11711-W365-RO-00

FINAL REPORT

PRE-FLIGHT
INTERPLANETARY
MISSION ANALYSIS

21 January 1969

Prepared by
H. S. Goodman
and
W. C. Dallam

Prepared for
The Delta Project Office
Goddard Space Flight Center
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Contract Number NAS 7-690

H. S. Goodman, Project Engineer

Approved :
R. ^J. Jo\i/6son, Manager
Space & Civil Systems Department
 FOREWORD

This report presents the results of preliminary

mission analysis of a Venus orbiter mission in
1972 and a Mars orbiter mission in 1973 utilizing
the Delta launch system. Results include defini-
tion of launch periods satisfying vehicle and
mission constraints and an analysis of the mid-
course correction required.

ii
 CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Summary and Conclusions 1-2

2.0 TECHNICAL DISCUSSION 2-1

2.1 Delta M Launch Vehicle 2-1
2.1.1 Performance . 2-3
2.1.2 Sequence of Events . . . . . . 2-5
2.2 Interplanetary Mission Analysis 2-6
2.2.1 Launch Phase 2-10
2.2.1.1 Launch Azimuth 2-12
2.2.1.2 Launch Time 2-13
2.2.2 Target Planet Phase 2-13
2.2.2.1 Target Planet Capture Maneuver 2-15
2.3 Midcourse Analysis 2-20
2.3.1 Study Approach 2-21

3.0 RESULTS 3-1

3.1 Venus Orbiter Mission for 1972 Launch Opportunity 3-1
3.1.1 Launch Constraints 3-1
3.1.2 Encounter Conditions 3-5
3.2 Mission Analysis: Mars 1973 Orbiter Mission 3-9
3.2.1 Launch Constraints 3-9
3.2.2 Encounter Conditions 3-12
3.3 Nominal Trajectories 3-17
3.3.1 Venus 1972 3-17
3.3.2 Mars 1973 3-17
3.4 Midcourse Analysis 3-17

iii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Page

1. Delta M Outboard Profile 2-2

2. Delta M Payload/Energy Relationship 2-4

3. Sequence of Events 2-7

4. Interplanetary Trajectory Types 2-9

5. Launch Geometry 2-11

6. Daily Launch Window vs Declination and Launch

Azimuth 2-14

7. Target Planet Transfer Geometry 2-16

8. Encounter Conditions for Spin Stabilized

Spacecraft 2-18

9. The Impact Plane 2-22

10. Uncorrected Miss Ellipse 2-24

11. Venus 1972: Energy Requirements 3-2

12. Venus 1972: Acceptable Launch Considering Launch

Azimuth Constraints 3-3

13. Venus 1972: Daily Minimum Energy Launch 3-4

14. Venus 1972: Daily Launch Window Interval 3-6

15. Venus 1972: Daily Coast Time Interval 3-7

16. Venus 1972: Encounter Geometry 3-8

17. Mars 1973: Energy Requirements 3-10

18. Mars 1973: Acceptable Launch Considering Launch

Azimuth Constraints 3-11

19. Mars 1973: Minimum Energy Launch 3-13

20. Mars 1973: Daily Launch Window Interval 3-14

21. Mars 1973: Daily Coast Time Interval 3-15

22. Mars 1973: Encounter Geometry 3-16

IV
 LIST OF FIGURES CONTINUED

Page

23. Venus 1972: 3a Midcourse Velocity Correction

vs Execution Time 3-19

24. Mars 1973: 3a Midcourse Velocity Correction

vs Execution Time 3-20

25. Venus 1972: 3a Midcourse Velocity Correction

vs Launch Date ... 3-22

26. Mars 1973: 3o Midcourse Velocity Correction

vs Launch Date 3-24
1.0 INTRODUCTION

The feasibility of performing planetary orbiter missions with light

weight, low cost spacecrafts has been shown; it is obvious then that the
use of a low cost booster is also desirable. Because of its proven re-
liability, low cost and satisfactory payload capability, the Delta M launch
system merited a detailed study of its adaptation as the boost vehicle for
planetary orbiter missions. This report presents the results of a study
performed to establish the feasibility of using the Delta M system for
orbiter missions. In particular, specific launch periods for planetary
orbiter missions to Mars in 1973 and Venus in 1972 were constructed. Be-
cause the primary objective of this study was to determine the feasibility
of using the Delta M system for orbiter missions, major emphasis was placed
on the launch phase of the mission. The only requirement placed on the
spacecraft was that the deboost maneuver into the capture orbit about the
target planet could be performed effectively within the alloted payload
weight. No limitations were placed on the capture orbit since a space-
craft anchored anywhere about either Mars or Venus can provide valuable
data.

1-1
ll
1.1 Summary and Conclusions

The feasibility of performing a Venus orbiter mission in 1972 with

the present Delta M configuration is established. The Mars orbiter
mission in 1973, however will require the use of the Delta M plus nine
solid engines configuration. In either case, certain modifications to
the Delta M system are suggested to insure a high probability of mission
success. These changes will provide the capability to the Delta M system
to alter both launch azimuth and parking orbit coast time during the
course of the daily launch window. The analysis in this report was based
upon the assumption that the above modifications will be incorporated into
the Delta M system.

The Venus orbiter mission proposed for 1972 consisted of a thirty one
day launch window with energy requirements providing a payload capability
of 380 Ibs with the standard Delta M configuration. Type II trajectories
are utilized for this launch period. Daily launch windows range from
5.67 to 3.75 hours. The full launch azimuth corridor of 90-114 degrees
is utilized for this launch period. Flight times range from 164 to 184
days and communication distances at planetary encounter range from 1.48
to 1.60 A.U.

Based upon a highly conservative estimate of the covariance of inject-

ion errors, 3a midcourse correction velocities ranging from 171 m/sec to
483 m/sec were encountered for midcourse correction times of 5, 10, 20
and 50 days post injection.

The Mars orbiter mission proposed for 1973 consisted of a twenty four
day launch window with energy requirements providing a payload capability
of 515 Ibs with the Delta M plus nine solid engines configuration. Type I
trajectories are utilized for this launch period. . Daily launch windows
range from 5.67 to 4.0 hours. The full launch azimuth corridor of 90-114
degrees is utilized for this launch period. Flight times range from 189
to 195 days and communication distances at planetary encounter are
approximately 2.45 A.U.

Based upon the available covariance of injection errors, 3a midcourse

correction velocities range from 82 m/sec to 203 m/sec for midcourse times
of 5, 10, 20 and 50 days post injection.

