by Paul Gilster | Jun 28, 2016 | Uncategorized |
With manned missions to Mars in our thinking, both in government space agencies and the commercial sector, the challenge of providing adequate life support emerges as a key factor. We’re talking about a mission lasting about two years, as opposed to the relatively swift Apollo missions to the Moon (about two weeks). Discussing the matter in a new essay, Brian McConnell extends that to 800 days — after all, we need a margin in reserve.
Figure 5 kilograms per day per person for water, oxygen and food, assuming a crew of six. What you wind up with is 24,000 kilograms just for consumables. In terms of mass, we’re in the range of the International Space Station because of our need to keep these astronauts alive. McConnell, a software/electrical engineer based in San Francisco, has been working with Alex Tolley on the question of how we could turn most of these consumables into propellant. The idea is to deploy electric engines that use reclaimed water and waste gases to do the job.
With a nod to the transportation technologies that opened the American West, McConnell and Tolley have dubbed the idea a ‘Spacecoach.’ Centauri Dreams readers will remember Tolley’s Spaceward Ho! and McConnell’s A Stagecoach to the Stars, and the duo have also produced a book on the matter for Springer called A Design for a Reusable Water-Based Spacecraft Known as the Spacecoach. The new essay is a welcome addition to the literature on what appears to be a practical concept.
What fascinates me about the Spacecoach is that it enables us to begin building a space infrastructure that can extend past Mars to include the main asteroid belt. Using electric propulsion driven by a solar photovoltaic array, it achieves higher exhaust velocity than chemical rockets by a factor or ten, pulling much greater delta v from the same amount of propellant. Use water as propellant and you reduce the mass of the system by what McConnell estimates to be a factor of between 10 and 20. Huge reductions in cost follow.
Water as propellant? McConnell comments:
Electric propulsion is not a new technology, and has been used on many unmanned spacecraft. The idea is to use an external power source, typically a solar photovoltaic array, to drive an engine that uses an electrical or magnetic field to heat and accelerate a gas stream to great speed (tens of kilometers per second). Because these engines can achieve much higher exhaust velocity than chemical rockets, 10x or better, they can achieve greater change of velocity (delta v) using the same amount of propellant. This means they can venture to more ambitious destinations, carry more payload, or a combination of both. It also turns out these engines can also use a wide range of materials for propellant, including water.
Image: Rendering of the “kite” design pattern for a Spacecoach, with a person shown to the right for scale. This is but one possible configuration, but McConnell notes that the pattern minimizes the materials required even as it provides a sizeable habitable area. Credit: Rudiger Klaen.
We can imagine such ships as interplanetary vessels that never enter an atmosphere. They’re also completely reusable, allowing costs to be amortized, and their habitable areas are large inflatable structures that can be assembled in space. Thus we travel within a modular spacecraft using external landers and whatever other modules are required by the mission at hand. They’re also, compared to today’s chemical rocket payloads, a good deal safer:
The use of water and waste gases as propellant, besides reducing the mass of the system by a factor of ten or more, has enormous safety implications. 90% oxygen by mass, water can be used to generate oxygen via electrolysis, a simple process. By weight, it is comparable to lead as a radiation shielding material, so simply by placing water reservoirs around crew rest areas, the ship can reduce the crew’s radiation exposure several fold over the course of a mission. It is an excellent heat sink and can be used to regulate the temperature of the ship environment. The abundance of water also allows the life support system to be based on a one-pass or open loop design. Open loop systems will be much more reliable and basically maintenance free compared to a closed loop system such as what is used on the ISS. The abundance of water will also make the ships much more comfortable on a long journey.
Having just watched “To the Ends of the Earth,” a superb BBC story about a ship making a passage from Britain to Australia in the age of sail, the word ‘comfortable’ catches my eye. A Spacecoach is a large craft with huge solar arrays and the capability of being spun to generate artificial gravity, thus alleviating another major health hazard. Conditions are more Earth-like, and the abundance of water makes for what would otherwise seem absurd scenarios. Imagine taking a shower on a flight to Mars! The Spacecoach’s water management makes it possible.
McConnell believes that much of the mission architecture can be validated on Earth without the need to build a full-scale spacecraft, with the major emphasis on tuning up the electric propulsion technology that drives the concept. Using water, carbon dioxide and waste gases to test the engines can be the subject of an engineering competition, after which the engines could be tested in small satellites. Ultimately, manned Spacecoaches could be tested in cislunar space before their eventual deployment deeper into the Solar System.
Image: An artist’s concept of two Bigelow BA 330 inflatable modules configured into a space station. Modules like these could provide habitable areas for a Spacecoach. Credit: Bigelow Aerospace (http://www.bigelowaerospace.com).
