a large pool of expertise is available outside the traditional aerospace firms. This would enable spacecraft to be built to the guidelines laid out on page 4 of the Eurospace report, without the cost penalties associated with the QA/PA procedures, etc. usually mandated by conventional working practices. Such a spacecraft should be dedicated to the mission, with the temptation to add on other systems avoided. Also, the use of the spacecraft as a “test bed” should not be emphasised too heavily. Either the Powersat demonstration mission on its own is worth doing, or it isn’t. Some comments following from this scenario are: • Simple propulsion and attitude control systems are available • Dedicated roles can be seen for the spacecraft: one could transmit power and the other receive it; communications could be contained in the second vehicle, with an omnidirectional antenna; data links could flow via the tether. ♦ A laser experiment would be complimentary to the planned Japanese microwave experiment. ♦ 10-100 W, at least, can be provided by an on-board battery charged by solar cells, with periodic experiment operation. The second vehicle could use only solar cells. • The integrated experiment time should be longer than “hours” to maximise the return from the demonstration. • Probing interactions with the space plasma will add cost and complexity to the spacecraft. • Conceptually, two free-flyer spacecraft attached by a tether are more attractive than the use of the H10. Some specific areas of interest to AEA Technology, Culham Laboratory
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==