1-2
 2.0 TECHNICAL DISCUSSION
G-"-
ft,! This section will present a description of the Delta M launch system
and discuss the constraints imposed on orbiter missions by the use of the
Cj Delta M system. Recommendations for possible modifications to the Delta M
system are also included in the discussion.

[?! 2.1 Delta M Launch Vehicle

The Delta M launch vehicle is a three stage vehicle consisting of a

|fl long tank Thor-Rocketdyne bi-propellant first stage with three Thiokol
Caster II solid motor augmenters, the improved Delta-Aerojet bi-propellant
p7) second stage and a Thiokol solid third stage. In Figure 1, the outboard
^ profile of the Delta M launch vehicle is shown.

j|j The first stage is powered by one gimballed Rocketdyne MB-3 Block III
main engine augmented by three externally mounted Thiokol Caster II TX-354-5
L_J motors equally spaced around the periphery of the stage. The main engine
" provides an average thrust of 172,000 Ibs at sea level (and 197,000 Ibs
vacuum) and burns for a period of 219.804 seconds. The three Caster II
U motors are simultaneously ignited at lift off and jettisoned at burnout.
These motors provide an average thrust of 163,000 Ibs at sea level
|
| (181,000 Ibs vacuum) and burn for a period of 39.66 seconds. The total
overboard weight of the main engine and solids are 8,870 Ibs and 4,821 Ibs,
pt; , .
M respectively.
m
The second stage is powered by one AGC-10-118E engine gimballed for
|i altitude control (pitch and yaw) during powered flight. Roll control is
provided by second stage cold gas system. This system also provides roll,
Ei pitch and yaw control during a coast phase. The second stage system places
the third stage in the desired attitude and orientation required by the
p interplanetary transfer trajectory. The second stage engine provides a
H
tl! thrust of 7,800 Ibs vacuum and burns for a period of 385.885 seconds. The
total overboard weight of the second stage is 10,705.4 Ibs with a total
gj
|] inert weight of 1,738.2 Ibs (does not include a spin table).

The second stage guidance compartment houses the flight control

|j system, the radio guidance system, the velocity cutoff system, instrumenta-
tion, range safety system, tracking and power systems. The radio guidance
I system provides guidance for the first and second stages.

ra 2-1
 STA. NO.
I 1 RELATIVE x+°~ •15C 503.600
WIND X^ /
<c fin ni A \f

SHROUD

430. son" Afi n" HIA

1
rnJr
726.100
727.000
ij 760.400
C A
j4 ./ -7«l n>| A
UIA. . - to
*^ STAGE II
-841.870
880.100
6J .6 DIA. * -SECOND STAGE ADAPTER
934.100
\BQOSTER TRANSITION -978.049
UOOSTER ADAPTER
-1018.100
FUEL
^ TANK
1274.400"

1230.500
BOOSTER
1263.500
CENTER SECTION MOTOR
NO. 2
176.4 IN DIA.

OXY MOTOR
TANK N0"]

96.0 IN DIA.
MOTOR
NO. 3
VIEW A-A
LOOKING FORWARD
] 636.671

1722.00
1778.00

Figure 1. Delta M Outboard Profile

2-2
 The last stage (third stage) of the Delta M utilizes the Thiokol
TE 364-3 engine. The engine provides 10,000 Ibs vacuum thrust and burns
for 41.88 seconds. The third stage overboard weight is 1454 Ibs and the
total inert weight is 125 Ibs (no attach fittings). The third stage uses
spin rockets on a spin table to provide the impulse to spin stabilized for
thrust control. Spacecraft separation from the spent third spent stage is
then effected by the separation springs, which provides the spacecraft with
a relative separation velocity with respect to the expended third stage
motor.

In order to meet the increased medium payload requirements in the

1970 period, the Delta management has considered several up-rated solid
configurations. Included in this report will be the Delta M + nine Castor
II's solid engines where six solids are burned initially followed by three
solids burning.

2.1.1 Performance

The Delta M payload/energy relationship is shown in Figure 2 for both

the Delta M and Delta M + 9 Castors. The "useful payload" is defined as
the spacecraft weight plus the attach weight. The performance data are
based on nominal values which were obtained from the Delta Project Office
(GSFC). It has been assumed that payloads were injected onto the inter-
planetary trajectory in an optimum manner, i.e., the perigee of the
departure hyperbola is equal to the altitude of the parking orbit and the
transfer takes place at this point with an impulsive burn.

For the 1972 Venus launch opportunity, the vis-viva injection energy
2 2
(C.,) range is approximately 8.2 to 13. Km /sec for a one and one half
month launch window, a payload range of 350 to 390 Ibs for the standard
Delta M configuration.

For the 1973 Mars launch opportunity, the vis-viva injection energy
2 2
(C~) range is approximately 14.5 to 18. Km /sec for a one and one half
month launch window. This would provide little payload capability for the
standard Delta M configuration (maximum payload of 330 Ibs). It was
therefore assumed that the Delta M 4- 9 Castors configuration will be used
for the 1973 Mars mission, providing payload weights from 530 to 490 Ibs

2-3
 DELTA M + 9 SOLIDS

NJ
-P-

r - r -rrn rcn
1972 VENUS" 4-1973 MARS];
OPPORTUNITY_ ^OPPORTUNITY!
IH-'rH -H-H t-l-l-f !-

(Km2/sec2) ~4
:HT
Figure 2. DELTA M Payload/Energy Relationship n
 Launching a spacecraft into an interplanetary trajectory requires a
boost vehicle that can be launched anywhere within a daily launch
window. To accomplish this, it is advantageous that the boost vehicle have
the capability of changing the launch azimuth and coast time while on the
pad. This is not the case with the present Delta M booster. The launch
time and parking orbit coast time are hard wired in the Delta M. It re-
quires a period of four hours to make an adjustment to the azimuth or coast
time. Obviously, this time is too long if a vehicle is to be launched
within the window. As a result of this constraint, the launching would be
re-scheduled for the following day if possible. It is apparent that greater
flexibility in controlling the Delta M vehicle launch azimuth and parking
orbit coast time is required if the total daily launch window is to be
utilized. On the other hand, the manufacturer contends that from past
Delta performance, a high confidence of achieving a two second launch
window on any given date can be considered feasible. It has also
been suggested that a dog-legged second stage maneuver could be performed
and therefore achieve the desired transfer orbit inclination. Such a
maneuver not only affects the second stage guidance but requires changes in
the coast time. Degradation of performance (payload) based upon a dog-legged
maneuver can be expressed as a sensitivity of 6.5 pounds/degree change in
inclination. This sensitivity does not include any degradation of performance
based oti the coast time interval requirements.

