Author Topic: Long term reuse and recycling of in space hardware  (Read 8337 times)

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
     Recently, a number of probes, whose primary missions had been accomplished, have either, had their missions extended or been repurposed to new missions as opprotunities have presented themselves.  This, along with the idea of refurbishing part of the ISS for an NEA rendevous mission, got me to thinking in a very unorthadox manner.

     What if we designed our unmanned probes and most of our manned space going hardware, in a more modular manner, with the INTENT to repurpose them as needed and as possible.
     For example; Assuming we launched a probe to Saturn on a five year mission with a set of RTGs that could last for up to, say, twenty-five years with an energy budget that uses only about seventy-five percent of the potentile power generated, and with the capacity to hold up to three times the fuel that the probe contains when it arrives in Saturn's orbit.
     During this mission, we discover some rather interesting structures on Titan, but do not have the appropeiate camera or radar systems needed to truely get a better view of these structures. (Yes, I know miracles of software programming can do alot, but for the sake of argument, let's just say a better optics and radar rig are available, and it's decided that we also want to send down a soft lander that would use the probe as a relay to Earth).
     Obviously, a whole new probe will need to be sent, right?  Not really.  A smaller, lower mass package with the appropriate hardware upgrades, additional fuel, and a lander, would be sent on a high speed, robotic VASMIR tug.  Upon arrival, the probe will be shut down, instrunment packages would be either swapped out, repositioned or reconfigured, as needed, fuel would be transfered either via direct transfer or modularly replacing the fuel tank, and as the probe is placed into programming mode, firmware and software would be updated and tested, before the robotic tug would disconnect, use a gravity assist, and burn plasma either back to Earth, or to a staging area where the hardware removed from this probe can be tested, reprogrammed, and sent to another probe, or more, that needs the cross grade to be ready to accomplish its' new mission.  Back at Saturn, the probe, its new systems, software, and attached lander, are reactivated and perform a burn to change to Titan's orbit, and it launches the lander as the probe approaches to begin orbiting and observing Titan and communicating with the lander.
     The point here, instead of creating a whole new probe, one that had been configured with enough capacity to do so was both repurposed and reconfigured, onsite, for far lower than it would cost to build and send a whole new probe with lander to Saturn and Titan.  In the meantime, instead of disposing of the equipment gathered from the Saturn probe, it is tested, stored and will be reused on another probe as needed.
     When a probe's mission is completed, if a new mission hasn't been assigned, the probe is moved into a either a high orbit around a planet, (if exploring one) is put in a sleep mode with a low powered monitoring modeto allow its' reactivation from Earth at a later time, or retreival for cannibalization or repurposing for a different mission, or it could be placed into a solar parking orbit, again, awaiting reconfiguring and a new mission.

    This statagy reduces launch costs by reducing launches to only the equiipment needed to restore and reconfigure probes already in use, or that have reached mission's end with the ability to continue with other missions.  This is simply an upgrade of the system used for the Hubble telescope, while minimizing the risks to humans, and reusing onsite hardware as much as possible and practicle.  However, it does require that equipment be designed to be even more robust than it already is.  But even with slight increases in mass, this should be well within the technical abilities already demonstrated.  I mean, two rovers on Mars, designed for ninty day use lasting FIVE YEARS?  Not too shabby at all...

Any thoughts on this?


Jason
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Long term reuse and recycling of in space hardware
« Reply #1 on: 09/09/2010 11:03 am »

     Obviously, a whole new probe will need to be sent, right?  Not really.  A smaller, lower mass package with the appropriate hardware upgrades, additional fuel, and a lander, would be sent on a high speed, robotic VASMIR tug.  Upon arrival, the probe will be shut down, instrunment packages would be either swapped out, repositioned or reconfigured, as needed, fuel would be transfered either via direct transfer or modularly replacing the fuel tank, and as the probe is placed into programming mode, firmware and software would be updated and tested, before the robotic tug would disconnect, use a gravity assist, and burn plasma either back to Earth, or to a staging area where the hardware removed from this probe can be tested, reprogrammed, and sent to another probe, or more, that needs the cross grade to be ready to accomplish its' new mission.  Back at Saturn, the probe, its new systems, software, and attached lander, are reactivated and perform a burn to change to Titan's orbit, and it launches the lander as the probe approaches to begin orbiting and observing Titan and communicating with the lander.
     The point here, instead of creating a whole new probe, one that had been configured with enough capacity to do so was both repurposed and reconfigured, onsite, for far lower than it would cost to build and send a whole new probe with lander to Saturn and Titan.  In the meantime, instead of disposing of the equipment gathered from the Saturn probe, it is tested, stored and will be reused on another probe as needed.
     When a probe's mission is completed, if a new mission hasn't been assigned, the probe is moved into a either a high orbit around a planet, (if exploring one) is put in a sleep mode with a low powered monitoring modeto allow its' reactivation from Earth at a later time, or retreival for cannibalization or repurposing for a different mission, or it could be placed into a solar parking orbit, again, awaiting reconfiguring and a new mission.

