Advertisement

Reference Data and Definitions

  • Herbert J. Kramer
Chapter

Abstract

The following table contains the “EO” missions (in alphabetical order according to mission acronym) that were launched after the 3rd edition was published in early 1996. Excepted are Shuttle launches and GPS/GLONASS launches, each of these series has its own launch table in this volume. There is no claim for completeness.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1896).
    Charles Elachi, “Introduction to the Physics and Techniques of Remote Sensing,” John Wiley & Sons, 1987, Chapters 1–1 and 8–8.Google Scholar
  2. 1897).
    See chapter 5 in ‘The Interdisciplinary Role of Space Geodesy,’ Springer Verlag, 1987, pp. 164–165Google Scholar
  3. 1898).
    Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, Academic Press, 1987Google Scholar
  4. 1899).
    NASA ‘Topographic Science Report,’ 1988, p. 46Google Scholar
  5. 1900).
    Manual of Remote Sensing, Second Edition, American Society of Photogrammetry, 1983, p. 41Google Scholar
  6. 1901).
    C. L. Wyatt, “Radiometry,” in Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, Vol. 11, 1987, pp. 738–749Google Scholar
  7. 1902).
    Courtesy of J. M. Palmer, University of Arizona, Tucson; published in: J. M. Palmer, “Calibration of satellite sensors in the thermal infrared,” 108 / SPIE Vol. 1762 Infrared Technology XVIII, 1992Google Scholar
  8. 1903).
    S. Riley, N. Howard, E. Aardoom, P. Daly, P. Silvestrin, “A Combined GPS/GLONASS High Precision Receiver for Space Application,” Proceedings of ION GPS-95, Sept. 12–15, 1995, Palm Springs, CA, pp. 835–844Google Scholar
  9. 1904).
    Note: The radio occultation technique was initially invented in the early 1960s by NASA/JPL in its planetary exploration programs to Venus, Mars and later to the outer planets.Google Scholar
  10. 1905).
    Courtesy of Ch. Elachi, JPLGoogle Scholar
  11. 1906).
    Note: The name ‘Mdicon” was coined in the early 1950s at RCA Laboratories to distinguish the electron-beam tubes from the phptoemissive tubes.Google Scholar
  12. 1907).
    P. H. Swain, S. M. Bavis, “Remote Sensing: The Quantitative Approach,” McGraw-Hill, 1978, pp. 106–107Google Scholar
  13. 1908).
    P. K. Weimer, et al., “The Vidicon Photoconductive Camera Tube,” Electronics, May 1950, pp. 70–73Google Scholar
  14. 1909).
    The interested reader is referred to chapter 3 of the book: “The Infrared & Electro-Optical Systems Handbook,” W. D. Rogatto, editor, Vol. 3, Electro-Optical Components, copublished by ERIM and SPIE, 1993Google Scholar
  15. 1910).
    Flying Spot information provided by David L. Glackin of The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CAGoogle Scholar
  16. 1911).
    Note: In a pushbroom line array, the “frame” is represented by a single line of CCD detectors covering the swath width. In a multispectral or hyperspectral design, the “frame” is represented by an area array, where each line of the CCD detectors covers the swath width of a particular spectral band.Google Scholar
  17. 1912).
    “The Future of Remote Sensing from Space: Civilian Satellite Systems and Applications,” Office of Technology Assessment, US Congress, OTA-ISC-558, ISBN 0–16–041884–4, July 1993, pp. 142–143, original source: SBRCGoogle Scholar
  18. 1913).
    G. Schwarz, M. Datcu, “High Resolution Imaging Methods: A Comparison of Optical and SAR Techniques,” The European Symposium on Remote Sensing, Barcelona, Spain, 21–25 Sept. 1998, SPIE, Vol. 3500Google Scholar
  19. 1914).
    R Nagura, “SN Improvement Ratio by Time Delay and Integration for High-Resolution Earth Observation System,” Electronics and Communications in Japan, Part 1, Vol. 78, No. 3, 1995Google Scholar
  20. 1915).
    Information provided by S. Kilston of Space Imaging Eosat of Thornton, COGoogle Scholar
  21. 1916).
    C. T. Elliott, D. Day, D. J. Wilson, “An Integrating Detector for Serial Scan Thermal Imaging,” Infrared Physics, Vol. 22, 1982, pp. 31–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 1917).