For the purpose of this study it will be assumed that modifications

to the Delta M system can effectively be made to provide variable azimuth,
variable coast capability.

2.1.2 Sequence of Events

After liftoff, the Delta "M" booster will rise vertically from the
launch pad at Cape Kennedy and at two seconds start to roll until the
booster achieves the proper launch azimuth. At the end of the roll
maneuver, a pitch program and yaw program is initiated by the Stage I pro-
grammer. The pitch program is generally divided into phases during the
Stage I firing. Approximately 75 seconds after liftoff, the three solid
motors will burn out and the motor casings jettisoned from the basic
vehicle. (In case of marginal performance, the solids may be dropped
several seconds earlier). At 124 seconds, Stage I programmer will initiate

2-5
radio guidance. The main engine, Thor-Roeketdyne, continues to burn
approximately 200 seconds from the time of liftoff (MECO-Main engine cutoff).
At this time, the Stage II programmer is initiated. Four seconds from MECO,
Stage I and Stage II are separated and Stage II engine is started. At
nine seconds from MECO, the pitch program for Stage II is initiated. The
Stage II program is divided into phases similarly as Stage I pitch program.
At ten seconds from MECO, Stage II closed loop guidance is scheduled. The
payload fairing is usually jettisoned approximately nineteen seconds after
MECO. (This occurs at about a 60 nautical mile altitude). Stage II closed
loop guidance is stopped 298 seconds after MECO and within four seconds,
open loop guidance is started. The open loop guidance lasts approximately
four seconds. At 378 seconds from MECO, the Stage II engine (AGC-10-118E)
is commanded to shut down and the vehicle (Stage II, III & payload) is
considered in the coast phase of flight (100 nautical mile parking orbit).
During the coast, pitch and yaw maneuvers are available by the vehicle.
Near the end of the coast phase, spin rockets are ignited therefore spinning
the third stage and payload. Soon after spin-up, the Stage III engine
(Thiokol TE-364-3) is commanded to start. Two seconds later, Stage II and
III are separated with the third stage ignition completed. The solid fueled
third stage engine burns for forty-four seconds which corresponds to fuel
depletion. With the completion of the third stage, both the third stage
engine and payload are spinning in the transfer orbit. Separation of the
third stage and the payload is achieved by the use of one center spring.
After separation the expended third stage is tumbled by a YO weight.(Fig. 3).

2.2 Interplanetary Mission Analysis

The analytical model used in the generation of interplanetary tra^-

jectory parameters consists of three distinct phases of two-body motion:
(1) an escape hyperbola near the launch planet, (2) elliptical motion under
the attraction of the Sun, and (3) terminal hyperbolic motion near the target
planet. Of primary interest, however, are the mission phases which directly
preceed and follow the standard interplanetary trajectory model; the launch
phase, which involves the transfer of the spacecraft from the launch planet
surface to the desired escape hyperbola; and the planetoeentrie capture
phase, which involves the transfer of the spacecraft from the terminal
hyperbola to the capture orbit about the target planet. The ability of

2-6
CE3 CSS (Oils!!

Stage Ill-Spacecraft
Separation
Coast
I Period
SECO
\n Fairing Spin

Stage II Rockets Spinning xs

Pitch Spacecraft
Program
Stage I-U
Separation
Stage II
MECO
K)

Jettison of
Solid Motor
Casings

Yaw Program
Pitch Program
Roll Program

Lift-off

Figure 3. Basic Sequence of Events

boost system and the spacecraft retro system, respectively, to perform
these two transfers, effectively dictates the allowable launch period.

The infinite number of possible interplanetary transfer trajectories

that exist for any planetary launch opportunity are categorized by
two types (Figure 4): Type I trajectories which have a heliocentric trans-
fer angle of less than 180 degrees from launch to encounter, and Type II
trajectories which have a heliocentric transfer angle greater than 180
degrees. Within each trajectory type, the trajectories can be further
subdivided by class. On any given launch date, the minimum launch energy
separates the Glass I trajectories from the Class II trajectories, where
a Class I trajectory has a shorter flight time than the corresponding Class
II trajectory with the same launch energy. In general, Type I trajectories
are preferred over Type II trajectories due to the shorter flight time and
lower communication ranges at encounter, although constraints or mission
requirements could dictate the use of Type II trajectories for any given
launch opportunity.

The employment of realistic engineering constraints can be utilized

to reduce the essentially unlimited number of possible interplanetary
transfer trajectories to a sufficiently small number amenable to detailed
analysis. These constraints include both mission independent constraints,
such as: (1) range safety limitations on allowable launch azimuth; (2) launch
window duration and parking orbit coast time limitations, and mission
dependent constraints where the scientific mission requirements might con-
strain the encounter geometry. One of the primary requirements in any
preliminary design study is the identification of all known mission in-
dependent and mission dependent constraints and the evaluation of the impli-
cation of each constraint with respect to the mission requirements.

The launch vehicle payload/energy relationship is unique for each

launch vehicle and is one of the primary factors that can be employed to
limit the number of possible interplanetary transfer trajectories. Once
a launch vehicle has been selected for a particular interplanetary program
by virtue of cost, availability, reliability, payload requirements, etc.,
the range of injection velocities that can be considered is dictated by the
payload.

2-8
 CLASS I TYpE II

CLASS II

TARGET
PLANET
PATH

LAUNCH •.
PLANET PATH'*

Figure 4. Interplanetary Trajectory Types

2-9
 The payload/Injection energy relationship for the Delta M launch
Ii vehicle employed in this analysis was presented in Figure 2.

2.2.1 Launch Phase

ft] • The path of the vehicle on its interplanetary trajectory is completely

determined by the initial conditions, i.e. the velocity vector of the space-
fej craft at the time of departure from earth.

For any specific launch date/arrival date combination, there exists

K.I a unique departure velocity vector, termed the hyperbolic excess velocity
vector, V . The hyperbolic excess velocity is defined as the vector differ-
y ence between the launch planet heliocentric velocity at departure and the
heliocentric velocity of the spacecraft as it leaves the launch planet
H gravitational influence. There are an infinite number of escape tra-
jectories (all hyperbolas) which can have the same hyperbolic excess velocity
•^ vector. However, only a portion of these are practical for use when related
Eg
i^y to existing launch sites and boost-vehicle constraints.

