Swiss space plane to launch robotic orbital debris destroyer

On 09/13/2013 2:11 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Alain Fournier wrote:

On 09/12/2013 1:27 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article ,
Alain Fournier wrote:

I think that for a system which would aim at removing many items
propulsion should be mostly from catapult. You catch a piece of
debris, you put it in a catapult and choose your next target in such
a way that using the catapult as a propulsion system to go near
to that target has the effect of sending the debris into the upper
atmosphere. You might once in a while eject debris from Earth's
gravity well to lower your orbit. Of course you also need some more
conventional propulsion for final approach.

That won't work, as the catapult creates an exchange of momentum between
the satellite and the debris. You still need a robust propulsion system
to perform orbit changes and docking/capture.

I'm not sure I understand your comment. You need a propulsion system to
perform orbit changes. But that propulsion system doesn't have to throw
gases in the back, it can throw useless satellite parts (space debris)
instead. I do think you would want to have a more conventional
propulsion system also, but throwing space debris can be a propulsion
system.


So you'll make the debris problems worse by spraying it about?

I was proposing to send the debris on an orbit which hits the upper
atmosphere. It won't stay there very long.


Alain Fournier

On 09/13/2013 11:25 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Alain Fournier wrote:

On 09/13/2013 2:11 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Alain Fournier wrote:

On 09/12/2013 1:27 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article ,
Alain Fournier wrote:

I think that for a system which would aim at removing many items
propulsion should be mostly from catapult. You catch a piece of
debris, you put it in a catapult and choose your next target in such
a way that using the catapult as a propulsion system to go near
to that target has the effect of sending the debris into the upper
atmosphere. You might once in a while eject debris from Earth's
gravity well to lower your orbit. Of course you also need some more
conventional propulsion for final approach.

That won't work, as the catapult creates an exchange of momentum between
the satellite and the debris. You still need a robust propulsion system
to perform orbit changes and docking/capture.

I'm not sure I understand your comment. You need a propulsion system to
perform orbit changes. But that propulsion system doesn't have to throw
gases in the back, it can throw useless satellite parts (space debris)
instead. I do think you would want to have a more conventional
propulsion system also, but throwing space debris can be a propulsion
system.


So you'll make the debris problems worse by spraying it about?


I was proposing to send the debris on an orbit which hits the upper
atmosphere. It won't stay there very long.


And what if your 'debris catcher' doesn't want to go in the direction
that throwing the debris in that direction would require it to? THAT
is why you need a real propulsion system.

The debris catcher has no mind of its own. It doesn't "want to go" in
any direction. There is a lot of debris so there are a lot of
directions where you can choose to send the catcher. You choose your
next target according to what fits best. Sending the current piece of
junk you have into the upper atmosphere is mostly just about giving
it a big push somewhat in the direction opposite to its current
direction. You have lots of leeway in the way you send it to the
atmosphere.

I agree with you that you need a real propulsion system. Catapulting
debris is a real propulsion system. But as I said above, you would
also want to have a more conventional propulsion system.


Alain Fournier

On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 3:46:19 PM UTC-7, wrote:
"Last year, the Swiss Space Center at the University of Lausanne announced the

planned launch of CleanSpace One, a robotic satellite designed to grab onto large

pieces of space junk and push them down towards Earth, where ablation with the

atmosphere will burn up the trash. Now, in partnership with Swiss Space Systems

(S3), the team is proposing using an experimental space plane to get the 30

kilogram CleanSpace One into orbit."



See:



http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09...ris _cleaner/

A Swiss WALL-E would be a good thing, perhaps reimbursed a million dollars per kg removed from orbit wouldn't be unreasonable, especially when paid by whomever put the junk in orbit to begin with.

In sci.space.policy message
, Thu, 12 Sep 2013 10:34:24, Alain Fournier
l.ca posted:


I think that for a system which would aim at removing many items
propulsion should be mostly from catapult. You catch a piece of
debris, you put it in a catapult and choose your next target in such
a way that using the catapult as a propulsion system to go near
to that target has the effect of sending the debris into the upper
atmosphere. You might once in a while eject debris from Earth's
gravity well to lower your orbit. Of course you also need some more
conventional propulsion for final approach.


Ejection is not _necessary_ for lowering. It is merely necessary to put
an item of debris into an orbit that meets the atmosphere (in an
acceptable location) before it meets anything else, and that can be done
by directing it carefully upwards.