McConnell calls the Spacecoach the basis of a ‘real world Starfleet,’ and adds this:
These ships will not be destination specific. They will be able to travel to destinations throughout the inner solar system, including cislunar space, Venus, Mars and with a large enough solar photovoltaic sail, to the Asteroid Belt and the dwarf planets Ceres and Vesta. They’ll be more like the Clipper ships of the past than the throwaway rocket + capsule design pattern we’ve all grown up with, and their component technologies can be upgraded with each outbound flight.
So if you haven’t acquainted yourself with McConnell and Tolley’s earlier work on the Spacecoach in these pages, have a look at Traveling to Mars? Just Add Water!, which recaps the basics of the design and outlines surface exploration strategies from orbiting Spacecoaches by telepresence. The key, though, is to mitigate the propellant issue by making consumables into propellant. Get that right and much else will follow, including the prospect of reliable, safe interplanetary transport of the kind needed to build a truly space-going civilization.
And after that? I’ve always believed that after sending instrumented interstellar probes, we’ll expand into regions outside our Solar System slowly, building space habitats as we go, mining local objects for needed materials. A functioning, space-going civilization builds out that infrastructure from within. It’s the ‘slow boat to Centauri’ scenario — our machines, enabled by artificial intelligence, get there first — but it’s a deep future that includes a human presence around other stars. When I see something as evidently practical as the Spacecoach, I get a renewed jolt of confidence that we at least know how to begin such a journey.
by Paul Gilster | Apr 29, 2016 | Missions |
If you’re planning to make it to the International Space Development Conference in San Juan, Puerto Rico next month, be advised that Brian McConnell will be there with thoughts on a subject we’ve discussed in several earlier posts: A ‘spacecoach’ that uses water as a propellant and offers a practical way to move large payloads (and crews) around the Solar System. Based in San Francisco, Brian is a technology entrepreneur who doubles as a software/electrical engineer. In the essay below, he looks at the spacecoach in relation to the Breakthrough Starshot initiative, where synergies come into play that may benefit both concepts.
by Brian McConnell
The spacecoach is a design pattern for a reusable solar electric spacecraft, previously featured on Centauri Dreams here and developed in A Design for a Reusable Water-Based Spacecraft Known as the Spacecoach (Springer Verlag), which I wrote with Alex Tolley. It primarily uses water as its propellant. This design has numerous benefits, chief among them the ability to turn consumables, ordinarily deadweight, into working mass.
The recent announcement of the Breakthrough Starshot project, which aims to use beamed power to drive ultra lightweight lightsail probes on interstellar trajectories, is of note. This same infrastructure could be used to augment the capabilities and range of spacecoaches (or any solar electric spacecraft), while providing a near-term use for beamed power infrastructure as it is developed and scaled up.
The spacecoach design pattern combines a medium sized solar array (sized to generate between 500 kilowatts and 2 megawatts of peak power at 1AU) with electric propulsion units that use water as propellant (and possibly also waste streams such as carbon dioxide, ammonia, etc). We found that, even when constrained to these power levels, they could fly approximately Hohmann trajectories to and from destinations in the inner solar system. Because consumables are converted into propellant, this reduces mass budgets by an order of magnitude, and effectively eliminates the need for an external interplanetary stage, all while greatly simplifying the logistics of supporting a sizeable crew for long duration missions (more consumables = more propellant).
The primary constraint for space coaches, especially if you want to travel to the outer solar system, is available power. This is an issue for two reasons. First, solar flux drops off by 1/r2, so at Jupiter, a solar array will generate roughly 1/25th the power as it does at Earth distance. Second, trips to more distant locations will typically require a greater delta V (and thus higher exhaust velocity to achieve this with a given amount of propellant). The amount of energy required to generate a unit of impulse scales linearly with exhaust velocity, so the net result is the ship’s power requirements are increased, all while the powerplant’s power density (watts per kilogram of solar array) is decreased.
Testing Beamed Power
Beamed power infrastructure would enable space coaches and solar electric spacecraft in general to operate at higher power levels for a given array size, which would enable them to operate at higher thrust levels, and to utilize higher exhaust velocities to maximize delta V and propellant efficiency. This means they would be able to accelerate faster, achieve higher delta-v, while using less propellant. In effect beamed power to SEP spacecraft will give their operators the equivalent of a nuclear electric power plant (without the nukes).
A spacecoach built for solar only operation would be able to serve as a testbed for beamed power. For example, a space coach departing Earth orbit could be illuminated with a beam that increases its power output by a small amount, say 10% (large enough to make a measurable difference in performance, yet small enough that major modifications are not required to the ship as it just experiences slightly brighter illumination while in beam). At higher light levels, this technique could also be used to simulate lighting and heat loading conditions expected at the inner planets while remaining in near Earth space. Note also that lasers can be tuned to the absorption wavelength(s) of the photovoltaic material, greatly improving conversion efficiency (and reducing heat gain per unit of power delivered). An even cheaper way to build out and test power beaming infrastructure will be with satellites and probes that utilize solar electric propulsion.
