A Strategic Roadmap to Centauri

LES JOHNSON,* DAVID HARRIS,and ANN TRAUSCH

In-Space PropuLsion Technohgy Project, NP40, NASA Mamhall Space FEght Center,
AL 35812,USA

GREGORY L. MATLOFF

Gray Research, 675 Dkcovery Drive, Suite 302, Huntsville,AL,35806 USA

and

Depk of Physical & Bwhgisal Sciences, New York City College of Technology,

CUW, 30 Joy Stre& Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA

TRAVIS TAYLOR
M S y S t e m , 310 Voyager Way H u m & , AL 35806 USA

KATHLEENCU'ITING

Gray Research, 655 Discovery Drive, Suite 300, Huntsville, AL,35806 USA

*Please address a l l correspondenceto Les Johnson

e-mail: C.Les.Johnson(g - ov

Keywords: Interplanetary propulsion, space manufacturing, space fabrication, space

resources, space colonization, interstellar travel

1
I r

ABSTRACT
This paper discusses the connectivity between in-space propulsion and in-space

fabricatiodrepairand is based upon a workshop presentation by Les Johnson, manager of

the In-Space Propulsion (ISP) Technology Project at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight

Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Ala. Technologiesunder study by ISP include

aermapture, a d v a n d solar-electric propulsion, solar-thermal propulsion, advanced

chemical propulsion, tethers and solar-photon sails. These propulsion systems are all

approaching technology readiness levels (TRLs) at which they can be considered for

application in space-science and exploration missions. Historically, human frontiers have

expanded as people have learned to “live off the land” in new environments and to
n-ln;t ln-al
W A p I U A b lwLy
rnmnlwnne
A U r N L L L W J -
XX7:tL tL;e n \ m - - d n m
1. ILU U.U3 WAtNLuJ‘WA+
&no+;nr enttln-am+c
U W L L U U A JCIbUWXAlUALW
k - ~ r n~ n n * & d
U V W 1-U-

development of transportation improvements to carry tools and mandactured products to

and from the fiontier. It is demonstrated how ISP technologies will assist in the

development of the solar-systemfrontier. In-space fabrication and repair will both

require and assist the development of ISP propulsion systems, whether humans choose to

settle planetary surfaces or to exploit resources of small Solar System bodies. As was

true for successful terrestrial pioneers, in-space settlement and exploitation will require

sophisticated surveys of h e r and outer Solar System objects. ISP technologies will

contribute to the success of these surveys, as well as to the efforts to retrieve Solar

System resources. In a similar fashion,the utility of ISP products will be greatly

enhanced by the technologies of in-space repair and fabrication. As in-space propulsion,

fabrication and repair develop, human civilization may expand well beyond the Earth. In

2
 --

the future, small human communities (preceded by robotic explorers) may utilize these

techniques to set sail for the nearest stars.

1. Introduction

This paper demonshates that,barring breakthroughs, co-related progress in the fields of

in-space propulsion, fabrication and repair will ultimately lead to the capability of

expanding human exploration and civilization towards the nearest extra-solar star system.

An early version of this paper was presented by L. Johnson at the In-Space Fabrication

and Repair Workshop, which was coordinated by the NASA Headquarters' Physical

Science Research Division and conducted at the Marshall Institute in Huntsville,

Alabama, July 8-10,2003. An extended version of the presentation will soon be

published as a NASA Technical Memoraudum 113.

The xnajor focus of this paper is the connectivity of on-going in-space propulsion

research performed by the In-Space Propulsion (ISP) Technology Project at NASA's

Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) to in-space fabrication and repair prospects. ISP is

an outgrowth of the NASA InterstellarInitiative of the late 1990's. It has broadened its

initial focus fiom a concentration on the solar-photon sail to include aerocapture,

advanced solar-electric propulsion (SEP), solar-thermal propulsion (STP), advanced

chemical propulsion and tethers, as well as the solar sail [2].

Mission possibilities for these technologies have also broadened from heliopause

probes [3] to include a host of scientific Solar System missions. ISP is currently

supported by the NASA Science Mission Directorate in Washington and is directed to

3
perform basic and long-term research leading to the development of advanced in-space

transportation technologies.

One way to characterize the relative maturity of selected technologies investigated

by ISP is the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) system [4]. The TRL system, which is

sw11IIlaTized in Table 1, provides a summary view of the maturation process for new
space technologies. Figure 1 presents circa-2003 TRLs for the in-space propulsion

options under investigation by ISP.

NASA managers and engineers utilize the TRL system to prioritize various in-

space propulsion options [5]. High-Priority Technologiesinclude aerocapture, next

generation SEP and solar-photon sails. Medium-Prioritr Technologies include advanced

chemical rockets, high-power (multi-kilowatt) SEP and STP. High-Risk,Hi&-Payoff

and Lower-Prioritv Technolosriesinclude momentum-exchange tethers and the ultra-thin

solar-photon sail (areal mass thickness < 1 g/m2). Some basic research is also underway

to ascertain the ultimate feasibility of solar-plasmasailing [2,6].

Current aerocapture research emphasizes the integration of a low-mass aeroshell

with a thermal-protection system and the development of a e r q t u r e instrumentation. In

a typical aerocapture application, an interplanetary spacecraft would dip into a planet’s

outer atmosphere, using drag to decelerate the vehicle for capture as a satellite of that

planet.

As currently envisioned, the next generation of SEP ion thnrsters will include a

number of technological innovations. Two of these are the NASA Evolutionary Xenon

Thruster, or NEXT, and the application of carbon-based ion optics. High-power

4
(kilowatt-level) SEP research incluiies laboratory demonstrations of low- and high-

power (up to 50-kw) Hall thrusters.

Solar-photon sail research and development is concentrated on subsystem design

and fabrication, as well as ground demonstration. Stsuctural testing of sail booms is

underway, as is the evaluation of the long-term effects of exposure of dtra-thin sail

maferial to the space environment. Research on ultra-light sails consists of the

investigation of ultra-low-mass sail materials; large-area, low-mass structures; and the

trades involved in Earth-launch versm space fabrication.

Work on momentum-exchangetethers emphasizes model development and

evaluation. Consideration is being given to the design of the catch mechanism necessary

to exchange momentum between a rotating tether and a payload, and research on high

tensile-strength tethers.

A number of aspects relating to advanced chemical rockets are also under study.

These include fuel development, consideration of cryogenic fluid management and

development of low-mass components.

With the possible exception of advanced chemical rockets, all of the in-space

propulsion technologies under study by ISP have one commonality. At least in part, they

utilize existing atmospheric or interplanetary resources (solar-photon momentum and

energy, the geomagnetic field, etc.) to “live off the land.” If research in a d v a n d

chemical rockets leads to the capability to build rocket components from extratenestrial

resources or mine extraterrestrial Solar System bodies for fuel, this technology w
ill also

be capable of ”living o f f the interplanetary “land.” All these technologies, therefore,

5
t i

may be instrumental in the expansion oftenestrial civilization into the extraterrestrial

realm.