For greatest efficiency, the item should be caught in the catapult, so
providing the energy needed to cock it. The destroyer then proceeds in
its new orbit and fires the catapult from a chosen position in a chosen
direction. It would not be easy, though.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Mail via homepage. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.

On Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:47:21 PM UTC+12, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article ,

wrote:



"Last year, the Swiss Space Center at the University of Lausanne announced

the

planned launch of CleanSpace One, a robotic satellite designed to grab onto

large

pieces of space junk and push them down towards Earth, where ablation with

the

atmosphere will burn up the trash. Now, in partnership with Swiss Space

Systems

(S3), the team is proposing using an experimental space plane to get the 30

kilogram CleanSpace One into orbit."



See:



http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09...nch_robotic_or

bital_debris_cleaner/



If it is to be successful, it must have a pretty robust propulsion

system aboard.

Yep. The systems for space debris collection I have seen use an Electrodynamic Tether

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrodynamic_tether

Basically you use an electric current generated by a solar collector passing through a big wire to interact with the magnetic field of the Earth. That way you can raise or lower your orbit and even change orbital plane, given the way the field varies around the Earth in response to the solar wind. Taking advantage of the orbital perturbations as well as precession gives a cleverly designed satellite tremendous capabilities.

So, this propulsion system has an INFINITE specific impulse since it uses no propellant whatever.

Now, the idea of gathering debris to take to the edge of the atmosphere is interesting, but not as high-value as gathering the debris into a junk yard orbit that's out of the way.

That's because later you orbit a junk yard processor that uses a solar pumped laser to break the debris down to plasma. Then use electric and magnetic forces in the processor to separate the plasma according to its atomic weight. Then react the material to form a variety of ingots suitable for long-term storage.

Later still you orbit an assembler, a 3D printer that uses a plasma deposition process to make anything sent by radio to the assembler's computer.

The same tethered system would be capable of deploying the completed 'new-build' into any orbit desired.

That way you can recycle the 5,000 tonnes or so of material that's perfectly suited for building satellites! If the services were to cost less than say $12,000 per kilogram to capture, process, build, deploy.

The processor could also be equipped when burning everything back to plasma with a recorder that would give detailed design information about the satellite source material. This information could be used to confirm causes of failure, and help design better satellites. It could also be used as an historical record and that data could be used to reconstruct highly accurate replicas for museum use and personal collections.

The system consists of three stages;

Airbus
Sub-Orbital Shuttle
Disposable Third Stage

It is claimed to be capable of carrying a payload of 550 lbs (250 kg) into LEO. Once the payload is in LEO using electrodynamic propulsion and solar power it is capable of attaining a wide range of orbits.

I propose a different launch system:

A three stage fully-reusable rocket with a launch capacity of 500 kg (1,100 lbs) into LEO, would have to achieve 9.3 km/sec less air drag and gravity losses to achieve 7.9 km/sec orbital speed. Propelled by a MEMS based cryogenic engine that produced 50 psi (345.9 kPa) with an exhaust speed of 4.2 km/sec costing $0.30 per lbf (14.87 kPa/$) and massing only 2 pounds per ton of thrust (101 grams per kiloPa). With a fuel oxidizer ratio of 5.5 parts oxidizer by weight to 1 part fuel by weight. With advanced cryogenic tankage and MEMS based sensing and control hardware, a structure fraction of 7.8% is possible.

Consider three stages each capable of 3.1 km/sec delta vee - less air drag and gravity losses - which vary according to stage of flight.

The propellant fraction required by each stage is;

u = 1 - 1/exp(3.1/4.2) = 0.52197643 ~ 52.2% propellant

Structure fraction is 7.8% this leaves 40.0% payload. So, starting with the payload on orbit we have;

Orbit: 500 kg Payload
S3: 1,250 kg Total 652.5 kg Propellant 97.5 kg structure
S2: 3,125 kg Total 1,631.3 kg Propellant 243.7 kg structure
S1: 7,812 kg Total 4,078.2 kg Propellant 608.8 kg structure

Now consider six spheres packed around a seventh. The central sphere contains the 500 kg payload. The six spheres around it contain propellant.

Each of the six propellant spheres contain a total 1,060.3 kg of propellant..