    A. Blackburn, et al, “The Practical Realization and Performance of SPRITE Detectors,” Infrared Physics, Vol. 22, 1982, pp. 57–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 1918).
    M. Schlessinger, “Infrared Technology Fundamentals,” 2nd edition, 1995, Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, Basel, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  24. 1919).
    A. Doctor, “MEMS Technology Based Sensors for Payload Instruments and Attitude Control for Small Satellites,” Proceedings of the 14th AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites, Logan, UT, Aug. 21–24, 2000, SSC00-III-4Google Scholar
  25. 1920).
    A Rogalskij “Comparison of the performance of quantum well and conventional bulk infrared photodetectors,” Infrared Physics & Technology, Vol. 38, 1997, pp. 295–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 1921).
    J. R. Jensen, et al., “The Application of Quantum-Well Modulators in Satellite Instrument Design,” Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, Vol. 15, No. 1, 1994, pp. 7–17Google Scholar
  27. 1922).
    M. J. Post, “Development of Coherent Laser Radar,” Proceedings of IGARSS’94, August 8–12, 1994, Pasadena, CA, Volume II, pp. 923–925Google Scholar
  28. 1923).
    G. W. Schwab, “Heterodyne spectrometers,” Infrared Physics & Technology, Vol 40, 1999, pp. 207–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 1924).
    Note: CCD fabrication is based on NMOS technology because the surface layer consists of an n-type region.Google Scholar
  30. 1925).
    “An Introduction to Scientific Imaging Charge-Coupled Devices,” of SITe, http://www.site-inc.com/tutorial.htm
  31. 1926).
    Information received from James Janesick of Pixel Vision Inc.Google Scholar
  32. 1927).
    Courtesy of Bart Dierickx of IMEC, Leuven, Belgium [presented at the IEEE Workshop on CCD&AIS (Advanced Imaging Sensors), June 4, 1997]. Note: Noise photons is defined as: noise photons = noise electrons / (quantum efficiency × fill factor)Google Scholar
  33. 1928).
    W. D. Rogatto, “The Infrared &Electro-Optical Systems Handbook, Vol. 3, Electro-Optical Components” Co-published by ERIM and SPIE, 1993, p. 251Google Scholar
  34. 1929).
    Special Section: “Semiconductor Infrared Detectors,” Optical Engineering, May 1994, pp. 1392–1510Google Scholar
  35. 1930).
    Special Section: “Infrared Technology — Part 2,” Optical Engineering, March 1994, Vol. 33, No. 3Google Scholar
  36. 1931).
    Special Section: “Infrared Technology — Part 1,” Optical Engineering, January 1994, Vol. 33, No. 1Google Scholar
  37. 1932).
    S. Komiyama, O. Astafiev, V. Antonov, T. Kutsuwa, H. Hirai, “A single-photon detector in the far-infrared range,” Nature, Vol. 403, Jan. 27, 2000, pp. 405–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 1933).
    L. Kouwenhoven, “One photon seen by one electron,” Nature, Vol 403, Jan. 27, 2000, pp. 374–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 1934).
    R. Fitzgerald, “A Photon-Activated Switch Detects Single Far-Infrared Photons,” Physics Today, March 2000, pp. 20–21Google Scholar
  40. 1935).
    V E. Pozhar, V. I. Pustovoit, “Acöusto-optical spectrometers,” Proceedings of the XIV International Conference on Geomagnetic Electronics and Electrodynamics, Section of Spin-Electronics, Moscow, Firsanovka, Nov. 13–16, 1998, Vol. 2, pp. 365–381Google Scholar
  41. 1936).
  42. 1937).
    S. E. Harris, R. W. Wallace, “Acousto-optic tunable filter,” Journal of the Optical Society of America, Vol. 59, 1969, pp. 744–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 1938).
    V. E. Pozhar, V. I. Pustovoit, “Main features of image transition through acousto-optical filter,” Photonics and Optoelectronics, Vol. 2, 1997, pp. 67–77Google Scholar
  44. 1939).
    J. Yu, T. H. Chao, L. J. Cheng, “AOTF imaging spectrometer for NASA applications: System issues”, Proceedings of SPIE, Vol. 1347, 1990, pp. 644–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 1940).
    D. R. Suhre, M. Gottlieb, L. H. Taylor, N. T. Melamed, “Spatial resolution of imaging noncollinear acousto-optic tunable filters”, Optical Engineering, Vol. 31, 1992, pp. 2118–2121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 1941).