2. Historical Perspective

A good Starting point for any discussion of the possible future expansion of

c i t - W o n into and kyond the Solar System is a review- of ~mxessfuiterrestrial

exploration and settlement efforts. It is obvious from such a review that exploration,

exploitation and settlement expansion are not unique to the current phase of human

existence.

Starting from a “Garden of Eden” in or near present-day Kenya in equatorial

Africa, _m-humanhominoids began their spread into northern Afiica,Europe and Asia

more than one million years ago. Without the discovery of fire, which allowed the

ancestors of modem humanity to apply in situ resources to h c t i o n s such as food

preparation and habitat heating, expansion into temperate and polar climates would have

been impossible.

Early “civilized” humans continued this tradition of “living off the land” as their

habitats expanded [7-91. Minoan, Mycenaean, Phoenician and Dorian/Ionian Greek

colonies were established when population pressures encouraged emigration from parent

cities to the “frontier.” In order to survive in their new environments, the successful

ancient settlers quickly learned to exploit the resources of the lands in which their new

homes were situated.

One wonders how far pre-classical civilization would have spread if sea-going

vessels always required oar-power, instead of depending upon local wind. When a

6
colonization vessel crossed an ocean, as opposed to an inland sea, the injunction to “live

off the land” became even more stringent. If the Polynesians had been required to carry

all their food with them instead of fishing off the sides of their ocean-going canoes, or if

early European settlers in the “New World” had not adapted to native foods (such as the

wild turkey), the range of human settlement today would certainly not be global.

In the early years of the 19* century,most of the population of the United States

was huddled close to the Atlantic Ocean. Thomas Jefferson, perhaps the most visionary

of the early American presidents, initiated the era of western expansion by

commissioning the 1804 Lewis and Clark expedition. The Lewis and Clark “Corps of

Discovery,” which commenced in May 1804 fiom a camp near St Louis and culminated

in September 1806, reached the Pacific Ocean while traversing approximately 13,000

kilometers of previously mmapped terrain [lo-121.

Without this prelimimry exploration, westward-bound settlers would have had no

idea of the local resource base required to insure their survival, let alone their capability

to establish thriving continental population centers. Geographical knowledge regarding

the interior of the North American continent was primitive before the Lewis and Clark

expedition -- President Jefferson was far from unique in his hope that the Corps of

Discovery would locate a water route to the Pacific.

The Corps of Discovery numbered 48 men. Supplies were transferred up the

Missouri River via riverboat and smaller vessels. Overland portage was also necessary,

which required the minimi7ation of supply weight. It was, therefore, necessary for

expedition participants to satisfy much of their food requirements by hunting.

7
 Corps members were aided by Sacagawea, a Native American, and her husband

Toussaint Charbonneau, a French-Canadian interpreter. With their help, members of the

Lewis and Clark Expedition learned how to further supplement their diets with local

vegetation, such as camas roots.

The success of the Lewis and Clark Expedition led to the opening up of the North

American continental interior to settlement and exploitation. Continental settlement

would have been a good deal slower and less successfid, if an efficient mode of carrying

settlers and their baggage westward and fiontier produce eastward did not exist.

This transport mode - the Conestoga Wagon and related Prairie Schooner (so-

called because of its boat-shapedbody and tall,white canvas bonnet) - satisfied the

requirements of westward expansion and eastward continental transport during the first

halfofthe 19&century [13,14].

Capable of canying loads up to eight tons (approximately 7300 kilograms) with

the motive force provided by teams of horses, oxen or mules, these vehicles were for

decades the principle trading “ships” of the North American prairie. Typically three

meters or more in length, these wagons were equipped with tool kits so that repairs could

be made en route, hundreds of kilometers fiom the nearest mechanic’s shop.

Although Prairie Schooners opened up the frontier, they had certain drawbacks.

They couldn’t be depended on to keep to a rigid timetable; they were uncomfortable for

their human passengers; and they were very hard on their animal “engines.” As the

population of the fiontier and the volume of transcontinental tr&c increased,

development and application of a more efficient transportation mode became necessary.

8
 The introduction of the Transcontinental Railroad provided a vast improvement

over the Prairie Schooner. Initially employed in the late 19* century for military

purposes, the first American tracked vehicle was constructed in 1826 [151. During that

year, the feasibility of the steam-powered locomotive was demonstrated on a circular

track in Hoboken, New Jersey by John Stevens [lq.

Although early American railways were local, private ventures usually

constructedto connect eastern population centers, the construction of the

Tramcontinental railroad was a much vaster undertaking. This monumental project,

surveyed by the U.S. Army Topographic Corps, required the support of the Federal

Government and was finally completed in 1869 [17]. The resulting linkage of the North

American continent opened the western fiontier to large-scale settlement and

exploitatioa

Those seeking to open and develop the space fiontier could learn a great deal

from this earlier terrestrial experience. In a successful exploratiordexploitation/settlement

enterprise, there is ample room for both private and public initiatives. Successful

pioneers must learn how to “live off the land” and to exploit local materials and resources

as quickly as possible to reduce the requirement for re-supply. A major justification for

resource surveys prior to settlement is the necessity to know what the local resource base

is and how best to exploit it,

3. In-Space Propulsion and “Living-Off-The Land”

Application of new in-space propulsion technologies will allow interplanetary

explorers and pioneers to exploit local resources and “live off the land” in a manner

9
analogous to that of successfulterrestrial pioneers. One near-future application of these

technologies to interplanetary pioneering may be in-situ propellant rnanufiicture.

ISP technologies can also 'live off the land' in a number of other manners.

Sunlight can be used to propel solar photon sails and SEP and STP technologies, as well

as provide energy for space settlers; the solar wind might be applied to drive solar plasma

sails (if these prove feasible); and Earth's magnetosphere can be utilized for orbit-

changing purposes by the electrodynamic tether.

Local material application for purposes other than propellant mandacture wiU

result in the utilization of planetary regolith for cosmic radiation shielding. Local water

ice can provide a source of water and oxygen, and local minerals can be mined for

fabrication and energy-production [18].

3.1 In-Situ Propellant Man~dictme

The rate of human civilization's expansion into the Solar System will be greatly

increased if chemical rocket fuel can be manufactured from in-situ resources on or near

the surfaces of various Solar System destinations. Various options exist to accomplish

this task.

3.1.1 Mining the Moon

If the Moon has ample deposits of cometary water in Sun-shaded craters near the

lunar poles, future lunar explorers will be able to refuel their spacecraft,using sunlight to

dissociate water into oxygen and hydrogen. Evidence for large-scale, water-ice deposits

in lunar polar craters is, however, ambiguous.