Hydrogen 163.123 kg 0.07 kg/l 2330.33 liters
Oxygen 897.177 kg 1.14 kg/l 787.00 liters

3117.33 total liters

1812.43 mm diameter - Hydrogen enclosure
1145.49 mm diameter - LOX tank

So, you end up with seven spheres each sphere 2 meters in diameter. The propellant spheres consist of an oxygen sphere that's 1.15 meter in diameter inside a larger sphere 1.85 meters in diameter which contains hydrogen. The oxygen sphere is connected via a manifold to one side of the hydrogen sphere. Coating the outside of the larger sphere is an array of MEMS cryogenic rockets, MEMS fuel cells, and a host of other equipment. Each of the propellant spheres is capable of producing 20.824 kN (4,665 lbf) of thrust. Each of the propellant spheres has its propellant manifold connected to its neighbor through a cross-feed line. In this way, any one sphere may provide propellant to any of its neighbors.

The central sphere contains the payload and its own MEMS based attitude control system as well as fuel cell power supply and cryogenic fuel and oxidizer.

The completed system forms a disk 6 meters in diameter and 2 meters tall. It has a disposable foamed metal composite/polymer structural and lift surface that is a spherical cap that has a 4.5 meters diameter and a 250 mm depth position atop the assembly.

The inert mass of each empty sphere is 80 kg. The inert mass of the aeroshell cap is 60 kg. The cap is dropped with the first two spheres.

Starting with a 500 kg payload in the central sphere. The propellant is drained from a pair of tanks one opposite the other. The empty tanks are then dropped and recovered following re-entry. This creates a three stage system with the following delta vee;

Stage dV Total dV Weight Range
S1: 1.400 km/sec 1.400 km/sec 7,481.8 kg 277 km
S2: 2.233 km/sec 3.633 km/sec 5,141.2 kg 1,852 km
S3: 5.678 km/sec 9.311 km/sec 2,860.6 kg orbit
740.0 kg

The empty spheres are equipped with a thermal protection layer. The aeroshell cap and the two S1 spheres possess MEMS based propulsive capability. The aeroshell is capable of significant lift after slowing to subsonic speeds. The spheres deploy inflatable winglets which give them a L/D of 10 after slowing to subsonic speed. In high speed flight strakes deploy to give the spherical shells an L/D of 0.8 - which radically reduces their thermal load and gee forces during re-entry.

The gaseous high pressure fuel ullage remaining aboard each sphere, and a small quantity of fuel carried aboard the aeroshell, provide a means to use MEMS based air breathing propulsion to fly the components back to the launch center. By changing the fuel oxidizer mix to optimize performance with changing altitude, sufficient excess hydrogen is retained in each sphere to bring it back from its re-entry point. Flight speed is 60 m/sec (216 kph, 135 mph)

The spheres on orbit are deorbited at a point that brings them back to the launch center. The spacecraft once released and the tether's deployed accelerates to carry out its first mission.

A 500 kW electrolyzer provides sufficient hydrogen and oxygen to fuel this launcher and carry out a launch once per week by breaking down 8,808 liters of water per week.

Charging $12,000 per kg each launch is worth $6 million.

On Friday, September 13, 2013 5:27:03 AM UTC+12, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article ,

Alain Fournier wrote:



On 09/11/2013 11:47 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

In article ,

wrote:



"Last year, the Swiss Space Center at the University of Lausanne announced

the

planned launch of CleanSpace One, a robotic satellite designed to grab

onto

large

pieces of space junk and push them down towards Earth, where ablation with

the

atmosphere will burn up the trash. Now, in partnership with Swiss Space

Systems

(S3), the team is proposing using an experimental space plane to get the

30

kilogram CleanSpace One into orbit."



See:



http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09...launch_robotic

_or

bital_debris_cleaner/



If it is to be successful, it must have a pretty robust propulsion

system aboard.





The article says that it's a single use satellite. It will catch a

single orbital debris and de-orbit with it. It's more of a proof of

concept thing than a real system for cleaning up space junk.



I think that for a system which would aim at removing many items

propulsion should be mostly from catapult. You catch a piece of

debris, you put it in a catapult and choose your next target in such

a way that using the catapult as a propulsion system to go near

to that target has the effect of sending the debris into the upper

atmosphere. You might once in a while eject debris from Earth's

gravity well to lower your orbit. Of course you also need some more

conventional propulsion for final approach.





Alain Fournier



That won't work, as the catapult creates an exchange of momentum between

the satellite and the debris. You still need a robust propulsion system

to perform orbit changes and docking/capture.

