The Importance of Baseload Generation and Real-Time Control to Grid Stability and Reliability

All Posts, Automation & autonomous systems, Power Generating Technology - Alternate, Power Generating Technology - Fossil, Power Generating Technology - Nuclear, Power Storage Technology, , , ,

Peter Lobner

On 23 August 2017, the Department of Energy (DOE) issued a report entitled, “Staff Report to the Secretary on Energy Markets and Reliability.” In his cover letter, Energy Secretary Rick Perry notes:

“It is apparent that in today’s competitive markets certain regulations and subsidies are having a large impact on the functioning of markets, and thereby challenging our power generation mix. It is important for policy makers to consider their intended and unintended effects.”

Among the consequences of the national push to implement new generation capacity from variable renewable energy (VRE) resources (i.e., wind & solar) are: (1) increasing grid perturbations due to the variability of the output from VRE generators, and (2) early retirement of many baseload generating plants because of several factors, including the desire of many states to meet their energy demand with a generating portfolio containing a greater percentage of VRE generators. Grid perturbations can challenge the reliability of the U.S. bulk power systems that comprise our national electrical grid. The reduction of baseload capacity reduces the resilience of the bulk power system and its ability dampen these perturbations.

The DOE staff report contains the following typical daily load curve. Baseload plants include nuclear and coal that operate at high capacity factor and generally do not maneuver in response to a change in demand. The intermediate load is supplied by a mix of generators, including VRE generators, which typically operate at relatively low capacity factors. The peak load generators typically are natural gas power plants that can maneuver or be cycled (i.e., on / off) as needed to meet short-term load demand. The operating reserve is delivered by a combination of power plants that can be reliably dispatched if needed.

The trends in new generation additions and old generation retirements is summarized in the following graphic from the DOE staff report.

Here you can see that recent additions (since 2006) have focused on VRE generators (wind and solar) plus some new natural gas generators. In that same period, retirements have focused on oil, coal and nuclear generators, which likely were baseload generators.

The DOE staff report noted that continued closure of baseload plants puts areas of the country at greater risk of power outages. It offered a list of policy recommendations to reverse the trend, including providing power pricing advantages for baseload plants to continue operating, and speeding up and reducing costs for permitting for baseload power and transmission projects.

Regarding energy storage, the DOE staff report states the following in Section 4.1.3:

“Energy storage will be critical in the future if higher levels of VRE are deployed on the grid and require additional balancing of energy supply and demand in real time.”

“DOE has been investing in energy storage technology development for two decades, and major private investment is now active in commercializing and the beginnings of early deployment of grid-level storage, including within microgrids.”

Options for energy storage are identified in the DOE staff report.

You can download the DOE staff report to the Secretary and Secretary Perry’s cover letter here:

https://energy.gov/downloads/download-staff-report-secretary-electricity-markets-and-reliability

Lyncean members should recall our 2 August 2017 meeting and the presentation by Patrick Lee entitled, “A fast, flexible & coordinated control technology for the electric grid of the future.” This presentation described work by Sempra Energy and its subsidiary company PXiSE Energy Solutions to address the challenges to grid stability caused by VRE generators.   An effective solution has been demonstrated by adding energy storage and managing the combined output of the VER generators and the energy storage devices in real-time to match supply and demand and help stabilize the grid. This integrated solution, with energy storage plus real-time automated controls, appears to be broadly applicable to VRE generators and offers the promise, especially in Hawaii and California, for resilient and reliable electrical grids even with a high percentage of VRE generators in the state’s generation portfolio.

You can download Patrick Lee’s 2 August 2017 presentation to the Lyncean Group of San Diego at the following link:

https://lynceans.org/talk-113-8217/

Return of the Stellarator

All Posts, Fusion, Physics, , , , , , , , ,

Updated 19 March 2020

Peter Lobner

Background

Dr. Lyman Spitzer invented the stellarator in 1951 and built several versions of this magnetic plasma confinement machine at Princeton University during the 1950s and 1960s, establishing the world famous Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) in the process. Dr. Spitzer’s earliest Stellarators were figure-eight devices as shown in the following photo.

Example of an early stellarator at the 1958 Atoms for Peace Conference, Geneva

In these first-generation stellarators, field coils wrapped around the figure-eight vacuum vessel provided the basic plasma confinement field. The physical twist in the stellarator’s structure twisted the internal magnetic confinement field and cancelled the effects of plasma ion drift during each full circuit around the device. You can download Dr. Spitzer’s historic 1958 IAEA conference paper, “The Stellarator Concept,” at the following link:

http://www-naweb.iaea.org/napc/physics/2ndgenconf/data/Proceedings%201958/papers%20Vol32/Paper23_Vol32.pdf

The next generation of stellarators adopted a simpler torus shape and created the twist in the magnetic confinement field with helical field coils outside the vacuum vessel.

While stellarators achieved many important milestones in magnetic confinement, by the late 1960s, the attention of the fusion community was shifting toward a different type of magnetic confinement machine: the tokamak. Since then, this basic design concept has been employed in many of the world’s major fusion devices, including the Alcator-C Mod (MIT, USA), Doublet III-D (DIII-D at General Atomics, USA), Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR at PPPL, USA), Joint European Torus (JET, UK), National Spherical Torus Experiment Upgrade (NSTX-U at PPPL, USA) and the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER, France).

Now, almost 50 years later, there is significant renewed interest in stellarators. The newest device, the Wendelstein 7-X stellarator, became operational in 2016. It may help determine if modern technology has succeeded in making the stellarator a more promising path to fusion power than the tokamak.

Comparison of Tokamaks and Stellarators

Modern tokamaks and stellarators both implement plasma confinement within a (more or less) toroidal vacuum vessel that operates at very high vacuum conditions, on the order of 10-7 torr. Both types of machines use the combined effects of two or more magnetic fields to create and control helical field lines (HFL) that enable plasma confinement and reduce particle drift in the circulating plasma.

In the following description, the simple “classical” tokamak configuration shown below will be the point of reference.

Source: Hans-Jürgen Hartfuß, Thomas Geist, “Fusion Plasma Diagnostics With mm-Waves: An Introduction”

The main features of a tokamak are summarized below.

  • The vacuum vessel in a modern tokamak typically is an azimuthally-symmetric torus of revolution (donut-shaped), typically with a vertically elongated, D-shaped cross section. Modern “spherical” tokomaks maintain the D-shaped cross section, but minimize the diameter of the hole in the center of the torus.
  • Plasma confinement within the vacuum vessel is accomplished by the combined effects of a toroidal magnetic field and an induced poloidal magnetic field. Together, these fields create the helical field lines for plasma confinement. In the following diagram, the toroidal field is represented by the blue arrow and the poloidal field is represented by the red arrow.

By Dave Burke – Own work, CC BY 2.5, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1169843

  • The toroidal field (blue) is generated by a set of external toroidal field coils (TFCs) that surround the vacuum vessel.
  • The poloidal field (red) is generated by a strong induced plasma current (Iplasma), on the order of 106 amperes, flowing within the plasma inside the vacuum vessel. An external coil in the center of the tokamak serves as the primary coil of a transformer and the circulating plasma serves as the secondary coil of the transformer. To create the poloidal field, the transformer primary coil is charged at a controlled rate (i.e. to yield the desired rate of flux increase), thereby inducing a current in the plasma and heating the plasma by ohmic heating. When the primary coil reaches maximum flux, current is no longer induced in the plasma and the tokamak “pulse” is over.
  • A pair of vertical field coils (VFC), one above and one below the plane of the torus, provide the ability to radially position the plasma within the vacuum vessel.
  • Divertors inside the vacuum vessel define the maximum extent of the magnetically confined plasma, remove impurities from the edge of the plasma, and help minimize plasma-wall interactions.
  • The high current in the plasma can falter unexpectedly, resulting in a “disruption”, which is a sudden losses of plasma confinement that can unleash magnetic forces powerful enough to damage the machine.
  • A tokamak is mechanically simpler than a stellarator.
  • The physics characteristics of a tokamak typically yield better confinement capabilities than a stellarator.
  • While the “pulse” in a modern tokamak can last several tens of minutes, a pulsed mode of operation may not be suitable for a commercial fusion reactor.
  • Pulsed magnetic and thermal loads create mechanical fatigue issues that must be accommodated in the design of tokamak structures.

The simple “classical” stellarator configuration shown below will be the point of reference for the following discussion.

Source: Hans-Jürgen Hartfuß, Thomas Geist, “Fusion Plasma Diagnostics With mm-Waves: An Introduction”

The main features of a stellarator are summarized below.

  • There are many variants of devices called stellarators, with names such as Torsatron, Heliotron, Heliac, and Helias. All create the plasma confinement field with external magnet systems in various configurations and none depend on the existence of a toroidal plasma current.
  • In the classical stellarator in the above diagram, the plasma confinement field is created by a set of planar (flat) TFCs and external pairs (1, 2 or 3) of twisting helical field coils (HFC) with opposite currents in each conductor in the pair.
  • A stellarator is mechanically more complex and more difficult to manufacture than a tokamak.
  • Stellarators may use a divertor or a simpler “limiter” to define the outer extent of the plasma.
  • While a stellarator has no induced plasma current, other small currents, known as “pressure-driven” or “bootstrap” currents, exist. These small currents do not cause plasma disruptions as may occur in a tokamak, but complicate plasma confinement.
  • A stellarator is intrinsically capable of steady-state operation.
  • For a variety of reasons, a classical stellarator tends to lose energy at a higher rate than a tokamak. Advanced, modular stellarators are making progress in improving confinement performance.