    Manual of Remote Sensing, Second Edition, American Society of Photogrammetry, 1983, pp. 20–26Google Scholar
  47. 1942).
    The SQUID was invented by James E. Zimmermann and Arnold Silver of the Scientific Laboratory of Ford Motor Co. in 1964Google Scholar
  48. 1943).
    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/adv_tech/coolers/summary.htm
  49. 1944).
    http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/tmsb/stirling.html
  50. 1945).
  51. 1946).
  52. 1947).
    http://ranier.oact.hq.nasa.gov/Sensors_page/Cryo/CryoPT/CryoPTHist.html
  53. 1948).
    R. I. Epstein, M. I. Buchwald, B. C. Edwards, T. R. Gosnell, C. E. Mungan, “Observation of Laser-Induced Fluorescent Cooling of Solids,” Nature, Oct. 12, 1995, p. 500Google Scholar
  54. 1949).
    T. R. Gosnell, C. E. Mungan, et al., “Laser Cooling of Solids,” Proceedings of the joint Conference on Lasers & Electro-Optics (CLEO) and Quantum Electronics & Laser Science (QELS), May 25, 1995, Baltimore, MDGoogle Scholar
  55. 1950).
    B. C. Edwards, M. I. Buchwald, R. I. Epstein, “Development of the Los Alamos solid-state optical refrigerator,” Review of Scientific Instruments, Vol. 69, No 5, May, 1998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 1951).
    B. C. Edwards, M. I. Buchwald, et al., “Development of a Fluorescent Cryocooler,” Proceedings of the 9th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites, Sept. 20, 1995, Logan, UTGoogle Scholar
  57. 1952).
    Ch. Elachi, “Earth Surface Sensing in the ’90s,” Progress in Imaging Sensors, Proc. ISPRS Symposium, Stuttgart, September 1–5, 1986, ESA SP-252, November 1986, pp. 1–9Google Scholar
  58. 1953).
  59. 1954).
    P. Hartough, Solar System Research with Microwaves,” Proceedings of 32nd ESLAB Symposium on ‘Remote Sensing Methodology for Earth Observation and Planetary Exploration,’ ESA/ESTEC, Sept. 15–18, 1998 (SP-423 Dec. 1998), pp. 23–31Google Scholar
  60. 1955).
    W. T. Kreiss, I. Galin, “Millimeter wave sounders/imagers for spaceborne Earth observations and reconnaissance,” Proceedings of SPIE, April 21–22, 1997, Orlando, FL, Vol. 3064 pp. 54–62Google Scholar
  61. 1956).
    The table of E. G. Njoku has been updated: “Passive Microwave Remote Sensing of the Earth from Space — A Review,” in Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 70 No. 7, July 1882, pp. 728–750Google Scholar
  62. 1957).
    “The Multi-Frequency Imaging Microwave Radiometer,” Instrument Panel Report, ESA SP-1138, Aug. 1990Google Scholar
  63. 1958).
    A. R. Harvey, et al., “Optical up-conversion for passive millimeter-wave imaging,” Proceedings of SPIE, April 21–22, 1997, Orlando FL, Vol. 3064, pp. 98–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 1959).
    Ch. Elachi, “Spaceborne Radar Remote Sensing: Applications and Techniques,” IEEE Press, 1988Google Scholar
  65. 1960).
    http://southport.jpl.nasa.gov/desc/imagingradarv3.html (courtesy of Anthony Freeman, JPL)
  66. 1961).
    Ch. Elachi, “Spaceborne Radar Remote Sensing: Applications and Techniques,” IEEE Press, 1988, pp. 63–64Google Scholar
  67. 1962).
    W. G. Carrara, R. S. Goodman, R. M. Majewski, “Spotlight Synthetic Aperture Radar,” Artech House, Boston, 1995zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  68. 1963).
    J. L. Walker, “Range-Doppler imaging of rotating objects,” IEEE Transactions of Aerospace and Electronic Systems,” Vol. 16, 1980, pp. 23–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 1964).
    D. A. Ausherman, A. Kozma, J. L. Walker, H. M. Jones, E. C. Poggio, “Developments in Radar Imaging,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, Vol. 20, No. 4, July 1984, pp. 363–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 1965).
    H. Lutz, E. Armandillo, “Laser-Based Remote Sensing from Space,” ESA Bulletin 66, May 1991, pp. 73Google Scholar
  71. 1966).
