[Fwd: John Bosma's SPS Concepts
FYI,
Interesting SPS concepts.
Mark Reiff
--------------
Space-power Digest wrote:
>
> Space Power Digest Mon, 29 Dec 97 Volume 1 : Issue 152
>
> Today's Topics:
> Space solar power
>
> Welcome to the ISU Space Power Digest!! This digest will
> seek to provide a forum for discussion of wireless power
> transmission, solar power systems. It is hosted by alumni
> and faculty of the International Space University, but is
> open to everyone with an interest in this area.
>
> Send e-mail contributions to: space-power@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, send your e-mail request to:
> space-power-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> If you experience technical problems, send an e-mail message
> detailing the problem to: digests@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 13:43:42 -0500
> From: John Thomas Bosma <jtbosma@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Space solar power
>
> 12-28-97
> To all SPs advocates:
>
> I received a 12-24 note on SPS prospects ("An SPS in NASA's
> Christmas Stocking?" -- from NASA Watch in Reston, Va.) and want to note
> some items for SPS promoters.
> A note on my SPS background: in mid-1977, a week after joining
> TK Jones' group at Boeing Aerospace Co. (BAC) as an expert on arms
> control and business development, I was assigned to a BAC project team
> that, among other things, was working on SPS; I worked with Ralph
> Nansen, Gordon Woodcock and Orlando Johnson. Johnson was a former
> corporate economist for the entire Boeing Company and had done an
> interesting economic analysis of SPS that showed its attractiveness even
> back then, when the reference SPS needed a huge launch vehicle with more
> lift than the Saturn 5 to lift into LEO the raw materials (coiled
> aluminum beams, etc.) and fabrication machinery needed to make a large
> truss-and-membrane SPS structure that could then be transferred to GEO.
> Obviously, a great deal has changed since then in terms of
> technology. Trends in technology are converging to (a) make SPS elements
> smaller and simpler; (b) FAR cheaper to launch; (c) scalable from simple
> low-power demos (e.g., powering satcom terminals in remote areas, per a
> recent article in MIT's Technology Review) all the way up to large SPS
> constellations; and (d) capable of "cooperative swarm" of sub-arrays. To
> be more specific:
>
> a. Smaller and simpler arrays:
> Inflatable arrays that can be pure gas-pressurized inflatables
> or can rigidized in place are being developed by two companies: L'Garde
> (Tustin, Cal.) and SRS Technologies (with NASA-Langley). Inflatables can
> now be designed for high optical figure (= accuracy). They can also be
> controlled in position by nanothruster chips, like the 104-nanothruster
> chip that TRW is making for DARPA's MEMS (microelectromechanical
> systems) program.
>
> b. Easier to launch:
> These inflatables can be gun-launched to LEO from earth, using
> updated chemical-powder guns like Gerald Bull's Iraqi super-gun, which
> one SAIC friend believes could have put >400 lbs into LEO, or using
> modern electromagnetic guns. The big problem with firing useful payloads
> into space has been projectile nosetips for low angles of gun elevation,
> which you need to avoid huge orbit-circularization propellant/mass
> costs. Those nosetips are now available or in sight.
> I don't know who has looked at G-hardenening methods for
> inflatable packages launched at 10,000-20,000 G's. But it's worth noting
> that Bull used World War 2 battleship guns to fire sizable probes up to
> 120 miles up in 1966-1968. When he was planning to launch to LEO (his
> project was canceled on the verge of that), he worked out a G-hardening
> method using waterbags to keep his projectile's LEO-staging solid motor
> from collapsing and slumping during the first bitg shock of gun launch.
>
> c. Scalable in application and entry cost:
> The MIT article outlines a way to piggyback SPS on the large
> satcom constellations that will populate LEO in 10 years or so. This
> means that the basics of SPS can be wrung out at low risk.