You’ll find more comparative information in the July 2016 paper by Y. XU, “A general comparison between tokamak and stellarator plasmas,” which is available at the following link:

http://ac.els-cdn.com/S2468080X16300322/1-s2.0-S2468080X16300322-main.pdf?_tid=7d9ff748-c680-11e6-9909-00000aacb35d&acdnat=1482216764_912e05c8d6b4957207a2e7ae31c30f03

Modern stellarators

In the last two decades, dramatic improvements in computer power and 3-dimensional modeling capabilities have enabled researchers and designers to accurately model a stellarator’s complex magnetic fields, plasma behavior, and mechanical components (i.e., vacuum vessel, magnet systems and other structures). This has enabled implementation of a “plasma first” design process in which the initial design focus is on optimizing plasma equilibrium based on selected physics conditions. Key goals of this optimization process are to define plasma equilibrium conditions that reduce heat transport and particle loss from the plasma. As you might suspect, there are different technical bases for approaching the plasma optimization process. The stellarator’s magnet systems are designed to produce the confinement field needed for the specified, optimized plasma design.

This class of modern, optimized stellarators is characterized by complex, twisting plasma shapes and non-planar, modular toroidal coils that are individually designed, built and assembled. The net result is a stellarator with significantly better confinement performance that earlier stellarator designs. In this post, we’ll look in more detail at the following three advanced stellarators:

  • Wendelstein 7-AS [Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (IPP), Garching, Germany]
  • Helically Symmetric eXperiment (HSX, University of Wisconsin – Madison, USA)
  • Wendelstein 7-X [Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (IPP), Griefswald, Germany]

 Wendelstein 7-AS Stellarator (1988 – 2002)

The Wendelstein 7-AS (W7-AS) was the first modular, advanced stellarator and was the first stellarator equipped with a divertor. It was used to test and validate basic elements of stellarator optimization.  Basic physical parameters of W7-AS are:

  • Major radius 2 m
  • Minor radius 0.2 m
  • Magnetic field 2.5 – 3 T

The physical layout and scale of the W7-AS machine is shown in the first diagram, below, with more details on the magnet system in the following diagram.

Above & below: Wendelstein 7-AS. Source: Max Planck IPP, I. Weber

The W7-AS operated from 1988 to 2002.   The IPP reported the following results:

  • Demonstrated that the innovative modular magnet coil system can be manufactured to exacting specifications.
  • Demonstrated improved plasma equilibrium and transport behavior because of the improved magnetic field structure.
  • Confirmed the effectiveness of the optimization criteria.
  • Demonstrated the effectiveness of a divertor on a stellarator (a common feature in tokamaks).

You’ll find more details on the W7-AS on the IPP website at the following link:

http://www.ipp.mpg.de/2665443/w7as?page=1

Its successor is the Wendelstein 7-X.

Helically Symmetric eXperiment (HSX)

HSX is a small modular coil advanced stellarator that began operation in 1999 at the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. HSX basic design parameters are:

  • Major radius 1.2 m
  • Minor radius 0.15 m
  • Magnetic field 1T

The physical arrangement of HSX is shown in the following diagram.

HSX physical configuration. Source: University of Wisconsin – Madison

The HSX was the first stellarator to be optimized to deliver a “quasi-symmetric” magnetic field. While the magnetic field strength is usually a two-dimensional function on the magnetic surfaces traced out by the field lines, quasi-symmetry is achieved by making it one-dimensional in so-called “magnetic coordinates” (Boozer coordinates).

Author Masayuki Yokoyama’s paper, “Quasi-symmetry Concepts in Helical Systems,” provides a description of quasi-symmetry.

“A key point of quasi-symmetry is that the drift trajectories of charged particles depend on the absolute value of the magnetic field (B) expressed in terms of magnetic field coordinates (Boozer coordinates). The plasma can be optimized in terms of the Boozer coordinates instead of the vector components of the field.”

You can read Yokoyama’s complete paper at the following link:

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jspf/78/3/78_3_205/_pdf

The HSX main magnetic field is generated by a set of 48 non-planar, modular coils, arranged in four field periods, yielding the twisting flux shape shown below.


HSX plasma configuration. Source: University of Wisconsin – Madison

The HSX team reported that “this is the first demonstration that quasi-symmetry works, and you can actually measure the reduction in transport that you get.”

The home page for this project is at the following link:

http://www.hsx.wisc.edu

You can download a description of the HSX here:

http://www.hsx.wisc.edu/wp-uploads/2016/04/A-helically-symmetric-stellarator-HSX_Almagri_Anderson-DT_Anderson-FSB_Probert_Shohet_Talmadge_1999.pdf

 Wendelstein 7-X Stellarator

The Wendelstein 7-X (W7-X) is a Helias (helical advanced stellarator) and is the first large-scale optimized stellarator; significantly larger than Wendelstein 7-AS and HSX. The complete W7-X machine weighs about 750 tons, with about 425 tons operating under cryogenic conditions. The superconducting magnet system is designed for steady-state, high-power operation; nominally 30 minutes of plasma operation at 10 MW power. W7-X basic design parameters are:

  • Major radius 5.5m
  • Minor radius 0.52m
  • Magnetic field 2.5 T (up to 3T)

The IPP home page for this project is here:

http://www.ipp.mpg.de/w7x

The W7-X is drift optimized for improved thermal and fast ion confinement by: (a) implementing quasi-symmetry to reduce transport losses, (b) minimizing plasma currents (Pfirsch-Schluter & bootstrap currents) to improve equilibrium, and (c) designing a large magnetic well in the plasma cross-section to avoid plasma pressure instabilities.

The primary purpose of the Wendelstein 7-X is to investigate the new stellarator’s suitability for extrapolation to a fusion power plant design. The IPP website provides the following clarification:

“It is expected that plasma equilibrium and confinement will be of a quality comparable to that of a tokamak of the same size. But it will avoid the disadvantages of a large current flowing in a tokamak plasma: With plasma discharges lasting up to 30 minutes, Wendelstein 7-X is to demonstrate the essential stellarator property, viz. continuous operation.”

The main assembly of Wendelstein 7-X was completed in 2014. An IPP presentation on the manufacturing and assembly of W7-X is at the following link:

https://www.iter.org/doc/www/content/com/Lists/Stories/Attachments/680/ITER_W7X.pdf

You’ll also find a good video, “Wendelstein 7-X — from concept to reality,” which provides an overview of the design and construction of the W7-X stellarator and the associated research facility, at the following link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyqt6u5_sHA

After engineering tests, the first plasma was produced at W7-X on 10 December 2015. A November 2016 article in Nature summarized on the results of initial operation of W7-X.  The article, entitled, “Confirmation of the topology of the Wendelstein 7-X magnetic field to better than 1:100,000,” confirmed that the W7-X is producing the intended confinement field. This article includes the following 3-D rendering and description of the complex magnetic coil sets that establish the twisting plasma confinement fields in the W7-X.

“Some representative nested magnetic surfaces are shown in different colors in this computer-aided design (CAD) rendering, together with a magnetic field line that lies on the green surface. The coil sets that create the magnetic surfaces are also shown, planar coils in brown, non-planar coils in grey. Some coils are left out of the rendering, allowing for a view of the nested surfaces (left) and a Poincaré section of the shown surfaces (right). Four out of the five external trim coils are shown in yellow. The fifth coil, which is not shown, would appear at the front of the rendering.”

You can read the complete article at the following link:

http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13493

A more detailed mechanical view of the W7-X, with a scale (gold) human figure is shown in the following diagram:

Source: IPP presentation, “Stellarators difficult to build? The construction of Wendelstein 7-X”

The large scale of the W7-X vacuum vessel is even more apparent in the following photo.

A segment of W7-X vacuum vessel.  Source: adapted from IPP by C. Bickel and A. Cuadra/Science

Most of the wall protection components are uncooled. Operational limits on the W7-X (i.e., pulse duration, various temperatures) help protect the integrity of wall components.

The status of the W7-X as of February 2017 is outlined in a presentation by the W7-X team to the Fusion Energy Science Advisory Committee (FESAC), entitled “Recent results and near-term plans for Wendelstein 7-X,” which is available at the following link:

http://www.firefusionpower.org/FESAC_W7-X_Pedersen_02.2017.pdf

Update 19 March 2020:  Proof of principal and a new upgrade campaign

 In February 2020, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) reported on the SciTechDaily website that W7-X operation through the end of 2018 had successfully demonstrated the expected capability to moderate plasma leakage and improve plasma confinement.  W7-X operation had achieved hundred-second pulses with heating powers of two megawatts and plasma energies of 200 megajoules.  PPPL physicist Novimir Pablant stated, “This research validates predictions for how well the optimized design of the W7-X reduces neoclassical transport….,” and, “The research marks the first step in showing that high-performance stellarator designs such as W-7X are an attractive way to produce a clean and safe fusion reactor.”