    This statagy reduces launch costs by reducing launches to only the equiipment needed to restore and reconfigure probes already in use, or that have reached mission's end with the ability to continue with other missions.  This is simply an upgrade of the system used for the Hubble telescope, while minimizing the risks to humans, and reusing onsite hardware as much as possible and practicle.  However, it does require that equipment be designed to be even more robust than it already is.  But even with slight increases in mass, this should be well within the technical abilities already demonstrated.  I mean, two rovers on Mars, designed for ninty day use lasting FIVE YEARS?  Not too shabby at all...

Any thoughts on this?


Jason
Not viable.   A new probe would be cheaper.  The rendezvous, docking and robotics equipment (and propellant)  would outweigh any perceived savings.  Eliminate these and replace with instruments.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Long term reuse and recycling of in space hardware
« Reply #2 on: 09/09/2010 03:30 pm »
Last time I commented on a recycling thread, it was removed.  Not complainin', just sayin.

We don't do enough recycling here on Earth, so it will be hard to get that mentality to start working in space.  It seems that eventually, the high dollar refined materials will be profitable nuggets to mine, if you know exactly where they are.

I keep thinking that it would be a good idea to park ISS trash and broken pieces, for eventual transport to the Moon, near the outpost, thinking that it will be cheaper to send it further up the gravity well than to launch raw materials from the surface of Earth.  The economics of shipping poop, old underwear, and broken calculators to the Moon is hard even for my dreamy reveries to contemplate much.

But if we were to build four or more martian probes like Spirit and Endeavour and send them up to explore, eventually, they would break.  If the design could be constant, it would be nice to contemplate the possibility of scavenging the old ones for useful parts.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Sparky

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Connecticut
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Long term reuse and recycling of in space hardware
« Reply #3 on: 09/09/2010 05:22 pm »
Rather than sending out a spacecraft to deliver new parts to another spacecraft, I think a better idea would be to send out modular spacecraft with ion/VASIMR propulsion, do your science for a few years, and then launch on a low energy trajectory back to EML1/2, where either robots or astronauts could swap out instruments, RTGs, engines, piggyback probes, etc..., and fill up the tanks with propellant for the next mission. You could even have it return samples this way.

This might be a tedious approach for exploring as far away as Saturn, but the inner solar system would do well to have a small fleet of reusable multipurpose probes.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Long term reuse and recycling of in space hardware
« Reply #4 on: 09/09/2010 09:43 pm »
The idea isn't viable for unmanned probes, definitely.

I've thought of doing it for manned mission hardware, though... I imagine a large RTG powerplant left behind from a manned mission to Mars (or the Moon) could produce useful power for generations. If the mobile-hab concept is used, potentially it may become a viable scenario in case of equipment failure at some mission base to drive over to another, old base a thousand kilometers away. With people available, you could do all the kinds of jury rigging that people are known for.  Make sure to include a soldering iron, solder, hot glue gun (or something equivalent), duct tape, kapton tape, zip ties (they make stainless steel ones), space-stable grease, medical tubing (space-rated, if possible), space blankets, epoxy, plastic bags, maps, and plenty of flight manuals. You could probably fit that in a shoe box.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Long term reuse and recycling of in space hardware
« Reply #5 on: 09/10/2010 10:19 am »
It is also what the robotic lunar colony idea is about. If you are not just doing space science but actually aiming to learn how to do industrial tasks there then reuse is what it is all about.

Science isnt good for reuse because you generally do not want to do the same thing twice. Even visiting the same location twice would probably be totally unacceptable at current numbers of missions. Now if a rover stumbled across what looked like a trilobite fossil on mars..