10
 Clementine-mission bistatic-radar results have been interpreted as demonstrating

that permanent water-ice deposits exist near the lunar South Pole [19]. These results were

apparently co&ed by a neutron spectrometer aboard Lunar Prospector. However,

radar-reflection studies performed using the Arecibo radio telescope in Puerto Rico show

no evidence of water ice [20].

At the end of its useful life, Lunar Prospector was directed to crash into a crater

near the Moon’s South Pole. Spectroscopic observations during the controlled crash

failed to confirm the presence of lunar water [21]. The jury on the existence of lunar

water has clearly not yet reached a verdict.

Even if water ice is not a large-scale lunar resource, some Moon rocks are 40

percent oxygen [20]. It is not impossible that future lunar expeditions could wry a

supply of hydrogen from Earth and mine oxygen from lunar regolith or bedrock. Since

hydrogen is a much smaller mass iiaction of water than oxygen, such a strategy could

significantly reduce the mass delivered to the lunar surfaceto support the expedition.

3.1.2 Mining Mars

The dominant molecular species in Mars’ thin atmosphere is C02 [20]. Hydrogen

oxides, including water, exist in the atmosphere and on the surface of Mars.

Zubrin et al[22] have proposed that terrestrial explorers or settlers on Mars could

produce rocket propellant by combining hydrogen transported fiom Earth with Martian

C02 to produce methane and water. Electrolysis would be used to dissociate the water

into hydrogen and oxygen. Methane and oxygen could then be reacted and exhausted as

11
. 1

a rocket fuel. If ongoing studies demonstrate conclusively that water is abundant on or

just below Mars’ surface, this process would be greatly simplified.

3.1.3 Asteroid / Comet Mining

Resource-mining techniques considered for application on the Moon and Mars

could also be utilized to refuel spacecraft visiting small Solar System bodies.

Spectroscopic studies have revealed thatwater vapor is a significant component of comet

tails and comas near the Sun;and ice layers must be present on comets closer to aphelion

POI-
Although asteroid samples have not yet been returned to Earth by spacecraft,

meteorites have delivered asteroid fragments to Earth. One class of meteorite -

carbonaceous chondrites -- is typically about 40 percent oxygen and two percent

hydrogen by weight Interestingly, Mars’ small satellites Deimos and Phobos are

suspected to be similar to carbonaceous chondrites. Although hydrogen may be rare in

parent bodies of other meteorite types, model studies reveal oxygen is a major

constituent [20].

3.2 Solar-Electric Propulsion and Space Habitation / Fabrication

Inspired by the “HighFrontier” COIlcept of Gerbard K. O’Neill, a n u m k of

researchers have proposed that large orbiting space habitats and fabrication facilities

could be constructed fiom lunar andor asteroidal material [23-251. This proposal

represents a classic example of bootstrapping.

12
1 1

Reusable or partially reusable Earth-to-orbit transportation would first be utilized

to establish an initial space manufacturing facility in Low Earth Orbit (LEO). A

feedstock of tools, machine parts and biosphere components would be delivered to this

facility. A low-^^ Orive, such as SEP, might then be used to deliver mining

equipment and personnel to the Moon or a near-Earthasteroid.

-
Mataids mined from this object would then be used to construct large in-space

habitats and solar-power stations. Energy beamed back to Earth fkom the solar-power

Stations would be the initial industrial product of this space-based infrastnrcture.

O’Neill space habitats would have dimensions of the order of kilometers and

masses of billions of kilograms. Most of the m s requirement, which is dictated by the

necessity to shield space-habitat dwellers fkom galactic cosmic rays, would be satisfied

using lunar or asteroidal resources. The environment inside the habitats, which would

rotate to simulate gravity, would be as earthlike as possible.

Solar-power satellites would also be large. These would consist of millions of

kilograms of kilometer-dimension, thin-filmpanels to convert sunlight into electricity

and a microwave array to transmit the gigawatts of electrical power back to Earth.

SEP is an enabling technology for the “High Frontier” proposal. SEP research

will result in highly efficient and reliable solar-electric thrusters that could maintainlarge

space mardacturing facilities (SMF) in LEO, with much greater cost effectiveness than

conventional chemical rockets, due to the much higher SEP exhaust velocity. SEP will

also find application in the transfer of equipment, personnel and manufacturedmaterial

through space.

13
 The “mass driver” is a technology that has been positively influenced by SEP

research. Mass drivers, which have undergone small-scale breadboard tests, are

essentially solar-powered electromagnetic catapults that could fling mined materials fiom

the Moon or an asteroid towards an orbital processing/manufacturing facility.

3.3 Electrodynamic Tethers and Space Fabrication

Another ISP technology product with application to in-space fabrication is the

electrodynamic tether [26-281. As shown in Fig. 2, an electrodynamic tether can be used

to reboost a Space Manufacturing Facility located in LEO, without the use of on-board

propellant. Such a tether, constructed fiom a long, conducting strand, would be oriented

so that the lower end is attached to the SMF. Electrons are collected fiom the Earth’s

upper ionosphere, near the position of the space facility. Powered by the SMF solar cells,

the collected electrons are pushed up the tether and emitted at a higher altitude than the

facility’s orbit. Since the entire system is within Earth’s magnetosphere, the resulting

electrodynamic thrust force on the tether’s unidirectional current adds energy to the SMF

orbit, thereby raising its orbital height and compensating for atmospheric drag.

3.4 The M X E R Tether and Inter-Orbital Transfer

Another tether concept with possible application to the development of the space

frontier is the MXER (Momentum-eXchange/ElectrodynamicReboost) tether, which is a

hybrid of momentum-exchange and electrodynamic tether designs [29]. A rotating

momentum-exchange tether can increase the orbital energy of a payload by releasing it

14
near the tether’s farthest height above Earth. But the orbital energy of the tether itself

decreases during this maneuver, and its orbital height is consequently reduced.

After the payload is released from a MXER tether, the tether’s rotation is slowed.

A solar-power station attached to the conductive tether is then used to direct a

unidirectionalcurrent through the tether, as shown in Fig. 2. This process increases the

tether’s orbital height. Both maneuvers -- payload transfer to higher orbit and tether-

station orbit raising - are accomplished without the expenditure of propellant.

Near-future MXER tethers could rendezvous with payloads of LEO or sub-orbital

launches and transfer them to Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO) or Earth-escape

trajectories. To accomplish this feat, the tether must initially be in an elliptical orbit with

its rotation timed so the tether tip is oriented vertically below the solar-power station at

its center-of-massand is Swinging backward at the perigee of its orbit. A grapple on the

lower tether tip captures the payload h m its low-orbit location and releases it half an

orbit later.

