AAWSAP DIRD, Laser Lightcraft Nanosatellites, November 2010

Text

This text came with the file. It may have mistakes. When the text and the image disagree, the image is right.

UNCLASSIFIED/,'rOR: orrlCIJ!tL USE O14Lf
• Terminal seeker guidance for hit-to-kill accuracy against missiles and
maneuvering aircraft.
• Axial-/lateral-propulsion and control for missile and maneuvering aircraft
interception.
• Additional mass along Lightcraft centerline for hardened target penetration.
LIGHTCRAFT MISSION INVESTIGATIONS: SUMMARY AND
CONCLUSIONS
Ground/Sea to Space (ETO) t26l
If laser propulsion can provide nearly all Lightcraft /lv needed to reach LEO, then
Lightcraft nanosat systems, which combine both launch vehicle and nanosat
subsystems within a single vehicle, may be achievable with launch masses in the 2 kg
to 10 kg ra nge; and such Lightcraft nanosat systems appear capable of reaching LEO at
1/Sth to 1/10th the cost required using multistage chemical rocket systems.
Air to Space (Air to Orbit) t26l
If hypersonic magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) airbreathing propulsion research and
development currently underway at the NSF, NASA and the AFRL (Dayton, OH) is
successful, then Lightcraft dry masses as heavy as 100 kg can be launched from
aircraft flying at Mach 10 to 12 at about 30 km above the Earth . Such Lightcraft could
be propelled by laser power as high as 100 MW that can be generated from the
electrical power of ionized-air-slowing by interacting electric and magnetic fields within
hypersonic MHD airbreathing engines.
Air to Space (Ballistic Missile Interception) t26J
Sufficient impact energy for destruction of high-speed ballistic missiles above the
atmosphere is possible with chemical propulsion and uncooled IR detectors (for semi­
active homing and axial/lateral acceleration during end-game) integrated into Lightcraft
vehicles for an approximate 100% dry mass increase (from 1.0 kg to 2.0 kg). But
multiple target interception within allowable time is limited by relatively long beam­
riding time needed for the Lightcraft to reach and destroy each target.
Although laser-propelled Lightcraft appear capable of performing certain Air Force
tactical missions, and are much less expensive than missiles currently used for such
missions, the laser and aircraft costs associated with Lig htcraft launches are much
greater. Also, clouds impair Lightcraft air-to-ground and air-to-air effectiveness while
air-to-air and air-to-space effectiveness is limited by long Lightcraft beam-riding times.
Thus, no truly attractive Lightcraft combat mission was found. On the other hand,
Lightcraft were found to be extremely attractive, compared to chemical rockets, in
boosting microsats, nanosats, and picosats to LEO whereby the Lightcraft plus
ground/sea-based laser costs are significantly less than multistage chemical rocket
costs. Thus, the selected Lightcraft missions are launch vehicle missions involving
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR O61ilCl.li.k W&& 8Ptl'l
29