Three Orbital Burns to Molniya Orbit via Shuttle/Centaur G Upper Stage

Abstract

An unclassified analytical trajectory design, performance, and mission study was done for the 1982-86 joint NASA-USAF Shuttle/Centaur G upper stage development program to send performance-demanding payloads to high orbits such as Molniya using an unconventional orbit transfer. This optimized three orbital burn transfer to Molniya orbit was compared to the then-baselined two burn transfer. The results of the three dimensional trajectory optimization performed include powered phase steering data and coast phase orbital element data. Time derivatives of the orbital elements as functions of thrust components were evaluated and used to explain the optimization's solution. Vehicle performance as a function of parking orbit inclination was given. Performance and orbital element data was provided for launch windows as functions of launch time. Ground track data was given for all burns and coasts including variation within the launch window. It was found that a Centaur with fully loaded propellant tanks could be flown from a 37deg inclination low Earth parking orbit and achieve Molniya orbit with comparable performance to the baselined transfer which started from a 57deg inclined orbit: 9,545 lb vs. 9,552 lb of separated spacecraft weight respectively. There was a significant reduction in the need for propellant launch time reserve for a one hour window: only 78 lb for the three burn transfer vs. 320 lb for the two burn transfer. Conversely, this also meant that longer launch windows over more orbital revolutions could be done for the same amount of propellant reserve. There was no practical difference in ground tracking station or airborne assets needed to secure telemetric data, even though the geometric locations of the burns varied considerably. There was a significant adverse increase in total mission elapsed time for the three vs. two burn transfer (12 vs. 11/4 hrs), but could be accommodated by modest modifications to Centaur systems. Future applications were discussed. The three burn transfer was found to be a viable, arguably preferable, alternative to the two burn transfer.