals
collect the smaller, slower, supercooled
water drops in their path. The drops
freeze on the surface of the falling ice
crystals, building up what will become
the porous mass of graupel particles.
When graupel particles fall through
supercooled water and ice crystals,
they acquire one charge, and the
water-ice mix acquires the opposite
When the field becomes large enough, an lightning strikes close enough to a system
ionized channel forms, through which the on a launchpad, damage can occur. Fur-
negative charge is lowered to the ground. thermore, inaccurate prediction can have
(Keep in mind that electrons are not “low- costly consequences—false alarms and un-
ered” to the ground—they actually move necessary prelaunch testing.
only a few meters. “Charge is lowered to Often, equipment is tested after a natural
ground” is commonly taken to mean that lightning strike—it is actually retested—to
current neutralizes about the same amount determine the extent of damage. Some-
of charge at either end of the lightning times the uncertainty about whether dam-
channel.) A cloud-to-ground lightning dis- age has occurred is so great that much ex-
charge then takes place. About 10 percent pensive retesting is conducted with no
of the time, the bottom of the cloud is pos- benefit. Developing plausible predictions
itively charged and a positive charge is dis- and minimizing the wasteful results of in-
charged to ground. accurate predictions requires accurate
Observing a lightning stroke, one may measurement of the lightning energy im-
note numerous pulses. A single flickering pinging on a space system on a launchpad.
bolt may actually be dozens of strokes oc- Measuring Natural Lightning
curring in less than two seconds. The first A national system of lightning detectors
faint discharge, a “stepped leader,” pro- (the National Lightning Detection Network,
ceeds zigzag from cloud to ground. This is operated by Global Atmospherics, Inc.)
followed by a bright return stroke moving provides information on lightning strikes. It
back up the channel from ground to cloud. identifies strike locations with a level of ac-
The peak current in the return stroke can curacy satisfactory for most commercial
be huge—hundreds of thousands of am-
purposes—analysis of insurance claims, de-
peres. Intense heating of the channel pro- termination of construction risk—but not
duces a strong, outward-moving pressure precise enough for a launch site.
wave heard as thunder.
Natural Lightning
Natural lightning is usually associated only
with cumulonimbus clouds, whereas trig-
Sensor
gered lightning is associated with a number plate
of weather conditions. Charge separation
in the weaker updrafts in a variety of lay-
ered, rain-bearing cloud types can produce
significant electric fields, especially in the
mixed-phase (water-and-ice) regions near
and above the freezing altitude. Thus, rain
clouds that pose no threat of natural light-
ning can pose a significant threat of trig-
gered lightning.
Knowing about what conditions cause
lightning, we can anticipate its likelihood
in launch planning. Extensive precautions
can better protect both objects and people
from the powerful danger lightning poses.
To address the threat of natural light-
ning, which is a greater threat before
launch, researchers measure lightning
strikes, then predict where and when future
strikes may take place. Thus a natural-
lightning protection strategy can be devel-
oped. Because triggered lightning, a
SRI International

charge. The difference in fall speeds of
the graupel and the smaller, slower
water drops and crystals leads to
charge separation, and where the mix
of particles is favorable, sufficient
charge separation for lightning
develops.
greater threat during ascent, can result
from a variety of weather conditions, a pro-
tection strategy for it consists of rules that
identify conditions under which launches
should be postponed.
Advances in research cannot completely
remove the threat of natural lightning. If
The hybrid on-line lightning monitoring sys-
tem is bolted to a launchpad so that its
sensors can monitor the same lightning-
generated fields that illuminate launch ve-
hicles and spacecraft.

40 • Crosslink Summer 2001

 Aerospace and various contractors met
with marginal success when they used data
gathered by the detection system. They
tested and retested many space systems be-
fore launch at costs of millions of dollars,
usually revealing no damage. Uncertainty
costs much time and money; the space
community needed a more accurate moni-
toring system. One estimate put the amount
of unnecessary testing as high as 95 per-
cent, while a tally made in 1997 showed
that 7 out of 17 prior Titan launch vehicles
incurred some degree of lightning damage.
In 1994 Aerospace proposed a new
monitoring system, known as the hybrid
on-line lightning monitoring system. Its
design required an exhaustive study of the
nature of lightning and the concerns of
launch vehicle operators. The hybrid on-
line lightning monitoring system deter-
mines the severity of natural lightning
strikes to enable decisions about whether
launch vehicles and satellites should be
tested after strikes. The system comprises
sensors that respond to lightning as do the
sensitive circuits on launch vehicles and
satellites. A sensitive electric-field sensor
detects energy much as a radio receiver
does; surface current sensors produce read-
ings that correlate with energy that pene-
trates shielding. The monitoring system
provides clamp-on current probes to moni-
tor the imparted currents in the actual
launch vehicle cabling.
Other on-line lightning monitoring sys-
tems have been deployed to support space
launch operations. They are based either on
analog technology that provides continu-
ous monitoring but lacks actual waveform
information, or on digital technology that
provides detailed waveform information
but may miss major lightning events be-
cause of “dead time” inherent in its
process. The hybrid concept proposed by
Aerospace combines the two technologies
into one integrated system. This design of-
fers continuous monitoring of lightning-
induced electromagnetic effects and also
provides detailed waveform information on
selected significant lightning events.
A redundant recording system with up
to 16 data channels captures the informa-
tion by two separate means. In the first
method, a waveform digitizer samples the
signals at submicrosecond intervals and
records the first fraction of a second of the
signal. Engineers use the waveform char-
acteristics to determine the exact nature of
the lightning threat. The second method
functions as a fail-safe backup if the digi-
tizer misses the strongest part of the light-
ning strike. A special circuit remembers the
highest electrical level attained every sec-
ond. This redundancy guarantees consis-
tent measurement of the peak power in a
lightning strike.
Engineers review the data and compare
susceptibilities to the lightning-caused
stress levels with their electromagnetic
models of the space system. They use this
information to quickly and accurately
make a launch or retest decision within a
launch time window. To help automate the
decision-making process, Aerospace devel-
oped a method called the chain algorithm.
The algorithm, which takes into account
the particular environment at the launch in-
stallation, uses specific damage data, his-
torical data accumulated in a database, and
real-time, correlated multisensor data to in-
stantly provide the critical determination of
launch or retest feasibility.
Predicting Natural Lightning
With information about past lightning, sci-
entists may predict future strikes. No one
can know exactly when or where natural
lightning will strike, but more than 100
years of statistical studies show that it is
more likely in some places than others, and
in certain seasons and times of day.
A map of lightning strikes in the United
States shows Cape Canaveral is near the re-
gion of greatest summer activity. If light-
ning probability were the sole criterion for
launch site selection, Cape Canaveral
would be an unlikely choice. Obviously,
many other factors, such as public safety,
national security, and launch vehicle per-
formance, outweighed lightning risk in site
selection. Even with the tough environment
at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, how-
ever, launches can be scheduled at times
with less lightning risk, such as winter.
Weather reports provide advance warn-
ing that enables personnel to take precau-
tions and avoid natural-lightning damage.
Threats can even be determined on a
minute-by-minute basis. A device called a
field mill measures the electric field
strength near Earth’s surface. The greater
the surface field strength, the greater the
electrostatic field generated by buildup of
charges in the clouds. Fields with more
than 10,000 volts per meter indicate an im-
minent lightning event. A lower level trig-
gers an alarm calling personnel to shelter.
Unfortunately, even several days’ warn-
ing does not always permit movement of
The Chain Algorithm
To expedite determination of whether
a system struck by natural lightning
should be launched or retested,
Aerospace created a patented process
called the chain algorithm, which
employs data from the hybrid on-line
lightning monitoring system. Its use
reduces the number of damaged
space vehicles that are launched and
avoids unnecessary retesting on the
ground.
Software based on this algorithm
can be made generic, to complement
any risk-assessment procedure. It can
also be compartmentalized, so that its
only negotiable area is system-specific
information (threshold levels, stress
profiles) that can be easily input, in
simple formats, and in an appropriate
security environment.
Many present lightning retest and
damage-search criteria are based on
simple, exclusive AND/OR logic. With
AND logic, retest and damage search
are invoked only when all sensor
readings equal or exceed a threshold;
with OR logic, any sensor reading that
exceeds a threshold invokes retest
and damage search. The AND logic
leads to insufficient testing, which is
purposely avoided because of
conservatism. The widely used OR
logic leads to excessive retesting,
resulting in unnecessary delays and
cost and schedule impacts.
The chain algorithm adopts an
intermediate approach. It contains
logic that specifies the relative
importance of all identified modes of
coupling lightning to the space system
under consideration, and reflects the
configuration of all ports of entry for
lightning energies being monitored.
These prioritizations are accomplished
by introducing channel-weighing
factors and retest indexes.
The algorithm can be applied
separately to sensors monitoring
space-vehicle circuits as well as to
those monitoring launch-vehicle
circuits, giving each contractor
information about its own systems, in
addition to overall system health.
Stress and strength information can be
given to identify circuits most likely to
be damaged. Most of the algorithm’s
inputs can be obtained in prelaunch
and postlaunch activities, so it requires
minimal real-time data processing.
Crosslink Summer 2001 • 41
5 10 20
3040 30
30 20 J
30 F 1
30
50 M
20
40 30 A
20 5
50 50 20 M 10
1 15 1

Month
J <1
60 30 20 24
70 J
40
A
50 50 60
50 S
>1
5 10 10 50 60 O 1
20 30 40 40 70 N <1
80
80 D
60 70 90 100 80
40 50
30 90 70 01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
30 80 70 60
60 Hour (EST)