Tj The geometry of the near-earth ascent trajectory is primarily dictated

?f (

y by the declination of the departure asymptote of the escape hyperbola,

^ corresponding to the hyperbolic excess velocity vector. As launch date and
|j transit time to the planet vary, the required declination of the departure
asymptote will vary. Variation of the asymptotic declination causes the
| geocentric central angle between the launch site and the asymptote to change
for a given launch azimuth; in addition, for a fixed departure asymptote,
•P*
If the central angle between the launch site and the asymptote will vary as
||
launch azimuth is altered.

| Because the total burning arc of the Delta M launch vehicle is relative-
ly constant, and the angle between perigee and the departure radial asymptote
|) is fixed for a given injection energy, variations of the central angle be-
•" tween launch site and departure asymptote require the use of a variable
•n parking orbit coast prior to the final thrust period in order that the final
?!
t) velocity gain will occur near perigee of the required escape hyperbola
(Figure 5). This positioning of final burn (or injection) produces maximum
•{ payload capability. As launch time is varied within the daily "firing
jj

window", both launch azimuth and parking-orbit coast time must be altered.
H Launch azimuth is varied so that the spacecraft will travel in the plane
''J

0 2-10
 DEPARTURE
RADIAL
ASYMPTOTE

LAUNCH SITE

BOOSTER ASCENT

. EPARTURE
ASYMPTOTE
PARKING ORBIT

FINAL STAGE BURN

PERIGEE OF
HYPERBOLIC CONIC

Figure 5. Launch Geometry

2-11
governed by the inertial direction of the launch site (at launch) and the
required direction of the departure asymptote; coast time is altered so
that injection will occur near perigee of the required escape hyperbola,
thereby maximizing payload.

2.2.1.1 Launch Azimuth

Present unmanned interplanetary missions are currently restricted to

using a southeast launch azimuth corridor from Cape Kennedy with launch
azimuths varying between 90 and 114 degrees.

This range safety constraint is designed to ensure that a vehicle

aborted during launch or the spent launch vehicle stages from a successful
mission will not endanger the inhabitants or range personnel on the off-
shore islands. For interplanetary missions employing a parking orbit with
optimum injection onto the departure hyperbola (plane of the parking orbit
coincident with the plane of the departure hyperbola), this launch azimuth
requirement constrains parking orbit inclinations to values between 28.3
degrees and 33 degrees and hence constrains the declination of the launch
asymptote, DLA, to be within + 33 degrees. For specific missions where
this constraint is unduly restrictive to the point that no satisfactory
launch period exists, there are at least three alternative approaches that
could be employed.

First, this constraint could be relaxed for a specific mission if the

reliability of establishing a parking orbit is sufficiently high as would
be the case in employing a man-rated launch vehicle; second, larger values
of the DLA could be realized within the present launch azimuth corridor if
the payload degradation associated with direct injection employing a dog-
leg maneuver or non-optimum injection on to the departure hyperbola from
a parking orbit could be tolerated; and third, a bi-elliptic transfer
trajectory could be employed where the inclination of the interplanetary
trajectory is changed at some point during the interplanetary flight.

With the present Delta M launch system, however, none of the above
alternatives is feasible. Therefore, the launch azimuth corridor con-
straint of 90 to 114 degrees will be strictly adhered to. In addition,
launch will be constrained to occur only on days when the full azimuth

2-12
range of 90 to 114 degrees is available. This will limit the declination
of the outgoing radial asymptote between ± 28.3 degrees.

2.2.1.2 Launch Time

An adequate firing window should be provided during each launch date,

because the launching of a vehicle at a precise instant in time is im-
probable due to the complexity of both the booster and spacecraft.

The available firing window for each launch day is a function of:
(1) launch-site latitude, (2) launch azimuth interval, and (3) declination
of the departure radial asymptote. For launchings from ETR, the permissible
firing window for the allowable range of launch azimuths may be determined
from Figure 6. Note that for a given departure radial declination, two
values of launch time exist for a fixed launch azimuth. The available
firing window can be extracted for the launch azimuth range by taking the
difference between the launch times plotted. These launch times plotted on
the curve correspond to a hypothetical launch date and a hypothetical right
ascension of the radial asymptote. However, the daily firing window which
can be extracted from this plot can be used for any launch date of an
interplanetary mission since the window is independent of the date or of
the right ascension of the departure asymptote. It can be seen that the
daily window can range from approximately seven to two hours in length.

2.2.2 Target Planet Phase

The approach geometry at the target planet is primarily governed by

the planetocentric hyperbolic excess velocity. This hyperbolic excess
velocity is defined as the vector difference between the planet heliocentric
velocity at encounter and the heliocentric velocity of the spacecraft as it
enters the gravitational influence of the planet. The spacecraft velocity
(direction and magnitude) with respect to the planet at a few days before
encounter closely corresponds to the hyperbolic excess velocity.

For a given launch-arrival date combination, there exists a fixed

approach hyperbolic excess velocity. This, in turn, results in specific
approach geometry with respect to Sun, Earth and target planet, and will
enter into the mission and spacecraft design in many ways.

The spacecraft-earth distance must be considered in the design of

the communication system with respect to power requirements and bit rates
2-13
0
90 92 94 96 98 100 102 104 106 108 110 112 114

LAUNCH AZIMUTH«KDEG)
Figure 6. Daily Launch Window vs. Declination and Launch Azimuth

2-14
while the spacecraft-sun distance influences the sizing of the solar panels
and thermal protection coatings and techniques that are employed. The
angular relationships also enter into the design in the areas of antenna
location and beam width locations and, most important, the capability of
the spin stabilized spacecraft to deboost with the attitude control
limitations imposed.

2.2.2.1 Target Planet Capture Maneuver

Figure 7 illustrates the general transfer geometry from the approach

hyperbola to the desired satellite orbit about the target planet. From two
body conic formulae, the velocity along each of the conies depends upon the
distance from the center of the attracting planet as expressed by the
following equations

(i_^_) jl/2
e VR R +R ' J
a p
where
V ,V = Velocity on hyperbola and ellipse respectively

R = Radial distance from the center of attracting planet

to vehicle transfer point

R ,R = Apoapsis and periapsis radius respectively of the

^ capture ellipse

V = Approach hyperbolic excess velocity

H = Gravitational constant

From the above equations, other conic relations, and the law of
cosines, a general expression can be obtained for the required velocity
decrement AV. However, minimum AV occurs when the transfer is made from
the periapsis point of the approach hyperbola to the periapsis point of the
capture orbit. For this special case, the above equations result in:

2-15
 APPROACH
HYPERBOLA

Figure 7. Target Planet Transfer Geometry

2-16
 AV = [v 2 + 2y jl/2 _ r a ,1/2
1 - R J 1R (R + R )J
P P a P

For a spacecraft with no restrictions on the deboost maneuver, the AV

obtained above represents a good estimate from which deboost fuel require-
ments and hence deboost engine weight requirements can be determined. The
choice of planetary orbital elements would then play a large part in the
determination of deboost AV budget. However, in assuming the use of a
spin stabilized spacecraft, limitations on the altitude control capability
which would restrict the deboost maneuver must be considered. Since no
spacecraft data are available, a highly constrained maneuver can be assumed.
Data will be presented for this assumption with the understanding that
the deboost AV data obtained for this highly constrained situation will,
in all likelihood, be considerably higher than those encountered in an
actual mission. These data will serve merely as highly conservative
estimates. It will be assumed that the spacecraft is oriented with
the spin axis perpendicular to the Sun-Spacecraft line and attitude control
exists only in the plane perpendicular to this line, as shown below, in
Figure 8.
Thus as seen in Figure 8 for maximum thrust efficiency, the deboost
velocity, and hence, the periapsis velocity must be perpendicular to the
Sun-Spacecraft line. If the angle between the Sun-Planet line and the
direction of the incoming asymptote (called ZAP) is equal to the asymptote
angle <j>, then the periapsis velocity will be perpendicular to Spacecraft-
Sun line.
Since
e, 2 = 1 + tan 2 <f>

= sec2
then

e.n » ±sec ZAP

This equation states an interesting and very important relationship;

for any value of ZAP, the approach hyperbola must have an eccentricity

2-17
 TARGET
PLANET
SUN

'DEBOOST * ~~
SUN V APPROACH
HYPERBOLA

APPROACH

Figure 8. Encounter Conditions for Spin Stabilized Spacecraft

2-18
equal to sec (ZAP), for the maximum deboost thrust efficiency. Further-
more, the periapsis radius will be a function of the asymptotic speed and
ZAP angle.

R = (e, - 1) -L (sec ZAP - 1)

P h w2 V

Since, for any given launch date-arrival date combination, the values
of V and ZAP are fixed, the periapsis radius of the approach hyperbola,
and consequently, the periapsis radius of the capture orbit will be governed
by the choice of the launch-arrival date for optimum AV deboost. In order
to estimate the AV required for capture for a spacecraft with the above
attitude control limitations imposed, it will be assumed for simplicity that
transfer onto a parabolic orbit is defined as our capture criteria. The
periapsis velocity of a vehicle in a parabolic orbit is given by

1/2

while the periapsis velocity of a vehicle in a hyperbolic orbit is given by

1/2

Combining the above equations

1/2 1/2
AV =
R
PJ

Then,

1/2
AV = V 1 1'
1 + 2 2
+ sec ZAP + 1
[_ sec ZAP - 1

where the secant term is positive if ZAP is between zero and ninety degrees
and is negative if ZAP is between ninety degrees and one hundred and eighty
degrees.

It has been shown above that the minimum deboost velocity can be
determined for an orbiter simply by specifying the launch and arrival date
2-19
combination when the deboost maneuver is highly constrained due to the
assumed attitude control limitations. Generally, the class of spacecrafts
under consideration for the Delta M System will not be capable of large
variations from the orbits resulting from the minimum deboost velocity.
Any increase in orientation capability will relax the restrictions imposed
above and consequently the AV requirements will also be reduced.

From the above analysis, the encounter launch-arrival window due to

encounter conditions can be determined and when combined with the launch-
arrival window resulting from launch conditions, the mission launch window
can be defined.

2.3 Midcourse Analysis

The injection guidance as used by the Delta launch vehicle is not

sufficiently accurate to achieve the targeting objectives of a Mars or Venus
orbiter mission. Therefore, some form of spacecraft midcourse correction
is mandatory to accomplish the requirements of targeting. The basic mid-
course technique considered in this analysis is the same as previously used
for Mariner missions. The technique provides for the use of impulsive
velocity corrections applied by a spacecraft small rocket motor (also used
for deboost maneuver) to reduce the dispersions at the target. The mag-
nitude and direction of the midcourse maneuvers are computed from Earth-
based tracking observations and appropriate commands transmitted to the
spacecraft for execution.

For this particular interplanetary trajectory analysis, the guidance

analysis criteria is stated in terms of two target error parameters. The
two parameters are spatial parameters which specify two components (B-T)
and (B-R) of the miss parameter (B). A third parameter, flight time error,
(ATf) is not considered in the analysis.

These target error parameters are derived from the Delta launch
vehicle injection errors and /or midcourse guidance execution errors. The
guidance analysis is based on the assumptions that position and velocity
deviations (injection and midcourse) are propagated linearly (1st order
perturbation theory) and the applied velocity correction nulls the target
position error (B) in the target plane.

2-20
1J 2.3.1 Study Approach

Injection Covariance Matrix Aj - For this study, the moment matrix

(covariance matrix) of injection errors for the launch vehicle was provided
by the Delta project office. The covariance matrix contains the complete
statistical description (variances, covariance) of the probability dis-
tributions of injection errors related to the Delta launch vehicle. The
injection covariance matrix is expressed as:

o p 0 a p .a a. p .0 a. p .a a.
x xz x z xx x x xy x y XZ X Z

p o o p .a a. p .0 a. p yz.ayo.
z
yz y z yx y x yy y y

2 p zz.00.
a p .a a. p .0 a.
z zx z x zy z y zz

2
symmetric a. p . .0.0. p . .a. a.
x xy x y XZ X Z

2
a. p . .0.0.
y yz y z

2
0.
z

2
where 0 = the variances of six injection errors

0 = standard deviations of six injection errors

p = coefficient of cross-correlation

Uncorrected Miss Ellipse - By propagating the injection covariance

matrix (A ) from injection to the target planet, an uncorrected terminal
dispersion covariance matrix (/LJ is obtained. This is represented by:

AM - *o AI <0T

where $ is a 2 x 6 state transition matrix of differential

o
coefficients relating terminal position dispersion
to injection errors, (position and velocity)

2-21
 3(B-T) 3(B-T) 3(B-T) 3(B-T) 3(B-T) 3(B.T)
8(5x o ) 3(6y o ) 3( 5 z o )
o 3(6y 0 ) o

3(B.R) 3(B-R) 3(B-R) 3(B-R) 3(B-R) 3(B.R)

3(6x ) 3(5y o ) 3(5z )
o
3(6x ) 3 6y ) 3(5z )
o
o o

injection covariance matrix

transpose of the matrix

As seen from the above matrix, terminal dispersion is expressed in terms

of components of the impact parameter B. The impact parameter B is defined
as a vector from the gravitational center of the target planet erected
perpendicular to the asymptote of the incoming hyperbola. Projection of
the impact parameter B onto the ecliptic plane and orthogonal to the
ecliptic plane and the incoming asymptote are denoted as B-T and B m R,
respectively. See Figure 9.