    R.T.H. Collis, P.B. Russell “Laser Applications in Remote Sensing,” chapter 4 of ‘Remote Sensing for Environmental Sciences,’ Springer Verlag, 1976, pp. 110–146Google Scholar
  72. 1967).
    Special Issue on Laser Radar, Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 84, No. 2, Feb. 1996Google Scholar
  73. 1968).
    http://daacdev1.stx.com/ELF/docs/PER/rall16.html
  74. 1969).
    W. E. Baker, et al, “Lidar-Measured Winds from Space: A Key Component for Weather and Climate Prediction,” BAMS, Vol. 76, No. 6, June 1995, pp. 869–888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 1970).
    J. A. McKay, D. Rees, “Design of a Direct Detection Doppler Wind Lidar for Spaceflight,” European Symposium on Remote Sensing, Conference on Laser Radar Techniques (Ranging and Atmospheric Lidar) II, Barcelona, Spain, 21–24 Sept. 1998, SPIE, Vol. 3494, pp. 250–258Google Scholar
  76. 1971).
    “Topographic Science Working Group Report” to the Land Processes Branch, Earth Science and Applications Division, NASA Headquarters, 1988, p. 46Google Scholar
  77. 1972).
    “Lidar in Space,” in Optical Remote Sensing of the Atmosphere, 1990 Technical Digest Series of the Optical Society of America, Volume 4, pp. 67–70Google Scholar
  78. 1973).
    J. Gaignebet, G. Lund, “The Potential of two Color Laser Ranging,” in ‘Radars and Lidars in Earth and Planetary Sciences,’ International Symposium Sept. 2–4, 1991, ESA SP-328, pp. 123–127Google Scholar
  79. 1974).
    H. Lutz, E. Armandillo, “Laser Sounding from Space,” Report of the ESA Technology Working Group on Space Laser Sounding and Ranging, esa SP-1108, Jan. 1989Google Scholar
  80. 1975).
    P. Betout, D. Burridge, Ch. Werner, “Doppler Lidar Working Group Report,” esa SP-1112, June 1989Google Scholar
  81. 1976).
    Note: For every position of the moving mirror, the radiation that reaches the detector is the sum of components of different amplitudes and different frequencies, and for each frequency there is a different phase difference causing the various states of interference. This is the interferogram (or interference pattern) — a sum of sine waves with different amplitudes.Google Scholar
  82. 1977).
    Courtesy of P. Haschberger, DLRGoogle Scholar
  83. 1978).
    R. Beer, “Remote Sensing by Fourier Transform Spectrometry,” John Wiley & Sons, New York 1992, Chapter 4.1.5Google Scholar
  84. 1979).
    Albert A. Michelson is regarded as the father of interferometry. He is the first American who received the Nobel Prize in physics in 1907. In 1881, Albert A. Michelson did an experiment to try to detect a difference in the speed of light in two different directions: parallel to, and perpendicular to, the motion of the Earth around the sun. However, to his dismay, he found no difference. In 1887, Michelson repeated the measurement with Edward Morley. As they turned their apparatus (an interferometer), there was no measurable difference between the speed of light in the two directions. The Michelson-Morley experiment was an attempt to detect the velocity of the Earth with respect to a hypothetical luminiferous ether, a medium in space proposed to carry light waves. The experiment lead eventually to the deduction that the motion of the Earth through space has no effect on the velocity of light and that the absolute motion of the Earth is not measurable. This null result seriously discredited the ether theories and ultimately led to the proposal by Albert Einstein in 1905 that the speed of light is a universal constant.Google Scholar
  85. 1980).
    J. Moreira, “SAR Interferometry,” http://daacdev1.stx.com/ELF/docs/PER/moreira3.html
  86. 1981).
    R. M. Goldstein, H. A. Zebker, “Interferometric radar measurement of ocean surface currents,” Nature, Vol. 328, Aug. 20, 1987, pp. 707–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 1982).
    R. Saper, “Motion Sensing Synthetic Aperture Radar,” http://daacdev1.stx.com/ELF/docs/PER/saper5.html
  88. 1983).
    http://lupus.gsfc.nasa.gov/brochure/bintro.html
  89. 1984).
    J. M. Harlander, “Spatial Heterodyne Spectroscopy, Interferometric Performance at any Wavelength without Scanning,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1991Google Scholar
  90. 1985).