You’ll find the PPPL report here:  https://scitechdaily.com/cutting-edge-w7-x-nuclear-fusion-device-overcomes-obstacles/

Wide angle view of the interior of the Wendelstein 7-X plasma vessel, showing the different armor materials designed to take up the heat from the plasma. The surface contour of the wall follows the shape of the plasma. On average, the radius of the plasma is 55 cm. Credit: Bernhard Ludewig, Max Planck Institute of Plasma Physics

At the end of 2018, operation of the W7-X ceased and a new round of modifications was started.  Key upgrades being implemented now for the W7-X are:

  • Installation of new water-cooled inner cladding on large sections of the plasma vessel to enable the W7-X to handle higher heating loads and longer plasma pulses, up to 30 minutes.
  • Installation of ten double strip, water-cooled divertor plates on the inner wall of the plasma vessel. Divertors are the parts of the new cladding system used to regulate the interaction between plasma and the inner wall of the plasma vessel.  Without water cooling, the heat-resistant divertor tiles made of carbon-fiber-reinforced carbon could not withstand the heat load for the intended 30-minute plasma pulses.

In ten curved double strips, the divertor plates (brown) follow the shape of the twisted plasma (yellow).  Source: IPP

IPP reports that this upgrade work is expected to continue until the end of 2021.  You’ll find more details on the upgrade work, including the design of the divertors, on the IPP website at the following link:  https://www.ipp.mpg.de/4828222/01_20

Conclusion

Following the success of two Wendelstein 7-X experimental campaigns from March 2016 to October 2018, a promising path forward is being pursued by the Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics.  Nonetheless, I believe my previous conclusion (below, from the original post in 2017) still stands.  We’ll know a lot more after the W7-X upgrade work is completed and operations resume in late 2021.

So the jury is still out on the ability of advanced, optimized stellarators to take the lead over tokamaks in the long, hard journey toward the goal of delivering usable power from a fusion machine.  Hopefully, the advanced stellarators will move the fusion community closer to that goal.  No doubt, we still have a very long way to go before fusion power becomes a reality.

For more background information on stellarators:

A summary of Dr. Spitzer’s pioneering work at PPPL is documented in the following presentation:

There are good briefings on the basics of stellarator design and operation in the following two documents:

Manufacturing the Reactor Vessel for an RITM-200 PWR for Russia’s new LK-60 Class of Polar Icebreakers

All Posts, Arctic, Marine Technology, Nuclear propulsion, , , , , ,

Peter Lobner

The first ship in the new LK-60 class of nuclear powered icebreakers, named Arktika, was launched on 16 June 2016 at the Baltic Shipyard in St. Petersburg, Russia. LK-60 class icebreakers are powered by two RITM-200 integral pressurized water reactors (PWR), each rated at 175 MWt, and together delivering 60 MW (80,460 hp) to an electric motor propulsion system driving three shafts.

LK-60 class icebreakers are the most powerful icebreakers in the world. Contracts for two additional LK-60 icebreakers were placed in May 2014. They are scheduled for delivery in 2020 (Sibr) & 2021 (Ural).

The general arrangement of the nuclear reactors in these ships is shown in the following two diagrams.

Two RITM-200 reactors installed on an LK-60 class icebreaker. Source: Atomenergomash

The basic design of the RITM-200 integral primary system is shown in the following diagram. The reactor and steam generators are in the same vessel. The four primary pumps are connected directly to the reactor vessel, creating a very compact primary system unit.

The two reactor vessels were installed in Arktika in September 2016, which is scheduled to be service-ready in mid-2019, and will operate from the Atomflot icebreaker port in Murmansk. Manufacturing of the reactor vessels for the second LK-60 icebreaker, Sibr, is in progress.

Above: Second integral reactor vessel for Arktika, with the primary pump housings installed. Source: Rosatom

Below: Integral reactor vessel at an earlier stage of manufacturing for Sibr.  Source: Atomenergomash

Below: Complete RITM-200 integral reactor vessel. Source: Atomenergomash

You can watch an Atomenergomash video (in Russian) showing how the RITM-200 reactor vessel is manufactured at the following link:

The U.S. has no nuclear powered icebreakers and only one, older polar-class icebreaker. See my 3 September 2015, “The Sad State of Affairs of the U.S. Icebreaking Fleet and Implications for Future U.S. Arctic Operations,” for more information on the U.S. icebreaker fleet.

Preliminary Design of an Experimental World-Circling Spaceship

Aeronautical, All Posts, Physics, Spacecraft and Missions, ,

Peter Lobner

The title of this post also is the title of the first RAND report, SM-11827, which was issued on 5 May 1946 when Project RAND still was part of the Douglas Aircraft Company. The basic concept for an oxygen-alcohol fueled multi-stage world-circling spaceship is shown below.

Source: RAND

Source: RAND

Now, more than 70 years later, it’s very interesting to read this report to gain an appreciation of the state of the art of rocketry in the U.S. in 1946, which already was benefiting from German experience with the V-2 and other rocket programs during WW II.

RAND offers the following abstract for SM-11827:

“More than eleven years before the orbiting of Sputnik, history’s first artificial space satellite, Project RAND — then active within Douglas Aircraft Company’s Engineering Division — released its first report: Preliminary Design of an Experimental World-Circling Spaceship (SM-11827), May 2, 1946. Interest in the feasibility of space satellites had surfaced somewhat earlier in a Navy proposal for an interservice space program (March 1946). Major General Curtis E. LeMay, then Deputy Chief of the Air Staff for Research and Development, considered space operations to be an extension of air operations. He tasked Project RAND to undertake a feasibility study of its own with a three-week deadline. The resulting report arrived two days before a critical review of the subject with the Navy. The central argument turns on the feasibility of such a space vehicle from an engineering standpoint, but alongside the curves and tabulations are visionary statements, such as that by Louis Ridenour on the significance of satellites to man’s store of knowledge, and that of Francis Clauser on the possibility of man in space. But the most riveting observation, one that deserves an honored place in the Central Premonitions Registry, was made by one of the contributors, Jimmy Lipp (head of Project RAND’s Missile Division), in a follow-on paper nine months later: ‘Since mastery of the elements is a reliable index of material progress, the nation which first makes significant achievements in space travel will be acknowledged as the world leader in both military and scientific techniques. To visualize the impact on the world, one can imagine the consternation and admiration that would be felt here if the United States were to discover suddenly that some other nation had already put up a successful satellite.’”

You can buy the book from several on-line sellers or directly from RAND. However you also can download the complete report for free in three pdf files that you’ll find on the RAND website at the following link:

https://www.rand.org/pubs/special_memoranda/SM11827.html

Qualcomm Tricorder XPrize Winners Announced

All Posts, Medical, , ,

Peter Lobner

In my 24 December 2016 post, I reported that the Qualcomm Tricorder XPrize committee had selected two teams to continue into the finals: Dynamical Biomarkers Group and Final Frontier Medical Devices.   On 12 April 2017, the Qualcomm Tricorder XPrize committee announced the winners…and yes, there were two winners:

“Of the 300 teams that joined the pursuit of the Qualcomm Tricorder XPRIZE, Final Frontier Medical Devices and Dynamical Biomarkers Group were both announced winners at the Qualcomm Tricorder XPRIZE awards ceremony on April 12, 2017.

Final Frontier Medical Devices was announced the highest performing team and received $2.5M for their achievement and Dynamical Biomarkers Group received $1M for 2nd place. Both teams exceeded the competition requirements for user experience, nearly met the challenging audacious benchmarks for diagnosing the 13 disease states, and with their prototypes, have taken humanity one step closer to realizing Gene Roddenberry’s 23rd century sci-fi vision. XPRIZE congratulates Final Frontier Medical Devices and Dynamical Biomarkers Group on their amazing achievements.”

Learn more about Final Frontier Medical Devices and their winning tricorder named DxtER here:

http://tricorder.xprize.org/teams/final-frontier-medical-devices

Learn more about Dynamical Biomarkers Group and their 2nd place tricorder system comprised of three modules here:

http://tricorder.xprize.org/teams/dynamical-biomarkers-group

OK, neither XPrize tricorder prototype looks like Dr. McCoy’s hand-held tricorder seen on Star Trek (the original series), but the automated diagnostic capabilities offered by the XPrize tricorder prototypes really are a giant leap forward in the development of tricorder technology for the real world. The Qualcomm Tricorder XPrize competition has been successful in making this happen on an accelerated schedule.

McCoy and his tricorder. Source: Star Trek (the original series), Desilu Productions

Star Trek Tricorder replica. Source: Amazon.com

56 Years Ago: Yuri Gagarin Became the First Person in Space

All Posts, Spacecraft and Missions, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Peter Lobner

On 12 April 1961, the Soviet Union launched the Vostok 1 (“East” 1) spacecraft and astronaut Major Yuri Gagarin from a launch site in Kazakhstan on the first ever manned space mission. Gagarin became the first person to fly above the Karman line that marks the beginning of space, at 62 miles (330,000 feet, 100 km) above the Earth. He also became the first person to achieve Earth orbit.

Yuri Gagarin. Source: Daily Mail

Basic orbital parameters for Vostok 1 were: apogee: 203 miles (327 km), perigee: 117 miles (189 km), and orbital period: 89.1 minutes. Gagarin completed one orbit. After re-entry, Gagarin ejected from the Vostok capsule at an altitude of about 4.3 miles (7 km) and parachuted to the ground. The capsule descended under its own parachute and was recovered near Engels, Russia. Gagarin’s total flight time was 1 hour, 48 minutes.

The path of Gagarin’s historic flight, including important flight milestones, is shown on the following map:

Source: http://space.stackexchange.com/

The configuration of the Vostok spacecraft is shown in the following diagram. The reentry vehicle is the spherical capsule, which on the left is shown attached to the instrument module.