Left: U.S. lightning activity map. Activity varies greatly, with mini- of thunderstorms, expressed in percent. For example, thunder-
mums along the west coast and maximums in Colorado and storms can be expected 25 percent of the time at 4 p.m. any day in
Florida. Right: Lightning activity at Cape Canaveral Air Force Sta- July. The best time of day to launch rockets is 7 a.m., when thunder-
tion charted according to time of day and time of year. Numbers as- storm probability is lowest; the best months for outdoor projects are
sociated with portions of the graph denote probability of occurrence October through February.
space resources in time to avoid lightning. that a rocket receives during the period of
A rocket on a launchpad may not launch time it must sit on the pad.
during a storm, but it still must weather the Protecting Space System Equipment
storm. Lightning measurement studies Knowing where and when natural light-
must therefore focus strongly on the ning is likely to strike helps the develop-
amount of lightning-driven electrical stress ment of an equipment-protection strategy.
Electric Field Mills
Since the triggered-lightning threat to launch
vehicles depends on the strength of atmospheric
electric fields in and around clouds, an awareness
of these fields along the intended flight path is
important for preventing a lightning strike during a
vehicle’s ascent. Unfortunately, electric fields can
be neither seen nor easily measured.
The device normally used to measure
atmospheric electric fields is a type of sensor called
an electric field mill. It can be used on the ground to
gain information about the field aloft, or it can be
flown on an airplane or balloon. Thirty-one ground-
based field mills at Cape Canaveral Air Force
Station and the Kennedy Space Center are used to
measure the electric field just above the surface of
Earth, in the lowest meter of the atmosphere, and
determine if it meets the safety levels specified in
the Lightning Launch Commit Criteria.
The small, cylindrical field mill is mounted upside down. Inside it are a rotating
metallic shutter that is grounded and a set of metal stators that are insulated from
ground and that are alternately covered and uncovered by the rotor. When the rotor
uncovers the stators, they are exposed to the atmospheric field and a surface charge
appears on them. When the rotor covers the stators, the surface charge disappears.
The magnitude and polarity of the ambient electric field can be determined by
measuring the amplitude and phase of the current that flows to and from the stators.
The Amateur Scientist column in the July 1999 Scientific American provided
details on creating a homemade field mill using trash cans, cake pans, an electric
motor, and other miscellaneous hardware.
Methods of protecting equipment from
lightning fall into three categories: ground-
ing, shielding, and blocking.
Grounding. Lightning rods provide the
primary form of grounding; they have
served as protection for centuries. Their
use is based on the premise that lightning
will be attracted to grounded metal rods
positioned at a higher point than the struc-
ture being protected. The lightning current
takes a defined path from the top of the rod
to the ground—thus the current is
grounded and it avoids the structure. His-
torically, the most effective lightning rods
were tall and tapered to a point.
At times lightning will bypass a light-
ning rod and instead hit a low, nonpointed
structure. Electrodynamics, the theory of
rapidly varying fields, is used to explain
this phenomenon. Aerospace is working
with finite-element electromagnetic codes
to analyze the dynamic effects of lightning
with the goal of providing more protection
at lower cost. The intent is to get the light-
ning current to ground with a minimum of
components. Current protection systems
require much more than a simple lightning
rod to provide adequate grounding of in-
coming lightning strokes.
A tent of wires over the structure to be
protected would work more effectively
than rods to supply grounding, while a
solid metal dome would give the best
grounding protection. Designers proposed
a dome for pad 40, the Titan launchpad, at
Cape Canaveral. Lightning could damage
payloads, costing a significant amount of

42 • Crosslink Summer 2001

 x

The drawing above depicts the four tall towers that surround pad 40 ocean spray and rocket exhaust. In the photograph of pad 40 below,
at Cape Canaveral. A network of stainless-steel wires provides a a Titan rocket launches through the central opening in the cable
good grounding path for protection from lightning. The cabling must netting. The large white insulators on the towers prevent lightning
be strong enough to survive hurricanes and the corrosive effects of energy from being carried to the launchpad.

money. However, the impracticality of a
dome for a large structure such as a
launchpad together with the billion-dollar
cost precluded acceptance. Instead, a net
of stainless-steel wires offered a relatively
economical solution. Aerospace provided
analysis and experimental data used in de-
termining the required arrangement of the
wires, which are supported by four giant
towers.
In this system of towers and wires, giant
insulators situated atop the towers prevent
the lightning current from passing down
the towers. They protect not the towers, but
the sensitive electronics in the launchpad

Crosslink Summer 2001 • 43

 Aerospace devel-
Approach road Radio-
oped a technique that frequency
could measure com- radiation
plete building shielding
Integration via a powerful signal
facility source connected to a
Airlock Attenuated large transmitting an-
fields Powerful tenna outside the build- Jets and sprites
electromagnetic ing. Prior to testing, an
radiation
Clean room exhaustive survey is
made of sensitive
equipment. Then a sen-
sitive receiver inside the
building detects energy
that leaks in. The test is
Six-foot-high arguably the most accu-
Satellite Scattered power transmit
integration antenna rate yet, but it has pit-
fields falls—for instance, the
zone
High-sensitivity powerful transmitter
receiver poses its own damage
The shielding test of the Payload Processing Facility at Van- threat and must be care-
denberg Air Force Base utilized a 180-centimeter-diameter fully controlled.
magnetic-loop transmitting antenna driven by a 400-watt am- Blocking. Lightning
plifier. The transmitted energy was scattered by all metal com- energy that damages
ponents in the structure, including wires, pipes, and beams.
The test was conducted to investigate how well the room’s
electronic components
shielding protected a satellite from powerful electromagnetic usually travels by wire.
radiation comparable to the threat a lightning strike would pose. The only way to stop a
powerful lightning
near the base of the towers, where the pulse moving down a wire is to place a
lightning current is carried. The danger that sturdy component in its way. The strongest
lightning will not be attracted to the wires component, a spark gap, can reduce the mil-
but will attach to the towers or the launch- lions of volts in a lightning bolt to a few
pad persists, however; there will always be thousands or hundreds of volts. Although
a possibility, albeit remote, that such an spark gaps adequately protect phone and
event could occur. power lines, modern electronics require
If lightning does strike the wires, it will more protection.
generate a tremendous electromagnetic Metal-oxide varistors reduce spike volt-
field, posing yet another threat to the elec- age from thousands and hundreds of volts
tronics. Humans are generally immune to to tens of volts. (A varistor is a resistor
this field, but electronics can readily be whose resistance depends on the applied Long current filaments in a lightning strike
damaged. Shielding keeps the electronics voltage.) Special diodes, including Schott- may generate beams of electromagnetic
safe from these fields. key diodes, transzorbs, and Zener diodes, energy that radiate into space. These
protect the most sensitive electronics. beams may be responsible for the upper-
Shielding. Continuous sheets of metal
atmospheric phenomena known as jets
welded or bolted together constitute stan- These diodes work well on most electrical and sprites. The beams may also be re-
dard electromagnetic shielding. In a build- interfaces, but load down or destroy the sponsible for some anomalous readings by
ing that uses standard shielding, special signal of special sensors and sensitive radio satellite sensors, so an important area of
metal doors with metal seals provide com- receivers. A new type of limiter, a PIN research is what effects lightning may have
(positive-intrinsic-negative) diode, recently on a satellite passing above a storm.
plete shielding. Unfortunately, costs often do
not permit the construction of buildings with entered the market, however, and it can
this type of shielding. The metal in conven- stop thousands of volts yet provides only a components to lightning damage are two of
tional buildings can provide some shielding, minimal load to signals. Aerospace has the more important areas.
but the exact quantity is difficult to deter- qualified PIN limiters for space use. The quick pulses of a lightning strike
mine. Conventional buildings contain gaps, Component Damage and produce a broad spectrum of radio waves
and shielding measurement must consider Radio Interference that can interfere with virtually any form
these gaps. Shielding measurements of in- In addition to working in the fields of of radio communication. Advances in com-
tentionally shielded buildings assume no shielding and blocking, Aerospace con- munication technology have led to sophis-
gaps are in the building’s shielding. Assess- ducts other forms of natural-lightning re- ticated methods of eliminating radio noise,
ing that assumption involves measuring the search. Lightning-generated radio interfer- and better definitions of the myriad forms
effectiveness of the shielding material. ence and the susceptibility of electrical of lightning-generated radio noise will

