launched each year. (This propellant load changes roughly proportional to the number of solar array wings.) • The study used Freedom data as a baseline for assessing the practicality of Powersats as its nominal support requirements are already very well defined. The objective here is not to propose that Freedom itself should use a Powersat. Rather, Freedom data is used to provide a “credible” gauge of the likely impacts Powersats would have on any future low-Earth orbit space stations. In this respect, similar conclusions could be drawn for an EMSI space station of comparable size and supported by the proposed Ariane V Transfer Vehicle. • For the purposes of the economic analysis, instead of adding two additional arrays to double the user power level of a Freedom-c/a^ station (i.e. from 37.5 kW to 75 kW), a notional Powersat system - whether in low or high Earth orbit - is used to supply this additional 37.5 kW of user power. (Figure 1) As a result, the station would benefit from a doubling in power without having to launch any additional propellant, except for a small amount to overcome the drag of the rectenna. (Important note: For funding reasons and Shuttle constraints, the actual Freedom station will be expanded to only the 56 kW, three solar array wing configuration.) • Two possible Powersat configurations are envisaged, designated the Microwave and Laser Solutions. - In the Microwave Solution, a single Powersat would continuously trail a Freedom-class station within 5-20 km. (Figure 2) As a result, the annual station-keeping propellant requirement for the station would increase only slightly due to the addition of a small rectenna on the station.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==