Vostok 1 configuration.  Source: Pinterest

The complete spacecraft had a mass of 4.73 tons (4,300 kg) and measured 14.4 feet (4.4 meters) in length and 8 feet (2.43 meters) in diameter. The placement of the spacecraft inside the nose shroud of the launch vehicle is shown in the following diagram.

Source: http://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?49802-Dr-Zooch-Vostok-build-thread

Yuri Gagarin’s Vostok I capsule is on display at the RKK Energiya museum, which is on the grounds of the RKK Energiya factory in Korolyov, near Moscow. Gagarin died in a jet training flight on 27 March 1968.

Vostok 1 capsule. Source: SiefkinDR – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=12403404

The Soviet’s Vostok launch vehicle was unveiled to the public at the June 1967 Paris Air Show. This was a big launch vehicle for the time, with a length of 126 feet (38.4 m) and a diameter of about 35 feet (10.7 m).

Soviet Vostok launcher mockup at 1976 Paris Air Show. Source: http://www.theaviationhistorian.com

The Vostok launcher, designed by Sergei Korolov, was based on the Soviet R-7 (Semyorka) intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). Earlier versions of the R-7 were used to put the first man-made satellite, Sputnik 1, in Earth orbit on 4 October 1957 and to launch the early Luna spacecraft that, in 1959, achieved the milestones of first spacecraft to escape Earth’s gravity and enter a solar orbit (Luna 1) and first spacecraft to impact the Moon (Luna 2).

About one month after Gagarin’s milestone orbital flight, U.S. Project Mercury astronaut Alan Shepard was launched on 5 May 1961 by a Mercury-Redstone booster on a 15-minute suborbital flight. In the Freedom 7 capsule, Shepard reached a maximum altitude of 116.5 miles (187.5 km) and was recovered about 302 miles (487 km) downrange from Cape Canaveral after landing in the Atlantic Ocean. The Freedom 7 capsule is on display in the museum at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library on Columbia Point in Boston, on loan from the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. Alan Shepard died on 21 July 1998.

On 20 February 1962, astronaut John Glenn became the first American to reach Earth orbit. The Mercury-Atlas booster placed the Friendship 7 capsule and Glenn into a low Earth orbit with the following basic parameters: apogee: 154 miles (248 km), perigee: 87 miles (140 km), and orbital period: 88.5 minutes. Glenn completed three orbits in a flight lasting 4 hours and 55 minutes, with recovery in the Atlantic Ocean. The Friendship 7 capsule is on display at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, Washington D.C. John Glenn died on 8 December 2016.

A comparison of the Mercury and Vostok reentry capsules is shown in the following scale diagram.

Source: http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/space/lectures/lec08.html

So here we are, 56 years later and some things haven’t changed. Just as in 1961, the U.S. has no means of its own to send astronauts into Earth orbit. The first orbital test of an unmanned SpaceX Dragon 2 spacecraft, launched by a SpaceX Falcon booster, is scheduled for November 2017, with the first crewed mission occurring in 2018. When it occurs, this manned Dragon 2 mission will be the first U.S. manned spacecraft to reach orbit since the last Space Shuttle flight in 2011. Dragon 2 will provide regular service to replace International Space Station (ISS) crews and to perform other orbital missions requiring a crew. In the meantime, the U.S. depends on Russia and their Soyuz spacecraft to deliver and return crews from the ISS. Soyuz is a larger, more modern version of the basic Vostok spacecraft and spherical reentry capsule. You can find out more about the Soyuz spacecraft currently serving the ISS on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) website at the following link:

https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/stories/nasa-knows/what-is-the-soyuz-spacecraft-k-4

NASA’s manned space program will take even longer to resume manned spaceflight missions. The first launch of NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) with the new Orion multi-purpose crew vehicle currently is expected to occur in 2018. As currently planned, the Exploration Mission 1 (EM-1) will be an unmanned mission. NASA is considering making EM-1 a manned mission and launching in 2019.

Reusable Space Launch Vehicles are Becoming a Reality

All Posts, Spacecraft and Missions, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Peter Lobner

In my 12 April 2016 post, “Landing a Reusable Booster Rocket on a Dime,” I discussed the first successful flights and recoveries of the SpaceX Falcon 9 orbital booster rocket and Blue Origin’s New Shepard suborbital booster rocket. In the past year, both SpaceX and Blue Origin have successfully launched and recovered several rockets. In addition, SpaceX and Blue Origin both have reused one or more booster rockets that were flown on previous missions.

Here’s a quick look at the SpaceX and Blue Origin track records and their future plans for even more ambitious recoverable launch vehicles. We’ll also take a brief look at what competitors are doing with their existing and planned launch vehicles.

SpaceX reusable booster rockets: Falcon 9 v1.2, Falcon Heavy, and Interplanetary Transport System

The Falcon 9 v1.2 is the current, operational version of this commercial, medium-lift, two-stage family of launch vehicles. This booster has a length of 230 ft (70 m) with the payload fairing and a booster diameter of 12 ft (3.66 m). The first stage generates 1.7 million pounds of thrust from seven Merlin engines burning liquid oxygen (LOX) and RP-1 kerosene. The second stage uses a single Merlin engine optimized for vacuum conditions. The Falcon 9 v1.2 specified payload mass is:

  • 50,265 pounds (22.8 metric tons, 22,800 kg) to Low Earth Orbit (LEO),
  • 18,298 pounds (8.3 metric tons, 8,300 kg) to Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (GTO), or
  • 8,862 pounds (4.02 metric tons, 4,020 kg) to escape velocity.

Falcon Heavy is an advanced heavy-lift, two-stage launch vehicle with a first stage comprised of three Falcon 9 booster rockets. The first stage generates 5.1 million pounds of thrust from 21 Merlin engines. The Falcon Heavy specified payload mass is:

  • 119,931 pounds (54.4 metric tons, 54,400 kg) to LEO,
  • 48,942 pounds (22.2 metric tons, 22,200 kg) to GTO, or
  • 29,983 pounds (13.6 metric tons, 13,600) kg to escape velocity.

The first Falcon Heavy is expected to be launched in late 2017.

The Falcon 9 v1.2 family and the Falcon Heavy launch vehicles are shown in the following diagram. The scale-up from Falcon 9 V1.2 to Falcon Heavy is relatively straightforward. Versions designed for recovering the first stage include four extendable landing legs near the base of the rocket. In the diagram below, you can see that one version of the Falcon 9 does not include the landing legs, sacrificing booster recovery for greater booster performance.

  Source: SpaceX   

SpaceX describes their Falcon 9 booster recovery process as follows:

“After being jettisoned, the first stage (autonomously) initiates a flip maneuver and begins a powered return back to Earth. Using a combination of reaction control thrusters, forward-mounted grid fins, and thrust from one to three of the main engines, the first stage flies either to a remotely-operated ship in the Atlantic (or Pacific) Ocean, or to land. Upon arrival, the vehicle deploys a set of landing legs and sets itself down upright.”

In practice, SpaceX expects to recover about 1/3 of its boosters on land, back near the launch site. Boosters for most of the remaining missions (primarily the higher-energy missions) will be recovered on a downrange drone ship. You can watch a short video explaining these two mission profiles at the following link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEr9cPpuAx8

A recovered Falcon 9 first stage booster rocket is very large:

  • overall length of about 151 ft (46 m) in landing configuration,
  • dry mass is about 50,706 pounds (23,000 kg), and
  • estimated total mass is 94,578 pounds (42,900 kg) with 5% residual fuel after landing.

The large scale of the Falcon 9 booster is apparent in the following photo taken after a landing on the stationary drone ship.

Source: SpaceXSource: Ken Kremer/kenkremer.com

You can see a video of the January 2017 Falcon 9 v1.2 launch and booster recovery at the following link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8wy5sQ2JDE

The SpaceX mission on 30 March 2017 marked two important milestones:

  • The first reuse of a Falcon 9 booster stage, which was recovered on the drone barge and will be available again for reuse.
  • The first recovery of the costly (about $6 million) payload fairing, which was jettisoned during ascent and returned under parachute for an ocean splashdown.  The payload fairing will be reused.

As of 3 April 2017, the SpaceX Falcon 9 scorecard is:

  • Thirteen booster recoveries attempted
  • Three successful recoveries on land; first in December 2015
  • Six successful recoveries on a drone ship at sea, first in April 2016
  • Four drone ship recovery failures
  • One booster stage reused

The number of times a Falcon 9 first stage can be re-flown is not clearly specified. However, Elon Musk placed that number at 10 – 20 additional missions, and, with minor refurbishment, up to 100 missions.

Falcon Heavy missions will involve considerably more complex, simultaneous, autonomous booster recovery operations. The port and starboard Falcon 9 boosters will separate first and fly to designated recovery points, likely on land. The core booster will burn longer before separating from the second stage, which will take the payload into orbit. After separation, the core Falcon 9 booster also will fly to a designated recovery point, likely on a downrange drone ship. After a Falcon Heavy launch, it literally will be raining Falcon 9 boosters. This will be a spectacular demonstration of autonomous flight control and range safety.

You’ll find a list of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches, booster recovery status, and future missions at the following link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches

SpaceX has been developing the recoverable Dragon space capsule as a family of spacecraft to be launched by the Falcon booster to conduct a variety of orbital and interplanetary missions. Like the recoverable Falcon booster, the Dragon capsule uses aerodynamic forces to slow its descent into the atmosphere and rocket propulsion for the final landing phase.