Check out how electrodynamic systems work. You collect sunlight and run current through a long tether. The current interacts with the Earth's magnetic field to increase or decrease the speed of the satellite - depending.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...her_System.PNG

This source of thrust, when combined with intelligent use of orbital perturbations, precession, etc., gives a significant propellantless propulsive capability.

Rather than de-orbit the 5,000 tonnes of stuff on orbit - it makes more sense to gather it into a junk yard and process it into satellites again at a cost of $12,000 per kg.

(1) Gather debris, move to junk-yard orbit,
(2) Process debris, convert to plasma and store in stable ingots,
(3) Build new from ingots, additive manufacturing,
(4) Deploy, move new satellites to operating orbits,

At a rate of 500 tonnes per year capability has the potential to earn $6 billion per year reprocessing existing satellite systems.

The miniature disk launcher will put up speciality materials needed by the orbital manufacturing process - adding another 180 tonnes per year - with one flight per day - earning another $2.16 billion per year.

Once the feasibility of these steps is demonstrated you then proceed to use key elements to mine Earth crossing asteroids of rich material, earning another $20 billion per year. Returning the highly valued materials to Earth, such as platinum and gold and less valued materials to the junk yard orbit, aluminium, titanium, steel, etc.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/117734905/Lander-Digger-Dog

http://www.scribd.com/doc/117734816/...2-Through-2045

http://www.scribd.com/doc/117734807/Alinda-Asteroids

I already outlined a launcher in a previous post.

The modular disk shaped launcher described previously would also be capable of delivering 500 kg to LEO, and individual elements of providing sub-orbital flights using mechanical counter-pressure suits with built in thermal protection. So, suborbital as well as orbital flights and cislunar flights, and even lunar landing are possible with it.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/40549127/Disk-Moonship

http://www.scribd.com/doc/40623446/Disk-Moonship-2

A 580 kg payload on orbit, with 160 kg astronaut - with supplies for four days in a long-duration bio-suit - carries 420 kg of propellant. This is a propellant fraction of 72.41%! In the vacuum of space the MEMS based propulsive skin is capable of 4.35 km/sec exhaust speeds, thus the orbiting payload configured as a manned system as described here is capable of adding 5.6 km/sec to the 7.9 km/sec orbital velocity.

This is a total of 13.5 km/sec. Enough to achieve very high hyperbolic excess velocities. Velocities large enough to soft land on Mars or the Moon or to fly anywhere inside the orbit of Jupiter.

With Jupiter assist enough to fly anywhere in the solar system.

Of course, long-duration manned flights require the ability to enter reliably suspended animation.

http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...lliams-anymore


Using sources of water found in place, refuelling is possible using solar energy and the processes just described. With refuelling on the Moon and Mars and the asteroids, a return mission is possible with a long-duration suit and easy suspended animation.

2.95 km/sec - Earth orbit to Trans-lunar trajectory
2.40 km/sec - Trans-lunar trajectory to lunar surface
0.25 km/sec - Navigation/Course Correction

5.60 km/sec - Total

We need another 2.40 km/sec to get back off the moon once there. So, refuelling there is required. This requires 27.7 kg of hydrogen plus 152.3 kg of oxygen propellant made from 250 liters of water with a 4kW solar electrolysis unit operating for a 2 week period during lunar day. This is an inflatable sphere 3 meters in diameter that focuses light on to a spot 200 mm in diameter - that converts water to hydrogen and oxygen with a MEMS based high temperature electrolysis unit. MEMS based cryogenic refrigerators and fuel cells process the gases further. Small free flying robots search for ice and harvest it returning it to the lander.

http://iopscience.iop.org/0960-1317/...2EC73BF0645.c2

https://ipo.llnl.gov/?q=technologies-mems_fuel_cells

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnkMyfQ5YfY

The MEMS based life support also has a propulsive skin, as does the biosuit for attitude control in vacuum, which also permits explorers to quickly traverse the lunar surface, refuelling at the ice processor landers.

Certainly, however, even before landing a unit such as the one just described, we can fly around the moon, enter lunar orbit, and return to Earth.

2.95 km/sec - Earth orbit to Trans-lunar trajectory
0.70 km/sec - Trans-lunar trajectory to Lunar orbit
0.70 km/sec - Lunar orbit to Trans lunar trajectory
0.25 km/sec - Navigation/Course Correction

4.60 km/sec - Total

At $6 million per flight, we would likely find many many buyers interested in taking a two week flight to orbit the moon and return to Earth.

