Engineering topics
Publications and source records attributed to Davis, E. E..
The protection of a reusable transfer vehicle from space debris is discussed. The results of a debris protection analysis are given. It was concluded that a shielding thickness of 0.62mm (24 mils) equivalent aluminum was needed when using a good double wall design. An additional 0.43 mm (18 mils) of shielding was needed during on-orbit storage time between flights.
Missions for future orbit transfer vehicles (1995-2010) are identified and the technology, operations and vehicle concepts that satisfy the transportation requirements are defined. Comparison of reusable space and ground based LO2/LH2 OTV's was made. Both vehicles used advanced space engines and aero assist capability. The SB OTV provided advantages in life cycle cost, performance and potential for improvement. Comparison of an all LO2/LH2 OTV fleet with a fleet of LO2/LH2 OTVs and electric OTV's was also made. The normal growth technology electric OTV used silicon cells with heavy shielding and argon ion thrusters. This provided a 23% advantage in total transportation cost. The impact of accelerated technology was considered in terms of improvements in performance and cost effectiveness. The accelerated technology electric vehicle used GaAs cells and annealing but did not result in the mixed fleet being any cheaper than an all LO2/LH2 OTV fleet. It is concluded that reusable LO2/LH2 OTV's can serve all general purpose cargo roles between LEO and GEO for the forseeable future. The most significant technology for the second generation vehicle would be space debris protection, on-orbit propellant storage and transfer and on-orbit maintenance capability.
Reusable space and ground based LO2/LH2 OTV's, both advanced space engines and aero assist capability were compared. The SB OTV provided advantages in life cycle cost, performance and potential for improvement. An all LO2/LH2 OTV fleet was also compared with a fleet of LO2/.H2 OTV's and electric OTV's. The normal growth technology electric OTV used silicon cells with heavy shielding and argon ion thrusters. In this case, the LO2/LH2 OTV fleet provided a 23% advantage in total transportation cost. An accelerated technology LF2/LH2 OTV provided improvements in performance relative to LO2/.H2 OTV but has higher DDT&E cost which negated its cost effectiveness. The accelerated technology electric vehicle used GaAs cells and annealing but still did not result in the mixed fleet being any cheaper than an all LO2/LH2 OTV fleet. It is concluded that reusable LO2/LH2 OTV's can serve all general purpose cargo roles between LEO and GEO for the forseeable future. The most significant technology for the second generation vehicle would be space debris protection, on orbit propellant storage and transfer and on orbit maintenance capability.
This paper presents the results of a comparison of space vs. ground basing of orbital transfer vehicles (OTV). The comparison was done assuming an 11-year mission model beginning in 1995 and averaging over 100 MT of payloads per year to GEO. When analyzed from a total transportation standpoint, the launch system employed had the greatest impact on the basing mode comparison. A launch fleet consisting of both a basic STS and a Shuttle derivative cargo vehicle provided the least cost. Only a small advantage (3%) was found in flight performance for the space based (SB) OTV once it incorporated the necessary provisions for space debris protection and on-orbit maintenance. Propellant storage and transfer losses associated with the SB OTV amounted to 12% of the actual flight propellant requirement. Turnaround of the SB OTV required a crew of 3 and 40% duty cycle. The life cycle cost comparison including all involved space elements indicated less than a 10% difference between basing modes. The SB OTV however is judged to provide more flexibility in launch manifesting, simplified recovery operations and greater potential for improvement.
Construction and transportation systems and operations are described for the following combinations: (1) silicon photovoltaic CR=1 satellite constructed primarily in low earth orbit (LEO); (2) silicon photovoltaic CR=1 satellite constructed in geosynchronous earth orbit (GEO); (3) Rankine thermal engine satellite constructed primarily in LEO; and (4) Rankine thermal engine satellite constructed in GEO.
Procedure incorporates modified pyrolysis train. Samples are vaporized before entering furnace to be pyrolyzed at 850 C + or - 25 C. Direct collection of pyrolyzed gas reduces loss of carbon dioxide. Infrared spectroscopy can be used to analyze samples for carbon dioxide content.
Advantages of solar power satellites compared to ground-based solar power installations are related to an almost continuous exposure to sunlight and to a much smaller collector area. An investigation of the transportation cost problem is conducted. Transportation systems based on presently understood technology are considered for the deployment of solar power satellites at potentially competitive costs. It is found that the cost of placement in a geosynchronous orbit is reducible to the range from $500 to $1000/kW. Approaches for achieving dramatic cost reductions are discussed.