>
> d. SPS arrays as "cooperative swarms":
> I recall that the most complex and assembly-intensive element on
> the Boeing reference SPS was the satellite's RF antenna. But today, one
> can draw on DARPA and service work on "distributed aperture radar" (DAR)
> arrays or "sparse arrays" for space-based radars (SBRs) or hybrid (SBR +
> aircraft/aerostat + ground) multistatic radars. Over 10 years ago, one
> DAR-SBR advocate developed (and, I believe, simulated) techniques to
> create a coherent SBR radar beam from hundreds of junky, low-grade
> sub-arrays drifting in LEO many tens of kilometers from each other.
> At the time, the killer problem was the need for very high
> processing power (gigabits/second) on each sub-array and also
> high-data-rate RF or optical inter-array links. Neither requirement
> could be met back then; they are available today or in prospect.
>
> What this suggests is a new SPS architecture: thousands of
> inflatable sub-arrays, each designed and launched almost as a munition
> and each with its own micro-propulsion, that could be launched as
> payloads of opportunity or later on launched by dedicated guns firing
> from, say, remote sites like White Sands, Norway or Alaska (although for
> efficiency you'd prefer the equator). The sub-arrays could work
> cooperatively for space-to-earth power beaming.
> The advantages are (a) no people required; and (b) it would use
> bits and pieces of different technologies (MEMS, DAR/SBR, optical and RF
> high-data-rate crosslinks, high-throughput (gigaflops/sec) processors --
> each of which has a sponsor that might want to chip in on a demo.
> Give me your thoughts when you feel like it, call or e-mail to
> my home or business numbers.
>
> John Bosma, Potomac Institute for Policy Studies (a DARPA
> contractor), 703-525-0770 x239; H 703-841-4352
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Space Power Digest Volume 1 : Issue 152
> ------------------------------
--
Mark Reiff <mreiff1@xxxxxxxxxx>
Gratuitous political statement, look here ->
<http://www.earthlink.net/~markreiff/pork.jpg>
"I think we are all trying too hard to push space
versus finding the pulls that attract people and their money."
"The heavens reward great deeds, not excuses."
-- BEGIN included message
To
Space-power.Readers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From
Space-power Digest <space-power@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date
Mon, 29 Dec 97 02:35:04
Reply-To
Space-Power-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Space Power Digest Mon, 29 Dec 97 Volume 1 : Issue 152
Today's Topics:
Space solar power
Welcome to the ISU Space Power Digest!! This digest will
seek to provide a forum for discussion of wireless power
transmission, solar power systems. It is hosted by alumni
and faculty of the International Space University, but is
open to everyone with an interest in this area.
Send e-mail contributions to: space-power@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send your e-mail request to:
space-power-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
If you experience technical problems, send an e-mail message
detailing the problem to: digests@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 13:43:42 -0500
From: John Thomas Bosma <jtbosma@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Space solar power
12-28-97
To all SPs advocates:
I received a 12-24 note on SPS prospects ("An SPS in NASA's
Christmas Stocking?" -- from NASA Watch in Reston, Va.) and want to note
some items for SPS promoters.
A note on my SPS background: in mid-1977, a week after joining
TK Jones' group at Boeing Aerospace Co. (BAC) as an expert on arms
control and business development, I was assigned to a BAC project team
that, among other things, was working on SPS; I worked with Ralph
Nansen, Gordon Woodcock and Orlando Johnson. Johnson was a former
corporate economist for the entire Boeing Company and had done an
interesting economic analysis of SPS that showed its attractiveness even
back then, when the reference SPS needed a huge launch vehicle with more
lift than the Saturn 5 to lift into LEO the raw materials (coiled
aluminum beams, etc.) and fabrication machinery needed to make a large
truss-and-membrane SPS structure that could then be transferred to GEO.