Farther in the hture, tethers could be applied as shown in Fig. 3 to create an

extraterrestrial equivalent of the transcontinental railroad. Here, a LEO-tether sends a

payload to a tether in orbit around the Moon. Approaching the Moon, the payload will

rendezvous with a lunar tether, which then deposits it upon the lunar surface and/or picks

up a payload to be returned to Earth.

3.5 Solar-Thermal Propulsion (STP)and In-Space Fabrication

The solar-thermal rocket functions by using collected and focused sunlight (or

laser light) to heat a propellant working-fluid such as hydrogen [30,3 11. The specific

15
impulse of the STP typically ranges fiom 800 to 1,000 seconds,about twice that of the

most energetic existing chemical rocket. The comparatively high thrust and propellant

efficiency enables 30-day trips from LEO to geostationary earth orbit (GEO).

-4sthe space fiontier develops, STP could see application as a space tug

equivalent in the transfer of equipment and manufactured products between space

manL&acturhgfacilities in LEO and higher orbits. The technology used in the low-mass

STP, sunlight-focusing optics may also see application in SMF furnaces used for large-

scale on-orbit mandacturing.

4. DeepSpace Resources: Survey and Retrieval

Before the settlement of the space fiontier beyond Earth orbit can commence, the

space-age equivalent of the Lewis and Clark expedition must take place. Even after 47

years ol'space lrdvei &e human knowledge base of solar system resources is not yet

adequate to plan the settlement, development and exploitation of deep space.

4.1 The Humanized Solar System

The Solar System is an enormous place, both in space and time. Earth's nearest

neighbor in space, the Moon, is at an average distance of 384,OOO lan. After achieving

Earth-escape velocity (about 40,000 W),

Apollo astronauts required approximately

three days to travel one-way between Earth and the Moon [32].

Venturing beyond the Moon, an explorer next encounters near-Earth Objects

(NEOs). Suspected to be of asteroidal and cometary origin, some of these objects

16
occasionally approach Earth within cis-lunar distances. Known h i O s range in diameter

between a few hundred meters and a few kilometers [20].

Some NEOs can be visited on round-trip trajectories, requiring less enera than

landings on the Moon. Round-trip travel time to some low-inclination, Iow-eCCentricity

NEOs has been estimated to be a year or less 1181. NEOs have collided with Earth many

h h e s in geological history -- such an impact may have doomed the dinosaurs 65 million

years ago. To prolong the lifetime of human civilization and the human species, space-

faring institutions must devote attention to the problem of predicting and preventing NE0

impacts [33].

Although humans may settle and mine the Moon and NEOs, inclement d a c e

and atmospheric conditions may preclude such activity on Venus,which is about 30

percent closer to the Sun thanis the Earth. Becaw of the high-energy solar orbit

re@d tn re& m nhject deep w i t h %e Sun’s gravity well, small: hot Mercury may

also be offlimitsto human activity for the foreseeable future.

The nearest planet of interest for potential human occupation is, of course, Mars.

The fourth planet fiom the Sun [with a mean solar distance of about 1.5 Astronomical

Units (AU)], Mars is in a fairly elliptical solar orbit. Even very energetic propulsion
technologies require several months for a one-way trip to the ‘‘Red Planet.” Most one-

way voyages to Mars require six to nine months [34]. Mars’ two tiny satellites, Deimos

and Phobos, may also be of interest as “way stations” for Martian explorers.

Traveling beyond Mars,an explorer would next encounter the “Main Belt” (MB)

asteroids, which are located between about 2.2 and 3.3 AU from the Sun. The largest of

these irregular shaped minor planets, Ceres, is approximately 1,000 km in diameter [20].

17
 1
t I

Data fiom space probes and terrestrial telescopes reveals that some of these asteroids
have smaller satellites. Some are rocky; others are stony. A third class of these ME!

asteroids is carbonaceous chondrites, which may contain some water reserves.

One-way travel to low-inclination, low-eccentricity ME? asteroids is

approximately a year, using contemporary propulsion systems. As the development of

the Solar System proceeds, the mining of MI3 asteroids w

ill become increasingly
significant.

One-thousandth the mass of the Sun and 3 18X the mass of the Earth, giant Jupiter

orbits 5.2 AU ffom the Sun. Like the other gas giants,Jupiter is surrounded by a ring

system and accompanied by many satellites. Some of these satellites are captured

asteroids and comets. The four largest - Callisto, Europa, Ganymede and Io -- were

observed by Galilm at the dam of telescopic astronomy and most likely formed with

Jupiter

Life may exist beneath the frozen oceans of Europa. Other Jovian satellites may

serve as an outer-Solar System resource base, provided human and robotic explorers in

this realm can be shielded against Jupiter’s intense radiation belts. Travel h m Earth to

Jupiter, along a minimum-energ trajectory,requires about 2.7 years [32].

Farther out ffom the Sun, the explorer next encounters the smaller gas giants,

Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. Each is considerably more massive than the Earth and is

equipped with many satellites and rings. The most magnificent ring system, of course, is

Saturn’s. Saturn is accompanied by Titan, the only satellite in the Solar System that

possesses a dense atmosphere.

18
 Ranging from Neptune’s orbit (30 AU) to about 50 AU fiom the Sun is another

zone of small Solar System bodies -- the Kuiper Belt Objects (KBOs). Pluto (about 1200

km in radius) is the largest discovered KBO. These objects are sometimes dubbed

“cometoids” because of their apparent similarity to icy comets [20]. Current-technology

flybys of KBOs q u i r e a decade or longer. Decelerated rendezvous or sample-return

missions to these very distant objects will require either considerable improvements in

propulsion technology or much-longer mission durations.

Although at least some of the short-period comets are KBOs af€ected by giant-

planet gravitational perturbations [35], most comets reside in the Oort Cloud. As many

as 1 012-1Oi3 comets may exist in this vast reservoir, with a total mass as high as 30 Earth

masses. Some long-period comets have aphelia greater than 20,000 AU and require more

than 10,OoO years to orbit the Sun [20]. Even with significant advances in propulsion

technology, robotic expeditions to Oort Cloud objects will require many decades.

4.2 Destinations and Resources

Low-gravity objects- - near-EarthObjects, small planetary satellites, Main Belt

asteroids, Kuiper Belt Objects and Oort Cloud objects -- will provide the basic resource

base for an expanding in-spaceinfrzlstructure. The reason for this is accessibility. It will

be easier to mine these low-gravity objects than to enter a planet’s gravity well, establish

a surface manufacturing/mining facility and launch the manufactured or mined product

back into space through that planet’s gravity well.

19
 The in-siru exploration of these minor Solar System bodies has begun. Table 2

lists Solar System bodies visited to date, as well as the spacecraft visiting these small

bodies. Reference 20 describes the physical properties of many of the objects visited.