Baumgartner's jump from the stratosphere indicates how re-entry would work. The biosuit has a thermal protection layer as well as an integrated attitude control system. The life support backback is equipped with MEMS based primary propulsion to take over the function of the parachute when near the ground - operating like a rocket pack - requiring far less weight and delivering superior performance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_0I6OUbN24

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRwnWMYpAi8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExH_YEE4DCs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcQKR1dJX8g

The biosuit, along with professionally made video, (broadcast rights, with exception of youtube license, retained by company), are yours after the flight, included with training, for $10 million per trip.

On Friday, September 13, 2013 5:11:13 PM UTC-4, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
In sci.space.policy message

, Thu, 12 Sep 2013 10:34:24, Alain Fournier

I think that for a system which would aim at removing many items
propulsion should be mostly from catapult. You catch a piece of
debris, you put it in a catapult and choose your next target in such
a way that using the catapult as a propulsion system to go near
to that target has the effect of sending the debris into the upper
atmosphere. You might once in a while eject debris from Earth's
gravity well to lower your orbit. Of course you also need some more
conventional propulsion for final approach.



Ejection is not _necessary_ for lowering. It is merely necessary to put
an item of debris into an orbit that meets the atmosphere (in an
acceptable location) before it meets anything else, and that can be done
by directing it carefully upwards.

I agree. But I think it would probably be easier to eject the object once in
a while.

For greatest efficiency, the item should be caught in the catapult, so
providing the energy needed to cock it. The destroyer then proceeds in
its new orbit and fires the catapult from a chosen position in a chosen
direction. It would not be easy, though.

Right. If only we could find an easy way to get rid of those debris.


Alain Fournier

On Saturday, September 14, 2013 5:21:12 AM UTC+12, Brad Guth wrote:
On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 3:46:19 PM UTC-7, wrote:

"Last year, the Swiss Space Center at the University of Lausanne announced the



planned launch of CleanSpace One, a robotic satellite designed to grab onto large



pieces of space junk and push them down towards Earth, where ablation with the



atmosphere will burn up the trash. Now, in partnership with Swiss Space Systems



(S3), the team is proposing using an experimental space plane to get the 30



kilogram CleanSpace One into orbit."







See:







http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09...ris _cleaner/



A Swiss WALL-E would be a good thing, perhaps reimbursed a million dollars per kg removed from orbit wouldn't be unreasonable, especially when paid by whomever put the junk in orbit to begin with.

There's 5,000 tonnes of space debris on Earth orbit that's recoverable. $12,000 per kg is what it cost to orbit the stuff in the first place.

Processing 500 tonnes per year keeps ahead of the debris gradually clearing it over the next 15 years since current rates of deployment are around 270 tonnes per year - whilst providing $6 billion per year in revenue. Not bad for a few satellites on orbit.

Gathering the debris into a junk yard on orbit and then processing the junk with a solar pumped laser satellite to form a plasma plume, and depositing a series of 'ingots' - which are basically a set of conductive plastic balloons inflated at very low pressure and coated which plasma which is layered on to the conductive spherical electrode.

A wide range of materials are maintained convenient for use in processing in this way starting with a very low initial mass.

To extract materials the material is re-energized with a laser blast from within and the plasma is conducted through a channel to mix with other chemical species. The resulting reacted plasma is layered in an additive manufacturing process to create any desired item like a 3D printer.

Plans sent from Earth provide the means to re-deploy the raw material at high value. This is how you get paid.

This is the first step toward mining Earth crossing asteroids, proving all steps in the process of extraction first.

Also, while its possible to return very high value goods to Earth's surface from Earth crossing asteroids, its also possible, once you have systems in place, to return needed materials to the junk yard for processing there as well.


A fleet of highly reusable micro-launchers put up 0.5 metric tons each flight. The launcher is a 6 meter diameter disk composed of 7 close packed spheres each 2 meters in diameter. This launch capacity adds another $2.2 billion per year in revenues by providing daily launches of needed materials and components to support the operations as well.

In this way a very modest fleet can be maintained and used to earn $8.2 billion per year.

HUMAN FLIGHT

Human flight to sub-orbit, Earth orbit, lunar orbit are possible with this multifacited launcher. A long duration biosuit with MEMS life support, power, and propulsion provides safe reliable human access.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRwnWMYpAi8

and adds another $3.8 billion+ per year.

Deployment of a small automated lander on Mars and the Moon, provide the ability to process water found on the moon to refuel them and return the landers to Earth, or Earth orbit.