Obviously, a great deal has changed since then in terms of
technology. Trends in technology are converging to (a) make SPS elements
smaller and simpler; (b) FAR cheaper to launch; (c) scalable from simple
low-power demos (e.g., powering satcom terminals in remote areas, per a
recent article in MIT's Technology Review) all the way up to large SPS
constellations; and (d) capable of "cooperative swarm" of sub-arrays. To
be more specific:
a. Smaller and simpler arrays:
Inflatable arrays that can be pure gas-pressurized inflatables
or can rigidized in place are being developed by two companies: L'Garde
(Tustin, Cal.) and SRS Technologies (with NASA-Langley). Inflatables can
now be designed for high optical figure (= accuracy). They can also be
controlled in position by nanothruster chips, like the 104-nanothruster
chip that TRW is making for DARPA's MEMS (microelectromechanical
systems) program.
b. Easier to launch:
These inflatables can be gun-launched to LEO from earth, using
updated chemical-powder guns like Gerald Bull's Iraqi super-gun, which
one SAIC friend believes could have put >400 lbs into LEO, or using
modern electromagnetic guns. The big problem with firing useful payloads
into space has been projectile nosetips for low angles of gun elevation,
which you need to avoid huge orbit-circularization propellant/mass
costs. Those nosetips are now available or in sight.
I don't know who has looked at G-hardenening methods for
inflatable packages launched at 10,000-20,000 G's. But it's worth noting
that Bull used World War 2 battleship guns to fire sizable probes up to
120 miles up in 1966-1968. When he was planning to launch to LEO (his
project was canceled on the verge of that), he worked out a G-hardening
method using waterbags to keep his projectile's LEO-staging solid motor
from collapsing and slumping during the first bitg shock of gun launch.
c. Scalable in application and entry cost:
The MIT article outlines a way to piggyback SPS on the large
satcom constellations that will populate LEO in 10 years or so. This
means that the basics of SPS can be wrung out at low risk.
d. SPS arrays as "cooperative swarms":
I recall that the most complex and assembly-intensive element on
the Boeing reference SPS was the satellite's RF antenna. But today, one
can draw on DARPA and service work on "distributed aperture radar" (DAR)
arrays or "sparse arrays" for space-based radars (SBRs) or hybrid (SBR +
aircraft/aerostat + ground) multistatic radars. Over 10 years ago, one
DAR-SBR advocate developed (and, I believe, simulated) techniques to
create a coherent SBR radar beam from hundreds of junky, low-grade
sub-arrays drifting in LEO many tens of kilometers from each other.
At the time, the killer problem was the need for very high
processing power (gigabits/second) on each sub-array and also
high-data-rate RF or optical inter-array links. Neither requirement
could be met back then; they are available today or in prospect.
What this suggests is a new SPS architecture: thousands of
inflatable sub-arrays, each designed and launched almost as a munition
and each with its own micro-propulsion, that could be launched as
payloads of opportunity or later on launched by dedicated guns firing
from, say, remote sites like White Sands, Norway or Alaska (although for
efficiency you'd prefer the equator). The sub-arrays could work
cooperatively for space-to-earth power beaming.
The advantages are (a) no people required; and (b) it would use
bits and pieces of different technologies (MEMS, DAR/SBR, optical and RF
high-data-rate crosslinks, high-throughput (gigaflops/sec) processors --
each of which has a sponsor that might want to chip in on a demo.
Give me your thoughts when you feel like it, call or e-mail to
my home or business numbers.
John Bosma, Potomac Institute for Policy Studies (a DARPA
contractor), 703-525-0770 x239; H 703-841-4352
------------------------------
End of Space Power Digest Volume 1 : Issue 152
------------------------------
-- END included message
Date
<td bgcolor=#b0b0b0
width=33%>Previous
<td bgcolor=#b0b0b0
width=33%>List
<td bgcolor=#b0b0b0
width=33%>Last
Thread
<td bgcolor=#b0b0b0
width=33%>Previous
<td bgcolor=#b0b0b0
width=33%>List
<td bgcolor=#b0b0b0
width=33%>Last
