Swiss space plane to launch robotic orbital debris destroyer

On Sunday, September 15, 2013 6:13:34 AM UTC+12, Brad Guth wrote:
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.

With Laser Ablative Propulsion - producing 20 km/sec exhaust speeds and Laser Ion Propulsion producing 54 km/sec exhaust speeds, and Photonic Thrusters with light as thrust - and no propellant - we can do a lot.

The Photonic thruster is the real game changer here. That's because it is more energy efficient than a laser light sail and can reach out and lift anything visible to it at relatively modest power.

An 11.2 GW laser energizing the following for lift off from Earth;

Ve=9.2 km/sec
thrust=5.293 MN
u=0.6321
GLOW=385.0 tonnes
propellant =243.4 tonnes


Ve=20.0 km/sec
thrust=1.120 MN
u=0.3687
GLOW=81.5 tonnes
propellant =30.1 tonnes


Ve=54.0 km/sec
thrust=0.153 MN
u=0.1566
GLOW=11.2 tonnes
propellant =1.8 tonnes

On Saturday, September 14, 2013 9:30:26 AM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:
On Friday, September 13, 2013 10:37:09 PM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Alain Fournier wrote:

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.

And if talking could make it happen we wouldn't need a debris catcher.
We could just wish it all away.

No that doesn't work.

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.

Just as a thought experiment, imagine we can just teleport the debris
away...

Unfortunately I don't know how to make such a teleporter work.

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.

If the debris is that easy to deorbit, why not just wait a little
while and it will deorbit itself?

That is the method that has been used for the past 50 years. It kind
of works. The problem is that it is too slow and new debris are
generated at a faster rate than the old debris are deorbited.

I understand you were just trying to be sarcastic. It's okay to
say stupid things once in a while to be sarcastic. But you should
put in there more than stupid things or else the signal to noise ratio
becomes horribly low. So I understand you think my suggestion isn't
good. Can you say why you think it isn't good? Do you have another
suggestion for deorbiting debris?


Alain Fournier

On Sunday, September 15, 2013 2:23:04 PM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Alain, the sarcasm should tell you why I think it "isn't good". It
"isn't good" because it presupposes the suspension of the laws of
physics.

Which laws of physics would that be?

A delta V of 10 km/s says that your 'catapult' in your
debris catcher could launch debris from the Earth's surface and hit
the Moon. You're talking about being able to impart a delta V that is
some 90% of escape velocity.

The 10 km/s of delta V was clearly indicated as a thought experiment. I'm not suggesting that. To deorbit an object in a circular orbit at an altitude of 300 km, you need about 100 m/s of delta V. Debris are typically in elliptical orbits therefore need less delta V to deorbit. Also, you don't really need to deorbit, if you lower perigee enough for the orbit to decay within say 5 years, I would consider that good enough, not ideal but good enough.. For many debris that would need something like 50 m/s of delta V. If you have a catapult that can throw the debris at more than 50 m/s, you don't have to catapult the debris at apogee in the direction opposite to orbital motion, you can use your leeway to choose a little in what direction the catcher will be pushed. How much leeway you have will depend on the particular orbit of the debris and the power of the catapult. If you have only a little leeway, it won't help you much. If you have a lot of leeway you can use it.

Consider a spherical tank 1 meter in diameter containing a smaller tank 631 mm in diameter. The inner tank contains 150 kg of lox, the larger tank 28 kg of lh2. The Tank array masses 8 kg. MEMS hardware another 4 kg. Total mass 190 kg. Exhaust speed 4.2 km/sec average for Earth launch.

u = 178/190 = 0.936842
Vf = 4.2 * LN(1/(1-u)) = 11.60 km/sec

Now consider a spherical tank 1 meter in diameter containing a monopropellant consisting of hydrogen peroxide and carbon nanoparticles forming a milkshake like mixture that masses 1.73 kg per liter. The tank contains 905.8 kg of propellant. The tank itself masses 5.7 kg (not 8) and the MEMS hardware is the same 4 kg. A total of 9.7 kg structure mass. Exhaust speed is 2..8 km/sec.

u = 905.8/911.5 = 0.993747
Vf = 2.8 * LN(1/(1-u)) = 14.21 km/sec !!