44 • Crosslink Summer 2001

enable the development of advanced radio region (the denser the
receivers that cancel the noise. Some un- spacing, the greater
usual forms of interference have not been the field). An electric Potential
decreases
associated with any specific source. Simu- field cannot penetrate with
lations at Aerospace have indicated that in- a conductor, so when “Draped” altitude
tense directional radio beams could result that conductor is an electric
fields
from some forms of lightning. These ascending rocket and
beams may be responsible for some of the its plume, the potential Surfaces
unusual interference. drop that affects elec- of
constant
Electrical components of space systems tric fields at the sur- electric
are the most common casualties of light- face of the vehicle oc- potential
ning, and learning their susceptibility is the curs not within the
first step in determining the susceptibility vehicle, but a short
of a system. With the exception of data ob- distance outside it.
tained from lightning protection devices, The high conductiv-
however, component damage information ity of the rocket and its
is notoriously variable and hard to obtain. plume causes the
A sensitive component must be tested in a fields at the leading
setup that accurately simulates its opera- end of the rocket and
tional state. the trailing end of the
To gain statistically accurate data, given plume to have similar
all the variables involved, researchers must electric potentials; the
test hundreds of components. Unfortu- voltage difference be-
nately, leading-edge technology compo- tween these points is
nents are expensive and in short supply. essentially zero. This
Researchers often cannot test a large quan- means that the poten-
tity, so Aerospace developed procedures to tial at the upper end of
determine accurate damage levels using a the rocket is approxi- Triggered lightning requires a high ambient electric field, a suf-
minimum of components. This solution in- mately the same as the ficiently large amount of energy stored in the electric field, and
volved careful simulations of component potential of the undis- a strong enhancement of the electric field present at the vehi-
cle. The conductivity of a launch vehicle causes a “draping”
breakdowns and careful selection of test turbed ambient field at condition. The undisturbed potential difference that existed over
conditions to produce significant data with the lower end of the the combined extent of the vehicle and its conducting plume
no redundancy. rocket’s conducting becomes concentrated into the much smaller distance be-
plume. tween the rocket’s tip and the undisturbed field a short distance
Triggered Lightning above it. This concentration of potential difference can greatly
Triggered lightning is a vehicle-initiated A short distance
increase the electric field at the rocket’s tip.
discharge of atmospheric electricity that above the vehicle,
connects to a cloud charge center near the however, the field is
vehicle. In order for triggered lightning to similar in intensity to the undisturbed Field Enhancement via
occur, the following conditions must be field. The potential difference that existed Surface Curvature
present: over the combined extent of the vehicle The second kind of field enhancement re-
• an ambient electric field that is high (al- and its conducting plume before the vehi- sults from the curvature of the rocket’s sur-
though its strength may be far below the cle was introduced into the ambient field is face at its tip. An electric field at the curved
breakdown value) now condensed into the much shorter dis- end of the vehicle is typically of a higher
tance between the tip of the rocket and the strength than fields associated with flatter
• enough energy stored in the field to
undisturbed field a short distance above it. portions of the launch vehicle. The reasons
propagate the discharge
This concentration of potential difference behind this phenomenon have to do with
• a strong enhancement of the field at the the way charge is distributed at the surface
greatly increases the electric-field strength
vehicle, to trigger the strike of a conductor.
at the tip of the rocket.
Field enhancement occurs in two In this type of field enhancement, then, Charge at the surface of a conductor dis-
ways—through the presence of a long con- electric fields can be said to drape around tributes itself until the net electrical force
ducting body (the rocket itself, together the rocket as a result of the way in which directed along the surface on charged parti-
with its plume) and through the curvature levels of constant electric potential near cles is zero. This balancing out occurs
of the rocket’s surface, principally at its the vehicle tend to conform to the shape of when every point on the surface of the con-
forward end. the vehicle. When this phenomenon is de- ductor is at the same electrical potential;
Field Enhancement via a picted graphically, curves representing the surface is said to be an “equipotential.”
Conducting Body surfaces of constant electric potential flow For example, consider a charged sphere;
The electric field in a region is propor- over and around the vehicle in a pattern its surface is an equipotential. The sphere is
tional to the spatial concentration of sur- like folds in a piece of cloth; hence the surrounded by equipotential surfaces that
faces of constant potential within the term “draping.” are spherical, so the charge all appears to

Crosslink Summer 2001 • 45

 be located at a point at the cen-
ter of the spherical conductor.
Assume now that our sphere
is deformed into a highly eccen-
Higher- tric ellipsoid—a solid shaped
strength something like a football. When
Sphere deformed electric observed from some distance,
field at
into ellipsoid curved the charge still appears to be lo-
end of cated approximately at the cen-
ellipsoid ter of the charged ellipsoid, and
the equipotential surfaces are
Equipotential nearly spherical. Thus, at the
surface ends of the ellipsoid, the poten-
tial surfaces must be more
When a sphere deformed into an ellipsoid is observed crowded together than on the
from a distance, the charge still appears to be located flanks. The result is a stronger
at the center of the original shape, and the equipoten- electric field at the highly
tial surface is nearly spherical. Since the flat flanks of
curved ends than on the rela-
the ellipsoid are considerably farther from the equipo-
tential than the curved ends, there must be a higher- tively flat flanks.
strength field at the curved ends. The presence of a The situation of a conducting
higher-strength field at the curved tip of a rocket in- body, like a rocket, “embedded”
creases the likelihood of a triggered-lightning strike.
in an ambient external electric field is more
complicated, but the general result is the
same: higher-strength fields tend to be as-
sociated with stronger curvature. (Note that
this relationship is not precise. The field at
any point is not a strict function of the local
curvature.)
The Strike Occurs
Once a triggered-lightning discharge is ini-
tiated by the enhanced electric field, it
propagates toward the region of charge that
created the field, carrying with it the elec-
tric potential of the vehicle. This increases
the field between the tip of the discharge
and the cloud charge. When the potential
difference between the tip of the discharge
and the cloud charge exceeds the break-
down value, the lightning strike occurs.
The two forms of field enhancement,
draping and surface curvature, are separate
phenomena. Their effects are additive.

Two Struck by Lightning

Apollo 12 and Atlas-Centaur 67 were the
only two U.S. missions ever struck by
lightning. In each case, the presence of
the launch vehicle in an elevated
atmospheric electric field is thought to
have triggered the lightning.
Apollo 12 was launched on November 14,
1969, from Kennedy Space Center in
Florida. Major electrical disturbances,
subsequently attributed to vehicle-triggered
lightning, were observed at 36.5 and 52
seconds into the mission. Nine nonessential
sensors with solid-state circuits were
permanently damaged. Temporary upsets
included loss of communication, flashing
and sounding of various warning lights and
alarms, disconnection of three fuel cells
from the power bus, loss of attitude
reference by the inertial platform, and
disturbances to the timing system, clocks,
and other instruments. The mission was
able to continue.
At launch, a cold front was passing
through the area. Tops of isolated cumulus
congestus clouds within a range of 48
kilometers reached a maximum of 7
kilometers. In the vicinity of the launch
complex, clouds were reported at altitudes
between 240 and 455 meters, with
overcast between 600 and 3030 meters.
The freezing level was near 3758 meters.
No other lightning was reported in the area
six hours prior to or after launch.
The vehicle apparently triggered a
lightning discharge to ground at 36.5
seconds, when it was at about 1940
meters, and then triggered an intracloud
discharge at 52 seconds, when it was at
about 4364 meters. In the 20 minutes prior
to launch, radioactive electric field probes
indicated that the electric field at the
launch site was rapidly varying. However,
no calibration of the probes was available.
The Atlas-Centaur 67 rocket,
carrying the FltSatCom (Fleet Satellite
Communications) satellite, was launched
on March 26, 1987, from Cape Canaveral.
Weather conditions were similar to those
at the time of the Apollo 12 launch. A
broad cloud mass covered most of Florida
and the Gulf of Mexico, and a nearly
stationary cold front extended across
northern Florida in a southwest-northeast
orientation well north of Cape Canaveral.
A squall line, also oriented southwest-
northeast, was centered over the eastern
Gulf, moving eastward over Florida. It
produced substantial amounts of cloud-to-
ground lightning activity throughout the
day, but most of this activity was well west
of the Cape.
At the launch site heavy rain fell, and
layered clouds were reported at an altitude
between 2424 and 6061 meters. No cloud-
to-ground lightning had been observed
within 9 kilometers of the launch site in the
42 minutes prior to launch, and only one
strike occurred within 18.5 kilometers
during this time. At launch, the intensity of
the electric field at the field mill site closest
to the launch site was −7.8 kilovolts per
meter.
At 49 seconds after launch, when the
vehicle’s altitude was about 3636 meters, a
lightning flash was observed. That flash
produced at least four strokes to ground as
recorded by television cameras. At the time
of the strike, the air temperature at the
vehicle altitude was 4 degrees Celsius. The
freezing altitude was 4242 meters. The
vehicle was inside a cloud with a radar
echo level of 10 dBZ (radar reflectivity
units), far below the value of 40 dBZ
generally associated with strong
electrification in a thunderstorm.
After the incident, examination of the
ground-based electric field mill records
indicated that a small cloud discharge
probably occurred in the vicinity of the
launchpad about two minutes before
launch. Members of the press also reported
seeing a cloud discharge at about that time.
The lightning strike caused a memory
upset in the vehicle guidance system; the
upset then caused the vehicle to
commence an unplanned yaw rotation. The
stresses associated with this motion made
the vehicle begin breaking apart.
Approximately 40 percent of the telemetry
outputs showed anomalous electrical
behavior at the time of the event. About 70
seconds after liftoff the Range Safety
Officer ordered the vehicle destroyed.
Substantial portions of the payload fairing
were subsequently recovered from the
Atlantic Ocean, and these pieces showed
physical evidence of being struck by
lightning.