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Long term reuse and recycling of in space hardware
« Reply #6 on: 09/10/2010 01:59 pm »
The thing to remember here is that many of the high cost items aren't recyclable. You can't recycling electronics, solar cells, and thermoelectric couples, for example. Those have a finite lifespan due to the adverse affects of radiation. And once they stop working, they're pretty much deadweight (until you get the industrial infrastructure in place to melt them down and make something new of them).

So what bothers me here is that most of what's getting recycled doesn't seem that valuable (aside from just being mass in space). For a perhaps bad analogy, it seems like recycling the paint on an aluminum can, but not the aluminum.
Karl Hallowell

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Long term reuse and recycling of in space hardware
« Reply #7 on: 09/11/2010 12:44 am »
The thing to remember here is that many of the high cost items aren't recyclable. You can't recycling electronics, solar cells, and thermoelectric couples, for example. Those have a finite lifespan due to the adverse affects of radiation. And once they stop working, they're pretty much deadweight (until you get the industrial infrastructure in place to melt them down and make something new of them).

So what bothers me here is that most of what's getting recycled doesn't seem that valuable (aside from just being mass in space). For a perhaps bad analogy, it seems like recycling the paint on an aluminum can, but not the aluminum.

Electronics and solar cells can be recycled. Solar cells damaged by radiation can be reconditioned to almost new performance through annealing, at least the thin film solar cell type. Computer chips themselves may not do so well when physically damaged by radiation, but many things are modular, and for those things that aren't, it's actually possible to desolder and solder them if you have a surface mount soldering kit.

I know it's a common myth that laptops can't be repaired because they are too integrated, but my father regularly repairs laptops that have blown caps or screen power inverter for friends or family. On multiple occasions, I've found that the only thing wrong is a fatigued power cable... all that needs is a little soldering (don't have to be terribly precise) and hot gluing or electrical taping.

If it's a problem with a corrupt ROM, you can sometimes reflash it or put in a drop-in replacement that is flashable.

If it's just the computer chips, and you design them to be removable in case of radiation damage, then that should be pretty simple for someone to repair and recycle. A lot of the other components can be replaced via desoldering and soldering. The only thing left is the board itelf with the traces. On single-layer, double sided boards, someone could possibly fix any of the traces manually.

All it takes is one solder joint to fail for a piece of electronics to be trash (unless full redundancy is implemented, then you need two :) ). Most of the time, everything else is perfectly fine. That said, it's far easier to repair something if everything is both fully redundant and modular. Just keep enough spares on hand and you're golden.

I think, though, that a lot of the fixing would be of mechanical structures, like deployment mechanisms, etc.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Long term reuse and recycling of in space hardware
« Reply #8 on: 09/11/2010 12:49 pm »
The thing to remember here is that many of the high cost items aren't recyclable....

True, but this points to an area of research that I find fascinating: nano-scale manufacturing.  This here Intel 8086 chip has exactly the right number of atoms in exactly the right combination, say, as the new xyz chip.  Stick the chip in a slot, hit the 'go' button, and the new chip comes out of another slot.  I know that I am free to invent this machine, but I need to mow the grass today.

The larger point in the recycling question, in my mind, would be the raw materials issue.  It just seems easier to 'melt down' an old computer and make a new computer, rather than make a new computer out of sand and copper ore.  Some of the electronics recylcling industries are melting off the old solder and gold for recycling.  I don't know what they do with the boards and chips, but on a crude level, this sort of thing is already happening. 

Which gets me thinking about our landfills.  At what point are they minable?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2173
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Long term reuse and recycling of in space hardware
« Reply #9 on: 09/12/2010 05:28 am »
It is also what the robotic lunar colony idea is about. If you are not just doing space science but actually aiming to learn how to do industrial tasks there then reuse is what it is all about.

Science isnt good for reuse because you generally do not want to do the same thing twice. Even visiting the same location twice would probably be totally unacceptable at current numbers of missions. Now if a rover stumbled across what looked like a trilobite fossil on mars..

This illustrates the problem that colonization advocates face at present. The imperative of scientists is to always do new things, so every experiment, every probe, every rover, is an original build so some team of astrophysicists and engineers can get their doctorates. They go to new locations, because there is no scientific glory in verifying the exact stuff that other people already discovered.

Contrarily, colonizers need to pick an optimum location, go there, and keep going there to stockpile supplies and equipment and people to build a sustainable community and infrastructure. While scientists can discover information that helps colonizers determine the optimum location to land and settle, beyond this the two groups tend to operate at cross purposes. The scientists want to discover new territory that is undisturbed by man, colonists want to exploit discovered resources to develop the economy of the colony.