A number of other missions are currently underway or scheduled for the near

future. Utilizing SEP, the Japanese Hayabusa (Muses-C) probe was launched in 2003

towards Asteroid 25143 Itokawa. Plans call for station-keeping near the asteroid, a soft
landing and return of retrieved samples to Earth in 2007

In March 2004, the much larger European Rosetta probe was launched towards an

encounter with Comet 67P/Churyumo~-Gerasimenkoin 2014. Rosetta is scheduled to

orbit this comet and deposit a lander on the comet’s surface.

The first non-governmental deep-spaceexploration mission, the Near-Earth

prospector (NEAP) is scheduled for launch in 2006-2008. The mission for this probe is

heing planned by SpaceDev, Inc.

NASA recently launched Deep Impact towards Comet Tempe1 1. This s p d

will split into two components -- one will slam into the comet’s nucleus, and the other

will spectroscopically analyze the ejecta close range.

4.3 Propulsion: Required Improvements and Options

In-space propulsion technology advances will greatly expand the deep space

resource knowledge-base. Such advances, coupled with reduced spacecraft size and mass

and increased solar cell efficiency, w

ilallow space probes to venture further into the
l
Solar System with more scientifically productive payloads. Decreased mission costs

20
resulting from these improvements should lead to more frequent exploratory expeditions

to a wider variety of destinations and/or decreased mission durations.

Increases in SEP specific impulse will reduce propellant requirements, increase

payload allotment andor decrease interplanetmy-transfer time. Improved solar cells with

increased energyanversion efficiency and decreased mass should allow for the

possibility of solar-power4 resource-survey missions deeper into the asteroid belt.

When the soh-photon sail becomes operational, it may become the preferred

propulsion system for out-of-ecliptic missions [36]. Even early solar sails could be used

to rendezvous with NEOs in high-inclination solar orbits. With increased thermal

tolerance, sail-propelled probes could explore comets within the orbit of Mercury.

Departing from elliptical solar orbits with perihelia <1 AU or low-perihelion solar orbits

[9,36], sails could propel payloads on fast flybys of KBOs. Decreased sail areal mass

?hichess md ih-qd fherrarat~lmzmcpm-ay d!ow w ~ flybys

h of ohjectc in the

nearer Oort Cloud.

Advances in aerocapture technology should allow the development of aeroshells

of lower mass and greater thermal tolerance. One can imagine advanced aerocapture

missions decelerated by Neptune’s atmosphere for rendezvous with KBOs near that giant

planet [37,38].

Improvements in chemical rocket technology may include higher specific

impulse, greater reliability and longer in-spacestorage time. Certain classes of

rendezvous and sample-return missions will be positively impacted by these

developments.

21
 Tether improvements will include better understanding of tether dynamics and

interaction with the space environment. Since tethers may prove very usefid in reducing

the cost of orbit-lmmfer, they may improve performance of some deep space survey

missions. A tether could be used, for example, to raise the orbital height of a solar-

photon sail unfiuled in LEO to an altitude less affected by atmospheric drag. Another

technology that may compete for lowerast inter-orbit trausfer is STP.

4.4 Resource Retrieval Via Solar Sail

After accessible Solar System resources are surveyed and mining techniques
developed, methods must be developed to economically transfer mined resources across

the Solar System in a manner analogous to freight railways. Drexler was one of the first

researchers to consider the solar sail for this application [40].

Current-generation Earth-launched solar sails typically have an areal mass

thickness of abut 0.01 Wm2. These sail films are typically tri-layered, with the

sunward side being a reflective material (usually aluminum), the back (anti-sunward) side

an emissive material (such as chromium)and a plastic substrate in between [36].

To crate a solar sail, in-space analog to a freight railroad,it will be necessary to

reduce the sail areal mass thickness by about an order of magnitude. There are several

possible ways to do this.

Drexler proposed vapor-phase deposition as a method of creating thin metallic

films in space [40]. A second possibility is to launch a metavplastic bi-layer sail fiom

Earth with the plastic substrate constructed of a W-sensitive material that would

evaporate in space [41]. Another option is the application of a super-strong, hyper-thin

22
and heat-resistant Earth-launched fabric-type sail 1421. As proposed by Forward 1431 and

further developed by Matloff 1443, another possibility is a perforated-nanomesh sail.

Much further research is required to ascertain which of these techniques is

superior for this application or if another approach should be selected. But it is not

measonable to expect century “clipper ships,, with multi-kilometer sails

crisscrossing the ”prairies” of the Solar System with their cargoes of asteroidal and

cometary material (Fig. 4).

The ”parachute” sail shown in Fig. 4 is, of course, not the only sail configuration

that might be chosen for this application [9,37].As well as the development of ultra-thin
sail maferials that are very long-lived in the space environment, it w
ill be necessary to
utilize cables (or alternative supporting structure) of the highest possible tensile strength.

Various approaches, such as hydrostatic beams,have been suggested to reduce the mass

~f the ~qprtithgs t ~ ~ c t u fur

r e a large wlar sail f4q.

5. Propulsion-System Fabrication Using In-Space Resources

Another connection between space manufacturing and in-space propulsion is the

possible in-situ fabrication of components for propulsion systems at space manuf&turhg

facilities. Drexler’s proposal [40] to produce ultra-thin solar sails in space using vapor-

phase deposition is an example of this concept.

With the application of Rapid Prototyping (RP) technology, many additional

propulsion system fabrication possibilities emerge. Rapid Protolyping has been

described as the three-dimensional equivalent of a Fax [46]. A prototype of a machine

part or tool is fitst designed using a Computer-Aided Design (CAD)package. The RP

23
machine then quickly constructs the prototype layer by layer using powder, liquid or

sheets of material. After the prototype is constructed and approved, a cast is produced

from which final products and parts canbe constructed in quantity.

After early experimental work in the 1980’s, RP was UGliZedin the 1990’s by

Rocketdyne (hogs Park,Calif.) to design and construct precision par&of rocket

engines. This new technology reduces prototyping cost and time considerably.

A space manufkturhg facility could exploit RP as follows. Lunar regolith or raw

asteroidal materialwould first be gathered and then separated by element or compound.

This material would serve as the feedstock for the RP machine, which would construct

precision propulsion system componentsusing on-board CAD equipment Repair and

replacement engine parts could thereby be constructed using in-space resources, reducing

the need for re-supply from Earth.

6. Conclusions: The Far Future

After the co~eCtiVifyof in-space propulsion, fabrication and repair has opened

the frontier of the Solar System, the enhanced human in-space hfiastmcture may be

applied to more ambitious goals. Two of these goals are the robotic exploration of

interstellar space and the expansion of human civilization beyond the Solar System.

The first institutional study of the feasibility of interstellar travel was Project

Daedalw, which was conducted by the British Interplane&uy Society between 1974 and

1978 [47]. Follow-on research continues to be published in various venues, including the

“Interstellar Studies” section of this journal.

