High-Temperature Superconductors as Electromagnetic Deployment and Support Structures

This report concludes the work being conducted under the MAGESTIC NIAC Phase II, save for where it continues as graduate student dissertation work. Initially, we divided the barriers to feasibility that we wished to address into three categories: Power/Thermal, Dynamics/Control, and Integration (before we later recategorized the focus groups as Power Management and Control, Thermal, and Electromagnets and Deployment). As expected, the areas that demanded our focus were not necessarily the ones we initially predicted. In the following sections, the barriers to feasibility that were mentioned in the proposal are listed, with the one(s) that were focused on bolded and discussed. Power/Thermal: -Cost: Complex power and thermal control, generation and management -Cost: Thermal vacuum chamber testing expenses -Performance: Power for HTS operations needing to be taken from other subsystems -Key technology: Low-power rigid and flexible cryogenic heatpipes -Performance: Lower power cryocoolers The primary focus of UMD during this study was the development of a flexible and deployable thermal enclosure and heat removal system, and despite some changes from the original bellows-like concept, a very innovative system was designed, though the limits of the laboratory environment have come to bear upon it. Cryocoolers still remain the most massive and power-hungry elements of the electromagnetic system.Dynamics/Control: -Performance: Coil dynamics -Performance: Stability of configuration -Performance: Position accuracy and knowledge -Performance: Disturbances (Cryocooler vibration, solar pressure) Coil dynamics and stability became a major focus in the second half of the study, when it was realized that a lack of stability conditions for electromagnetically supported and tethered structures could undermine the rest of the work if there proved to be instability that was uncorrectable by changes in boom design parameters or changes in connective hardware like tethers and attachment points. It is work that is continuing beyond the auspices of this study and will hopefully provide added support for the conclusions and ideas set forth in this and our Phase I report. Integration: -Cost: Cost may be uncompetitive with other structural options -Performance: Performance may be uncompetitive in multi-subsystem tradespace -Performance: Potential EMI, negatively affecting other subsystems on board or vice versa -Development Time: Technology roadmap may be too linear to allow missions to use less complex HTS structures as flight hardware prior to completion