  • Dragon CRS: Since October 2012, this unmanned cargo version of the Dragon space capsule has been conducting Commercial Resupply Service (CRS) missions to the International Space Station (ISS) and returning cargo to Earth.
  • Dragon CRS “free-flyer”: The Dragon capsule also can operate independently in Earth orbit carrying a variety of payloads and returning them to Earth.
  • Dragon 2: This is a human-rated version of the Dragon space capsule. The first manned orbital flight in expected 2018.
  • Red Dragon: This is an unmanned version of Dragon 2 adapted for a mission to Mars and launched by a Falcon Heavy. Red Dragon is designed to make a propulsive landing on Mars’ surface with a 2,200 pound (1,000 kg) payload. The first launch of a Red Dragon mission could occur as early as 2018. Thereafter, SpaceX plans to conduct “regular “ (as suitable launch windows occur) Red Dragon missions to Mars.

The SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System (ITS) is a concept for an enormous launch vehicle, a manned interplanetary spacecraft, and a tanker spacecraft for refueling the interplanetary spacecraft in Earth orbit before starting the interplanetary phase of the mission. ITS will enable transportation of a large crew and equipment to Mars starting in the late 2020s. Later, when propellant plants have been established on distant bodies in the solar system, the ITS interplanetary spacecraft will be able to refuel in deep space and journey beyond Mars. The ITS is “conceptualized to be fully reusable with 1,000 uses per booster, 100 uses per tanker and 12 round trips to Mars with one spacecraft over a period of over 25 years.”

As shown in the following diagram, the ITS booster rocket carrying the interplanetary spacecraft is much larger than the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Saturn V used in the 1960s and 1970s on the Apollo lunar missions. At launch, the ITS will be 400 ft (122 m) tall and 39.4 ft (12 m) in diameter.

  ITS & Saturn V. Source: SpaceX

 With 42 Raptor sub-cooled liquid methane / liquid oxygen engines, the first stage will have a liftoff thrust of about 26 million pounds, which is more than three times the thrust of Saturn V. This engine configuration is reminiscent of the Soviet N-1 moon rocket, (circa late 1960s), which clustered 30 engines in a similar configuration.

  ITS 1st stage Raptor engines. Source: SpaceX

The ITS specified payload mass is:

  • 1 million pounds (500 metric tons, 500,000 kg) to LEO with a fully expendable booster, or
  • 661,000 pounds (300 metric tons, 300,000 kg) to LEO with a reusable booster

ITS can lift ten times the payload of the Falcon Heavy booster.

The first stage of the ITS launch vehicle will be designed to fly back to the launch site for rapid servicing and reuse (i.e., to launch the refueling tanker spacecraft). In landing configuration, the ITS booster stage will be about 254 ft (77.5 m) long with a dry mass of about 275 tons (25 metric tons, 250,000 kg).

You can watch Elon Musk’s briefing on the ITS concept, including a short video of the ITS launch and interplanetary mission profile, at the following link.

http://www.spacex.com/mars

Can you spell A M B I T I O U S? The SpaceX ITS concept certainly is ambitious, but it offers a much more compelling vision of future manned spaceflight than anything NASA has offered over the past decade.

Blue Origin reusable booster rockets: New Shepard and New Glenn

New Shepard is a small, single stage, suborbital rocket intended for research and commercial passenger service to the fringe of space, above the Karman line at 62 miles (330,000 ft, 100 km) above the Earth. New Shepard is named for Project Mercury astronaut Alan Shepard, who, on 5 May 1961, made the first U.S. suborbital flight in the Freedom 7 capsule launched from Cape Canaveral by a Redstone rocket. The New Shepard, in launch and recovery configurations, is shown in the following figure.

Source: https://www.stlfinder.com/3dmodels/Besos

You can see a short video showing the June 2016 fourth launch and recovery of the New Shepard booster and capsule at the following link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNRs2gMyLLk

As of 3 April 2017, the New Shepard scorecard is:

  • Six booster recoveries attempted
  • Five successful recoveries on land; first in November 2015
  • One booster recovery failure
  • One booster stage recovered and used five times

In all of these New Shepard unmanned test flights, the passenger capsule was recovered.

Blue Origin expects to conduct the first manned tests of New Shepard in late 2017. Commercial passenger flights, with up to six people in the space capsule, could begin in 2018.  Blue Origin has stated that they may be able to conduct as many as 50 New Shepard flights per year.

You’ll find a list of New Shepard launches and booster recovery status, at the following link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Origin

On 29 March 2017, the National Aeronautic Association (NAA) announced that it selected Blue Origin New Shepard to receive the prestigious 2016 Robert J. Collier Trophy. The award reads:

“… for successfully demonstrating rocket booster reusability with the New Shepard human spaceflight vehicle through five successful test flights of a single booster and engine, all of which performed powered vertical landings on Earth.”

You can read the complete NAA press release at the following link:

https://naa.aero/userfiles/files/documents/Press%20Releases/Collier%20Trophy%202016.pdf

On 12 September 2016, Jeff Bezos announced Blue Origin’s plans to develop New Glenn, which is a very large, heavy-lift, 2- or 3-stage reusable launch vehicle. New Glenn is named for Project Mercury astronaut John Glenn, who, on 20 February 1962, became the first U.S. astronaut to reach orbit. John Glenn flew in the Friendship 7 capsule launched from Cape Canaveral by an Atlas rocket.

The size of New Glenn is apparent n the following diagram. The two-stage version will be 270 ft (82 m) tall, and the three-stage version will be 313 ft (95 m) tall, approaching the size of NASA’s Saturn V.

Source: Blue Origin

 The New Glenn first stage is powered by seven BE-4 methane / LOX engines rated at a combined 3.85 million pounds of thrust (about ½ of the Saturn V), the second stage is powered by a single BE-4 engine optimized for vacuum conditions and rated at 550,000 pounds of thrust, and the third stage is powered by one BE-3 liquid hydrogen / LOX engine rated at 110,000 pounds thrust. The BE-4 engines in the reusable first stage are designed with a 100-flight lifetime.

A more detailed size comparison between New Shepard, Falcon 9 and New Glenn is shown in the following diagram.

  Source: zisadesign I /u/zisa

The scale-up from New Shepard, which is not yet operational, to New Glenn is tremendous. The specified payload mass for the two-stage version of New Glenn is:

  • 99,000 pounds (45 metric tons, 45,000 kg) to LEO,
  • 29,000 pounds (13 metric tons, 13,000 kg) to GTO

The three-stage New Glenn will carry heavier payloads.

The first stage of the New Glenn booster is being designed to fly to a designated landing site to be recovered. Aerodynamic surfaces on the first stage will give New Glenn more aerodynamic maneuvering capability than the SpaceX Falcon during the descent to landing. On 7 March 2017, Jeff Bezos gave the following details on the recovery of the first stage.

“Those aerodynamic surfaces allow us to operate with very high availability in very high wind conditions……..We don’t want to constrain the availability of launch based on the availability of the landing of the reusable booster. We put a lot of effort into letting the vehicle fly back with aerodynamic surface control instead of with propulsion.”

Of course, rocket propulsion is needed for the final phase of landing on a large, moving platform at sea. The first stage has six extendable landing legs, and can land safely if only five deploy.

New Glenn landing. Source: Blue Origin

You’ll find a short animated video showing the launch and recovery process for New Glenn at the following link:

https://www.blueorigin.com/#youtubeBTEhohh6eYk

New Glenn flights are expected to start in 2020, about three years after the first SpaceX Falcon Heavy flight.

What are other launch vehicle competitors doing?

No other operational or planned launch vehicles offer the extent of reusability found in the SpaceX Falcon and ITS and the Blue Origin New Shepard and New Glenn. The following launch vehicles will offer only partial reusability.

NASA: partially-reusable Space Launch System (SLS)

 NASA is developing the SLS to launch heavy payloads into Earth orbit and to launch the Orion manned spacecraft on a variety of near-Earth and deep space missions. As shown in the following diagram,  the SLS booster rocket has a large, liquid-fueled, two-stage core flanked by two large solid rocket boosters manufactured by Orbital ATK.

SLS is designed to put 150,000 to 290,000 pounds (70,000 to 130,000 kg) into LEO.

SLS launch vehicle: Source: NASA

As with the NASA Space Shuttle, the solid rocket boosters are designed to be recovered and reused. However, the liquid-fueled first stage booster is expendable; not designed for reuse.

United Launch Alliance (ULA): partially-reusable Vulcan

ULA currently provides medium- and heavy-lift launch with the expendable Atlas V, Delta III and Delta IV boosters. In April 2015, ULA announced that they were developing Vulcan as their Next-Generation Launch System (NGLS) to support a wide variety of Earth-orbital and interplanetary missions. In August 2016, ULA announced plans to qualify Vulcan for manned space missions.

As shown in the following diagram, Vulcan is comprised of a liquid-fueled, two-stage core rocket that can be augmented with up to six solid rocket boosters as needed for the specific mission. This basic architecture is quite similar to ULA’s current Delta III booster, but on a larger scale.

Vulcan launch vehicle. Source: ULA

Vulcan’s maximum payload capacity is expected to fall between ULA’s current Atlas V and Delta IV boosters. ULA expects that “bare bones” Vulcan launch services will sell for half the price of an Atlas V, which is less costly to fly than the Delta IV.

The Vulcan first stage is not designed to be recovered as a unit and reused like the SpaceX Falcon. Instead, ULA is planning a future version that will be partially reusable. In this version, the engines will be designed to detach from the booster after engine cutoff, descend through the atmosphere inside a heat shield, and deploy a parachute for final descent and recovery.