    J. Harlander, R. J. Reynolds, F. L. Roesler, “Spatial Heterodyne Spectroscopy for the Exploration of Diffuse Interstellar Emission Lines at Far-Ultraviolet Wavelengths,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 396, 1992, pp. 730–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 1986).
    Note: The invention was patented (US patent No 5059027, issued Oct. 22, 1991), the patent was assigned to the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation.Google Scholar
  92. 1987).
    Note: The daily rotation of the orbital satellite plane (with respect the the equatorial plane) is identical to the mean motion of the fictitious sun around the Earth — which in turn is identical to the mean motion of the Earth around the sun. The effect of the rotation of the orbital satellite plane is due to the oblateness of the Earth.Google Scholar
  93. 1988).
    Courtesy of F. Jochim, DLR/GSOCGoogle Scholar
  94. 1989).
    Note: The required signal power varies with the square of the distance. Hence, reducing the orbit from GEO to LEO translates into a multifold increase in available signal strength, allowing operation of a LEO constellation at lower power levels.Google Scholar
  95. 1990).
    Note: In a LEO communications system with handheld phone service (implying weak signals) the entire burden of link completion is placed on the satellite. Such a connection can physically be achieved only if the satellite employs the concept of very narrow-spaced spot beams (FOV of about 1°), each covering a “cell” on the Earth. Many of these beams must be employed to provide sufficient coverage of the intended service area (total footprint). The employed cell technique requires automatic handoff when a subscriber is passed from the coverage of one spot beam to that of another (the cells are moving while the subscriber is essentially stationary). In addition to the beam-to-beam handoff there is also the management of satellite-to-satellite handoff to be taken care of.Google Scholar
  96. 1991).
    Information provided by F. Jochim of DLR/GSOCGoogle Scholar
  97. 1992).
    D. Massonnet, “Capabilities and Limitations of the Interferometric Cartwheel,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, Vol. 39, No 3, March 2001, pp. 506–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 1993).
    S. Ramongassie, L. Phalippou, E. Thouvenot, D. Massonnet, “Preliminary Design of the Payload for the Interferometric Cartwheel,” Proceedings of IEEE/IGARSS, July 24–28, 2000, Honolulu, HI, pp. 29–32Google Scholar
  99. 1994).
    D. Massonnet, E. Thouvenot, S. Ramongassie, L. Phalippou, “Awheel of passive radar microsats for upgrading existing SAR projects,” Proceedings of IEEE/IGARSS, July 24–28, 2000, Honolulu, HIGoogle Scholar
  100. 1995).
    D. Massonnet, French Patent No 236910D17306RS, “Roue interferometrique,” April 30, 1998Google Scholar
  101. 1996).
    Courtesy of Friedrich Jochim of DLR/GSOCGoogle Scholar
  102. 1997).
    J. G. Walker, “Continuous Whole-Earth Coverage by Circular-Orbit Satellites,” IEE Conference publication No. 95, 1973, in Satellite Systems for Mobile Communications and Surveillance, pp. 35–38.Google Scholar
  103. 1998).
    J. G. Walker, “Continuous Whole-Earth Coverage by Circular-Orbit Satellite Patterns,” Technical Report 77044, Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, UK, March 24, 1977 (full report of 80 pages)Google Scholar
  104. 1999).
    Information provided by Friedrich Jochim of DLR/GSOC.Google Scholar
  105. 2000).
    The first three libration points were discovered by Leonard Euler (a Swiss mathematician), the other libration points were discovered by Joseph Louis Lagrange (1736 – 1813), French mathematicianGoogle Scholar
  106. 2001).
    Fred P. J. Rimrott, “Introductory Orbit Dynamics,” Vieweg, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden, 1989, pp. 156–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 2002).
    Karl Stumpff, “Himmelsmechanik,” Band II, VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin 1965zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  108. 2004).
    I. Orlanski, “A Rational Subdivision of Scales for Atmospheric Processes,” Bulletin American+ Meteorological Society, Vol. 56, No. 5, May 1975, pp. 527–530Google Scholar
  109. 2005).
    Sellers, et al., “Remote Sensing of the Land Surface for Studies of Global Change: Models-Algorithms-Experiments,” Remote Sensing of the Environment, Vol. 51, 1995, pp. 3–26Google Scholar
  110. 2006).
    A. Becker, “Criteria for a hydrologically sound structuring of large scale land surface process models.” In: Advances in Theoretical Hydrology: A Tribute to James Dooge; Ed. J. P. O’Kane, European Geophysical Society Series on Hydrological Sciences, 1992, pp. 97–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 2007).