This adds another $5 billion per year in revenue by allowing return to the moon.

LUNAR MANUFACTURING

Processing the lunar surface into useful materials is the next step. This involves using the 3D print technologies that use found raw materials as feed stock to build self-replicating systems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_manufacturing

This allows the construction of a 1,700 tonne single stage flight system built from lunar materials. It consists of;

620 tonne - payload (solar power satellite)
105 tonne - vehicle
850 tonne - launch propellant
125 tonne - return propellant

This allows flight from the lunar surface to any point in the Earth-Moon system, and return of the vehicle for reuse.

With a 5.5 to 1 oxidizer/fuel ratio this means each flight uses 825 tonnes of oxygen and 150 tonnes of hydrogen made from 1.35 million liters of water using 30 megawatts of solar laser power collected with a 167 meter diameter concentrator on the solar surface every two weeks.

A sphere 17.625 meters in diameter enclosing a smaller sphere 11.139 meters in diameter form the basic airframe of the system just described. A payload sphere attached to the propellant sphere carries the 620 tonne power satellite (or any other payload desired).

CHEMICAL LUNAR LAUNCH

For a power satellite application you project off the moon with sufficient speed to travel 0.71 km/sec slower than the moon's 1.02 km/sec orbital speed. This allows the craft to fall to GEO in 5.5 days. At GEO it is travelling 1.73 km/sec faster than the 4.56 km/sec required to stay in that orbit. So, there's another boost to circularize the orbit. The satellite is released and the empty vehicle is returned.

CHEMICAL/ION LUNAR LAUNCH

Another approach is to launch the power satellite into Low Lunar Orbit - a speed of 1.7 km/sec. The power satellite is deployed on that orbit and the empty is returned to the lunar surface, another 1.7 km/sec delta vee. The power satellites use on board station keeping ion engines, with exhaust velocities of 54 km/sec - to traverse from LLO to GEO.

Doing things this way vastly increases lift capacity! It only takes 51 tonnes of propellant to bring the 105 tonne empty vehicle back from Low Lunar Orbit. This leaves 924 tonnes of propellant to lift the vehicle plus payload. Thus, 1,905 tonnes of payload may be deployed. This is sufficient for THREE power satellites, instead of one. Each power satellite generates 11..2 GW of laser energy that is beamed to Earth.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/130453929/Power-Satellite

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/S...-Satellite-GEO

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35449912/S...tellite-Orbits

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29948592/Proto-Progress

LUNAR OPERATIONS SUPPORT TERRESTRIAL OPERATIONS

An 11.2 GW power satellite can produce a laser rocket exhaust that generates 247,000 kgf (2.43 MN) to lift a 177.1 tonne single stage vehicle off the pad. With a 9.2 km/sec exhaust speed energizing 264.6 kg/sec at lift off the vehicle delivers 65.2 metric tons to LEO of which 15.2 metric tons is inert mass of the vehicle, and 50.0 metric tons is useful load. The system uses 111.9 tonnes of water propellant energized by laser energy to achieve this.

This launcher is a biconic vehicle with spherical nose. A spherical tank 6 meters in diameter carries the propellant which is energized by laser energy. This propellant is water. The vehicle is manufactured on the moon.

The 15.2 tonne inert vehicle with no payload is partially filled with 7.2 tonnes of water propellant. A laser power satellite at L1 energizes the vehicle and causes it to fly to Earth where it uses aerodynamic braking to fly to a launch center and laser energy from an Earth orbiting satellite to execute a powered touch down.

A single satellite at L1 provides sufficient beam energy to lift 17 vehicles of this type per hour.

On Friday, September 13, 2013 10:37:09 PM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Alain Fournier wrote:


The debris catcher has no mind of its own. It doesn't "want to go" in
any direction.

Jesus H. Christ, learn to read colloquial English!

Je suis désolé si mon anglais n'est pas très bon. Pourriez vous me dire Ã* quoi sert le H inséré dans le nom du Messie?

Mi dispiace se il mio inglese non è scadente. Potrebbe dirmi perché è stata inserita una H nel nome di Cristo?