24
 After the conclusion of Project Daedalw, study coor-rs Man Bond and

Anthony Martin published several papers concluding that the only feasible approach to

interstellar travel by humans was the “Worldship” [48]. A worldship would be a mobile

version of the self-dcient, c l o s e d ~ l o g yEarth-approximating

, space habitats

discussed by O’Neill and others [23-251 and would be capable of transferring a small

human population to the vicinity of a nearby star on a voyage approximatinga

millennium.

It was also concluded in these studies [48] that only two propulsion s
yst
em might

ultimately be feasible for worldship acceleration - the nuclear-pulse rocket and the ultra-

thin solar sail. As discussed by Dyson [49], nuclear-pulse rockets are propelled by the
detonation of high-yield nuclear or thermonuclear “devices” behind a pusher plate coated

with ablative material andor protected by a charged-particle-reflecting magnetic field.

.4khough ultimately feasible technically, the nuclear-pulse rocket has obvious political

and sociological acceptance issues.

The interstellar solar sail was investigated before 1980 by NASA Jet Propulsion

Laboratory (JPL) researcher Chaucey Uphoff, who incorporated his results in the JPL

Thousand Astronomical Units (TAU) study [50]. TAU was a study of a robotic probe to

1,000 AU from the Sun that could be accomplished using projected early 2lS‘century

technology. The concept has been furtherelaborated by Matloff and W o v e [9,51-531.

After launch from Earth or construction in space, the interstellar sailcraft is

maneuvered into an elliptical or parabolic solar orbit with a perihelion as close to the Sun

as possible. At perihelion, the sail is unfurled and oriented towards the Sun and the

25
spacecraft is accelerated by solar radiation pressure to a heliocentric velocity higher than

the solar-escape velocity.

In the original concept, the sail was oriented normal to the Sun during the post-

perihelion acceleration, As Giovanni Vdpetti has argued [54], in some cases there are

advantages to non-constant,non-normal solar-aspect angles.

If one assumes space-manufactured, metallic monolayer sails with thickness

approximating 20 nm;thermally-limited approaches to the Sun within 0.01-0.04 AU; and

diamond-strength cables, modeling results reveal that interstellar travel times to the

nearest extrasolar star system (Alpha Centauri at 4.3 light years or 270,000 AU)

approximates 1,000 years even for very large payloads [52].

Peak accelerations exceed 1 g (one Earth-&= gravity) for some op%imk'd

trajectories. As demomtmted in a fdte-element study by Cassenti et al[55], at least

some sail configrations can withstand accelerations as high as 2.5 g.

One advantage of this approach to interstellar travel is sail versatility. After

acceleration, the sail and cables can be wrapped around the habitat section of the

worldship to provide cosmic-ray shielding. If the target star is solar-type (as are both the

Alpha Centauri central stars), the sail can be unfurled again near the destination star and

used for deceleration [9].

Human technological capabilities are not yet up to the in-spacemanufadwe of

100-km dimension, ultra-thin metallic sails or the ultra-strong cables required to connect

the worldship and sail. Astronomy is not yet capable of surveying the planets (if any)

that accompany the Alpha Centauri stars. Our knowledge of closed ecological systems

and the long-term stability of small, isolated human populations is far from complete.

26
Although planning a multi-generation mission to a nearby star is premature, early

extrasolar probes propelled by the solar sail have received increasing attention. This is

perhaps because it is relatively easy to scale down a worldship sail into an extrasolar-

probe sail.

Inspired in part by the NASA JPL TAU study and the ultimate prospects of sail-

launched interstellar worldships, European researchers considered -- during the 1990s -

sail-launched extra-solar probes to the Sun's gravitational focus at 550 AU and the

heliopause at 200 AU [56,57]. In the late 1WOs, this work was incorporated into the

NASA Interstellar Probe (ISP) study [SS].

NASA should have the technological capability to launch early solar-photon-sail

interstellar precursor probes before 2020. If the areal mass thickness of the sail films I

approaches 0.001 kg/m2, and the sail material can withstand a perihelion of about 0.2 AU,

z disc d with a d w of about 2 0 m_ chni~ldbe able to project 30-kg science payload

(100-kg total payload) spacecraft on a voyage to the heliopause at 200 AU fiom the Sun

that would take no more than two decades. Such a craft could reach the inner-
gravitational focus of the Sun at 550 AU within a human lifetime.

Later in the 2lS'century, sail advances should allow humanity the capability to

explore the inner Oort Cloud at 1,000-2,000 AU on flights with durations approximating

a human Wethe. This may be the best possible performance with an Earth-launched

sail.

Advances in space manufacturing should eventually lead to the ability to

construct solar-photon sails in space that are close to the physically minimal film

thickness. Experience with space-mining techniques should offer the opportunity to

27
fabricate such sails using in-space resources, as well as the application of many sail

architectures.

Additional advances to be expected in the 21a century include maintenance of

closed or nearly-closed eco-system in space. Experience with small space crews on

long-duration explorations beyond LEO should offer data to sociologists regarding long-

duration stability of small, isolated human communities.

There is no reason,therefore, that the capability to perform multi-generation

interstellar voyages will not arise as a natural consequence of development of the Solar

System. Hopefully, new technologies such as beamed-energy sailing [43,59] will greatly

reduce interstellar-voyage durations before humans begin to expand towards the stars.

Acknowledgements

References

1. L. Johnson, D. Harris, A. Trawh, G. L. Matloff, T. Taylor and K. Cutting, “In-

Space Propulsion: Connectivity to In-Space Fabrication and Repair,” NASA TM

2. T. McElyea, A Vision of Future Space Transportation, Apogee Books,Ontario,

Canada (2003).

3. L. Johnson and S. Leifix, “Propulsion Options for Interstellar Exploration,”

AIM-2000-3334.

28
4. J. C. Mankins, “Technological Readiness Levels,”

httD://advtech.isc.nasa.crov/downloads/TRLs.pdf(April 6,1995).

5. “Integrated In-SpaceTransportationPlan (IISTP) Phase I1 Final report,” Contract

GS-23F-O107J, Order No. H-35 186D, Science Applications International Corp.,

Huntsville, A h (July 31,2002).

6. R Winglee, J. Slough, T. Ziemba and A. Goodson, ‘‘Mini-Magnetosphere Plasma

Propulsion (M2P2): High Speed Propulsion Sailing the Solar Wind,”presented at

STAIF 2000 Conference, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, N.M.

(January 30-February 3,2000).

7. R B. Lee,“Models of Human Colonization: San, Greeks, and Vikings,” in

Interstellar Migration and the Human Experience, B. R Finney and E. M. Jones

eds., University of Chicago Press,Berkeley, Calif. (1985), pp. 180-195.