So, a reduction in structure and an increase in propellant density, makes for a significant increase in performance! The second sphere could go to the moon, land and return! Since the 4 kg of MEMS contains a camera array giving HDTV views in all directions, this is not a minor thing.

Now consider a rocket built by one of my professors at the Ohio State University, Garvin von Eschen in 1967 for the Air Force.

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0-%200069.html

Dr. von Eschen helped developed the RL-10 hydrogen oxygen rocket for Pratt & Whitney back in the 1950s. He also developed the V1 'buzz' bomb for the Germans in World War 2. He came over with von Braun as part of Operation Paperclip.

This rocket engine consisted of Lithium and Hydrogen and Fluorine, which when combined at liquid lithium temperatures is hypergolic. The rocket produced an exhaust speed of 5.33 km/sec.

Today we can create nanoparticles of Lithium and mix them with super-cooled hydrogen in a way that is quite stable. The fluorine too can be frozen into nano-sized ice particles and mixed with hydrogen. At low temperatures, the system is perfectly stable. Just like having a load of wood and newspapers in your fire place. You only need to apply heat to light it off. haha - the system explodes a little below room temperature!

This system benefits from high propellant density - 0.868 kg/liter and high exhaust velocity and monopropellant simplicity along with easy ignition. The sphere contains 454.3 kg of propellant. The sphere itself weighs 5.7 kg. The MEMS hardware 4 kg. So, total weight is 463.0 kg.

u = 454.3 / 463.0 = 0.987609
Vf = 5.33 * LN(1/(1-u)) = 23.40 km/sec !!!

With aerobraking this sphere could go to Mars and return! OR enter Venusian orbit with aerobraking and return! The sphere would be capable of visiting all Apollo lunar landing sites and returning!

It should be noted that according to vonEschen, they ran exceedingly hydrogen rich in the 1967 tests to maintain thermal control in the early testing. Later optimizing for performance it has been informally reported that 608 sec Isp was achieved. That's 5.97 km/sec Ve!!! This was not reported in the literature since it was supported by the Air Force and they didn't want it reported. Though they didn't classify it, so vonEschen could talk about it with his students as was appropriate. Higher Isp, less hydrogen, and higher density - are possible from even the figures above!

To match the Space Shuttle's capability a launcher must attain ideally, 9.2 km/sec. So, plugging this in for each of the three systems considered here we obtain;

Conventional Cryogen:

u = 1 - 1/exp(9.2/4.2) = 0.88814
GLOW = 178 kg / 0.88814 = 200.4 kg
p = 200.4 - 190.0 = 10.4 kg

High Density Monopropellant:

u = 1 - 1/exp(9.2/2.8) = 0.96259
GLOW = 905.8 / 0.96259 = 941.0 kg
p = 941.0 -911.5 = 29.5 kg

Cryogen Monopropellant:

u = 1 - 1/exp(9.2/5.33) = 0.82202
GLOW = 454.3 / 0.82202 = 552.6
p = 552.6 - 463.0 = 89.6 kg

A single biosuited astronaut with two of the advanced cryogen monopropellant tanks attached would be capable of attaining 9.85 km/sec delta vee - less gravity and air drag loss 8.55 km/sec. Burned in sequence, with a 1,086 kg take off weight, a speed of 2.88 km/sec is attained at first tank drop, and another 6.97 km/sec is added to attain 9.85 km/sec at the second tank drop.

Two additional tanks fully fuelled on orbit would take the astronaut to the Moon and back, with recovery of all the tanks!

As mentioned elsewhere the cryogen tanks require nine units to orbit a biosuited astronaut and eight added tanks to fly to the moon and back. These tanks are scattered around the world and around the moon! The high density monopropellant does a little better, but (a) cannot be refuelled from local water sources, and (b) does not support biosuit operations. The advanced cryogen is so powerful, it doesn't really matter all that much.