ã�‚ã€�　ã�”ã‚�ん　ã�ªã�•ã�„。ç§�　ã�®ã€€è‹±èª žã€€ã�Œã€€æ‚ªã�„。ã�‚ã�ªã�Ÿã€€ã�¯ã€€ã‚*リスト㠀€ã�®ã€€å��å‰�　ã�®ã€€ä¸*　H　を　挿入ã�—ã� ¦ã€�ã�ªã�œã€€ã�‚ã�ªã�Ÿã€€ã�¯ã€€ç§�　を教ã�ˆã�¦ã €€ã��ã�*ã�•ã�„　ã�‹ã€‚

There is a lot of debris so there are a lot of
directions where you can choose to send the catcher. You choose your
next target according to what fits best. Sending the current piece of
junk you have into the upper atmosphere is mostly just about giving
it a big push somewhat in the direction opposite to its current
direction. You have lots of leeway in the way you send it to the
atmosphere.

Your debris catcher will therefore be forever raising its orbit. How
do you not get this?

That is why I suggested that once in a while you eject the debris from
Earth's gravity well. This lowers your orbit. But as someone else pointed
out, it is also possible to lower your orbit by sending the debris in
a highly elliptical orbit which passes through Earth's atmosphere.

I agree with you that you need a real propulsion system. Catapulting
debris is a real propulsion system.

But it's almost never going to be a real propulsion system that sends
the debris catcher where it wants to go.

Well it isn't easy to do. But just as a thought experiment, imagine that
the debris catcher can give a delta v of 10 km/s to the debris. If you
throw the debris at such a speed in any direction within about 40 degrees
from the direction opposite to the movement of the debris you have
deorbited the debris. This gives you a lot of leeway for your next
destination. Of course, a more realistic system would give a smaller
delta v, but that just means you have to choose more carefully which
will be the next debris you will chase.

One thing that does help is that a lot of those debris are in an elliptical
orbit. That makes them easier to deorbit and gives you an additional degree
of freedom by letting you choose between throwing the junk near apogee
or near perigee. But usually you will want to catapult the junk near apogee..
You don't need as much umph to deorbit the junk from there and you get a
bigger change of orbit to the debris catcher.


Alain Fournier

On Friday, September 13, 2013 7:02:04 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Saturday, September 14, 2013 5:21:12 AM UTC+12, Brad Guth wrote:

On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 3:46:19 PM UTC-7, wrote:



"Last year, the Swiss Space Center at the University of Lausanne announced the







planned launch of CleanSpace One, a robotic satellite designed to grab onto large







pieces of space junk and push them down towards Earth, where ablation with the







atmosphere will burn up the trash. Now, in partnership with Swiss Space Systems







(S3), the team is proposing using an experimental space plane to get the 30







kilogram CleanSpace One into orbit."















See:















http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09...ris _cleaner/







A Swiss WALL-E would be a good thing, perhaps reimbursed a million dollars per kg removed from orbit wouldn't be unreasonable, especially when paid by whomever put the junk in orbit to begin with.



There's 5,000 tonnes of space debris on Earth orbit that's recoverable. $12,000 per kg is what it cost to orbit the stuff in the first place.



Processing 500 tonnes per year keeps ahead of the debris gradually clearing it over the next 15 years since current rates of deployment are around 270 tonnes per year - whilst providing $6 billion per year in revenue. Not bad for a few satellites on orbit.



Gathering the debris into a junk yard on orbit and then processing the junk with a solar pumped laser satellite to form a plasma plume, and depositing a series of 'ingots' - which are basically a set of conductive plastic balloons inflated at very low pressure and coated which plasma which is layered on to the conductive spherical electrode.



A wide range of materials are maintained convenient for use in processing in this way starting with a very low initial mass.



To extract materials the material is re-energized with a laser blast from within and the plasma is conducted through a channel to mix with other chemical species. The resulting reacted plasma is layered in an additive manufacturing process to create any desired item like a 3D printer.



Plans sent from Earth provide the means to re-deploy the raw material at high value. This is how you get paid.



This is the first step toward mining Earth crossing asteroids, proving all steps in the process of extraction first.



Also, while its possible to return very high value goods to Earth's surface from Earth crossing asteroids, its also possible, once you have systems in place, to return needed materials to the junk yard for processing there as well.





A fleet of highly reusable micro-launchers put up 0.5 metric tons each flight. The launcher is a 6 meter diameter disk composed of 7 close packed spheres each 2 meters in diameter. This launch capacity adds another $2.2 billion per year in revenues by providing daily launches of needed materials and components to support the operations as well.



In this way a very modest fleet can be maintained and used to earn $8.2 billion per year.