ECLIPTIC PLANE-

Figure 9. The Impact Plane

2-22
The uncorrected terminal dispersion covariance matrix (A^) is a 2x2
matrix and is expressed as

2
0 B.T

The matrix A^ is diagonalized by

s T
AM = LAML

2
0

where matrix L is a transformation matrix and is expressed as

cos 6 sin 6
L
-sin 6 cos 9

Angle 6 is positive when turned clockwise from the R axis and has
been choosen such that QI > cr_

1 t -1 2p RT
2
°B.T °B-R
^u
0_tJ • _
f?
O^.
H A Tr1
••• IS * H 13 * 1 — •*

The two dimensional uncorrected terminal miss ellipse is defined by the

values 01, a0 and 9. The axes of the ellipse are parallel to the
i, i
eignvectors of A^ and the square roots of the two eignvalues of A., give
the semi-major and semi-minor axes of the ellipse, respectively. Figure 10
illustrates the miss ellipse, where X and A- are the square roots of the
eigenvalues of A...

2-23
 °AB.R

B-T

\e 10. Uncorrected Miss Ellip

If the injection covariance matrix A.T is developed using la values

of the error sources, the resulting miss ellipse parameters are la.
Therefore, the spacecraft probability of impact of the R-T plane (2 dim-
ensional) within the miss ellipse will be approximately 39% of the time.

Midcourse Maneuver

Since the magnitude of the midcourse maneuver depends on the injection

errors, and since the latter is described statistically (A injection
covariance matrix), a statistical calculation is necessary to estimate the
amount of velocity correction required by the midcourse maneuver. To find
the velocity dispersion covariance at some midcourse time t. which causes
position dispersion covariance AM at the terminal time t,., A^ is propagated
backward from tf to t.

-1
-1

2-24
where is a 3x2 state transition matrix of differential
coefficients relating terminal position dispersions to
midcourse velocity components

V V V
x xy xz

V V V
yx y yz

V V V '
zx zy z

Estimate of velocity correction

Trace
V
•V
•V 2
V + V + V
x y
2
z
2

It is noted that V , V and V satisfy a joint Gaussian distribution, but the

x' y_ z 3 J '
distribution of + v is not Gaussian. In order to obtain a better
estimate of the velocity requirements, a Monte Carlo analysis should be performed,

V- + V + V
x y z V 9
, (the mean square value
of the maneuver) it may be reasoned that if a midcourse rocket can deliver
? 9

three times the rms value, then it can cope with a very high proportion of
all possible cases.

Midcourse Correction Errors

Midcourse velocity correction maneuvers are not without errors. Errors

are derived from orbit determination procedures and execution (magnitude
and pointing). These errors are characterized by a covariance matrix A .
Propagating this covariance matrix to the terminal time tft yields a miss
after midcourse correction.

2-25
 ME t.

B-T

ME
.2
B.R
As with the uncorrected miss covariance A , covariance matrix A^ is
diagonalized.

AME

where
cos 9' sin 6'

-sin 0' cos 6'

'1
tan

—\
B.R> B-T>

.,2

ME
0

As with the uncorrected miss ellipse another miss ellipse is derived

from the errors at midcourse.

2-26
3.0 RESULTS

Presented in this section will be the results of the analysis per-

formed to determine the capability of the Delta M launch system to
perform a Venus orbiter mission in 1972 and a Mars orbiter mission in
1973.

3.1 Venus Orbiter Mission for 1972 Launch Opportunity

3.1.1 Launch Constraints

Presented in Figure 11 are the energy requirements for Type I and

Type II transfer trajectories to Venus during the 1972 launch opportunity.
2 2
The minimum energy for a Type I trajectory is 12.34 km /sec for a launch
date of April 27, 1972 and a flight time of 112 days. The minimum energy
2 2
for a Type II trajectory is 8.219 km /sec for a launch date of April 6,
1972 and a flight time of 172 days. The energy requirements for the Type I
trajectories would result in little payload capability for the Delta M
launch system without the addition of strap-on solid engines, while the
Type II trajectory energy characteristics are well within the present
Delta M capability for quite adequate payload weights for the proposed
mission. Thus, a Type II trajectory is proposed for the Venus orbiter
mission in 1972. Also, a payload weight of 345 Ibs corresponding to a
2 2
maximum C_ of 12 km /sec , will be assumed for the mission. Considering
only the energy constraint a launch window of 64 days, beginning on
March 3, 1972,. exists for this mission.

It has been assumed that for this mission the full launch azimuth
corridor (90°-114°) must be available for launch to take place on any
given day. In Figure 12, the region in the allowable energy range where
the declination of the outgoing radial asymptote allows the utilization
of the full azimuth range is indicated. Notice the minimum energy launch
is not included in the allowable launch region.

The minimum energy for launch on any given day occurs for the flight
time corresponding to the coincidence of Class I and II trajectories.
In order that launch for each day in the launch period be the minimum
energy launch permissable for that day, the flight times indicated in
Figure 13 are selected. Notice that the beginning of the launch window

3-1
 trwi-'* "• i

rF 170
tt-HTtfi

C 3 =8.219

u>
K>

CLASS I
CLASS II
TWICE THE TOTAL
ENERGY/UNIT MASS

t^LSlDS LAUNCH DAT E;: ; :• f i

Figure 11. VENUS 1972: Energy Requirements
 ,n^n—«> r-—-\r

C3=8.219 KM2/SEC2 '

NOT
ALLOWABLE ALLOWABLE
r LAUNCH REGION : LAUNCH REGION

(90 -114 )
Launch Azimuth i
Constraint

- 29 fft! 5 IF i: 15 Hr-|; 20:L(

t^r LAUNCH DATE i.i Iri MAY 1
-ir^ Figure 12. VENUS 1972: Acceptable Launch Considering Launch Azimuth Constraints HifUji
rfrrttKvri-:-.: :.|: x:!-;--: If—tr^Ttr"!: u11. LUl.'^ttl-Trt^LN -l:., lu.:.;tTr7d-rTTtrrrrl-nTtTr-!7n-Ll.^ rir-r-i——n.—-h': • i • :•; M; :•; • r-f-M H;'l
 ,.....,. 1^

LO

:;!-: 14: : !:-;19 : --'241

Figure 13. VENUS 1972: Daily Minimum Energy Launch

requires higher energies than the minimum due to launch azimuth constraints.