46 • Crosslink Summer 2001

Combined, they greatly increase the elec-
tric field at the top of the vehicle, height-
ening the likelihood of an induced light-
ning strike.
With its plume, the Saturn V vehicle
that launched the Apollo 12 space capsule
had a conducting length of 300 meters,
and it tapered to a 10-centimeter-radius
nose cap. The combined effect of field
draping and surface curvature was esti-
mated to give a 320-fold increase of the
electric field. This enhancement would
have produced a breakdown field in mod-
erate electric fields and almost certainly
explains the strike induced by Apollo 12.
For the Atlas-Centaur 67, field draping
was estimated to give a 30- to 40-fold in-
crease of the electric field and give fields at
the nose of the vehicle strength to induce
lightning in a field aloft of 50 or more kilo-
volts per meter. Fields aloft of this magni-
tude are consistent with the size of the
fields measured at the ground during the
Atlas-Centaur 67 incident.
Launch Rules and Constraints
Launch weather officers analyze meteoro-
logical information to assess the possibility
of triggered lightning and decide whether a
launch should proceed. Launch rules have
been created to document guidelines for
making this decision, and they have fre-
quently been updated to reflect the changing
awareness of what constitutes a threat to
launch safety. Prior to the Apollo 12 inci-
dent, the only lightning-related rule in effect
urged the avoidance of clouds that produce
natural lightning.
Following the incident, a committee of
atmospheric-electricity experts developed
a set of rules that reflected our knowledge
of triggered lightning in 1969. The Post-
Apollo 12 Launch Rules recognized the
presence of large electric fields outside
thunderstorms and anvil clouds, and they
identified cloud types known to generate
electric fields. The launch rules in effect at
the time of the Atlas-Centaur 67 lightning
incident in 1987 were basically the same as
the Post-Apollo 12 Rules, except for a
changed altitude reference.
Shortly after the Atlas-Centaur 67 loss,
the U.S. Air Force asked Aerospace to
study the weather conditions at the time of
the incident, as well as the existing launch
vehicle constraints. An Aerospace Light-
ning Review Committee published a set of
new rules, known as the Post-Atlas-
Centaur 67 Launch Constraints, in 1987.
These constraints recommended delaying
a launch under any of the conditions identi-
fied in a set of specific, quantitative criteria
based on ground-based and airborne field-
mill measurements. In subsequent years,
panels that have included Air Force and
NASA experts have met to recommend and
update Lightning Launch Commit Criteria.
The effort to ensure that the best launch
rules are in place is an ongoing one, and it
strives to maximize launch safety while al-
lowing launches to proceed according to
schedule in a reasonable manner.
Summary
Lightning is a complex phenomenon with
the potential to substantially affect space
projects. Although we know it is the result
of the development of an electric field that
comes about through charge separation in
clouds, we are learning more about the
details of how lightning occurs. Compli-
cating matters is the important distinction
between natural and triggered lightning. A
vehicle awaiting launch may be struck by
natural lightning, but a vehicle in its ascent
is much more likely to be struck by light-
ning that it has induced.
Lightning-related expenses and delays
to our nation’s space-system launch activi-
ties decrease every year as a result of ongo-
ing research at Aerospace. Effective use of
grounding techniques, protective electro-
magnetic shielding, and voltage-limiting
components help make space systems
more resistant to lightning damage. Aero-
space also studies the susceptibility of elec-
trical components to lightning damage and
the effects of radio noise generated by
lightning.
Accurate monitoring of lightning, such
as that performed by the hybrid on-line
lightning monitoring system, helps elimi-
nate uncertainties, and, together with accu-
rate weather prediction, goes a long way
toward avoiding possible failures. The on-
going development and revision of Light-
ning Launch Commit Criteria also make an
important contribution to our effort to pro-
tect space systems. Lightning, like any
force of nature, can never be fully con-
trolled—but Aerospace works to minimize
its threats to the utilization of space.
Further Reading
R. Black and J. Hallet, “The Mystery of Cloud
Electrification,” American Scientist, Vol. 86,
526–534 (1998).
J. C. Chai, S. Monos, and J. L. Montegut, “The
Chain Algorithm for Lightning Retest Criteria,”
Launch Scrubs from
Lightning
This table shows, for Cape Canaveral
Air Force Station in Florida and
Vandenberg Air Force Base in
California, launches scrubbed
(cancelled) during designated time
periods because of Lightning Launch
Commit Criteria violations. (The data
were separately compiled at the
weather offices of the two ranges.)
The nature of triggered lightning
leads to a paradoxical situation in
which the criteria have a greater
impact on launches in California,
where the threat of natural lightning is
minimal, than in Florida, where it is
maximal. The table shows that the
most scrubs in Florida occurred for
developing cumulus clouds, while the
most in California occurred for layered
clouds. Electric fields aloft are not
monitored by either range prior to a
launch, and surface electric fields are
monitored only in Florida.
Lightning hazard ELV**scrubs Scrubs in
mentioned in Florida California
in LLCC* (11/87–3/94) (2/88–10/98)
Active thunderstorms 1 2
Cumulus clouds 15 5
Anvil clouds 0 0
Debris clouds 5 0
Disturbed weather 2 4
Thick cloud layers 5 9
Smoke plumes 0 1
Surface electric fields 6 n/a
Electric fields aloft n/a n/a
* Lightning Launch Commitment Criteria
** Expendable Launch Vehicle
Proceedings of the 24th Conference on Light-
ning Protection (Birmingham, UK, September
14–18, 1998).
K. L. Cummins et al., “A Combined TOA/
MDF Technology Upgrade of the U.S. National
Lightning Detection Network,” Journal of Geo-
physical Research, Vol. 103, No. D8. 9035-9044
(April 27, 1998).
R. H. Price and R. J. Crowley, “The Lightning-
Rod Fallacy,” American Journal of Physics, Vol.
53, No. 9, 843–848 (1985).
P. G. Sechi, R. A. Adamo, and J. C. Chai, “An
On-line Lightning Monitoring System for
Spacecraft Launch Support,” Proceedings of the
International Conference on Lightning and Sta-
tic Electricity (Toulouse, France, June 22–24,
1999).
M. A. Uman, Lightning (Dover Publications,
New York, 1984).
Crosslink Summer 2001 • 47