HUMAN FLIGHT



Human flight to sub-orbit, Earth orbit, lunar orbit are possible with this multifacited launcher. A long duration biosuit with MEMS life support, power, and propulsion provides safe reliable human access.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRwnWMYpAi8



and adds another $3.8 billion+ per year.



Deployment of a small automated lander on Mars and the Moon, provide the ability to process water found on the moon to refuel them and return the landers to Earth, or Earth orbit.



This adds another $5 billion per year in revenue by allowing return to the moon.



LUNAR MANUFACTURING



Processing the lunar surface into useful materials is the next step. This involves using the 3D print technologies that use found raw materials as feed stock to build self-replicating systems.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_manufacturing



This allows the construction of a 1,700 tonne single stage flight system built from lunar materials. It consists of;



620 tonne - payload (solar power satellite)

105 tonne - vehicle

850 tonne - launch propellant

125 tonne - return propellant



This allows flight from the lunar surface to any point in the Earth-Moon system, and return of the vehicle for reuse.



With a 5.5 to 1 oxidizer/fuel ratio this means each flight uses 825 tonnes of oxygen and 150 tonnes of hydrogen made from 1.35 million liters of water using 30 megawatts of solar laser power collected with a 167 meter diameter concentrator on the solar surface every two weeks.



A sphere 17.625 meters in diameter enclosing a smaller sphere 11.139 meters in diameter form the basic airframe of the system just described. A payload sphere attached to the propellant sphere carries the 620 tonne power satellite (or any other payload desired).



CHEMICAL LUNAR LAUNCH



For a power satellite application you project off the moon with sufficient speed to travel 0.71 km/sec slower than the moon's 1.02 km/sec orbital speed. This allows the craft to fall to GEO in 5.5 days. At GEO it is travelling 1.73 km/sec faster than the 4.56 km/sec required to stay in that orbit.. So, there's another boost to circularize the orbit. The satellite is released and the empty vehicle is returned.



CHEMICAL/ION LUNAR LAUNCH



Another approach is to launch the power satellite into Low Lunar Orbit - a speed of 1.7 km/sec. The power satellite is deployed on that orbit and the empty is returned to the lunar surface, another 1.7 km/sec delta vee. The power satellites use on board station keeping ion engines, with exhaust velocities of 54 km/sec - to traverse from LLO to GEO.



Doing things this way vastly increases lift capacity! It only takes 51 tonnes of propellant to bring the 105 tonne empty vehicle back from Low Lunar Orbit. This leaves 924 tonnes of propellant to lift the vehicle plus payload. Thus, 1,905 tonnes of payload may be deployed. This is sufficient for THREE power satellites, instead of one. Each power satellite generates 11.2 GW of laser energy that is beamed to Earth.



http://www.scribd.com/doc/130453929/Power-Satellite



http://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/S...-Satellite-GEO



http://www.scribd.com/doc/35449912/S...tellite-Orbits



http://www.scribd.com/doc/29948592/Proto-Progress



LUNAR OPERATIONS SUPPORT TERRESTRIAL OPERATIONS



An 11.2 GW power satellite can produce a laser rocket exhaust that generates 247,000 kgf (2.43 MN) to lift a 177.1 tonne single stage vehicle off the pad. With a 9.2 km/sec exhaust speed energizing 264.6 kg/sec at lift off the vehicle delivers 65.2 metric tons to LEO of which 15.2 metric tons is inert mass of the vehicle, and 50.0 metric tons is useful load. The system uses 111.9 tonnes of water propellant energized by laser energy to achieve this.



This launcher is a biconic vehicle with spherical nose. A spherical tank 6 meters in diameter carries the propellant which is energized by laser energy. This propellant is water. The vehicle is manufactured on the moon.



The 15.2 tonne inert vehicle with no payload is partially filled with 7.2 tonnes of water propellant. A laser power satellite at L1 energizes the vehicle and causes it to fly to Earth where it uses aerodynamic braking to fly to a launch center and laser energy from an Earth orbiting satellite to execute a powered touch down.



A single satellite at L1 provides sufficient beam energy to lift 17 vehicles of this type per hour.

Indeed, solar energy as utilized and easily beamed to any given launch or in support of getting whatever to/from our moon L1, whereas the zero delta vee from this Earth-moon L1 gateway/OASIS is ideal for the task of exploiting the moon as well as any other off-world missions.

Just like utilizing your Earth L1 solar energy array, the same applies for the moon L1 that's fully illuminated 97+% of the time, as well as having access to a great deal of moon IR half of the time.