Power system design requirements for manned earth orbital commercialapplication

Gervais, Robert L.; McGrath, R.E.; Plunkett, T.F.

doi:10.2514/6.1967-879

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, if techniques for shielding, intact re-entry, and recovery are substantially improved, and/or altitudes considerably below 260 naut miles become of major interest, consideration must be given to nuclear systems. 21 Unless the cost of Pu 238 can be reduced to less than $200/w t , the isotope systems can not compete costwise with the nuclear reactor systems. The reactor-thermoelectric system employing compact converters (possibly cascaded) shows the greatest promise for long (up to 5 yr), reliable operation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Large space station power systems.

Boretz¹

1969

Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Various candidate electric power systems were investigated for use in the 1980-1985 period with a nine-man, one-to two-year, space station requiring an average power level of 20 kw e . The eleven systems considered fell into three power-source categories, solar, isotope, and nuclear reactor. For the orbital altitude assumed (260 naut miles), the solar-array/secondarybattery system would have the lowest in-earth-orbit cost. However, for missions employing lower orbital altitudes (<200 naut miles), the drag-make-up propellant weights would become excessively high, and a reactor-thermoelectric system would be recommended. For the 20-kwe power range, isotope-heat-source systems would be too costly despite the use of highefficiency power conversion systems. Isotope availability and safety considerations also present problems. A substantial reduction of paylqad launching costs would enhance the cost effectiveness of reactor systems most and solar-array/battery systems next; isotope systems would be least affected because isotope costs predominate.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%