The pathway to a system based primarily on beamed power then becomes one based on incremental improvements, both for the ground based facilities and for the ships. This would result in near term applications for the beamed power facilities while the much more technically challenging aspects of the starshot project are sorted out. Meanwhile, satellite and space coach operators could test ships with ever higher levels of beamed power until they hit a limit (heat rejection is probably the main limit to how much power can be concentrated per unit of sail area, as this is similar to concentrated photovoltaics).
The chart below illustrates the power/performance curve by showing the amount of impulse that can theoretically be generated per megawatt hour using electric propulsion, as a function of exhaust velocity. Real world performance will be somewhat lower due to efficiency losses, but this shows the relationship between thrust, ve and power. We see that impulse per MWh varies from 72,000 kg-m/s (ion drive, ve ~ 100,000 m/s) to 1,400,000 kg-m/s (RF arcjet, ve ~ 5000 m/s). A Hall Effect thruster, a flight proven technology, would yield about 300,000 kg-m/s per MWh. Compare this to pure photonic propulsion, which would yield only 12 to 24 kg-m/s per MWh. Clearly photonic propulsion will be necessary to achieve a delta v of 0.2c, but for more pedestrian applications such as satellite orbit raising, launching interplanetary probes or cargo ships from LEO to BEO (beyond earth orbit), electric propulsion will work well at power levels many orders of magnitude lower than what’s required for a starshot.
Driver for an Interplanetary Infrastructure?
Closer to home there could be lots of opportunities to sell beamed power to space operators. It’s costly to launch large payloads beyond low earth orbit (which isn’t cheap in the first place). Meanwhile, payload fairings limit the size of self-deploying solar arrays, which limits the use of electric propulsion for satellites and probes. If one could launch spacecraft with small solar arrays to LEO, and then use beamed power to amplify their power budget they could use electric propulsion to boost themselves to their desired orbits or interplanetary trajectories within a reasonable time frame. The beamed power infrastructure can also be built up incrementally. Early systems would beam 100 kilowatts to 10 megawatts of power to targets measuring meters to tens of meters in diameter. This should be readily achievable, and can be scaled up from there in terms of power output, beam precision, etc. The result: lower costs per kilogram to deliver a payload to its destination or desired orbit compared to all chemical propulsion.
This could make electric propulsion for transit from LEO to GEO and beyond an attractive option. Meanwhile, the power beaming operator would accrue lots of operational experience with beam shaping, tracking objects in orbit, etc, all things that will need to be mastered for the starshot project, while providing an economic foundation for the power beaming facilities during the buildup to their intended purpose.
In fact, one can imagine the starshot project becoming a profitable LEO to BEO (beyond earth orbit) launch operator in its own right. The terrestrial power beaming infrastructure is one component. A standardized “power sail” that can be fitted to many different payloads, from geostationary satellites to interplanetary probes, is another. The power sail would consist of a self-deploying solar array that is sized to work well with beamed power, heat rejection gear, and electric propulsion units. It would use beamed power during its boost phase to rapidly accrue velocity for its planned trajectory, and then as it leaves near Earth space, would transition to use ambient light as its power source from there. Meanwhile these power sails would provide an evolutionary path from conventional spacecraft to solar electric propulsion to the nanocraft envisioned for purely photonic propulsion.
As a starting point, it would be interesting to conduct ground based vacuum chamber tests to see how a variety of PV materials respond to being illuminated with concentrated laser light tuned to their peak absorption wavelengths. What do the conversion efficiencies look like? How much waste heat is generated? How do the materials perform at high temperatures in simulated in-beam conditions? Building on that one can imagine experiments involving cubesats to validate the data from those experiments in real world conditions, and if that all works out, one could scale up from there to build out beamed power infrastructure for use by many types of solar electric vehicles.
Ambitious R&D projects have a way of generating unintended side benefits. It’s possible that the starshot initiative, in addition to being our first step toward the stars, will also make great contributions to travel and exploration within the solar system.
by Paul Gilster | Jul 3, 2015 | Advanced Rocketry |
My view is that the spacecoach, the subject of renewed discussion below by Brian McConnell and a design he and Alex Tolley have created, is the most innovative and downright practical idea for getting crews and large payloads to the planets that I’ve yet encountered. It’s low-cost and uses ordinary consumables as propellant, dramatically revising mission planning. Brian and Alex have continued refining the concept, as explained below in Brian’s essay on a modified version of the rocket equation. Have a look and you’ll see that planning long duration missions or missions with larger crews becomes a much more workable proposition because more consumables translate into more propellant. Could the spacecoach be our ticket to building a space-based infrastructure, with unmistakable implications for even deeper space?
by Brian S McConnell
The spacecoach, first introduced here in Spaceward Ho! and A Stagecoach To The Stars and on spacecoach.org, is based on the idea of using consumables waste streams, such as water, CO2 and gasified waste, as propellant in solar powered electric engines. The idea is to turn what is normally dead weight (and a lot of dead weight on a long duration mission such as to Mars) into propellant. This in turn leads to dramatic reductions in mass, and thus mission cost, because a ship that uses waste from consumables as propellant no longer needs an external stage weighing several times as much to push it to its destination. (If you or your colleagues are working on electric propulsion systems and have test data and citations to share see below)
Image: The spacecoach. Credit: Rendering by Rüdiger Klaehn based on a design by Brian McConnell.