    IGBP Global Change Report No. 27, Biospheric Aspects of the Hydrological Cycle (BAHC), The Operation Plan, 1, 993, pp. 26–28Google Scholar
  112. 2008).
    D. F. Robertson, “Electric Propulsion: Here at Last,” Space & Communications, May-June 1997, pp. 11–15Google Scholar
  113. 2009).
    S. Ashley, “Electric rockets get a boost,” Mechanical Engineering, December 1995, pp. 61–65Google Scholar
  114. 2010).
    G. Saccoccia, J. Gonzalez del Arno, D. Estublier, “Electric Propulsion: A key Technology for Space Missions in the New Millennium,” ESA Bulletin, No 101, Feb. 2000, pp. 62–71Google Scholar
  115. 2011).
    http//www:sci.esa.int"/content/doc/5b/9819_.htmGoogle Scholar
  116. 2012).
    http://www.irs.uni-stuttgart.de/RESEARCH/EL_PROP/ATOS/e_atos.html
  117. 2013).
    The ‘Hall effect’ refers to the development of a transverse electric field in a solid material when it carries an electric current and is placed in a magnetic field that is perpendicular to the current. The electric field, or Hall field, is a result of the force that the magnetic field exerts on the moving positive and negative particles that constitute the electric current. This phenomenon was discovered in 1879 by E. H. Hall, a US physicist.Google Scholar
  118. 2014).
    R. J. Cassady, et al., “Pulsed PLasma Thruster Systems for Spacecraft Attitude Control,” Proceedings of the 10th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites, Sept. 16–19, 1996Google Scholar
  119. 2015).
    H. A. Lorentz (1853–1928) Dutch physicist.Google Scholar
  120. 2016).
  121. 2017).
    A. Genovese, S. Marcuccio, D. D. Pozzo, M. Andrenucci, “FEEP Thruster Performance at High Background Pressure,” IEPC-97–186, Proceedings of the 25th Electric Propulsion Conference, Cleveland, OH, 1997Google Scholar
  122. 2018).
    R. Killinger, H. Bassner, J. Müller, “Development of an High Performance RF-Ion Thruster,” Proceedings of 35th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, June 20–24, 1999, Los Angeles, AIAA-99–2445Google Scholar
  123. 2019).
    G. D. Racca, G. P. Whitcomb, B. H. Foing, “The SMART-1 Mission,” ESA Bulletin 95, Aug. 1998, pp. 72–81Google Scholar
  124. 2020).
    H. Bassner, R. Bond, V. Thompson, H-P Harmann, K. Groh, “Development and Performance Testing of the ESA-XX Ion Thruster,” DASA paperGoogle Scholar
  125. 2021).
    D. G. Fearn, P. Smith, “A Review of UK Ion Propulsion — A Maturing Technology,” IAF-98-S.4.01, Sept/Oct. 1998, pp. 1–11Google Scholar
  126. 2022).
    http://home.att.net/~spetch/Stex/epdm.html
  127. 2023).
    Brochure of WDC Publications Office, J. H. Allen, NOAA/NGDC, E/GCT2, Boulder, CO 80303, USAGoogle Scholar
  128. 2024).
    L. Moodie, “Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS),” CEOS Newsletter No. 1, Summer 1993Google Scholar
  129. 2025).
    Information taken from NASA publication: “Space Shuttle Mission Chronology 1981–1992,” and from InternetGoogle Scholar
  130. 2026).
    The acronyms of Shuttle payload complements are listed in Appendix C “Acronyms and Abbreviations”Google Scholar
  131. 2027).
    Shuttle orbits provided by J. Gass of NASA/GSFCGoogle Scholar
  132. 2028).
    “NASA Long-Term Plan For Shuttle Missions Details Station Timing,” Space News March 7–13, p. 26, 1994Google Scholar
  133. 2029).
    Taken from the introduction of the NASA/GSFC brochure: “ISTP Global GEOSPACE Science — Energy Transfer in Geospace (ESA/NASA/ISAS),” 1992, Courtesy of NASA/GSFC, Greenbelt, MDGoogle Scholar
  134. 2030).
    “Reference Data for Radio Engineers,” ITT (International Telephone and Telegraph Corp.), Sixth Edition 1982Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Herbert J. Kramer
    • 1
  1. 1.GilchingGermany

Personalised recommendations