Documents / Report
This Defense Intelligence Reference Document from the Defense Intelligence Agency, dated 1 November 2010, was produced under the Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications (AAWSA) Program. It describes nanosatellite technologies and proposes launching nanosats into orbit with laser Lightcraft propulsion. It also covers a weapon mission selection study and multi-megawatt laser options. The author recommends that the Department of Defense and NASA bring Lightcraft R&D back to the United States and restart the X-50LR flight demonstration program.
“Masse”33 pages
UNCLASSIFIED/ /1"91t 9ffU!l"I!! l!l!il! 8111!!¥ ground, sea and air launches of Lightcraft to LEO with air launch occurring at either subsonic or hypersonic speed. Lightcraft Ground/Sea to Space Investigation The current Air Force Lightcraft vehicle concept has been designed for not only placing nanosats into LEO at low cost (Figure 14), but also for performing much of the nanosat function as well. In this concept the precision optics system that focuses ground/sea- based laser light into the Lightcra~'s cowl area for propulsion is also used as a space telescope for viewing military targets on Earth and in space. And structural panels on the Lightcraft forebody are also used as solar panels that are unfurled in orbit for generation of satellite power. Thus, the current Lightcraft's design allocates only 0.1 kg of its 1.0 kg dry mass for exclusively nanosat functions. There is a military need for 1.0 kg to 2.0 kg nanosats with optical sensors for visual inspection of unknown objects in space and on Earth. Since conventional expendable rockets could conceivably be an alternative to laser- powered Lightcraft for the rapid placement of military nanosats in LEO, a cursory comparison of Lightcraft and conventional rockets was made by Froning and Davis [26] to get some idea of their comparative costs. Hybrid rocket sizing and costing was based upon tactical strategic missile sizing and costing information possessed by H. D. Froning. This information related costs (in 1982 dollars) to rocket and payload characteristics. Lightcraft sizing assumed a propellant mass fraction of 0.5 and 1.0 MW of laser power per pound of payload (dry mass) placed into orbit. Costs for laser power and refurbishment were based upon AFRL estimates (amortized over a fewer number of flights). Although these Lightcraft and laser costs are higher (based upon much fewer flights) than those of previous AFRL estimates, they are believed to be consistent with the conventional rocket costs, and therefore applicable for relative cost comparisons. More detailed future Lightcraft/conventional rocket designs and cost comparisons are, of course, needed before a strong argument can be made for either design. Shown in Table 2 is the estimated performance and weights (masses) for 3-stage hybrid rocket launch vehicles and single-stage laser-powered launch vehicles that are capable of placing nanosats of 1.0 kg, 5.0 kg, and 10 kg into LEO. And Table 3 shows estimated costs for hybrid rockets and laser-powered Lightcraft assuming 100 flights over a 10-year period. These estimated costs indicate that Lightcraft could boost nanosats in the 2.0 kg to 5.0 kg range into LEO at about 1/lOth to l/5th the cost of expendable rockets. But Lightcraft cost superiority over conventional rockets is less overwhelming for satellites that are significantly heavier. Thus Lightcraft appear extremely attractive for satellite delivery missions only if Lightcraft dry masses, including the satellites being carried, are less than about 5.0 kg. 30 UNCLASSIFIED/ /1"91t 91"1"1!1"1!! 1!181! e,11a~·
Not linked to a story yet.
Report, from the dia collection. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is under it. 77 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.