European Space Agency (ESA): expendable Ariane 5 & partially-reusable Ariane 6

ESA’s current Ariane 5 medium- to heavy-lift booster has a two-stage, liquid-fueled core rocket flanked by two large solid rocket boosters. The basic configuration of Ariane 5 is shown in the following diagram. Ariane V is an expendable booster, not designed for reuse.

Ariane 5. Source: Arianespace

Ariane 5 first flew in June 1996 and has been employed on a wide variety of Earth orbital and interplanetary missions. Versions of Ariane 5 can deliver a payload of more than 44,000 pounds (20,000 kg) to LEO or 23,100 pounds (10,735 kg) to GTO.

In 2014, ESA announced the basic configuration of the Ariane 6 launch vehicle. Like Ariane 5, Arian 6 will have a two-stage, liquid-fueled core rocket flanked by solid rocket boosters.

Ariane 6.  Source: adapted from BBC

Two versions are being developed:

  • Ariane 62, with two solid rocket boosters capable of launching about 11,000 pounds (5,000 kg) to GTO
  • Ariane 64, with four solid rocket boosters capable of launching about 24,000 pounds (11,000 kg) to GTO

Ariane 62 and 64 are expendable boosters, not designed for reuse.

In 2015, Airbus Defense and Space announced plans to develop a partially reusable first stage named Adeline that could enter service on a future version of Ariane 6 in the 2025 – 2030 time frame. Like ULA’s plans for Vulcan, only the Ariane 6 first stage high-value parts (i.e., the engine) would be recovered for reuse.

Stratolaunch Systems: giant aircraft plus potentially reusable, air-launched rocket booster

Paul Allen’s firm Stratolaunch Systems is building what will become the world’s largest aircraft, for use as an airborne launch platform for a variety of booster rockets that will take small-to-medium payloads into Earth orbit. The Stratolaunch Carrier will have two fuselages, six jet engines, a length of 238 feet (72 m), and a wingspan of 385 feet (117 m). The giant plane is designed to carry a rocket and payload with a combined weight of up to 550,000 pounds (250,000 kg) to a launch altitude of about 30,000 ft (9,144 m). Payloads up to 13,500 pounds (6,136 kg) can be delivered to LEO. The Stratolaunch Carrier can fly more than 1,000 miles to reach the launch point, giving it unprecedented operational flexibility for delivering payloads to orbit. An example mission profile is shown in the following figure.

Source: Stratolaunch

In 2014, Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) announced that it planned to use Stratolaunch as the launch platform for a scaled version of its Dream Chaser reusable spacecraft, initially for unmanned missions and later for manned missions with up to three astronauts. As shown in the following concept drawing, Dream Chaser appears to mounted on a winged, recoverable booster rocket.  For more information on the Dream Chaser reusable spacecraft, visit the SNC website at the following link:

https://www.sncorp.com

Stratolauncher Carrier with Dream Chaser. Source: Sierra Nevada

In 2014, a planned partnership between Stratolaunch Systems and SpaceX for an air-dropped version of the Falcon booster failed to materialize. In October 2016, Stratolaunch announced a partnership with Orbital ATK, which will provide Pegasus XL expendable boosters for use in launching small satellites into Earth orbit from the Stratolaunch aircraft.

The Stratolaunch Carrier was reported to be 76% complete in 2016. Stratolaunch Systems expects the aircraft to be operational by the end of this decade. You’ll find more information on Stratolaunch here:

http://www.stratolaunch.com

Other launch systems

You’ll find a list of worldwide orbital launch systems at the following link.  Most of these are expendable launch systems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_orbital_launch_systems

A comparison of these orbital launch systems is available here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_launch_systems

Not included in the above list is the new Next Generation Launch (NGL) System announced by Orbital ATK on 6 April 2017. Two versions of this new, expendable, three-stage booster will be developed to handle medium-to-large payloads, roughly comparable to the payload capability of the SpaceX Falcon 9 reusable booster. The first two stages of the NGL System will be solid fueled.   First flight is planned for 2021. You’ll find a fact sheet on the NGL system at the following link:

http://www.orbitalatk.com/flight-systems/space-launch-vehicles/NGL/docs/BR17001_3862%20NGL_Final%20and%20Approved.pdf

In conclusion

In the highly competitive launch vehicle market, booster reusability should yield a significant economic advantage. In the long run, demonstrating better launch service economies will determine the success or failure of reusable launch vehicles.

While SpaceX and Blue Origin have demonstrated the technical ability to recover and reuse the first stage of a launch vehicle, they have not yet demonstrated the long-term economic value of that capability. In 2017, SpaceX plans to re-fly about six Falcon 9 v1.2 boosters, with even more recycled boosters to be launched in 2018. Blue Origin will likely start New Shepard passenger flights in 2018.

I’m betting that SpaceX and Blue Origin will be successful and reusable boosters will find a permanent role in reducing the price for delivering cargo and people into space.

Antediluvian Continents and Modern Sovereignty Over Continental Seabeds

All Posts, Geography, Geology, , , , , , , ,

Peter Lobner

Ignatius Donnelly was the author of the book, Atlantis: The Antediluvian World, which was published in 1882. I remember reading this book in 1969, and being fascinated by the concept of a lost continent hidden somewhere beneath today’s oceans. While Atlantis is yet to be found, researchers have reported finding extensive continental landmasses beneath the waters of the South Pacific and Indian Oceans. Let’s take a look at these two mostly submerged continents and how improved knowledge of their subsea geography and geology can affect the definition of sovereign maritime zones.

Zealandia

In a 2016 paper entitled, “Zealandia: Earth’s Hidden Continent,” the authors, N. Mortimer, et al., reported on finding a submerged, coherent (i.e., not a collection of continental fragments) continental landmass about the size of India, located in the South Pacific Ocean off the eastern coast of Australia and generally centered on New Zealand. The extent of Zealandia is shown in the following map.

Source: N. Mortimer, et al., “Zealandia: Earth’s Hidden Continent,” GSA Today

The authors explain:

“A 4.9 Mkm2 region of the southwest Pacific Ocean is made up of continental crust. The region has elevated bathymetry relative to surrounding oceanic crust, diverse and silica-rich rocks, and relatively thick and low-velocity crustal structure. Its isolation from Australia and large area support its definition as a continent—Zealandia. Zealandia was formerly part of (the ancient supercontinent) Gondwana. Today it is 94% submerged, mainly as a result of widespread Late Cretaceous crustal thinning preceding supercontinent breakup and consequent isostatic balance. The identification of Zealandia as a geological continent, rather than a collection of continental islands, fragments, and slices, more correctly represents the geology of this part of Earth. Zealandia provides a fresh context in which to investigate processes of continental rifting, thinning, and breakup.”

The authors claim that Zealandia is the seventh largest continental landmass, the youngest, and thinnest. While they also claim it is the “most submerged,” that claim may have been eclipsed by the discovery of another continental landmass in the Indian Ocean.

You can read the complete paper on Zealandia on the Geological Society of America (GSA) website at the following link:

http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/27/3/pdf/GSATG321A.1.pdf

Mauritia

In the February 2013 paper, “A Precambrian microcontinent in the Indian Ocean,” authors T. Torsvik, et al., noted that an arc of volcanic islands in the western Indian Ocean, stretching from the west coast of India to the east coast of Madagascar, had been thought to be formed by the Réunion mantle plume (a hotspot in the Earth’s crust) and then distributed by tectonic plate movement over the past 65 million years. Their analysis of ancient rock zircons 660 million to 2 billion years old, found in beach sand, led them to a different conclusion. The presence of the ancient zircons was inconsistent with the geology of the more recently formed volcanic islands, and was evidence of “ancient fragments of continental lithosphere beneath Mauritius (that) were brought to the surface by plume-related lavas.”

The ages of the zircon samples were determined using U-Pb (uranium-lead) dating. This dating technique is particularly effective with zircons, which originally contain uranium and thorium, but no lead. The lead content of a present-day zircon is attributed to uranium and thorium radioactive decay that has occurred since the zircon was formed. The authors also used gravity data inversion (a technique to extract 3-D structural details from gravity survey data) to map crustal thicknesses in their areas of interest in the Indian Ocean.

The key results from this study were:

“…..Mauritius forms part of a contiguous block of anomalously thick crust that extends in an arc northwards to the Seychelles. Using plate tectonic reconstructions, we show that Mauritius and the adjacent Mascarene Plateau may overlie a Precambrian microcontinent that we call Mauritia.”

This paper is available for purchase on the Nature Geoscience website at the following link:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n3/full/ngeo1736.html

This ancient continent of Mauritia is better defined in the 2016 article, “Archaean zircons in Miocene oceanic hotspot rocks establish ancient continental crust beneath Mauritius,” by L. Ashwai, et al.. The authors provide further evidence of this submerged continental landmass, the approximate extent of which is shown in the following map.Source: L. Ashwai, et al., Nature Communications

The authors report:

“A fragment of continental crust has been postulated to underlie the young plume-related lavas of the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius based on the recovery of Proterozoic zircons from basaltic beach sands. Here we document the first U–Pb zircon ages recovered directly from 5.7 Ma (million year old) Mauritian trachytic rocks (a type of igneous volcanic rock). We identified concordant Archaean xenocrystic zircons ranging in age between 2.5 and 3.0 Ga (billion years old) within a trachyte plug that crosscuts Older Series plume-related basalts of Mauritius. Our results demonstrate the existence of ancient continental crust beneath Mauritius; based on the entire spectrum of U–Pb ages for old Mauritian zircons, we demonstrate that this ancient crust is of central-east Madagascar affinity, which is presently located ∼700 km west of Mauritius. This makes possible a detailed reconstruction of Mauritius and other Mauritian continental fragments, which once formed part of the ancient nucleus of Madagascar and southern India.”