This is an essential reason why NASA never will be involved in space colonization: they are a scientific organization, their mission, their modus operandi, their motivations, all contradict the needs of colonizers.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Long term reuse and recycling of in space hardware
« Reply #10 on: 09/12/2010 09:31 am »
I actually hold HSF more responsible. The central mission of HSF should be "to bring the solar system into earth's economic sphere" but in fact (IMO) its central mission has become how to direct as much money as possible into the launch system, as was clearly demonstrated in the House bill attempting to kill the Exploration Technology budget.

I don't blame scientists or Engineers. Not all NASA scientists are space scientists. Many scientists and engineers would love to attack the sorts of problems involved in developing these robots and ISRU etc. Even planetary scientists would probably find an awful lot to appreciate here since ISRU would clearly go hand in hand with learning a lot about the regolith's makeup. They might not want this taken out of their own budget, but they would love to see ISRU missions taken out the the HLV budget I expect.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Long term reuse and recycling of in space hardware
« Reply #11 on: 09/12/2010 01:44 pm »
Quote
This is an essential reason why NASA never will be involved in space colonization...

I thought this was a pretty good synopsis of the NASA involvement with a colonization effort that I would like to see evolve, and which Jim appears to argue strenuously against.

Another way to harshly summarize the scientific mindset; they are obsessed with novelty, whereas economic wealth is created by repetitious action, like that of the colonists.

Right now, the novelty seekers hold the budgetary reins, motivated in part by the President's dismissal of the Moon with the failed BTDT argument.  They willingly fail to acknowledge the novelty of solving the problem of living permanently on the Moon or elsewhere.

In my opinion, this is a parochial, reductionist attitude which has inexorably led to the current state of affairs.  Everything is expensive, and there's no income stream.  And the worst part is that the popular, prevailing viewpoint holds that the "science" purported to be accomplished, by, say, visiting a NEO, is virtually worthless.  Other than a dramatic snapshot or two, what exactly will Joe and Jane Doe get out of the venture?  That an asteroid is a Hard Rock?  We already have one of those cafes downtown.  PageDown.

Getting back to the idea of recycling...
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline TyMoore

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 478
  • Eureka, CA, USA
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Long term reuse and recycling of in space hardware
« Reply #12 on: 09/12/2010 04:16 pm »
The idea of reusing or re-purposing hardware is interesting, however for really deep space missions (beyond Mars orbit) I just don't see that it would be a cost savings at all. A long time ago I played with the idea of a nuclear powered, ion propelled 'upper stage' that would fly out a 'Galileo-like' probe package to Jupiter orbit, and then return to Earth. However, even with as good of Isp that modern ion thrusters have, it still won't work. Because by the time the reusable upper stage gets back, the reactor will need to be replaced, most of the power management and distribution systems would have to be repaired or replaced due to radiation damage--the whole thing must be rebuilt and refueled anyway. Negative savings anyway--it's cheaper just to launch a new one.

However, where the savings can happen: is by 'recycling' a design. Satellite manufactures do this by creating a 'common spacecraft bus' as a starting point: most of the mechanicals,  electrical, and propulsion subsystems are already installed before the specialized communications, multiplexers, etc is installed.

Back in the 1960's the Mariner series of probes used a very similar probe body system. The later Voyagers were built around a Mariner Mk II chassis, if memory serves.

The point is, if we desired to do an extensive exploration of the outer planets, a common spacecraft bus could be designed. Specialized instruments could be added or deleted as needed. And a limited assembly line of spacecraft could be built...

However, as Jim might say, if there isn't a need and no money for such a project, it won't fly...
 

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Long term reuse and recycling of in space hardware
« Reply #13 on: 09/12/2010 06:08 pm »
It is also what the robotic lunar colony idea is about. If you are not just doing space science but actually aiming to learn how to do industrial tasks there then reuse is what it is all about.

Science isnt good for reuse because you generally do not want to do the same thing twice. Even visiting the same location twice would probably be totally unacceptable at current numbers of missions. Now if a rover stumbled across what looked like a trilobite fossil on mars..

The same type instruments in a different location could produce useful science.
Not really reuse of hardware but reuse of lets say a proven design such as the MER rovers could save a lot of money.

