Building in space is an expensive task left to only the wealthiest and ... who cares? I want to make LEGOs for space. A range of innovative individuals and groups are putting forth various ideas on how to reduce the cost developing the resource we know and love called space (terrible phrasing, what do you want, its not like I have an editor here) Swarm satellites, zombie space probes, and 3-D printed applications. Personally the approach that I would be interested to see in action (mostly because I think it is kind of a unique idea and I haven't spent 10 minutes on the Googles to shatter my belief that I'm original) is creating an open platform of space certified low primary components that can be assembled by robot in LEO (low Earth orbit) and then have their orbit adjusted according to mission requirements.
Unlike mass produced products like cars or cellphones, satellites are far less common with roughly 4000 listed payload launches and of that number roughly 1000 active platforms in Earth orbit these devices are of limited production runs. Obviously aerospace manufacturers do not reinvent the wheel with every launch, much of the satellites basic functionality is well defined and roughly replicated throughout a technologies generation.
In Figure 1 you see a rather crude approximation of a launching an orbital system. The fully assembled platform is launched from the Earth's surface. Once in orbit the platform will unfold into its optimal configuration from the small volume footprint that was required for launch. Another requirement of this approach is that the frame of the space craft must be built to survive the rigors of launch, adding to the launch mass. Part of this additional structural support will remain with the spacecraft through out its operational life, increasing the quantity of maneuvering propellant required over the system's deployment.
What I would propose is that some the more commonly required components should be made into construction elements that can be added to the space craft in Earth Orbit. Step 0) Long before the mission critical elements of our system goes into orbit an established construction platform/system constellation is assembled in either Low or Mid Earth Orbit. Step 1) The assembled construction platform takes on supplies for its mission of satellite production. Propellants (a) and electronic and mechanical components (b) are stored as part of the construction constellation. To aid in the potential cost savings of this approach the aim of this methodology is to emulate cube satellite launches, parts piggy back into orbit on other missions. The material stockpile can be built up in a piecemeal fashion in addition to the more traditional supply runs that are seen on the ISS. Step 2) An open platform components satellite is launched into an orbit that will allow it to dock with the construction constellation. Step 3) After docking with the construction constellation, components are added to the satellite, for earlier generations of this technology the augmentations will most likely be limited to adding solar panels, providing additional propellant for maneuvering thrusters, and a radio/microwave dish. As the capabilities of the construction platform improve and engineers learn how to best utilize this production paradigm the complexity what is built in orbit will incrase, eventually leading to a point where only base components are sent into orbit and all major assembly occurs in space. In Figure 2) (d) is being used to indicate that a radio dish is being added to the base satellite (e). Step 4) the fully assembled satellite has is moved into whatever its operational orbit might be.
Satellites will end their operational life for any number of reasons, colliding with orbiting space debris, becoming obsolete, the owners of the satellite lose control, exhaustion of maneuvering propellant supplies etc.. Under optimal conditions a satellite can be placed in either a decaying orbit, where it will burn up in the Earth's atmosphere, or moved into a graveyard orbit. Additionally DARPA's proposed Pheonix program would attempt to breathe new life into systems once thought dead, by having a maintenance robot repair a selected satellite. By designing satellites to be compatible with an open standard for hardware and critical mounting elements, we open the door for a larger range of options for recycling mass in orbit.
In Figure 3) you can see a repair robot replacing a broken component with a rather happy working part that will allow the satellite to continue operation. This approach effectively mirrors what is intended by the Pheonix Program but adds one major feature, a design meant to be reworked while in space. Current proposals suggest that the system would require a wide number of tools to allow for reworking the satellite, standardized components for future satellites would drastically reduce what the repair robot would need to bring with itself.
For systems totally beyond their useful life span Figure 4) reverses the assembly process. The old satellite is brought from its operational orbit, back to the construction constellation and broken down into its base components, where they can be used by future satellites. The owners of the satellite can now resell components to others who may not have the same budget for space development. In theory the Pheonix Program approach could also follow a similar business plan, but there would be greater capital costs for Pheonix (assuming the construction constellation exists, obviously)
Follow Up (ok not really I just found out some final details near the end of writing and didn't know where to properly insert them): While I still haven't exactly found the "LEGOs in space" approach, DARPA's System F6 initiative highlights a solution that is probably more reasonable, swarm satellites collaborating around a pseudo mother ship or as an emergent system. (the latest article on System F6 is here) That being said I think that my approach or other in orbit manufacturing systems will still serve as necessary component for expanding humanities capabilities in the heavens
Follow Up #2 (this time I actually hit publish before I added it) While reading an article on space debris I learned that under the current approach to the Pheonix Program the repair robot must be manually operated, and deal with a rather long communication delay. In theory a more standardized satellite design paradigm could help mitigate these issues.