On Saturday, September 14, 2013 5:13:25 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, September 15, 2013 6:13:34 AM UTC+12, Brad Guth wrote:

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.



With Laser Ablative Propulsion - producing 20 km/sec exhaust speeds and Laser Ion Propulsion producing 54 km/sec exhaust speeds, and Photonic Thrusters with light as thrust - and no propellant - we can do a lot.


The Photonic thruster is the real game changer here. That's because it is more energy efficient than a laser light sail and can reach out and lift anything visible to it at relatively modest power.


An 11.2 GW laser energizing the following for lift off from Earth;



Ve=9.2 km/sec

thrust=5.293 MN

u=0.6321

GLOW=385.0 tonnes

propellant =243.4 tonnes



Ve=20.0 km/sec

thrust=1.120 MN

u=0.3687

GLOW=81.5 tonnes

propellant =30.1 tonnes



Ve=54.0 km/sec

thrust=0.153 MN

u=0.1566

GLOW=11.2 tonnes

propellant =1.8 tonnes

Once again you bring a good amount of useful research information, as to helping us exploite off-world instead of only exploiting Earth which is getting overpopulated and resource depleted by nature as well as by what we humans have done.

"David Spain" wrote in message
...

On 9/12/2013 3:50 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
That said, I still think some sort of aerogel may be the ultimate
solution. Slow things down one pass at a time. Stuff that needs to
remain in orbit maneuvers around it.


Or if it's big (massive) enough, blasts right through it.

But slightly decreasing its energy.

Do it enough times and you have an effect.

(or just a chunk of aerogel full of holes ;-)



Dave




--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On 09/15/2013 5:16 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

To deorbit an object in a circular orbit at an altitude of 300 km, you need about 100 m/s of delta V.
Debris are typically in elliptical orbits therefore need less delta V to deorbit. Also, you don't
really need to deorbit, if you lower perigee enough for the orbit to decay within say 5 years,
I would consider that good enough, not ideal but good enough. For many debris that would need
something like 50 m/s of delta V. If you have a catapult that can throw the debris at more than
50 m/s, you don't have to catapult the debris at apogee in the direction opposite to orbital
motion, you can use your leeway to choose a little in what direction the catcher will be pushed.
How much leeway you have will depend on the particular orbit of the debris and the power of the
catapult. If you have only a little leeway, it won't help you much. If you have a lot of
leeway you can use it.


You have some leeway, but not enough. You now also aren't imparting
enough momentum to your catcher to do anything, so you're back to
needing a full blow propulsion system, with all that that entails in
the way of needing fuel, etc.

How can you say that there isn't enough leeway? I'm not saying you have
enough leeway to get rid of a more conventional propulsion system. I'm
just saying that you should use the leeway you do have wisely. In some
cases it won't help you much. In other cases it will help you a lot.

Why do you say that it will not impart enough momentum to the catcher to
do anything? How much momentum is imparted will depend on the specifics
of the catapult. If you have a lousy catapult, you won't get much
momentum. On the other hand, if you have a great catapult...

You're also assuming that you can both
deorbit the debris and thrown them in a direction that takes you to
the next bit of debris.

No. I'm assuming that the push from throwing the debris can be made to push you in the direction of another piece of debris. I clearly stated that you should also have another more conventional propulsion system.

You start with "No" and then essentially repeated what I said.

No I didn't repeat what you said. There is a difference between "having
a push in the direction of the next debris" and "throw them in a
direction that takes you to the next debris". If the two debris are
in orbits very close to one another, it might happen once in a while
the push can bring you to the next debris but I'm not saying that
this would happen often. But you do get a push and it can be a
significant and very useful push.

You seem to have forgotten the whole 'equal
and OPPOSITE reaction' thing.

Nope, I'm suggesting to use that equal and opposite reaction thing to push the catcher towards another piece of debris.