Cumulus clouds with tops above the
freezing altitude can develop into
cumulonimbus (thunderstorm) clouds
very rapidly. Observers have reported
periods as short as four minutes from the
first appearance of a storm’s electrical
field outside of such a cloud to the first
natural-lightning discharge. Cumulus
clouds are thus a potential threat for
natural lightning as well as triggered
lightning.
The cumulus cloud rule specifies the
unacceptable meteorological conditions
for a launch, in terms of observed
cumulus clouds. The rule has developed
throughout the life of the space program.
While the early days (before Apollo 12)
saw the complete absence of such a rule
because triggered lightning was not
originally perceived to be a threat, today’s
rule provides for launch availability while
still assuring safety. As the following
chronology shows, improvement of the
rule has come at the expense of
increased complexity. (Each item names
a vehicle or program, with the pertinent
year in parentheses, preceding the rule
printed as it stood during that year.)
Post-Apollo 12 (1970). The space
vehicle will not be launched if the nominal
flight path will carry the vehicle through
cumulus clouds with tops at 10,000 feet
or higher.
Apollo-Soyuz (1975). The space
vehicle will not be launched if the nominal
flight path will carry the vehicle through
cumulus clouds with the freeze level in
the clouds. This rule may be relaxed at
the discretion of the launch director when
electric field measurements in the
launchpad area are stable and measure
less than 1 kilovolt per meter. It may be
further relaxed provided that airborne and
ground electric field measurements meet
[certain] criteria.
Shuttle (1979). The space vehicle will
not be launched if the nominal flight path
will carry the vehicle through or within five
statute miles of any [cumulus] clouds
where radar shows virga or precipitation
and the tops extend…above the −10
degrees Celsius temperature altitude and
four or more field mills within the launch
site have changed more than 500 volts
per meter.
Shuttle (1986). No launch if vehicle
path is within 5 nautical miles of any
convective cloud whose top extends to
the −20 degrees Celsius isotherm with
virga/precipitation.
48 • Crosslink Summer 2001
History of the Cumulus Cloud Rule
–20° C
5 nmi
–10° C
–5° C
+5° C
Do not penetrate Do not
unless certain
penetrate
conditions under any
are met. circumstances.
The cumulus cloud rule specifies the unacceptable meteorological conditions for a launch,
in terms of that cloud type.
Atlas (1987). Flight path of the vehicle
should not be through cumulus clouds
with the freezing level in the clouds.
Post-Atlas-Centaur 67 (1988). The
vehicle will not be launched if the planned
flight path is
● through cumulus clouds with tops that
extend to an altitude above the 5
degree Celsius temperature level; or
● through or within 5 nautical miles of
cumulus clouds with tops that extend
to an altitude higher than the −10
degrees Celsius temperature level; or
● through or within 10 nautical miles of
cumulus clouds with tops that extend
to an altitude higher than the −20
degrees Celsius temperature level; or
● through or within 10 nautical miles of
the nearest edge of either a
cumulonimbus cloud or a thunder-
storm including the associated anvil.
Post-First ABFM Campaign (1996).
Do not launch if the flight path will carry
the vehicle:
● through a cumulus cloud with its top
between the +5 and −5 degrees
Celsius levels, unless
■ the cloud is not producing
precipitation; and
■ the horizontal distance from the
furthest edge of the cloud top to at
least one working field mill is less
than the altitude of the 0.0 degrees
Celsius level or 3 nautical miles,
whichever is smaller; and
■ all field mill readings within 5
nautical miles of the flight path are
10 nmi
Stand off Stand off
5 nautical 10 nautical
miles. miles.
between −100 and +1000 volts per
meter for the preceding 15 minutes
● through cumulus clouds with tops
higher than the −5.0 degrees Celsius
level.
● through or within 5 nautical miles
(horizontal or vertical) of the nearest
edge of cumulus clouds with tops
higher than the −10.0 degrees Celsius
level.
Current (as of 1998). Do not launch if
the flight path will carry the vehicle
● within 10 nautical miles of any
cumulus cloud with its cloud top higher
than the −20 degrees Celsius level;
● within 5 nautical miles of any cumulus
cloud with its cloud top higher than the
−10 degrees Celsius level;
● through any cumulus cloud with its
cloud top higher than the −5 degrees
Celsius level;
● through any cumulus cloud with its
cloud top between the +5 and −5
degrees Celsius levels unless
■ the cloud is not producing
precipitation; and
■ the horizontal distance from the
center of the cloud top to at least
one working field mill is less than 2
nautical miles, and all electric field
measurements at the surface within
5 nautical miles of the flight path
and at the mill(s) specified above
have been between −100 and +500
volts per meter for 15 minutes.
Bookmarks Recent Publications and Patents by the Technical Staff
Patents
J. C. Chai, “Lightning Effects Monitoring and
Retest Evaluation Method,” U.S. Patent
No. 6,175,808, Jan. 2001.
This evaluation method determines when a
lightning event warrants a costly retest of the
target system. The technique also provides a
hybrid on-line monitoring system that com-
bines analog and digital technologies for
monitoring lightning-induced electromag-
netic transients, which can possibly damage
the target system. Drawing upon prelaunch
analyses involving essential coupling
physics of lightning, system geometries, and
correlated multisensor readings, this chain
algorithm generates indices of monitored
data and compares them to critical retest in-
dices. The result of the comparison can then
provide real-time retest recommendations
following major lightning storms.
D. J. Chang, P. R. Valenzuela, and R. P. Wells,
“Honeycomb Shear Testing Method,” U.S.
Patent No. 6,178,825, Jan. 2001.
This testing method can be used to deter-
mine mechanical shear properties—includ-
ing shear-failure strength—of a honeycomb
specimen. A filler material is injected under
partial vacuum into the cells of the honey-
comb, whose ends are then fastened be-
tween opposing fixtures. A load applied to
one end of the specimen induces shear with-
out introducing tension or compression
forces. The test method produces consistent
and reliable data on the mechanical proper-
ties of the honeycomb specimen.
R. C. Cole, R. E. Robertson, and A. D.
Yarbrough, “Method of HF Vapor Release
of Microstructures,” U.S. Patent No.
6,238,580, May 2001.
This process applies to the manufacture of
microelectromechanical systems (MEMS).
Specifically, the invention describes a com-
bination wet and vapor-phase chemical
etching method for releasing a MEMS
structure from a substrate. By dissolving a
sacrificial layer positioned between the
structure and the substrate, the component
can be released without stiction. The sacrifi-
cial layer may be, for example, a silicon-
dioxide layer having a field portion over
which the MEMS does not extend and a
support portion over which the MEMS does
extend. The field portion of the sacrificial
layer is quickly removed via conventional
wet etching with hydrofluoric acid, fol-
lowed by rinsing and drying. The support
portion below the MEMS is then removed
via conventional vapor-phase etching using
a chemical solution greater than 45 percent
hydrofluoric acid by weight. As a result, the
MEMS structure is released from the
substrate without the use of an aqueous
based etchant in a completely dry fashion,
thereby preventing damage.
A. A. Moulthrop, M. S. Muha, C. J. Clark, and
C. P. Silva, “Baseband Time-Domain
Waveform Measurement Method,” U.S.
Patent No. 6,211,663, Apr. 2001.
This technique relies on time-domain base-
band to measure modulated microwave sig-
nals (which are typically used in communi-
cations systems). By converting microwave
signals to baseband before measurement,
this method achieves greater accuracy than
techniques using direct measurement at the
microwave frequency. A down-converting
receiver is first characterized using a prior
characterization method, and then the mod-
ulated microwave signal is applied to it; the
response of the receiver is then removed, re-
sulting in an accurate characterization of the
modulated microwave signal. The tech-
nique can be used to verify communications
system performance or to characterize com-
munications devices and systems; it is par-
ticularly useful for measuring the input/out-
put of nonlinear power amplifiers that use
modulated microwave signals.
R. W. Postma and R. B. Pan, “Corrugated
Slider-Washer Bearing,” U.S. Patent No.
6,224,288, May 2001.
The purpose of this invention is to allow rel-
ative thermal expansion and contraction be-
tween a precision instrument and the
mounting base plate. The instrument is at-
tached by bolts through three or more such
bearings between the instrument and the
base plate, each bearing having mating cor-
rugated grooves. The radial orientation of
the lubricated grooves allows radial thermal
expansion and contraction, but prevents an-
gular misalignment caused by rotational
motion, leaving the full strength of the
mounting bolts to support the instrument.
R. W. Postma and R. B. Pan, “Clip-Flexure
Slider-Washer Bearing,” U.S. Patent No.
6,210,067, Apr. 2001.
The purpose of this invention is to allow rel-
ative thermal expansion and contraction be-
tween a precision instrument and the
mounting base plate. The instrument is at-
tached by bolts through three or more such
bearings between the instrument and the
base plate, each bearing functioning as a
thin lubricated two-part sliding spacer. The
two slider portions are guided by a metal
clip flexure that only allows relative radial
motion, thus preventing rotation and angu-
lar misalignment of the instrument.
A. M. Young, S. S. Osofsky, “Feed-Forward
Linearized Traveling-Wave Tube,” U.S.
Patent No. 6,177,836, Jan. 2001.
This invention achieves efficient feed-
forward linearization of the transfer func-
tion of a traveling-wave tube. A lineariza-
tion voltage—derived at baseband from the
instantaneous amplitude of the input sig-