The idea isn't viable for unmanned probes, definitely.

I've thought of doing it for manned mission hardware, though... I imagine a large RTG powerplant left behind from a manned mission to Mars (or the Moon) could produce useful power for generations. If the mobile-hab concept is used, potentially it may become a viable scenario in case of equipment failure at some mission base to drive over to another, old base a thousand kilometers away. With people available, you could do all the kinds of jury rigging that people are known for.  Make sure to include a soldering iron, solder, hot glue gun (or something equivalent), duct tape, kapton tape, zip ties (they make stainless steel ones), space-stable grease, medical tubing (space-rated, if possible), space blankets, epoxy, plastic bags, maps, and plenty of flight manuals. You could probably fit that in a shoe box.

Another useful tool to bring would be a heat gun or even a hot air rework station.
Plus bring a box of rad-hardened FPGA chips,micro controllers and photo resist PCBs or proto boards.

A universal microcontroller controller like the popular ardunio but based around a rad hardened part could be indispensable.
Have both 8bit and 32bit devices on hand.

On a Mars mission also bring a rapid prototyping machine even they even have ones that can produce metal parts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_laser_sintering

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Long term reuse and recycling of in space hardware
« Reply #14 on: 09/12/2010 06:18 pm »

Another useful tool to bring would be a heat gun or even a hot air rework station.
Plus bring a box of rad-hardened FPGA chips,micro controllers and photo resist PCBs or proto boards.

A universal microcontroller controller like the popular ardunio but based around a rad hardened part could be indispensable.
Have both 8bit and 32bit devices on hand.

On a Mars mission also bring a rapid prototyping machine even they even have ones that can produce metal parts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_laser_sintering


Other electronics includes analogue-to-digital converters for sensors and radio receivers;
Digital-to-analogue converters for radio transmitters and frequency generators;
Motor controllers, LEDs, switches, resisters, capacitors and connectors.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Long term reuse and recycling of in space hardware
« Reply #15 on: 09/13/2010 12:56 pm »
Quote
The same type instruments in a different location could produce useful science.  Not really reuse of hardware but reuse of lets say a proven design such as the MER rovers could save a lot of money.

Precisely what I was getting at in the Multiple Probes on a Single Launcher thread.  Launch four rovers and four comsats to Mars for a wider robotic exploration effort.  Begin building the martian communication infrastructure.

Quote
A universal microcontroller controller like the popular ardunio [Arduino]...

Ideas like this, that you don't have to take to the bank, are great.  The idea of a common satellite bus or chassis.  The idea of standard rocket mounting and fairing attachments.

The ages of discovery and exploration are not over; what needs to happen is that these themes should include the prospecting theme.  This gets into repetitive activities as the details need to be fleshed out, and one shot missions take a back seat for the time being.

However, the House, for example, insists upon a focus on the launcher, to the detriment of the many possible missions.  Hence, there is no money for this work right at the moment, even tho there is a need.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Long term reuse and recycling of in space hardware
« Reply #16 on: 09/13/2010 03:06 pm »
Just for grins.  Arduino products are not radiation hardened.

 http://www.arduino.cc/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1284382017/1#1
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Long term reuse and recycling of in space hardware
« Reply #17 on: 09/15/2010 02:17 am »

     Obviously, a whole new probe will need to be sent, right?  Not really.  A smaller, lower mass package with the appropriate hardware upgrades, additional fuel, and a lander, would be sent on a high speed, robotic VASMIR tug.  Upon arrival, the probe will be shut down, instrunment packages would be either swapped out, repositioned or reconfigured, as needed, fuel would be transfered either via direct transfer or modularly replacing the fuel tank, and as the probe is placed into programming mode, firmware and software would be updated and tested, before the robotic tug would disconnect, use a gravity assist, and burn plasma either back to Earth, or to a staging area where the hardware removed from this probe can be tested, reprogrammed, and sent to another probe, or more, that needs the cross grade to be ready to accomplish its' new mission.  Back at Saturn, the probe, its new systems, software, and attached lander, are reactivated and perform a burn to change to Titan's orbit, and it launches the lander as the probe approaches to begin orbiting and observing Titan and communicating with the lander.
     The point here, instead of creating a whole new probe, one that had been configured with enough capacity to do so was both repurposed and reconfigured, onsite, for far lower than it would cost to build and send a whole new probe with lander to Saturn and Titan.  In the meantime, instead of disposing of the equipment gathered from the Saturn probe, it is tested, stored and will be reused on another probe as needed.
     When a probe's mission is completed, if a new mission hasn't been assigned, the probe is moved into a either a high orbit around a planet, (if exploring one) is put in a sleep mode with a low powered monitoring modeto allow its' reactivation from Earth at a later time, or retreival for cannibalization or repurposing for a different mission, or it could be placed into a solar parking orbit, again, awaiting reconfiguring and a new mission.