To understand the impact this has, we developed a modified version of the rocket equation that leads with the crew consumable requirements for a given mission, and then calculates the level of engine performance required to fly the mission using only consumables waste streams (mostly water and carbon dioxide) as propellant. This, in turn, yields a minimum mission cost, as no surplus propellant is required, so the mission cost is reduced to the cost to deliver the crew and consumables to the starting point (while the ship itself is reusable so its construction and launch cost can be amortized across many missions).
The rocket equation, shown below, predicts the ship’s delta-v (change in velocity), as a function of specific impulse (a measure of engine performance) and the ship’s mass ratio (starting mass divided by ending mass).
The spacecoach equation, shown below, predicts the minimum exhaust velocity (or specific impulse) required for a cost optimized mission as a function of its delta v and consumables budget.
For programmers, this can also be written in pseudocode as:
Let’s consider a ship that has a 40,000 kg hull mass when empty that is being resupplied for a trip to the Martian moons from EML-2 (Earth Moon Lagrange point 2). With low thrust propulsion this requires a delta-v of roughly 18 km/s roundtrip. The ship has a six person crew, with a 15 kg/person-day budget for water, food and oxygen. The mission is expected to last 600 days, so the consumables budget is 54,000kg.
According to the equation, the engines will need to achieve an exhaust velocity of 21 km/s, which equates to a specific impulse of about 2,100s, assuming 100% of the waste streams are reclaimed (if engines can be made to work with gasified waste, even solids such as trash should be usable as propellant). If we assume that some percentage of the consumables waste streams (e.g. solid waste) cannot be used, say 20%, the engines will need to operate at a specific impulse of 2,900s. This is within the performance envelope of Hall effect thrusters, as well as several other electric propulsion technologies. If the engine performance is not quite good enough, that’s ok, the ship would just be loaded with more water than the crew really needs to compensate for this, or could even support a larger crew. This will increase costs a bit above the minimum possible cost, but also provide safety reserves above what the crew is projected to need.
Next, let’s compare the mass budget for a similar ship using chemical propulsion (e.g. LOX + methane). This mission requires much less delta-v as the ship can exploit the Oberth effect (aka powered flyby) when departing Earth, and on arrival at Mars. To give the chemical ship a further advantage, we’ll assume it uses aerobraking for Mars capture and for Earth return. So the round trip delta-v in that scenario is roughly 8 km/s. The downside is the engine specific impulse is much lower, about 360s for oxygen + methane. Plugging this into the rocket equation results in a propellant mass budget of almost 820,000 kg, over twenty times the mass of the empty hull. This can be optimized by shedding mass, such as waste, spent stages, etc, but not by a great deal without making compromises in terms of consumables, payload, etc (and we’ve already given the chemical ship a big advantage by assuming it can use aerobraking extensively to minimize propulsive delta-v).
Compare this with the spacecoach, where the consumables are the propellant. It would require the delivery of only 54,000 kg of consumables. This is 1/15th what is required for the conventional mission, and should lead to comparable reductions in overall mission costs. Meanwhile the mission itself is much simpler and less risky (all low thrust propulsion, no chemical rockets with catastrophic failure modes, no high G maneuvers, no aerobraking, plus the option to add more crew and/or consumables with little penalty).
The savings come from two sources. Because the consumables are the propellant, there is no need for external propellant. This effect is amplified further because electric engines have much higher exhaust velocities than chemical rockets so even the relatively small consumables mass needed by the crew is sufficient to propel the ship (if electric engines operated at a specific impulse comparable to a chemical rocket, you’d need ten times more water than the crew would consume).
And it gets even better. This is counterintuitive, but it is actually easier to plan for long duration missions with larger crews and high delta v (Ceres, Venus and the Asteroid Belt for example). This is because more consumables = more propellant = higher delta-v given the same engine performance, whereas in a conventional ship you get into a vicious circle of mass incurring more mass. Running the numbers for a 6 person, 1000 day mission to Ceres (delta v : 26.5 km/s roundtrip from EML-2), the consumables budget is 90,000 kg, and the required engine specific impulse is again in the 2000s, which suggests that a ship capable of reaching Mars will be capable of reaching Ceres due to the larger consumables budget.