Follow Up #3 (Jan 20 2013, I am so smart S, M, R, T ) so it turns out there is a full on lego approach to satellite design, although the assembly appears to be more terrestrial at this juncture
 |
| Figure 1) Traditional Satellite Launch |
In Figure 1 you see a rather crude approximation of a launching an orbital system. The fully assembled platform is launched from the Earth's surface. Once in orbit the platform will unfold into its optimal configuration from the small volume footprint that was required for launch. Another requirement of this approach is that the frame of the space craft must be built to survive the rigors of launch, adding to the launch mass. Part of this additional structural support will remain with the spacecraft through out its operational life, increasing the quantity of maneuvering propellant required over the system's deployment.
 |
| Figure 2) Building in Space |
What I would propose is that some the more commonly required components should be made into construction elements that can be added to the space craft in Earth Orbit. Step 0) Long before the mission critical elements of our system goes into orbit an established construction platform/system constellation is assembled in either Low or Mid Earth Orbit. Step 1) The assembled construction platform takes on supplies for its mission of satellite production. Propellants (a) and electronic and mechanical components (b) are stored as part of the construction constellation. To aid in the potential cost savings of this approach the aim of this methodology is to emulate cube satellite launches, parts piggy back into orbit on other missions. The material stockpile can be built up in a piecemeal fashion in addition to the more traditional supply runs that are seen on the ISS. Step 2) An open platform components satellite is launched into an orbit that will allow it to dock with the construction constellation. Step 3) After docking with the construction constellation, components are added to the satellite, for earlier generations of this technology the augmentations will most likely be limited to adding solar panels, providing additional propellant for maneuvering thrusters, and a radio/microwave dish. As the capabilities of the construction platform improve and engineers learn how to best utilize this production paradigm the complexity what is built in orbit will incrase, eventually leading to a point where only base components are sent into orbit and all major assembly occurs in space. In Figure 2) (d) is being used to indicate that a radio dish is being added to the base satellite (e). Step 4) the fully assembled satellite has is moved into whatever its operational orbit might be.
Satellites will end their operational life for any number of reasons, colliding with orbiting space debris, becoming obsolete, the owners of the satellite lose control, exhaustion of maneuvering propellant supplies etc.. Under optimal conditions a satellite can be placed in either a decaying orbit, where it will burn up in the Earth's atmosphere, or moved into a graveyard orbit. Additionally DARPA's proposed Pheonix program would attempt to breathe new life into systems once thought dead, by having a maintenance robot repair a selected satellite. By designing satellites to be compatible with an open standard for hardware and critical mounting elements, we open the door for a larger range of options for recycling mass in orbit.
 |
| Figure 3) |
 |
| Figure 4) Returning to its spawning grounds the mature satellite will now give its life for the next generation |
As someone who does not have either the academic or industry experience to lean on in modeling the economics of satellite life cycles, I cannot claim there would be any actual costs savings, nor am I able to model what the ROI would look like over a given time span. That being said, my gut says this could end up saving the space industry money. Other benefits from this approach could include, increased flexibility in mission planning, integrating more countries into developing space based technologies, and decreasing the quantity of space debris in Earth orbit.
Follow Up (ok not really I just found out some final details near the end of writing and didn't know where to properly insert them): While I still haven't exactly found the "LEGOs in space" approach, DARPA's System F6 initiative highlights a solution that is probably more reasonable, swarm satellites collaborating around a pseudo mother ship or as an emergent system. (the latest article on System F6 is here) That being said I think that my approach or other in orbit manufacturing systems will still serve as necessary component for expanding humanities capabilities in the heavens
Follow Up #2 (this time I actually hit publish before I added it) While reading an article on space debris I learned that under the current approach to the Pheonix Program the repair robot must be manually operated, and deal with a rather long communication delay. In theory a more standardized satellite design paradigm could help mitigate these issues.
Follow Up #3 (Jan 20 2013, I am so smart S, M, R, T ) so it turns out there is a full on lego approach to satellite design, although the assembly appears to be more terrestrial at this juncture
No comments:
Post a Comment