Only essential items should be included in the design. Consideration should be given to the utilisation of a full ASAP ring. This would enable the use of common spacecraft buses (identical pointing, propulsion, power raising and storage, communications, deployment, etc). This approach could allow spacecraft to be flown so that both laser and microwave transmission could be on the other spacecraft, and vice versa. In addition, a range of multiple, simple targets can be flown at other points on the ASAP ring. The main cost impact if this approach is followed will be in the provision of the second payload. The impact of the use of the full ASAP plus the provision of the second spacecraft will be negligible, if the spacecraft costs are kept low. This latter goal will only be achieved by using a different philosophy to that normally followed by the space industry, and by working along the lines suggested in the Eurospace report (page 4 of the draft issue). The high and cost is in the pay loads (laser, microwave, acquisition, etc.). The low tech is in the spacecraft (structure, propulsion, communications, etc). The key to minimising cost in our opinion, is the use of first rank aerospace firms to provide the payloads for integration into low cost spacecraft produced by second tier sources. Specifically addressing this latter point, AEA Technology, Culham Laboratory have been involved in small spacecraft design for some 4 years. Some of this work could be offered as a zero cost baseline for design in a Phase A/B study, if we were to be involved. Likewise, we would be interested in the provision of low cost subsystems. An example here is a cold gas propulsion system and controller, a version of which is at the engineering model activity stage.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==