And speaking of Ceres, it is an enormous water reservoir. While early spacecoaches would be supplied entirely from the Earth, developing the ability to extract water from low gravity sites like Ceres, and possibly the Martian moons, will be a priority as it will reduce the need to launch water from Earth, and thus further reduce operating costs, but even without in situ resource utilization, spacecoaches will be an order of magnitude cheaper to operate, and will be capable of reaching destinations like Ceres that simply cannot be reached by humans using chemical propulsion.
While it takes people a while to see the implications of this (the thinking about how to design a spacecraft is pretty ingrained), the math is pretty straightforward and suggests that order of magnitude cost reductions for interplanetary missions, with greatly expanded range, will be possible with this approach.
If you are working on electric propulsion technology, we are compiling data about the relative performance of different technologies and propellants, especially as it relates to the use of water and waste gases, to provide the community with an easy to search repository of SEP test data and citations. This data will be made available at spacecoach.org as well as on github. If you’d like to submit test data and citations, you can use this form. Contact Brian McConnell at bsmcconnell@gmail.com for more information.
by Paul Gilster | May 18, 2015 | Advanced Rocketry |
I’m glad to see that Brian McConnell will be speaking at the International Space Development Conference in Toronto this week. McConnell, you’ll recall, has been working with Centauri Dreams regular Alex Tolley on a model the duo call ‘Spacecoach.’ It’s a crewed spacecraft using solar electric propulsion, one built around the idea of water as propellant. The beauty of the concept is that we normally treat water as ‘dead weight’ in spacecraft life support systems. It has a single use, critical but heavy and demanding a high toll in propellant.
The spacecoach, on the other hand, can use the water it carries for radiation shielding and climate control within the vessel, while crew comfort is drastically enhanced in an environment where water is plentiful and space agriculture a serious option. Along with numerous other benefits that Brian discusses in his recent article A Stagecoach to the Stars, mission costs are sharply reduced by constructing a spaceship that is mostly water. McConnell and Tolley believe that cost reductions of one or two orders of magnitude are possible. Have a look, if you haven’t already seen it, at Alex’s Spaceward Ho! for an imaginative look at what a spacecoach can be.
ISDC is a good place to get this model before an audience of scientists, engineers, business contacts and educators from the military, civilian, commercial and entrepreneurial sectors. ISDC 2014 brought over 1000 attendees into the four-day event, and this year’s conference brings plenary talks and speakers from top names in the field: Buzz Aldrin, Charles Bolden, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Peter Diamandis, Lori Garver, Richard Garriott, Bill Nye, Elon Musk and more. My hope is that a concept as novel but also as feasible as the spacecoach will resonate.
Image: Ernst Stuhlinger’s concept for a solar powered ship using ion propulsion, a notion now upgraded and highly modified in the spacecoach concept, which realizes huge cost savings by its use of water as reaction mass. This illustration, which Alex Tolley found as part of a magazine advertisement, dates from the 1950s.
Towards Building an Infrastructure
We have to make the transition from expensive, highly targeted missions with dedicated spacecraft to missions that can be flown with adaptable, low-cost technologies like the spacecoach. Long-duration missions to Mars and the asteroid belt will be rendered far more workable once we can offer a measure of crew safety and comfort not available today, with all the benefits of in situ refueling and upgradable modularity. Building up a Solar System infrastructure that can one day begin the long expansion beyond demands vehicles that can carry humans on deep space journeys that will eventually become routine.
The response to the two spacecoach articles here on Centauri Dreams has been strong, and I’ll be tracking the idea as it continues to develop. McConnell and Tolley are currently working on a book for Springer that should be out by late summer or early fall. You can follow the progress of the idea as well on the Spacecoach.org site, where the two discuss a round-trip mission from Earth-Moon Lagrange point 2 (EML-2) to Ceres, a high delta-v mission in which between 80 and 90 percent of the mission cost is the cost of delivering water to EML-2.
The idea in this and other missions is to use a SpaceX Falcon 9 Heavy to launch material to low-Earth orbit, with a solar-electric propulsion spiral out to EML-2 (the crew will later take a direct chemical propulsion trajectory to EML-2 to minimize exposure time in the Van Allen belts). The water cost is about $3000 per kilogram. The Falcon 9 Heavy should be able to deliver 53,000 kilograms to low-Earth orbit per launch. McConnell and Tolley figure about 40,000 kilograms of this will be water, while the remainder will be other equipment including the module engines and solar arrays. From EML-2, various destinations can be modeled, with values adjustable within the model so you can see how costs change with different parameters.
The online parametric model has just been updated to calculate mission costs as a function of the number of Falcon Heavy 9 launches required. You can see the new graph below (click on it to enlarge). At a specific impulse of 2000s or better for the solar-electric power engines, only two launches are required for most missions, one taking the crew direct to EML-2, the other carrying the water and durable equipment on a spiral orbit out from LEO. It is only the most ambitious destinations like Ceres that require three launches. At $100 million per launch, even that mission is cheap by today’s spaceflight standards.