8. B. R.Finney, “Voyagers in Ocean Space,” in Interstellar Migration and the

Human Experience, B. R Finney and E. M. Jones eds.., University of Chicago

Press, Berkeley, Calif. (19 8 9 , pp. 164-1 79.

9. G. L. Matloff, Deepspace Probes, Springer-Praxis, Chichester, UK.

10. J. P. Ronda, Lavis and ClarkAmong the Indians, University of Nebraska Press,

Lincoln,Neb. (1984).

11. J. P. Ronda, Voyages of Discovery: Essays on the Lewis and Clark Expedition,

Montana Historical Society Press, Helena, Mont. (1998).

12. J. P. Ronda, MicrosoftTM.

E n c a m Online Encyclopedia 2004,

httD://encartamsn.com, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Wash. (2004).

29
13. “Conestoga Wagon,” Britannica Concise Encyclopedia,

http://ww. b r i t a n n i c a . c o ~ ~ ~ l ~86677,
c ~ ~ ?Encyclopedia
~~=3 Britannica

premium service,Chicago, Ill. (2004).

14. “Conestoga Wagon,” The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Ed.,

httt>:/www.~ebv.com/65/co/Conestoa.html,
- Columbia University Press, N.Y.

(2003).

15. D. J. Boorstin, The Americans: the Democratic Experience, Random House,

N.Y.(1965).
16. T. W. Van Metre, Transportation in the United States, Foundation Press,

Brooklyn, N.Y.(1950).

17. C. L. Wheat, Mapping the Transmississippi West, vols. 1-5, Institute of

Historical Cartography, Sau Francisco, W.(1957-1963).

18. M. Center, War-Earth Objects as Resources for Space Industrialization,” Solar

System Development J o d , 1,l-31 (2001).

19. S. Nozette, C. L. Lichtenberg, P. Spudis, R Bomer, W. Ort, E. Malaret, M.

Robinson and E. M. Shoemaker, “The Clementhe Bistatic Radar Experiment,“

Science, 274, 1495-1498 (1996).

20. K.Lodders and B. Fegley, Jr., The Planetw Scientist’s Companion, oxford

University Press, oxford, UK (1998).

21. D. Isbell, D. Morse, and B. Rische, ‘Wo Water Ice Detected from Lunar

Prospector Impact,” NASA Press Release 99- 119,

http://nssdc.nsfc.nasa.rrov/planetarvltextlIp Dr 199910 13.M

30
22. R Zubrin, S. Price, L. Mason, and L. Clark,“Reporton the Construction and

Operation of a Mars In-Situ Propellant Production Unit,” AIAA-94-2844,30*

AIAA, ASME, SAE, ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit,

Indianapolis, Ind (June 27-29,1994).

23. G. K. O’Neill, “The Colonization of Space,” Physics Touby, 27, No. 9,3240

(Sept. 1974).

24. G. K. O’Neill, The High Frontier, Morrow, N.Y. (1977).

25. R D. Johnson and C. Holbrow eds., Space Settlements: A Design Study, NASA

SP-413, NASA, Washington, D.C. (1977).

26. R R I. Samanta, D. E. Hastings, and E. Ahedo, “Systems Analysis of

Electrodynamic Tethers,” Journal ofSpaecrq? and Rockets, 29,415-424 (1992).

27. V. V. Beletskii and E. M. Levin, “ElectrodynamicTethers,”Dynamics of Space

_Te#&r $*ern$, s .4stmnautical Sciences, 83, Univelt, San Diego.

A ~ ~ minethe

CA (1993), pp. 267-332.

28. R D. Estes, E. C. L o r e d , J. Sanmarh, M. Martinez-Sanchez, C. L. Johnson

and 1. E.Vas, “Bare Tethers for Electrodynamic Space Propulsion, JoumZ of

I’

Spacecrq? and Rockets, 37,205-21 1 (2000).

29. K. F. Sorensen, “Conceptual Design and Analysis of an MXER Tether Boost

Station,” AIAA 2001-3915,37* AIMASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion

Conference and Exhibit, Salt Lake City, Utah (July 8-1 1,2001).

30. J. M. Shoji and P. E. Frve, “Solar Thermal Propulsion for Orbit Transfer,” AIAA

88-317 1,24* AIMASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit,

Boston, Mass. (July 11-13,1988).

31
3 1. G. Grossman and G. Williams, ‘‘Inflatable Concentrators for Solar Propulsion and

Dynamic Space Power,” J o m l of Solar Energy, 112,229-236 (1990).

32. R R Bate,D. D. Mueller, and J. E. White, Fundamentals ofAstrodynamics,

Dover, N.Y. (1971).

33. S. Ostro and C. Sagan, “Cosmic Collisions and Galactic Civilidom,”

and Geophysics,39,422424 (2998).

Astron~~my

34. K. Sankatan_ L. Cassady, A. D. Kodys, and E. Y. Choueiri, “A Survey of

Propulsion Options for Cargo and Piloted Missions to Mars,“ Annals of the New

YorkAcademy of Sciences, 1017,450-467 (2004).

35. E. Belbnmo and B. G. Marsden, “Resonance Hopping in Comets,”AstronomicaI

Journal. 113,1433-1444 (1997).

36. C. R McInnes, Solar SaiZing, Sprhger-Praxis, Chichester, UK (1999).

37. G. L. W o e “Persephone: ,4 Nori-?hc!ez Refidemws bGssion to a Kuipr

Belt Object,”in Proceedings of Space Technology and Applications International

Forum-STAIF 2000, ed. M. S. El-Genk, American Institute of Physics, College

Park, Md. (2000).

38. G. L. Matloff and T. Taylor, “The Solar Sail as Planetary Aerobrake,” IAC-03-

S.6.02,54&IAC Congress, Bremen, Germany (September2 M c t o b e r 3,2003).

39. G. R Schmidt, H. P. Gerrish Jr., J. J. Martin, G. A. Smith, and K. J. Meyer,

“Anthatter Production for Near-Term Propulsion Applications,” presented at

NASA/JPLMSFC/AIAA Tenth Annual Advanced Space Propulsion Workshop,

Huntsville, Ala. (April 5-8,1999).

32
c a

40. K.E. Drexler, “High Performance Solar Sails and Related Reflecting Devices,”

AIAA-79-1418,4* Conferenceon Space Manufkcturiug Facilities, Princeton, N.J.

(May 14-17,1979).

41. S. Santoli and S. Scaglione, “Project Aurora :A P r e h h a q Study of a Light,

All-MetalSolar Sail,” in Missions to the Outer S o b System and B e y 0 4 Is‘ IAA

Symposium on Realistic, Near-Term Scientific Space Missions, ed. G. Genta,

Levrotto & Bella, Turin, Italy (1996), pp. 3748.