The final launch window selected for this period consists of thirty
one days, from March 25 through April 24, 1972. Flight times to Venus
2 2
range from 164 to 184 days. The minimum launch energy is 8.33 km /sec
occurring for launch on April 7 and a flight time of 173 days. Maximum
2 2
energies occur at the beginning and end of the launch period, 9.56 km /sec
2 2
and 9.599 km /sec respectively.

The length of each daily launch window is given in Figure 14. The
maximum window length is 5.67 hours occurring on April 1, 1972 and the
minimum length is 3.75 hours occurring on April 24, 1972.

The variation in coast time for each day in the launch period is given
in Figure 15. The maximum coast time is 2790 seconds occurring on
April 1, 1972 and the minimum coast time is 1464 seconds occurring on
April 24, 1972. The largest variation in coast time for any given day
occurs on April 1, when the coast time changes by 1062 seconds over the
launch window.

3.1.2 Encounter Conditions

As discussed in Section 2.2.2.1, the planetary approach conditions

establish the requirements on the spacecraft deboost engine. Of primary
importance in estimating deboost AV requirements is the approach asymptotic
vector, VGO . For the launch/arrival date combinations selected for the
Venus orbiter mission in 1972, the magnitude of the approach vector ranges
from a minimum of 5.55 km/sec to a maximum of 5.90 km/sec.

The direction of the planetary approach with respect to the Sun is

shown in Figure 16, for the selected launch and arrival date combinations.
As seen in the figure, approach is from the lighted side of the planet.

The limited altitude control assumed for the spacecraft in this

study requires that the approach to the target planet be made in such a
manner so that the deboost maneuver can be efficiently performed. As
discussed in Section 2.2.2.1, the most efficient maneuver occurs at the
periapsis point of the approach hyperbola when the radius vector from the
target planet to the vehicle also points in the Sun direction. This
condition is controlled only by the choice of periapsis distance. For the
approach conditions obtained for the selected launch window, however, the
desired periapsis distance for the most effective deboost generally

3-5
M-W-y™^

WFfPpff
4f.-- End Of Daily Windows

m
Beginning Of Daily Windows

:-i',' 14 [-n 16 LH118 J H r 2 0 m ! 22

Figure 14. VENUS 1972: Daily Launch Window Interval

 1
•-J

Figure VENUS 1972: Daily Coast Time Interval

DIRECTION TO
SUN
X-'
145°-150°
DIRECTION
TO SUN /

DIRECTION OF
APPROACH ASYMPTOTE
VENUS

Figure 16. VENUS 1972: Encounter Geometry

3-8
results in an impact condition. By selecting periapsis distances above
the planet radius, the AV loss when the deboost maneuver is performed at
periapsis becomes sufficient enough to make the AV requirement for capture
unreasonable. Further study would be required to determine the optimum
position on the approach hyperbola to perform the deboost maneuver should
the attitude control limitations remain in effect.

Communication distance at the time of encounter is dependent only

upon the arrival date at the target planet. For the arrival dates in the
selected launch window, the communication distance at encounter ranges
from 1.48 A.U. to 1.60 A.U.

3.2 Mission Analysis: Mars 1973 Orbiter Mission

3.2.1 Launch Constraints

Presented in Figure 17 are the energy requirements for Type I transfer

trajectories to Mars during the 1973 launch opportunity. Type II traject-
ories for this launch period are not feasible from energy considerations
and are therefore not shown.
2 2
The minimum energy for a Type I trajectory is 14.434 km /sec for a
launch date of July 29, 1973 and a flight time of 193 days. Considering
the payload/energy requirements of the Delta M launch system shown in
Figure 2, the standard Delta M launch system would provide little payload
for a 1973 Mars orbiter mission. Thus, it will be assumed that the Delta
M with nine solids configuration will be the launch vehicle for this
mission. A payload weight of 475 pounds will be assumed, allowing the
2 2
Delta M + nine solid configuration to achieve a C~ of 16km /sec . Thus,
based solely on energy considerations, a launch window of 24 days be-
ginning on July 16, 1973 exists for this mission.

It has been assumed that for this mission the full launch azimuth
corridor (90° to 114°) must be available for launch to take place on any
given day. In Figure 18, the region in the allowable energy range where
the declination of the outgoing radial asymptote allows the utilization of
the full azimuth range is indicated. Notice that the minimum energy
launch is not included in the allowable launch region.

The minimum energy for launch on any given day occurs for the flight

3-9
 (•-:(••.. -n.,1

I
M
O

CLASS I
C-,= 14.434 CLASS II
•J i^..i-t.j. >.!. j_t_a.i_i_ i_
TWICE THE TOTAL
ENERGY/UNIT MASSf
~(KM2/SEC2)

LAUNCH DATE t
1 Figure 17 1973: Energy Requirements
 fail*
ste

f NOT ALLOWABLE
iLAUNCH WINDOW

ALLOWABLE LAUNCH
WINDOW

OJ-i Figure 18. MARS 1973: Acceptable Launch Considering Launch Azimuth Constraints;
time corresponding to the coincidence of Class I and II trajectories. In
order that launch for each day in the launch period be the minimum energy
launch permissable for that day, the flight times indicated in Figure 19
are selected. Notice that the beginning of the launch window requires
higher energies than the minimum due to the launch azimuth constraints.
This period from July 16, 1972 to August 10, 1972 represents the accept-
able launch period for this mission based upon present assumed launch
constraints. Flight times to Mars range from 195 to 189 days. The
2 2
minimum launch energy is 14.44 km /sec occurring for launch on July 29,
1972 and with a flight time of 173 days. Maximum energies occur at the
2 2
beginning and end of the launch period and are slightly under 16 km /sec .
The length of each daily launch window is given in Figure 20. The maximum
window length is 5.67 hours occurring on July 22, 1973.

The variation in coast time for each day is given in Figure 21.
The maximum coast time is 2904 seconds occurring on April 22, 1973 and
the minimum coast time is 1728 seconds occurring on August 9, 1973. The
largest variation in coast time for any given day occurs on July 22, 1973,
when the coast time changes by 1080 seconds over the launch window.

3.2.2 Encounter Conditions

For the launch/arrival date combinations selected for the Mars orbiter
mission in 1973, the magnitude of the approach vector ranges from a maximum
of 3.45 km/sec to a minimum of 2.67 km/sec. The direction of the planetary
approach with respect to the sun is shown in Figure 22, for the selected
launch and arrival date combinations. As seen in the figure, approach
is from the lighted side of the planet.