nal—is used to control the cathode voltage,
thereby inducing phase modulation to off-
set the normal amplitude-modulation to
phase-modulation conversion distortion.
The feed-forward linearization control
helps to reduce distortion, and thus im-
proves phase linearization over the operat-
ing range of the tube.
A. H. Zimmerman and M. V. Quinzio, “Adap-
tive Charging Method for Lithium-Ion Bat-
tery Cells,” U.S. Patent No. 6,204,634,
Mar. 2001.
This technique facilitates adaptive charging
of batteries, especially lithium-ion and
lithium-polymer cells with time-averaging
and time-varying charge capacities. The
charging and discharging algorithm deter-
mines overcharged, undercharged, normal,
and degraded operating conditions; it then
meters the correct amount of recharge into a
battery cell by adjusting a recharge fraction
parameter—the amount of charging divided
by the amount of discharging over one
charging cycle. This technique optimizes
cycle life while maintaining the cell at a
high state of charge.
A. H. Zimmerman, A. Prater, D. A. Smith and
J. H. Matsumoto, “Zero-Gravity Simulator
for Testing Battery Cells,” U.S. Patent No.
6,218,843, Apr. 2001.
Developed primarily for testing nickel-
hydrogen battery cells, a zero-gravity simu-
lator rotates an electrolytic device to
achieve a cumulative zero-gravity vector.
The simulator has connections for monitor-
ing the electrical performance of the device
under test to predict how it will perform
when deployed in space. By simulating zero
gravity, the apparatus can assess the opera-
tion of battery cells containing both fluids
and gases that can redistribute within the in-
fluence of Earth’s gravitational field,
thereby affecting performance. The system
simulates zero gravity by time-averaging
Earth’s gravitational field to zero on a time
scale consistent with the rate of movement
of fluids within the device.
Correction
A. M. Young should have been listed as a
coauthor with C. P. Silva of the patent
“High-Frequency Anharmonic Oscillator
for the Generation of Broadband Determin-
istic Noise,” in the Winter 2000/2001
Crosslink.
Crosslink Summer 2001 • 49
Bookmarks Continued
Publications
P. M. Adams and C. T. Hoskinson, “Phase Identifica-
tion in Mixed-Oxide Capacitors Using Electron
Backscatter Diffraction and X-Ray Diffraction,”
58th Microscopy & Microanalysis Conference,
Proceedings (Philadelphia, PA, Aug. 2000), Vol.
6, Suppl. 2, pp. 944–945.
R. J. Adams and S. Eslinger, “COTS-Based Systems:
COTS Software Lessons Learned, Recommenda-
tions, and Conclusions,” Proceedings, Ground
System Architecture Workshop (GSAW) (The
Aerospace Corporation, Feb. 23–25, 2000).
P. C. Anderson et al., “Statistical Patterns in X-ray
and UV Auroral Emissions and Energetic Elec-
tron Precipitation,” Journal of Geophysical Re-
search, Vol. 106, No. A4, 5907–5911 (Apr. 2001).
P. C. Anderson and D. L. McKenzie, “Polar Cap X-
ray and Electrons under Low-Density Solar Wind
Conditions: Coordinated PIXIE and DMSP Ob-
servations on 11 May 1999,” Geophysical Re-
search Letters, Vol. 27, No. 24, 4021–4024 (Dec.
2000).
P. C. Anderson, Y. Zhang, and D. J. McEwen, “Polar
Ionospheric Responses to Solar Wind IMF
Changes,” Annales Geophysicae, Vol. 18, 629
(2000).
G. Arnold et al., “The Space Technology Research
Vehicle (STRV)-2 Program,” SPIE Proceedings,
Vol. 4136, No. 190, 36–47 (2000).
E. J. Beiting and J. E. Pollard, “Measurements of
Xenon Ion Velocities of the SPT-140 Using Laser
Induced Fluorescence,” 3rd International Confer-
ence on Spacecraft Propulsion, Proceedings
(Cannes, France, Oct. 10–13, 2000), pp. 897–900.
S. Ben-Shmuel, “Hydrocode Models for the Analysis
of Multi-Layer Thermal Insulation Blankets as
Hypervelocity Shields,” 21st Space Simulation
Conference—The Future of Space Simulation
Testing in the 21st Century, Proceedings (Green-
belt, MD, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center,
2000), pp. 239–245.
I. D. Boyd and M. W. Crofton, “A Computational
Study of Grid Erosion Through Ion Impact,” 36th
AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Confer-
ence, Proceedings (Huntsville, AL, July 16–19,
2000).
A. Buckley, “Space Tourism—from Dream to Real-
ity,” 51st International Astronautical Congress,
Proceedings (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Oct. 7,
2000), p. 7.
J. C. Camparo, “The ‘Atomic Candle’: Progress To-
wards a Smart Rubidium Atomic Clock,”
IEEE/EIA International Frequency Control Sym-
posium, Proceedings (Kansas City, MO, June
7–9, 2000), pp. 700–706.
Y. C. Chan, J. C. Camparo, and R. P. Frueholz, “The
Autonomous Detection of Clock Problems in
Satellite Timekeeping Systems,” 31st Annual Pre-
cise Time & Time Interval (PTTI) Systems & Ap-
plications Meeting, Proceedings (Washington,
DC, 2000), pp. 111–117.
M. W. Chen et al., “Modeling the Quiet Time Inner
Plasma Sheet Protons,” Journal of Geophysical
Research, Vol. 106, No. A4, 6161–6178 (Apr.
2001).
M. W. Chen et al., “Simulations of Storm Time Dif-
fuse Aurora with Plasmasheet Electrons in Strong
Pitch Angle Diffusion,” Journal of Geophysical
Research, Vol. 106, No. A2, 1873–1886 (Feb. 1,
2001).
50 • Crosslink Summer 2001
J. G. Coffer and J. C. Camparo, “Long-Term Stability
of a Rubidium Atomic Clock in Geosynchronous
Orbit,” 31st Annual Precise Time & Time Interval
(PTTI) Systems & Applications Meeting, Pro-
ceedings (Washington, DC, 2000), pp. 65–69.
J. R. Copeland, “Overview of System Architectural
Implications of Third-Party Liability and Govern-
ment Indemnification for GPS Augmentation,”
Navigation, Vol.47, No. 1, 7–15 (2000).
J. Cox, C. C. Chao, P. W. Stephens, and L. F. Warner,
“Optical Tracker and S-Band Ranging Utility for
Accurate Orbit Determination and Prediction,”
Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, Vol. 105,
257–274 (2000).
S. H. Crain, S. LaLumondiere, W. R. Crain, K. B.
Crawford, S. J. Hansel, R. Koga, and S. C. Moss,
“Comparison of Flight and Ground Data for Ra-
diation-Induced High Current States in the 68302
Microprocessor,” IEEE Radiation Effects Data
Workshop Record (2000), pp. 85–88.
M. W. Crofton, “The Feasibility of Hollow Cathode
Ion Thrusters: A Preliminary Characterization,”
36th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion
Conference, Proceedings (Huntsville, AL,
July16–19, 2000).
M. W. Crofton et al., “Origins of Accelerator Grid
Current - Analysis of T5 Grid Test Results,” Jour-
nal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 17, No. 1,
203–211 (Jan. 2001).
M. W. Crofton, T. A. Moore, et al., “Near-Field Mea-
surement and Modeling Results for Flight-Type
Arcjet—NH Molecule, Journal of Spacecraft and
Rockets, Vol. 38, No. 1, 79–86 (Feb. 2001).
S. J. DiMaggio, Z. H. Duron, and S. Rubin, “Ac-
celerometer Spiking under Cryogenic Condi-
tions,” Experimental Mechanics, Vol. 41, No. 2,
174–181 (June 2001).
S. J. DiMaggio, S. Rubin, and B. H. Sako, “Gear
Fault Detection in Rocket Engine Turbomachin-
ery,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 17,
No. 2, 225–231 (Apr. 2001).
K. W. Dotson, “Transient Coupling of Launch Vehi-
cle Bending Responses with Aerodynamic Flow
State Variations,” Journal of Spacecraft and
Rockets, Vol. 38, No. 1, 97–104 (Feb. 2001).
K. W. Dotson, R. L. Baker, and B. H. Sako, “Semi-
empirical Analysis of Limit Cycle Oscillation
from Transonic Flow-State Changes at Angle of
Attack,” 42nd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC
Structures, Structural Dynamics, and MLS Con-
ference and Exhibit (Seattle, WA, Apr. 16–19,
2001), p. 15.
K. W. Dotson, J. M. Womack, et al., “Structural Dy-
namic Analysis of Solid Rocket Motor Resonant
Burning,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol.
17, No. 2, 347–354 (Apr. 2001).
W. A. Engblom, M. A. Weaver, and E. D Ndefo, “Nu-
merical Study of Vehicle/Pad Configuration Ef-
fects on Launch Ignition Transients,” 39th AIAA,
Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Pro-
ceedings (Reno, NV, Jan. 8–11, 2001), p. 16.
J. L. Emdee, “A Survey of Development Test Pro-
grams For Hydrogen Oxygen Rocket Engines,”
39th AIAA, Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Ex-
hibit, Proceedings (Reno, NV, Jan. 8–11, 2001),
p. 17.
J. F. Fennell, J. Roeder, et al., “Ring-Current En-
hancement Due to Substorm-Associated Induc-
tive Electric Fields,” Fifth Int’l Conference on
Substorms, Proceedings (St. Petersburg, Russia,
May 16–20, 2000), pp. 451-454.
D. F. Hall, “Long-Term Flight TQCM Measure-
ments,” 8th International Symposium on Materi-
als in a Space Environment, Proceedings (Arca-
chon, France, June 5–9, 2000).
D. F. Hall et al., “MSX Contamination Environment
During the Fourth Orbital Year,” 39th AIAA, Aero-
space Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Proceedings
(Reno, NV, Jan. 8–11, 2001), p. 8.
J. H. Hecht, D. L. McKenzie, A. B. Christensen, et al.,
“Simultaneous Observations of Lower Thermo-
spheric Composition During Moderate Auroral
Activity from Kangerlussuaq and Narsarsuaq,
Greenland,” Journal of Geophysical Research,
Vol. 105, No. A12, 27,109–27,118 (Dec. 2000).
J. H. Hecht, R. L. Walterscheid, et al., “Climatology
and Modeling of Quasi-Monochromatic Atmo-
spheric Gravity Waves Observed Over Urbana,
Illinois,” Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol.
106, No. D6, 5181–5195 (Mar. 27, 2001).
H. Helvajian, P. D. Fuqua, W. W. Hansen, and S. W.
Janson, “Laser Microprocessing for Nanosatellite
Microthruster Applications,” RIKEN Review, No.
32, 57–63 (Jan. 2001).
H. Helvajian, P. D. Fuqua, W. W. Hansen, and S. W.
Janson, “Nanosatellites and MEMS Fabrication
by Laser Microprocessing,” Proceedings of the
SPIE - The International Society for Optical En-
gineering Conference (Omiya, Japan, June
14–16, 2000), pp. 319–326.
K. C. Herr, E. R. Keim, et al., “Utilizing Thermal In-
frared Spectra of Mars for Mission Planning,”
Concepts and Approaches for Mars Exploration,
Part 1; Proceedings of the Workshop (Houston,
TX, Lunar and Planetary Institute, 2000), pp.
174–175.
K. C. Herr, E. R. Keim, J. A. Hackwell, et al., “A
Field Study of Thermal Infrared Spectral Signa-
tures, with Implications for Studies of Mars,”
Concepts and Approaches for Mars Exploration,
Part 1; Proceedings of the Workshop (Houston,
TX, Lunar and Planetary Institute, 2000), pp.