Brian notes in a recent email that the launches do not need to be closely spaced, because the spiral transfer from LEO to EML-2 takes months to complete. The crew only goes when everything else is in place at EML-2. For more on this model, see spacecoach.org. I’ll be interested to hear how the idea is received at ISDC, and how the upcoming publication of the spacecoach book helps to put this innovative design for interplanetary transport on the map.
by Paul Gilster | May 1, 2015 | Advanced Rocketry |
Imagine the kind of spaceship we’ll need as we begin to expand the human presence into the nearby Solar System. We’d like something completely reusable, a vessel able to carry people in relative comfort everywhere from Mars to Venus, and perhaps as far out as the asteroid belt, where tempting Ceres awaits. Capable of refueling using in situ resources, these are ships not crafted for a single, specific mission but able to operate on demand without entering a planetary atmosphere. Brian McConnell, working with Centauri Dreams regular Alex Tolley, has been thinking about just such a ship for some time now. A software/electrical engineer, pilot and technology entrepreneur based in San Francisco, Brian here explains the concept he and Alex have come up with, one that Alex treated in a previous entry in these pages. The advantages of their ‘spacecoach’ are legion and Brian also offers a sound way to begin testing the concept. The author can be reached at bsmcconnell@gmail.com.
by Brian McConnell
“What if a spacecraft, like a cell, was made mostly of water?”
That’s what Alexander Tolley and I asked when we were working on our paper for the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, “A Reference Design For A Simple, Durable and Refuelable Interplanetary Spacecraft” [1]. The paper explored the idea of a crewed spacecraft that used water as propellant in combination with solar electric propulsion. We dubbed them spacecoaches, as a nod to the stagecoaches of the Old West. Alex also gave the concept an excellent fictional treatment in Spaceward Ho!, also published here on Centauri Dreams. We are currently finishing a book about spacecoaches, to be published by Springer this fall. Subscribe to spacecoach.org for updates about the book and spacecoaches in general.
The idea of crewed solar electric spacecraft is hardly new. In 1954, Ernst Stuhlinger proposed a “sun-ship” powered by solar steam turbines and cesium ion drives [2,3]. Since then solar electric propulsion has been used in a wide variety of uncrewed craft. Meanwhile, the convergence of several technologies will make crewed solar electric vehicles feasible in the near future.
The core idea behind the spacecoach architecture is the use of water, and potentially waste streams, as propellant in electric engines. Water, life support and consumables are critical elements in a long duration mission, and in a conventional ship, are dead weight that must be pushed around by propellant that cannot be used for other purposes. Water in a spacecoach, on the other hand, can be used for many things before it is reclaimed and sent to the engines, and it can be treated as working mass. This, combined with the increased propellant efficiency of electric engines, leads to a virtuous cycle that results in dramatic cost reductions compared to conventional ships while increasing mission capabilities. Cost reductions of one or two orders of magnitude, which would make travel to destinations throughout the inner solar system routine, are possible with this approach.
Water is, for example, an excellent radiation shielding material, comparable to lead on a per kilogram basis, except you can’t drink lead. It is an excellent thermal battery, and can simply be circulated in reservoirs wrapped around the ship to balance hot and cold zones (this same reservoir doubles as the radiation shield). When frozen into fibrous material to form pykrete, it forms a material as tough as concrete, which can potentially be used for debris shielding or for momentum wheels, and if positioned correctly, can double as a supplemental radiation shield. If mixed with dilute hydrogen peroxide, which is safely stored at low concentrations, oxygen can be generated by passing it through a catalyst, similar to a contact lens cleaner. Dilute H2O2 is also a potent disinfectant, and can also be used to process human waste, as is done in terrestrial wastewater treatment plants. Anything the crew eats or drinks can be counted as propellant, as the water can be reclaimed and used for propulsion. This greatly simplifies planning for long missions because the longer the mission is, the more propellant you have in the form of consumables. This will also provide excellent safety margins and enable crews to survive an Apollo 13 scenario in deep space.
A spaceship that is mostly water will be more like a cell than a conventional rocket plus capsule architecture. Space agriculture, or even aquaculture, becomes practical when water is abundant. Creature comforts that would be unthinkable in a conventional ship (hot baths anyone?) will be feasible in a spacecoach. Meanwhile, inflatable structures will eventually enable the construction of large, complex habitats that will be more like miniature O’Neill colonies than a conventional spaceship [4].
In the book, Alex and I present a reference design that combines inflatable structures and thin film PV arrays to form a kite-like structure that both has a large PV array area, and can be rotated to provide artificial gravity in the outer areas [5]. The ability to generate artificial gravity while providing ample radiation protection solves two of the thorniest problems in long duration spaceflight. Alex wrote an excellent fictional treatment of the concept for Centauri Dreams called Spaceward Ho! This is intended as a straw man design to kickstart design competitions. We envision a series of design competitions for water compatible electric propulsion technologies, large scale solar arrays, and overall ship designs. Much of the reference design can be validated in ground based competitions and experiments, followed by uncrewed test vehicles (similar to what Bigelow Aerospace did by flying its Genesis I and II habitats in low earth orbit).