As in the case of the Venus mission the Mars deboost maneuver cannot
be performed in the optimum manner for an orbiter mission. Further study
should be made to determine the velocity requirements under these encounter
conditions.

Communication distance at the time of encounter is dependent only

upon the arrival date at the target planet. For the arrival dates in the
selected launch window, the communication distance at encounter is
approximately 2.45 A.U.

3-12
 rf-rrr-rr*-* f/yr—-; v^ irwTisJwwg »^» «•>»•: .*M (j"-*!a?r?i

SELECTED :
sMinimum Energy ; FLIGHT S
TIME

U)
M
Launch Azimuth: f^-Lujinum Energy
U> toHS4±;ti:i;ltJ-,m, g":

ms.
'SELECTED LAUNCH WINDOW

19, MARS 1973: Minimum Energy Launch

 l.r.,1!.1 '?M. <l
flr;r»r"r3-l..'"l pW* «''*.?»

OF DAILY WINDOW'lr
±L.-- hHtitila:

4: DAILY LAUNCH WINDOW

U>

: BEGINNING OF DAILY WINDOW if!i

4-.; LL.J. ^^

ftt- 26 -:r 28 i-P-30

'LAUNCH DATE|rrj~ , , . ;|.p. .• n
Figure 20. MARS 1973: Daily Launch Window Interval ...J-LELi:
. t^T^ ufpr + i*m
I

BEGIN COAST TIME Li

OJ
I

Figure 21. MARS 1973: Daily Time Interval

 DIRECTION
OF APPROACH
ASYMPTOTE
DIRECTION
TO SUN

DIRECTION
TO SUN

\e 22.

3-16
3.3 Nominal Trajectories

3.3.1 Venus 1972

So that a more detailed examination of a typical Venus 1972 launch

opportunity trajectory can made, an integrated trajectory was computed.
The approximate middle of the selected 1972 launch opportunity was
selected for this purpose. This trajectory corrresponds to the minimum
launch energy trajectory in the launch window. The planetary encounter
conditions selected represent favorable conditions for the deboost
maneuver to be performed with the limited attitude control spacecraft.

Presented in Table 1 are the parameters at interplanetary inject-

ion obtained from the precision integrated trajectory for the center of
the 1972 Venus launch window.

3.3.2 Mars 1973

The center of the Mars 1973 window, corresponding to the minimum

energy launch was selected for a more detailed examination.

Presented in Table 2 are the trajectory parameters obtained for

this trajectory from the precision integrated data.

3.4 Midcourse Analysis

In order to null the position errors at the target planet, a single

midcourse maneuver is performed. This analysis basically sizes the mid-
course propellant requirements. It is acknowledged, that the maneuver
is not without errors and therefore, the position errors are not completely
nulled. In a more detailed midcourse analysis, additional midcourse
corrections would be studied.

In this study, single midcourse connections were considered at 5,

10, 20 and 50 days after injection for both Venus and Mars missions.
In Figures 23 and 24, the midcourse velocity correction versus the time
of execution is shown. The velocity correction was obtained from the
velocity dispersion covariance matrix by taking the rms of the maneuver
V
o
x
9
y
2
V + V + V ). It is noted, that although V , V , V satisfy a
z x y z
joint gaussian distribution, the distribution of AV is not gaussian. The
calculation of the distribution function of the magnitude of the maneuver

3-17
II

TABLE 1. VENUS 1972: NOMINAL TRAJECTORY DATA

LAUNCH DATE 7 APRIL 1972

INJECTION TIME 4 HOURS 49 MINUTES 48. SECONDS
FLIGHT TIME 172.8125 DAYS

INJECTION STATE VECTOR DECLINATION = -30.27918 DEC

RIGHT ASCENSION = 329.3778 DEC
FLIGHT ANGLE = 88.41476 DEC
AZIMUTH = 84.92611 DEG
RANGE <= 7016 KM
VELOCITY = 11.04331 KM/SEC

INJECTION ENERGY 8.3278127 KM2/SEC2

TABLE 2. MARS 1973: NOMINAL TRAJECTORY DATA

LAUNCH DATE 28 JULY 1973

INJECTION TIME 14 HOURS 39 MINUTES 53. SECONDS
FLIGHT TIME 192.38194 DAYS

INJECTION STATE VECTOR DECLINATION = -28.60863 DEG

RIGHT ASCENSION = 251.8243 DEG
FLIGHT ANGLE = 88.02053 DEG
AZIMUTH = 78.54887 DEG
RANGE = 7016. KM
VELOCITY = 11.31169 KM/SEC

INJECTION ENERGY 14.327398 KM2/SEC2

3-18
 ::^±i 500

^£=300

• ' . I. I -- [ """^

-30 I±— rrcrh- 40--

FROM INJECTION1
^ .
Figure 23. VENUS 1972: 3o Midcourse Velocity Correction vs Execution Time

3-19
L
 |:DAYS FROM INJECTION K;:^^
Figure 24. MARS 1973 3o Midcourse Velocity Correction vs Execution ^Cime
BFJUJIw hl^^ -"jffii^t'" qj^

3-20
can be acquired through a Monte Carlo stimulation in a detailed study. It
is shown in Figures 23 and 24, that for launches occurring at the beginning,
middle and the end of the launch window, the velocity correction require-
ment for the midcourse maneuver increases with the time from injection.

For the Venus mission, launching at the beginning of the window re-
quires the least amount of AV for any selected time. See Figure 25.
Requirements for AV increase as the middle of the window is reached and
then slightly decrease at the end of the window.

For the Mars mission, launching at the beginning of the window requires
the least amount of AV for any selected time. See Figure 26. Greater
AV for midcourse maneuvers is required at the end of the launch window.

3-21
AV MIDCOURSE VELOCITY CORRECTION
1*1 J» 'Tr^ JJ'I.¥'La 1»-«".JI* »« Wr« I »! .'$ .^ K^H'J,^ 1'J'AI £r.'."" M »"«

iiLiiTl-iTFSifSt^tirlTnfli^ f:.|; i\& 1^>

RT||-50 DAYS FROM INJECTION "T

-.- •- E_i
-pi±M|150
rTi r i h i r i ,

20 DAYS FROM INJECTION 1

1
N3
SteMH»lt«i
CO t|10 DAYS FROM INJECTION^

;T 5 DAYS FROM INJECTION'

H-f

$g p41. .HliiHl

UfcrnSW LAUNCH WINDOW POSITION 11 •! u i ; ; : ;

Figure 26. MARS 1973: 3a Midcourse Velocity Correction vs Launch Date