176–177.
D. A. Hinkley and E. J. Simburger, “A Mechanical
Deployment Structure for the PowerSphere Con-
cept,” 35th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engi-
neering Conference (Las Vegas, NV, July, 2000),
AIAA Paper 2000-2918.
D. A. Hinkley and E. J. Simburger, “A Multifunc-
tional Flexure Hinge for Deploying Omnidirec-
tional Solar Arrays,” AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/
ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Mate-
rials Conference and Exhibit, 42nd (Seattle, WA,
Apr. 16–19, 2001).
A. Jackson, R. Das, and T. Jackson, “Finding An-
swers to Space Industry’s Top 10 Reliability
Problems,” Proceedings, International Sympo-
sium on Product Quality and Integrity (IEEE, Pis-
cataway, NJ, 2001), pp. 333–338.
A. B. Jenkin, W. S. Campbell, M. E. Sorge, et al.,
“Orbital Debris Hazard Assessment Methodolo-
gies for Satellite Constellations,” Journal of
Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 38, No. 1, 120–125
(Feb. 2001).
J. H. Kasner, S. S. Shen, T. S. Wilkinson, et al.,“JPEG-
2000 Compression Using 3-D Wavelets and KLT
with Application to HYDICE Data,” SPIE Pro-
ceedings, Vol. 4132, 157–166 (2000).
J. A. Kechichian, “The Efficient Computation of
Transfer Trajectories between Earth Orbit and
L(1) Halo Orbit Within the Framework of the
Sun-Earth Restricted Circular Three Body Prob-
lem,” Advances in the Astronautical Sciences,
Vol. 105, 1159–1180 (2000).
R. Koga, S. H. Crain, K. B. Crawford, S. C. Moss,
and S. LaLumondiere, “Single Event Transient
(SET) Sensitivity of Radiation Hardened and
COTS Voltage Comparators,” IEEE Radiation Ef-
fects Data Workshop Record, 53–60 (2000).
R. Koga, S. H. Crain, K. B. Crawford, and P. Yu,
“SEE Sensitivity Determination of High Density
DRAM with Limited-Range Heavy Ions,” IEEE
Radiation Effects Data Workshop Record, 45–52
(2000).
M. A. Kwok and S. T. Amimoto, “Modeling HF Gain
Generator F-Atom Flows,” 31st AIAA Plasmady-
namics and Lasers Conference (Denver, CO, June
19–22, 2000).
R. C. Lacoe, C. Mayer, et al., “Implications of Radia-
tion-Induced Dopant Deactivation for npn Bipo-
lar Junction Transistors,” IEEE Transactions on
Nuclear Science, Vol. 47, No. 6, Pt. 3, 2281–2288
(Dec. 2000).
R. C. Lacoe and D. C. Mayer, “Charge Separation
Technique for Metal-Oxide Silicon Capacitors in
the Presence of Hydrogen Deactivated Dopants,”
Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 87, No. 11,
8206–8208 (June 1, 2000).
R. C. Lacoe, C. Ronald, J. V. Osborn, R. Koga, S.
Brown, and D. C. Mayer, “Application of Hard-
ness-by-Design Methodology to Radiation-Toler-
ant ASIC Technologies,” IEEE Transactions on
Nuclear Science, Vol. 47, No. 6, 2334–2341 (Dec.
2000).
T. J. Lang et al., “Average and Maximum Revisit
Time Trade Studies for Satellite Constellations
Using a Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm,” Ad-
vances in the Astronautical Sciences, Vol. 105,
653–666 (2000).
J. R. Lince and P. P. Frantz, “Anisotropic Oxidation of
MoS2 Crystallites Studied by Angle-Resolved X-
Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy,” Tribology Let-
ters, Vol. 9, No. 3–4, 211–218 (2000).
K. R. Lorentzen, J. B. Blake, et al., “Observations of
Relativistic Electron Microbursts in Association
with VLF Chorus,” Journal of Geophysical Re-
search, Vol. 106, No. A4, 6017–6027 (Apr. 1,
2001).
A. Mathur, T. M. Nguyen, and G. Goo, “Propagation
Effects on the Wideband Gapfiller Communica-
tion Link,” Proceedings 21st Century Military
Communications (Los Angeles, CA, Oct. 22–25,
2000).
J. E. Mazur et al., “Solar Energetic Particles vs.
Global Cosmic-Ray Diffusion,” Acceleration and
Transport of Energetic Particles Observed in the
Heliosphere,” American Institute of Physics (AIP)
Conference Proceedings, No. 528 (2000), pp.
157–160.
S. L. Paige, “Designing a Solar Storm Microsatellite
for Predicting Space Weather,” 2000 IEEE Aero-
space and Electronic Systems Society Conference
Proceedings, Vol. 7 (Big Sky, MT, Mar. 18–25,
2000), pp. 223–233.
R. P. Petera, “A General Method for Calculating
Satellite Collision Probability,” Advances in the
Astronautical Sciences, Vol. 105, 1275–1290
(2000).
E. L. Petersen and J. W. Murdock, “Coupling Be-
tween Internal Vortex Shedding and the Axial
Acoustic Modes in a Choked Duct Flow: New
Experiments,” Proceedings of the ASME Fluids
Engineering Division, Vol. FED-253 (2000), pp.
645–652.
E. L. Petersen and J. W. Murdock, “Secondary Injec-
tion in a Model Solid Rocket Motor for the Sup-
pression of Vortex-Driven Instability,”
AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE 36th Joint Propulsion
Conference (Huntsville, AL, July 16–19, 2000).
J. E. Pollard and E. J. Beiting, “Ion Energy, Ion Ve-
locity, and Thrust Vector Measurements for the
SPT-140 Hall Thruster,” 3rd International Con-
ference on Spacecraft Propulsion (Cannes,
France, Oct. 10–13, 2000), ESA-SP-365, pp.
789–796.
T. D. Powell et al., “An On-Line Parameter Estimator
for Quick Convergence and Time-Varying Linear
Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Con-
trol, Vol. 45, No. 10, 1854–1863 (Oct. 2000).
M. V. Quinzio, G. A. To, W. C. Hwang, M. L. Wasz,
and N. Weber, “Sinter Corrosion During Long-
Term Dry Storage of Nickel Cadmium Cells,”
39th Power Sources Conference (Cherry Hill, NJ,
June 12–15, 2000), pp. 378–381.
R. E. Robertson, P. M. Adams, R. C. Cole, D. A.
Hinkley, and G. Radhakrishnan, “Investigation of
the Deposition and Integration of Hard Coatings
for Moving MEMS Applications,” Material Re-
sources Society Symposium Proceedings, Vol. 605
(2000), pp. 123–128.
J. L. Roeder, “Ring Current Activity During the Early
B2<0 Phase of the January 1997 Magnetic
Cloud,” Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol.
104 (A11), 24,895–24,914 (Nov. 1, 1999).
G. S. Rossano, R. W. Russell, D. K. Lynch, T. K.
Tessensohn, D. Warren, et al., “Observations of
Leonid Meteors Using a Midwave Infrared Imag-
ing Spectrograph,” Earth, Moon, and Planets,
Vol. 82, 83, No. 1–3, 81–92 (2000).
R. W. Russel, G. S. Rossano, M. A. Chatelain, D. K.
Lynch, T. K. Tessensohn, E. Abendroth, K. Daryl,
et al., “Mid-infrared Spectroscopy of Persistent
Leonid Trains,” Earth, Moon, and Planets, Vol.
82, 83, No. 1–3, 439–456 (2000).
R. S. Selesnick, “Solar Cycle Dependence of the Ge-
omagnetically Trapped Anomalous Cosmic
Rays,” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 27,
No. 15, 2349–2352 (Aug. 1, 2000).
B. Shaw, B. Thomas, et al., “High Resolution Cloud
Analysis and Forecast System,” 10th Conference
on Satellite Meteorology and Oceanography
(Long Beach, CA, Jan. 9–14, 2000); Preprints
(Boston, MA, American Meteorological Society,
2000), pp. 114–117.
S. S. Shen, “Algorithms for Multispectral, Hyper-
spectral, and Ultraspectral Imagery VI,” SPIE
Proceedings, Vol. 4049, 544 (2000).
S. S. Shen and J. H. Kasner, “Effects of 3-D Wavelets
and KLT Based JPEG-2000 Hyperspectral Com-
pression on Exploitation,” SPIE Proceedings, Vol.
4132, 167–176 (2000).
E. J. Simburger, J. Matsumoto, D. Hinkley, D.
Gilmore, T. W. Giants, W. Thomas, and J. Ross,
“Multifunctional Structures for the PowerSphere
Concept,” 42nd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC
Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials
Conference and Exhibit (Seattle, WA, Apr. 16–19,
2001).
E. M. Sims et al., “The Department of Defense Space
Test Program,” SPIE Proceedings, Vol. 4136,
57–63 (2000).
W. K. Stuckey and M. J. Meshishnek, “Solar Ultravi-
olet and Space Radiation Effects on Inflatable
Materials Gossamer Spacecraft: Membrane/In-
flatable Structures Technology for Space Appli-
cations,” AIAA Progress in Astronautics & Aero-
nautics, Vol. 191, 303–320 (2001).
W. K. Stuckey and M. J. Meshishnek, “Space Envi-
ronment Stability of Tedlar with Multi-Layer
Coatings: Space Simulation Testing Results,” 8th
International Symposium on Materials in a Space
Environment Proceedings (Arcachon, France,
June 5–9, 2000).
L. H. Thaller and A. H. Zimmerman, “Selecting
Recharge Protocols for Deep-Discharge Nickel-
Hydrogen Cells and Batteries,” AIAA Collection
of Technical Papers: 35th Intersociety Energy
Conversion Engineering Conference and Exhibit,
Vol. 2, 1073–1085 (2000).
J. C. Uht, G. S. Arnold, D. J. Coleman, and K. Luey,
“Criteria for NVR Solvent Replacement,” 4th
Conference on Aerospace Materials, Process &
Environmental Technology (Huntsville, AL, Aug.
20, 2000).
G. C. Valley, “Modeling Cladding-Pumped Er/Yb
Fiber Amplifiers,” Optical Fiber Technology, Vol.
7, 21–44 (2001).
R. L. Walterscheid et al., “Zonally Symmetric Oscil-
lations Observed in the Airglow from South Pole
Station,” Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol.
106, No. A3, 3645–3654 (Mar. 2001).
R. L. Walterscheid and M. P. Hickey, “Secular Varia-
tion of OI 5577A Airglow in the Mesopause Re-
gion Induced by Transient Gravity Wave Pack-
ets,” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 28, No.
4, 701–704 (Feb. 15, 2001).
R. L. Walterscheid, M. P. Hickey, and P. G. Richards,
“Secular Variations of Atomic Oxygen in the
Mesopause Region Induced by Transient Gravity
Wave Packets,” Geophysical Research Letters,
Vol. 27, No. 21, 3599–3602 (Nov. 1, 2000).
R. L. Walterscheid, M. P. Hickey, and G. Schubert,
“Gravity Wave Heating and Cooling in Jupiter’s
Thermosphere,” Icarus, Vol. 148, 266–281
(2000).
R. L. Walterscheid and G. G. Sivjee, “Mesospheric
and Lower Thermospheric Manifestations of a
Stratospheric Warming Event Over Eureka,
Canada (80 degrees N),” Geophysical Research
Letters, Vol. 27, 2897–2900 (2000).
J. Wang-Ratkovic, E. E. King and R. C. Lacoe, “The
Role of the Spacer Oxide in Determining Worst-
Case Hot-Carrier Stress Conditions for NMOS
LDD Devices,” 38th Annual International Relia-
bility Physics Symposium (San Jose, CA, 2000),
pp. 83–92.
B. H. Weiller, P. D. Chaffee, D. G. Sutton, and N.
Marquez, “Micromachined Chemical Sensors in
Space: Result from the MNT Tested on STS-93,”
30th International Conference on Environmental
Systems (Toulouse, France, July 10–13, 2000).
C. H. Yinger, W. A. Feess, “Ionospheric Calibration
for the Single-Frequency GPS User,” Institute of
Navigation 25th Anniversary World Conference
(San Diego, CA, June 26, 2000).
Crosslink Summer 2001 • 51
Two Space Experiments