    This statagy reduces launch costs by reducing launches to only the equiipment needed to restore and reconfigure probes already in use, or that have reached mission's end with the ability to continue with other missions.  This is simply an upgrade of the system used for the Hubble telescope, while minimizing the risks to humans, and reusing onsite hardware as much as possible and practicle.  However, it does require that equipment be designed to be even more robust than it already is.  But even with slight increases in mass, this should be well within the technical abilities already demonstrated.  I mean, two rovers on Mars, designed for ninty day use lasting FIVE YEARS?  Not too shabby at all...

Any thoughts on this?


Jason
Not viable.   A new probe would be cheaper.  The rendezvous, docking and robotics equipment (and propellant)  would outweigh any perceived savings.  Eliminate these and replace with instruments.

Not viable if the probe itself has to do the reconfiguuration work.  The carrier platform would have the robotic systems on it and would likewise be reused as it has to return the swapped out components for refurbishment and reuse.  As we are talking of using either a VASMIR of Ion engine, along with Gravity assist flights, reaction mass can be reduced considerably.
     Again, as the hardware would be reused and refurbished in orbit, the only real costs, financially (exclusive of mission control, and launch costs) and upmass, would be boosting any replacement parts or new components into orbit, as well as any reaction mass required for the tool pallet and replacement parts to rendevous with onsite probes.
    I am admittedly glossing over a number of issues that would have to be addressed, but the idea of reusing eqauipment that is already upwell is, economically, very appealing, especially if it can be done cheaply.

     Alternatively, the probes themselves could either return to earth, or be met "halfway", and be reconfigured "on the fly". (in flight between objectives)

     Unless there is a pressing need to have a particular probe or sat in a location at a particular time, or if the probe is supposed to be destroyed or lost, (due to high speed exits, or impacts or one way atmospheric entries), lower mass boosts and reuse of existing equipment that is upwell stands to be a substantial savingsin space exploration.

     Wear and tear on equipment does eventually result in the eventual destruction of equipment, we shouldn't design equipment like this, to include manned spaceflight hardware, for single use disposability.   This would be akin to designing an aircraft to fly from the East coast of the US to the West coast, and then to be scrapped.  Economically non-viable in the long run.
     Admittedly, we have yet to develop a truely reusable and economical space launch system, but with advances in a variety of technologies, it is not impossible.
     But in the short term, if particular space hardware can be reused and repurposed to other missions, and, for more complex missions, if they can be reconfigured more economically than launching a new probe or sat, then they should be.

Jason
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Long term reuse and recycling of in space hardware
« Reply #18 on: 09/15/2010 02:21 am »
Rather than sending out a spacecraft to deliver new parts to another spacecraft, I think a better idea would be to send out modular spacecraft with ion/VASIMR propulsion, do your science for a few years, and then launch on a low energy trajectory back to EML1/2, where either robots or astronauts could swap out instruments, RTGs, engines, piggyback probes, etc..., and fill up the tanks with propellant for the next mission. You could even have it return samples this way.

This might be a tedious approach for exploring as far away as Saturn, but the inner solar system would do well to have a small fleet of reusable multipurpose probes.

Essentuially this is quite similar to the same point I am trying to make.
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Long term reuse and recycling of in space hardware
« Reply #19 on: 09/15/2010 02:32 am »
Rather than sending out a spacecraft to deliver new parts to another spacecraft, I think a better idea would be to send out modular spacecraft with ion/VASIMR propulsion, do your science for a few years, and then launch on a low energy trajectory back to EML1/2, where either robots or astronauts could swap out instruments, RTGs, engines, piggyback probes, etc..., and fill up the tanks with propellant for the next mission. You could even have it return samples this way.

This might be a tedious approach for exploring as far away as Saturn, but the inner solar system would do well to have a small fleet of reusable multipurpose probes.

Essentuially this is quite similar to the same point I am trying to make.

The energy to return would be too great

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1