Starting about 85 million years ago, the authors suggest that the former contiguous continental landmass of Mauritia was “fragmented into a ribbon-like configuration because of a series of mid-ocean ridge jumps,” associated with various tectonic and volcanic events.

You can read the complete article on the Nature Communications website at the following link:

http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14086

Implications to the definition of maritime zones

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides the basic framework whereby nations define their territorial sea, contiguous zone, and exclusive economic zone (EEZ). These maritime zones are depicted below.

Source: http://continentalshelf.gov/media/ECSposterDec2010.pdf

UNCLOS Article 76 defines the basis whereby a nation can claim an extended territorial sea by demonstrating an “extended continental shelf,” using one of two methods: formula lines or constraint lines. These options are defined below.

Source: http://continentalshelf.gov/media/ECSposterDec2010.pdf

You’ll find more details (than you ever wanted to know) in the paper, “A Practical Overview of Article 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,” at the following link:

http://www.un.org/depts/los/nippon/unnff_programme_home/fellows_pages/fellows_papers/persand_0506_mauritius.pdf

New Zealand’s Article 76 application

New Zealand ratified UNCLOS in 1996 and undertook the Continental Shelf Project with the firm GNS Science “to identify submarine areas that are the prolongation of the New Zealand landmass”. New Zealand submitted an Article 76 application on 19 April 2006. Recommendations by the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) were adopted on 22 August 2008. A UN summary of New Zealand’s application is available here:

http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_nzl.htm

The detailed CLCS recommendations are available here:

http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/nzl06/nzl_summary_of_recommendations.pdf

Additional information in support of New Zealand’s application is available on the GNS Science website here:

https://www.gns.cri.nz/static/unclos/

Seychelles and Mauritius joint Article 76 application

The Republic of Seychelles ratified UNCLOS on 16 November 1994 and the Republic of Mauritius followed suit on 4 December 1994. On 1 December 2008, these countries jointly made an Article 76 application claiming continental shelf extensions in the region of the Mascarene Plateau. A UN summary of this joint application is available here:

http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_musc.htm

The CLCS recommendations were adopted on 30 March 2011, and are available here:

http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/musc08/sms08_summary_recommendations.pdf

Implications for the future

The recent definitions of the mostly submerged continents of Zealandia and Mauritia greatly improve our understanding of how our planet evolved from a supercontinent in a global sea to the distributed landmasses in multiple oceans we know today.

Beyond the obvious scientific interest, improved knowledge of subsea geography and geology can give a nation the technical basis for claiming a continental shelf extension that expands their EEZ. The new data on Zealandia and Mauritia postdate the UNCLOS Article 76 applications by New Zealand, Seychelles and Mauritius, which already have been resolved. It will be interesting to see if these nations use the new research findings on Zealandia and Mauritia to file new Article 76 applications with broader claims.

Stratospheric Tourism Coming Soon

Aeronautical, All Posts, , , , , , , , , , ,

Peter Lobner

On 31 May 1931 Professor Auguste Piccard and Paul Kipfer made the first balloon flight into the stratosphere in a pressurized gondola. These aeronauts reached an altitude of 51,777 ft (15,782 m) above Augsburg, Germany in the balloon named FNRS (Belgian National Foundation for Scientific Research). At that time, a state-of-the-art high-altitude balloon was made of relatively heavy rubberized fabric. Several nations made stratospheric balloon flights in the 1930s, with the U.S. National Geographic Society’s Explorer II setting an altitude record of 72,395 ft (22,065 m) on 11 November 1935.

After World War II, very large, lightweight, polyethylene plastic balloons were developed in the U.S. by Jean Piccard (August Piccard’s twin brother) and Otto Winzen. These balloons were used primarily by the U.S. military to fly payloads to very high altitudes for a variety of research and other projects.

The Office of Naval Research (ONR) launched its first Project Skyhook balloon (a Piccard-Winzen balloon) on 25 September 1947, and launched more than 1,500 Skyhook balloons during the following decade. The first manned flight in a Skyhook balloon occurred in 1949.

The record for the highest unmanned balloon flight was set in 1972 by the Winzen Research Balloon, which achieved a record altitude of 170,000 ft (51,816 m) over Chico, CA.

USAF Project Man High & U.S. Navy Strato-Lab: 1956 – 1961

Manned stratospheric balloon flights became common in the 1950s and early 1960s under the U.S. Air Force’s Man High program and the U.S. Navy’s Strato-Lab program. One goal of these flights was to gather physiological data on humans in pressure suits exposed to near-space conditions at altitudes of about 20 miles (32.2 km) above the Earth. You’ll find an overview of these military programs at the following link:

http://www.space-unit.com/articles/manned_pioneer_flights_in_the_usa.pdf

Three Man High flights were conducted between June 1957 and October 1958. In August 1957, the Man High II balloon flight by Major David Simons reached the highest altitude of the program: 101,516 feet (30,942 m). The rather cramped Man High II gondola is shown in the following diagram.

Man High II gondola. Source: USAF.

The Man High II gondola is on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force, Dayton, OH. You’ll find details on the Man High II mission at the following link:

http://stratocat.com.ar/fichas-e/1957/CBY-19570819.htm

Five Strato-Lab flights were made between August 1956 and May 1961, with some flights using a pressurized gondola and others an open, unpressurized gondola. The last mission, Strato-Lab High V, carrying Commander Malcolm Ross and scientist Victor Prather in an unpressurized gondola, reached a maximum altitude of 113,740 ft (34,575 meters) on the 4 May 1961. The main objective of this flight was to test the Navy’s Mark IV full-pressure flight suit.

Strato-Lab V open gondola. Source: stratocat.com

See the following link for details on Strato-Lab missions.

http://stratocat.com.ar/artics/stratolab-e.htm

USAF Project Excelsior: 1959 – 60

To study the effects of high-altitude bailout on pilots, the USAF conducted Project Excelsior in 1959 and 1960, with USAF Capt. Joseph Kittinger making all three Excelsior balloon flights. In the Excelsior III flight on 16 August 1960, Capt. Kittinger bailed out from the unpressurized gondola at an altitude of 102,800 feet (31,330 m) and was in free-fall for 4 minutes 36 seconds. Thanks to lessons learned on the previous Excelsior flights, a small drogue stabilized Kittinger’s free-fall, during which he reached a maximum vertical velocity of 614 mph (988 km/h) before slowing to a typical skydiving velocity of 110 – 120 mph (177 – 193 kph) in the lower atmosphere. You’ll find Capt. Kittinger’s personal account of this record parachute jump at the following link:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/10/121008-joseph-kittinger-felix-baumgartner-skydive-science/

Project Stargazer: 1960

Capt. Kittinger and astronomer William White performed 18 hours of astronomical observations from the open gondola of the Stargazer balloon. The flight, conducted on 13 – 14 December 1960, reached a maximum altitude of 82,200 feet (25,100 m).

Red Bull Stratos: 2012

On 14 October 2012, Felix Baumgartner exited the Red Bull Stratos balloon gondola at 128,100 feet (39,045 m) and broke Joe Kittinger’s 52-year old record for the highest parachute jump. Shortly after release, Baumgartner started gyrating uncontrollably due to asymmetric drag in the thin upper atmosphere and no means to stabilize his attitude until reaching denser atmosphere. During his perilous 4 minute 40 second free-fall to an altitude of about 8,200 ft (2,500 m), he went supersonic and reached a maximum vertical velocity of 833.9 mph (1,342.8 kph, Mach 1.263).

You’ll find details on Baumgartner’s mission at the following link:

http://www.redbullstratos.com

You can read the 4 February 2013 Red Bull Stratos Summary Report here:

https://issuu.com/redbullstratos/docs/red_bull_stratos_summit_report_final_050213

Capt. Kittinger was an advisor to the Red Bull Stratos team. The gondola, Felix Baumgartner’s pressure suit and parachute are on display at the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum’s Udvar-Hazy Center in Chantilly, VA.

Red Bull Stratos gondola & pressure suit. Source: Smithsonian

Stratospheric Explorer: 2014

Baumgartner’s record was short-lived, being broken on 14 October 2014 when Alan Eustace jumped from the Stratospheric Explorer (StratEx) balloon at an altitude of 135,899 ft (41,422 meters).  Eustace used a drogue device to help maintain stability during the free-fall, before his main parachute opened. He fell 123,235 ft (37,623 meters) with the drogue and reached a maximum vertical velocity of 822 mph (1,320 km/h); faster than the speed of sound. You can read an interview of Alan Eustace, including his thoughts on stratosphere balloon tourism, at the following link:

http://www.popsci.com/moonshot-man-why-googles-alan-eustace-set-new-free-fall-record

More information of this record-setting parachute jump is at the following link:

http://www.space.com/34725-14-minutes-from-earth-supersonic-skydive.html

World View® Voyager

If you’re not ready to sign up for a passenger rocket flight, and the idea of bailing out of a balloon high in the stratosphere isn’t your cup of tea, then perhaps you’d consider a less stressful flight into the stratosphere in the pressurized gondola of the Voyager passenger balloon being developed by World View Enterprises, Inc. They describe an ascent in the Voyager passenger balloon as follows:

“With World View®, you’ll discover what it’s like to leave the surface of the Earth behind. Every tree, every building, even the mountains themselves become smaller and smaller as you gently and effortlessly rise above. The world becomes a natural collage of magnificent beauty, one you can only appreciate from space. Floating up more than 100,000 feet within the layers of the atmosphere, you will be safely and securely sailing at the very threshold of the heavens, skimming the edge of space for hours. The breathtaking view unfolds before you—our home planet suspended in the deep, beckoning cosmos. Your world view will be forever changed.”