A erospace played major roles in a number of space experiments

conducted by the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.
Two notable experiments were the Midcourse Space Ex-
periment (MSX), a free-flying satellite launched in 1996, and the In-
frared Background Signature Survey (IBSS), flown as a NASA shut-
tle mission in 1991. The results of these experiments are particularly
relevant to current U.S. initiatives directed toward development and
deployment of missile defense systems.
Midcourse Space Experiment however, the visible and ultraviolet sensors,
MSX experiments collected and analyzed not requiring such cooling, continue to
target and background phenomenology function today, supporting space-based
data to address the sensor requirements for space surveillance experiments. The MSX
defense against ballistic missiles in the program achieved all objectives. extended time to account for seasonal and
midcourse phase of flight. The Spatial In- Critical functions of a midcourse sur- geographic variations.
frared Imaging Telescope (SPIRIT) III, the veillance sensor are the detection, acquisi- Aerospace was responsible for the key
primary sensor aboard the satellite, con- tion, tracking, and discrimination of offen- target experiments team, which accom-
sisted of a cryogenic radiometer and spec- sive midcourse objects. A surveillance plished the planning and data analyses of
trometer operating in the middle- and long- system design must be based on a full un- the highest-priority experiment in the MSX
wavelength regions of the infrared derstanding of the behavior and resulting program, the MSX Dedicated Target
spectrum (MWIR and LWIR). SPIRIT III, hard-body signatures (response of an in- (MDT)-II. Aerospace also contributed sig-
built by Utah State University, is the most frared sensor when observing the targets) nificantly in the areas of LWIR-infrared
sensitive such instrument ever deployed in of expected targets and the effects of back- sensor calibration and spacecraft contami-
space. The spacecraft also carried the ultra- grounds against which these targets must nation. Glenn Light coordinated activities
violet/visible imaging and spectrographic be observed. Detailed characterization and in the MSX experiments, which have sup-
imaging (UVISI) sensor system, a space- careful modeling of the signatures of po- plied an unprecedented wealth of MWIR
based visible surveillance camera, an on- tential targets and high-fidelity models of and LWIR data on target, background, and
board signal and data processor, and a suite terrestrial, Earth limb, and celestial back- plume signatures. These data provided the
of instruments to monitor contamination on grounds are essential. These data and mod- basis for functional demonstrations of de-
and around the spacecraft. Cryogen for the els are required across the optical spec- tection, tracking, and discrimination of
infrared sensor lasted about nine months; trum, over the entire globe, and for an midcourse objects.

The MSX satellite, X-band (25 megabits/second) telemetry antenna S-band command telemetry, range, and range rate antenna
built by Johns Hop-
kins University Ap- Krypton lamp
plied Physics Labo- Solar array UVISI wide and narrow field-of-view
imagers, visible
ratory, was launched
from Vandenberg Air
UVISI spectrographic imagers (5)
Force Base April 24, Instrument section: command
1996, aboard a Delta and telemetry, radio-frequency,
space-based visible, SPIRIT III, UVISI wide and narrow field-
II launch vehicle into power section, attitude control, of-view imagers, ultraviolet
a sun-synchronous beacon receivers
orbit at 900-kilometer SPIRIT III aperture and sun shade
altitude and 99.16-
degree inclination. Steerable X-band antenna Space-based visible instrument
The satellite is 5.2 (25 megabits/second)
Optical bench and star camera
meters in length and
2400 kilograms in S-band beacon receiver antennas
mass.
SPIRIT III radiometer and spectrometer Pressure sensor
Mass spectrometer Xenon lamp

52 • Crosslink Summer 2001

 Images from IBSS experiments. Left: The remote manipulator deploying SPAS from the shuttle
bay.The orbiter then moved away from SPAS for the sequence of burns of the orbital engines.The
sensors were boresighted together and pointed by the SPAS attitude-control system. Center: A
visible plume from the orbiter engine viewed by the TV camera aboard SPAS during a burn ob-
served from a range of about one kilometer; the thrust vector was oriented about 90 degrees from
the direction of orbital motion. In simultaneous infrared observations, the plume appeared much
brighter relative to the sunlit orbiter. Right: A southern aurora viewed from the shuttle.

Infrared Background
Signature Survey
The IBSS experiments were carried out on
shuttle flight STS-39, launched April 28,
1991, from Cape Canaveral into a circular
orbit, 260-kilometer altitude and 57-degree
inclination. Infrared, visible, and ultravio-
let sensors were mounted on SPAS, the
shuttle pallet spacecraft, deployed from the
shuttle orbiter to maneuver in its vicinity.
The IBSS Science Working Group, staffed
in part by Aerospace, recommended two
principal missions. In the first experiment,
SPAS observed plumes of the orbiter’s ma-
neuvering engines as surrogates for the
thrusters of postboost vehicles in their in-
teraction with the tenuous atmosphere of
near space.
Postboost vehicle
(with undeployed 17)
The orbital thrusters were operated in a
sequence of burns to simulate those of a
typical postboost vehicle in its maneuvers
during the deployment of reentry vehicles
and other elements of the payload. The ob-
servations provided a much-improved ba-
sis for estimating the infrared emission
from postboost vehicles observable to
space-based sensors.
The second mission recorded infrared
properties of liquid rocket fuels released
from canisters deployed from the orbiter.
The experiments characterized the result-
ant clouds of vapor and frozen particles,
which simulated the consequences of pro-
pellant tank ruptures in space. The particles
scatter sunlight and earthshine, and the fuel
vapor reacting with oxygen in its atomic
form produces chemiluminescence at in-
frared wavelengths. The findings of the ex-
periments contributed immensely to the
knowledge of such phenomena and their
impact on missile surveillance. In other ex-
periments, the mission yielded valuable
data on Earth-cloud backgrounds and limb
radiances and some of the most spectacular
images of auroras ever viewed from space.
Aerospace provided technical advisors to
the Commander of the Air Force Space and
Missile Systems Center, who was mission
director for this flight. The complex opera-
tions for the mission were planned and de-
signed at Aerospace. Among others,
Thomas Hayhurst, Lindsay Tilney, and
Frederick Simmons played key roles in the
program. During the flight, Aerospace pro-
vided on-orbit support at the NASA Flight
Control Center in Houston, including real-
time mission timeline changes, problem
workarounds, and operations reconfiguring.

Deployed objects 12–26

(except 17) A single scan of data from the MSX SPIRIT III in
the LWIR band from 6.8 to 10.8 microns observing
the target suite in the MDT-II experiment. The tar-
Deployed objects gets were launched on a ballistic trajectory by a
1–10
STARS II missile from the Kauai Test Facility, with
ocean impact north of the Kwajalein Atoll. The
postboost vehicle, in the upper left corner, suc-
cessfully deployed 24 objects in space, all appar-
ent in the figure. Object 17 remained on the post-
Emissive boost vehicle. At the time of this scan, all objects
reference sphere were in darkness and observed in self-emission.
(17.78-centimeter diameter) Additional deployment debris, not apparent in this
image, is apparent in the original data.

Crosslink Summer 2001 • 53

Crosslink
Summer 2001 Vol. 2 No. 2
Board of Trustees Corporate Officers
Editor in Chief Bradford W. Parkinson, Chair William F. Ballhaus Jr.
Donna J. Born Howell M. Estes III, Vice Chair President and CEO
Editor William F. Ballhaus Jr. Michael J. Daugherty
Michael R. Hilton Executive Vice President
Richard E. Balzhiser
Managing Editor Wanda M. Austin
Guion S. Bluford Jr.
Gabriel Spera Jon H. Bryson
Daniel E. Hastings
Articles Editor Stephen E. Burrin
Jimmie D. Hill
Jon Jackoway Marlene M. Dennis
J. Robert Kerrey
Art Director John A. McLuckey
Rodney C. Gibson
Thomas C. Hamilton Lawrence T. Greenberg
Thomas S. Moorman Jr.
Illustrator Ruth L. Novak
Ray F. Johnson
John A. Hoyem Gordon J. Louttit
Ann C. Petersen
Photographer John R. Parsons
Robert R. Shannon
Eric Hamburg Joe M. Straus
Donald W. Shepperd
Editorial Board Dale E. Wallis
Jeffrey H. Smith
William C. Krenz, Chairman
K. Anne Street
David A. Bearden
Donna J. Born John H. Tilelli Jr.
Linda F. Brill Robert S. Walker
John E. Clark
David J. Evans
Copyright  2001 The Aerospace Corporation. All rights reserved. Permission to copy or
reprint is not required, but appropriate credit must be given to The Aerospace Corporation.
Isaac Ghozeil Crosslink (ISSN 1527-5264) is published by The Aerospace Corporation, an independent,
Linda F. Halle nonprofit corporation dedicated to providing objective technical analyses and assessments
David R. Hickman for military, civil, and commercial space programs. Founded in 1960, the corporation oper-
Michael R. Hilton ates a federally funded research and development center specializing in space systems archi-
tecture, engineering, planning, analysis, and research, predominantly for programs managed
John P. Hurrell
by the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center and the National Reconnaissance Office.
Mark W. Maier For more information about Aerospace, visit www.aero.org or write to Corporate Com-
Mark E. Miller munications, P.O. Box 92957, M1-447, Los Angeles, CA 90009-2957.
John W. Murdock For questions about Crosslink, send email to crosslink@aero.org or write to The Aero-
Mabel R. Oshiro
space Press, P.O. Box 92957, Los Angeles, CA 90009-2957. Visit Crosslink online at
www.aero.org/publications/.
Frederic M. Pollack

The Aerospace Corporation NONPROFIT ORG

P.O. Box 92957 U.S. Postage
Los Angeles, CA 90009-2957 PAID
El Segundo, CA
Permit No. 125

Change Service Requested