42. G. Gamer, B. Diedrich, and M. Leipold, “A Summary of Solar Sail Technology

Developments and Proposed Demonstration Missions,” AIAA-99-2607,35*

AIAIVASMEISAEIASEEJoint Propulsion Confemnce and Exhibit, Los Angeles,

Calif. (July 21-23, 1999).

43. R L. Forward, “ S w : An Ultralight Interstellar Probe,” Journal of

Spacecraft and Rockets, 22,345-350 (1985).

44. G. L. Matloff, “The Perforated Solar Sail: Its Application to Interstellar Travel,”

JBLS, 56,255-261 (2003).

45. G. Genta and E. Brusca, “The Parachute Sail with Hydrostatic Beam: A New

Concept for Solar Sailing,” Acta Astromutica, 44,133- 140 (1 999).

46. A. Doyle, “Pioneering Prototypes,” Computer Graphics World,23, No. 9,3947

(September, 2000).

47. A. Bond. A. R Martin, R A. Buckland, T. J. Grant, A. T. Lawton, H. R

Mattison, J. A. Parfait, R C. Parkinson, G. R Richards, J. G. Strong,G. M.

Webb, A. G. A. White, and P. P. Wright, “Project Daedalus: The Final Report on

the BIS Starsbip Study,” JBB, supplement to 31, S1-S132 (1978).

33
48. A. R Martin, “World Ships-Concept, Cause, Cost, Construction, and

C010niZati0~”B I S , 37,99- 1 16 (1 984).

49. F. Dyson, “Interstellar Transport,” Physics Todzy, 21, No. 10,41-45 (October,

1968).

50. L. D. Jaffe, C. Ivie, J. C. Lewis, R Lipes, H, N. Norton, J. W. Stearns, L. D.

Stimpson, and P. Weissman, “An Interstellar Precursor Mission,” B I S , 33,3-26

(1980).

51. G. L. Matloff and E. F. Mallove, “Solar-Sail Starships-The Clipper Ships of the

Galaxy,” B I S , 34,371-380 (1981).

52. G. L. Matloff and E. F. Mallove, “The Interstellar Solar Sail: Optimization and

Further Analysis,” JBIS, 36,201-209 (1983).

53. E. F. W o v e and G.L. Matloff, The Starjlight Handbook, Wdey, N.Y. (1989).

54. G. L. Matloff, G. Vulpek C Bangs. and R. Hegerty. “The Interstellar Probe

(ISP): Pre-Perihelion TrajectOries and Application of Holography,” NASNCR-

2002-21 1730.

55. B. N. Cassenti, G. L. Matloffl and J. Strobl, “The Structural Response and

Stability of Interstellar Sola SailS,“ B I S , 49,345-350 (1996).

56. J. Heidmann and C. Maccone, “ASTROsail and SETIsail: Two Extrasolar

Missions to the Sun’s GravitationalFocus,” Acta Astronautica, 37,409-410

(1 994).

57. G. Vulpeti, “The Aurora Project: Flight Design of a Technology Demonstfation

Mission,” in Missions to the Outer Solar System and Beyond I d L4.A Symposium

34
1 1

on Realistic Near-Term Scienticfic Space Missions,ed. G. Genta, Levroto & Bella,

Turin, Italy (1996), pp. 1-16.

58. L. Johnson and S. Leifer, “Propulsion Options for Interstellar Exploration,”

AIAA-2000-3334,36’ AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference

and Exhibit, Huntsville, Ala. (July 16-19,2000).

59. R L. Forward, “Round-Trip Interstellar Travel Using Laser-PushedLightsails,”

Journal of Spacecraafi.and Rockets, 21, 187- 195 (1984).

35
1 I

TABLE 1: The Technological Readiness Level (TRL) System

TRL 1: Basic Principles Have Been Observed and Reported;

Technology Concepts And/or Applications Have Been
Formulated;
Analytical / Experimental Proof-of-concept Research Has
3: Been Performed;
Component And/or Breadboard Laboratory Validation Has
TRL 4: Been Performed;
Component And/or Breadboard Validation Tests in
TRL5
Relevant Environment Have Been Performed;
System /Subsystem Prototype/model Demonstration in
TRLk
Relevant Environment Hais Been Performed;
System Prototype Function Has Been Demonstrated in a
Tm7:
Space Environment;
Completed System Vight QuaMed Through Groundkpacs
TRL 8
I)eaonstratien;
Completed System Flight Proven Through Successful Space
TlRL 9:
Mission ODerations.

36
I *

TABLE 2: Minor Solar-System Bodies Visited by Spacecrajt.All missions used chemical

propulsion and were fly-by or fly-through unless otherwise noted

Solar Spacecraft Country Year of

System Object Name Origin Ekploration
H e ' s Comet Giotto Europe 1986
ISEE-3 / ICE USA
Vegi 1 &2
sakigake & Suisei Japan
MB Asteroid 951 Gaspra Gaiilm USA 1991
Comet P/Grigg-Skejellerup Giotto Europe 1992
ME ASterG& 243 Ida ;Dactyl c-* JUTS4 !933
MB Asteroid 253 Mathilde NEAR USA 1997
MB Asteroid 1992 KD (Braille) D--Sga 1* USA 1999
NE0 Asteroia433 &os** NEAR USA 2000
Comet BorreIly D q - S p m 1* USA 2001
Comet Wild*** Stardust USA 2004

* First deep-space application of SH.

** Orbit and so$-hnding.
*** samples collected, Eurth-return scheduW&r 2006.

37
 n
TRL9 Deep-Space I Solar-Electric (iON) Engine
-
TRL8

TRL7

TRL6

Aerocapture, Advanced Electric Propulsion,Advanced

Chemical, Solar-Photon Sails

Tet hers

Solar Therma

Solar Plasma Sails

Gcternal Pulsed Plasma, Fusion, Antimatter,

Beamed Energy

Fig. 1. Estimated T R L s for Various In-Space Propulsion Options, as of July 2004

38
 How In-Space Propulsion Can Support In-Space Fabrication and Repair
(Mid-Term)
€keans
hrwd

+ Using the environment of LEO,

large facilities can be reboosted
electrodynamically, requiring no
propellant or resupply
FzIdLXB
- F=Th~stFm
- I = Current extracted from the ionosphere
-aJs
bthrf- - L = Length of d u c t i n g tether
- B = Earth's magnetic field

E(r.m
CUnIebd

Fig. 2. Application of an Electrodynamic Tether to Raise the Orbit of an SMF in LEO.

39
Fig. 3. A Tether Equivalent to the Railroad.

Lunar Payloads could be delivered to the surface of the Moon with just two tethers. The
payload is launched from Earth and is picked up by a tether in low Earth orbit. This
spinning tether throws the payload to GEO or places it on an Earth-escape trajectory. At
the Moon, it is picked up by another tether in orbit there. This lunar tether then deposits
the payload onto the Moon's surface or picks up a payload for the return trip.

40
a *

41