You can view an animated video of such a flight at the following link:

https://vimeo.com/76082638

The following screenshots from this video show the very large balloon and the pressurized Voyager gondola, which is suspended beneath a pre-deployed parafoil parachute connected to the balloon. After reaching maximum altitude, the Voyager balloon will descend until appropriate conditions are met for releasing the parafoil and gondola, which will glide back to a predetermined landing point.

Source for five screenshots, above:  WorldView Enterprises, Inc.

In February 2017, World View opened a large facility at Spaceport Tucson to support its plans for developing and deploying unmanned balloons for a variety of missions as well as Voyager passenger balloons. World View announced plans to a fly a test vehicle named Explorer from Spaceport Tucson in early 2018, with edge-of-space passenger flights by the end of the decade.

For more information on World View Enterprises and the Voyager stratosphere balloon, visit their website at the following link:

http://www.worldview.space/about/#overview

Significant Advances in the Use of Flow Cell Batteries

All Posts, Automotive, Power Storage Technology, , , , , , , , ,

Peter Lobner

My 31 January 2015 post, “Flow Cell Battery Technology Being Tested as an Automotive Power Source,” addressed flow cell battery (also known as redox flow cell battery) technology being applied by the Swiss firm nanoFlowcell AG for use in automotive all-electric power plants. The operating principles of their nanoFlowcell® battery are discussed here:

http://emagazine.nanoflowcell.com/technology/the-redox-principle/

This flow cell battery doesn’t use rare or hard-to-recycle raw materials and is refueled by adding “bi-ION” aqueous electrolytes that are “neither toxic nor harmful to the environment and neither flammable nor explosive.” Water vapor is the only “exhaust gas” generated by a nanoFlowcell®.

The e-Sportlimousine and the QUANT FE cars successfully demonstrated a high-voltage electric power automotive application of nanoFlowcell® technology.

Since my 2015 post, flow cell batteries have not made significant inroads as an automotive power source, however, the firm now named nanoFlowcell Holdings remains the leader in automotive applications of this battery technology. You can get an update on their current low-voltage (48 volt) automotive flow cell battery technology and two very stylish cars, the QUANT 48VOLT and the QUANTiNO, at the following link:

https://www.nanoflowcell.com

QUANT 48VOLT. Source: nanoFlowcell Holdings.QUANTiNO. Source: nanoFlowcell Holdings.

In contrast to most other electric car manufacturers, nanoFlowcell Holdings has adopted a low voltage (48 volt) electric power system for which it claims the following significant benefits.

“The intrinsic safety of the nanoFlowcell® means its poles can be touched without danger to life and limb. In contrast to conventional lithium-ion battery systems, there is no risk of an electric shock to road users or first responders even in the event of a serious accident. Thermal runaway, as can occur with lithium-ion batteries and lead to the vehicle catching fire, is not structurally possible with a nanoFlowcell® 48VOLT drive. The bi-ION electrolyte liquid – the liquid “fuel” of the nanoFlowcell® – is neither flammable nor explosive. Furthermore, the electrolyte solution is in no way harmful to health or the environment. Even in the worst-case scenario, no danger could possibly arise from either the nanoFlowcell® 48VOLT low-voltage drive or the bi-ION electrolyte solution.”

In comparison, the more conventional lithium-ion battery systems in the Tesla, Nissan Leaf and BMW i3 electric cars typically operate in the 355 – 375 volt range and the Toyota Mirai hydrogen fuel cell electric power system operates at about 650 volts.

In the high-performance QUANT 48VOLT “supercar,” the low-voltage application of flow cell technology delivers extreme performance [560 kW (751 hp), 300 km/h (186 mph) top speed] and commendable range [ >1,000 kilometers (621 miles)]. The car’s four-wheel drive system is comprised of four 140 kW (188 hp), 45-phase, low-voltage motors and has been optimized to minimize the volume and weight of the power system relative to the previous high-voltage systems in the e-Sportlimousine and QUANT FE.

The smaller QUANTiNO is designed as a practical “every day driver.”  You can read about a 2016 road test in Switzerland, which covered 1,167 km (725 miles) without refueling, at the following link:

http://emagazine.nanoflowcell.com/technology/1167-kilometre-test-drive-in-the-quantino/

A version of the QUANTiNO without supercapacitors currently is being tested. In this version, the energy for the electric motors comes directly from the flow cell battery, without any buffer storage in between. These tests are intended to refine the battery management system (BMS) and demonstrate the practicality of an even simpler, but lower performance, 48-volt power system.

Both the QUANT 48VOLT and QUANTiNO were represented at the 2017 Geneva Auto Show.

QUANT 48VOLT (left) and QUANTiNO (right). Source: nanoFlowcell Holdings.

You can read more about these cars at this auto show at the following link:

http://emagazine.nanoflowcell.com/viewpoint/nanoflowcell-at-the-2017-geneva-international-motor-show/

I think the automotive applications of flow cell battery technology look very promising, particularly with the long driving range possible with these batteries, the low environmental impact of the electrolytes, and the inherent safety of the low-voltage power system. I wouldn’t mind having a QUANT 48VOLT or QUANTiNO in my garage, as long as I could refuel at the end of a long trip.

Electrical utility-scale applications of flow cell batteries

In my 4 March 2016 post, “Dispatchable Power from Energy Storage Systems Help Maintain Grid Stability,” I noted that the reason we need dispatchable grid storage systems is because of the proliferation of grid-connected intermittent generators and the need for grid operators to manage grid stability regionally and across the nation. I also noted that battery storage is only one of several technologies available for grid-connected energy storage systems.

Flow cell battery technology has entered the market as a utility-scale energy storage / power system that offers some advantages over more conventional battery storage systems, such as the sodium-sulfur (NaS) battery system offered by Mitsubishi, the lithium-ion battery systems currently dominating this market, offered by GS Yuasa International Ltd. (system supplied by Mitsubishi), LG Chem, Tesla, and others, and the lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) battery system being tested in California’s GridSaverTM program. Flow cell battery advantages include:

  • Flow cell batteries have no “memory effect” and are capable of more than 10,000 “charge cycles”. In comparison, the lifetime of lead-acid batteries is about 500 charge cycles and lithium-ion battery lifetime is about 1,000 charge cycles. While a 1,000 charge cycle lifetime may be adequate for automotive applications, this relatively short battery lifetime will require an inordinate number of battery replacements during the operating lifetime of a utility-scale, grid-connected energy storage system.
  • The energy converter (the flow cell) and the energy storage medium (the electrolyte) are separate. The amount of energy stored is not dependent on the size of the battery cell, as it is for conventional battery systems. This allows better storage system scalability and optimization in terms of maximum power output (i.e., MW) vs. energy storage (i.e., MWh).
  • No risk of thermal runaway, as may occur in lithium-ion battery systems

The firm UniEnergy Technologies (UET) offers two modular energy storage systems based on flow cell battery technology: ReFlex and the much larger Uni.System™, which can be applied in utility-scale dispatchable power systems. UET describes the Uni.System™ as follows:

“Each Uni.System™ delivers 600kW power and 2.2MWh maximum energy in a compact footprint of only five 20’ containers. Designed to be modular, multiple Uni.System can be deployed and operated with a density of more than 20 MW per acre, and 40 MW per acre if the containers are double-stacked.”

One Uni.System™ module. Source: UET

You can read more on the Uni.System™ at the following link:

http://www.uetechnologies.com/products/unisystem

The website Global Energy World reported that UET recently installed a 2 MW / 8 MWh vanadium flow battery system at a Snohomish Public Utility District (PUD) substation near Everett, Wash. This installation was one of five different energy storage projects awarded matching grants in 2014 through the state’s Clean Energy Fund. See the short article at the following link:

http://www.globalenergyworld.com/news/29516/Flow_Battery_Based_on_PNNL_Chemistry_Commissioned.htm

Source: Snohomish PUD

Snohomish PUD concurrently is operating a modular, smaller (1 MW / 0.5 MWh) lithium ion battery energy storage installation. The PUD explains:

“The utility is managing its energy storage projects with an Energy Storage Optimizer (ESO), a software platform that runs in its control center and maximizes the economics of its projects by matching energy assets to the most valuable mix of options on a day-ahead, hour-ahead and real-time basis.”

You can read more about these Snohomish PUD energy storage systems at the following link:

http://www.snopud.com/PowerSupply/energystorage.ashx?p=2142

The design of both Snohomish PUD systems are based on the Modular Energy Storage Architecture (MESA), which is described as, “an open, non-proprietary set of specifications and standards developed by an industry consortium of electric utilities and technology suppliers. Through standardization, MESA accelerates interoperability, scalability, safety, quality, availability, and affordability in energy storage components and systems.” You’ll find more information on MESA standards here:

http://mesastandards.org

Application of the MESA standards should permit future system upgrades and module replacements as energy storage technologies mature.