Spacecoaches are possible not because of any one insight or breakthrough, but because of the convergence of improvements in component technologies, specifically thin film photovoltaics, electric propulsion, and inflatable structures. The combination of the three, particularly when you add water for propulsion, leads to one or two order of magnitude improvements in mission economics.
Thin film solar photovoltaics, which enable the construction of large area PV sails, will enable ships to generate hundreds of kilowatts to several megawatts of electrical power (thin film PV material coincidentally is much more resistant to radiation than conventional silicon PV material) [6]. While thin film solar is not as efficient as silicon in terms of power per unit area, from a power density (watts/kilogram) standpoint, it offers multiple order of magnitude improvements, and will continue to improve for decades due to dematerialization in manufacturing processes.
SEP (solar electric propulsion) is a well understood, flight ready technology. Engines that function with water or gasified waste will be well suited to the spacecoach architecture. We simply need to test existing SEP technologies with water and waste streams to pin down performance and efficiency numbers, which can be done via an X-Prize style engineering competition. Scaling them to propel a large (40 tonne) ship will be done by clustering them in arrays, so there will be no need to build a single high power engine when an array of many 10-20 kilowatt units will do just fine, while also adding redundancy. One interesting discovery we made while doing our analysis is that ultra high specific impulse engines, such as VASIMR, are neither necessary nor desirable. Engines that operate at the low end of the electric propulsion envelope still yield excellent economics due to the synergies created by using water as propellant, while also being able to operate with less electrical power per unit of thrust, which reduces PV array size and mass.
Inflatable/expandable structures are just now beginning to be recognized as a flight ready technology, with Bigelow Aerospace’s BEAM unit due to fly on the ISS later this year. Bigelow already has two uncrewed inflatable habitats in low earth orbit. The basic idea with inflatable structures is to replace a rigid metal hull with a flexible high strength Kevlar type material and utilize pressurization to inflate and deploy the structure. This also enables a large habitable space to be compacted into a standard cargo fairing, thus requiring a minimal number of surface launches for initial delivery to orbit. We expect this technology to improve, both in terms of mass per unit of habitable space (currently about 60 kg per m3), and in terms of the types of shapes that can be created. [7]
Spacecoaches will not be mission specific ships. Even the first generation ships will be able to travel to many destinations within the inner solar system. They will be fully reusable, travelling from a high earth orbit or a Lagrange point to and from their destinations, without ever entering a planetary atmosphere. Spacecoaches will be able to travel to cislunar space, Mars, Venus, NEOs and maybe even Ceres and the Asteroid Belt. They can also be dispatched for asteroid interception and deflection missions on short notice. This is a huge departure from conventional spacecraft which are purpose built for a specific mission, usually Mars, that is planned decades in advance. Mars is certainly an interesting destination, but Ceres, with its abundant water resources and shallow gravity well, may turn out to be an even more interesting destination for human exploration and settlement.
The amount of water required for propellant on any given route will vary depending on the delta-v needed, and also the specific impulse of the engines on board, but water is easy to handle and store. Need to add an extra two kilometers per second to your delta-v budget? Just add water! (or replace the electric engines with slightly more efficient models). Because water is so easy to handle compared to conventional propellants, this will also simplify the construction and operation of orbiting fuel depots, which will be little more than orbiting water tanks.
Simplicity and upgradability is another key design element of the spacecoach. We assume that component technologies will continue to improve for decades. So instead of designing spacecoaches to fly only with today’s technology, they will be designed more like personal computers were in the 1980s. The original PCs were built around a common electrical and communication bus, the ISA bus, which allowed memory, CPUs and peripherals from many manufacturers to be combined. If you wanted to, you could buy the component parts from catalogs and build your own PC from scratch.
We envision something similar for the spacecoach, for the electrical system and engines in particular, which will have standard electrical and fluid interconnects, and uniform form factor requirements. The engines will also be mounted in a sealable compartment that can be pressurized so the crew can replace or upgrade engines without doing an EVA. This will not only make spacecoaches field upgradable, but will also reduce the need to design engines for extreme reliability. If a few units fail, crews would replace them in an operation not much different than replacing a rack mounted server. Upgrading engines will be the best way to improve performance and reduce costs, as a small increase in specific impulse can yield significant mass and cost reductions, especially for high delta-v routes like Ceres and the Asteroid Belt.
And what about cost?