In other words, wishing and teleporting.

No, Newton's third law of motion is different from wishing and teleporting.


Alain Fournier

On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 3:57:12 PM UTC-4, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"David Spain" wrote in message
...

On 9/12/2013 3:50 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
That said, I still think some sort of aerogel may be the ultimate
solution. Slow things down one pass at a time. Stuff that needs to
remain in orbit maneuvers around it.


Or if it's big (massive) enough, blasts right through it.

But slightly decreasing its energy.

Do it enough times and you have an effect.

(or just a chunk of aerogel full of holes ;-)

I kind of like the aerogel solution. But I don't think it is as simple as it seems. In LEO, aerogel because it is so light, will deorbit rapidly. So you have to use a lot of it to be effective. After the aerogel hits a few debris it will next to impossible to raise its orbit because it will lose it cohesion. I'm not saying that it won't work. As I said, I kind of like that solution. But I don't know of any serious studies analysing how effective it is. Does anyone know of such a study?


Alain Fournier

On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 8:04:29 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 3:57:12 PM UTC-4, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

"David Spain" wrote in message

...



On 9/12/2013 3:50 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

That said, I still think some sort of aerogel may be the ultimate

solution. Slow things down one pass at a time. Stuff that needs to

remain in orbit maneuvers around it.





Or if it's big (massive) enough, blasts right through it.



But slightly decreasing its energy.



Do it enough times and you have an effect.



(or just a chunk of aerogel full of holes ;-)



I kind of like the aerogel solution. But I don't think it is as simple as it seems. In LEO, aerogel because it is so light, will deorbit rapidly. So you have to use a lot of it to be effective. After the aerogel hits a few debris it will next to impossible to raise its orbit because it will lose it cohesion. I'm not saying that it won't work. As I said, I kind of like that solution. But I don't know of any serious studies analysing how effective it is. Does anyone know of such a study?





Alain Fournier

Here's a 2007 paper

http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/smallsat/2007/all2007/41/

Electrodynamic thrusters capture sunlight and use the magnetic field of Earth to produce thrust and torque without propellant.

This is ideally suited for building debris capture and elimination satellites


As this 2009 paper shows

http://www.star-tech-inc.com/papers/...Conference.pdf

So, its pretty straight-forward what's happening.

The highest best use of this technology is to capture satellites, bring them to a higher parking orbit - creating a junk-yard in space. Then orbit another satellite that uses solar pumped lasers to reduce the junk-yard to plasma, collect the plasma plating it on to various electrodes - creating a resource in space from the junk yard. Then orbit a third satellite that takes the plated material, vaporizes it again with laser energy, and combines plasma streams to create any desired molecule, and deposit those molecules on a build surface to create structures through additive manufacturing. In this way you reuse the 5,000 tonnes of orbiting debris constantly processing old stuff into new stuff - eliminating the need for launchers - merely send a radio signal to the satellite carrying the design of the satellite you want. Then use the debris collector to carry the new satellite to the orbit you want.

In this way you get $12,000 per kg (slightly less than the current launch cost, not including insurance) - and by processing 500 kg per year - you come to dominate the launch market.

Since you don't have to pay launch insurance, savings are substantial.

Use your profits to develop MEMS based micro-launchers, which merely describe the size of components. Thrust of 45 psi (300 kPa) cost of $15 per square inch which means a cost of $0.33 per pound of thrust ($5 per 100 kPa, $0..70/kgf). With 1000 to 1 thrust to weight, and high efficiency along with highly parallel operation, which means high reliability high safety, easy control, etc, with adequate mass ratios.

Micro-satellites, combined with micro-launchers, to supply materials not found in the 5,000 metric tons gathered from orbital debris.

On 2013-09-14 02:02:04 +0000, said:

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.


And the balloons are used to block sunlight to reduce global warming.
You would need how many?

I've seen ideas using lunar materials to do this.

It's not for profit, its for 'mankind'