Conceptual design optimization (CDO) is a technique proposed for the structured evaluation of different design concepts. Design grammars provide a flexible modular modelling architecture. The model is generated by a compiler based on predefined components and rules. The rules describe the composition of the model; thus, different models can be optimized by the CDO in one run. This allows considering a mission design including the mission analysis and the system design. The combination of a CDO approach with a model based on design grammars is shown for the concept study of a near-Earth asteroid mission. The mission objective is to investigate two asteroids of different kinds. The CDO reveals that a mission concept using two identical spacecrafts flying to one target each is better than a mission concept with one spacecraft flying to two asteroids consecutively.
Mosher, T. J. Improving spacecraft design using a multidisciplinary design optimization methodology. Dissertation, University of Colorado, 2000.
2.
TaylorE. R.Evaluation of multidisciplinary design optimization techniques as applied to spacecraft design. In Proceedings of the IEEE Aerospace Conference (Eds) Prophet, R. A., Wright, R. P., Woerner, D.. 2000IEEE, Big Sky, Montana, USA, 2000371–384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/AERO.2000.879413.
3.
Jilla, C. D. A Multiobjective, multidisciplinary design optimization methodology for the conceptual design of distributed satellite systems. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2002.
4.
Hassan, R. A. Genetic algorithm approaches for conceptual design of spacecraft systems including multi-objective optimization and design under uncertainty. Dissertation, Purdue University, 2004.
5.
RudolphS.Übertragung von Ähnlichkeitsbegriffen, 2002 (Habilitation, Universität Stuttgart).
6.
SchaeferJ.RudolphS.Satellitenentwurf mit Entwurfsgrammatiken. Aero. Sci. Tech., 2005, 9, 81–91.
Andersson, J. A survey of multiobjective optimization in engineering design. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Linköping University, Version: 2000. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.8.5638. 2000, Technical Report LiTH-IKPR-1097).
9.
CoelloC. A. C.LamontG. B.VeldhuizenD. A.Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems, 20072nd ed. (Springer, New York).
10.
Kaletta, P. Ein Beitrag zur Effizienzsteigerung Evolutiona¨rer Algorithmen zur optimalen Auslegung von Faserverbundstrukturen im Flugzeugbau. Dissertationen, Verlag, Cuvillier, Göttingen, Germany, 2006.
11.
SeegerJ.WolfK.Structural optimization of adaptive airfoils using evolutionary algorithms. 2007, Proceedings of the 1st CEAS European air and space conference, Germany, CEAS-2007-236.
12.
PrusinkiewiczP.LindenmayerA.The algorithmic beauty of plants, 1996 (Berlin, Springer).
13.
Alber, R. Synthese und Evolution einer technischen Entwurfsgrammatik nach dem Vorbild biologischer Wachstums- und Entwicklungsprinzipien. Thesis, Institut für Statik und Dynamik der Luft- und Raumfahrtkonstruktionen, Universität Stuttgart, January 2001.
14.
BinzelR. P.LupishkoD. F.DimartinoM.WhiteleyR. J.HahnG. J.BottkeW. F.PaolicchiP.BinzelR. P.CellinoA.Physical properties of NEOs. Asteroids III, 2002 (University of Arizona Press, Tucson, USA) 255–271.
15.
NASA JPL, Near-Earth Object Program Office: Near Earth objects Database. Internet. http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov. accessed 04.05.2008.
16.
NathuesA.BoehnhardtH.HarrisA. W.JentschC.SchaeffS.WeischedeF.WiegandA.SchmitzN.GoetzW.KachriZ.ASTEX: An in situ exploration mission to two near-Earth asteroids. Adv. Space Res., 2010, 45(1), 169–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2009.10.008.
17.
BusS. J.VilasF.BarucciM. A.BottkeW. F.CellinoA.PaolicchiP.BinzelR. P.Visible-wavelength spectroscopy of asteroids. Asteroids III, 2002 (University of Arizona Press, Tucson, USA) 169–169.
18.
Wall, B. J. Technology for the solution of hybrid optimal control problems in astronoutics. Dissertation, University of Illinois, USA, 2007.
19.
Rathsman, P., Kugelberg, J., Bodin, P., Racca, G. D., Foing, B., and Stagnaro, L. SMART-1: Development and lessons learnt. Acta Astronaut. 2005, 57(2–8), 455–468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2005.03.041. Infinite Possibilities Global Realities, Selected Proceedings of the 55th International Astronautical Federation Congress, Vancouver, Canada, 4–8 October 2004.
20.
EdwardsC. H.WallaceN. C.TatoC.Van putP.The T5 ion propulsion assembly for drag compensation on GOCE. 2004In Proceedings of the Second International GOCE user workshop ‘GOCE, The geoid and oceanography’, Frascati, Italy, ESA-ESRIN.
Wells, N., Walker, R., Green, S., and Ball, A. SIMONE: Interplanetary microsatellites for NEO rendezvous missions. Acta Astronaut. 2006, 59(8–11), 700–709. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2005.07.036. In Selected Proceedings of the Fifth IAA International Conference on Low cost planetary missions.
23.
Milani, A., Valsecchi, G., Paolicchi, P., Lognonné, P., Benz, W., Foerstner, R., Bello, M., and Gonzalez J. A. Near Earth objects space mission preparation: Don Quijote mission executive summary. DEIMOS Space S.L. Version: 2003. http://www.esa.int/gsp/completed/neo/donquijote_execsum.pdf. 2003.
24.
UesugiK. T.Space engineering spacecraft (MUSES) program in ISAS featuring its latest mission, HAYABUSA, 2003In Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent Advances in Space Technologies, Japan, 20–22 November464–471.
25.
RathsmanP.KugelbergJ.BodinP.RaccaG. D.FoingB.StagnaroL.SMART-1: Development and lessons learnt. Acta Astronaut., 2005, 57. Infinite possibilities global realities, Selected Proceedings of the 55th International Astronautical Federation Congress, Vancouver, Canada455–468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2005.03.041 4–8 October 2004.
Santo A. G., Lee S. C., and Gold R. E. NEAR spacecraft and instrumentation. The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. Version: 1999. http://near.jhuapl.edu/PDF/SC_Inst.pdf. 1999, accessed 15.01.2010.
