Is this project an undergraduate, graduate, or faculty project?
Undergraduate
Project Type
group
Campus
Daytona Beach
Authors' Class Standing
Isaac Rosenthal, Senior
Lead Presenter's Name
Isaac Rosenthal
Lead Presenter's College
DB College of Engineering
Faculty Mentor Name
Katariina Nykyri
Abstract
Orbit and mission design are crucial elements that must be considered to achieve Earth observation data for land monitoring. This project examines the sun-synchronous low Earth orbit (LEO) implementations of missions with similar objectives: NASA’s Landsat 8 and ESA’s Sentinel-2 constellation. The purpose of this study is to evaluate how differing mission designs, impact imaging and coverage capabilities. Key design trade offs between the two missions include altitude effects on atmospheric drag and station-keeping, swath width versus field-of-view choices, and a single, centralized spacecraft architecture versus a multi-satellite distributed system. This is accomplished by analyzing different orbital parameters, ground track repeatability, revisit time, and coverage geometry. The contrasting approaches illustrate fundamental differing mission design philosophies and their impact on operational performance for Earth imaging applications.
Did this research project receive funding support (Spark, SURF, Research Abroad, Student Internal Grants, Collaborative, Climbing, or Ignite Grants) from the Office of Undergraduate Research?
No
Included in
Astrodynamics Commons, Navigation, Guidance, Control and Dynamics Commons, Space Vehicles Commons
Sun-synchronous Low Earth Orbit Missions for Imaging Applications
Orbit and mission design are crucial elements that must be considered to achieve Earth observation data for land monitoring. This project examines the sun-synchronous low Earth orbit (LEO) implementations of missions with similar objectives: NASA’s Landsat 8 and ESA’s Sentinel-2 constellation. The purpose of this study is to evaluate how differing mission designs, impact imaging and coverage capabilities. Key design trade offs between the two missions include altitude effects on atmospheric drag and station-keeping, swath width versus field-of-view choices, and a single, centralized spacecraft architecture versus a multi-satellite distributed system. This is accomplished by analyzing different orbital parameters, ground track repeatability, revisit time, and coverage geometry. The contrasting approaches illustrate fundamental differing mission design philosophies and their impact on operational performance for Earth imaging applications.