Mention crewed missions to Mars, much less anywhere else, and people automatically assume you’re talking tens of billions of dollars as a starting point. We modeled approximate round-trip mission costs to destinations throughout the inner solar system, using a 40,000 kilogram (40 tonne) dry hull and SpaceX’s published launch costs to get materials, including water, into low earth orbit ($1,700/kg via Falcon 9 Heavy [8]), with electric propulsion (Isp between 1,500 to 3,000s) from there (electrode-less Lorentz force thrusters using water operate in this range). Among the missions we modeled were EML-2 (Earth Moon Lagrange point 2) to/from cislunar space, Martian moons, NEO interception, Venus orbit and Ceres. Even with engines operating at the low end of the electric propulsion performance envelope, our models predicted per mission costs in the hundreds of millions of dollars, a one or two order of magnitude reduction compared to conventional missions, some of which, such as a crewed mission to Ceres, simply are not possible via chemical propulsion.
Such large cost reductions are possible due to a combination of the fuel efficiency of electric engines, and the synergies created by using water as propellant. On one hand electric engines require far less propellant for a given delta-v. On the other, virtually everything the crew consumes or uses for life support can eventually be sent to the engines. As a result the only dead weight on the ship is the hull and whatever non-consumable materials and equipment are brought on board, which will also allow spacecoaches to carry larger crews. Reusability will also enable operators to amortize development and construction costs across many missions.
Spacecoaches are also well suited for in situ resource utilization. Should we reach low gravity destinations with accessible water (Ceres is an especially interesting location), it will eventually be possible to refuel spacecoaches at these destinations, or even ship water inbound to cislunar depots. We assume for now that spacecoaches are fully supplied from Earth, but exploring ISRU destinations and capabilities will be a high priority early on. Partially reusable launch vehicles offer another way to reduce costs. Water will be an ideal payload for a heavily re-used Falcon 9R booster. Unlike most payloads, it has essentially zero replacement cost, so the launch operator can fly the reusable boosters until they fail, and can learn about potential failure modes and fixes in the process (all while delivering more water to orbit).
If you are part of a team working on electric propulsion technology, here’s one way you can help make these a reality. Test your engine with water vapor, carbon dioxide and gasified waste (or a good analogue), and publish your results. The most important parameters ship designers will be interested in are specific impulse, efficiency (ideally the “wall plug” efficiency of the entire system so it can be modeled as a black box) and thrust/mass ratio. We already know several SEP technologies work reasonably well with water, but it will be great to examine all systems to see how well each works with water, compare performance across a variety of technologies, and identify opportunities for further improvement.
It is easy to be cynical about new spaceflight concepts, especially one that promises large cost reductions, but most of this can be validated on the ground and via uncrewed testbeds in a short time and at little expense. It is a paradigm shift, and that will take people some time to accept. The rocket + capsule design pattern served us well in the early years of spaceflight, so its hard to get away from that, but it’s time to move on to something that is more adaptable, something that’s more like a ship that can sail wherever her captain wants to go.
Spacecoaches will form the basis for a real world Starfleet, a fleet which will grow as ships are built, and which will reach new destinations as component technologies continue to improve in the coming decades. They will open the inner solar system out to the Asteroid Belt to human exploration and settlement, and with some spacecoaches operating in cislunar space, humanity will also have a rapid response capability should we be surprised by the discovery of an Earth threatening object.
Visit spacecoach.org to learn more, and to subscribe for notices about the upcoming book, which examines the spacecoach reference design and potential missions in detail. If you are interested in obtaining an advance copy of the book, acting as a technical reviewer or inviting us to speak, please get in touch.
References
[1] “Reference Design for a Simple, Durable and Refuelable Interplanetary Spacecraft”, B. S. McConnell; A. M. Tolley (2010), JBIS, 63, 108-119
[2] Image credit: Frank Tinsley/American Bosch Arma Corporation, 1954
[3] “Possibilities of Electrical Space Ship Propulsion,” E. Stuhlinger, Bericht über den V Internationalen Astronautischen Kongreß, Frederich Hecht, editor, 1955, pp. 100-119; paper presented at the Fifth International Astronautical Congress in Innsbruck, Austria, 5-7 August 1954
[4] “A Shape Grammar for Space Architecture – I. Pressurized Membranes”, Val Stavrev* Aeromedia, Sofia, Bulgaria, 40th International Conference on Environmental Systems, http://www.spacearchitect.org/pubs/AIAA-2010-6071.pdf
[5] Image credit: Rüdiger Klaehn
[6] “Super radiation tolerance of CIGS solar cells demonstrated in space by MDS-1 satellite”, Photovoltaic Energy Conversion, 2003. Proceedings of 3rd World Conference on, 18-18 May 2003, pp. 693 – 696 Vol.1
[7] Estimate based on BA330 mass per cubic meter of habitable space, per Bigelow Aerospace’s published specifications
[8] Per SpaceX published launch cost and delivery capacity for Falcon 9 Heavy, as of April 2015
